Manitoba Tartan Day
Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): Madam Speaker, as the MLA for Sturgeon Creek, I am pleased to rise in the House today. Nine days ago the Legislative Building was host to Manitoba Tartan Days, a wonderful festivity put on by the Manitoba Highland Dancers’ Association Incorporated under the direction of Deloree McCallum.
Manitoba Tartan Day acknowledges the role that the Selkirk Settlers and Scots played in the establishment of Manitoba during the early 1800s. This day has as much significance to the Scots as St. Patrick’s Day has to the Irish. After all, the Scots were one of the four founding cultures in Manitoba, and it is fitting that we set aside a day to recognize the role that Scottish Manitobans played in our history and which they continue to play.
Fittingly, Manitoba Tartan Day is also a legislated day. With the encouragement of the Scottish community, I introduced private members’ Bill 206 into the Legislature. This bill added Section 6.1 of The Coat of Arms, Emblems and Manitoba Tartan Act stating that April 6 in each year is declared to be Manitoba Tartan Day.
The private members’ bill that I introduced received Royal Assent on July 11, 1994. The tartan itself is a wonderful collage of colours that embodies a multifaceted message. Dark red squares represent the Red River Settlement and fur trade posts which developed many of Manitoba’s urban centres; green squares for the rich natural resources of our province; azure green lime for Thomas Douglas V, Earl of Selkirk and founder of the Red River Settlement in Winnipeg; that where the blue lines intersect a fitting symbolism of the forks at the Red River and Assiniboine River, site of the first permanent settlement; dark green lines for the women and men who have enriched the life of our province; golden lines for the Manitoba picturesque grain crops and farm produce; and white squares to represent Manitoba’s winter snows.
Madam Speaker, it is our honour to be part of the Scottish heritage of the magnificent multicultural Manitoba.
* (1430)
Rise in Crime
Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): I wish to make a statement on the rising level of crime and violence in the city specifically and in the province generally.
Auto theft, mugging, physical attacks, drug dealing, child prostitution have risen as a result of this government’s neglect. Innocent people who live in the areas of the city are subjected to constant fear daily for their property, their safety and their lives. This is obviously a very undesirable situation that should not be tolerated. The Tory government has proven itself unsuccessful in crime prevention. It seems to have tolerated rampant criminal activity in our community.
What are the facts, Madam Speaker, with respect to the budgetary action of this government relating to the issue of crime and violence? This Tory government has cut funding to the Department of Justice by 2.5 percent. The Victim Assistance Program was cut by 6 percent. It also cut Adult Corrections by 7 percent and Community Corrections by 7 percent.
As a result of this neglect, Madam Speaker, what are the other consequences to the other aspects of city life? Insurance companies apparently have red-lined much of the inner city and this has lowered the value of property leading to inner urban decay. This is in addition to the budget cuts on family services, on child care, on education and health care. All of this contributed to the sense of alienation and hopelessness felt by the inner city residents.
As a result of this awful sense of anxiety, this last Saturday, April 13, the people have spoken. They got together to discuss the issue. After listening to their heartbreaking stories in daily fear, I was led to the conclusion that this government has to do something about criminal activity in the city and in this province. Thank you.
Snowfire Seeds Inc.
Mr. Frank Pitura (Morris): Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge another example of the entrepreneurial spirit that is taking hold and driving the economy of Manitoba, and particularly the constituency of Morris.
Later this month, Ken Dyck and his family will officially open a new $250,000 sunflower seed processing plant in Domain under the name of Snowfire Seeds Inc. Madam Speaker, this is an initiative that was undertaken to add value to an already existing grain and seed farming operation, and is only one of the many instances of Manitobans looking for and finding opportunities in our economy.
Madam Speaker, the seeds that are processed at this plant will find a market in Europe and the Far East and will employ a staff of 11 people at full production. This is only one example of how rural Manitobans are taking up the challenge that this government has issued and are diversifying our rural economy and creating jobs for all Manitobans.
This is the type of entrepreneurial spirit that is driving our rural economy to new levels, and it is a type of initiative that has resulted in the creation of over 9,000 new jobs in Manitoba over the first three months of this year. This is almost as many jobs as were created all of last year, which in itself was a strong year for Manitoba’s economy.
It is the kind of news, Madam Speaker, that the members opposite continually try to discount and dismiss, despite the fact that it is Manitobans themselves who are benefiting from it. While the members of the opposition continue to paint a dark and pessimistic picture, Manitobans are experiencing hope and renewed excitement in their economic future. Through sound fiscal management, this government has created the economic climate for this growth and Manitobans have responded and are taking charge of their own future.
I congratulate and encourage Mr. Dyck on his initiative, as well as all those Manitobans who are answering the challenge and creating growth and prosperity in Manitoba.
Holocaust Awareness Week
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, starting today and running until next Sunday is Holocaust Awareness Week. The Holocaust was the planned destruction of an entire people, and for this reason it is important to remember and mourn the 6 million Jews who were killed during World War II. Tomorrow evening is the beginning of Yom Hashoah and the official World Day of Mourning for these people who underwent unimaginable pain and torture in their struggle simply to survive and to live.
It is important that governments all over the world and in every jurisdiction become sensitive to the discriminatory actions against minorities. Gerda Frieber, the founder of the Holocaust Education and Memorial Centre in Toronto believes that cultural oppression is a global issue today because the world allowed the prosecution of Jews in concentration camps during the Second World War. All governments and people must recognize that political legitimacy does not necessarily justify all actions undertaken by a government.
In recognition of Holocaust Awareness Week, I am urging and I am sure all members are aware of the many activities taking place in this city over that week, and I urge with all of us that we shall never forget the terrible destruction and pain of the Holocaust and pass it on to our children and to generations henceforward. I urge all members to be very aware of the implications of Holocaust Awareness Week.
Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Home Care Service
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Madam Speaker, our Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) announced today that he has appointed a conciliator in an effort to avert a strike of the Manitoba home care attendants. It is unfortunate that despite our government's effort to achieve a postponement of the MGEU strike deadline tomorrow at 6 a. m., this has not happened. Our government has repeatedly sought an approach that would protect home care clients from this dispute. It is these individuals who should be and must be put front and centre. These individuals are being used as pawns.
Our government has offered to MGEU, presented on Friday, April 12, a status quo collective agreement for 12 months. The contracting of home care attendants will be to a maximum of only 25 percent, home care attendants will be allowed to vote on this settlement offer and an invitation to the union to submit its own bid for one of the contracts, in which case we would assist in the preparation of the business plan, but the opposition members are protecting their union bosses. The rejection by the MGEU of all aspects of this offer as well as their offer to provide services to only those individuals who are terminally ill is a slap in the face of the home care client.
We have been accused today in this House for failing to act in the interest of the client, that the path our government has chosen is as a result of ideology. They are correct. Home care reform is a result of ideology, the ideology that represents the best care for the client and the people in need of home care. That is who we protect and that is who we want to service, and we do care as a government. The facts about the new home care initiative are clear. Only 25 percent of the services in the city of Winnipeg will be affected. There will be no changes in service to anybody and the protection of the home care client, not the protection of the union bosses, is what we care about.
MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Home Care Services
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that under Rule 27 the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the threat to the health care system posed by the government’s plan to privatize home care services.
Madam Speaker: Before recognizing the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), I believe I should remind all members that under subrule 31(2), the mover of a motion on a matter of urgent public importance and one member from the other party in the House is allowed not more than five minutes to explain the urgency of debating the matter immediately.
As stated in Beauchesne’s Citation 390, “urgency” in this context means the urgency of immediate debate, not the subject matter of their motion. In their remarks, members should focus exclusively on whether or not there is urgency of debate and whether or not the ordinary opportunities for debate will enable the House to consider the matter early enough to ensure that the public interest will not suffer.
* (1440)
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, there can be no other urgent or important matter that affects Manitobans more than the state of our health care, particularly those who are unable to leave their homes or require treatment in their homes with respect to the provision of home care services.
Even though we are in the Budget Debate, this matter is of such significance--because all members will not have the opportunity to speak this afternoon--that I am asking for an opportunity for all members to discuss in the House the implications of the government’s decision to privatize home care, which has put in place a process that will undermine and destroy the home care system that has been built up in this province since the 1970s.
Let us be perfectly clear as to what is at stake here. What is at stake is not the minister attacking individuals; we can live with that. What is at stake may be the friends of the government who will get big-time contracts; we can put that aside. What is at stake here is the issue of the delivery of home care services to patients in the city of Winnipeg.
As we speak, we are moving towards a deadline in terms of strike. All the government has to do is say they will put on hold their plans to privatize. All the government has to do is say, we will consult with the patients, we will consult with the workers, we will consult with Manitobans, we will see that the privatization plan is impractical, unworkable and inappropriate. Then the strike will be averted and we will have no difficulty.
But members, by steadfastly sticking to their ideology, unsupported by any documentation, any evidence, any study, any report, to privatize--unsupported, on a wing and a prayer and their friends--they are attempting to privatize home care services and have forced us into a situation where it is not just the workers who are upset with this, it is the clients--to a person--it is the clients. It is the Parkinson’s disease patients, it is the Alzheimer’s patients, it is the MS patients, who the minister flows around and tries to turn into political pawns, who are opposing the initiative of this government to privatize their service.
Let members opposite have a chance to debate in this House, and with the public of Manitoba, the privatization. That is what we require, a chance for members on that side of the House to debate and put on the record their position, what their constituents are telling them, what the home care patients in their constituencies are telling them. That is what Manitobans need in terms of the debate in this Chamber.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Kildonan, to quickly complete his remarks on the urgency of the matter having to be debated immediately.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, patients’ concerns are the most urgent and the most significant. All the government has to do is turn its back on its cabinet submission that was approved by cabinet to privatize home care; all the government will have to do. All the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) has to do is say he will put on hold their plans for privatization, and we will not be facing the situation we are facing where patients will suffer the consequences.
Madam Speaker, members opposite ought to have an opportunity to debate this issue with members on this side of the House and hear what the patients are actually saying, hear what the workers are actually saying, hear what is at stake in this debate. We would laud the government if they had the political courage and the political face to say, yes, we made a mistake; yes, we will put on hold their privatization plan; yes, we can avoid the strike; we can avoid the difficulties by simply putting on hold our privatization plan. That is what the debate is required for. As we move--and I noticed that members on the opposite side are nodding in the affirmative and I think will support the motion to have an opportunity to debate.
The public has not had a chance to debate. The clients have not had a chance to debate. The workers have not had a chance to debate. At least we members of the Legislature ought to have an opportunity to debate this issue here in the Chamber of Manitoba. So I urge all members to support this motion, provide those patients, provide those workers, with an opportunity to have their voices heard in this Chamber, express their opinion in this Chamber, so all Manitobans will understand what the ramifications are of the government’s plan and the government’s proposal to privatize home care services in the city of Winnipeg and ultimately throughout the province of Manitoba. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I would ask for leave. I am sure if you can confer with the government House leader and opposition House leader that there is a will to give me leave in order to address this particular emergency debate--given that I will then withdraw mine.
Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Inkster have leave to address the urgency of the debate? [agreed]
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): If he is prepared to withdraw his motion for a matter of urgent public importance, which I think he did, but if that is the case, then fine.
Madam Speaker: That is my understanding. Is that accurate? The honourable member for Inkster will have five minutes to address the urgency of the debate.
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Madam Speaker, and, indeed, I will withdraw the emergency debate request that the Liberal caucus had put forward. I think that in itself says a lot in terms that you have both opposition parties that have seen the opportunity to have an emergency debate, see that in fact it is very much so a legitimate matter of urgent public importance.
Tomorrow morning we could have home care service workers out walking on picket lines, and this will have a very dramatic impact on the health and well-being of hundreds of Manitobans throughout the province. This will be our last opportunity to have this sort of a debate prior to the strike actually taking place. The Estimates actually will occur after the potential for this strike to begin, and in terms of the Budget Debate, we have three or four members that will likely be contributing this afternoon to that process.
Madam Speaker, that does not allow for this Chamber and the MLAs that have expressed concerns regarding the government’s decision regarding the pending strike, does not allow for us collectively to be able to suggest potential solutions for the government to articulate why it is that they feel that they have to take the position that they have.
Madam Speaker, I would cite specifically Question Period today where I posed a question to the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), where the Minister of Health was really not in tune or did not really have any idea in terms of what it is that we were attempting to propose to this government to take under consideration.
Madam Speaker, the reason why this strike is going to occur is because this government has seen fit to privatize home care services. The government needs to rethink this idea and to put on the table other potential alternatives that will at least have this strike put off. What I suggested today, for example, was to see a commitment from this government that would ensure that home care services that are delivered would be delivered by nonprofit organizations or at least allow the opportunity for nonprofit organizations to be in a better position to be able to deliver these services.
If this government is so bent on getting out of home care service and the delivery of those services, then at least open their minds, the collective minds of the Conservative caucus, and allow for the nonprofit groups to have that opportunity to be able to pick up the void that this government wants to create in terms of the delivering of this program.
Madam Speaker, the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) talked about the conciliator being appointed today, and maybe what we should do is hear about some of the different ideas
that not only opposition members have but also government members might have. We should attempt to do whatever is possible, ultimately, I would argue, to prevent this strike from occurring.
We cannot blame the workers. The workers are not to blame for this, Madam Speaker. We have to be very clear on this. It is the government who has thrown this, without any consulting, in the laps of the clients, and time and time again we hear the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) asking all members of this Chamber to take into consideration the clients.
I would ask and request and appeal, if you like, to all of the government members to listen to what the Minister of Health has said, in particular, the government House leader, because, if the consensus of this Chamber is that this is an urgent matter, you will take that into consideration. I ask the government House leader to acknowledge what the Minister of Health has said: Put the client first. Let us all put the client first. Let us allow for this emergency debate today in hopes that we will be able to prevent a strike, which is going to have a very dramatic impact on the clients, from taking place tomorrow.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to be able to comment on this, given that we will now, as a Liberal Party, not introduce our matter of urgent public importance as a result.
* (1450)
Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, the--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am experiencing some difficulty hearing the speakers address the urgency of this debate, and a MUPI is indeed a very important matter.
Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, as I was about to say, the question of a matter of urgent public importance is indeed a serious matter and should only infrequently be brought to this Chamber, because it is so important and ought not to be abused. It ought not to be used for partisan politics. It ought not to be used for grandstanding. It ought not to be used for a host of things, but should be dealing with the question of urgent public importance.
Madam Speaker, we have been in this House since the 2nd of April. We have had an opportunity every single day since the 2nd of April, Madam Speaker, to debate this issue and, in fact, some members have. But we have known that this privatization or commercialization or whatever you want to call it has in fact been around since before the House sat, so all members opposite knew this issue was pending. Members opposite also knew that strike votes were being taken, and so on. So the question of urgency I submit is not there.
They have had that opportunity and they will have that opportunity depending upon your ruling again later this afternoon. They will have an opportunity to discuss this issue in Health Estimates which the opposition House leader and myself have agreed would start tomorrow right after Routine Proceedings. With all of those things related to the issue of urgency, I do not see where a case has been made at all for the question of urgency. Now that does not take away for a minute the fact that withdrawal of services was a very serious matter. It does not for a minute take away the fact that certain individuals who were receiving home care may not receive that same level of home care because of those withdrawals of services.
But, Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter remains we have had this opportunity to debate it. A matter of urgent public importance ought to be dealt with at its earliest opportunity, which was not. They have had two weeks to introduce a motion such as this and have not done so and have left it to the last minute. So I submit it is not quite so urgent as the members opposite would have us believe or rather they may have other concerns related to the particular issue, but I submit this is out of order and ought to be ruled so.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Before ruling on whether the motion proposed by the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) should be debated today, I believe I should draw to the attention of the House that the provisional rules recently adopted by the House will impact a matter of urgent public importance for the balance of this session.
First, the notice requirement has been extended from 60 to 90 minutes, that is, the Speaker must now have a minimum of 90 minutes notice that a member intends to move a motion that the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance. Second, the ruling of the Speaker on whether or not the motion is in order is not subject to appeal, and the third change is that the overall debate on a matter of urgent public importance is limited to two hours.
Turning now to the motion proposed today by the honourable member for Kildonan which reads, that the ordinary business of the House be set aside in order to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the threat to the health care system posed by the government’s plans to privatize home care services, I am advising the House that the required notice of 90 minutes was indeed given. Provisional Rule 31 and Beauchesne Citations 389 and 390 set out the other conditions that are necessary for a matter of urgent public importance to proceed, is the subject so pressing that ordinary opportunities for debate will not allow the matter to be brought on early enough and will the public interest suffer if the matter is not given immediate attention.
It is my understanding that privatization of home care services will be begun in July. The honourable member will have then opportunity to discuss the matter during the upcoming review of departmental Estimates. Other opportunities to discuss the issue are available to the member, exist in his use of a grievance and in his use of a member’s statement.
While I am cognizant of the importance of the issue of privatization of health care, I do not believe that the public interest will suffer if the matter is not discussed today. Therefore, I must rule that because there are other opportunities, including consideration of Health Estimates, to discuss the matter, and because there is still time for the House to debate the matter, the honourable member for Kildonan’s (Mr. Chomiak) matter of urgent public importance cannot proceed.