DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS--PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 201--The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), Bill 201 (The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance-maladie), standing in the name of the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 20--Immigration Application Fees
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), the immigration application fees
WHEREAS immigrants face many barriers before arriving in Canada; and
WHEREAS the current application fee of $975 limits the ability of the less fortunate to apply to immigrate to Canada; and
WHEREAS the application fee of $975 means that immigrants are subsidizing the federal Department of Immigration; and
WHEREAS significant additional financial barriers for potential immigrants have been created by drastic increases in processing fees, which have doubled in some cases; and
WHEREAS there are extreme differences between average annual incomes in various countries of origin.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED a that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request the federal government to consider reviewing application fees in the country of origin; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly direct the Clerk of the Assembly to send a copy of this resolution to the federal Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and to all Manitoba members of Parliament.
Motion presented.
Mr. Hickes: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise today to speak on behalf of this resolution, and I hope we will have all-party support because, as we all know, immigration is crucial to the advancement of our province. We know that through our immigration policies when we have people that immigrate to Manitoba they bring in a net economic and social benefit for all of the province. Also, immigrants provide labour and investment, purchase goods and services, attend our universities and stimulate the job creation opportunities.
When you look at immigration in Manitoba and you welcome individuals into our great province, and when they do arrive I think one of the greatest advantages that we all have is we all speak on the importance of families. When we talk about families and people emigrating from other countries we have to ensure that our family reunification will maintain to be a vital component of our immigration policies. Because when you have someone that comes from another country, let alone when you have family members move to different provinces, it is very difficult and oftentimes very lonely when you are separated from your family members.
So I think we have to look at encouraging and increasing our family reunification for immigrants that come to our province, because a lot of times when you are looking at family reunification you are looking at brothers and sisters and a lot of times parents and grandparents. When you come from a different country and you speak a different language and you are exposed to a different culture and a different way of life, I think it is very important that the family that moves to Canada to make their new home from other countries will maintain their values and maintain their culture, and hopefully will retain their languages. Who best to teach that in the family unit? It is usually the grandparents or the parents. A lot of times when you have people moving to Manitoba or to Canada, when they are able to bring in their parents or their grandparents, the children spend a lot of time with their grandparents as a family unit.
If you look at the introduction of a $975 fee, I think it is a message that we are discouraging immigration from Asian countries and we are encouraging immigration from European countries.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I say that, all we have to do is look at the wage structure in Asian countries and the wage structure in European countries. When you look at the European countries, Britain, France and all over, their wage structure is very similar to ours. When you look at a head tax, or whatever you want to call it, of $975, it means a lot less than the person that is coming from an Asian country where a lot of times that $975 is even more than a family is able to earn throughout the whole year.
When you look at that fee, if there is anyway possible where we could encourage the federal government to either reduce it or take it out altogether, I think Manitoba will benefit greatly by that. As you know, immigration to Manitoba has steadily declined over the last four years and now reflects only 1.8 percent of Canada's immigration instead of the 4 percent of Canada's total immigration to which Manitoba is entitled. I hope that we can raise our immigration population back up to the 4 percent that we are entitled to under the agreement, provincial and federal.
This year immigration to Manitoba has dropped nearly 20 percent. If you look at the reasons why immigration has dropped that much, I think you could easily look at the whole processing fee that has doubled and the introduction of the $975 landing fee or head tax, whichever you want to call it, because $975, like I mentioned earlier, a lot of times exceeds a family's income for a whole year. That is only one adult fee of $975. A lot of times when people immigrate to Canada there is usually a family, so you are looking at two adults. Instead of $975, you are really looking at $1,950. How long would it take an individual in some of the Asian countries to save up $1,950 just to apply to immigrate to our great province?
Mr. Deputy Speaker, we also know--this is according to federal stats--that immigration to Manitoba for the first six months of 1995 fell by 18 percent from 2,045 last year and only 1,679 this year. We have a decrease in immigrants coming to Manitoba. When you look at that $975, it has a tremendous impact on people that are willing to move to our great province.
Also, since 1990, total immigration to Manitoba has fallen by 45 percent. I am sure a lot of that is due to federal legislation which has been introduced, which has restricted family-class immigrants which make up the bulk of the total immigration to Manitoba.
Like I mentioned earlier, when people are moving into another country, and we all stress the importance of family, they too would like to have their family close and to be with their family.
If you just look at the whole structure, like in various immigration populations, a lot of the grandparents are really, when the children are very young, the ones that have taken on the responsibility of looking after the young until they go to school, because when you look at the whole process of daycares, babysitting, a lot of the individuals that come here are forced into low-paying jobs and cannot afford the expenses of daycare and babysitting costs. So it is the grandparents that take on that role. It is the grandparents that really take on the responsibility of ensuring that these children maintain their own language, appreciate their own culture and are educated of who they are.
If you are raised through life and you do not know yourself, how can you know others? I think it is very important to have that identification of who you are, appreciate and to be proud of who you are.
* (1610)
Mr. Deputy Speaker, also we have to look at the whole process of our negotiations. I was very pleased to see our provincial Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mr. Gilleshammer) go to Ottawa to meet with the federal Immigration minister. I was very pleased to see that because I am sure that our provincial minister will stand up for Manitoba, will stand up and say, yes, we need immigration, we encourage immigration. All we need to do is sit down to negotiate a very positive negotiation process to encourage immigration and to increase our number of immigrants.
We look at the garment industry where there is a great need right now. No one has to convince our provincial minister of that because he is aware of it. He has raised it himself. He said, I would like to increase workers in the garment industry and other areas.
I know we all have the full support and commitment of the provincial minister to ensure that positive negotiations will take place. Like I mentioned earlier, I am very proud of the fact that our provincial minister took the steps to go to Ottawa to send that message to not only the new immigrants who would be willing to come here but to the people who have immigrated previously, who know that through co-operation things can be achieved. I would like to take this opportunity to applaud the minister for those positive steps. I am looking forward to positive results from those meetings that he has undertaken, and I am sure that there will be more meetings in the future.
With those few words, I would just like to once again state that we must support family reunification to our province. We must encourage the federal government to try and either eliminate or reduce the $975 fee because it will not encourage family reunification, and when people move to a strange new country which they want to make their home and which a lot of people are very proud of once they settle here, to help the families to bring their extended families to what they are now very proud to call their new home.
With those few words, I thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that we will get support from all members of the House to send a loud and clear message to the federal minister and that we in Manitoba want to co-operate fully and we want to ensure that the right things are done for the province and for the people of Manitoba.
With that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank you very much.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this resolution that has been brought forward today by my colleague, and I thank him for bringing it forward and, I think, raising the awareness of this issue. I can say to him and to all members that I think the issue of immigration and the awareness by all members in this House and by the public in general has really been raised through efforts such as this and through our debate in Estimates and through the discussions that have taken place over the last number of months to the point that all Manitobans realize at this point the importance of immigration to our province. There is widespread support among Manitobans to address some of the economic and people needs of our province through immigration.
As all members know, Canada has a very proud record over the many decades that this country has been in existence of accepting immigrants and refugees from all parts of the world. In Manitoba we are truly blessed with that ethnic diversity that we see in our festivals here, and we are proud of the fact that these people are full-fledged citizens making meaningful contributions to our society in so many ways, whether it be in the workplace, whether it be in education, whether it be sharing their culture with others in our province. So I thank the member again for bringing forward this resolution and making Manitobans aware of some of the needs.
I think that the points have been made with the federal government, that there is a better understanding amongst our federal politicians from Manitoba, that Manitoba has some unique needs, and that Manitoba is wanting to increase its share of the immigration numbers coming to Canada. The member is quite right in promises made throughout the election; the federal government has decreed and indicated that they would work towards increased immigration to Canada. Our numbers are down from historic levels, as my honourable friend has said; we would like to think that we could attract some 4 percent of the immigrants who are coming to this country.
Having said that, though, there is only one gatekeeper, and that is the Government of Canada, that makes the decision on who comes into the country, the numbers, the rate at which they are coming. We have been working very strongly with the federal Department of Immigration to try to bring about an understanding whereby we can have an immigration agreement. While certain events have taken place in recent months that have perhaps moved this initiative offtrack, I am pleased that I did meet with the federal minister last week. He is taking a special interest in the situation here in Manitoba. I believe that he is going to act on some of the irritants that have been mentioned both in our Estimates process and what the member has mentioned today. He has given a commitment to try and understand the Manitoba situation and also to work with his Manitoba colleagues to try and remedy the situation.
At the present time, the Manitoba economy, of course--and my colleague the Minister of I, T and T (Mr. Downey) will maybe have an opportunity to speak a little later about the Manitoba economy and the fact that we have a very, very low unemployment rate here in Manitoba. A number of sectors in our economy are looking for increased workers.
This brings me to the point where we have to have an understanding that it is not only one federal department involved here. There is also a second federal department that deals with the human resources in this country, and they have a policy of Canadian first, and I have no objections with that. I think most Canadians have no objections that if there are jobs going wanting we must try and fill them with Canadians who are unemployed, who are underemployed, people who want to make a contribution. Perhaps they are on social assistance. Perhaps for one reason or another they have been laid off. So the Canada-first policy is something that I do not think many people would disagree with.
What we have to make the Human Resources Canada realize is that there are sectors within the economy that simply cannot be filled by massive education and training programs. They cannot backfill by recruiting across the country, but we must blend that with some immigration, targeted immigration for certain sectors, open to immigrants from any country in the world to try and make up that shortfall that we see in those particular sectors.
The government of Manitoba, through a number of departments, is able to provide a certain number of training dollars, whether it be within the Department of Education, whether it be within the Department of Family Services or the Department of I, T and T. I can say to you there is a will on the part of our government to identify those training dollars, to work with those Manitobans who are currently unemployed and who would want to be part of the solution. So we are prepared to make every effort there so that Human Resources Canada understands that it simply is not a one-dimensional approach to the solution of this problem. It is very important that we accept their Canada-first policy and we find a multifaceted way of resolving the shortage of labour in certain targeted employment sectors.
* (1620)
The Province of Manitoba, of course, is responsible for the settlement issues, and as I met with the federal minister last week and have talked with members of this House and people from across the country, we are well aware that Manitoba's settlement programs are amongst the finest in the country. The English as a Second Language, the ability of Manitoba to find solutions to housing and training programs is second to none. So we are working within our government to provide those services that are needed, and it is important that we get an agreement.
I believe that we have started a process by which the federal government has a better understanding of Manitoba's needs. There is always a tendency at the federal level to think that one policy will serve the entire country, and that simply is not true. We know in the immigration field, for instance, many people from across the world do not necessarily immigrate to a certain province. They know about Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, and I think the federal government would be well served by entering into immigration agreements that allow us to direct and target immigrants from certain parts of the world into certain sectors, from any part of the world into certain sectors, where there are job vacancies at that particular time.
So we have, I think, started a process with the federal minister, and direction has been given to senior bureaucrats to find some creative solutions. Those are the words of the federal minister. They want to co-operate and work with the government of Manitoba and with bureaucrats from a number of our departments and from a couple of federal departments to find those creative solutions which will bring more immigrants to Manitoba and resolve some of the issues that we have at this time.
Provinces like Manitoba have historically grown not only through the birthrate but through immigration, and Manitoba has historically had a relatively low birthrate that requires that immigration for sustained growth, that it is important to this province in terms of the transfer payments from the federal government that we maintain our share of the population. As well, immigrants from around the world have found a friendly home in Manitoba and one only has to do some travelling within the city to recognize that Manitobans very openly accept the fact that we have signs in many, many different languages within the city of Winnipeg and other parts of Manitoba.
Manitobans perhaps have a unique perspective on this global marketplace whereby we see this as a real advantage. Problems have been encountered in other cities of Canada, in other provinces in Canada, whereby some of the issues around criminal activity or some of the issues around social assistance are laid at the doorstep of people who have been recently immigrated to Canada.
The Manitoba experience is different. The Manitoba experience has been a very rich one and an experience whereby immigrants are welcomed, and one only has to travel to many sectors of this city to see how well the immigrants have integrated into our society, how their customs, their language, their abilities have been widely accepted by the people of this city and this province.
So Manitoba is a unique place, and I think that in finding those creative solutions and that sense of co-operation that the federal minister talked about last week we have an opportunity and we want to take advantage of that opportunity. The provincial department that works with immigration has put forward a number of proposals. Those proposals have gone to the federal government, and they have agreed to take a second look at these, but they do recognize that this province has been very proactive in putting in place some ideas that will assist us to advertise not only the jobs in Manitoba that are going wanting but also the opportunities that are here. Our department and this province are given a great deal of credit for the advertising at our posts overseas, and we are targeting that advertising to overseas posts so that individuals in other countries who want to immigrate will not only look at immigrating to Canada but also focus in on Manitoba.
One of the creative things that staff within the department have done is to put some of the information about Manitoba on the Internet, and this has been very, very successful in that people who wish to immigrate to Canada are contacting us as a result of the information on the Internet. These people are contacting us from all over the world. There are certain countries like Great Britain and the United States where the people who are contacting us originate from other countries, and that is a stopping-off place in their search for a place where they can find employment. So the Manitoba government and particularly this department is being given a considerable amount of credit for being itself creative in trying to attract immigrants to this particular province.
So I am pleased again that the federal minister is taking some special interest, and I know that the federal members of Parliament are also feeling the need to get more involved with this issue, that they too have read the comments that the immigrant community is making, that Manitoba politicians are making. I think it is all part of raising the awareness of this particular issue whereby we are going to get some support from our Manitoba parliamentarians who, being closer to the scene, will have the ability to talk to the Minister of Human Resources who is in a great position to give the green light to some initiatives that are coming forward from the community.
I wanted to touch briefly on some of those initiatives. Probably the one that is most familiar to Manitobans is a project that has been put forth by the Manitoba fashion industry where we now have a shortage of probably 1,000 to 1,200 jobs, it is estimated. One of the commitments that the federal minister has made to me is to have senior staff from his department and Mr. Axworthy's department come to Manitoba in the near future to get a bird's-eye view of the needs of the fashion industry where we could use those people immediately. I have indicated before that we simply cannot find the workforce by training them in Manitoba fast enough, by recruiting them across the country, that we must have immigration as well.
We believe that we are getting that support now from a number of our members of Parliament, and we are going to be able to hopefully pursue those discussions in the near future to make the federal members more aware of the Manitoba needs and for them to put Manitoba first. It is fine for us to say they have a Canadian-first policy, and I have said we agree with that, but they also have a special responsibility as parliamentarians for Manitoba to put Manitoba first and to see that we have a creative solution here, that we have an industry that is badly underresourced in terms of manpower.
While Manitoba will put forward the training dollars as best we can from the various departments to train those people in Manitoba who want to work, who have an interest in that industry, we will do, with that industry, a recruitment across this country to try and find people in other provinces who are unemployed and who have worked in the fashion industry. We also feel we need that assistance to go to the immigration department and to be able to recruit immigrants from across the world to come to Manitoba. Thank you.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable minister's time has expired.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is actually a pleasure for me to be able to stand up and add a few words to this particular resolution. I listened very closely to the two previous speakers before me in trying to get a better understanding in terms of where it is that they might be coming from on this particular issue, and I must admit to a certain degree, relatively pleased with comments coming from both speakers.
It is interesting. This has been an issue, and I am talking strictly dealing with the $975 fee and will expand upon that as time will permit me to and to comment on other aspects of immigration that no doubt this fee could have an impact on.
Over the last number of months I have seen two types of approaches, if you like, in trying to deal with this issue. One is a much more positive one, such as what has occurred over the last half-hour where we make reference to a federal government policy decision and then we try to have input directly into private members' hour in hopes of seeing it passed forward.
I read the resolution itself. Even though I might not necessarily agree with every aspect of it, I do believe in this particular case that the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) is being relatively genuine. I do not want to misquote the member for Point Douglas, but he made reference in his speech, you know, that what we should be doing is lobby to eliminate and if not that to reduce or to lower the fee. At least, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I see that, at times, quite possibly all members of the Chamber can be very creative in terms of trying to influence the national government, particularly the Ministry of Immigration, to try to change what we all believe. I believe also that the way in which it is currently being done is something that I do not support. Ideally, I would like to see no fee, in fact I would even love the opportunity to see the processing fee even change.
* (1630)
I have some personal thoughts on this particular issue because it is so important to me. To continue on the point that the member for Point Douglas brings out in terms of eliminate or reduce, given today's fiscal reality and the attempt by the Chretien government to come to grips with the deficit and try to come up with revenues where they can, I do not know in terms of how successful we would be in terms of lobbying government to eliminate this particular $975 fee, and to that end I would say that it should not prevent us from trying to lobby, that it never hurts for us to do what we can to lobby, but it also does us well if we can come up with other ideas in which the federal government and particularly the Ministry of Immigration might be able to resolve this issue or at least make it not as upsetting to so many people that are out there.
As the member for Point Douglas talks about in terms of reducing as a possible alternative, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would point out another potential option that is out there, and that is for a lot of immigrants or would-be immigrants, when they come to Canada, it is very difficult to get that $975 up front or to apply through the loan process that has been put in place.
I would like to see, if the Minister of Immigration is unable to reduce or eliminate the $975, to seriously look at having that $975 paid only if a potential immigrant has, in fact, been accepted.
There are to a certain degree a number of ideas that we all would like to be able to express to the Minister of Immigration, because this issue, if you like, has a significant impact on some MLAs more than other MLAs, depending on the area which you represent.
I can assure you on immigration matters that I have a very keen interest primarily because of the area that I represent. A good percentage of my demographics is made up of first-generation immigrants, and I try to keep as informed as possible on the different issues, and that is why I felt that it was necessary for me to meet with the Minister of Immigration in Ontario, and I did take that opportunity to do just that so I could express some of the feelings that I have regarding this particular issue, along with others.
These are the types of lobbying which I think could, at some point in time, bear fruit, and, hopefully, we will see some form of a change with respect to the landing fee.
There are other ways of approaching this particular issue, and the other ways are virtually what I have seen all the way up to 45 or 35 minutes ago. I recall during the provincial election, for example, where there were candidates who were quite prepared to give out misinformation. A lot of that misinformation people bought into. To give you an idea, you would talk about, let us say, a family of four being charged in excess of $4,000 in order to come to Canada. Even under the current system, the current proposal, if there are absolutely no changes, that figure is off considerably. It could almost be cut in half, yet these are the types of responses that I was getting at the door.
You know, every day we have a petition that is tabled, and that petition--and I just want to quote from one portion of it, where it states, WHEREAS the fee increases for immigrants instituted in the 1995 Federal Liberal Budget are neither fair nor justifiable and border on racism, Mr. Deputy Speaker, "racism" is a very strong word. In fact, I recall the last time I talked about the $975 fee inside the Chamber I made reference to the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) making the allegation that the federal government was, in fact, racist and labelled it as a head tax, as many people have, and, of course, the member for Wellington had stood up on a point of order, and I believe that point of order is still on notice, that there was not ever any report on it.
But I ended up quoting from a letter in which the member for Wellington actually had written and sent out. Inside that letter, of course, the word "racism" was, in fact, used. I bring it up because again when I was knocking on doors during the last provincial election this is the type of issue that was coming up, that I was being told that here is a policy the federal Liberals have put in, and that it is a racist policy.
Again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I too would like to see changes. But to go out and tell individuals that a government of whatever level is administering racist policies, I think, is not an appropriate way of dealing with an issue.
Given the nature of this particular issue and just how very much and how very important it is to so many people, that is why, when I initially thought I would be speaking on this resolution, I felt that I would probably consume my 15 minutes on talking about the ways in which the New Democratic Party in particular was addressing this issue and tried to give the impression--or I would attempt to give the impression--that the party was doing this for their own political gain as opposed to dealing with the issue at hand.
To a certain degree, I still believe that, but I am pleased with the manner in which the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) addressed this issue. For that reason I will not question the member for Point Douglas's motivations on introducing this resolution to the Chamber.
What I would like to be able to do is, because individuals, the two previous speakers, took the opportunity to comment on different aspects of how immigration has an impact on the province of Manitoba, is to pick up on that. I see, like everyone else no doubt, firsthand the many different benefits that we have derived as Manitobans because of immigrants. We are, in fact, all immigrants to this land. It is just a question in terms of time and when people, different immigration waves, if you like, came to our province.
Many would argue, and I too, to a certain extent, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the only exception to that would be our native people. We have to acknowledge that they do have that very special place in terms of the history of our nation. I think that for the most part there has been a great deal of work from all sides to try to acknowledge that.
I recall even during the constitutional debates that all of us had participated in in one way or another, that that was one of the issues that in fact was talked about. Of course, the broader issue was how wonderful this multicultural society that we live in is and how it is that we all benefit from it.
* (1640)
Having said that, I would like to comment specifically now on some of the immigration issues in which we need to be dealing with as a province because it is becoming more and more clear that there is a need for provincial governments to get involved in immigration matters. One of the highest priorities for me personally, and I like to believe the government, is to achieve an immigration bilateral agreement with Ottawa. I think this is absolutely essential. We have seen over the years where Manitoba has not been able to meet the demands in many different classifications of immigrants, if you like, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, by achieving a bilateral agreement, I do believe that it will go a long way in ensuring that Manitoba will achieve what we believe our region of this country requires. I think that that would be very positive.
I get very excited about the whole new clause that is being proposed and being talked about, and that being the new provincial nominee class. I think that that particular classification will assist us well into the future and would anticipate that that particular clause will be one of those that would definitely be included into whatever agreement is ultimately developed. I have personally sensed a much better atmosphere in seeing agreements, this particular agreement, achieved, and I applaud all efforts, both provincial and federal, at trying to resolve this very important issue.
The other issue that we need to address immediately--and I emphasize the word "immediately" and ultimately would argue that it needs to be fast-tracked--is something that the Minister of Culture and Heritage (Mr. Gilleshammer) spoke about, and that is our garment industry. I have had opportunity to tour a number of facilities, industry facilities, and had opportunity to have discussions at many different levels, Mr. Deputy Speaker, regarding this particular issue. I do believe that time is of the essence.
I have made commitments to numerous people that, in terms of the party politics, I am prepared to put this issue first and foremost ahead of my party if need be and take a very strong stand. My intentions are to follow through on that because I recognize the importance of this industry to the overall economy and social fabric of the province of Manitoba.
I thank you for being patient. I look forward to these immigration issues being addressed in the not-too-distant future. Thank you.
Mr. Mike Radcliffe (River Heights): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to also add a few remarks to this issue in conjunction with my honourable friends today. I would like to add, from a personal perspective, the importance that I see for immigration to the province of Manitoba, and I would feel that this is a very crucial issue to get on the record in Manitoba in order to persuade our federal associates. I take great heart from hearing the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mr. Gilleshammer) say that there are ongoing and vibrant negotiations between Manitoba and Ottawa.
(Madam Speaker in the Chair)
I bring a personal perspective to this issue because I am a son of an immigrant. My father came into this country with $7 in his pocket. He was an English sailor who got lost, missed his boat and was coming to Manitoba to shoot a moose. He walked into this province literally with $7 in his pocket, and he stayed to carry on business, raise a family and settled the rest of his life here.
An Honourable Member: Did he get a moose?
Mr. Radcliffe: He got his moose.
One of the first events that I had the honour to attend as an MLA for River Heights in this Chamber was the swearing in of 125 new immigrants who were taking the oath as citizens of Canada. I think that this was in fact a stirring and moving event and put this whole issue in the right perspective where I saw I was pleased to sit in these benches and see new Canadians, people who had made a visible choice to leave their homeland, to leave their backgrounds, to leave everything that was familiar and known to them and come to this country to carve out a new life. Madam Speaker, this takes incredible courage, incredible fortitude and incredible ability. It is the least that we can do as Canadians to welcome these people, these strong, vibrant people who bring their skills and their abilities to our shores and to our province.
I have had the opportunity to move about the province of Manitoba as the legislative assistant to the Ministry of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, and I certainly can attest that from looking at the events of the Folklorama festival, which is a regular festival presented in the city of Winnipeg, that this is just an indication of the multitude of different ethnic cultures which are presented in Manitoba. I can say without reservation, Madam Speaker, that the city of Winnipeg is a cosmopolitan centre right here in the heart of the Canadian nation, and the reason it is so cosmopolitan is because of the plethora of cultures which have found their way to our fair city.
I can recall that I was at a Chinese cultural dinner just two weeks ago, and I was awestruck at the numbers of the Order of Canada boutonnieres that I saw at that event. These are individuals who have contributed significantly to now not just the Chinese culture but the Canadian culture. These individuals in their address that evening were saying that they looked upon Manitoba as a mini United Nations, and I was proud to hear that remark.
Madam Speaker, this has very tangible and direct results for our economy, for our culture, for our perspective. One of the things which I think is very obvious is that these individuals who come from the shores of Asia, the shores of Europe, have contacts with their home nations, and they are very able to establish trading links, diplomatic links with their home nations. The international profile that our nation, Canada, has abroad, with the small amount of international travelling I have done, is one that makes one proud to be a Canadian, because Canadians are well received in many, many nations in this world because of how we treat citizens of other nations who come to our shores. We treat them with dignity, we treat them with respect and we are eager to share in their skills and in their abilities.
Before I had the honour to represent the citizens of River Heights in this Chamber, Madam Speaker, I happened to pursue the pursuit of law, and one of my most significant clients was the Hutterian Brethren in the province of Manitoba. This is a small groups of citizens numbering some 10,000 people who have retained their distinctive cultural originality and characteristics, and these people are agriculturists in our province. They are participating and contributing a significant value to our country and to our economy.
I can personally attest that I have seen these people, a group of people in a colonial congregational entity, move onto what is in fact a bare piece of land, as bare and flat as the carpet in front of me in this Chamber, and inside of five years that property looks like a showplace. They can make it into a home with trees and shops and homes and garages and chapel and dining hall. This is some of the value and the magnificent skill that people of an entirely different background to anybody in this Chamber bring to our nation. We have all benefited from that.
* (1650)
Madam Speaker, everybody in this Chamber, their people are immigrants at some point in time. We look back to the Manitoba history to the waves of immigration that have swept through Manitoba, and that energy, that synergism has been the strength that has built this province to the position that we are in today.
We have heard much from our honourable friends about the Louis Riel Institute, which were some of the remarks that were being addressed earlier, but in fact I think what is so significant about the Canadian approach to immigration is that we do not try to blend everybody into an amorphous melting pot in our nation. In fact we leave people the opportunity to foster their own culture, to nourish their own culture, and we believe that all the different attributes bring richness to the whole.
I think that that distinguishes Canada and our immigration policies, which make us unique in this world. We are not trying to stamp out all the diverse different cultures in this nation but in fact the Canadian reality, which each one of us experiences today, makes us all truly Canadians, but we all bring this multicultural richness to our province. This is exemplified or manifested by the different churches that one sees about our province. In fact, when I was going to many of the Folklorama dioramas, we saw Greek Orthodox churches, we saw Ukrainian pavilions, we saw the pavilions from the Italian, the Portuguese, and the Caribbean groups in our community. These, Madam Speaker, made me feel like I was living in the crossroads of the nation, truly, by seeing all the people who were here.
I think an historical reflection is indeed significant, Madam Speaker, that the great civilizations of the known western world were those civilizations that granted religious and cultural tolerance to all their ethnic components. We can look to the Roman civilization, and we see all the plethora of different peoples that made up the Roman Empire, and the reason that the Roman Empire remained great as long as it was was because those administrators and those politicians and those managers respected the different cultural entities. In fact, the Islamic empire which ruled the territory around the Mediterranean between 700 and 1400 A.D. was also incredibly tolerant of different ethnic backgrounds.
Madam Speaker, when I have been walking the streets of River Heights, I am proud to say that River Heights truly represents this ethnic diversity. I am pleased to say that I was able to speak to citizens of River Heights under grape arbors. These were people from Italy who were growing wine in their backyard in River Heights. I was able to speak to people who wore skull caps, who were on their way to synagogue on Saturday mornings. I was proud to be able to speak to people of Scotch-Irish background who, like my own roots, were proud to be part of the commercial enterprise in this nation. In fact, this is a true cross section of our nation.
In fact, the most recent wave of immigration which has brought a unique diversity to our city and our province are those citizens who have come here from Central America, and these are, in fact, some of the original Americans. We have heard much discussion today and over the last few days about our aboriginal citizens, and I can only speculate that the meaning of that word means that they are from the original, but, again, it shows that they are citizens today who are inextricably wrapped into the warp and the woof of our fabric today. They are citizens of Canada, experiencing the reality that we all have to meet, and while we are all scrambling for precedents, I believe that one of the essential natures of our political structure should be that we are all citizens in the same reality.
I think that that is one of the concepts that we will be moving to as we move along in this nation of ours, and while we talk about the two founding races, or we talk about the aboriginal communities having special precedents, I think that, in fact, respect for all immigrants to this country--because, in fact, that is what we all are. All our people are immigrants from somewhere, and that, I think, has to become one of the essential rules and outlook of our nation.
An Honourable Member: Keep going, Mike. You are doing well.
Mr. Radcliffe: All right.
An Honourable Member: Talk about the Roman Empire.
Mr. Radcliffe: The Roman Empire, you liked that.
I would further point out, Madam Speaker, and I am proud to note that the diversities of all our independent schools which we have in this province show that all our different immigrants have been able to retain our culture. There has not been the powerful sledgehammer of any one particular group trying to assimilate any individual culture, but rather we have the richness of choice in this province to offer to all our immigrants, to all our peoples, that there is room for each individual people's message, be it a Jewish parochial school, a Roman Catholic parochial school, a French language school, a home-based school. That has to be, again, one of the really significant manifestations of the importance of the immigrant culture in our province.
I thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to be able to address this issue and get these remarks on the record. These are points that I think we should never lose sight of in our province. Although we, as I say, are all vying from time to time to say that one culture should be more significant than another, I would want to put on the record and emphasize again and again that all our cultures have the significance--
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I am listening very carefully to what the member for River Heights is trying to say to all members in the Chamber. It is definitely very interesting, and I am finding it most beneficial.
To the right of me, I hear the heckle of closure or let us call the question, Madam Speaker. I do believe that the member for River Heights should be given the common courtesy of being able to finish his speech before he is called to have to sit down and pose the question.
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, I certainly understand why the Liberal member for Inkster does not wish to bring this matter to question because of what has been done by the federal government, a party he strongly supports. I know that he is trying his best to make sure we do not have an opportunity to vote on this.
But I would just like to point out that members on this side of the House and, I am sure, government members would like for an opportunity to vote and to send a very strong message to Ottawa about the terrible action that has been taken by the federal government with regard to immigrants. I know the member is trying to stay away from that, Madam Speaker.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, the member for River Heights is a private member here, is entitled to debate and talk about this or any other issue in private members' hour as any member wishes. They are all equal here during private members' hour. Each is entitled to deal with Private Members' Business.
It is not up to the members across the way. If you want to send messages or do whatever they want, it is up to private members individually to decide if they want to debate this issue or if they do not. So it is not a question of parties or anything else. It is a question of private members dealing with Private Members' Business.
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster does not have a point of order. Any member can call for the question to be put at any time, and debate will continue.
* * *
* (1700)
Madam Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m.--actually, the honourable member for River Heights had about 10 seconds remaining prior to the point of order being raised by the honourable member for Inkster.
Mr. Radcliffe: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank you for this opportunity of being able to address these few humble remarks to this Chamber today. I would suggest that these remarks that were addressed today would be a very cogent message to our associates in the East. I thank you very much.
Madam Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., as previously agreed, we will now move to Resolution 21.
Res. 21--Home Renovation Program
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I move, seconded by the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), that
WHEREAS thousands of homes in Manitoba, particularly in the inner city of Winnipeg and in the North, need upgrading to make them more energy efficient; and
WHEREAS good housing is a contributing factor to good health; and
WHEREAS the need for an affordable home renovation program has been called for by many organizations and residents in Winnipeg and elsewhere as a means of maintaining affordable housing stock and creating jobs; and
WHEREAS under pressure the provincial government finally announced a Home Renovation Program in the 1994 budget; and
WHEREAS in the same budget the Emergency Home Repair Program which assists thousands of low-income homeowners repair their homes had its funding reduced by over 90 percent; and
WHEREAS the provincial Home Renovation Program forces homeowners to spend $5,000 or more on renovations in order to qualify; and
WHEREAS as a result, the vast majority of low-income homeowners have not been able to qualify for the program; and
WHEREAS in 1994, the provincial government spent more money on promotional advertising than on assisting homeowners; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has acknowledged that the program has not had the takeup expected but has not revised the rules so that low-income homeowners can qualify.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request the Minister of Housing to consider on an urgent basis revising the Home Renovation Program so that it is affordable for the vast majority of homeowners.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. When the honourable member for Radisson read her motion, she inserted four words that are not in the original proposed motion. The only way that those words will remain as part of the actual resolution will be with leave of the House; otherwise, it will be the wording as originally proposed in the original motion.
Is there leave of the House to permit the honourable--order, please. Let me read it for clarification with the indulgence of the House, so you will know what leave may or may not be granted for.
WHEREAS thousands of homes in Manitoba, particularly in the inner city of Winnipeg--and now I will repeat the four words that were added that were not in the original proposed resolution--and in the North--need upgrading to make them more energy efficient; and--
Is there leave of the House to permit the honourable member for Radisson to add--
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Motion presented.
Ms. Cerilli: Madam Speaker, I appreciate your explanation of the rules with regard to private member's resolutions. I think it is important though that we give careful consideration to this resolution, so I am pleased that we have not had to waste time in dealing with those small changes.
This is a resolution that points out I think this government's approach as a whole in governing. We have heard many times over the last couple of weeks in this session how this government does not want to acknowledge the fact that there are many families in Manitoba that are really struggling. There is an incredible problem of poverty in this province.
I think that when we look at the way the government has dealt with home renovation programs we can see that they have no sensitivity or awareness of the way that their programs and policies in government can either accentuate those problems or help to alleviate those problems.
The Home Renovation Program provides a good example of that, of how they eliminated the Emergency Home Repair Program which was much more reasonable in its requirements or criteria and allowed more lower income homeowners, those Manitobans who are of low income but do manage to own a home, qualify for the program. It had I think criteria that would really meet the needs of Manitobans.
The Home Renovation Program that was first announced by the current government in March 1994 was, I think, a bit of an election ploy. They, as I have said, eliminated the existing program, and then they brought in this program just before the election, and I think that they admitted it was a failure in the fact that they had to extend the termination date of the program because the uptake was so low, so the program was extended an extra nine months, till the end of December of this year.
The program has $10 million from lotteries revenue, as I understand it, and we support this type of a program, but the difficulty as outlined through the resolution is that it is really not dealing with the needs out there in the community. It is not dealing with the fact that the program, by having a $5,000 criteria for renovations, is eliminating a lot of people who are most in need of retrofitting and renovations on their home.
I am pleased to see we will not be having any self-serving amendments put forward by the government dealing with the resolution. I am hoping that it will come to a vote, and I hope that they will really take an interest in making sure that the Home Renovation Program is actually going to meet the needs in the province.
It is interesting when we look at what has happened with this program--and I said this was an election ploy, and when you look at where the uptake of the program has been, when you look at the fact that it has not been in some of the most needy areas of the city in terms of the core area of Winnipeg, in the Point Douglas and Broadway area--for example, in Point Douglas, there were only 16 residents who qualified for the program. When you compare that to residents who live in Conservative constituencies, in more affluent parts of the city, you can see why some of us might think that this has been more of a partisan effort than a real attempt to revitalize and renovate the areas in the city that need to have that take place, when we look at the fact that in the city of Winnipeg, in particular, the vast majority of homes that were renovated were in the $50,000 to $100,000 range, that there was a very small percentage less than $50,000 that received grants for renovations under this program.
* (1710)
I think when you look at that, you can see very clearly what we are talking about. There was a study done by a Saskatoon-based analyst for Canada Mortgage and Housing that said that the average renovation in Manitoba costs only about $1,250, so with this kind of a program that has a criteria being $5,000 spent to be eligible for a grant, we can see that is completely out of touch with what most Manitobans are able to spend on renovations. This was one of the things that contributed to the poor uptake, that there was really only 15 percent uptake in more than a half a year of the program functioning.
We also heard that there were problems with processing the applications, that there was a huge backlog with applications not being able to be processed. We heard lots of other concerns that there were problems with inspectors being actually out on the ground to approve those applications and renovations that were being conducted. So not only were there problems with the economics of the program meeting the needs of Manitobans, there were also problems with the administration. Both these things contributed to the fact that the program had a very poor uptake and the government had to admit that it was a failure and extend the deadline for the program.
I want to also talk a little bit about the importance of having renovation to homes as part of an urban strategy. I am currently quite concerned that the Winnipeg Development Agreement has less than $4 million over five years for programs such as this. These are programs that do a number of things. They can contribute to energy efficiency. They can create jobs and they also can provide a better quality of life by improving the quality of housing for Manitobans. Then they can also contribute to the revitalization of neighbourhoods and the sense of safety and security in neighbourhoods by improving the quality of housing.
When I look at the fact that one other previous program, the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program and the Core Area Initiative, had criteria that were much more in keeping with the incomes and the needs of the community, I think that this is not a good trend that we are seeing, that we have these Core Area Initiative-type programs like the Winnipeg Development Agreement, and it is ignoring the fact that a big part of that should be housing improvement and renovation and rehabilitation.
The other thing that I think points to the problems that this government has had with the program is, even though they have spent, I have heard, $250,000 on advertising, they had such a poor uptake of the program. I think this also points out, as I said earlier, that it was not in line with the real needs in the community, and it was not formatted with addressing the needs in Manitoba.
When we look at the statistics for the program, and we know of the real need for improvements in housing in the North, and we look at the poor uptake in renovations in the North, where this program allowed less than $500,000, as of February '95, to be granted in the North and it had over $11 million, almost $12 million granted in Winnipeg, we could say that while there is a lot more people in Winnipeg, if we had a truly need-base program that was going to look at where the housing improvement needs are the greatest, we would see that there has to be something done about the poor quality of housing in the North, the fact that there is a very extreme need for retrofitting and energy conservation in the North and this program has not, as the statistics indicated, addressed the needs in the North. [interjection]
The ministers across the way are talking about the need to have people who need help so that they can help themselves, but I think we want to ensure that there is going to be some equity in the program.
It is interesting. I had a letter sent to me from homeowners who had a suggestion about the program which I thought was reasonable. I have written to the minister about this, and I look forward to the response. They were also disqualified from the program, but that was because the reassessment of their home put it outside the criteria by reassessing their home greater than $100,000.00.
This family has proposed that there would be a sliding scale, and I do agree with this to some extent if the sliding scale was going to make the criteria for the program reduce less than $5,000 the amount to be spent to qualify, and in those cases, without decreasing the amount that would be granted. For example, there could be a scale set up where the cost of the home would be relative to the amount that needed to be spent to qualify for a grant, so the less that your home was assessed at, then the less you would be required to spend to qualify for the project.
I think that another reason why the program is designed to fail is because it does not take into account that a family with a home that is of more modest means, that is of less value, is not likely to have the income to spend the $5,000 required to qualify. So it makes sense if we are going to take into account the true interest in meeting the needs in the community that there would be some attempt in this way to ensure that more Manitobans could participate by having some kind of a sliding scale. I would be more in favour of having the sliding scale go downwards for homes that are less than the $75,000-range, $50,000-range, and that those people would have to spend less than $5,000 to qualify for the program.
* (1720)
As I said, I have written to the government about this, and I will be interested in hearing how they respond and interested in seeing if they are going to take the resolution seriously and they are going to re-examine this program.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, we do support that they would continue having home renovation and retrofitting-type programs to assist Manitobans and revitalize homes in our community, but we want to see them meet the real needs in the community and address the reality that a lot of homeowners do not have $5,000 hanging around to spend on renovations.
With that, Madam Speaker, I thank you very much.
Speaker's Statement
Governor-General's Visit
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Prior to recognizing the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs and Housing, I have a statement for the House.
Their Excellencies the Governor-General of Canada and Mrs. LeBlanc will enter the Assembly Chamber at 11 a.m. tomorrow. Members and invited guests have been requested to take their places in the Chamber and the galleries by 10:55 a.m. For the convenience of all members, a two-minute bell will sound at 10:52 a.m.
* * *
Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand up and talk on this resolution put forth by the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) regarding the Manitoba Home Renovation Program.
I must comment first on the addition of the four words that she put to her amendment, "and in the North." It is kind of ironic that there is a reference to the North because it is just very, very recently that I concluded a trip up to The Pas. At The Pas there was an announcement of an additional $3.2 million to northern and native funding of housing in Manitoba. This was an increase of a budget line of the Department of Housing from $4.8 million to $8 million, which was a very, very significant increase in funding to the housing in the North and the rural area.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
This was something that was initiated because of the recognition of the need for adequate housing and an upgrading of units in the rural area and the North of Manitoba. What it did was, it identified over 340 various small towns in Manitoba. It also identified 160 units that would be brought back on stream with their renovation program. It also indicated putting in sewer and water for the area of Pikwitonei and also for water into Nelson House, I believe it was, during that announcement.
So to say that this government does not have any type of concern of housing for the North and for the rural area is totally, totally out of line. It is absurd. The budget increased from $4.8 million to $8 million, an addition of $3.2 million, and this was all in the last announcement back in August of this year. It shows the fact that the commitment of this government is to recognize that there is a value and there is a resource to housing in Manitoba and particularly a commitment by this department and this government to provide housing and good housing that is fair and comparable of any parts of Manitoba.
In regard to the rest of the resolution that the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) brought forth, there are a lot of things in there that I would like to correct. One of the first things that I would like to correct is the fact that the totals of the applications that were received are well over 7,000; in fact, well over 7,200 applications have been processed. The grants paid from that amount are just over 6,000; 6,141 actually have been paid out on this program.
It has received strong accolades in the community. The community has shown that they are receptive to this type of initiative regarding the housing and the availability of upgrading their housing. In fact, some of the figures in upgrades--57 percent of the total grants in the province have been paid out to the homes that were valued at $75,000 or less. The idea that the member has put forth that the threshold is too high really is not a valid consequence because well over half of them were valued at less than $75,000 and a quarter of all the grants were assessed at a value of $50,000 or less.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am wondering if the minister would be willing to answer a question I might have.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. On the honourable member's point of order, it is not a point of order. It is up to the honourable minister if he wishes to answer a question posed by the honourable member for Wellington, but we also need leave of the House for the honourable member to pose the question or she would not be able to speak on the motion a second time after.
* * *
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is there leave for the honourable member for Wellington to ask a question of the minister? [agreed]
Ms. Barrett: I appreciate this, and I am not asking the question to take up the honourable minister's time.
I would just like to ask the minister if he has available the statistics that show how many of the housing units in the constituencies of Broadway, Point Douglas and Elmwood have an assessed valuation of under $75,000 and how many houses in those constituencies have assessed valuations of under $50,000.
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the question that the member is referring to has a certain amount of logistics to it that I do not have at my fingertips regarding the value of the applications and the value assessed in those particular constituencies. I believe she said Burrows, or was it Point Douglas?
Ms. Barrett: Point Douglas.
Mr. Reimer: Oh, Point Douglas. Pardon me. What I can try to do is to get that type of information for her and for the member for Point Douglas if he was wanting that information, too, but I do not have that type of logistics at my fingertips for the true answer for that question.
If I may continue on with my speaking. Thank you. I would also like to point out to the member for Radisson that in one of the WHEREASes here she is saying that the same budget the Emergency Home Repair Program, which assists thousands of low-income homeowners' repairs for their homes, had its funding reduced by over 90 percent.
This has been changed now. It is not a grant. We have now given them an interest-free loan that they can access, so the availability of funds is still there. It is just that it is now on a loan basis, and it is an interest-free loan. So the money is still there for the Emergency Home Repair Program, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The member has referred also in her WHEREAS regarding the advertising that was put out on the program. But I must point out that in talking about advertising, we must remember back to when the NDP had the Jobs Fund and the amount of money that went out during that time and some of the programs that were put forth at that time.
We have to look back in our history, back to 1983 when there was over $300,000 spent to promote jobs. It was calculated by the Free Press at that time that this worked out to $36,000 for every job that was created. So there was a great amount of money that was spent by the NDP in promoting their Jobs Fund during the time.
An Honourable Member: Very clever of you to uncover that information.
Mr. Reimer: Well, these are things that should be brought forth, you know, when they are talking about this government and how we try to let people know. We try to inform the constituents of Manitoba of these programs that we have, and it is just a matter of course in giving some sort of information to them.
We also look back to some of the times of advertising. And we should mention Limestone and the $300,000 that was spent--
* (1730)
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would like to remind the honourable minister that we are dealing with the honourable member for Radisson's (Ms. Cerilli) resolution which is dealing with the housing Home Renovation Program.
The honourable minister is tending to lean away from that. I would ask the honourable minister to be relevant to the resolution before us.
Mr. Reimer: I thank the Deputy Speaker for clarification. We were talking in a sense about one of the WHEREASes regarding the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli). We were talking about money that is spent by the provincial government on promotional advertising. I was sort of just elaborating on promotional advertising in all its aspects and the fact that even in 1985 $2.9 million was allocated in the Estimates of cultural affairs with the previous government.
So there is always this advertisement budget that is in there for any type of program that is coming up. But I would like to just point out to the members that in looking at the amount of grants that have been put forth through the program that what this has done has leveraged over $40 million in private sector investment towards improving our provincial housing stock. This has to have a tremendous ripple effect of not only the jobs that it creates but the spin-off effect of the consumer goods that are purchased, the taxes that are paid, the jobs that are created and the people who are investing in their homes and the improvements for their homes.
Like I say, there were over 26,000 applications that have been sent out. We are still waiting for some of the applications to come back but, at the same time, what has come back is, I have been fortunate that I get letters of commendation from people who have taken advantage of the program, and I would just like to read a letter, and this is from one of the constituents who lives in the constituency of Dauphin. I am sure the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) would like to hear this.
It says, and this is addressed to me: Your Manitoba Home Renovation Program grant of $1,000 was gratefully received and appreciated. I am very proud of my home now. The men who came to do the work did a very good job and prided themselves in their job, especially one young man who has a wife and child to support and finally had work. He had not worked most of the winter. With this grant, it will help to paint the places where vinyl could not be raised. Thanks to all of you for your assistance.
This is just one of many letters that I received regarding some of the emphasis. In fact, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have a whole file of letters that I could read, and these are where people have appreciated the fact that this government has taken the emphasis on trying to help them, the fact that the monies have created jobs, the fact that these people are working, the fact that the grant application process has been open and easy for them to understand. The department has been very responsive to the whole application of this.
It is something that this government is very proud of. It was actually very far seeing by the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) when she mentioned that the North should be included in this, because, as mentioned, there was an awful lot of money that was put forth for northern initiatives, for improving the housing, to improve government funding in that area, so with that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I just wanted to give that type of emphasis to this program and the accountability of it all. Thank you very much.
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): It gives me a great deal of pleasure to be able to rise and put on the record just a few words in regards to the resolution that the honourable member has put forward, and I think it is important to note that the condemnation that is inherent in the resolution as it speaks to housing in general terms and the actions that our government has taken is only an indication as to how little attention the opposition members have paid to this whole issue, and I think it is probably somewhat of an indication as to why they no longer are in government, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The NDP party, when they were in government under the Schreyer administration and under the Pawley administration, had a tremendous opportunity, had a tremendous opportunity, and that is to build the kind of homes that they are now professing should have been built. Yet, what era or what time were the NDP in power? Was it eight years ago? Was it 12 years ago? Was it 20 years ago? The honourable member in her resolution states that there were significant numbers of houses built in this city and in this province which she now says are substandard. Who built them? Who built them? Who built the homes that are now in need of the very significant renovations that people are telling us should be put in place? Inadequate insulation, inadequate structures and inadequate housing, in general, is the legacy that the previous administration has left us with.
So here we are addressing the issue in a very meaningful way, saying as a government that we recognize that the Schreyer administration left us with a legacy that we now have to remedy. We are quite willing to as a government expend a bit of money in the form of direct grants to homeowners to upgrade those facilities that have been built during that era.
So I say to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the amount of money that has been expended by this government over the last couple of years to ensure that there would be adequate remedial action taken to ensure good housing for our citizens has been applauded far and wide in this province. People in my community, in my constituency, have played a significant role in that upgrade, and a significant number of people have in fact availed themselves of this program and have through that process provided significant employment to those people who work in the building trade.
So there has been a very significant spin-off effect of the program. Fifty-nine percent of the money has been expended in the city of Winnipeg; 18 percent of the money that has been expended has been spent in south-central Manitoba--that is my constituency--and in rural, much of rural southern Manitoba. Many of the communities in northern Manitoba have availed themselves of this program, and as the minister said just a few minutes ago, have applauded the program in general terms.
* (1740)
I think it is important to note the amount of money that has been put forward and put into the hands of people that own homes that needed upgrading was very substantial through the two programs. One is the loans program, and the other, the direct renovation grants program. That is when you see that the individuals, the 6,141 people in Manitoba, that have availed themselves of this program, are now employing a very, very significant number of people.
It does not matter whether you live in Assiniboia, Kirkfield Park, Elmwood, Sturgeon Creek, or whether you live in Altona or Emerson or Piney or Vita. It does not matter. What does matter is that these people are now taking the initiative and upgrading their homes. I think this program has had some very significant effect on the quality of housing that we as a government are now providing to those people that previously could not afford to avail themselves of the kinds of renovations that were necessary.
I think it is also very significant that there have been some 26,000 applications sent out. I think it is also very significant that within that last month 740-some-odd of these applications were returned to our government as applications for the furthering of this program, so it is not a program that is going to end the day before yesterday. It is a program that will continue. It is a program that others will avail themselves of. I have spoken to many of my constituents asking--and they have asked for information as to how to avail themselves of this program.
I find it interesting that the honourable member opposite, in her address to the resolution, was very critical of the advertising, the amount of money that government has spent in advertising this program, but there are still a lot of people out there that do not know the details of this program. Maybe we should do some more advertising to make sure that all people in this province are aware of this kind of a program and the availability of this kind of program.
It is not the amount of money that has been ruthlessly spent on a daily basis as we used to see by the Pawley administration. It is some money that was set aside to ensure that most people in this province would have at least some awareness of the kind of grant program that we had put forward.
I would suggest to you that this kind of a resolution that has been put forward here really serves no purpose at all. The time that we spent or that we spend on debating these kinds of resolutions, in my view, is a waste of time.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House that maybe what we should be debating, even in private members' bills, is a bill such as our budgetary bill ensuring that we would pass the kind of legislation that would not allow politicians that governed under the Pawley administration to borrow the huge amounts of money that they borrowed and got us into the entrenchment of the huge debt that this government has incurred. We now are paying huge amounts of money, $600 million a year, in interest costs which could be utilized and used to pay for better housing, more child care, better health care, better education--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am really having a lot of trouble hearing the honourable member. This is your time; it is running by the way.
Mr. Penner: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I apologize for raising the ire of the opposition members to the point where they can no longer contain themselves, but it is, I think, a reflection of the ill of this institution that we come here and we waste our time and our energies on debating issues, such as the Home Renovation resolution that was put forward, because it does not really address the true needs of the people of Manitoba.
If we really wanted to spend our time debating issues such as the Home Renovation Program or whether we wanted to spend our time addressing ourselves to the real needs of those people living in that inadequate housing as described in the resolution, then I would suspect that we would in fact focus on the real issue, and that is how you spend the money in the first place, where you get the money from in the second place, and how you focus the attention of that spending to ensure that the people of Manitoba are properly served.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, if we in this Legislature would focus more closely during private members' hour in that direction, we would, I believe, have a more meaningful process. Then the debate that would incur on this kind of initiative such as the Home Renovation assistance program would serve a more meaningful purpose. That is really why I wanted to take a few minutes, and I would suggest to all of my colleagues that maybe not for this session, but maybe for a future session, maybe we would all want to pay more attention to the relevance of the private members' bill sector in this building. Maybe we would all want to pay more attention to the true needs and the debate in addressing the real issues that affect Manitobans and our constituents, and maybe that way we would not sit here and waste the time and the money that we waste here by talking about insignificant things.
So I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I would encourage the members opposite to support our government's initiatives to, No.1, lower the debt, lower the interest cost, provide better services to our people, to spend more frugally, and ensure that there be proper housing provided in that manner to the people of Manitoba by allowing them to fend for themselves, putting more money in their pockets, by not having them pay the huge amounts of tax and interest cost that the previous administration foisted on us in this government.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Broadway.
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): I was up first, and the opposition specifically asked me to make a speech on this.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable Minister of Education, on a point of order?
Point of Order
Mrs. McIntosh: On a, well--I guess it is who you see first. Mr. Deputy Speaker, notwithstanding that I stood first, I appreciate that you maybe did not see me first, but the opposition specifically asked me to speak on this resolution a few moments ago, and I would like to correct the misleading information placed on the record by the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli).
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable minister did not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts. I had recognized the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos). He had caught my eye. This is the second or third time he has stood.
* * *
* (1750)
Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Mr. Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) said, it is a waste of time talking about inadequate housing. What has he been doing for the last 15 years, the last 15 minutes? He has been wasting our time. The honourable member for Emerson also said that the poor housing stock of Winnipeg is a legacy of the previous administration, the previous government. Who is the previous government? It is the Tory government. I can even go one administration back, the previous, previous government. It is still a Tory government.
The honourable member for Emerson also stated that it does not matter where a Manitoban lives, whether he lives in Kirkfield Park or in Broadway, but what are the statistics? When we obtained the statistics through The Freedom of Information Act, we found this information, the application as of the time it was extended from the end of March 1994 extended up to the end of this year, 1995. There were 125 approved applications from Kirkfield Park, which is the riding of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), as compared to seven approved applications in my own riding of Broadway.
Let us take another set of figures: 113 in Sturgeon Creek, applications approved, as compared with 16 in Point Douglas. How many from the honourable Minister of Education's (Mrs. McIntosh) riding? One hundred and ten approved as of this time compared to five in Rupertsland. So how shall we evaluate the program? What would a reasonable person say about the program despite the fact that most of the money was spent in advertising? There was more money spent on advertising according to the measurement we received.
So they always say, there is no place like home, and that is very true universally, especially if you do not have any money to go anywhere else like the people in Point Douglas, like people in Broadway, like people in Burrows.
An Honourable Member: How many applications in Burrows?
Mr. Santos: About 40. Yes. What can we say? The more money you have, the more opportunity you have to improve your own house. While dollars can build a house, I tell the members it does not necessarily build a home. It takes a lot of money, it takes a lot of dollars to build a home, to build a house, but then what do you find in a big house empty of love and concern for one another?
It takes a lot of understanding. It takes a lot of concern for each other. It takes a lot of sharing. It takes a lot of love to build a home. People think that because they have grand houses that are three bedrooms and more, they are well off and rich. They are not because, if the house is empty and devoid of love and concern, that is a miserable condition that a man can live, a person can live his life.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am really having trouble making relevancy out of the speech of the honourable member for Broadway. This is about the Home Renovation Program. I would ask the honourable member to be relevant.
Mr. Santos: What I am saying is that home renovation as a privilege is being granted to those who have the most. By definition it is depriving those who do not qualify to renovate their own home. This is exactly what is going on. That is what the statistics prove. All the money is going to those ridings where there are a lot of expensive houses and expensive homes.
Mr. Deputy Speaker--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Broadway has the floor at this time, and I am really having great difficulty hearing the honourable member's presentation. The honourable member for Broadway, to continue.
Mr. Santos: The government, I would say, has a moral duty to help the needy in order that they may uplift themselves from their conditions of poverty, in order that they may enjoy at least a good quality of life. What happened when this government limited the qualification requirement that you must spend at least $5,000 minimum before you can get a rebate of $1,000? What happened, especially if your job is on the line, especially if you do not have any income that could generate savings of at least $5,000? That means you do not qualify. That means you are a second-class citizen because you happen to be poor.
Any government that ignores the needs of the poor, that does not do justice to the afflicted and to the needy, has no moral right to go there. The government should not rob the poor of the opportunity to improve their lot in life. It is their duty to help them. That is why this resolution says that we should lower the requirement. In fact, there should be no requirement.
An Honourable Member: Just give them the money.
Mr. Santos: No. It is not good to just give the money, because it will generate a lack of responsibility. The thing is that it should be at a reasonable level where everybody has an opportunity to access this privilege to improve their home. That level is not $5,000. That is a matter for investigation on the statistics of the city.
The home is the best place for any person to be. According to the poet Robert Frost, home is the place--when you have to go there, they have to take you in. It is the place where our children grow up. It is the place where we rear our children, especially in the formative and developmental years of their lives. To be poor, to be in a dilapidated home, is to create an environment of a breeding ground for miseries and social problems and breakdown of ethical values, because poverty is not really a blessing.
Poverty is a condition, a fertile ground which induces people to hate society, to be alienated from the rest of society. The people who consider themselves deprived of privileges and opportunities in life, they were alienated. They blame everybody else but themselves, because they feel that they have been forgotten and neglected.
We should not ignore the plight--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member will have five minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House now stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).
The members will remember that we are gathering tomorrow at 10:55 a.m. for the address of the Governor-General.