Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I have several items of government business to discuss briefly with honourable members.
Firstly, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts will meet on Thursday, May 15, 1997, at 10 a.m. in Room 255 in order to consider the Provincial Auditor's Report, Volume 1, the Provincial Auditor's Report on Public Accounts and Operations of the Provincial Auditor's Office, the Public Accounts, Volumes 1, 2, 3 and 4, all for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1996.
Secondly, Madam Speaker, I would like to announce that the Standing Committee on Economic Development will meet on Thursday, May 22, 1997, at 10 a.m. in Room 255 in order to consider the 1993 Annual Report of the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation and the 1994, 1995 and 1996 Annual Reports of the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation.
Now, Madam Speaker, I suggest all honourable members in one way or another are affected, as are so many other Manitobans, by the present flood situation. I have had discussions with representatives of the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party, and I believe that you would find there to be agreement with two or three items.
Firstly, it is agreed that this week, so that honourable members can attend to their duties outside this Chamber, there will be no private members' hours this week.
* (1430)
Secondly, on this part, the Estimates process it is felt can go forward under all of the circumstances since, for the most part, relatively few honourable members need to be involved at any given time. However, there are times during the Estimates process when votes can be initiated, and I believe that if you check with honourable members you will see that there would be agreement that any votes that did come forward would be deferred, certainly for this week. By the end of this week we could have further discussions and look at the flood situation and the requirements of honourable members.
It is also agreed, thirdly, that there will be no sitting this evening from eight until ten o'clock, that we would proceed from now until six o'clock, and then there would be no sitting tonight.
Now there are other matters we have discussed that we can bring up to date as the week unfolds, but I believe those are the areas of firm agreement at this time.
Madam Speaker: First of all, for announcements. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts will meet Thursday, May 15, 10 a.m., Room 255 to consider the Provincial Auditor's Report.
The Standing Committee on Economic Development will meet Thursday, May 22, Room 255 at 10 a.m. to consider the 1993, '94, '95 and '96 reports of the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation.
Now I need the other three by leave. Is there leave to waive Private Members' Business for the duration of this week? [agreed]
It is the understanding that the Estimates process will continue for the duration of this week. Is there leave to defer all votes for this week? [agreed]
Thirdly, is there leave that the House will not sit this evening from 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.? [agreed]
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, as I say, as there is any requirement to fine-tune arrangements around here so that honourable members can carry out their extra Legislature duties, House leaders, my office is of course open, and I believe the representatives of the other parties are also available to come together and discuss these matters.
In addition, should there by a requirement for the House to be called for any purpose during the Estimates, I would be asking at the level of the Committee of the Whole sittings for leave to allow us to bring the House together for any statements or whatever that may be required. Perhaps I might suggest that could be done at the two committee levels but also by the ringing of the bells briefly to bring the House together. That is simply a suggestion for you to consider.
Madam Speaker, I now move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Vodrey), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) in the Chair for the Department of Northern Affairs and the Department of Rural Development; and the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the Seniors Directorate.
* (1440)
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Gerry McAlpine): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order.
This afternoon, this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs. When the committee last sat, it had been having a general discussion concerning the Estimates. Is it the will of the committee to continue with a general discussion? [agreed]
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Mr. Chairperson, I would ask for just a little bit more time in that area, and then we will wrap up, oh, I would say by 3:30 p.m.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Agreed? [agreed]
Mr. Lathlin: Now, I think last week, if I remember correctly, we were in a bit of a hurry--at least I was anyway because I was late coming into the Estimates--and rather than going on to the next item that I wanted to ask the minister questions on, I will say what I had to say while I still have it fresh in my mind because I thought about it this afternoon.
Last week towards the end of our meeting, I believe it was Wednesday, I sensed from the people who were here that, wow, geez, this is over, and maybe people are satisfied with what is happening at the local level up North. I just wanted to advise people, particularly the minister and his staff, that, yes, even if the government were not to do anything, I think people would still develop anyway. The communities would still develop regardless of whether the government or anybody else was there. I mean, that is just the way things go.
But growth and development happen a lot faster when it is being helped along by an agency whether it is the chief and council or whether it is the NACC or whether it is the provincial government or the federal government. Development happens a lot more faster, and also it is supposed to happen according to the way the citizens want it to happen. I believe that is what the minister was trying to say toward the end last week when he was being questioned by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) or maybe by the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) when he said we do not tell you what to do; you tell us what you want to do and then we can work around toward your issues and see if we can achieve the objectives.
Yes, that is fine. That is the way I would prefer it to work as well, but I think we might be oversimplifying some things to the point where people actually believe that we are doing a real super, super job and that we really do not have to worry too much about it anymore. I think the reverse is true, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate what the federal government has done. I appreciate what the provincial government has done. I appreciate it, particularly in cases where the local government has been able to be in a position to be able to contribute to the growth and development of its own citizens.
So I understand all of that. When I was a chief, I always used to tell my people that we have such a long, long way to go. For example, in order to emphasize, in order to drive home the point, I used to use women in their struggles in society, or any other oppressed group. But I used to use the women as an analogy and I used to say: You know, they have been organized for quite a while now and look where they are. Yes, they are achieving certain rights. The government is starting to recognize a lot of the rights that women were fighting for, and then I used to talk about our people, and aboriginal people are usually 15, 20 years behind what happens in the larger society, so the nonaboriginal women's rights are finally recognized as a result of all their fighting and lobbying, but when you get down to the aboriginal community, we are still 15, 20 years. I used to tell our people, yes, 15 or 20 years later we see ourselves and our women being recognized in the same way by the larger society.
But I am talking about aboriginal people here. When I was home over the weekend I saw in the newspaper a comment that was made by the chief executive officer of the Norman Regional Health Authority, Mr. Hildebrand. As a matter of fact, they put it right on the first page and right in the middle where they wanted to highlight the quote. He said: There are too many people using the hospital over and over again.
Right away I picked up on it, and I thought: This guy is talking about aboriginal people again, you know, because if the minister is in The Pas again, I know he was there this weekend, but if you are ever in The Pas, take a quick run through the hospital, and if there are 20 people there, you will find maybe 16, 17 aboriginal people there as patients in the hospital, and that is the way it is all the time. So when this chief executive officer talks about we still have far too many people using the hospital over and over again, I was thinking, as a matter of fact, I think I am going to phone him up, if he will give me some of his time, and I am going to tell him some of the reasons why there are so many people still using the hospitals. The majority of those are aboriginal people.
* (1450)
For years and years the state of health of the aboriginal community level was about 15, 20 years behind that of, say, The Pas, and it has always been that way. Then along comes health reform, community-based prevention, awareness, healthy life styles, like, that is the way we are going to do it from now on; treatment is too expensive.
Yet we hear every day the diabetic crisis, the epidemic. You look at reports that are put out by medical groups, for example, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, where even accidental deaths in the aboriginal community are way higher compared to, and people wonder why. Are these people that accident prone? The fact of the matter is, yes, we use more skidoos in wintertime. We use more boats and motors than you guys do in Winnipeg, because people living in Winnipeg, the only time they use boats and motors and skidoos is if they want to go and have a leisure time out on the lake on weekends. Of course, their accident rate is going to be way, way down compared to that trapper who has to be on his skidoo every day in the wintertime or that fisherman who is out there every day in his boat. I cannot get over that, how people can make those kinds of statements, like the chief executive officer from Norman region who just comes right out--and the sad part of it is people who are not aware of the facts believe him. Even some of our people are going to start believing him.
That is what went through my mind when I read those remarks. Then I sort of remember back to Estimates in the Legislature where I sort of detected this mood towards the end of our session last week like, gosh, darn it, this government has done lots of big things and here are these partnership programs and aboriginal people are being well looked after. That is what came to my mind right away when I saw that quote by the chief executive officer.
When you go to Pukatawagan, for example, if the minister ever goes to Pukatawagan, they are lucky if they see a doctor a couple of days every two weeks. So when you get ill or get into an accident, you do not see a doctor; you see a nurse. Not like in Winnipeg here, if I have to go to a hospital or see a doctor here in Winnipeg, I get seen by a nurse first. Yes, she gets all the information, but the actual examination is done, the diagnosis is done, the testing is done by the doctor. If you are in the North, none of that happens. You are seen by a nurse; the nurse diagnoses. The nurse determines whether you should be given the treatment. The nurse gives you the medicine. The nurse takes the X-ray. The nurse does everything. In the end, she has to decide whether you are serious, like if the condition or illness is serious enough so you have to be medi-vac'd. She makes that decision and then you come out.
Pukatawagan alone, Mr. Chairperson, over 300 medivacs in one year, over 300. Just think about it for a little while. There are 365 days in the year. That is almost one every day for the entire year. Put another twist to that perspective. Every time you medivac a person to The Pas, for example, how much does it cost? Lots of money. We know that, but I think the point I want to make here is the state of health in Pukatawagan is always 15, 20 years behind. For OCN it is not as bad, because we are right across the river from the town. So our state of health is not as bad.
Hey, we can even cope with some of the reform cutbacks that are happening at the hospital, because if we do not like it over there--you know what, some of us drive to Winnipeg and come and see the doctor, those of us who can afford it, but then a lot of us cannot afford it either, so we are stuck there. The bottom line is, generally, the people in The Pas, when you compare yourself to Pukatawagan, they are a little bit better off. You come down to Winnipeg; the people in Winnipeg complain about what is happening here. You know what? If they go to The Pas, they would complain even louder. They would say we do not deserve this. Why do we allow this to happen in this day and age? And holy smokes, if they go to Pukatawagan, it would be a scandal. It would be.
Then they come back out and they read this chief executive officer's comments in the paper saying, we have far too many people still using the hospital. He means aboriginal people, and I would like to just take him by the shoulder and just shake him a little bit. Hey, sir, wake up, smell the coffee. Do you realize why that situation is like that? Because people in Pukatawagan were behind even before health reform started. Now health reform comes along and it just makes things a hundred times worse for those people.
I want to come back to the main comment that I wanted to make. I will acknowledge that there is some work being done, but I cannot stop there. I have to keep saying that there is a lot more to be done. Another thing, today I got a letter from a dentist from the Manitoba Dental Association. I had written to them about an issue that I was working on. The head of the Manitoba Dental Association says, what are you worried about, treaty Indians get all the government help anyway when it comes to dental? So does that mean there is a dentist in every community in northern Manitoba? Does that mean we get to have our teeth examined once a year like people in Winnipeg do?
See that is how ignorant some people are and we feed on that ignorance. We talk to each other every day and after awhile aboriginal people just get lost in the shuffle. Sometimes I listen to radio talk shows when I am driving out to The Pas or coming in, in the afternoon, and it just really, really appalls me the level of ignorance there is amongst nonaboriginal people for the conditions that aboriginal people find themselves in.
* (1500)
So anyway those were going to be my comments, and I guess I wanted to finish off, Mr. Chairman, by asking the minister perhaps three questions here. I think I heard him last week say that he was on his way to Regina for ministers' meetings on aboriginal issues, I think it was. First of all, I guess the way that I should ask the question is: Does the minister believe that the Royal Commission on Aboriginal affairs was warranted, and does he believe that it has some worthwhile recommendations that his government could look at with a view to implementing them so that we can start to alleviate some of the problems that we have been just talking about or that I have been talking about lately? That would be the first part. So I guess I will give the minister some time to answer.
Hon. David Newman (Minister of Northern Affairs): Generally, I want to just comment with respect to your, I think, very helpful picture of the distance we have to go in addressing aboriginal needs in the North and your point about it being 15 to 20 years behind. I know the way I am thinking about it. I think the solution has to be focusing on prevention, education, care, research and support in ways that will take maybe 25-30 years to bring about significantly measurable results which will be reflected, I believe, mainly in the next generation's improvements. So I think your contribution of realism and the magnitude of the challenge and the long-term solution is helpful, because then expectations will not be inflated. Also, I think that you have made a useful contribution with respect to the need to educate the decision makers and the people in positions of authority and significant responsibility for everything from social welfare to health care to education to justice, to the way we administer Northern Affairs responsibilities.
I think that you have said that there has to be a better understanding of the special needs and the nature and magnitude of the challenge, and there has to be a sensitivity towards the history and the culture and the feelings of the aboriginal people who are affected by this challenge. So I think your points are well taken, and having said that, you can be assured that I appreciate that. I believe my government appreciates that. I believe that with respect to health care, some of the work that is being done in the dismantling and negotiations right now through the offices of the Honourable Darren Praznik to the extent it affects Manitoba aboriginals, myself, is very conscious of these challenges. There are approaches being offered that your critic for Health might wish to take up with the Honourable Darren Praznik when he does Estimates in relation to aboriginal health care.
I do not want to move into his area. He has the expertise; I do not. But I encourage that to be explored, because I think there are some things happening there that are consistent with what you are talking about here.
Very specifically, I do have some knowledge and involvement with the Manitoba Health diabetes initiative. I know you have a resolution before the House that I will be participating in when we get to that in private members' hour, but there is a kind of focused specific effort that is, I believe, going about things the right way. It does include elements of prevention and early intervention and all of the other aspects that will hopefully address this challenge of epidemic proportions.
The statistics that I have are that in 1993, approximately 23 percent of treaty Status Indian adult women in Manitoba had clinically diagnosed diabetes. In 1993, 14 percent of treaty Status Indian adult men had clinically diagnosed diabetes. The prevalence of diabetes in treaty Status Indians increased by over 40 percent among women and over 50 percent among men between 1983 and 1986. There is an increasing number of aboriginal children who have been diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes, a disease not usually seen in children, so that says it all. That is just a summary of the kind of issue that you flag. I think it is important that we work multidepartmentally and multigovernmentally on both sides of the House to address this kind of issue, and I certainly look forward to working on it with you as the representative of The Pas who has an interest and an understanding of the magnitude of it.
Having said all of that, with respect to your question, yes, I was at a provincial and territorial ministers' meeting in Regina last Thursday night and Friday, and it was a very useful meeting, a lot of sharing of information between jurisdictions which help each other.
In specific response to your question, do I believe that the royal commission was warranted, the simple answer to that is yes. I mean, we have a crisis in this country, I believe, in terms of aboriginal issues. Whether or not that much money should have been spent on it, whether the composition of the commission should have been as it was, whether or not the focus of the report and the way it reviewed things was the right way to go, I do have views on that. I have some discomfort with some of those things, but it is a done thing, so what is the point of talking about it, other than I think that affects the credibility and the practicality and the relevance to Manitoba of a lot of the recommendations.
* (1510)
However, my government and my department have treated it very seriously to the degree to which it has been reviewed on a multidepartmental basis. Very shortly after it was published, the process began. The recommendations which were considered through that process to be applicable to Manitoba have been identified, and the approach that Manitoba should take with respect to those recommendations is in the process of being developed. The good news is that in Regina, amongst the ministers, there is a willingness to share approaches to the royal commission report so that there can be co-ordinated solutions.
One of the major focuses at that meeting was on what was jointly and severally identified by all present representing the provinces and territories--I might say only Nova Scotia was absent--that with the issue of federal, what is popularly called offloading, the risk of having in the process of devolution and in the process of turning over powers and resources to the aboriginal populations in the provinces and territories is that there might not be proper due regard for the responsibilities that the federal government, the Crown, has traditionally had for aboriginal people.
There is a great feeling amongst all the provinces and territories that the historic and legal obligation of the federal government with respect to its responsibilities for aboriginal people off reserve is not being met, has not been met, with the result that a huge burden has been absorbed by the provinces and territories in ways that are not being properly measured. It is undermining potentially, and maybe actually, our ability to service the aboriginal population up to the standard that we would like and that they are entitled to. So that is a big issue, and emerging out of that meeting was the beginning of a consideration of strategic options, and I can proudly say that Manitoba led the process. We came forward with some options, and they were the focus, and the major focus of discussion at the event.
The national aboriginal leadership was invited to participate in the event as well and had the options paper shared with them. They also had a joint communique, participated in the development of that. It is becoming quite clear to me that the interests of the provinces, territories and aboriginal people is becoming more and more like a partnership, and that is necessary because it is the only way that it appears that the federal government can be held accountable for its historic and legal responsibilities and constitutional responsibilities, as we see it.
So if the royal commission contributed to that creation of a partnership, that in itself justifies the report, and may even very well justify the expenditure, if it results in a solution. Does it have some worthwhile recommendations was your next question. The answer is: Yes, and those recommendations are the ones that will be focused on. The thing that really disturbs me about it is its--and I took this up in fairness with two of the commissioners who were here in Manitoba when I had an opportunity to meet with them, and my concern is its lack of recognition, adequate recognition of the realities in Manitoba and the nature of the situation in Manitoba, the history in Manitoba, the direction Manitoba is going, some of the achievements that have been taking place in Manitoba.
What I fear most is that, if the report in effect creates an agenda which causes progress in Manitoba to slow down, or a temptation to move entirely in a different direction, which is what the royal commission in some themes recommends, then the commission report will do more harm than good, in my opinion. That causes me grave concern, but I believe that we have a sufficiently mature relationship amongst Manitobans, and a sufficient background of interacting through discussions and negotiations, that we will not slip that way, and Manitobans will not be directed that way, and we can continue to make our own custom tailored progress in this province arriving at mutual gains, constructive solutions between aboriginal people, the federal government, the provincial government, the city governments and municipal governments, and between different aboriginal groups, which is as much a challenge as intergovernmental co-operation.
We are going to make progress as long as we do it collaboratively and co-operatively in good faith and focus on the long term, focus on women and children and at-risk people particularly. Then the theory, the romantic concept of how things should be, will not get in the way of getting practical, meaningful results for people in desperate need of attention.
Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Chairperson, last July, last summer sometime, the federal government reduced social assistance rates to First Nations communities in Manitoba. They do that, by the way, after the provincial government reduces theirs. Automatically, once there is a reduction to the provincial rate, the federal government will--in a similar time as I think I will ever see a federal government move so fast is when they have to go in synch with the provincial social assistance rate.
So, anyway, whenever provincial rates go down, federal government rates go down. Last summer, the federal government said the amount that they were going to be saving by reducing the social assistance rate would go toward housing. Well, in Manitoba, I believe the only two communities which may have benefited from this redirection of money on the federal side might have been Shamattawa and Mathias Colomb in Pukatawagan.
These are First Nations communities. Is the minister aware of the housing conditions that exist in First Nation communities? If so, what is he prepared to do, maybe in working with the federal government or maybe even coming up with a provincial initiative to combat the serious shortage of housing? That is one question.
* (1520)
Then the other one is, NACC communities, Metis communities--over the past three years I have had to work on quite a few housing issues. Almost everywhere I go, I end up having to talk about housing issues. The first question to that, the Metis side, is is the minister aware of what is happening with housing at the Metis community level and aware of the housing situation at the NACC communities?
By that I mean not only whether there is a shortage or disrepair, but I am also asking the minister if he is aware of the shift that has happened from the province to the federal government, and somewhere in the middle the NACC communities are caught up. Some of the administration apparently was decentralized, I am not sure from where, from Manitoba Housing or after CMHC had gotten a hold of the program, but there was decentralization.
So as a result of that movement and who was responsible for what, the Metis communities, I think, are probably the hardest hit in terms of housing amongst aboriginal people, because they do not really know whether--is it Manitoba Housing, is it MMF, is it CMHC? They just keep bouncing from one organization to another in addition to being short of houses and having to repair houses.
Mr. Newman: First of all, I just wanted to comment that given we thought this was just going to get down to formalities and I was advised by you not to have my staff here, I will not be able to be as factually specific as I would like to be to address your questions, but I will deal with my general knowledge and, I might say, views on this matter.
Yes, I am aware of the housing issues in both reserve communities and Northern Affairs communities, and they trouble me. They trouble me. Just to apply numbers, and I think this is useful, I will deal with Northern Affairs communities first because I know them best. They are my portfolio. The federal government is something that interests me because members of bands on reserve are Manitobans as well, and I want to make sure that the federal government which has responsibility for them looks after them in accordance with their legal and constitutional obligations and I would say even more than that because of the special needs.
But with respect to Northern Affairs communities, when we are talking about houses, we are talking about roughly 23,338 homes, and I just got that stat today because of my own interest. The size of these communities--I mean, let us put it in perspective. The community with the most houses is Wabowden with 190; Camperville 184; South Indian Lake 123; Norway House 130; Duck Bay 142; Cross Lake 139; Cormorant 111; Moose Lake 103.
All the rest of the 53 communities have less than a hundred houses on them, and some of those communities--and I am just talking about ones that have any population at all because some communities I am responsible for do not have any people in them. The community of Westgate has three houses. Herb Lake Landing has five. Aghaming has five. Salt Point has five. Red Sucker Lake has eight. Poplarville has nine and six are empty. Island Lake Was has nine. Little Grand Rapids has eight. Princess Harbour has 10; Dauphin River 20; National Mills 11; Granville Lake 14; Homebrook 17; Red Deer Lake 19; Dallas-Red Rose 15; Fisher Bay 19; Cole Lake 18.
We are talking about in many cases less than a neighbourhood, less than a street, less than a little cul-de-sac in a suburban subdivision, and these are in remote areas and in many cases isolated and by themselves. That is the context in which you are talking about housing. So when someone says, like the question asked by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), who is used to a city and the third biggest city in Manitoba, and asks about sewer and water and services, and the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) talks about defecating in buckets, I guess called pail fill sewage systems, the same type I have at my cottage, we are talking about not having water treatment plants and state-of-the-art sewer services in some communities, because it just does not make any economic sense. What makes economic sense for Winnipeg or Thompson or Brandon or Winkler or Wabowden or Norway House might make no economic sense for a community of three, five, 10, 20, 50 houses.
So I think we have to look at that context. In other words, we have to look at the reality and not let rhetoric and oversimplistic statements sound as if these are somehow second-class citizens in the province in the way they have their water service, and the way they have their sewer service.
There is a certain amount of choice that goes into living anywhere in the province of Manitoba. I think, again, if we want to be realists and we want to be responsible I think we have to recognize that. In the process of contributing in the way that government can as a facilitator to the development of healthy, sustainable, more self-reliant communities, and improved housing, maybe those community members, if challenged to look 30 years down the road, or 25 years down the road, or 20 years down the road, a generation ahead, maybe amongst the questions that they should ask themselves, and the visions they should develop, they should look that far down the road and say, what do we want to be as a community at that point, and then figure out how they are going to get there. If they cannot get there, maybe they should start examining whether they should be a community at all.
* (1530)
I offer that simply as a kind of analysis, a kind of self-examination that I think every community hopefully will go through. If the choice is that, you know, we are happy really the way we are, it is not unlike someone choosing a way of life in terms of the way one chooses hobbies, chooses careers, chooses all these personal things that make our world go around. If that is the choice, then maybe the question should be asked, to what degree should we support that? Do we have an obligation as a province to provide treated water and sewer systems and housing in those kinds of communities? I think those are questions that we should be asking. So there is the focus in terms of housing in Northern Affairs communities that I have.
The other thing is there is a body of thinking, and I read quite widely in this area. I have always read quite widely in this area as a mature adult, and what do you do? How do people become the best they can be, and how do communities become the best they can be? How do people in those communities, as individuals and community members, how do they achieve happiness and self-fulfilment?
You know, sometimes we use different measures, because what is happiness and fulfilment to us living in the city, as you well know, is not what you want if you live in Red Sucker Lake or Herb Lake Landing or Matheson Island. So measures of success differ, and I do not think it is responsible for us, or right for us, to measure the success of these communities and those people by our standards. They might think we are a dismal failure in our materialistic approach and they have great happiness and great sense of fulfilment. It is nothing to do with wealth. It is nothing to do with whether they have a job. Some of them have the greatest happiness you can possibly get in this world by being a trapper and contributing in enormously positive ways to their own family and their community.
I told that story in the House of the 88-year-old trapper I met, and his 80-year-old wife, who still go out on the trapline. It is their passion, and they go to Continuing Education conferences to keep up to date on how to do it and to share in the fellowship of it and the pride. It is moving. Are they less happy than someone that lives in a 55-plus unit in a condominium in Winnipeg and goes to Florida or California or Texas every winter as a snowbird? They would not trade that for anything, and I am very conscious of that. So in terms of housing, who am I to judge what is a proper house for them.
Yes, I am aware of the housing issues, and I want to hear community members and individuals really talk about their aspirations, not just comparing themselves to Winnipeg, but talking about their aspirations five years, 10 years, 20 years down the road. What do they want to be as a community? What do they want to be as individuals? What do they want to achieve? Any time you, as the representative for The Pas or the representative for Rupertsland or the representative for Thompson, anyone from the North, it could be a mayor, it could be a mayor and council from a community, it could be an individual from a community, any time you share an aspiration that simply needs nurturing and encouragement, I think that is our job, as a Northern Affairs department, to try and help because that is going to be the basis of the future in health, education, family services, jobs, economic development.
With respect to the reserve communities, sure, I will work with the minister of northern and native affairs federally to focus on housing issues just as we did with respect to Shamattawa, when I sent a letter to the minister, and Eric Robinson, the member for Rupertsland, sent a letter to someone else, to try and address a need there and indicate our point of view on it. I want the federal government to exercise its responsibility to the fullest and I believe they should even do more, but maybe the biggest favour they can do is also focus on these foundational kinds of things and not just be a hand-out giver, be an individual builder and a community builder. That is what the aboriginal people want, as I understand it.
With respect to the Metis people, and I will be more comprehensive than that, the northern people who live in Northern Affairs communities--and many of them are Status Indian, many are non-Status, many Metis, many just people who do not want to identify themselves with any of those categories. The Manitoba Metis Federation has assumed a lot of responsibility with respect to housing, and I am hoping and praying that after May 15 when they get their own house in order and get their new leadership determined through democratic election, they will earnestly, conscientiously and up to a high ethical standard represent their people well, the people in those areas who depend on housing, and focus on the economic development opportunities in doing housing, doing repairs, doing maintenance, even more so than they do now.
This is something that has been turned over in large measure to the Manitoba Metis Federation by the federal government, and what a chance to do something proud, to do something without letting patronage or nepotism or any of those things get in the way and to do a real service to their membership and to the people of Manitoba who are going to benefit, as well, from better housing in Northern Affairs communities.
So I certainly will be challenging them to be better in representing their people, and I hope they will live up to the expectations of the citizens of Manitoba and their own members. Thank you.
Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Chairperson, there is just this last little bit, perhaps more in response to the minister's last statement.
You know, he talks about those two or three houses that might be there in the bush somewhere, about how he would be reluctant to put sewer and water services in those two or three homes, you know, because there are only two or three of them. Yet in most Metis communities, in most First Nations communities, we have RCMP who are funded by the taxpayers. The government will think nothing of--even if it is just one building, they will put in a septic tank or whatever. They will do it in such a way that that RCMP officer, if he has a family, will have running water, all the amenities when it comes to sewer and water, good drinking water--they will dig a well. Teachers, same thing; the federal government puts in teacherages complete with sewer and water; Canada Post, all those government agencies, and they will have northern stores, too, their own, and the church.
* (1540)
In just about all of the communities, we have two or three buildings then that have sewer and water. I do not think I am suggesting here that we go around and build plants in every little community whether there are only two or three houses or 130. I mean, common sense will prevail, I would hope.
He talks about choice, like if you want to go and live in northern Manitoba, that is your choice, but do not expect me to do anything for you even though you are a citizen of Manitoba. I do not buy that at all because, first of all, in my earlier comments I suggested to the minister that some of us visit--I was sitting with the CEO of OmniTRAX Saturday night, and that was the very thing that we were talking about. Some people go there for jobs. Sometimes they go there for a visit, for a holiday, and a lot of them end up staying up North, and they call it their home.
Then there is another group of people, such as myself, who did not come from Halifax or Brandon or Winnipeg or Alberta somewhere or in the States or even in Sweden or Russia or those other places. That is where we were born. That is our homeland. I thought I made enough emphasis on that statement the other day with the minister.
Now, for him to say, well, you know, that is your choice, whatever happens there. Well, let me remind him, what about the farmers down south? Do we say to the farmers the land is flood prone? If you want to go and live by the river, that is your tough luck if the river should ever overflow. No, that is not how we handle it. The federal government just ordered the army to go there, and we are sitting down here. Schools are being closed. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) and some of his cabinet ministers, I heard on the radio, were out flying around looking at the flood area, which incidentally was flooded again, too, last year. Now, we did not go to those people and say, you know, if you want to live here in Morris or wherever, Letellier or Richer, and if it floods that is your problem. We do not do that.
I sure as hell hope that we do not say that to people who choose to live in Overflow or Barrows or Herb Lake Landing--if you want to live here, do not bother us--because we do not say that to people in southern Manitoba whenever they get flooded out. I would urge the minister to rethink that a little bit and maybe think about it before he says that.
The last thing that I wanted to ask the minister is--oh, first, another thing. As he knows, when he talks about these NACC communities, there is such a thing as Bill C-31, and in our community, in practically all of the Metis community, you know, my own cousins, my own relatives, who were disenfranchised a long time ago are now through Bill C-31 becoming First Nations people. A lot of them still live on Metis land, so I understand, but in a lot of cases there is an adjacent First Nations community like The Pas.
So please do not tell me that I am not going to put a sewer and water system in for those three houses, because I know fully well that you can hook up to the First Nations system if they have a system. Moose Lake, the communities are right adjacent to each other. Why not have one system in The Pas, in Big Eddy, Umperville, Young Point? Why do we not have one system so the minister does not have to come here next Estimates and tell me, you know, we are not going to do anything for those two or three houses, let them put their own stuff. If you want us to work in partnership, why does he not hook up Big Eddy Metis, The Pas Metis, the Opaskwayak Cree Nation sewer and water system? That would make a lot of sense.
Mr. Newman: Given the many points you made, I used to be exposed to legal counsel that would take arguments I used to present and, because the arguments were in their eyes I guess effective enough that they had to change them, would then recreate, recharacterize the arguments so it diminished the effectiveness and would present it that way. I feel, in a sense, that is what you have done. I am going to take issue with it, but I am not going to engage in debate. I, of course, never said that the Northern Affairs would not do anything for them. We have an obligation to those under the Northern Affairs support and we, of course, do that.
What we were talking about earlier was whether or not you have treated water in the sophisticated system or you have a sophisticated sewer system or whether the less convenient kinds of facilities would be appropriate in a given situation.
Mr. Lathlin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I do recall the minister saying, referencing his cabin out at the lake. That is what he has, so therefore he does, you know, by saying that, I guess, he means that he does not expect the government to go and put sewer and water in this one cabin that is out at the lake. For me, the message is clear. What the minister was trying to tell me was perhaps two or three houses do not warrant the same attention as 140 houses. What I was simply doing was telling him the reality that exists out there when, if you go to a place like Norway House First Nation, there is well over 5,000 people living in Norway House, but for many, many years the only sewer and water system that existed in Norway House was the RCMP, northern store. I am not trying to recreate the argument or whatever he means. I am saying to him that I am trying to give him a realistic picture of what does exist there in terms of what he said about two or three houses or, make a choice, where do you want to live.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): The honourable member does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): The honourable minister, to finish his comments.
* (1550)
Mr. Newman: The other point, with respect to the RCMP, teachers, Canada Post and how they chose to provide services, is the kind of thing that probably has led, in part, to this sense of inequity, differential treatment. I am not going to either try and explain or justify that other than to say that those people who serve in those positions are not there by choice for life; they are there on a job. I guess that is the reason, on an assignment.
They probably, because they have unions and they have standards, have a certain requirement. But that again does not address the issue as to whether or not the communities you are talking about, the individuals you are talking about, want that sort of way of life. They might be there for very specific reasons as indigenous people or career people in the North, people who have chosen as rooted people to stay there. Sometimes with the greatest of intentions to impose the urban standards, they may not even be desired. I just raise that.
With respect to the suggestion that somehow or other, no matter how small a community you are, you are somehow given less support in the event of a disaster, whether it be fire or flood, simply is not so. I really do find it troublesome when the honourable member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) does engage in this sort of pitting North against the south and suggesting there is some sort of differential treatment. If there is a fire in the North, the Province of Manitoba and Disaster Assistance and Natural Resources and the full support system of governments go into play to protect people just as if there is flood or any other natural disaster. So just to get into this stereotyping is harmful to the quality of the debate.
Mr. Lathlin: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): The honourable member for The Pas, on a point of order.
Mr. Lathlin: I think the minister did not understand my statements. I am not saying that southern people who are being flooded out right now do not deserve the attention that they are getting. My point was those people who live in the flooded areas chose to live there themselves, and now that they are in trouble, we have to help them out, it is our responsibility. We do not say to them--as the minister was suggesting earlier for those who live up North--I am sorry, you choose to live in a flood-prone area so therefore you are not entitled to help. The minister is zeroing in and says it is not good to use the flood as an example. I am using that as an example because whether you live up North or south, I think people deserve to get those services. But what he was trying to say was you have a choice as to where you want to live, and in the end, wherever you choose to live might dictate as to what types of services you are going to get. That was my point.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlp