LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Monday,
December 16, 1991
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
TABLING OF
REPORTS
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual
Report for 1990‑91 of the Department of Urban Affairs.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I have
several tablings, firstly, the Quarterly Financial Report for the year ended
October 31, 1991, of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation.
I would also like to table the Public
Accounts, Volumes 1 and 2, Financial Statements for the Consolidated Fund, plus
Supplementary Information, fiscal year 1990‑91.
I would also like to table a report to the
Legislature, pursuant to Section 56(3) of The Financial Administration Act
relating to Supplementary Loan and Guarantee Authority.
I am also making a report to the
Legislature under Section 20 of The Public Officers Act, being Chapter P230 of
the Continued Consolidation of the Statutes of
Finally, I would like to table a report of
the Provincial Auditor to the Legislative Assembly for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 1991.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to
announce that the 1990‑91 Public Accounts, the 1991 Report of the
Provincial Auditor and the Special Audit of the Provincial Auditor on the
Taxation Division of the Department of Finance will be referred for
consideration to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the committee
meeting previously announced for December 17.
MINISTERIAL
STATEMENTS
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I have a statement for the
House, and I have copies for all honourable members today.
Mr. Speaker, today I am asking Manitobans
to pause and remember the victims of drunk drivers. Earlier this morning, I launched the
"ribbons for life" campaign, encouraging everyone, including members
of this House, to display red ribbons on their vehicles and homes over the
holiday season. I urge everyone to
exercise an extra degree of caution.
Our
Let us remember those families whose
holiday celebrations will be overshadowed by memories of loved ones struck down
by drunk drivers. Our laws are tough,
the toughest in
Let us join others who have said no to
drinking and driving, and attach one of these ribbons to the door handle of our
cars, our radio antennas, our front doors, anywhere that it can be easily
seen. Let us all do our utmost to make
sure that impaired drivers do not get behind the wheel, particularly during
this holiday season. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
* * *
* (1335)
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic
Party, I would like to commend the minister for recognizing the fact that there
are victims of this senseless and tragic act and that we on this side of the
House will do everything possible to try to prevent and try to assist the
government in improving this situation and improving the regulations and the
laws that are in effect to ensure that campaigns of this kind are not necessary
now or in the future, particularly during the holiday season, during a period
of time when individuals turn their attention to their loved ones and turn
their attention to thoughts other than having to deal with the horrendous
memory and the horrendous tragedy that it is associated with, this red ribbon
campaign, and the fact that individuals have, particularly during the Christmas
season, had to face the consequence of the loss of a loved one or a family
member or a relative.
I can assure you that we on this side of
the House will do everything that we can to assist the minister in ensuring
that the laws are enforced, ensuring regulations are enforced. Indeed, Mr. Speaker,
we on this side of the House will do everything possible to try to improve this
situation in the
With those brief comments, we commend the
minister on taking this step, and we will be offering very positive solutions
to a very difficult problem and a very difficult situation in our society. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our party, I also
want to join with the comments of the minister, join with his important words
at this season in which many are out and about.
Some unfortunately are still abusing the privilege of driving and trying
to combine it with the drinking of alcoholic beverages. That indeed is a tragedy which is wrought on
citizens around this province every year all too frequently.
I feel compelled to request yet again from
the minister‑‑and I know he and I have joined comments on this on
many occasions before. The Christmas
season is one in which we particularly think about drinking and driving, but
indeed, it is a year‑round problem.
It is a year‑round problem which I believe can be addressed best
through the information to people who may choose to drink and drive that they
will be caught, because that is the thing which we learned from the studies
that are done. It is that those who are
still drinking and driving are doing it in large part, not because they do not
know the consequences will be horrendous if they are caught, but because they
think they will not get caught. That
indeed is a fallacy.
We need to get that message out. This is part of getting that message out, and
I appreciate that. I simply want to pick
up on the comment from the minister that the police will be enforcing the laws
on impaired driving with particular care in the weeks to come. I look forward to the day when we have the
sort of ALERT programs year round in this province, which I believe will be
necessary and will in time come. Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
afternoon, from the
On behalf of all honourable members, we
welcome you here this afternoon.
* (1340)
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Provincial
Auditor's Report
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Finance.
We have just had an opportunity to review
some of the sections in the Auditor's report, Mr. Speaker, and some of these
issues that are raised give us very direct concern about answers the Minister
of Finance has provided to the House and people of
We have raised the issue of Manitoba Data
Services in terms of its confidentiality of information, and the Minister of
Finance has repeatedly said to people in this Chamber and the people of the
I ask the Minister of Finance why he told
this Chamber last year that confidentiality was not a problem and why now the
Auditor is telling us it is a problem for Manitobans?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I got
to give credit to the Leader of the NDP.
I mean, he had the document for a whole three or four minutes, and he
took out of it, in that space of time, exactly what we wanted; yet what he did
take out, he took completely out of context.
The Provincial Auditor was asked to look
at the divestiture process of Manitoba Data Services. Indeed, I do not have time to quote chapter
and verse what he says. Indeed, everything
was done open up, everything was done in a proper fashion, and indeed, if I
wanted to read it out of context, I would say it was a model divestiture by the
Provincial Auditor's work.
Mr. Speaker, we acknowledge there was a
sensitive area of maintaining secrecy of information. We indicated that there had to be monitoring
procedure in place, and indeed, as pointed out within the Auditor's report,
page 17, Comments of Officials, the info office of the Department of Finance
indicates that an audit is being scheduled for the second quarter of 1992, as
we said would happen, as we said would go to safeguard all of the sensitive
information that was held in the past by Manitoba Data Services, is held, but
under the control then, as it is now, under the government of the
Mr. Doer: Of course, the minister can talk all he wants
about it, but it said, improvements are required to achieve adequate dealings
of the confidentiality of information of Manitoba Data Services. Those are not just obscure facts, Mr.
Speaker. These are the health care
records of Manitobans. These are other
very‑‑licensing records, the Agricultural Credit Corporation
records, so we would suggest these are very important issues.
Fiscal
Stabilization Fund
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): A further question to the minister of
divestiture, the Minister of Finance of the
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I will
at another time, I suppose, address my comments or finish my comments with
respect to the security aspect of Manitoba Data Services divestiture.
The member asked a question dealing with
the lodging of the value of shares through the divestiture of Manfor and the
lodging of the value of those shares within the stabilization account. The
Provincial Auditor and the government are at odds as to where the value of
those shares should be lodged. Indeed,
as we have said on several occasions, where does one take extraordinary income
or the value, and where do they do it?
Do they apply it against one year, one year in which it comes, or is it
better to take the value, put it into account and share the receipts over a
period of time?
We have gone one step further. We said not a dollar of that will be spent
until it has materialized. That is
stated. That is stated very clearly. I have said that 20 times if I have said it
once, and I will say it again. To me it
is an academic discussion. Indeed, of
the $77 million, not $1 will be spent until it materializes.
* (1345)
Mr. Doer: Well, I guess that begs the question, Mr.
Speaker, some Fiscal Stabilization Fund.
You have $77 million in a fund hat is worth not $1, as the Minister of
Finance has just told us in this Chamber.
Notwithstanding the fact that we have not
the jobs in either one of these divestitures of Repap, we have not the jobs of
the divestiture of Data Services, notwithstanding the job boasts from the
government opposite, I would ask the Minister of Finance, would he end the
confusion and take that fund, that asset that is not an asset, out of the
Fiscal Stabilization Fund so all Manitobans will really know what is an asset
in the fund and what is just a public relations gesture of the Minister of
Finance in the budget?
Mr. Manness: Two points Mr. Speaker. At least, when we set up a fund, we put money
into it. We put in $200 million or $300
million, not like the Energy and Heritage Fund of the members opposite, where
the glowing legislation came forward, and after four years, there was not $1
that went into it.
Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Auditor never
asked us to take the asset away. He
asked us to set up a liability, an allowance against that was equivalent to the
asset. We have said, as an offset
against that, we will not in any way call upon a dollar of the value of those
shares. Indeed, we are not playing a
shell game. We are fully disclosing
where the value is. We are fully
disclosing that indeed a dollar will not be spent until that value is
realized. That is an open way of
accounting, and we defy any member to tell us opposite.
Impaired
Drivers Reporting Delay
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister
responsible for the Motor Vehicle Branch.
We have confirmed that, in some cases,
from the time a drunken driver is convicted until the conviction shows up at
the Motor Vehicle Branch or on police records, a period of six weeks can pass,
Mr. Speaker. How can the minister, in
the light of the Justice minister's announcement and constant press conferences
on drunk drivers, allow drunk drivers to be on the road potentially for a
period of six weeks?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I follow the
honourable member's question, and perhaps in his supplementary, he will make
that clear. My understanding of Bill 3
is that, upon apprehension, an alleged drunk driver's licence is taken, a seven‑day
permit given, and then, after seven days, the licence is no good. The permit is then no good for a period of 90
days.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, perhaps if the minister can
check with his staff, they can confirm the fact‑‑in my
supplementary, the minister can find out for us why, from a period of
conviction on trial until the Motor Vehicle Branch puts it on its records, six
weeks can pass and the individual can be out there driving before the police or
anyone else will know that person is convicted.
Mr. McCrae: I will check into that, but the honourable
member should acknowledge, the accused knows he is suspended and ought not to
be driving. If he or she is apprehended
driving suspended, the car will be impounded, and now, as a result of
legislation in the last session, that impoundment will be doubled to 60 days
impoundment on subsequent offences. The
point is, the accused knows.
As I say, I will check on it. If there is any delay in recording this kind
of information, we will see what we can do about it.
Mr. Chomiak: I can assure the minister there is a six‑week
delay.
I would like to ask my supplementary. Why does the minister not know? Why does the minister of the Motor Vehicle
Branch not know that people can be on the road for six weeks when they are drunk
drivers, and the police and no one else can find out about it?
Mr. McCrae: I was not aware, Mr. Speaker, that they
changed the procedure in court. The
driver's licence is suspended, if there is one, is relinquished at that time,
if it has not been taken previously, which it is under Bill 3. If more than 90 days have passed before a
person gets to court, the judge takes a person's licence.
* (1350)
Economic
Growth
Government
Initiatives
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the First Minister has staked his entire political reputation upon his
ability to manage the economy. Those are
his words. All Manitobans have seen so
far is a strange two‑step dance around Manitobans. There seems to be some disagreement as to who
is doing the leading. Is it the Premier
or is it the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)?
For example, we have a Minister of Finance saying that he has to, in
fact, control social programs, and we have a denial from the Premier that that
is the thrust to the economic initiative of this government.
Mr. Speaker, will the First Minister sit
down with his Finance minister and establish an economic agenda so that they
will stop this two‑step dance around each other without any knowledge of
who is doing the leading?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I am entirely unaware of what the
Leader of the Liberal Party is getting at.
Perhaps by her second question, I will have a better indication of what
she is after.
First
Ministers' Conference
Government
Agenda
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, not only do they disagree about the thrust, one given by the Minister
of Finance and denied by the Premier of the province, but we had the spectre of
the Premier calling for a First Ministers' conference and, on television on
Friday night, the Finance minister, in fact, suggesting that this could be a
very negative process.
Can the First Minister tell this House
today, since his Finance minister did not have any to share with the other
Finance ministers, what new, innovative ideas he will be taking to Thursday's
meeting?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I am firstly very pleased that
the federal government, in response to the letter that I sent on December 9 to
the Prime Minister, has agreed to the holding of a First Ministers' conference
on the economy. I am also informed that,
as a result of urgings by our Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and indeed all
Ministers of Finance across the country, the federal Minister of Finance, Mr.
Mazankowski, in the midst of his discussions with the Finance ministers, left
to meet with the Prime Minister and had discussions with him that resulted in
ultimately the federal government making that decision.
It seems to me that everybody was on
board. Everybody was working in the same
direction, and everybody was asking for the First Ministers' conference on the
economy. As a result of the combined
efforts of various First Ministers in the country, who urged the federal
government and the Finance ministers, that decision was made.
I might say that in my letter on December
9 to the Prime Minister, I laid out what I thought were several suggestions for
agenda topics. I said firstly that we
ought to discuss a national industrial and economic strategy aimed at
diversifying all regions, including adjustment measures for all regions, not
just
I said that fiscal and economic co‑ordination,
including monetary policy, deficits and fiscal arrangements such as
equalization and EPF ought to be an agenda topic for this First Ministers'
meeting.
I said that joint budget guidelines or
targets might be another matter that we ought to discuss. I said agriculture, including the GATT round,
which is coming very close, as we understand it, to a very critical point,
ought to be discussed. I had said that other trade issues, including
interprovincial trade barrier reduction agreements and indeed the involvement
of the provinces‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): On a point of order,
Mr. Speaker, we certainly have no objection to the minister outlining what
economic plans, if any, this government has, but we are limited in Question
Period time. I would suggest perhaps the
First Minister could table the letter, as is according to our rules, and
perhaps might consider having a ministerial statement on the position of the
government, at which time, we could have a more detailed analysis here in
Question Period.
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised, I would like to
remind the honourable minister that answers to questions should be as brief as
possible.
* (1355)
Education
and Training Initiative
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, with a final supplementary question.
What we are looking for are new, innovative ideas. We have not heard any yet. Will the First Minister tell us if he will be
supporting the position taken by the Premier of New Brunswick that there must
be a national education and training initiative, or will he be supporting his
federal Tory cousins who are suggesting this should be a decentralized
initiative and totally offloaded to the provinces?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I did say
on Friday evening, in my Journal interview, that I agreed with the Premier of
New Brunswick that indeed that was an area in which we ought to be working
together in a co‑ordinated fashion. I said that our human resource
capital was a very important part of our national and international
competitiveness, and one that we ought to work on in a co‑ordinated
fashion.
I have also talked openly about the need
for the federal government to take the greater responsibility in the area of
education and that I disagree with provinces such as
Depo-Provera
Licence
Approval
Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis
(
I would like to ask the Minister of Health
(Mr. Orchard), what information does he have regarding federal government
intentions to give in to Upjohn's aggressive campaign and to have Depo‑Provera
approved as an injectable long‑lasting contraceptive.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the issue
of Depo‑Provera is one that concerns us a great deal, and we have
attempted to seek information from the federal government as to whether some of
the rumours which my honourable friend refers to are in fact accurate, as to
whether there are recent requests, once again, to have the drug licensed,
particularly for contraceptive purposes.
Mr. Speaker, we have been unable to
confirm the accuracy or inaccuracy of that rumour. We do share concerns with those who are
opposed to the licensing of Depo‑Provera for purposes that are being
currently under investigation in other nations.
We simply have made the case with the federal government that we do not
believe there should be any licensing for any purposes for which Depo‑Provera
may be used until there is sufficient and very excellent research documentation
to assure its safety to women who may use the pharmaceutical.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: That information is certainly appreciated.
I am wondering if the Minister of Health,
given the uncertainty about whether or not Depo‑Provera will be approved,
would today write or call his federal counterpart and request once again that
Depo‑Provera not be approved at this time as an injectable contraceptive.
Mr. Orchard: I think it is fair to say that we have already
done that, because we heard the same rumours some time ago that there was yet
another attempt at licensing. In our discussions
and departmental discussions with the federal government, as I said in my first
answer, we are unable to confirm the accuracy or the inaccuracy of that rumour.
Mr. Speaker, we have made the position and
taken the position consistently with the federal government and the licensing
agency that no such licence should be granted until adequate assurance of
safety of the product is met. That
position has been communicated to the federal government in the very recent
past.
* (1400)
Breast Cancer
Government
Initiatives
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, a number of initiatives, not the
least of which is a working group of experts from the
It will be probably in January that I will
release to my honourable friend the recommendations of that working group. We have the same level of concern that has
been expressed in recent articles about the incidence of and the seriousness of
breast cancer as a killing disease entity of women.
We are committed in the province to do
whatever we can within the resources available and within the appropriate
technologies available to assure the best possible protection against the
incidence of breast cancer in women.
That can take a number of events, a number of issues that I no doubt
will share with you at a future date.
Workers
Compensation
Long-term
Benefits
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I have a brief quote: A number
of long‑term claims have been identified, and it is unknown whether the
claimants have been given an adequate opportunity to become independent of the
compensation system, in other words, to force these injured workers off
benefits to which they are entitled. The
quote comes from Board Talk.
Can the minister responsible for the
Workers Compensation Board explain the reasons why there has been a marked
increase in the numbers of long‑term injured workers who have received
termination of benefits letters, when it is clear that they are unfit to return
to active duties?
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister responsible for and charged with the administration of The Workers
Compensation Act): I can tell the House that, as part of their
review of long‑term cases, the board undertakes on a regular basis to
review whether people are able to return to the work force. I am aware of a number of cases, as the
member for Transcona is, where that is questionable, in which case, we ask
those people to use the appeal process to determine whether or not that in fact
is the case.
Mr. Reid: Can the minister explain why the benefits are
being terminated for these individuals on long‑term disability, why they
should have to appeal the process instead of having them go through the process
of having advice from the medical practitioners in the province to ascertain
whether or not they are able to return to active employment?
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that, in
those cases where benefits are terminated, they are done on the basis of some
assessment that the person is able to go back to work. I say this to the member for Transcona, the
concern that he raised is certainly a valid one and certainly one that I share
with him. I give him the assurance, as
minister, that I raised this with the board.
I want to ensure that process is one that is done fairly and, if there
are cases where it is not done fairly, that certainly they are brought to my
attention and we will raise them with the board.
Medical
Advice
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary to the
same minister: Can the minister explain
why some doctors on the payroll of the WCB are overruling the advice given to
injured workers by the many renowned medical specialists we are fortunate to
have in this province?
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister responsible for and charged with the administration of The Workers
Compensation Act): Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns of the
member for Transcona. One of the matters
in terms of internal use of doctors at the board that I have raised with
administration is to ensure that doctors there are in fact producing medical
information that is current with specialists in the profession. If that is not the case, if there are from time
to time doctors who are making statements that are resulting in appeals that
are being won by the claimants, then those practitioners' statuses with the
board will have to be looked at.
Court of
Queen's Bench
Appeal
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Justice.
The minister has consistently‑‑and
as early on in his tenure as Minister of Justice, the first time he has spoken
publicly‑‑been committed to putting a very high priority on access
to justice. To that end, he has put forward,
and we have supported on occasion, amendments to the small claims practices act
in this province, a very important system of adjudication for claims under
$5,000.
Mr. Speaker, now, however, we have learned
that starting April 10, 1992, it is the intention of the Court of Queen's Bench
to operate a screening court for appeals from Small Claims, weeding out those
that they determine are not worthy of having a second look.
Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate to
the House why this quite drastic curtailment of appeal rights for small claims
litigants is necessary and how it accords with his stated intention to increase
access to the courts?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, we have made improvements to
the handling of small claims cases in the
We in
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the
minister is: Does the minister support
this new, untested restriction of appeal rights which heretofore in this
province has not been a part of our system?
Does he support that restriction which was not put forward as a
potential consequence of the last amendment act we put forward and which will
result in litigants with claims under $5,000 never having their claim heard by
a legally trained judge?
Mr. McCrae: We have been operating small claims without
using legally trained judges for some time.
The honourable member, if he is against handling cases in our Small
Claims Court or in any of our court systems, if he is against a fairness and an
efficiency that goes with certain changes, then he should say so. If the honourable member is against reform of
our judicial institutions, then let him say so.
I say that there are problems in the
justice system that require correction.
There are some people in the legal community who would want to stand in
the way of improvements in our justice system.
I have seen it before, and I hope I am not seeing it again from the
honourable member for St. James.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, if indeed a small claims hearing is
going to now be a matter‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Question, please.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the minister has talked about
justice for the masses. Let us see him
do it. Will he at least commit today to
moving toward legally trained judges in this province, seeing as we are one of
the only provinces left in the country in which you cannot get before a legally
trained judge? Why are litigants for
under $5,000 not worthy of that kind of treatment?
Mr. McCrae: If the honourable member has a complaint that
someone has brought to his attention, I would be very happy to look at it, Mr.
Speaker. I have not received any
complaints about the system that we have.
If the honourable member wants to bring to my attention any specific
complaints from individual Manitobans, that is what I am here for. We try to deal with those things very expeditiously
as well.
I am disturbed by the attitude that I see
in the honourable member of standing in the way of change because, you see, the
way improvements happen is through change.
Point of
Order
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I am disturbed by the superfluous
comments of the Minister of Justice attacking my motives in asking that
question, when after three attempts, he still has not‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.
* (1410)
Domtar
Site
Cleanup
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, this government's involvement in
the Domtar hazardous waste contamination in Radisson reeks of political
interference and negligence. I am going
to table and read from a memo from the regional supervisor for dangerous goods
when he said that he would have a difficult time justifying the situation in a
public forum. I find it incomprehensible
that the government can allow the public to be inconvenienced and threatened, all
the while letting Domtar stall with the cleanup.
My question is for the Minister of
Environment. What was the basis in
allowing the delays in the clean‑up proposal or the cleanup of this site
when we know that there have been donations from Domtar to both political
parties, and we know of the Premier's errors?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I find
it quite surprising that the member is now only catching up on what the Free
Press was talking about a number of weeks ago. It is obvious that we have had
some considerable concern about the process that Domtar has been involved in,
but I think there is one thing that the community needs to be made perfectly
aware of, that the technology has evolved so that we can today do a much better
cleanup than was proposed under the previous administration. The agreement that they struck was to cap it
and walk away.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, any time anyone wants some
information from his department‑‑was it merely another public relations
exercise to issue the work orders, there were six work orders, to be done by
December 15, or has there been any action with regard especially to the removal
of the containers on the site and the‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, it has long been our concern as
to the willingness of the corporation to live up to direct orders. They have
accepted the orders as they were written, and it is our expectation that they
will be completed. If they are not, we
will take appropriate action to make sure that they are.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, it is past the deadline. What is it going to take for this minister to
begin to enforce the environmental legislations that are in place? They have talked about getting tough‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, the Domtar site was left in
limbo for 10 years, primarily under the administration and in the constituency
of the previous ministry of Environment.
They neglected to get on with the cleanup. The reason that there has been some activity
on the last three sites was started by the member for
School of
Psychiatric Nursing
Reopening
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, in the April budget, the
Minister of Health closed the Selkirk School of Psychiatric Nursing. The closure took millions of dollars out of
the Selkirk economy and put the education of mental health care workers in this
province in complete disarray. The nine
months that have passed since the closure of the school have given the minister
the opportunity to reflect upon his bad decision.
I would ask the minister now to rescind
the closure of the school.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, I believe this issue was
dealt with in quite a lot of detail during the last session. I note with interest though that my
honourable friend did not take the time during Health Estimates to come in and
pose questions about the school at Selkirk closing. I know he did not do that because he would
have a tough time getting the issue by the member for Brandon East (Mr. Evans)
whose constituency in the city of
Selkirk
Mental Health Centre
Forensic
Unit
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, will the minister confirm the
information that I received that the forensic unit being negotiated for the
Selkirk Mental Health Centre is not going to be built?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Dewar: Can this minister provide the House and the
people of Selkirk the reason why it is not going to be there?
Mr. Orchard: No, Mr. Speaker.
Labour
Adjustment Committee
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister
responsible for Energy and Mines. The
community of
My question to the minister is: Has the minister, through the Labour
Adjustment Committee, finally agreed to support the relocation monies that
should be available to the people who left
Hon. Harold Neufeld
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr.
Speaker, of course, I am not responsible for the Labour Adjustment Committee,
but I understand that anyone who has been relocated or is about to be relocated
will benefit from the Labour Adjustment Committee and the monies it has
available for the benefit of those employees.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, the
Mineral
Exploration
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): My question to the minister is: Will the
minister respond to requests from the LGD of Lynn Lake and the town of Snow
Lake and commit, through Manitoba Mineral Resources, to double the exploration
budget of MMR so that we can be assured that the communities of Snow Lake and
Leaf Rapids are going to continue to exist beyond 1993‑94?
Hon. Harold Neufeld
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Manitoba
Mineral Resources have been directed and have indeed been carrying out, by
themselves and also leaving other monies from private industry, to explore in
the
I should remind, and I am sure that the
member for Flin Flon well knows that, in 20 years starting from about 1970,
millions of dollars have been spent and no new mines were found. The finding of mines is a difficult
procedure, but we are making every effort and spending all monies we can spare
to locate new deposits in that area. The
seven mines that were found in the
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, the money is available through
the Manitoba Mineral Resources. Can the
minister explain to the city councillors in
Mr. Neufeld: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Manitoba Mineral
Resources have been spending money in that area. The Manitoba Mineral Resources have been
leaving money from the industry to spend money in that area. The professionals who are in the area know
where to look and know where they might find, but the ability to find is one
that is‑‑we cannot direct the prospectors to a specific area. We can tell them to try to locate some
deposits in an area, but to find it is like looking for a needle in a haystack.
GATT
Negotiations
Marketing
Boards
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, at the recent concerned farmers' protest in
Can the Minister of Agriculture tell this
House what recent discussions he has had with the appropriate federal ministers
as to what will
* (1420)
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I can
tell the member that I have spoken with the Minister of Agriculture and the
Minister of Grains and Oilseeds, both who have been in
Mrs. Carstairs: The sense of this meeting was clearly that
they were going to be sacrificed.
Has the minister had no discussions at all
as to what will be the final and ultimate position of our government when they
are given a take‑it‑or‑leave‑it contract?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, the member is creating a very
hypothetical situation. There is no take‑it‑or‑leave‑it
position on the table at this time. We
are at the table negotiating at this very moment and continue to be there with
our position intact from a year ago.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Nonpolitical Statements
Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Mr. Speaker, I seek the leave of the House in
order to make a nonpolitical statement.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Broadway have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
Some Honourable Members:
Leave.
Mr. Speaker: Leave.
It is agreed.
Mr. Santos: Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the well‑known
Since 1977, this council has done an
excellent job in promoting human rights and fair treatment for refugees and
immigrants alike.
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of
honourable members to the loge to my left, where we have with us this afternoon
Mr. Herold Driedger, the former member for Niakwa.
On behalf of all honourable members, I
welcome you here this afternoon.
Committee
Changes
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
Agreed.
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts be amended as follows:
the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render) for the member for Sturgeon Creek
(Mr. McAlpine), and the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) for the member for St.
Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau).
I move, seconded by the member for
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
Agreed.
House
Business
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, before
you call the motion to move in to discuss the throne speech, I wonder if you
would canvass the House‑‑I understand there have been previous
discussions‑‑that we unanimously consent to agree to debate Bill
35, second reading. I understand the
bill has been distributed.
I wonder if you might call for agreement
from the House to do that. Furthermore,
if that is granted by the House, and subsequent to that, if Bill 35 is passed
on second reading‑‑this is all hypothetical‑‑I would
announce then that the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs would tonight
meet at 8 p.m. in Room 255, by leave of the House, Mr. Speaker. It would sit until the members of the committee
determined when it should rise and, if necessary, that committee also would
begin sitting tomorrow morning, at 10 a.m., in that same room to consider Bill
35.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I want
to indicate what the Finance minister is indicating is highly unusual in the
House, but these are highly unusual circumstances. We recognize the urgency of passing the bill
through. I would hope that there would
not be any precedent seen in this. It is
exceptional circumstances. We are agreed
to provide leave in all stages of the bill, subject to the qualification there
be proper hearings. I am pleased the
minister has a contingency for possible hearings tomorrow morning as well, if
necessary. Subject to that condition, we
are more than willing to provide unanimous consent from our caucus at any stage
of this bill.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Just to
add to the comments from the Leader of the official opposition, I am also led
to believe that we will not enter into clause by clause of Bill 35 this
evening, that will in fact be reserved till tomorrow's meeting.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to set aside the
regularly scheduled business of the day which is the Throne Speech Debate for
the seventh day of debate? Is there
leave of the House to set this aside?
Some Honourable Members:
Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: There is leave.
Is there leave of the House, now, to deal
with Bill 35 for second reading? Is
there leave?
Some Honourable Members: There is leave.
Mr. Speaker: There is leave.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
SECOND
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, that Bill 35, The City of Winnipeg Amendment
Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur la Ville de Winnipeg, be now read a
second time and referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much, and I thank
the members opposite for their indulgence in dealing with a relatively critical
matter for the City of
The loss of $44 million having now already
been spent would cause a significant hardship upon the taxpayers of the city of
They would have to go to the maximum flat
rate, 15 percent, in order to at least achieve as much as possible, the goal of
raising the 1991 business tax levy and the 1992 business tax levy. Even doing that, they would have a $26.5‑million
shortfall over and above the maximum amount to be levied under the business tax
which would then cause $26.5 million to be levied upon the property taxpayer of
the city of Winnipeg.
So, Mr. Speaker, the importance of this
bill to regularize the 1991 business tax roll for the City of
Mr. Speaker, if I can take a moment‑‑and
again I appreciate the indulgence of members opposite having received the bill
only a few moments ago‑‑the principle of the bill, the reason that
the bill is being introduced is indicated on page 1, under the title
"Purpose," and that purpose of this act is to authorize retroactively
the business tax assessment levy and collection of business tax by the City of
Winnipeg for the 1991 taxation year and further to provide with a method of
business assessment levy and collection of business tax until the 1993 taxation
year or until a bylaw is passed under subsection 182 of The City of Winnipeg
Act.
* (1430)
Mr. Speaker, basically what is happening
with this bill is that we seek to validate the 1991 business assessment tax
roll for the City of Winnipeg and the collection of taxes thereon; No. 2, to
fix in place the methodology unchallenged related to the 1992 business tax
roll, and that on January 1, 1993, the City of Winnipeg would require the
current legislation related to business tax on a flat rate basis be
implemented. Failing that, the City of
By implementing this bill, it will give
them an opportunity at least to have some time to discuss that. Were we only to validate the 1991 roll to
save the $44 million from last year, they would not have time between now and
March when they have to implement their budget to be able to address those very
important issues with the community that is most affected, the business
community. As a result we have
introduced this bill.
I also apologize for the length of the
bill. The sum and substance of the
actual bill itself appears on pages 1 and 2 and again at the end on pages 30
through 32. What is in the middle, Mr.
Speaker, is referred to as Schedule D.
Schedule D relates to all of those historical passages of legislation
that have to do with business tax that have been accumulated to be placed
within the bill. Because of requirements
deemed wise by our Legislative Counsel, they should be included within the
act. The sum and substance of the
effects of the bill are related on pages 1 and 2 and following one clause on
page 3 and then the latter three pages of the bill as well. That gives us basically the outline of the
bill.
Mr. Speaker, by introducing this bill the
City of Winnipeg should take notice that by no means does the Legislature of
Manitoba or the government condone the substantial increases in taxation that
were levied upon the business community this year. Increases of 200 percent and
300 percent are not acceptable in anybody's book. The City of
I am talking about the business taxpayer,
the property taxpayer, the homeowner, the renter, virtually everyone in this
province is fed up to here with taxes.
They do not want any more taxes.
Our government has recognized that and for the last four budgets have
not increased taxes, in fact, in one case decreased them. Notwithstanding, we all have to look at the
cost containment side. We cannot
continue to levy more and more taxes.
The public cannot and will not tolerate it.
I pass caution to the City of
So, Mr. Speaker, I commend the bill to the
House and seek the support of all members to have this matter read a second
time.
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): I would like to thank the minister, first of
all, for the briefing that he gave us on this at the end of last week, and I
realize the difficulties that he has had in putting together a bill like this
in a very short period of time.
The purpose of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is
to clarify the intent of provincial legislation, 1988, which was to enable the
city, during a transition period of unspecified time, to use a variable
taxation rate for the city business tax.
The opposition agreed to the introduction
of this bill now for two reasons. First
of all, the court judgment, in our view, meant‑‑and here we agree
with the minister‑‑that the $44‑million 1991 tax levy would
have had to been returned to businesses in the city of
Secondly, the 1988 legislation had offered
the city the opportunity to soften the impact on small businesses by enabling
the city, for an unspecified period of time, the transition period, to soften
the flat rate tax that the new Conservative government wanted and enable them
to introduce over the transition period a variable rate. We approve and we would have supported that
approach of the city, Mr. Speaker.
We know that the City of
The City of
Mr. Speaker, these small businesses are
failing in part because of the general Canadian recession, but they have also
been badly affected by the GST. Jane
Jacobs, an urban specialist, predicted this.
She predicted its impact when she argued that, and I quote, no neater
little tax contrivance could be imagined than the GST for favouring large
relatively self‑sufficient enterprises, such as multinational
corporations and their many subsidiaries and many internal transactions.
The GST, she warned, would
"needlessly twist the knife in the very vitals of the city
economies."
Mr. Speaker, I think that is what we are
seeing today in
As the province reduces its support for
the city, the city must find alternate sources for revenue, for welfare and for
the expensive infrastructure of suburban expansion, the legacy of the former
city councillors who now sit across the House.
The minister has said that he has heard of outrageous increases of 200
percent. I think again he must only look
to the policies of those former city councillors who now sit with him in the
cabinet.
* (1440)
The city chose to reverse the policies of
those former councillors who had permitted the business tax portion of the city
budget to decline from its 1972 level of 10.6 percent of total revenue to
approximately 5.9 percent of the 1990 revenues, this indeed during the period,
at least some part of it, of economic growth for the city.
If the business sector had continued to
contribute 10.6 percent of the city budget as it did in 1972, Winnipeg would
have received $24.6 million last year, a great deal more in revenue which might
have gone some way to meeting the growing, unavoidable costs that are
associated with economic decline and recession and to deal with the declining
portion of provincial transfers.
So we support the principle of variable
taxation rate in the transition period.
We feel it is certainly a much fairer way of raising taxes in difficult
times.
The minister has indicated, today and on
other occasions, that he is prepared to look at other proposals from the city
for a business tax system that would be acceptable to all types of
businesses. The city has created a task
force to deal with this which will present its findings to the minister.
I expect they will look at a number of
alternatives to the flat tax system.
So there are a number of alternatives
which I think we could look at. I hope
the minister will indeed remain open to new ideas and proposals which come from
the city task force and from the small businesses of the
I particularly hope the minister will use
the time that we now have to carefully examine the economic impact on Winnipeg's
small businesses of the imposition of a flat tax rate, something which as far
as I can tell the government has so far failed to do.
Mr. Speaker, with those hopes and
expectations, we would like to see the bill now proceed to the committee
stage. I look forward to hearing the
views and presentations of the citizens of
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to recognizing the honourable member
for St. James, I would like to draw the attention of honourable members to the
Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us this afternoon, Mr. Harry Harapiak,
the former member for The Pas, and Mr. Leonard Harapiak, the former member for
Swan River, who are accompanying their elderly aunt who is visiting from the
Ukraine.
On behalf of all honourable members, I
welcome you here this afternoon.
Committee
Changes
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): I move, seconded by the member for
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill 35
presently before the House in the unusual fashion that has been spoken of
earlier by the government House leader (Mr. Manness), as well as by the
Minister for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst).
We, too, recognize that these are extreme
circumstances. This is an unusual circumstance, it results from the
unpredictability of the court action, and the ultimate result which, of course,
put the City of
We also recognized that the City of
Winnipeg's interpretation of the amendment act, the amendments which were
brought in in 1989, appears to have been supported, perhaps not in the
legislation, but by indication from the provincial department in its
interpretation; that is, the City of Winnipeg took the view that they had
essentially a free hand with respect to whether or not to move to a uniform
rate and how they would do that. They
then moved from that position to in fact take really the best of both worlds.
They reassessed‑‑the first
time in 17 years‑‑they got greatly increased rates and they then took
those new assessments and applied it to the old variable rates. Now, my reading of the legislation which was
passed in this House in 1989, and of course I was not the critic at the time,
but I have read it in some detail leading up to this debate. My reading of it is that it is very clear
that we are moving to a uniform rate with the City of
That is the clear indication of that
legislation. It provides for a
transitional period during which the city will have the opportunity to alleviate
increases, undue increases, for any period of time. There is no limit on how long the
transitional provisions can be in place, but what is clear from that
legislation is that we are going to end up with a uniform rate, and that is in
fact what we have in the rest of the province, and that it seems to me was the
decision made in that legislation.
Now, the City of
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker,
in the Chair)
They got to the Court of Appeal, and the
Court of Appeal said, no. The Court of
Appeal said the act is clear, they are moving towards a uniform rate. If they start they must finish the job. You cannot just take one part and one of the
other, meld the two, and come up with what you want, the legislation says we
are going to a uniform rate. If you
assess and come up with new assessments, you have got to go the second mile and
bring in a uniform rate. Mr. Acting
Speaker, if indeed they did want to go to a uniform rate, they could and should
have done that. They could and should
have used the transitional provisions to alleviate any, as I say, undue
increase in taxes in the short term, perhaps even the long term.
Mr. Acting Speaker, they have now come to
us, they have come to the minister and they have said, no, we want some more
time to consider whether or not we are moving to a uniform rate. It strikes me that the cow is out of the
barn, but indeed that is what they want to do, and they are in a bit of a jam because
they have $44 million which is not legally collectible, even though they have
already collected it, and they may have to pay it back. So they are in a bit of a bind.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I must say I am a
little uneasy ratifying tax rolls for the City of
I make no defence for the City of
I am concerned and I look forward to
comments tonight from some of the presenters and, perhaps, tomorrow morning about
whether or not we need to do this for 1992.
I note we are not only ratifying this year, we are ratifying next
year's, and I understand the reason behind that is the city has embarked upon a
committee. They are going to be looking
to the business community for some further advice on whether to stick with the
variable rate or move to a uniform rate or some combination therein. As I say, it has always struck me that that
decision had been made, but the city believes they want to take some further
time to consider it. In any event, I am
sure there will be comments from presenters tonight on that issue.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the city has assured
me and the minister has assured me that the successful litigants in this case
will not be out of pocket. I think that
is important. I do not say that we
should forfeit our jurisdiction to not remedy this situation, I do not say
that. We have a job to do and we are
going to do that and let the City of Winnipeg do its work, but had we not got
an agreement that the litigants, in this case the successful litigants, would
not be out of pocket, the message that would have been sent would have been
detrimental, in my view, to good order and justice in this province and that
is, do not bother taking on City Hall, because even if you win, the province
will just fix it up and you will lose.
Not only will you not get the damage awards or your taxes back, but you
will not even recuperate your legal costs.
* (1450)
That is the wrong message because in a
democracy we want people to challenge us as legislators. We want people to challenge City Hall and
determine whether or not we are within the law or not. That is the way it works. We want these litigants, even though we are
taking away their win, in substance, not to be out of pocket. That is only fair.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I am pleased to
indicate that I have discussed this with the minister, I have discussed it with
the mayor and received assurances on both fronts that the taxed solicitor‑and‑client
costs of the litigants in this case will be paid by the city. Believe me, I realize that some of the
counsel are expensive, but after tax I can tell you it is not going to be
anything near the amount that they stand to lose as a result of the decision. ‑(interjection)‑
Well, the minister asked if the NDP supports that, I am not sure. It may have something to do with the counsel
they use, and given that, I doubt it. In
any event, the commitment has been given and I think it is a wise one and it is
only fair.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I do want to raise the
flag on some other issues in the proposed legislation, albeit we have only had
a very few minutes to look at this final version. I want to thank the minister for his openness
in this process and for giving us a briefing on Friday afternoon on the draft
bill‑‑and that is my colleague the member for Wolseley (Mrs.
Friesen) and me. So I have had a chance
to look at and understand the gist of this proposed legislation. I see that there have been some amendments
flowing from the discussions we had Friday afternoon, and I welcome those.
I do note that the regulation provisions
still are very broad, and there will be some questions on that front. In particular, I flag for the minister (d)
which indicates that within the purposes, there still is the opportunity for
the Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council to make any regulations he
considers necessary or advisable. I
think that is pretty broad, especially given that, unusually, this is
retroactive legislation. Now,
retroactive legislation, the presumption is legislation goes from the day it is
passed forward; retroactive legislation is a very unusual and quite drastic
measure. It is not often that
legislators bring in a law and say, by the way it is applied in the past as
well as applying in the future.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Mr. Speaker, that is an extreme power that
we are granting, really, to the Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council
in this case, to rectify the situation.
We are going back to January 1, 1991, and essentially saying to all of
the people who have lived under a set of rules, we are fixing it up not only
for next year but we are retroactively fixing it for this year, and we are also
reserving the right to make any further changes back to January 1, 1991. I recognize there are some limitations on
that regulation‑making power, but I simply draw to the minister's
attention that I will have some questions flowing from that in the course of
this.
Mr. Speaker, again let me reiterate that I
believe, regardless of what one thinks about the Court of Appeal decision, they
are the highest court in the land. I
certainly, having read it, agree that their interpretation was the reasonable
one. I, having looked at the legislation
not knowing some of the prior discussions, have to say that it was pretty clear
to me from that legislation that we are moving to a uniform rate.
I do look forward to the city reporting
early on next year, hopefully, on what they want, because I think it is time
they told us what they wanted and were clear and then stood to it. If they want a uniform rate, they will need
no further amendments, because they will have to move to it in 1993. That is all we are doing. We are only changing for this year and for
next year.
If they do not want a uniform rate and
they want to go back to the variable rate, I think we are all prepared to
listen to their arguments, because we recognize the business community is split
on this. The Canadian Federation of
Independent Business wants to maintain a variable rate. Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce wants a uniform
rate. It tends to have to do with what
kind of businesses you represent. The
bigger the businesses, generally, the less you want a variable rate; the more
you want a flat rate.
Mr. Speaker, again, I do note that in the
initial legislation, we put in a transitional provision which gave all kinds of
leeway to put in a variable rate, in fact, for anything under 15 percent. We did that.
The city is essentially asking to reconsider whether or not we should be
moving to a uniform rate in the first place.
Mr. Speaker, for the time being, I and my
party are certainly willing to allow
them to do that assessment and have those committee hearings, but I do not join
completely with the comments of my friend from Wolseley, who indicates that she
believes that what the city has done and their procedures have been‑‑and
I am trying to remember her exact words‑‑a sensible and rational
approach.
I am not convinced of that, but I do
recognize that they have the jurisdictional mandate to embark upon this
process, and at least for the short term we should give them the leeway to do
that.
I also note, of course, that the comments
from the Member for Wolseley are consistent with the view that City Council is
just functioning fine and dandy and everything is working just great. I do not
agree; I do not think most Winnipeggers agree.
In fact, we do look forward to some changes at City Hall, but certainly
in this case, with respect to their taxation rights, we recognize their right
to embark upon this process and give us, one would hope, early on in the new
year, a final decision.
Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 35, The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act, Loi modifiant la Loi
sur la Ville de Winnipeg. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Committee
Changes
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
* * *
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Urban Affairs): On a point of House
Business, Mr. Speaker, just to make sure that everything has been done in
accordance with the requirements: that
the committee on Municipal Affairs will meet tonight at eight o'clock, by
leave, and again tomorrow if necessary.
Mr. Speaker: That is what has been indicated by the
government House leader (Mr. Manness), and the committee members will pick
their hours tonight.
THRONE
SPEECH DEBATE
Mr. Speaker: The adjourned debate, seventh day of debate,
on the proposed motion of the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), for an
address to His Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor in answer to his speech at
the opening of this session, and the proposed motion of the honourable Leader
of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) in an amendment thereto, standing in the name of
the honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose), who has 25 minutes
remaining.
Mr. Bob Rose (
If I may just digress first for a moment
in honour of our guests in the gallery, it is quite a comment on one family's
contribution to service not only the community but to the province as
well. I did not have the privilege of
working with the Harapiak brothers in this House, but I have had the
opportunity, in the last year and three months, to work with the current member
for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) and can say that about the only real thing I can
really find wrong with her so far is that she is a bit misguided in her politics.
I hope that sometime in the future the
province will take time to recognize the contribution made by this family. Perhaps that might take place at the next
provincial election when I am sure the‑‑we will have a new member
for
We were talking about the sledgehammer and
chain saw approach of the opposition to our economy, the sledgehammers of high
taxes and the chainsaws of unserviceable public debt. I think we had got to the point where we were
commenting on a presentation by the honourable member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock),
whom we said, among other things, that he was pointing out to us as
legislators, and in a larger sense, I guess, our citizens, the need to put
aside occasionally ideology and thoroughly examine our advantages and
disadvantages and our goals and our relationships. Interestingly, our political system, and I am
sure we all support our democratic system, is confrontational. As individuals,
most of us I think are not as hard‑line as we might appear, but the
inevitable contest of the next election dictates a confrontational style that
if it does not prevent, it at least discourages a true exchange of ideas.
You will have concluded from the earlier
part of my presentation that I am deeply and genuinely concerned with the
mounting debt load in our society. I
think back to the earlier part of this century when I am told‑‑I am
not that old, so I do not remember‑‑but the original theory of the
Social Credit in
* (1500)
A word of caution here to anyone who
should accidentally read this in Hansard sometime in the future. This is not thoroughly researched, but the
notion was at least that since money is created anyway, why not have at least
long‑term government assets financed without service charges, service
charges which will double or triple the cost of that asset. It was dismissed at the time as lunacy‑‑funny‑money
people they were called‑‑and I suspect will be regarded now as an
admission by the honourable member for
I freely admit to that, but I also believe
as the saying goes that I am standing at the end of a very long line, and maybe
it is time a few more of us understood our monetary system. Certainly, in the
vast private sector so necessary for our economy, capital has a cost and must
provide a return, but is that necessarily so for public sector hard
assets? The biggest competitor for
capital has become ourselves through government borrowing.
What would it do for our economy if that
large pool of capital, and it is there, had to search for a return rather than
wait for the next issue of savings bonds?
Totally off the wall, perhaps, but when we have a generally affluent
society steadily loading our descendants with obscene financial burdens, and
when we have what should be a respected national leader like the leader of PSAC
describing a desire to work in an obscene manner, then as I said earlier, it is
time to examine our institutions together.
On to a topic I know something about, Mr.
Speaker. There has been a great deal of
debate in the last 15 months since the election about our farm economy. During the campaign, there was a great deal
said about the need for safety nets.
Anyone who thinks the present situation is something that occurred
suddenly and only in the last couple of years has not been connected with
agriculture. There has been massive
federal government support through various programs for some time as well as,
more laterally, provincial support.
The problem with these so-called ad hoc
programs was that they were a response after the fact with no predictability
whatsoever and no program to smooth out the highs and the lows of farm
income. Only those people with short
memories and those agricultural people with the shortest of memories will have
forgotten the drought relief program, for example, an administrative nightmare
with some areas with no drought demanding part of the largesse and fields that
yielded well receiving payments and fields across the road with no crop and no
payments.
The GRIP and NISA programs were not
something devised in a hurry, but programs that were developed from ideas put
forth years ago. These ideas came from
four basic principles. Number one,
farmers generally preferred to make a living from the marketplace. I say generally because like any segment of
society there are a few who think otherwise.
The second principle was a recognition by farmers, generally, that price
times yield protection should be specific, like any insurance program, to individuals
not to areas or crops. The third
principle was generally the recognition of the need for a program to smooth out
the highs and lows. The fourth,
recognition that individual farmers cannot compete with the treasuries of big
countries.
Hence was developed the three lines of
defence to the threat to our agricultural economy. The first line, the marketplace. Incentives
are still very much in place for individual farmers to produce for profit. The second line is the GRIP, an insurance
program, farm specific, that guarantees a level of return regardless of price
or yield known well before spring planting; and NISA, an investment program
that allows producers to contribute to their own personal account, with
matching government contributions, building up their own fund to draw upon when
needed or upon retirement. The third
line of defence was a commitment by the federal government to provide further
assistance should it be required. It was
this third line of defence that the farm rallies were all about, not
inadequacies in the GRIP or NISA programs.
We should mention, and I suppose this is in recognition of the furiously
independent farmer, participation in both these programs is entirely voluntary,
unlike programs such as unemployment insurance.
Mr. Speaker, I take no credit for the
development of this entirely new and I think effective approach to our very
important farm economy. My contribution
was simply constant lobbying and encouragement during the difficult
negotiations between several governments and farm groups. I am proud to say that a year ago we had no
insurance program regardless of price or yield and now we do. We did not have an investment program to
smooth out the highs and the lows and now we do. We had no promise of a third line of defence
and now we do. I am proud to be part of
a government of action that has moved to substantially address, on a long‑term
basis, these substantial problems in agriculture.
It is not difficult to find critics of
these programs. Indeed we hear them regularly in this Chamber. Obviously, like my new garage at home that I
was referring to earlier that I built without total success, these programs are
not without fault. I would like to hear
some constructive ideas from the official opposition for a change instead of
trotting out that old pleasant sounding cost of production. That is the same pleasant sounding one as tax
the corporations, solve all our problems.
Whose production costs, I ask, will we
guarantee? The beginning farmer who may
have a $50 per acre interest charge before he ever picks up a grease gun or the
established farmer who owns his land and has no interest charge. Will the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr.
Plohman) let me have a big combine to harvest my crop in 10 days or will I get
a smaller one that will take 20 or 30 days to do the same job? Will I get to use liquid fertilizer which is
more convenient but more expensive or will my cost of production only allow for
the less expensive forms of fertilizer which may not be available in my own
area? Will his environmental critic let me use fertilizer at all or will we
solve all our global problems with mass starvation? Will the honourable member for Dauphin‑‑how
will he approach my weed control? Will
we use the costs of the general cheaper pre‑emerge chemicals or will we
use the more expensive post‑emerge?
Can I have a new truck to haul my grain to market on a regular basis
because I happen to live a little further away from my markets than some of my
neighbours?
Mr. Speaker, the list goes on. If cost of production is based on the
smaller, and not necessarily through any fault of their own, less efficient
producer, then the more efficient will grow fat and sassy on government
subsidies gobbling up the less efficient.
If it is based on something less than the cost of production of that
small less efficient group, are we to presume that the NDP consider them
unworthy of saving?
The honourable Leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Doer) admitted he does not fully understand the intricacies of farm
programs. I admire and encourage that
kind of candor from politicians. Perhaps it is what encouraged me to take a
flyer into the monetary system a few moments ago. I do hope though that he does not rely too
heavily on his Agriculture critic to gain an understanding. I would urge all honourable members and our
citizens as well to regard with suspicion the honourable member for Dauphin's
(Mr. Plohman) instant answers for producers teetering on bankruptcy.
As I said earlier, the farm crisis is not
new. I know from personal experience and
from experience through our farm supply outlet and from the surge of business
for the debt review boards during the mid‑'80s that many a good and
honest producer is not there any more, not necessarily going through bankruptcy
but the equally gut‑wrenching shutting down of the family farm. The actions of our provincial government at
the time are hard to comment upon because there were none. Sledgehammers and chain saws can be effective
too even when they are quiet.
Mr. Speaker, some honourable members in
their comments on the throne speech make remarks about what is not in the
throne speech. I would also point out
that there is something else that is not in the throne speech and that is the
sledgehammer of high taxes and the chain saws of increased and unserviceable
debt, the ones that make a lot of noise, that make the headlines, but instead
we have in the throne speech the building tools, the tools that take of the
builder and the tools that take time and the co‑operation, the
inspiration and the involvement of every citizen of our province.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents
of Turtle Mountain I wish to all honourable members and their constituents the
compliments of the season. Many of you
will be making travel plans, and I hope these plans include parts of
Thank you very much.
* (1510)
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to welcome
the pages to their new job, and I hope they enjoy their new experience here in
the Legislature. I hope that when the
decorum gets out of hand they will not be too discouraged.
I would also like to thank you, Mr.
Speaker, and my other colleagues here today for allowing me the opportunity to
speak on this particular day, because today is a very special day for me and
for friends and relatives of the Harapiak family.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few
words in Ukrainian, a copy of which I will provide for Hansard. I will also say that my Ukrainian is not
perfect, but I hope that those who understand the language will bear with my
errors.
(Ukrainian spoken)
(Translation)
My ancestors came to
this country in 1902. My grandfather,
John Harapiak, came first. He left the
Throughout the years my
parents wrote and kept contact with one relative in particular. Two years ago my brothers, Harry and Leonard,
and my father travelled to the
A few weeks ago, the
people of the
(English)
Mr. Speaker, we all know that the
We know that they are going to have an
impact on us as a country as well, Mr. Speaker.
Just this last weekend we heard that the Canadian grain sale may be
impacted on, and if that grain sale is put into difficulty, we, the farmers of
(Ukrainian spoken)
(Translation)
To my Aunt Tata, I hope
she can take back the memory of this Legislature and tell others that she has
seen democracy in action. We hope their
democratic system will work as ours.
(English)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me
those few words.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to now comment
on the throne speech as it relates to my constituency and my critic area. The Speech from the Throne was very
disappointing both to me as an MLA, a critic for Rural Development and a
farmer, as I feel that there was nothing new, no new initiatives to help the
rural community, just a lot of rehash of old ideas. I am disappointed that the government has
decided to leave everything, every effort of stimulating the economy, in the
hands of the private sector.
This government has a fixation with the
deficit, and is making no effort to stimulate the economy. If you really believe in the rural economy, I
believe that the government must show some leadership, and at this point we
have not had it.
Government must be prepared to invest. Government must be prepared to create jobs and
give the people the opportunity to work.
There is a role for a private sector, we do not deny that at all, but
government also has to have responsibility and show leadership.
When I first commented on the Speech from
the Throne I said that I was very disappointed, but there are a few positive
things that this government has done and I would like to comment on those. First of all, the Rural Development Bonds,
which I was very skeptical about, I want to congratulate the community of
Morden for the first success story. The
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) must be very pleased about that success story,
and the jobs that will be in his community.
I am pleased that the government has
followed the
If the government would take the
initiative to stimulate that economy, get some jobs into the rural community,
then there would be more money to invest, and that is really what we need‑‑more
money, more jobs, and then people will invest, and of course, there is a
spinoff effect from that. However, even
with rural development bonds, the government has a responsibility to show
support and leadership. I am very
disappointed that the government has chosen to just about cut out the
Department of Co‑operative Development.
Here is an area where we could have people who could do planning, offer
services to the people who are going to perhaps invest in these rural
bonds. On the one hand, they want people
to invest in bonds and into their own community, but they have taken away the
tools through the co‑op development department. I feel that is a mistake on this government's
part.
* (1520)
Mr. Speaker, another area that I would
like to commend the government on is the review of crop insurance, particularly
now, at a time when there is so much more happening through crop insurance, and
that is the GRIP program. All of the
details are relevant to GRIP and people have raised many, many concerns with
the data in the crop insurance that is being used, and I feel that it must be
reviewed. One area that is a concern is
that farmers who have had losses several years, a couple of years in a row
through no fault of their own, are being penalized in crop insurance and their
rate goes down and that must be addressed.
The one area that I have concern with crop
insurance, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that crop insurance agents are now being
asked to take a cut in pay. I do not
understand why this government is allowing the corporation to go ahead in this
direction when they are doing a review.
Would it not have made more sense to have reviewed the job of the crop
adjusters and the agents at the same time as they were reviewing the whole
package of crop insurance? Why is one
being split out from the other? That leads us to be suspicious of the motives
behind this cut in salary and per diems for the crop adjusters.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I recently had the
honour of attending the sod‑turning ceremony for the future Swan River
Personal Care Home, and I want to commend the government for going forward with
this project. I served on the Swan River
Hospital Board about eight years ago, and at that time, we were just starting
to deal with the personal care home and plans were well underway; however,
there were many difficulties within the community. People in the communities
could not decide where they wanted the beds. ‑(interjection)‑ If
the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) would listen to what I am saying, I am
trying to pay him a compliment. He
chooses to make fun of the former member for
I served on the Swan River Hospital Board,
as I said, and it was because the rural people had a dispute over where the
beds should be that the beds could not go forward. In fact, there are some very hard feelings at
the present time about where the beds are, the beds at Benito and the ones in
Swan River, but we as a community have put those behind us, and we are very
happy to see that there is going to be the additional beds in Swan River
because they are very much needed.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the
There is one issue I feel I must put on
the record and that is the GRIP program.
We have attended a series of meetings across the province and in the
Now I hear members across the way saying,
what is the cost of production; on whose cost of production. The Department of Agriculture has many times
worked out the cost of production for all commodities. There is the cost of production. People in the dairy industry have cost of
production, and nobody asks them whether their cost of production is going to
be based on how much they pay for a cow.
Why does it have to be based for a grain producer on how much they pay
for a combine? There are figures that
the government can come up with if they are committed to the cost of
production.
At the meeting in
I hope the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Findlay) will meet with Owen McAuley and talk about these things, because that
is the message people are giving him right across the province. They want cost
of production. They are also prepared to
look at capping, at the amount of money that goes to each farm instead of
having it open‑ended. Farmers are
seeing that this is another way of doing things. I hope the minister will talk to Owen McAuley
and take seriously what farmers are saying.
One area I was disappointed in, in the
throne speech, was the fact that there was nothing to address foreclosures of
farm land, to slow down the foreclosures of farm land. The Minister of Housing (Mr. Ernst) talked
about New Democrats not wanting the public to own anything, that our agenda is
for government to own everything. I
wonder what the Minister of Housing would feel about bank ownership.
We have hundreds and hundreds of acres of
farm land now being owned by banks. Is
that better? I think we have to look at
who is owning the land and what we can do to have the land stay in the farmers'
hands. What is it we can do to help
farmers keep their home quarters, because if we really do believe in the rural
community, if there is any commitment from this government to the rural
community they will take some action to keep farmers on the land, to keep
farmers working.
Every time one of those farmers leaves the
land, Madam Deputy Speaker, it impacts on our towns, in our businesses, our
schools, and our health care systems, everything in the rural community. This
government is not taking action to keep farmers on the land. They are not taking any action to stimulate
our rural communities, to create jobs, to help us keep our young people on the
land, and to keep our young people in small communities.
Many of our young people are off to
As I said, the forestry industry is very
important to the
* (1530)
If this government was committed to the
people of
We, on this side of the House, are not
preventing the environmental hearing from happening. It is in your hands. You have the power. What is happening, Madam Deputy Speaker, is
Repap is being allowed to hide behind this deal. We know that the people who are doing some of
the consulting have been told not to proceed too quickly, because they do not
want the environmental hearings to go ahead.
This government will not push for the hearings, because they have no
commitment to the forestry industry or to the people of
The other people who are very concerned,
Madam Deputy Speaker, are the small quota holders. I have written to the minister with regard to
this, because small quota holders must cut their wood every two years in order
to hold their quota. Some of the quota holders could not cut their quota last
year. Now the forestry industry is going to be shut down again. Are they going to be able to cut their
quota? What is the Minister of Natural
Resources (Mr. Enns) doing to protect these people who could lose their
quotas? Is this government at least a
little bit concerned about this group of people?
Madam Deputy Speaker, they tell farmers‑‑this
Conservative government, both federally and provincially‑‑that they
should take a secondary job to keep their farms going. As much as I disagree with that, I think
farmers should be able to make a living at one job just like everybody else
does. They tell us we should take a
secondary job, and then they take our secondary jobs away. Those jobs in the forestry are the secondary
jobs of farmers.
An Honourable Member: They need them.
Ms. Wowchuk: Yes, they need those jobs to pay their bills,
to pay their taxes.
Madam Deputy Speaker, another major issue
in the
People want to know what this government's
agenda is on co‑management. When
will co‑management happen? Who
will be involved? What resources are
going to be involved in co‑management?
This letter went to the Minister of
Natural Resources well over two weeks ago and, to date, we have not had a
response from him. We have seen good
examples of co‑management. We have
seen success stories, and I think the government has to be open and honest to
discuss this issue. Are they planning to
proceed? I would encourage the minister
and his staff to come to the
Madam Deputy Speaker, transportation is a
very important issue here in
We also have no mention in the throne
speech of the
Point of
Order
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Northern Affairs): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I would hope the member would not want to leave that on the
record that I think it is a joke. She
said, I wish the government would stand up for Churchill and I, in fact, did.
An Honourable Member: Yeah, I bet you did.
Mr. Downey: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, I take it very
seriously, and I would hope she would correct the record in leaving
misinterpretation on the record.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable minister does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Deputy Speaker, the
I would at this time like to commend the
people of Churchill for the tremendous work they have done. They have travelled to
Another issue that is important for rural
Manitobans is rural daycare. The Women's
Institute has made many recommendations to this government on how we could
implement daycare into rural
There are many aboriginal people in my
constituency. These aboriginal people
are waiting for the government to take action on the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry
report. There are many recommendations
which other members have raised that can be implemented very quickly and
without too much cost to government. I
would hope government would take those initiatives and start to take some
serious action in implementing some of those recommendations.
One of the points the government made in
the throne speech was that they were not going to increase personal income tax.
Granted, they have not increased personal income tax. They have taxed us through the back door
through the GFT in more ways than one. ‑(interjection)‑ They have
taxed us through the Gary Filmon tax, through the back door.
I would like to give you a couple of
examples of what this tax is doing to us and what it is costing us. This last year we had the offloading of roads
onto municipalities. I checked within
the department and they tell us that a kilometre of PR road to maintain is
about $2,000. That is the cost the
department uses.
When you figure out then if the cost is
$2,000 per kilometre and the R.M. of
An Honourable Member: Offloading.
* (1540)
Ms. Wowchuk: Offloading.
LGD of Mountain, the cost will be $26.46
per person in the LGD, well over $100 for a family of four.
Let us not believe that this government is‑‑they
may not be increasing personal income tax, but I think perhaps that is
something this government should look at.
Maybe we should be looking at a fairer tax system, a fairer personal
income tax system, where those who have the ability to pay can pay a fairer
share, those who make money can pay a fairer share and cover the cost rather
than taxing through the back door, as this government is choosing to do.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to
touch on the right to farm legislation.
I am anxiously awaiting to see what this legislation is going to
mean. Is it going to mean that farmers
are going to have to protect the land more?
What is it going to mean?
I believe the land has been given to us
and there is only so much land for us to use.
We have the responsibility of protecting that land for future
generations. We cannot abuse the
land. If this government is prepared to
look at protecting the land and having it there for future generations, that
would be good legislation. I have to say
that I am very anxiously awaiting the wording of this legislation.
Is this right to farm going to protect
farmers so they can continue to farm? Is
it going to protect the home quarter so bankers do not become owners of all the
land? What is this legislation going to
do? As I say, we have to also protect
the land for Manitobans, and we have to be sure that The Family Farm Protection
Act is not weakened so foreigners can own more of our land.
An Honourable Member: Where does your family come from?
Ms. Wowchuk: The member across the way asked me where my
family came from, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I think I made it quite clear to him earlier in the session that my
family came from the
Madam Deputy Speaker, education is
important to all of us. If our children are to grow, if our children are to
participate in changes in society and in new jobs, they must have the
opportunity to get a good education.
They should have that same opportunity in the rural areas as they do in
the urban areas.
This government, again, told us that they
were not going to increase taxes, but what they have done is offloaded costs of
education. Within the town of
The member across the way talks about
removal of taxes off farmers. Well, I
would like to tell him that in our series of meetings across the province there
is a real concern about what this government has done with farm taxes.
We were told, the recommendation was, that
the tax would go onto farm homes. It has
now gone onto all farm buildings. Farmers are feeling that they are doubly
taxed because the local levy can go on the land as well as on the buildings.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there are many other
issues that I would like to raise; however, I realize my time is getting very
short. I would like to take this
opportunity to say that as we come into this time of celebration, as we prepare
for the holiday season, let us each take the time to reflect on our good
fortunes and to give consideration to the many in this province who are less
fortunate than us, as I say, in this province and throughout Canada.
It is my hope that we, in this Chamber,
can all work together to raise the quality of life both in the urban centres
and in the rural centres, so that those less fortunate than us may have the
ability to better themselves. It is my
hope that as we gather during the next holiday season, they will have had the
opportunity to work, the opportunity for a better life.
To each of you, I would like to wish a
Merry Christmas and a happy holiday. To
those of you of Ukrainian background and to my aunt who is in the gallery, I
would like to say Veselykh Svyat i Mnohaya Leeta (Happy Holidays and a Long
Life).
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise to
respond to the Speech from the Throne. I
applied two tests to this speech, the first one, perhaps not a particularly
accurate one, but the weight test. This
Speech from the Throne is the lightest of any Speech from the Throne in my
tenure in this House.
Given that there are a certain amount and
number of pages that have to be dedicated to general comments in every Speech
from the Throne, the fact is, on the weight test alone, the substance in this
speech is woefully inadequate for the times, indeed reflects a feeling from the
government's ranks apparently that everything is on the rise, we are living in
essentially nirvana.
There is nothing in this speech which
addresses the problems this province is facing in reality. It is an unreal Speech from the Throne, and
in many respects, speaks more about this government by what it does not say
than what it does say.
The second test I applied was actually to
listen to it in the first instance and read it, and read it I did. As I say, the standard comments that are in
every Speech from the Throne were there, and that was a number of pages. What I was disconcerted to find was that when
it came to the alleged substance in the speech, indeed, it was the same drivel.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there is nothing in
this Speech from the Throne that recognizes what Manitobans are really going
through today in this province. There is
nothing which would give them hope for the future for themselves and for their
children, for prosperity in the coming year which we all hope for. It is indeed a pathetic effort at leadership
in this province.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to speak then
as much on what is in and not in the Speech from the Throne as about what I
envisage and what my party envisages as an agenda for the future. That is indeed, of course, what is left. There is really not much to comment on. You kind of have to fall back, and in order
to say something constructive come up with your own agenda. We, of course, in this party and in the other
party wish that we were leading the province.
We wish that, but we also recognize that the government is the
government, and they do have that responsibility, but increasingly by default
they are not governing this province.
They are not showing leadership.
The people of this province are
desperately, and I say that in all candidness and honesty, desperately, and I
believe that is the case in every member's constituency in this House, looking
for some hope for this province and for this country and some reason to look to
their children and say and think that their children might have a reason to
stay in this province. We are all
looking for that, all of us.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
* (1550)
The members from rural
It is not even whether or not we agree
with the ideas that are put forward.
That would be nice. It would be nice
to have some ideas to debate. There are
no ideas. They are just not there, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, specifically let me deal with
some of the comments which this government is staking, in the Premier's (Mr.
Filmon) words, his political reputation on‑‑the economy. He talks about the Tory agenda for economic
growth and development in this province, and let me go through a couple of the
things he says. He starts by saying, "My
government has identified
The other is, "The Department of
Industry, Trade and Tourism will also be restructured . . . ." I am astounded. Now, there is one we can really sink our
teeth into, Mr. Speaker. Then he goes
on, "In addition, my ministers will bring forward legislation to
restructure the Manitoba Research Council into the Manitoba Economic Innovation
and Technology Council."
That certainly gives comfort to the
massive numbers who are at Winnipeg Harvest at the food bank. Boy, that is a big one. They are going to see
a result from that by the end of the year, I can tell. Then he goes on to state: This is part of the overall approach.
Well, as a culminating group, that is some
agenda. They are going to do some
restructuring, set up some new committees.
That is the economic approach of this Premier (Mr. Filmon) that he is
staking his political future on.
Mr. Speaker, without exception, the
initiatives which are listed here, and I do not want to downplay that some of them
are extremely important and valuable. I
note the Grow Bonds is an idea that is reiterated. I note that there is a Rural Economic
Development Initiative program. I note
that there is an agreement on municipal water structure, Community Choices
initiative. There is not one of those
that we did not know of before. These
are all rehashing the same agenda, the same initiatives that we have had in the
past. There is nothing new. What I read
from this is that there really was not much to say, so they had to go back and
rehash this.
I had occasion to speak to at least one of
the members on the opposite side. He was
not a cabinet minister. I will not name
him because it may be embarrassing. I
essentially asked if he had written this speech on the way in that day from‑‑dictated
it in his car, and he agreed. I think
there are some members on the other side who themselves are recognizing that
this is a pathetic excuse for a Speech from the Throne in these economic times. I do have some hope for the individuals, but
I think it is time they spoke up in their own caucus ranks.
Mr. Speaker, I note that in Urban Affairs
there is an indication that‑‑well, actually there is not an
indication in the Speech from the Throne, but there has been an indication from
the minister that we are going to get a new Core Area Initiative at some point
or some form thereof. I had the pleasure
of attending some discussions recently with the Urban Futures Group, a meeting
with Mr. Simms and others. They have
illustrated to me and documented for me the pathetic‑‑again, I use
that word‑‑lack of consultation with the community on what is going
to happen to our core. In the Phase III,
there is no consultation at all. There
is no plan that when money comes forward there will be consultation with the
community. Essentially, this is going to
be a fund which is going to be politically directed, and that is inconsistent
with what we have done in the past with our tripartite agreements dealing with
the core in this city.
It is a step backward in terms of the
process we have developed which, I believe, is a model for other communities in
this country, around the world. It is a
step backward if we are going to take this behind doors to be politically
motivated. I fear that consistent with
this government's actions in the past that is where we are going. I point most notably, of course, to the Child
and Family Services agencies, which recently had the withdrawal of community
participation, turning it into a centralized bureaucracy more directly in the
hands of the political masters of the day.
I note that the Minister of Justice took the federal victims tariff,
refused to put it under the Victims Assistance Committee and yet kept it in his
own office for his own uses. He wants to
have control of those funds‑‑unlimited, unfettered control.
That is the pattern this government has
shown. It is a fear of community
participation. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because they fear having alternative views
come forward, competing concerns come to the fore. This is a government that has used its
majority, and would have used the minority if they had been allowed, but has
used the majority since coming into power to consistently eradicate people's input
into their decisions. They have gone out
of their way, when given the opportunity, to centralize power in the hands
again of the political masters. So it
really is not a surprise that this new core initiative is likely to have a
process which does not reflect community consultation, either at the outset
before it comes into place or when it is being worked out and the money is
actually being spent. It is
disappointing.
One thing I did forget to mention, and I
found this particularly humorous, was the heading on that portion of the speech. I think it does bear repeating. I have not heard other speakers point it
out. The heading is: Creative and new approaches to economic
growth. Mr. Speaker, that is some kind
of a sick joke. There is not a creative
idea in here, let alone new. I would
settle for new. Creative, I think we
could debate about. New would be
nice. There is neither.
Mr. Speaker, on the environmental front‑‑and
I have the pleasure of being the critic in my party of the Department of
Environment‑‑there is an indication, albeit briefly, that there is
going to be some movement on the various fronts that the government has already
moved on. There is nothing new again,
but there is an indication they are going to be moving towards the waste
reduction program, the agenda of getting to 50 percent before the end of the
century.
We all know how serious they are about
that, given the show of wastage last week in this House. I agree it was a small point. It was but one annual report, but it is an
indication of where this government's priorities are, where their thinking is.
Had they caught it, I am sure they would have done it differently, as the
Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Ms. Mitchelson) pointed out, but
they did not catch it. Do you know why? Because they are not really watching. They are not really concerned about
minimizing waste. They are concerned
about getting a nice press conference and getting nice coverage on the
agenda. When push comes to shove, they
do not take care of their own administration.
They are not trying to cut waste in their own administration, they are
talking about it. Anybody can talk about
it.
With respect to the environmental
initiatives I have put forward and will put forward in this session, I look
forward to some co‑operation from members opposite. I know they have partisan concerns,
obviously, but there are times when parties have come around to supporting good
ideas. I look forward to some co‑operation
from members opposite. I know they have
partisan concerns, obviously, but there are times when parties have come around
to supporting good ideas, and I look forward to some support on my
initiatives. I think they are common
sense. As I have said earlier, when I introduced those bills, they have received
a fair amount of support in the community.
I think they are a minimal attempt to strengthen The Environment Act in
the case of the mandatory environmental assessments and community participation
for Level 3 projects.
* (1600)
With respect to the legislation protecting
whistle blowers, I note that the New Democratic Party has belatedly come
forward with that same idea couched in the Environmental Bill of Rights. I
assume that with the Liberal Party having had that proposal on the books for
many, many months that they can only support our agenda and our bill, and I
look forward to their support.
With respect to the government, again it
does make sense, I suggest, that in cases like this where it is natural for
someone to fear for their employment relationship if they speak up against the
interest, perhaps, of their employer that they be given protection. We have it in place for Workplace Safety and
Health. It only makes sense that we
extend that to those blowing the whistle on environmental damage.
Mr. Speaker, it does not cost a cent. That is an idea that can protect workers
around this province, encourage them to come forward with knowledge that they
have about environmental degradation, and it does not cost us anything. It simply means that the law we have already
decided on and we have already put in place is going to be better
enforced. What more could we want? It is an effort to help the province enforce
the legislation we already have in place.
There can be no argument against that type of protection with any merit
from the government benches, and I look forward to them coming to that
recognition in a nonpartisan way for the betterment of environmental protection
in this province.
Mr. Speaker, we have also put forward The
Beverage Container Act. We have now been
through many, many years of a‑‑and I remember when the member for
Well, time has gone on, a few years have
gone by, and I think even the member for
The member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale)
indicates that even
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the
aboriginal concerns, I am no longer the critic for Native Affairs, but I have a
continuing interest, and I did note the restatement of the task force
indication that the government supported the inherent right to aboriginal self‑government. We, of course, do the same. We are glad, very glad, that the government
has taken that stand. I congratulate
them for taking that stand on the task force report. It is nice to see it reiterated in the Speech
from the Throne, but in terms of achieving any of the stated agenda of this
government on aboriginal reform, on really getting down to brass tacks and
actually improving the lives of Natives in this province through increasing
their control over their own lives, it is not there, Mr. Speaker. There is nothing there. The Aboriginal Justice report took three
years and $3 million and this minister stood up month after month, session
after session singing the praises of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry and giving
them the leeway and the appropriate financial support. We, of course, supported them and were glad
that they were taking that kind of initiative and that time and sensitivity.
My friend the member for Crescentwood (Mr.
Carr) reminds me of the Urban Native Strategy‑‑what Urban Native
Strategy, Mr. Speaker? The Aboriginal
Justice Inquiry, of course, was established under the former administration and
this minister, of course, before he had the report, before he knew what it
said, and before had to do anything, he was a big fan. He thought, these guys are doing a great
job. Let them do it. That was before he had seen a word. It was easy to say that. It is easy to throw a few bucks and buy some
time before push comes to shove and you actually have to do something.
He got the report and he kept it for a
month and it was the most enlightening illustration of what this minister is
all about, the day he released the report.
He did not have anything to say.
He came forward and handed out the report and he should have stopped
there because everything he said after that was nothing but short of
comical. He did not have one thing to
say about that report. He could not even
say that he was going to be establishing the aboriginal justice commission
recommended therein, which would not have required a commitment to any of the
recommendations, simply to a procedure of assessment and implementation. He did not even take that step, Mr. Speaker.
This report, it is increasingly clear, is
inching its way in the minister's office, closer and closer to either the
garbage but preferably for him probably the paper shredder. This minister has no intention, no real
intention‑‑it has become abundantly apparent‑‑of moving
on this report.
Sure, many of the recommendations are
dramatic and would we have it otherwise?
I suggest not, Mr. Speaker. We
wanted it to be dramatic. We wanted it
to challenge us. This minister said so
himself. We wanted it to push our
thinking further than it had ever gone before on aboriginal issues‑‑challenge
us, like the Berger report did so many years ago; change the way we thought and
the country was watching us. It was an
opportunity for
On the constitutional front, while I am
speaking about it, I do note that it is a critical time in this country's
constitutional history. I am very
interested. I was not obviously directly
involved as a member of the task force, but through the efforts of our
representative, the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Carr) and our deputy leader,
we were kept apprised of the developments.
We certainly appreciated that. I
feel, and I think members feel in our party, that we had a good opportunity to
participate in the discussions through him.
It is, I think, tempting to just let that
task force report slide and let other events overcome us in the ensuing
months. I happen to think that is a very
fine report. I obviously am not an
author of that report, but I happen to think it is a very fine report. I happen to agree with the principles enunciated
therein, by and large.
I think that it can serve a vital role in
this process, but it is up to our Premier (Mr. Filmon) to stick to his guns and
to advocate that report. He will be
condemned in this House, he can be assured, if he does not take that report as
his guide. I fear, Mr. Speaker, that
like the last time around, you are going to slip and slide on this. It is not a time to do that.
I had the pleasure of going down to
I must say that I came to the conclusion
that while there are some deep differences, I am not convinced that what the
press tells us the differences are, are really there. I think the differences, frankly, for me came
down to some of the issues that we both feel very strongly about, economic
issues, how the economic future of this country is going to be worked out. I sort of sensed that while the word "distinct"
has taken on religious connotations in Quebec, in reality most people, once
they can get over that, if we can ever sort of resolve that dispute, most
people are really concerned about maintaining a standard of living for
themselves and their children and having a sane and a charitable infrastructure
which will support health care and support the poor and provide for a good
education for their children. In
reality, they are not sure that the present structure serves those needs. Mr. Speaker, neither are we.
* (1610)
So I think that when you really cut
through a lot of the rhetoric and a lot of the passionate responses based on
cultural pride, which I do not discount, but I think that if we can get over
that hurdle and come to some resolution of those differences, we will find that
by and large we have the same concerns.
That was encouraging to me, Mr. Speaker, because it impressed upon me
that, on most fronts, we were really talking the same language. Whether on the surface it was English or
French, we were talking the same language about the issues involved and the
solutions we wanted.
Mr. Speaker, I note that the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) will be going to a First Ministers' conference on the economy. I wish him well. I encourage the Premier to listen because
maybe he can pick up some ideas from some of the people at the table. He does not seem to have any of his own. I do not say that there are going to be
people at that conference whom he may want to listen to, but it would be nice
if through some avenue he had some plans for the economic future of this
province. I do not see any. It is sort of the trickle‑down
theory. It is still there.
The trickle‑down theory is that if
you just let business free, you just let them go, eventually it will come down
to the people who need it. Jobs will be
created if you just let Adam Smith's invisible hand do its trick. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is based on premises
which at least 50 or 60 years ago went out the window, in particular, in the
1970s with stagflation. There was not a
reputable economist left who would seriously argue for Adam Smith's invisible
hand and this belief in the benevolence of capitalists in just letting their
money flow through to the masses.
I mean that just does not happen. I do not doubt the sincerity with which the
members opposite hold that view, but I ask them to look at reality and to look
at the fact that capital does not swear allegiance to any country or any
principle other than profit. It just
does not and you cannot expect it to. I
do not expect it to. It would be nice
but I do not expect the billionaires and the millionaires of this world to go
out and solve the social problems. That
is too much to expect of those people. ‑(interjection)‑ The
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) says, why not? Would it not be nice? Maybe he can point to one or two of them who
do that. I look forward to it, because ‑(interjection)‑
Yes, Peter Pocklington and some of those other corporate welfare bums.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, government has a
role to play in ensuring that there is some kind of equity in the distribution
of capital in this province. ‑(interjection)‑ You bet, I believe in
a mixed economy. The Liberals
constructed and have facilitated in this country the mixed economy for
decades. We are the architects of the
mixed economy. We understand the balance
necessary in the system between capital interests and the interests of the
people who actually do the work. We understand
that.
We know that there is a role for
government. We do not believe that
governments should go in and take over things like, say, ICG, and figure that
they can run it better. We do not say
that. We do not say government can run
things better. They do not, but they
have a role to play, primarily a legislative role, but also a role in certain
circumstances with respect to key economic sectors to play a leadership role.
Mr. Speaker, I see us retracting more and
more from that, and I do not believe it is consistent with what Manitobans
want. I think Manitobans are asking for
some leadership from government, and I note that unemployment is very high in
this province. The Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness) continually downplays that.
He says, no, no, we are doing pretty well comparatively.
The fact is, in September, 12,000 more
people were unemployed in
Mr. Speaker, before I finish, I want to
say that I think the most interesting, most significant economic story for
western
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to have
a conversation with some business people in
Well, my response to that would be that is
just fine, let them stay in
Crown Life was not forced to go to
The member for
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the coming
session because there has to be something more.
This cannot be it. There has to
be something to sink our teeth into, debate in this House. Some of those creative new ideas which we have
not seen yet. I look forward to this
government coming forward with some real ideas other than just passing the buck
to the private sector and hoping, praying that they actually let some of it
fall down to the people of St. James who need the jobs and who need the work
and who want to stay and who want their kids to stay in this province. Thank you.
Mr. Ben Sveinson (La
Verendrye): I would like to take this opportunity to
welcome back all members of the Assembly and wish them a very happy holiday
season.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to
rise today and offer my comments on the throne speech. First of all, it is nice to see you back in
your usual position. Also, I would like
to welcome back the Deputy Speaker and all the staff of the Legislative
Assembly. A warm welcome to our new
pages, and I am sure the time spent here will be an enriching experience.
I have sat through several Speeches from
the Throne as a member of this Legislature.
In sitting through the speeches, I have put myself or tried to put
myself in the shoes of the average taxpaying Manitoban. In listening to each party's opinions,
assertions and complaints and rhetoric from the other side of the House, the
* (1620)
Mr. Speaker, the only way to decipher who
is right is to examine the track record of this province. This province in the past decade has seen two
styles of government, the irresponsible NDP until 1988 and our government from
1988 on.
Let us examine the last 10 years of our
province's history in terms of deficits and debt creation. In 1981, the last year of the Progressive
Conservative Party before the Paulley government came to power, our provincial
deficit stood at $89.5 million; the following year, '81‑82, the NDP took
the deficit to a level of $251 million and this was only the beginning.
The next eight years saw the NDP take our
province into record debts: 1982‑83,
we witnessed a deficit of $434.6 million; in '83‑84, the province saw the
deficit again in the area of $428.9 million; the '84‑85 fiscal year saw
the deficit continue climbing to $482.5 million; the 1985‑86 year saw the
deficit rise to its highest point yet at $528.3 million, and yet it still rose
in the following year. In '86‑87,
we saw the NDP government continue its irresponsible spending and push the
deficit to $559.1 million.
Mr. Speaker, this period of time saw an
incredible increase in the spending patterns of government. Yet what else did we witness during the same
period, drastic increases in taxes and taxation powers. Between 1981 and '88, the NDP government in
The NDP also introduced the payroll tax
and then increased it by half. This tax
is probably the worst tax to introduce if a province desires to attract
industry or create jobs as the tax punishes firms for hiring people and
creating employment. Their actions were
under the pretense of taking from corporations and business to benefit the
workers of
Mr. Speaker, this is the action taken by a
party that professes to represent workers.
We also saw the introduction of increases in the retail tax that had the
effect of not only more than doubling the revenue received from the tax, but
also increasing the number of products that the tax was applied to.
There was also the raising of corporate
income and capital taxes. A new net
income surtax and a variety of other increases in taxes and rental rates. The effect of these tax increases is to
reduce the purchasing power of the average pay cheque, if not reducing the
average pay cheque itself, ultimately causing the consumer to spend less.
The NDP government also provided
disincentives to companies through the payroll tax and corporate taxes to
create jobs and invest in
Mr. Speaker, let us look at the
Conservative record since taking office in 1988. What I tried to do was to lay out what the
NDP had done, and now let us look at what we have done. I think that is quite fair.
The first noticeable effect was that of a
decrease in a yearly deficit from half a billion dollar range to the area that
can be more easily borne by a province.
This was detained through the introduction of better management in our
government.
Mr. Speaker, the deficit recorded in '88‑89
fiscal year was $141.3 million and $142.4 million in the year following. This represents a drastic change in the way
the finances of the province were managed, a change that was for the
better. The 1990‑91 year saw the
deficit increase to $283.4 million and $324 million in the 1991‑92
year. While the deficits have increased
in the last two years, they were the result of our government remaining
committed to the program that Manitobans need and want, while at the same time
protecting the taxpayer from increases in the tax burden during one of the
country's worst recessions.
Looking at our government's record on
taxes, I am proud that we have reduced taxes to families, small businesses,
farmers and we have frozen personal income taxes four consecutive years‑‑four,
absolutely.
Mr. Speaker, because of our commitment to
operating government in a more efficient and effective manner, we have been
able to protect the vital services Manitobans need and lay the foundation for a
stronger Manitoba and work with Manitobans to pull our economy onto the road to
recovery.
The NDP, now the official opposition‑‑you
can see how much of official opposition we have here today‑‑would
like the people of
Now that we have hit into the world
economic downturn and we need the money, we are faced with enormous interest
payments on that accumulated debt. Each
year the interest payment strangles our ability to offer more programs and
services, but we are trying.
The economic groundwork that has been laid
down by our government has slowed the rate of increase in the debt by
controlling spending and managing our resources responsibly. We will do more, as was put forward in the
throne speech.
The people of
Judging by the actions of the fiscal
responsibility‑‑and I use the term lightly‑‑by the NDP
in
Coming from a rural riding, Mr. Speaker, I
and my government are concerned about the shape of our province's farm economy.
The last decade has seen the flow deterioration of the farm economy to the
point that the farmers are now in an economic crisis. As a government, we have made the effort to
help protect the rural way of life and have worked with the farm community to
do what we can to diversify the rural economy.
Mr. Speaker, programs such as the Grow
Bonds and the decentralization are part of the means to help the rural
community remain viable. The farmers of
Our government's most important objective
is to win a cease‑fire in the international subsidy war that has pushed
the price of agricultural products beyond the costs of producing them.
Mr. Speaker, it has appeared that lately
some progress has been made in the GATT negotiations, and we can only hope that
through efforts of the Canadian government that the war will be stopped.
The GRIP and NISA programs have been
kicked around quite often by the opposition parties. I applaud any initiative to help our
farmers. Our farmers are mere pawns in
an international subsidy war beyond their control. Our farmers cannot, nor can we as a province,
fight a subsidy battle against the treasuries of the EEC or the
* (1630)
Our government has indicated it will
continue to support our farm families, and I will personally continue to
support them as an MLA in this Legislature.
Our provincial government recently carried their concerns directly to
Mr. Speaker, our government continues its
efforts to expand into new tourism markets through aggressive marketing
programs, alongside of industry partners and corporate sponsors. This industry has a vast potential, one that
Manitobans have become to realize and focus on.
By working in a partnership with the western provinces and territories
to establish occupational standards for the tourism industry, our province will
be better able to develop new opportunities and initiatives in tourism.
Mr. Speaker, a new Canada‑Manitoba
agreement on tourism will help to stimulate the development and promotion of
new tourism strategies that have international appeal. When Manitobans set out to accomplish
something, there is no competition. They
are the best. This year we saw the best
and largest Grey Cup celebrations, missed only by the Bombers in the final to
make it perfect. We were also the
meeting place of the World Curling Championships hosting visitors from the
world over in a festive event that is recognized as one of the best ever. This summer the World Junior Baseball
Championship was held in
Mr. Speaker, these events have one thing
in common. They were organized and
staffed by volunteers of the highest quality, Manitobans. At every event Manitobans turned out in force
to man booths, drive vans, drive tours and, in general, make all the visitors
to our province feel as if they had come into a second home. These Manitobans are our province's strength
and will be one of the reasons that
Mr. Speaker, I wish to mention several new
initiatives which have taken place in my constituency of La Verendrye. Education of our young people continues to be
a priority for our government. We
recognize that our young people are the future of our province. Even the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock)
recognizes the government's fine commitment to education in his reply to the
throne speech. I am pleased that the
member from across the way has the courage to stand in his place and applaud
our government for positive educational initiatives.
Our government has demonstrated its
continued commitment to education within my constituency by financing the
opening of three new schools. These new
facilities will provide for a system of education that can better meet the
local needs of the area and provide for increased school and community
population. A new kindergarten to Grade 4 school was built this fall in the
town of
The new school Ecole Point des Chenes was
built at a cost of over $3 million in the town of
The town of
Mr. Speaker, last year saw tremendous
growth in terms of local recreation facilities in my constituency. This July saw construction begin on a new
three‑sheet curling rink in Lorette. Our government provided part of the
funding through the Community Places Program.
This new curling rink will provide hours of recreation, recreational
enjoyment for the town of
Mr. Speaker, the town of
A little over a year ago, Whitemouth was
delighted to open a new hospital. About
the same time, Ste. Anne was finishing up a major renovation and addition to
their hospital. I would also like to
commend the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) for the vastly improved ambulance
services in rural and northern
Mr. Speaker, health care is a high
priority of our government. Our
government has reaffirmed its commitment to health care in this session's
throne speech. Our government is
committed to improving health care in this province by introducing the concept
of Total Quality Management within the health care field. Health care professionals will be encouraged
to work together with consumers to bring about reform of the health care
field. This will result in improved
services at a lower cost. I support a
more forward‑looking health care system, a people‑first
approach. All Manitobans should become
more aware and familiar with their health care options.
Mr. Speaker, our government is in
partnership with all Manitobans, urban and rural. As a rural MLA, I am pleased to see my
government's ongoing commitment to economic development in rural
Our community will work side‑by‑side
with Manitobans to assist their communities to attract business and create jobs
in order to further diversify the rural economy. Mr. Speaker, these grow bond corporations
will invest in local projects such as manufacturing, processing, tourism and
other industry developments within the rural communities. Our government has given Manitobans the
vehicle through which their communities can grow and strengthen.
All too often do we see more and more
Manitobans leaving rural communities.
Our government is committed to maintaining and enhancing rural community
living. Our government is committed to
job creation throughout
* (1640)
We all, indeed, must work together to make
this economy grow, but let us be cognizant of the fact that we live in a
country with one of the highest standards of living in the world. Mr. Speaker, we must remember, God has smiled
on us in many ways. At a time when other
countries are breaking apart, we must admit to each other that we love our
country and are ready to shoulder the responsibility of getting the nation back
on track.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that Canadians will
come together for good of the country during the constitutional talks. They will put aside the partisan views and
work towards an agreement which will unite this country instead of dividing it. I have confidence and pride in the people of
Mr. Speaker, it is time for some of the
members of this House‑‑I am referring to those across the way‑‑to
realize that governments can no longer buy their way out of a recession. Our government has begun to build a stronger
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to welcome the
opportunity to be back in session and the opportunity to put a few comments on
record.
First of all, I would like to welcome
everyone back, because I feel pleased to be back in session. Also, I look forward to your fair judgment
that we have always experienced in this House.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the clerks and the Hansard
staff for all the assistance that they have provided. Well, I have asked for some instructions, and
they have provided a lot of help to all of us members here. Also, I would like to take this opportunity
to welcome the new pages that we have.
In the last few days I have seen how hard they do work and the
commitment they have, and so I would like to thank them for that.
Some of the areas that I would like to
touch upon in the next little while are the whole aspect of drugs and alcohol
abuse, and also about the AJI report; I would like to touch on that a little
bit later. Right now I would like to
discuss some of the individuals that reside and work and make their homes in
the constituency of Point Douglas that I am honoured to be representing. As you are aware, Point Douglas is a very
high needs area, and almost anything that reflects positively or negatively in
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
Point Douglas is a very interesting
community, because we have a diverse people of many races there. We have a lot of aboriginal people and Chinese
and Filipinos. In fact, just on the
weekend, I was at a new chapter of the Boy Scouts that they were celebrating,
and they had just opened. It was a Boy
Scout troop of young Chinese boys and girls.
I think that shows the diversity of Point Douglas and also the many
issues and hardships that people do face.
One of the things that we see, we hear, we
read about over and over again, is the many problems with drugs and alcohol and
prostitution that take place in the constituency of Point Douglas. We had a couple of demonstrations already to
try and get a community corner store to stop selling abuse substances out of
that store. We picketed, demonstrated it
twice already, and yet that corner store always comes back and starts selling
because they make a healthy profit. That
is why I feel very disappointed when this government has not proclaimed Bill C‑91.
Even if you talk to the Winnipeg Police, they have said many times that if they
would only proclaim this bill, it will give us some authority to lay some
charges. I have no question to doubt
what they say because they work in that field and they know what they are
talking about.
We have seen where a lot of people of
Native ancestry right across
I speak from experience. Fifteen years ago I went through Ste. Rose du
Lac treatment centre myself. I was there
for 28 days and the facilities we had there were great. We had nice beds; we had nice meals; we had a
shuffle board; we had a pool table; and we had lots of activities to do. Mr. Acting Speaker, the only form of
recreation the people who are at Pritchard House have access to is what the
staff has donated to the residents of that treatment centre. The staff, who are paid, have had to donate
money out of their own pockets, out of their own wages, to purchase a TV set, a
VCR and they even had to take out of their own pocket to purchase simple games
such as checkers and snakes and ladders and that kind of thing.
I do not think that is a proper funding
formula for aboriginal people, because we hear of other treatment centres that
are well‑funded. They even have
access to outings. I know that the
residents there do not have the funds to do that. I hope the government, in its wisdom, will
look at and maybe have a little tour of Pritchard House and look at if there is
a possibility of at least giving adequate funding to deliver adequate
programs. We all know that the only way
to overcome a lot of the hardships and problems that individuals face is
through education and treatment centres.
Also with the community in Point Douglas,
when they rallied together and asked for help with prostitution problems in
Point
That is only a short‑term
solution. I think we should really look
at a way to fund and assist the prostitutes in
There are a lot of children who are there,
young children. They are even as young as nine, ten years old. We all have families, most of us in this
Chamber, and I think it is about time that we address the problem, look at
solving it and not to try and push it into other neighbourhoods and other communities,
because that is all we would do if we start enough harassment in the area. They will move to some other community. I think we should look at what causes
individuals to resort to those types of activities. A lot of it can be overcome through education
and training and hopefully, when times are better, additional funding formulas
for treatment centres and for people to get educational opportunities.
* (1650)
The whole key to the population and for
people to get into careers and employment opportunities is in the area of
education for the future. We know that
it costs a lot of dollars, but we have to look at the whole concept of career
opportunities for individuals. We, right
now and in the past, always look to the European market to recruit our
engineers, electricians, tradespeople and technicians, but as you are all
aware, in 1992, the European Economic Community will come into effect. What that means is that a lot of the
individuals who have the marketable skills will have the freedom to be employed
anywhere in
That is what is happening right now, where
Mercedes Benz, which is one of the big auto manufacturers over in Europe, is in
If you looked at the reports that have
been produced, it says within 20 years, 40 percent of the work force will be
aboriginal people. That is why we have
to look at the opportunities now to start recruiting and supporting the
colleges and universities to make sure that we have adequate numbers of
aboriginal people trained to be employed when that need arises.
We talk about aboriginal self‑government. Whenever that comes about that also will give
a lot of aboriginal people the opportunity for careers and employment
opportunities, if they have the skills.
That is going to be the key, if they have the skills. That is why when we hear cutbacks at the
Winnipeg Adult Education Centre and the ACCESS program I think that is setting
the clock back.
I think we have to look forward to the
future, and the only way that can take place is if we have governments that are
serious, that are very serious and address the aboriginal problems and the
aboriginal wishes.
I have heard members of the government
state that, oh yes, we support aboriginal people, we will work with aboriginal
people and we will do whatever we can to ensure that aboriginal aspirations are
achieved. I say, as an aboriginal person,
that you get tired of that rhetoric over and over again, because if the
government was serious about addressing aboriginal needs and aboriginal issues,
you would not see cutbacks in budgets that directly affect northern and Native
programs.
We saw Keewatin Community College; it had
no increase in funding in year '91‑92, and if you look at Keewatin
Community College records in The Pas, you will see that there is a high number
of aboriginal people enrolled in those programs. A lot of those individuals who graduate from
those programs go back into their own home communities for employment
opportunities. I mention again, that
when we achieve aboriginal self‑government these individuals will have
many, many more opportunities for employment.
Then we saw a 10 percent reduction in the
Native education programs and also we saw the elimination of the Northern Youth
Corps programs and a lot of the youth that were employed in the summer months
with this program were young aboriginal people who were out of school for the
summer. If you have had the opportunity
to live in one of these remote northern communities, and I do not know if any
of you have, but if you have I am sure some of you have visited some of those
communities. It is very hard even for
the adults to get employment opportunities.
This was a means for the youth to try and save enough money to go back
to college or university or give them a little bit of spending money to tide
them over.
Also, we saw a cut in the aboriginal
development program. Northern Affairs was cut by $2.5 million or 10 positions;
ACCESS and New Careers were reduced by $1.6 million; Native Media Network, the
grant was totally withdrawn; Northern Association of Community Councils, the
grant was reduced. We hear in this House
that we have asked the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) time and time
again about the issues pertaining to aboriginal people in
The other things that affected aboriginal
people directly was the nonfunding of the Winnipeg Education Centre. That was a training institution that trained
a lot of visible minorities and a lot of aboriginal people for professional and
semiprofessional areas. There were
teacher training programs, social workers, and there was a commitment by Core
Area Initiative to put $500,000 into building a new facility which is badly
needed. Now I do not know what will
happen. I guess we will not see one,
because there is no new Core Area Initiative agreement yet.
That is the kind of rhetoric that I know
my colleagues Greg, Elijah and Oscar‑‑we are getting very tired of
it, as are all aboriginal people in
For instance, if you take an isolated
community of Sherridon and if you are a parent and your child says to you, I have
a real bad stomach ache. Oh, I have a
lot of pain in my stomach. What is
it? Is it appendix or is it gas? If you are employed at a minimum rate and you
do not have a lot of dollars in your pocket, are you going to dish out that $50
to send your child out to make sure that it is only gas and not an appendix
attack? I do not think so. What is it going to take before something
happens to someone, and then you will have all the communities crying and
saying, hey, that was a bad mistake in the first place. That is the kind of stuff that I call
rhetoric by the government.
I would just like to get on to the next
phase where the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) was being questioned by our
Leader the other day. It was very
unfortunate where the Minister of Justice when he was responding to the AJI
report, and I quote here from The Globe and Mail on Saturday, August 31,
1991. It is not our Leader or myself
saying it. This is a quote from The
Globe and Mail. If they are wrong, then
maybe someone should get a retraction from The Globe and Mail, because a lot of
aboriginal people across
* (1700)
It said right in here: on a radio call‑in show yesterday, Mr.
McCrae said the final report of the inquiry is merely the opinion of two
individuals, the two judges who headed the inquiry. It is right here in The Globe and Mail. I hope he looks it up and makes a phone call
to The Globe and Mail if his comments are not accurate, because it has upset a
lot of aboriginal people like a lot of my circle of friends, and some of our
other aboriginal members here are aboriginal individuals, and we do discuss a
lot of things pertaining to us.
It was not a very fair comment, as one of
the members that produced that report is an aboriginal individual. It is not only a report by two
individuals. It is a very well thought‑out
report and a lot of aboriginal people will follow the recommendations of this
report to the letter, and we are waiting for it to be implemented.
I, as a person, am very surprised. When we had the Pedlar report‑‑and
this is not knocking the Pedlar report.
I will make it very clear, I support the Pedlar report. I think it is an excellent report. I commend the government for immediate action
on that report, but when I draw the differences of the Pedlar report and the
AJI report, I wonder what happened. The
government was so quick to implement, I think it was, 40 recommendations from
the Pedlar report.
An Honourable Member: Forty‑six.
Mr. Hickes: Forty‑six recommendations, the minister
says, from the Pedlar report, but how many from the AJI report? We never heard an implementation of one. There is no implementation on behalf of the government,
when it was released that same day. What we heard was, we will look at it and
we will discuss with agents, we will discuss with organizations, we will
discuss, we will study further. Well, is
that not enough studying?
The one good thing that was implemented
out of this report, and I am glad to see it, was to do with the child
protection. That is a very, very positive step.
The other things that we, as aboriginal people, look forward to this
government implementing in, hopefully, the very near future, because it has
been on a shelf somewhere for quite a while now and I think it is long, long
overdue.
I would just read some of the
recommendations of the report and you judge for yourselves if you think those
recommendations warrant action. We, on
this side of the House, especially our aboriginal members even more so,
strongly recommend immediate action.
It says, recognize the reality of
aboriginal self‑government through legislative resolution and work with
the federal and other provincial governments toward the constitutional
amendment recognizing that. Where is
that at? We have not heard a thing about
that.
Recognize the right of aboriginal
communities to establish an aboriginal justice system and work toward the
implementation. Where is that at? We
have not heard a thing about that.
Enact legislation that recognizes the
right of aboriginal people to establish their own justice system and recognizes
their jurisdictional authority to enact their own laws. We do not know where that is at; we have not
heard a thing.
That is dealing directly with provincial
responsibility. We do not need
permission from the Prime Minister to implement some of these changes.
An Honourable Member: These are the ones that you are
supporting. Am I right?
Mr. Hickes: We support all the recommendations in
here. These are some of the ones I am‑‑
An Honourable Member: I support all the 293 recommendations.
Mr. Hickes: I would not say all of them, but these are
the ones I am dealing with today.
Make provincial grants to the City of
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Through the Manitoba Police Commission,
develop standards for all aspects of policing in nonaboriginal communities in
Manitoba, ensure that nonaboriginal police forces, their officers attain and
maintain appropriate standards of recruitment, training, professional
development. We have not heard anything
on that yet. I do not know when we will.
Amend The Summary Convictions Act to
remove the authority of judges or of magistrates to impose incarceration for
failure to pay a fine, except where the individual willfully refuses to do so
after a show cause hearing. Now that is
something that could be immediately put into place.
Abolish the fine option program and in its
place establish a fine and restitution recovery program, patterned after the
Maintenance Enforcement program. That is
very simple to do in a community where, if a person breaks someone's door or
breaks someone's window, make that person fix it. There are a lot of people who are very, very
handy with their hands and can fix this and fix that. That is all that is asking.
Assist aboriginal communities in the
establishment of regional aboriginal probation services. Provide more safe homes or shelters in each
aboriginal community. I think that we
today are hearing a lot more discussions on that topic. There is a conference going on right now at
the Convention Centre and there are aboriginal leaders there. There are people from all aboriginal
representation of the communities. Those
are some of the things they are addressing right today. Why are they addressing that? It is because they are probably taken from
the AJI report and saying, where is the action?
We have heard a lot of talk, but where is the action? I am sure that is exactly what they are
discussing over there.
Encourage and provide sufficient resources
to expand to other aboriginal communities throughout the province, the method
of dealing with abuses that has been developed and is used by the Hollow Water
resource group. There is already an
organization in place. You could just
borrow the model. You could transfer it
to other communities. There is no need
to study that. If it is working, why
study it further? Implement it where it
is needed.
Establish local open custody facilities
where the offender can work and attend school, counselling or other programs
during the day. We see, around the North,
where individuals are taken right from their communities‑‑say, for
example, Shamattawa. Individuals are taken right from Shamattawa, brought to
Ensure aboriginal women are involved in
all aspects of the provincial justice system, from local court administrators
to program developers and directors. I
know that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General (Mr. McCrae) will be
looking at that very seriously.
An Honourable Member: We are already way ahead of you guys.
Mr. Hickes: I am glad to hear that. I wish you would make some announcement, so
we know, as aboriginal people, yes, you are taking the report seriously and you
do mean well when you say, yes, we will help the aboriginal people.
From all the cuts I just read earlier,
that is not the indication that a lot of the aboriginal people are getting from
the government. If you have some
positive announcements, please make them.
We will welcome them. We will
assist you in any way we can to make sure that the aboriginal community
knows. Even if you want to get all the
credit, it does not matter. It does not
matter who gets the credit, as long as the people benefit from it.
I will tell you, engage aboriginal staff
in correctional institutions in numbers at least proportionate to the
percentage of aboriginal people in the province. That is one area that I was very fortunate to
be involved in. It would be a good 11
years ago. I was working with New
Careers at that time. I was a trainer co‑ordinator,
and I had the opportunity to be part of the adult correction trainee program,
where there were aboriginal individuals trained in Headingley remand centre,
Brandon, Dauphin, Bannock Point and
* (1710)
It was a funny thing because the summer
that I was out campaigning, I knocked on a door‑‑this is 10 years
after these people had taken this training opportunity‑‑and it was
an individual who had taken this training program. We recognized each other, and we were very
surprised. We started comparing what
have we done, where have we been, and we talked about the other people who were
on the training program. Out of the 12
graduates, this is 10 years later, this individual knew positively that there
were still nine graduates working in the field of corrections of aboriginal
ancestry out of that training program, which was very, very high.
From our experiences, when individuals
were training and working in the area of corrections and in the penal systems
across
Also, there is a little experience that I
would like to share with you in a minute‑‑when it says ensure that
recognized elders and other aboriginal people attending correctional
institutions for ceremonies or spiritual purposes have access to those
institutions and be permitted to bring with them items of spiritual
significance on the same basis as chaplains who are recognized under the
Corrections Department's chaplaincy program.
I will share the experience with you that
I had only a couple of months ago. I was
invited to go to Stony Mountain Penitentiary.
My colleague from Rupertsland also was invited, and we went. When we were on our way there, we came across
the picket because there was a PSAC strike at that time. The security guards were picketing, so we joined
the picket for a little while and then we went up into
The elder was there. The elder called me aside and said, George,
can I speak to you for a minute? I said
sure, so I went over and I spoke to the individual. Do you know what he said? I do not understand. I am an elder. I have been coming here for quite some
time. He said, you know the security
people who are walking that picket line are guards in here. They know who I am. They have seen me. He said, you know when I tried to drive
through, they started shaking my car, pushing it, banging on the hood and
everything else. He said, I am an
elder. That is the whole point. A lot of those individuals do not understand
the importance of elders whether they are in communities or whether they are in
institutions.
An elder is at the same level of respect
by aboriginal people and, hopefully in the future, by nonaboriginal people as
it says right in here, as a chaplain, a reverend, a father. It should be at the same level of respect, no
different, no more, no less. The only thing is that a lot of ministers wear a
collar so they are easily recognized, I guess.
These correction guards knew who the individual was.
An Honourable Member: Why were they doing it?
Mr. Hickes: Because they thought he was crossing the
picket line.
An Honourable Member: Oh, they were on strike.
Mr. Hickes: Yes, they were on strike but they treated him in
a different manner than the chaplain and the reverend, the clergy, that were
going through. As soon as the clergy and
the chaplain would drive through, they would step back and let them go through
because they were men of the cloth. An
elder is held at the same level of respect and should be by all
individuals. That is only because people
are not educated and really do not understand. That is the only thing.
The other interesting point that was made
when we were there, the inmates were all lined up at this table and they asked
us to stand behind them to show our support, so we did. There were six inmates who were addressing
the AJI. When we showed up, there were
only five. There was one empty seat. They continued on with their address to the
press. All of a sudden about an hour
later, this one individual came, sat down and said I would like to apologize
for being one hour late. He said the
reason I was late is because I was at my probation hearing. He said I have been in here for 12 years. I guess that would be a very important
meeting for the individual to go to when you have been in there for 12 years
and you get a chance for a probation hearing and hopefully get out.
Someone said well, how did you do? He said they would not give me my
probation. He said, how come? He said I will explain it. What he said was through the spiritual and
culture program that they have at
If you follow the teachings of the elders
and follow the spiritual culture values of aboriginal traditional ways, you do
not have a need to abuse alcohol or abuse the drugs. It is like the AA program. It is like the Bible. That gives you a path in life for you to
follow which would be a good straight narrow path. That is what it is doing. There are people here in this Chamber who
belong to different churches, but yet when you follow your teaching, whether it
is Anglican or Protestant or Catholic, what have you, if you follow that path,
you will not have any problems with drugs or alcohol or be incarcerated. Would you? ‑(interjection)‑ Yes,
that will be the same.
So that is what that is. That is a guide in life. That is what this individual was trying to
tell the parole board. The AA program
works for some people, and a church will work for some other people. The cultural spirituality program will work
for some other people. That is the point
the individual was trying to make, but they did not understand it. So that is why he was denied probation just
on that one point, because they said you have not done anything about your
alcohol program. As soon as you are out,
you will be back at it, I guess. So that
was their belief, because they did not understand. I could go more about the AJI report, but I
think the point is made.
One of the big things that the minister
and the government really, really should look at is having judges travelling
and flying to circuit court with the counsels and the police and stuff like
that, because as soon as they arrive in a community, the people figure, well,
they have already talked this all over and I am going to get it. Whether it is true or not is not the
point. It is the perception that the
people have. I think it is very, very
important that that issue is addressed.
Also in the communities‑‑like
I was in the community of Churchill. We
used to get the legal people when they came up there; they were there just for
the court session and bang gone. If you needed a lawyer, you had maybe 10
minutes to speak to the individual and they went in and represented your
case. Well, that is not much of a
representation when they really do not even understand why you are there, the
circumstances surrounding it. I do not think it is a very fair system for the
individuals.
* (1720)
I am not saying this in negative
fashion. I am saying this in a positive
fashion, that the government has to act to show the people, yes, we are
serious. It is not more rhetoric. That is what we are asking. The minister knows and the Minister of
Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) knows, the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae)
knows, you know, like the fisheries and the migratory bird laws to be amended
to recognize aboriginal hunting rights. We have some people that will enforce
it, other people will not enforce it and aboriginal people they do not know
where they stand. Enforce something and
make it right for the people.
We talk about aboriginal people, and also
you have to look at the whole contribution that the North has made to
Also the communities that are along the
bayline, along that Churchill route, they also need to have their groceries,
their mail, and without a road you will not be able to address those
communities and make those communities‑‑I am glad to hear that the
government is serious about addressing aboriginal issues. I say show us, that is all we ask.
Also when you look at the North, another
announcement that would greatly benefit the northern communities, and
communities in the south, was in the throne speech, the whole thing on
tourism. Tourism is an excellent idea
and we will get a lot of tourist dollars flowing if we could lower the dollar
and eliminate the GST. That is what is
hurting tourism.
I would like to add a few more, but I am
out of time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I
am pleased, as usual, to join in the debate on the Address in Reply to the
Speech from the Throne, and to offer my thanks to the Lieutenant‑Governor
for his reading of the Speech from the Throne, and perhaps at the same time to
offer a word of thanks to His Honour and Mrs. Johnson for the fine service that
they have rendered to their fellow Manitobans, and to wish them well in the
future.
I cannot really speak on a throne speech,
Mr. Speaker, without again referring to yourself and the good work that I
believe that you are doing in the discharge of your duties. I believe all honourable members in every
corner of this Chamber would agree with me when I say that you bring dignity
and a sense of fair play to your office and to your work. It is much appreciated and helps ensure the
smooth conduct of the business of this place.
I join with the others in welcoming the
new pages and the new interns to our operation here on
I also join with the others in calling
attention, as the Speech from the Throne did, to three significant events in
our province dealing with football, curling and baseball. While I certainly offer my congratulations to
all of those in the city of Winnipeg who have taken part in making these things
such a success, I also send my thanks and congratulations along to the good
people of Brandon who again came through and did such a fine job in putting on
the World Youth Baseball Championships last summer.
Incidentally, I am pleased to be part of a
government that played a role in developing the facilities in
Speaking of
Representing a constituency is a
formidable task and one which requires help and co‑operation from one's
colleagues, because when we want to achieve something for our community in our
democratic system, it means we can only achieve those things with co‑operation
from others who all have claims to make on the provincial treasury or on the
human resources of the province. I am
grateful to my colleagues for the co‑operation I have received in
representing my community which to me of course is an extremely important
community. I also suggest it is
important to many other people not only living in Brandon but people who live
within a wide radius of the city of Brandon and who use Brandon as a referral
centre and as a centre for various other endeavours.
That is why I am so pleased with the
Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) in the way he has
directed attention towards my community when it comes to highway construction
activities. That is why I am pleased
with other ministers of our government who have worked diligently to ensure the
Keystone Centre project is underway and promises in the future to be a very
successful centre.
I speak as a former director of the
Keystone Centre when I say this. I am
delighted that the government of Manitoba and the federal government and, of
course, local people in Brandon have such faith in the Brandon community that
they would put in so many dollars to the renovation and to the expansion of
such an important facility for the cultural and agricultural life of our
community.
I am also pleased that the government I represent
and the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and the Alcoholism Foundation of
Manitoba have all come together and made plans for the future of the foundation
with the construction of a $1 million facility in the city of Brandon which
will provide treatment to people who need it as well as house administrative
functions of the foundation, something which, unfortunately, honourable members
opposite took quite a different position on in the past. Only through the good work of members on this
side, at that time in opposition, were we able to talk sense into the then
Minister of Health, the Honourable Larry Desjardins who made the right decision
ultimately, and the Alcoholism Foundation of Manitoba maintains its operations
in the city of Brandon in new facilities.
I am also pleased with the co‑operation
that has happened with respect to waste‑water treatment in our city of
In the area of the Justice department, I
remain pleased in spite of accommodation needs in the city of
* (1730)
I look very much forward to the extension
and the expansion of the family violence court concept to the city of
I am proud of the community effort that
was put into letting the federal government know the feelings of southwestern
Manitobans about our Canadian Forces Base located at Shilo. I am proud of the progress we have made thus
far, but I would remind all honourable members, and I thank also the member for
Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) and the honourable member for Crescentwood
(Mr. Carr) and others who were involved in making the federal authority in this
country know the importance of the Shilo base to Manitobans, and specifically
southwestern Manitobans. I remind all of
those people that the battle‑‑if I can use that expression‑‑is
not necessarily over and that we must be vigilant to ensure that the facility
at Shilo remains and, if possible, is expanded to provide the services that
Manitobans need for times of civil necessity, but also because of the
employment that base generates and the economic spinoff that it generated for
my community of Brandon and the many other communities in southwestern
Manitoba.
While I am talking about how proud I am of
the effort, I would like to single out, certainly not to exclusively single out
anybody, but I believe that the mayor of Brandon Rick Borotsik worked well with
all of the rest of them with regard to the Shilo issue. Now I wish him and our economic development
board and Tom Wilson, its director there in
I know that the government of
I commend those community leaders involved
in those endeavours. I wish them well
and spur them on to continue to work as co‑operatively as they have with
this government here in
I do not mean to be partisan, but I think
I should take a moment also to congratulate the constituency organizations for
the Progressive Conservative Party in Brandon East and in Brandon West. Again this year they have put on an annual
fundraising breakfast. The proceeds from
that fundraising breakfast will go to the Christmas Cheer Board. I think that is commendable for a political
party to do a thing like that. I am
pleased that it is happening in
I thank those involved in the organization
of these breakfasts. It is getting to
become a tradition and a tradition that is not uncommon in the city of Brandon,
which brings to mind citizens like Rocky Addison in the city of Brandon who
annually now‑‑and it has become a tradition with Rocky as well‑‑puts
on a dinner on Christmas day for people in the Brandon area who are less well
off than others and who turn out in large numbers and appreciate that effort
and enjoy a wonderful Christmas dinner put on by Rocky Addison and his family
and those associated with them. I
commend them for that. Just to say on
behalf of all those people who do enjoy what they do, they are certainly acting
in the best traditions of the people of
Mr. Speaker, the throne speech talks about
a number of things, but certainly one of the key things in the Speech from the
Throne is the message that the honest kind of fiscal management that has been
the hallmark of this government over the last three and a half years
remains. The Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) has a firm hand and an honest hand, and he is willing to be quite
straight and honest with the people of
He is not the kind of person who is going
to candy coat a message that is not particularly pleasant. He does not fool around with rhetoric like we
have seen in the past before he came along.
When he talks about taxes, he does not talk about revenue‑raising
initiatives, and when he talks about deficits he does not use some other kind
of flowery expression that other administrations have used in the past to try
to cover up what the real truth is. I
have to say, I think people want that kind of approach.
Not all the news is good, and there is no
point in trying to make bad news good, because we always get found out, do we
not? We always do seem to get found out, as honourable members opposite learned
so dramatically in 1988. In some ways I
do believe honourable members opposite are beginning to recognize that there
was a lesson to be learned.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) on
a few occasions has acknowledged that, yes indeed, there were one or two little
errors the previous government made. Our
aboriginal friends will tell you that there is no way you can get off unless
you recognize that there have been some shortcomings in the past. We have all had them, so there is no need to
be ashamed of such things but to get on.
Instead of trying to live in the past and trying to wish that things
were different and to try to wish things away, some really hard, hard decisions
and initiatives have to be made and taken.
In my comments today, now that I appear to
have got the preliminaries out of the way, I would like to discuss some things
that are pretty important to me. One of
them, of course, is the whole area of domestic violence, and news of the tragic
passing of Shirley Wedel this past weekend underlines once again the absolute
need for all of us to come together in a united kind of way and in a
nonpartisan way‑‑I have to say, what I have seen so far has been
like that‑‑to address issues related to this, to try to make
Manitoba a safer place for all Manitobans but certainly women and children
specifically.
Too many women in
As we know, Mr. Speaker, these issues are
never simple, so simplistic solutions are not easy. It is not good enough to go after one
particular part of the problem and expect that the problem will be dealt with
effectively.
What Ms. Pedlar has suggested is that we
go at it from basically all the angles, and I think that is appropriate. So it becomes a fairly massive undertaking
and so, being thus, it is appropriate that government asks communities to help
and asks people involved in the giving of provision of service and in caring
agencies to help.
* (1740)
That is why I am glad that people like
Evelyn Ballantyne, Beth Domine, Marilyn Gault, Dr. Theresa George, Winnie
Giesbrecht, Waltraud Grieger, Darlene Hall, Pam Jackson, Candace Minch and
Chriss Tetlock are all willing to help by serving on a community advisory
committee which will be working with the working group of government in
attacking the issues and carrying out the recommendations of Ms. Pedlar, which
have been identified by the government for positive implementation.
I name those people again today because‑‑I
do that to underline the absolute necessity of recognizing the principle that
governments can only do so much. I do
not say that because I am trying to make the point that there is no money or
something like that. What I am saying is
that we need people's brains, we need their experience, we need their
commitment, we need their participation in order for us really to make a
difference. Governments acting alone repeatedly have shown us that they cannot
get the job done, so we are hopeful, and
I have faith that the community approach will get more done than a government
crying in the wilderness trying to do something about a problem.
I believe the same approach has worked
with respect to drinking and driving which I might talk about a little while
later. The area of domestic violence, as
I said, is multi‑dimensional.
There is no question but that we have to deal with offenders if we are
going to make any progress here. We have
to understand the dynamics of domestic violence. People who work in the justice system and in
the caring agencies have to understand the dynamics of domestic violence too,
or else we are all just going to be operating in somewhat of a vacuum, and the
same people will be coming back before the system over and over again.
When it comes to violence, there is more
than just domestic violence. There are
all different kinds of violence, and violence is wrong, Mr. Speaker. No matter how you slice it, violence is wrong
no matter whom it is directed against. I
am not proud of the fact that I was once asked to leave this Chamber because of
a position I took on the issue of violence.
I was asked and left. I was
constrained to leave this Chamber because I was critical of the honourable
member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and others for their part in what I said at
that time had to do with promoting violence on picket lines. I had to leave this place for that reason,
but I believe today ‑(interjection)‑. I do not like that kind of thing, Mr.
Speaker, but I do not like violence either, and I do not like people like Daryl
Bean who have something to say about violence and I have yet to hear an
honourable member opposite repudiate what Daryl Bean thinks or says about
violence and the use of violence in dealing with people who cross picket lines
to go to work. ‑(interjection)‑
I hear them cackling from their seats, Mr.
Speaker, but I have not heard anyone deplore what this man, Daryl Bean, wrote
to three women, Helen Fraser, Dianna Haight and Jackie Nezezon. ‑(interjection)‑
Someone asked what he said in his letter.
He wrote, and all three of these women are grandmothers and this is what
Daryl Bean had to say to these grandmothers whom he accused of being what is
called, in the vernacular, scabs.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. McCrae: After I am finished reading what Mr. Bean had
to say to these three grandmothers whom he accused of being scabs, to use the
union vernacular, perhaps some honourable members in the opposition‑‑I
know the Liberals do not go along with this kind of stuff. The New Democrats, by their own behaviour in
the past and hopefully not in the future, have demonstrated where they stand
when it comes to violence. Now, the
honourable member for
It says here in a letter written by Mr.
Bean‑‑I think maybe some of these honourable members know what is
in this letter and do not want to hear it again. I see the honourable Leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Doer), the union boss, sitting in his seat and smiling, and I want to know
what this union boss thinks about what the other union boss, Mr. Bean, has to
say. I have not heard anything from the
Leader of the Opposition about this yet, but I will put it on the record so
that he will hear it one more time.
It says this: After God had finished the rattlesnake, the
toad, and the vampire, he had some awful stuff left with which he made a
scab. A scab is a two‑legged
animal with a corkscrew soul, a waterlogged brain and a backbone of jelly and
glue. Where others have hearts, he carries a tumor of rotten principles. No man has a right to scab as long as there
is a pool of water to drown his carcass in or a rope long enough to hang his
body with.
Now I want to know what the Leader of the
New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) in this province thinks about that kind of
language directed at three grandmothers.
What does the member for
Where does the honourable member for
Broadway (Mr. Santos) stand on this issue?
We know something of his views about women. Does the same go for women in the union
movement? ‑(interjection)‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): I would just like to clarify for the record
that this problem was discussed at an NDP status of women convention or
conference, and we did recommend nonviolence be used in all labour relations.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member does not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, it is very nice to have the
honourable member for Radisson going on record, partly setting the record
straight as far as she is concerned, but what does she say about Daryl
Bean? Does she repudiate what Mr. Bean
had to say? Where do we read that in the
front pages of the newspapers: Marianne
Cerilli deplores comments by Daryl Bean?
Where do I see that? Nowhere.
The honourable member for Thompson (Mr.
Ashton), of course, we know where he stands because of his position in the 1987
SuperValu strike, the fact that he was out there on the picket line and going
along with the activities there, pulling innocent people's groceries out of
carts, throwing it on the ground and bumping into their cars, and doing all
kinds of unpleasant violent things. The
honourable member for Thompson, where was he?
He was on the picket line. That
is where these people stand. ‑(interjection)‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I
believe the member was kicked out once in 1987 on the same instance. I advise him to be a little bit careful of
how he phrases, particularly with the absence to the four years in terms of
myself or others. He was kicked out for
statements made four years ago. I
suggest he might want to continue with proper debate instead of reliving that
incident.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable opposition House leader (Mr.
Ashton) does not have a point of order.
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): He wants my position on violence: Those who
live by the sword shall die by the sword.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member does not have a point of
order.
* * *
* (1750)
Mr. McCrae: Well, we have heard from the member for
Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) and the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos). Of course, the honourable member for Thompson
(Mr. Ashton), Mr. Speaker, only goes to serve to repeat what he has said and
done in previous years. I am very
mindful of his advice, mind you, and I do not intend to have myself evicted
from this Chamber again for positions I take, but I will tell you, I cannot
condone violence.
I cannot condone the kind of thing Mr.
Bean writes to three grandmothers, but I wonder where that leaves the
honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
I wonder what Ed Schreyer would have thought about that approach to
labour relations. I wonder what one of
my heroes, Tommy Douglas, would have thought about that kind of approach to
labour relations and about violence against women and against others. I wonder what Stanley Knowles would say about
that particular approach. I suggest the
New Democrats are a whole new breed, Mr. Speaker; they are very different. I have not heard from the honourable member
for
I believe it was a well‑known
At the same time, while we are talking
about violence and union and labour relations, where do honourable members
opposite stand when it comes to farmers in
Where do honourable members opposite stand
when it comes to tying up grain shipments at our ports? Where do they stand? Where does the Leader of
the Opposition (Mr. Doer) stand? What
does he tell the farm community in
There is the union boss sitting over
there, Mr. Speaker, and we know where he stands. There is no secret about it, it just needs to
be told more often. I will tell you, the
farm community is what makes my community go.
It makes it tick, it makes it run.
I will tell you, farmers need our respect. Farmers' concerns need our attention and
farmers do not need to take a back seat to grain handlers who should be moving
their grain. Honourable members opposite ought to know where the constituencies
are and who they are in this province.
The farmers are the backbone of this province and honourable members
should remember that when they are sticking up for grain handlers in
So, Mr. Speaker, I look forward to a
productive session here. I look forward
to putting aside and standing up for what is right, and seeing it once in a
while from honourable members opposite, and hearing it, instead of playing
their cute kind of politics that we see too often.
The honourable member for Point Douglas
(Mr. Hickes), in what I thought was a thoughtful presentation, spoke about the
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, and I have some comments that I will be making at
the earliest opportunity about that. Of
293 recommendations, I heard the honourable member refer to about 15 or
something less than 20 in his comments this afternoon, although he did say he
supports all 293 recommendations. We
look forward to hearing his comments on each of the 293 recommendations. I am sure that when he speaks, he has caucus
support for everything that he says on his feet in this House, and he has
committed himself to all 293 recommendations.
So we look forward to discussion about those 293 recommendations that
the honourable member for Point Douglas supports, and I take it his Leader
supports as well.
We will also talk about the consistency of
that support for all 293 recommendations with positions that he and his caucus
have taken with respect to the constitutional task force, and we will try to
add up whether that all does come to a correct total or not.
An Honourable Member: You have the statements on CJOB in July.
Mr. McCrae: Yes, the honourable member referred to CJOB
and a Globe and Mail article that he read from, and I made a note, something
about the report being merely the opinion of two individuals. ‑(interjection)‑
Well, yes, but you see The Globe and Mail does not write down everything, and
the honourable member knows that when he says things, not everything gets
written down too.
You have to remember that this is indeed
the opinion of two individuals after consulting many, many Manitobans after a
year or so of public hearings. In the
same way that our constitutional task force represents the opinion of seven
individuals, headed by Wally Fox‑Decent and other members of the task
force, including the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Carr), and myself, and the
honourable member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), and the member for Wolseley (Ms.
Friesen), and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), of course, and the member
for St. Vital (Mrs. Render)‑‑those are the seven people‑‑that
is our opinions after having listened to many Manitobans. The two judges listened to many Manitobans
too, so it is always important to get things in some kind of context.
While we are talking about context, what
could possibly have been Daryl Bean's context when he talks about drowning
people, when he talks about hanging people?
That is what the honourable member for Point Douglas supports, drowning
and hanging. Well, I do not. That is the difference between me and the
member for Point Douglas.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I know that sometimes we get
carried away when we give speeches in this Chamber, but I am sure, on
reflection, the minister will recognize that what he said was a little bit
farfetched, definitely unparliamentary and not really in keeping with the cut
and thrust of debate. I would like to
ask you to call him to order. Perhaps he
may wish to withdraw those words, because I am sure he did not mean what he
said.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Justice on the
same point of order.
Mr. McCrae: Anything at all that I said that was
unparliamentary I withdraw categorically.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable Minister of
Justice.
* * *
Mr. McCrae: I do not mean to get into that kind of a
situation, but I do deplore anyone who could even be perceived to be supporting
violence, and honourable members opposite could be perceived to be supporting
violence by failing to repudiate, largely and liberally, the comments in the
letter written by Daryl Bean to three grandmothers who decided they wanted to
work.
Now, if I have said something wrong, I
certainly did not mean to, Mr. Speaker.
I did not want to finish today without calling attention to the fact
that we are at one of those times of the year when we try to feel good about
each other.
Having said all that I have said, that is
out of the way now, and here we are at the time of year when we talk about
peace and good will. The honourable
members know that I mean it when I talk about my wish for them and their
families, that they have a peaceful and enjoyable holiday season, that I wish
them well in the coming year. They know
that, so I do not think I need to talk very long about that. I do ask them, please take part in the red
ribbon campaign that we announced today with the help of Jennifer Nash from the
Teens Against Drunk Driving. They do not
call it the red ribbon campaign. They
call it the tie one on campaign. When I
was a youngster, I knew what tying one on was all about, but they talk about
tying it on in a different kind of way.
They want you to tie a ribbon so that
people will be reminded about the dangers of drinking and driving and that
people will have some sympathy for those who have been touched tragically by
the actions of drunk drivers in our jurisdiction or anywhere else.
I ask honourable members and all of the
people with whom they come in contact to tie one on, tie on a red ribbon on
your doorknob, tie one onto your car somewhere so others can see what you stand
for. Sometimes it is important to
deliver that message.
The honourable member for St. James (Mr.
Edwards) suggested that message should be the message all year. I agree with him. It is. We have our Alertmobile, we have our check
stop vehicle working all year round at various times of the year, and this is one
of those times of the year that we all should have fun and be merry and joyous
and spread the good will and the good cheer, but the only thing I say is do not
get behind the wheel of a car if you are under the influence or over .08. That is not only against the law, but it is
also very, very dangerous.
With those comments, I look forward to a
very busy time ahead, from my point of view, dealing with my constituency's
concerns but also dealing with the issue of domestic violence in co‑operation
with other people in the community and in this House. I look forward to an extremely busy time
dealing with the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry report and all of the
recommendations in there. I know
honourable members get to their feet and talk about important things like that
and put their position on the record. I
appreciate the position of the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) that all
292 recommendations must be acted on. I
look forward to the debate in the future on that, and I look forward to the
resumption of this session early in‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The hour being 6 p.m. and in accordance with the rules, I am leaving the
Chair and will return at 8 p.m. at which time the honourable minister will have
three minutes remaining.