LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday,
March 18, 1992
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): I must inform the House of the unavoidable
absence of Mr. Speaker and would ask, in accordance with the statutes, that the
Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Dacquay) take the Chair.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to present the
petition of Allison Dewar, Laurie Sutherland, Katie Sutherland and others
requesting the government show its strong commitment to dealing with child
abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign.
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): I beg to present the petition of Carole
Cahill, Shannon Mason, Debra Delveaux and others requesting the Minister of
Justice (Mr. McCrae) call upon the Parliament of
Madam Deputy Speaker
(Louise Dacquay): I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member, and it complies with the privileges and practices of the House and
complies with the rules. Is it the will
of the House to have the petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
The
bail review provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada currently set out that
accused offenders, including those suspected of conjugal or family violence, be
released unless it can be proven that the individual is a danger to society at
large or it is likely that the accused person will not reappear in court; and
The
problem of conjugal and family violence is a matter of grave concern for all
Canadians and requires a multifaceted approach to ensure that those at risk,
particularly women and children, be protected from further harm.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that
the Legislature of the
* * *
I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member, and it complies with the
privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by all
good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world; and
It
is the responsibility of the government to recognize and deal with this most
vicious of crimes; and
Programs like the Fight Back Against Child
Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with crime;
and
The
decision to terminate the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper
the efforts of all good citizens to help abused children.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that
the Legislature of the
* * *
I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member, and it complies with the
privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read?
* (1335)
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
The
bail review provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada currently set out that
accused offenders, including those suspected of conjugal or family violence, be
released unless it can be proven that the individual is a danger to society at
large or it is likely that the accused person will not reappear in court; and
The
problem of conjugal and family violence is a matter of grave concern for all
Canadians and requires a multifaceted approach to ensure that those at risk,
particularly women and children, be protected from further harm.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that
the Legislature of the
I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member, and it complies with the
privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
The
bail review provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada currently set out that
accused offenders, including those suspected of conjugal or family violence, be
released unless it can be proven that the individual is a danger to society at
large or it is likely that the accused person will not reappear in court; and
The
problem of conjugal and family violence is a matter of grave concern for all
Canadians and requires a multifaceted approach to ensure that those at risk,
particularly women and children, be protected from further harm.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that
the Legislature of the
Introduction
of Guests
Madam Deputy Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw
the attention of all members of the House to the public gallery, where we have
with us this afternoon, from
Also with us this afternoon are eighty‑two
Grade 9 students from the
On
behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
North
American Free Trade Agreement
Government
Position
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, during the last
provincial election‑‑and dare I mention the Leaders' debate?‑‑I
asked the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of the province a very, very serious question
about free trade with
Since that time we have seen the unconditional
"no" go to a conditional "maybe." On countless times in this Chamber, we have
been asking the government their position on not only the substance of the free
trade agreement but the timing of the free trade agreement with
I
would ask the Premier in light of the fact that the Prime Minister is now
stating that they are on a very fast track for free trade with
* (1340)
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Madam Deputy Speaker, if I were the Leader of
the Opposition, I would not want to mention the last televised debate either.
I
repeat, at the time, in 1990, nothing was known of the proposal or of any
potential proposal for a free trade agreement as to whether or not there was
anything that was supportable or not supportable. Since then as information has come out,
Those six conditions were as follows: (1)
That is the clearest position that has been
put forth by any provincial government in the country, and that is the position
of the government of
Mr. Doer: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
has given us no answer of whether he advised the Prime Minister to go on the
fast track which is presently in existence now.
I guess we will just step aside like we have done before, and Mulroney
will sign the free trade agreement, and then we will pull our six conditions
out of the hat at the end of the day after it is all over.
The
Premier has stated that we have taken the strongest position of any other government
in
I
would ask the Premier of Manitoba: Will
he be taking a strong definitive position on the fast track that is now in
existence at the economic First Ministers' meeting next week with the Prime
Minister?
Mr. Filmon: I will say to the Leader of the Opposition
that he is jumping at media reports and doing things with respect to things
that are put in various speculative reports.
I remind him that in response to these speculative reports, Trade
Minister Michael Wilson has stated that, firstly, there is no deal yet and
there will be no deal unless it is good for
I
suggest to him that the best position for us to be in is to state unequivocally
the conditions that must be fulfilled before such an agreement is acceptable to
North
American Free Trade Agreement
Government
Study Tabling Request
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): The Premier did have an
unequivocal position in the last election campaign during the debate, Madam
Deputy Speaker. He now has a set of six
conditions, but he cannot tell us whether he is in favour of a "fast
track, slow track" or whether he has advised the Prime Minister on any
track to follow. He quotes Michael
Wilson. This is the same person who told
Canadians that the GST would be revenue neutral. Again, we see the Premier not taking a strong
stand.
They have the
I
have a further question to the Premier.
In 1988 in this Chamber, the Premier stated on August 5, 1988, that free
trade with the
Will the Premier today table the study that
his secretariat has done on the winners, losers and job opportunities with a
North American free trade agreement?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Deputy Speaker, while we have drawn
on the resources of some of the national studies that are being done on the
Canada‑U.S.‑Mexico free trade, the best resource that we have are
the people of
In
the development of our position on this particular issue, we met at length with
all of the central organizations. We met
with labour unions. We met with the
academic members of our various universities and communities and helped utilize
them in developing our policy, because they are the ones who have to deal with
any change in a North American free trade agreement on a day‑to‑day
basis in terms of doing business here in
They have provided us with some of their
concerns. It was based on those reviews
and consultations that helped us formulate the position that we did in fact
take and to attach the six conditions that were put in place to any support for
North American free trade. We will
continue to work with the private sector in terms of meeting the concerns of
Manitobans.
* (1345)
Aboriginal
Justice Inquiry Report
Northern
Court Services
Mr. Elijah Harper
(Rupertsland): My question is to the Minister of Justice.
When government has virtually ignored
recommendations of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry‑‑so far its major
actions had been two photo‑opportunity press conferences featuring the
Justice minister (Mr. McCrae) and the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr.
My
question is for the Minister of Justice.
Has he read the report yet and, if he has, does he reconcile the
recommendations of the report with his plan to create a two‑tier justice
system, where the service in northern communities is even worse than it is
already?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Deputy Speaker, if I understand the
honourable member correctly, he was referring to a newspaper article today, not
naming some unnamed sources, and it relates to contract negotiation discussions
which are underway. I was contacted by
the newspaper involved and declined to comment on the specifics of the issues
that are the subject of collective bargaining.
The honourable member knows better than to suggest that this government
has ignored the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry recommendations. He knows also that we await with anticipation
the participation of aboriginal leadership in discussions that will lead to
implementation of real programs for real people in
Mr. Harper: Madam Deputy Speaker, northerners expect a
better system‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Question.
Aboriginal
Justice Inquiry Report
Northern
Court Services
Mr. Elijah Harper
(Rupertsland): My supplementary question is to the Minister
of Northern Affairs.
Has
the Minister of Northern Affairs read the report? Does he disagree with the report in terms of
court services in northern communities?
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Northern Affairs): Madam
Deputy Speaker, the government has reviewed the report. We have established a process by which
positive changes can be made on behalf of the aboriginal people. As soon as the aboriginal people identify
themselves to work on those working groups, action will be taken.
Aboriginal
Justice Inquiry Report
Northern
Court Services
Mr. Elijah Harper
(Rupertsland): Will the Minister of Northern Affairs answer
this question? Aboriginal people are
tired of being treated as second‑class citizens. How can this government justify cuts when the
northern justice system is creating‑‑and not only failing the
people in the North? Will the proposed
cuts not result in more guilty pleas and more people needlessly serving time in
prison?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I
have no idea what the honourable member is talking about, Madam Deputy
Speaker. I do not see anything relating
to cuts with respect to the delivery of justice services, the delivery of real
services to real people. In fact, if the
honourable member engages in discussion with me when we get to the review of
the Estimates of my department, I would be happy to discuss the many, many
aspects of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry to which this government is
committing itself to move forward with aboriginal people in the future.
It
would be nice, however, and we look forward to having the aboriginal leadership
join us at the table so that we can together implement these things. Perhaps the honourable member can use
whatever influence he has with the aboriginal leadership in this province to
encourage them to join us at the table.
* (1350)
School
Division
Boundary
Review Cancellation
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Madam
Deputy Speaker, we have been pointing out to this government since 1986 of a
need to review school division boundaries, a review that has not been conducted
effectively in this province for 40 years.
Finally in the 1990 campaign, we got a commitment from the Premier that,
yes, along with the revision to The City of Winnipeg Act, we would get a review
of school division boundaries.
Can
the Premier tell this House today why his government has deliberately backed
down to their commitment to parents, children, trustees and the need for
education in this province?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Madam Deputy Speaker, as was, I think
explained and outlined quite adequately yesterday by the Minister of Education
and Training (Mrs. Vodrey), there are a number of issues that are actively
under consideration and under action by the minister and her department, many
of which have varying effects on the delivery of education services throughout
the
Yes, I will openly and freely admit that the
promise the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) referred to was made
during the election campaign. I made
that promise believing that there was a need for a review. Subsequently, as a result of the fact that we
are dealing now with the new Education funding formula; we are dealing now with
new Francophone governance structure to be implemented over the next while;
also with respect to the High School Review implementation‑‑all of
those matters I have been persuaded by members of school boards in the
educational community are matters that require adjustment, flexibility and
response by the school community, the education community‑‑now is
not the time to further impose yet another potential major change on them. This is a matter that ought to be put on the
back burner at the present time.
I
believe that the Minister of Education made the right decision and the right
policy decision on this matter. I am
quite happy to accept it.
Mrs. Carstairs: Madam Deputy Speaker, the reasons why the
minister has given for why it is not the appropriate time was the review of The
Public Schools Act, which has been going on now for a year, the Francophone
schools governance issue, which has been going on now for two years, the
implementation of the High School Review, which has been going on for three
years, and the implementation of the new finance model which was proceeding
prior to the last Speech from the Throne.
Can
the Minister of Education or perhaps the Premier‑‑because she was
not in the cabinet at that time‑‑explain why they made a commitment
to review those boundaries on December 5, 1991, when all of those things were
at that point going on?
* (1355)
Mr. Filmon: Madam Deputy Speaker, as I said, those
matters are underway. Those matters all
require a great deal of time, energy and commitment on the part of not only
members of the staff of the Minister of Education and the department, but school
divisions throughout the province.
Teachers, resource people, administrators, school board members are all
involved and engaged in the implementation of all these many things. They can only be spread so thin in terms of
implementing these changes and after discussion‑‑and I invite the
Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs), rather than do as she normally
does, which is to impose from on high her judgment on the people in the
education community, every other community, I suggest to her that she do a
little consultation with those people and find out whether or not they wanted
to have yet another potential major change imposed upon them at the same time
as they are coping with all of these other changes.
I
am convinced from my consultations and discussions that they did not at the
present time. I invite her to once in a
while get in touch with the people out there who have to do those things.
Mrs. Carstairs: I will compare my list of educational
stakeholders whom I have talked to, to his list any day, and I will come out
far ahead.
School
Division Boundary Review
Impact
Francophone Governance
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Madam
Deputy Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education.
Since the review of school division boundaries
will not take place, how does she believe that the issue of Francophone
governance can be dealt with quickly and effectively in that it affects a
number of school divisions?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Madam
Deputy Speaker, in answering that question, I would like to say that the
matters are in fact two separate matters.
In
consultation with the educational stakeholders, with school divisions and with
parents who have let us know the pressure at the moment on the educational
system, this government listened to them, and we said: I believe you.
The
issue of Francophone governance, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are pleased to be
moving ahead with in a very active way, and there will be an announcement soon
regarding implementation.
Core Area
Initiative
Renewal
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): My question is for the
Minister of Urban Affairs.
Last June the minister received federal
proposals for a new Core Area Initiative.
He was, he said, hopeful, and he said the province and the federal
government were this close. Some weeks
ago now, he received a revised proposal from the federal government. It seems clear now that it is this government
which is dragging its heels on the future of the core area.
My
question for the minister is: Will he
tell the House exactly what the obstacles are in his view? Why is his government choosing to stand in
the way of such significant programs?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Urban Affairs): Madam Deputy Speaker, I can advise my
honourable friend, as I have on a number of occasions, that we are in the
process of negotiating with our two partners in this matter.
The
fact of the matter is, though, Madam Deputy Speaker, that while we are
reasonably close, I think, to an agreement, we are not prepared to sign an
agreement at any cost for the sake of signing an agreement. We want to have the best possible agreement,
and they will be the first ones to criticize if we signed an agreement that was
not the best possible agreement. We will
continue to work toward that end. I am
hopeful that within a short period of time, we will have significant
announcements to make.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister then tell the House, give
us a time table, when is he prepared to make a decision, so that the remaining
employees in the Core Area Initiative can stop packing their bags? Will he in sum manage this transition in a
responsible and appropriate way?
Mr. Ernst: Madam Deputy Speaker, the management of the
Core Area offices, as a matter of fact, has been managed in a most responsible
way. We are not carrying on with large
employee groups that have nought to do, whose jobs have been completed. We are
keeping a small staff there to ensure ongoing programs are looked after.
We
have taken the initiative with respect to the core area immigration training
programs, that they will in fact be kept on as skeleton staff. They will be kept on for the next two months
in anticipation of a new agreement. So,
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is being well managed.
Ms. Friesen: Madam Deputy Speaker, could the minister then
tell the House in light of the less than spectacular funding that we have seen
for Core Area Initiative in the past, what level of funding is he proposing for
the next Core Area?
Mr. Ernst: Madam Deputy Speaker, almost $200 million of
taxpayers' money has been spent in the core of
The
fact of the matter is at the moment we are in negotiations with respect to a
subsequent agreement. That agreement, as
I have said on a number of occasions, is under consideration at the
moment. As soon as we have finalized
that, I will be pleased to advise the House.
* (1400)
Human
Resources
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Madam Deputy Speaker, in the last budget,
Selkirk was hit hard by this government when it announced the closure of the
My
question is to the Minister of Family Services.
What criteria did this minister use besides an electoral map when he
made the wrong decision to close this centre?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Madam
Deputy Speaker, from time to time, we hear from opposition members the need to
evaluate and look at training programs to assist people who are seeking
employment. We have some successful
programs that I could tell you about in that area.
The
Single Parent Job Access Program is one I would speak of that has graduated a
number of people into the work force. We
also have the Gateway program which assists young people in particular in
retraining at a number of areas to get into the work force.
Simply, besides adding programs‑‑and
we have referred to the Partners with Youth program‑‑we also have
to evaluate the programs that we have and look at ones that are not as
successful as other ones and reprioritize some of our spending and some of our
initiatives in that area.
One
of the decisions we have made in this budget is to look at the training plant
in Selkirk. We feel that we can offer
that service through the HROCs in
Mr. Dewar: Everything is going to Gimli, Madam Deputy
Speaker.
Service
Expansion
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk):
Will the minister keep the Selkirk centre
open, in fact expand services there, so we have some more trained workers in
this province and fewer unemployed?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Madam
Deputy Speaker, again we hear opposition members asking for expanded services,
expanded expenditures. When we looked at
the pretend‑budget that was brought down last Tuesday, it called for only
5 percent additional expenditures in Family Services, almost 4 percent short of
what our budget has in it.
That $20 million that they would not spend, I
challenged the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) yesterday to let us
know where they would not spend that money, whether they would take it out of
training programs or whether they would take it out of daycare. I am sure the member for
Closure
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Will this minister table in the House any
studies which demonstrate that Gimli is more cost effective than Selkirk?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Madam
Deputy Speaker, we have a number of effective programs, and I reference the
Single Parent Job Access Program. [interjection] I see a former Minister of
Education laughing at the thought that there are effective programs in training
people. I reference that program and the
Gateway program. We do have human
resource centres in a number of areas of the province. We are going to add new resources to job
training, and we are reprioritizing some of the funding that we have in this
area.
Granting
Authority
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Madam Deputy Speaker, while we were listening
to the budget last week, the deputy minister met with the Heritage federation,
and once again this government has chosen to take away from the volunteers the
funding or the granting authority from the organization.
My
question to the minister is: Can the
minister tell this House why the granting authority has been taken away from
the Heritage federation?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will attempt to answer
that question for the critic from the second opposition party and indicate
that, in fact, the Heritage community will be served in a very reasonable and
good way as a result of the changes that were made.
There has been no reduction in the amount of
funding to the Heritage community as a result of the decision. In fact, there may be more dollars available,
because the money that will be distributed will not go as much toward
administrative costs but will go to the community organizations who need the
money most.
Volunteer
Board
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
If
she is using the administration costs, she entered into the agreement with the
federation and knew full well what the administration costs were. You cannot use that, Madam Deputy Speaker‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Does the member have a question?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Madam Deputy Speaker, I realize full well that
there are many, many volunteers within the Heritage community and within all
communities who dedicate and commit their time to serving their interests and
their needs, so I do nothing but commend volunteers for their contribution.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have on occasion met
with the Heritage federation as I have met with the entire Heritage
community. We believe that the process
that will be put in place to deliver funding to the Heritage community will
indeed serve the community well and be administratively less costly.
Mr. Lamoureux: The question quite simply to the minister is:
Why does she not trust the volunteers in administering this program? If the administration is the argument that
she is basing the cutting out of this particular organization of the
volunteers, why does she not just simply sit down with these volunteers and
work out some sort of an agreement‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that the member for
Vegetable
Producing Industry
Mr. Edward Connery (
This unfair trade practice ties up space in the
wholesalers' coolers and ties up this fresh product. They have never found a load unacceptable in
their testing.
Can
the minister inform this Legislature what action he has taken as the federal
government has taken none?
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Madam Deputy Speaker,
very clearly this is a very significant issue for the vegetable industry. Clearly what the
We
found evidence in the last couple of months that they are inspecting as many as
25 percent of the loads going into the
* (1410)
I
have sent a letter to the federal Minister of Trade back in August of last
year. My officials met with American
officials in October of last year. I
have again‑‑because probably have to say the increased rate of
inspections in the last two months‑‑sent another letter this month
asking the federal minister to talk to his counterparts in the
Federal
Day
Haul
Worker Program
Mr. Edward Connery (
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Madam Deputy Speaker,
yes.
North
American Free Trade Agreement
Impact Agricultural
Industry
Mr. Edward Connery (
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Does the honourable member have a
supplementary question?
Mr. Connery: ‑‑and especially aboriginal
people.
Will the minister forcefully put forth
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Madam Deputy Speaker,
with regard to the
I
will take the member's concerns forward to any of the discussions I am involved
in.
I
would also like to remind members of this House that the
Broadway
House
Closure
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Did
the Minister of Family Services consult with community groups such as the
Association for Community Living or the Residential Coalition of Service
Providers before he closed Broadway House, or was it closed, as the staff of
Broadway House was notified, to satisfy the Treasury Board requirements of
decreased spending and decreased services?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Madam
Deputy Speaker, the member references decreased spending and decreased
services. I would point out to her that
this department has the highest increase in spending of any department across
government, some 8.7 percent increase in our budget. [interjection]
Well, the member wants to talk about social
allowances. We have brought in some very
innovative changes, greater reforms than the previous NDP government ever
brought in. We created a new program for
the disabled. We brought up the liquid
assets levels, initiatives that my friend in the NDP has brought forward
frequently. There have been a tremendous
number of reforms brought forward.
As
far as working with the community to provide programming for mentally
handicapped people, we have had a number of working groups. We have some initiatives we are going to be
bringing forward. We have major
legislation that we are bringing forward that I have shared with the critics of
the other two parties. We have some very
innovative things that are happening in that area.
Employees'
Status
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I am sure the member listened very carefully to the Minister of
Labour (Mr. Praznik) when he discussed some of the positions that were being
removed from government, and there is a process in place that is taking place
at this time.
I
had the privilege of meeting with the Minister of Labour and members of the
MGEA just yesterday to talk about those issues.
The honourable Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger) was in
attendance. There seemed to be an understanding
of the process and a feeling that the process was working and that some
substantial changes had taken place which provided employment for people who
occupied some of those positions.
Alternate
Facilities
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I can assure the member and the House that the residents will
be well taken care of in other facilities. Certainly the providing of services
is uppermost in our minds in the department to be sure that appropriate
services are provided for those people.
Co-operative
Housing
Federal
Program
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Madam Deputy Speaker, co‑operative
housing provides affordable housing and a sense of community for 65,000 households
in
Can
the Minister of Housing tell us if he has communicated with the federal
Minister of Housing to protest this arbitrary decision which will mean fewer
housing starts in
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Housing): Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Martindale: I would hope that the minister would share his
communication with me.
Constitutional
Issues
Housing
Responsibility
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Can the Minister of Housing tell us what the
policy of the provincial government is regarding the federal government's
constitutional proposal to devolve responsibility for housing exclusively to
the provinces, a proposal which is opposed by the Canadian Home Builders'
Association, the Co‑operative Housing Federation of
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Housing): Madam Deputy Speaker, the whole question of a
strong central government, the fact that we need the dollars represented by a
strong central government for programs such as this is one that our government
has supported. We continue to support that.
Certainly we do not want to see the federal
government offload a program such as housing‑‑where they pay
currently 75 percent approximately of the subsidy costs of those housing units‑‑onto
the provinces at all, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We have seen all too often in the past where programs such as that,
while with great promises in the beginning and appropriate dollar backup for
that, seemed to dwindle over a period of time.
It is something that I do not think we want to support at all.
* (1420)
Madam Deputy Speaker: Time for Question Period has expired.
Nonpolitical Statement
Mr. Elijah Harper
(Rupertsland): May I ask leave of the House to make a
nonpolitical statement?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member for Rupertsland
have leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
Some Honourable Members:
Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave.
Leave has been granted.
Mr. Harper: Yesterday,
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
BUDGET
DEBATE
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on the proposed
motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), standing in the
name of the honourable member for Rossmere, who has 11 minutes remaining.
Mr. Harold Neufeld
(Rossmere): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am looking up in the
gallery. I am sure Barb Biggar is up
there some place, and I am sure she is listening.
I
am also sorry that the president of the MGEA left before I had a chance to
speak because, if time permits, I have a few suggestions for him.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am one of the few
people in here who can remember World War II.
I was 11 years old when the war started and 17 years old when it
finished. I can recall the way people co‑operated,
the way that people worked together.
There was no differential between races.
There was no differential between sexes.
Everybody worked together. Those
who were too young to buy War Savings bonds bought War Savings Stamps. Women knit socks. Everybody worked for a
common goal.
We
have a common goal today. We have a
war. It is not as great as the one that
we had, but we have a war. That is a
deteriorating economy, and we should work together. For some reason or other we pull apart and
everyone goes their own way. Everybody pulls at a piece of the government. Everybody wants more than their share.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the lawyers are
threatening to strike. Strike for what?
Because they cannot get enough money, up to $200,000, they take out of
this economy per lawyer‑‑that is a maximum‑‑and they
want to strike. All I can say is, is
that all it takes? Let us give them
less, and they may strike.
Our
justice system is suffering from the lawyers who go to the courts for retrials
and appeals. I believe in justice, but
the legal system is no longer just. What
difference does it make how evidence is obtained to whether a person is guilty
or not? What difference does it make whether or not he or she have had their
rights read to whether he is guilty or not?
Guilt is not a matter of what the police officer has done to get the
evidence or how he has been arrested‑‑[interjection] If you have
had your house broken into, is he guilty or is he not guilty?
I
do believe that a little common sense in the justice system would go a long
way. I think that some of the decisions
which are handed down qualify those who make the decisions for handicapped
parking.
Madam Deputy Speaker, let me talk a little bit
about what I think some of the causes of the recession have been. The excesses of the '80s is a big cause. What were those excesses? Leverage buy‑outs
was one of them. Too many of them; too
much money was lent with too little security and too many S & Ls went
broke. Too much money was spent on greed
and not enough money was spent on research, not enough money was spent on
modernizing equipment. Those were some
of the problems. The Boeskys, the
Milkens of the '80s are causing us a problem today.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have another problem
with the '80s. That was the era in which more and more industry came to
government for grants. Why did they ask
for grants? They asked for grants
because they were creating jobs.
Madam Deputy Speaker, they were creating jobs
for their own enrichment. They are not
creating jobs for government and they should not come to government. Government should be there to help them and
create a climate, and I challenge the industry to go out and create jobs and to
expand their businesses, not neccesarily with government help but with
government help insofar as creating a climate is concerned. I have no time for those who believe that
government is the answer to every one of their problems, and that has been the
case all too often.
I
can talk about the help that has been given to the Winnipeg Jets. I very much oppose the help that is being
given the Winnipeg Jets. I was not at
cabinet the day this was decided upon, but I find it obscene to give a grant
not only to cover the losses but to give someone a profit on a phantom
investment. That is what we have done, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I
do believe that industry has to take its share of the blame for what has
happened to us in the '90s. I think
unions and labour have to take their share of the blame. Industry should have, in many cases, denied
the wage increases that were given. Labour should not have asked for those wage
increases. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, we
have to look forward. How do we get out
of the dilemma we are in? I suggest to
you that we work together‑‑labour, industry and government.
It
is up to government to ensure that labour and industry work together co‑operatively. It is up to government to bang heads together
if they do not. It is up to government
to ensure that its residents are properly looked after. It is up to government to make sure that the
industry properly looks after their workers.
It is up to government to ensure that industry carries on in a manner
that is going to make
Industry is not alone in that. Labour has to take its share of the blame as
well. Labour has been greedy and
industry has been greedy. Let us stop
the greed and let us look ahead. Let us
look ahead and see what we can do to make
I
become upset when I see a headline like this, unmarried with taxes, unmarried
couples will pay millions more. Well,
Madam Deputy Speaker, they have been getting away with it for years. They want all the benefits given to those who
are married, like health benefits, like pension benefits, but do not want to
pay the same amount that married people pay.
That is the kind of reporting we get in our papers today, totally false.
There was a time‑‑how much time
have I got left?‑‑[interjection] Madam Deputy Speaker, while I was
on vacation a month ago I was watching a talk show and on the talk show was a
lieutenant‑commander of the U.S. Navy.
He was a man about in his late 30s.
He was black. He was out
preaching to the young people of the
He
said that if you want an education, go work for your education. Work hard and you will get a 3.8 and 4.0
grade point average, and you will get bursaries and you will get scholarships,
and if you cannot get a 3.8 and 4.0 grade point average, go out to McDonald's
and get a job, and you will get an education.
Do not expect someone else to do it for you. A phone call came in and the individual spoke
of African Americans, and the lieutenant‑commander cut her off right away
and said, I am tired of all the names that I have been called in the past. He says, I have been called a Negro, I have
been called black, I have been called coloured, I have been an Afro‑American
and an African American. He said, I am
none of those things, I am an American.
If we could say that in this country, if we could say that in this
province‑‑I am a Canadian‑‑but we do not.
* (1430)
Madam Deputy Speaker, when I first went on the
job market, I could not call myself a Canadian.
I insisted I was a Canadian and they would then ask, do you speak any
other language, and I admitted I spoke German, and they would then either
discard me or tell me to wait for a phone call.
Now
we have gone full circle. Now we are
again to the point where we are not Canadians.
We are some kind of Canadians, but not Canadians.
I
was told that I would have to work harder than anybody else because I was not
Anglo‑Saxon, when I finally did get a job, and the person who told me
that had just retired from the army as a major.
He came around from the back of his desk, and he shook my hand and he
said, Harold, good luck. That is the
advice I give to those of you who think you are being discriminated against‑‑work
harder. I can tell you it works. I became a chartered accountant because I
worked hard. I have been president of
the Manitoba Institute of Chartered Accountants and past governor of the
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.
That is not bragging. That is fact.
I got that because I listened to the major who told me, because you are
German, you will have to work harder, and I respect that man to this day. I give you that advice, and I hope you will
follow it, and let us forget about the fact that we are different
nationalities. Let us forget about the
fact that we are different colours or different sexes.
Let
us remember only that we are Canadians, and we have a common goal. We have a common goal that
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you.
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the
opportunity of rising in this debate. I
cannot help but, at the onset, to reflect on some of the comments of the member
for Rossmere that I have heard in these few moments this afternoon in the
Chamber. I unfortunately did not have
the opportunity to listen to all of his comments from his previous comments
yesterday, but they certainly are indicative of the rather independent spirit
the member has exhibited as a member of that side of the government.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would hope that he
would take part of his message to his own caucus colleagues, because when he
talks about grants to industries and grants to governments, members on that
side of the House have instituted a process of providing grants on an
unparalleled training, on an unparalleled scale to private companies to provide
training on a private basis. As they
have done that, they have cut back the public components, the public education
system, something that has been held dear and close to the hearts of all
Manitobans. As they cut back the public
system, and something all Manitobans generally have held to be important, they
have provided grants and initiatives to private industry to do private
training.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in a consultation paper
prepared by the federal government, Learning Well, Living Well, the federal
government says, and I quote: A 1987
survey indicates that only one‑third of employers provide formal training
for employees ranging from 27 percent of small firms to 92 percent of large
companies.
What is happening, Madam Deputy Speaker, is
not only are we subsidizing the training for these firms, now we are
resubsidizing, we are double subsidizing these private firms to provide the
training that they have not provided.
That is one of the major spending initiatives of this government in
terms of they have talked about initiatives for private training, and that is
outright grants to private companies, something that this member says in theory
that he is so opposed to. They are
providing those grants at the expense of the public education system.
They are providing to private companies like
Success/Angus, which members on that side are quite familiar with, that are
doing very well, thank you, charging $5,000 for a course that has been cut from
Red River that used to cost $500. What
does that do to the poor student or the single parent who seeks a job and who
is looking for that retraining and who is working as hard as the member for
Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) says? What does
that do to that student who has to pay $5,000 now as opposed to $500 last year?
I
ask the member for Rossmere to take that into consideration when he talks about
grants and initiatives to companies and what government should be doing and
what government should not be doing, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would hope that he would take the same
attitude with members of his own caucus as he takes in his discussions with members
of our House in his Budget Debate.
Overall, I have spent some time trying to put
this budget into some kind of a perspective, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have read past budgets, and I have looked
at kind of the history of the approach of budgets. I guess the best and most appropriate term or
view that I could come up with to describe this government and this budget is
"unleadership," that this budget and this government is a classic
example of unleadership. The budget can
only be looked at in the context of the previous five budgets of this
administration and, in particular, the budgets since the last election.
At
the onset I would like to indicate that I recognize that there is a worldwide
recession, but this province, the province that I grew up in, the province that
I have lived in, the province that I am raising my family in, Madam Deputy
Speaker, used to be in the middle of the pack in terms of the Canadian
context. It used to be at the middle
level, not below, not above, but generally in the middle of the pack.
Now
we have fallen far, far behind. One of
the reasons we have fallen far behind is because of policies initiated by this
government. Let me cite some statistical
evidence to indicate why, to indicate my point, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Firstly, in economic growth between 1990 to
'91 we have fallen from fifth to tenth.
Dead last. In employment growth,
between 1990 to 1991, we have gone from fifth to eighth. In population, net interprovincial migration,
we have gone from seventh in 1990 to eighth.
In urban housing starts, we were at eighth‑‑nothing to be
proud about‑‑in 1990, now we have dropped to ninth.
In
building permits we have gone from seventh to eighth. In manufacturing shipments we were at sixth
in 1990, and we have dropped to the Tory level, No. 10. In investment, we were around the middle of
the pack in 1990. We have dropped to
near‑Tory levels, eight out of 10.
So,
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is quite clear that the legacy of a federal Tory
government, a worldwide recession and a provincial Tory government have
resulted in Manitobans seriously feeling, far more than they had to, the
effects of this very serious recession.
I
want to relate a few individual instances in my own constituency to try to
outline for members opposite the effect of these policies and the effect of
these initiatives, unleadership, this lack of leadership on the part of members
opposite and what it has done in my own constituency.
In
the last month or two there have been two constituents I have dealt with who
have in fact lost their homes‑‑foreclosure. One was a working
mother who lost her job, lived in the house for eight years. She lost her home‑‑foreclosure.
Another was an individual who was on workers'
compensation who was cut off, and he also lost his home. The families were put out of the house and
were forced to seek rental accommodations somewhere else as a result of
foreclosures.
I
have seen individuals who should qualify for home care who have had it cut
off. I have an individual in my
constituency who talks to me regularly who is a double amputee, and he cannot
get home care despite the claims of the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) of the
expanded home care budget. What the
Minister of Health fails to note, there is an expanded demand out there as
demographics change.
I
walked up, several weeks ago, to the door of a home of a fellow who had lost
his job that morning. It was not last
week, it was not two weeks ago. Can you
imagine the effect of walking to a door on a sunny morning, and the fellow
coming to the door and almost being tearful and saying, oh, I have just lost my
job. Every single week, when I go door
knocking, there is not a street in my constituency where I do not encounter
individuals who are unemployed, who have lost their jobs. These are individuals who have worked for a
lifetime.
In
the old days, these are individuals‑‑let us by way of example, let
me just for illustration‑‑these individuals, who, if the plant
would have shut down at CN or the job would have cut back at CN, they would
have gone to CP, something like that. Well, as our bases shut, Madam Deputy
Speaker, they do not have these options, and as the effect of these policies in
the worldwide recession has been felt, these options have been closed on them.
* (1440)
Madam Deputy Speaker, since the Finance
minister (Mr. Manness) is present, I should point out about three weeks ago on
the doorstep a woman who said to me: Can
you not tell the government, can they not see in front of their faces what is
happening in this economy? Can they not
put two and two together? Do they not
know what is happening out here?
So
I pass it on to the government. Do you
not know what is happening out there?
An Honourable Member: How many new jobs are created in your
constituency by this budget?
Mr. Chomiak: The member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) asked how
many news jobs are created as a result of this budget. I dare say, there have probably been jobs
lost as a result of this budget in my constituency.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been on the
doorstep and I have talked to hundreds, literally thousands of
constituents. One of the interesting
trends that I have noticed is the number of adult children that are now being
forced to stay at home. As I indicated
earlier, on every single street in my constituency there are unemployed.
Madam Deputy Speaker, over and over again, I
hear about the scourge of taxes and what effect that has had on individuals.
You know, the one touchstone that this government always returns to and comes
back to, the one complete and utter inaccuracy that the government often refers
to is the question of taxation. I want
to quote from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) in his 1991 budget, and I am
quoting from the minister's address, page 7 where he says, quote, "We
reject the dishonesty inherent in the federal approach to health and higher
education financing‑‑repeated, unilateral reductions to
transfers," et cetera.
"We reject the dishonesty
inherent." Madam Deputy Speaker, we
on this side of the House, we reject the dishonesty inherent in the provincial
government offloading, the offloading of taxes, the inherent dishonesty, to use
the words of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), in dealing with his federal
counterparts. We reject that and this government has done that over and over
again.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the former Minister of
Education advised on the record in this House last year that the education
support level, the local property taxes for the education portion of property
taxes in this province increased by 10 percent last year alone. That is following, I suspect, nearly double‑digit
increases the year before and nearly double‑digit increases the year
before. That is the offloading. That is the dishonesty that this Finance
minister (Mr. Manness) accused the federal government of doing. The very same thing is happening at the local
level. I am only speaking, when I talked
about the 10 percent rate, about the education portion, the special levy, which
is the local level that is raised.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot understand the
near hypocrisy of this government and its failure to recognize what its
policies are doing in terms of the offload and the movement of taxes from the
provincial level to the local level. If
this government was true to its word, it would simply state that fact. It would make it very clear instead of
offloading and then ducking the responsibility, and then, when school boards
and municipalities and divisions come back to the government, saying we are not
responsible for it. I will use the words
again of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), this inherently dishonest
approach.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this lack of leadership,
this careening back and forth, I have been trying to get a fix on this
provincial government in the last five budgets.
One
of my approaches is to put it into a phase, into a chronology. We have the '88 to '90 period, when we had a
minority Tory government. Now, at that
point we had a government that was always in potential of dropping, and then we
saw the sort of classic
There is no question that that government was
far more responsive and far more progressive than what we have today,
certainly. So we have that first phase,
and that was political expediency totally.
The members of the caucus that are far more idealistic on that side of
the House were kept in check.
Then we had the 1990 election, the man‑in‑the‑boat
election, and we saw the real government.
We saw the emergence of the real Tory government, and that is when we
saw, as reflected by the memo that was sent out by the Tory fundraisers to deal
with the hidden agenda of the Tory party, that was a slash‑and‑cut
Tory government.
That was the one where the Minister of Finance
was let loose, and the ideologues in the Conservative party were let loose to
do the kinds of things that Tories love to do best, where they can emulate
their federal cousins and their federal counterparts, and do what Tories do
best. I will at least give them credit
for consistency. The Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness) has been consistent in that policy.
Although his ascendancy was somewhat in wane
between '88 to '90 because of the fact that he was held in check by a minority
government, once 1990 came through, bango, that was it. That was their chance to do it. Now, what has occurred as a result of that is
a sort of flip‑flop. Now they are
uncertain.
The
public out there has said, hey, wait a minute.
We do not like this Tory government.
We do not like this mean spirit.
We do not like this lack of any kind of government, the stand‑aside
government, this lack‑of‑initiative government. We do not like a lot of these cuts. We do not like what we see.
So
we have seen this government go from a sort of a moderate approach, to slash‑and‑cut,
to now unleadership; they have sort of backed off; they kind of do not know
what to do.
You
know, there is something quite illustrative, and I just want to point this out,
of the government's approach, and that is to deal with the High School Bursary
Program. When the High School Bursary
Program was cut in the last budget, and we raised it on this side of the House,
we raised it amidst guffaws and amidst groans and laughing from members on the
opposite side of the House‑‑you know, this is our budget, this is
our cut‑and‑slash budget.
They laughed when we raised these concerns.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker,
in the Chair)
But
you know what, when we filled up our caucus room with people who were suffering
the effects of this High School Bursary cut, all of a sudden the laughter
turned. When we called press
conferences, when the media was alerted, when the Minister of Education
admitted that he had made a mistake, when the Minister of Education admitted he
had not consulted with the Minister of Family Services in the cutback on the
High School Bursary Program, all of a sudden the laughter turned to
seriousness, and the government sat in their cabinet room, and they looked
around the table, and they said, hey, where is Mike? Where are our latest polls? They looked around and they said, now what
are we going to do? They looked around
and they saw that there was a reaction.
They had thought that they could get away with this cut. They saw that they could get away with the
slashing of the High School Bursary Program like they thought they could get
away with the cut to English as a Second Language, but we did not let them do
that.
I
should not take credit for it, we should not take credit for it. It was the people of the province who were
affected. It was those students who came
to us, it was they who managed, who forced this government to back down. Nothing was more illustrative than the fact
that we had a press conference at ten o'clock in the morning and at 11:30 that
very same day, all of a sudden, the minister was reinstating a portion of the
program.
I
am thankful that he listened, and actually I will give them credit for that,
but that is illustrative of this careening government, careening from side to
side or from place to place. While I am on it, let me talk about the school
boundaries review introduced with great fanfare in two separate budgets.
A
strong commitment of the member for Roblin‑Russell (Mr. Derkach), the
minister. He used to chastise the former
Minister of Education this side for not having the political will and the
political courage to push it through, but by gosh he was going to push it through.
* (1450)
Mr.
Acting Speaker, the government had the support of all three parties to do a
review. There was no question. There were resolutions that came by in this
House. There was an amendment to The
Public Schools Act last session that dealt with the boundaries review.
There was no question that members were in
agreement that some kind of review could take place, but what kind of review
would take place? That is what caused
this government great difficulty for when it was leaked out, for when it became
public that what this government intended to do would be to slash school
boundaries in the city of Winnipeg without consultation, to postpone elections
of all things, because they could not get their act together.
When that came about, when the public heard
that this government was going to undemocratically postpone elections, when the
public heard that this government was going to slash boundaries and move them
about without consultation, then the chickens came home to roost. Then this government stepped back and said,
oh, my gosh, have we got ourselves in a political‑‑now, had they
proceeded under a proper agenda, perhaps the matter could have been dealt with,
but it was already too late. Already the
communities out there were alarmed, already the public was up in arms.
What was this government going to do? Were they going to cut the size again and see
salaries double? Were they going to
really save efficiencies? What was this
government doing? When the government
discovered that they had bungled this great initiative of the former Minister
of Education, they backed off.
Frankly, given the boundaries review that they
were going to implement, I would rather see no boundaries review. We made that quite clear. Given what we knew that this government was
going to do, when we saw that, we said no way we could support that kind of
lack of direction, lack of consultation, lack of basic democratic values. So I can only say that we have moved from one
phase to another phase to another phase, and now we have a government that is
sort of careening back and forth.
The
analogy I have is a car that is out of control, and everyone is jumping for the
steering wheel. For a while, it was the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) who had his hand on the steering wheel from '88‑90. There were a few people backing him up, and
there was Mike in there, and they were just careening along. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) was
reaching over, and they said, no wait, wait till 1990, wait till the election,
then Clayton you can have control of the car.
You take care of the steering wheel, it is all yours. Nineteen‑ninety came, Clayton jumped in
there, and all of his Tory‑‑
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Order, please.
I
would like to remind the honourable member that all honourable members shall be
nameless.
Mr. Chomiak: I apologize.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) jumped in there, got control of
that steering wheel, Mr. Acting Speaker, and he took off with that car. He took off with that car so fast he left
some of his Tory members behind scratching their heads saying, where is this
car going? Then we heard the response
from the public, and now they are all trying to jump back in and take control
of that car and trying to steer it. That is why it is kind of
unleadership. They are trying to get
some control on that car.
So
we see this change in direction, this change in initiative and this flip‑flop
on policy, some of which we agree with, frankly, because they should have done
it in the first place, and some of it which we do not agree with, Mr. Acting
Speaker. That is why they sort of try
and get the car back into the groove, back to those sort of '88‑90
grooves. Members of this House know of
what I am speaking, I am quite certain, because in fact the evidence is clear
that is what is happening in terms of this government and this budget.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, the funding model, I want to talk about the funding model for a
moment or two, because it has been something that we on this side of the House
have spent considerable time on in discussing with members opposite and
providing suggestions. You know, the
funding model is another example of this careening vehicle sort of floating all
over the place. For a while the former
Minister of Education had his hand on that steering wheel, but it has been
taken off and now it is sort of‑‑we do not know quite what the
direction is.
For
four years the funding model was studied.
There was an advisory committee, and we supported that concept. There was a long‑standing tradition in
The
minister promised me in the House, promised us in the House on many occasions
that report would be released so that the public could consult and deal with
the funding model. Mr. Acting Speaker,
he promised me at Christmas 1990. Then
he promised me at Christmas 1991, and then he promised the summer of 1991. He got the report June 4 and nothing
happened. I kept asking the
minister. I kept asking the minister not
only in the House, but I asked the minister in the hallway, personally, when
are you going to release the report? He
never did. Then he came out with his
funding announcement in October. In
fact, it was Halloween, and he came out with his funding announcement. We had warned him of the dangers of that
funding model and what would happen.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, the former minister said that we were only fearmongering, the
usual response, and that the NDP was engaging in trick or treating. You know what? What did he do after that? He changed the funding model to reflect some
of our concerns. Then what did he do
after that? He changed it again. Then
what happened? The Premier (Mr. Filmon)
changed the minister. Then what
happened? The new minister changed the
model again. The model is still being
changed because that model has some serious problems, some serious flaws, and
we warned them about that.
We
warned them, Mr. Acting Speaker, that if the model was imposed as it was it
would result in massive job losses, and we are seeing that. We are seeing in two divisions alone over 100
jobs lost. We told them there would be
program cuts. In Transcona‑Springfield
alone, as a result of the funding model‑‑and presumably Transcona‑Springfield
was one of the "winners in the funding model"‑‑eight
programs were cut. We have seen programs
cut, I dare say, probably in the hundreds across the province, and the inequity
that is built on a foundation of inequity continues.
The
Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) has told me time and time again in this
House in the last couple of weeks that the funding model is working fine. Yet yesterday at her announcement to
extricate themselves from the school boundary review she said one of the
reasons for doing it was because of the assessment of the funding model. That strikes me as a tiny bit contradictory,
Mr. Acting Speaker, because what they are doing is using the very excuse that
the minister had said. They are using an
excuse of the funding model when the minister before frequently said in the House,
everything was fine on the funding model.
We
will continue to press on the funding model.
We will continue to press on this government to deal with education
equitably, and there will be much more said on that, I can assure members of
this House, by members on this side of the House when we get to the Estimates
of the Education department.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, I get the impression the last week that members on that side of
the House, the Premier in particular, were offended by criticisms of the budget. I cannot help but remark for several days
before the budget was released, members on that side of the House were really
quite confident, and I was expecting some kind of blockbuster budget that was
somehow going to do more than stand aside.
I was as disappointed as I usually am with respect to the Tory budget,
but I do not know where the basis for the false confidence of members opposite
was in the days preceding the budget.
I
do not know why the Premier expected anything but criticism. I do not know why members on that side of the
House, the Premier in particular, are so offended when we dare to criticize
this budget, because we owe it to the people of
Another interesting point, Mr. Acting Speaker,
while I am on that point, was I guess I am surprised why members have not been
more responsive to queries from the public.
Even last spring, members on that side of the House were confidentially
going out door knocking around the city of
I
guess I find it curious, because they have been on streets where the Minister
of Finance (Mr. Manness) was laughed out of the home. The people next door told me that they could hear
that he was coming to their home, because there was the laughter and the anger
from members in that house yelling. That
was a poll, I should indicate, that voted for members opposite.
I
do not know what members expected when at another door they went to an
individual who had just been laid off by this government, in fact, by the
Minister of Justice, the Attorney General, and what was the reaction, Mr.
Acting Speaker? What has been the
response? All of these reactions, where
have they taken them? Where have they
deposited this response in their repertoire, as they sat around the cabinet
table and tried to determine where they were going? What effect has that door knocking had on
them? I am afraid it has not had very
much.
* (1500)
They talk fondly about how much more money
they are spending on education, and I looked back into the 1990 budget‑‑and
I have many more statistics which I will be citing during the Estimates
process, as I normally do‑‑and noted that the proportion of
expenditures of Education in 1990 were 18.2 percent of the total provincial
expenditures, and this year, two years later and after a considerable amount of
inflation and the like, the total of the Education expenditures, a proportion
of the total provincial budget, is up to 18.3 percent. That is one percent of an increase over two
years.
For
a government that supposedly made education a priority, I cannot understand
that approach, and I do not think the public of
I
must turn to one of the areas that the government has flown up the flagpole in
a couple of Throne Speech Debates, and we keep waiting for initiatives, and
that is the area of training. Every one
in this House, every government and almost every individual in
What I would like to do is just read in a
couple of quotes, again from a Tory government publication. Frankly, it does not lay out a framework, but
it does have some useful statistics, and that is the consultation paper of
Learning Well, Living Well produced by the Government of Canada.
Just with respect to training, I want to cite
a few of the quotes that bring facts to bear on this whole question of training
because, frankly, I am tired of hearing governments and people say that we need
more training. My question to them is:
In what, where and how? I mean, let us
get down to brass tacks. Let them not just talk rhetoric.
With respect to this challenge, I want to
quote: Even while we confront jobless
rates of nearly 8 percent‑‑if it were only that low‑‑the
job vacancy rates of jobs that cannot be filled with the right qualifications
is the highest in nearly 20 years. There are 600,000 job vacancies in an
economy with almost one million unemployed.
I
have already quoted the fact that‑‑no, I have not quoted it: Private industry spends only 0.3 percent of
our gross domestic product on training.
The rough comparable figure in the
Let
me quote also from this federal government document:
I
will be tying this all together to the context of my comments, but the point,
Mr. Acting Speaker, is that we publish paper after paper after paper; we have
throne speech after throne speech after throne speech; we have government
initiative or lack thereof, constantly talking about the need for training and
setting up the job bank and the whole like, and we have no action.
We
have had no action from this government for several years. I know for a fact that they have sat around
the cabinet table again and said, hey, Mike, we have to get this put together,
and Mike has gone off and he has the Department of Education working like crazy
to produce what should have been produced two years ago, their job inventory
and their matching of jobs and job programs.
Members opposite know that. They
know they are way behind their schedule.
They are way behind their itinerary.
An Honourable Member: Who is this Mike guy?
Mr. Chomiak: Mike Bessey.
They sat around the table and they got Mike to
do that and Mike is on their back and they are cranking out those
statistics. They are doing that, Mr.
Acting Speaker, because they do not have an inventory, they do not have a basis
upon which they are making these spending decisions, these allocations of millions
of dollars to private companies, with no criteria, no evaluation, no overall
plan tied into it. That is the greatest‑‑it
is probably the worst of all worlds.
They are probably better off doing nothing than doing something that is
as ill‑founded on the basis of no empirical data. That is what they are doing.
We
could accept an initiative that had at least some kind of empirical basis and
some kind of direction. They are not
doing it. They are way behind. They are trying to put it together and we are
anticipating, we are waiting for the massive, the great announcement sometime
down the road. What they have done is
they have allocated millions of dollars.
They are running off money to these companies. No one knows where they are going, how they
are doing it, in fact who is doing it.
We
are still waiting for a concrete training policy, a training proposal from this
government despite flowery words in the throne speech on several
occasions. Members opposite know that is
the case. That is what bothers me about
the training initiatives or the lack of training initiatives of members on that
side of the government because they have swallowed hook, line and sinker the
rhetoric that we have heard around, but there has been no action and there is
no plan and we are still awaiting it.
The
free trade agreement with Mexico that this government is sort of‑‑we
are not quite certain what this government is doing other than the fact that
the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has on one occasion said he is opposed to it and now
he says he is sort of opposed to it with conditions, and what are those
conditions. It smacks of the debate on
the GST. In retrospect now, the members
on that side of the House were opposed to the GST. We barely heard their voices during the
debate about that tax. It is the same thing
on the free trade debate with
American and Canadian companies are not
interested in the Mexican market, Mr. Acting Speaker. What they are interested in is cheap Mexican
labour and its low wages. Not only does
it have low wages, but it has health and safety conditions called by the Wall
Street Journal abysmal. What the effect
and what this government and what this overall philosophy of the support of the
free trade agreement will do will be to‑‑yes, it will be to go
towards a level playing field, but it will be the lower level playing field, to
lower our conditions, to lower all of our standards down towards the Mexican
level. That is the fire that members on
the opposite side of the House are playing with. They did not know what they were playing with
in the Mulroney Free Trade Agreement that we got burned and burned badly and
now they are dabbling in it again. They
are just sort of attracted by that light, the brightness. They are just running after it again and they
are not taking a stand.
The
result is going to be that we are going to find ourselves locked into another
agreement that is going to lower standards on this side of the border and is
going to result in more difficulty for Canadians, not less.
Members do not seem to realize that on the
opposite side of the House. We will
raise it over and over again, although I think the member for Portage la
Prairie (Mr. Connery) is aware of some of the dangers and raised them today in
Question Period.
* (1510)
I could
go on, Mr. Acting Speaker, at great length about the lack of government
initiatives on the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry.
You know, it is very curious.
During the Estimates process on Justice the last several years, every
time we would ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), what about the
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry?‑‑he would retort, just wait until the
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry is launched and then you will see action. Over and over again we heard that. When that report comes down you will see action. I believe he said to the member for The Pas
(Mr. Lathlin), when that report comes down you will be pleasantly
surprised. Still we see no action.
We
see no initiative on the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry. In fact, we see retroactive steps. We see backward steps by this
government. We see the minister talking
about a million dollars in programs in his suitcase. We do not know what it is and, like so many
things in this government, it is all tied up in PR and it is all tied up in
crisis management, crisis control, which is a large part of why that car is
careening about and why we have a lack of unleadership by members on that side
of the House.
I
have a number of initiatives I would like to propose in terms of
alternatives. I will wait and I will
suggest most of those, because a lot of them are related to Education, during
the Estimates process. I will outline to
members opposite some of our alternative views and some of our vision in terms
of Education as promised, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Thank you very much for the opportunity of
addressing the Budget Debate.
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Acting Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure
for me to stand and speak on this government's fifth budget in a row that has
looked to the people of
I
am sure that most members of the House as they have been out visiting with
their constituents and listening to what their constituents have to say have
clearly heard time and time again that people in Manitoba are fed up of paying
taxes. They are tired of being taxed to
death. I mean, we hear even more
criticism of Winnipeg City Council right now and the kind of pressure they are
under and the tax revolt that is going around in
We
know that people, especially in tough economic times, do not want to see
governments spending above their means year after year. We all know even in our own household, Mr. Acting
Speaker, that we cannot spend more year after year than what we earn, because
as a result of that we build up a debt and a deficit and eventually lose
everything.
(Madam Deputy Speaker in the Chair)
Madam Deputy Speaker, we as a government have
made a firm commitment to Manitobans that we will attempt to keep taxes down
and to keep more money in people's pockets so they can choose how to spend
their money. I think we have attempted
over the last several budgets to deal in a very common‑sense way and act
fiscally responsible yet maintain the services that are greatly needed on the
social side of things for people that need human services.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased and proud
to be a part of a government under the leadership of our Premier, Gary Filmon,
and my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) who has brought in the
fifth budget in a row that has not increased personal taxes. There have been virtually no new taxes as a
result of this budget. I think the
people of
I
have listened to the opposition as they have sat in this House day after day
since the budget was announced and have been very critical. I just listened to some 40 minutes of the
member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) negatively spouting his comments about all of
the wrong things this government is doing.
I did not hear in that 40 minutes one positive thing or one positive
suggestion on how in fact he, if he were in government, was going to make a
difference or make a change or make anything better. I have listened for several days to
opposition parties, both opposition parties, that have not‑‑
An Honourable Member: Oh now, be nice.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have not as yet
heard, I do not think, from the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), but I am
sure, because I know that he does have some common sense and some
understanding, and I know that he listens‑‑[interjection] Well, he
must. I am sure that he has listened to
his constituents and that when he sees something that this government is doing
that is a positive decision that he will support that. I am looking forward with interest to hearing
his comments and maybe even his approval of this budget when he speaks a little
later today.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I feel it important in
this budget this year to put several comments on the record about the different
responsibilities that I have in my portfolio, no one area of responsibility any
less important than another. The newest,
I suppose‑‑well, let me start with my responsibility as Minister
responsible for the Status of Women and indicate how proud I am as a minister
to follow in the footsteps of the former minister, Gerrie Hammond, who was the
Minister responsible for the Status of Women before I took over. I worried that I would not be able to fill
those shoes, because I think that Gerrie Hammond left a record for this
government and for the women in
As
a result of her consultations, as a result of what the women of
We
also increased funding to crisis lines throughout the province. We ran an Abuse is a Crime campaign, which
was a very successful educational tool in informing all Manitobans of the issue
of violence and how we as a province and a government would not tolerate that
violence. We have had great success with
our family violence court, and the length of time that it takes to hear issues
of concern on family violence.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we have increased
substantially funding to our wife abuse shelters, and I know that the Minister
of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) will have some announcements to make
shortly as a result of this year's budget that will be very positive, and in no
small part as a result of some of the people that the Minister of Family
Services has surrounded himself with.
One of these people, of course, is Marlene Bertrand, who is the former
director of Osborne House, the largest shelter in the
* (1520)
Madam Deputy Speaker, as a result of the good
people giving good advice to the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer), I have difficulty believing that the opposition could not be
pleased with some of the announcements that will be made in the near
future. We as a government were the
first government to provide Core funding to the Indigenous Women's Collective,
a Native umbrella organization that speaks on behalf of many aboriginal women
throughout the province, and we are proud of that.
I
have come to understand and respect the women in the aboriginal community
greatly over the last number of months.
I have said in this House before, and I will repeat again, that, as I
travelled up north and met with women in some of the northern and more remote
communities, I listened and was appalled to hear their stories. I heard, and I listened to, and I cried with
those women who told me of the circumstances that they and their children were
subjected to, and how they really felt that they needed support and help and
guidance. I was angry, Madam Deputy
Speaker, at what I heard, and you know, I feel that at times I have led a very
sheltered life in a very safe community and have not been exposed or have not
heard the kinds of stories that I heard those days. Madam Deputy Speaker, the problem is
overwhelming, and I do know that the women are standing up today and they are
saying that we are not going to tolerate this.
On
International Women's Day, we announced our aboriginal women's policy, Speaking
to the Future, and had great support from the aboriginal women's community for
that policy.
As
I attended other activities and functions that day, I went over to the
Immigrant Women's Association. I guess
my feeling and my sense of accomplishment in dealing in partnership with the
aboriginal women and coming forward with the policy that they are excited about
and supportive of, I felt that I could not help but share that policy too with
the immigrant women.
I
said that abuse crosses all cultures and all parts of our
As
I was speaking, there were nods, positive head nods around the room from women
there who felt that this was an issue that crossed all of
So,
Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe we have come a long way. I do know there is a
lot more to do, and we have a commitment through the Women's Directorate,
through the advisory council. We will continue to work forward and deal with
issues that affect women and try to deal with them in a very positive way so
that someday we may not have to have within government a Women's Directorate or
an advisory council that deals specifically with issues, because I believe we are
working toward a mind‑set within society that, you know, women's issues
are not just women's issues, but they are society's issues and all of society.
I
know quite frankly I am in a minority, as are some of the other female
colleagues in this House. In the
Legislature there are 11 of us out of 57 members. I do know that we have five women members
that sit around our caucus table, three around the cabinet table, and I will
tell you that unless we had the full co‑operation of our male colleagues
that sat around that table, we would not accomplish anything. So I think there has to be, and I know there
has to be that co‑operative working relationship. I do know that all colleagues who sit around
our caucus table have issues and concerns that affect women and children at
heart. We will make the right decisions
for the right reasons, working in partnership, men and women, to accomplish
these goals.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to move on
now to some other areas of responsibility, responsibility that I have
concerning many Manitobans in the culture, heritage, recreation, citizenship
parts of the department, a very varied responsibility. I know the former minister is in the House
listening, and I think she will agree that it is an extremely busy portfolio.
You
seem like you are torn in many different directions with many different
demands, not only on your time to make policy decisions and set direction, but
also, if I might say, on the social side of things, because the activities and
the invitations that I receive as minister‑‑and I know she did too‑‑tear
you in many different directions, and you just cannot possibly be in all places
at all times and accept every invitation.
I
do want to thank my colleagues who sit in the Legislature with me in government
for their support, because I do know that many, many times many of them have
come through and been able to attend activities and functions that I have not
been able to be at because I could not be in two places at one time. I want to thank them for their co‑operation
and for their work on behalf of culture, heritage, recreation and citizenship
in this province.
Not
only do we deal with those areas of programming, but we deal with the cultural
institutions too that we support. In
tough economic times and when government has to set priorities, we look at
health care. We have made major
commitments to health care, a 5.7 percent increase or $101 million this year in
the budget. We have increased Family
Services by 8.7 percent and Education by 5.5 percent. Madam Deputy Speaker, we know that Manitobans
want those services, and we know that we have made them very high priority
funding. We have made decisions to put
those departments high on our priority list as well as economic development.
I
am pleased to say that within the Department of Culture, Heritage and
Citizenship, that I think this year we have done well and that we recognize as
a government that not all of the money that we can spend and can allocate can
go to Health, Education and Family Services, but that there has to be a quality
of life around the province, too, and that culture, that heritage, that
immigration and that recreation do contribute in a very positive way to our
quality of life. We were able to
maintain many of the programs and redirect and restructure things within the
department, in fact, so that we will even be able to deliver service better to
those communities that we represent.
We
do know too that our culture and the arts in our province can contribute in a
very positive way to the economy, to tourism, as well as to the quality of
life, but at times it is important to review what our priorities are, to
redirect resources within departments, to change the emphasis and to revise existing
programs and create new initiatives.
Needs change as people change and as communities change. I think that we have been able to try to move
and make changes where necessary based on the needs of the communities that we
serve.
The
one area that I inherited last year was the Citizenship Division, it was moved
over. We took a bit of Immigrant ACCESS
from the Department of Family Services.
We got Adult ESL and the Working Group on Immigrant Credentials from the
Department of Education and brought them all under one umbrella within the
Department of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship.
* (1530)
We
have looked at the best ways that we could utilize the resources that came to
us to structure a division that would meet the needs of new immigrants coming
to
As
a result of the Working Group on Immigrant Credentials and the report that we
received just a month or so ago, we have been able to restructure this division
within our department I think in a very positive way to attempt to serve the
community and the community needs. I
will not go into a lot of detail, because I think I made a fairly lengthy
statement in the House the other day that dealt with the Credentials and Labour
Market Branch within the division.
We
now have a policy branch that will be dealing very proactively with the
immigration policy, the bilateral policy that we are looking at formulating
with the federal government. We have an ESL adult language training and access
branch within the division and also a Citizenship Branch that will deal with
the granting programs that are available to help immigrants access the kinds of
services they deserve, and they need to become productive members of
I
am looking forward with anticipation to the positive work that can be done as a
result of the restructuring in this area. I suppose I always need to be looking
at challenges in dealing with the communities that we attempt to effectively
serve.
One
area that I would like to talk about also is the arts in
In
response to that Arts Policy Review, there were several recommendations, some
we were able to act on immediately and others that have taken a little
longer. One of the recommendations that
was in that Arts Policy Review was to restructure within our branch the arts
funding. As a result of that, this year
in the budget process we have been able to develop an Arts branch, which will
no longer be a Cultural Resources branch, but it will be an Arts branch.
We
have worked together with the Manitoba Arts Council, with the Multicultural
Grants Council, and with the department to try to streamline the process so
that many of the organizations out there do not have to go to three different
sources of funding.
It
means less bureaucratic red tape because when an organization has to apply to
three different areas to get funding, they have to usually apply to three
different programs that involve different detail and an awful lot of time
commitment.
We
now have attempted to structure it so that either the Arts Council, the
Multicultural Grants Council, or the Arts branch will be responsible for
funding one organization totally. That
will in fact cut down on the volunteer time which will need to be spent by many
organizations and many boards in trying to access government funding, and it
will cut down on the bureaucracy that is needed within government and within
those organizations to try to help communities and community organizations
access the system.
I
believe we have come up with a structure that is going to be of benefit to the
arts community as a result.
Another area that we as a government have made
a major commitment to in my department is in funding for capital within our
arts institutions. Before we took over
as government, most of our cultural institutions are well over 20 years old
now, had been built and then somewhat forgotten. Total budget when I took over as minister for
many, many years for capital upgrading of our facilities was some $200,000 per
year.
Madam Deputy Speaker, when you have got
several buildings, like the museum, like the concert hall, like the art
gallery, that are over 20 years old, $200,000 does not go a long way to make
major improvements. We have over the
last few years attempted to upgrade those facilities to a quality that will
serve the arts community that uses those facilities.
I
am pleased to say that we have another $4 million in the budget this year to do
the badly needed work on the
We
have also in this budget managed to find an increase in funding for our
cultural industries in the film and sound production areas. I am extremely pleased and proud, when under
the former administration, we did have a cost‑shared federal‑provincial
ERDA agreement on culture, and as that agreement ended, Madam Deputy Speaker,
the federal government has pulled their funding out of cultural industries year
by year.
I
know that our government has a major commitment, because we do know what the
film industry and what the sound recording industry can do and have done for
our province. I am really pleased to see
that in these difficult economic times we have been able to find some extra
money to keep our cultural industries viable.
If
I can just talk about what cultural industries have done for
I
know that my colleague the MLA for
I
am pleased and proud. Here we have a
film crew working in
* (1540)
In
this budget, too, we are also following up on some of the promises we have made
to the multicultural community in the last year that will benefit our newcomers
as well. We, as a result of the
multicultural policy, put in place a secretariat that would deal
intergovernmentally with the issues that were brought forward from the
community to government and to try to focus programs within different departments
that would deal effectively with the multicultural community. We are now in the process.
Of
course, we have recruited and hired two people to work in the outreach office,
and we are in the process now of, having hired the staff, being able to put that
outreach office‑‑it will be like a store‑front operation
within the core area of the city of Winnipeg where people will be able to come
to attempt to access the government services that they need. So I am pleased that is underway and will be
up and running in the very near future.
The
recreation community has not been overlooked in this budget either. I think we all recognize and realize the
benefit of recreation to our quality of life.
Last fall I announced the new recreation policy which outlined
government's commitment and our recognition of the importance of
recreation. As a result of that policy
announcement we were able to replace the recreation district program, which had
been in place since 1972 and was not meeting the demands of the recreation
community today. We were able to
announce a restructuring of that grant program to better serve the communities
throughout the
We
are also in the recreation area extending the research agreement that we
entered into with the
I
am pleased to say, too, that we will be continuing with the Northern Recreation
Directors Program, which was originally designed as a two‑year pilot
project. It is due to end in the fall of
1992. I am really pleased to say that as
a result of this program, this pilot project, I believe that we have been able
to train some 22 or so recreation directors, trained from communities in the
North to go back to communities in the North and provide the very needed
services in those communities. I am
pleased to say that in conjunction with my colleague the Minister of Northern
Affairs (Mr. Downey), that through his department this year we will be able to
utilize and hire those recreation directors to deliver services and
opportunities to their communities in the North.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we also, through this
budget, made some changes to the heritage funding and will be winding down the
operations of the Manitoba Heritage Foundation which I spoke to earlier in
Question Period today. I think that the
community will be well served, and I know that from talking to and from the
feedback from the community that they are looking with anticipation to the new
structure.
I
want to make it very clear today that the community will be consulted and will
be a part of the process of the decision making. I know the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux)
has some questions, and I will reiterate again, that unlike the critic from the
NDP party who has a background and an understanding of the history of Historic
Resources Branch within our department, the member for Inkster I do not believe
has a clear understanding. I know he
does not because you could just tell by the tone and the lack of understanding
in his questioning today. I know after Question Period he did tell me that he
was going to take more of an interest in the heritage community. I welcome that, because I believe it is
important that all parties in this House have an understanding and a working
relationship with the community. I
cannot say that about the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) because I know
he has been actively involved in his community.
I have met with members of his community, and they have many good things
to say about the member for St. Boniface and his understanding of the issues.
I
think I have covered all of the areas within my department that have been
affected, and I think in a very positive way through this budget process this
year, but I think I would be remiss if I did not talk about another area of
responsibility, and that is lotteries.
We
have seen some major change over the last few years in the areas of lottery
generation of revenue with the
We,
I think, have done something good with the introduction of video lottery
terminals in rural
Sometimes we tend to forget when we get
criticism across the floor from the opposition about lotteries or how we are
functioning or what we are doing is that lotteries do good things for many
Manitobans, not only in the health care system now with our commitment of
casino revenues going into the Health Services Development Fund, not only
through the Video Lottery Terminal program which will put money right back into
rural Manitoba communities, but into our cultural organizations through the
Manitoba Arts Council, through the Manitoba Sports Federation, to the heritage
community, to conservation projects through the Department of Natural
Resources. Those dollars that are
generated in the community go back to the community in so very many ways.
I
am pleased to have had the opportunity to be a part of directing some of the
money to health care, to rural development and to conservation in our province.
I
think on that note I will close and say I look forward to a continuation of
debate on the budget and ultimately the passage of this budget, and on to the
Estimates process where we can deal in detail and hear from the opposition the
positive recommendations that they have and suggestions that they have to
contribute to improving the health and the economy here in the province.
We
have taken many of the right steps. We
have moved in the right direction, and I know that the taxpayers and the people
of
I
guess, ultimately, our end goal is to make
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
* (1550)
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Firstly, I would like to say, I will be
speaking in both official languages today, of which I am very proud to be
able. I did not get a chance to put my
comments on the throne speech, but first I would like to say, I was pleased to
be back here and see the colleagues in the Legislature. It was nice to see the Pages, and I wish them
a good session. They will enjoy being
here and learn the process of what goes on in the Legislature. Welcome to all of them. They are the future
of
Madame la vice‑presidente, c'est un
honneur pour moi de me lever a mon tour, afin d'adresser quelques mots sur la
planification du gouvernement telle qu'elle a ete presentee a cette assemblee
deliberante, lors de la lecture du Discours du budget qui est le cinquieme a
etre presente par ce present gouvernement.
Il
existe certaines bases fondamentales que l'on doit retrouver dans un plan
budgetaire afin de nourrir la croissance economique et sociale d'une societe ou
d'un peuple.
Il
va de soi que l'on peut dire que cet agenda politique et financier du
gouvernement ne se distingue d'aucune innovation; n'annonce aucune mesure
extraordinaire; ne donne aucun souffle d'espoir aux Manitobains et aux
Manitobaines d'entrevoir une issue de secours afin de sortir des periples
innombrables, et combien malheureux, de la recession economique dans laquelle
nous vivons actuellement.
Dans tout systeme parlementaire, comme celui
dont nous avons le privilege d'en jouir des bienfaits au Canada et au Manitoba,
le respect du devoir civique de chaque depute doit faire honneur a la confiance
leguee par les electeurs et les electrices.
Et ce, peu importe que l'on soit parmi les rangs du gouvernement ou bien
assis parmi le ou les partis politiques de l'opposition.
Les
allegeances ideologiques doivent servir de fil conducteur tout en permettant a
la pensee de ne pas outrepasser la realite. La raison d'etre de notre Assemblee
legislative, de contribuer a l'amelioration des conditions de vie des
Manitobains et des Manitobaines, doit etre la source d'inspiration qui permette
au gouvernement et a l'opposition de se completer l'un a l'autre.
Je
ne discuterai pas ici de maniere systematique les differences des deux bords
parce que la chose est deja faite de facon habituelle. Neanmoins, j'aimerais preciser qu'il est du
role de l'opposition de montrer avec force et pertinence les insuffisances du
gouvernement.
Non
seulement il est logique pour ma part de supporter l'allocution presentee recemment
par le leader du Parti liberal sur le Discours du trone, mais c'est surtout
avec fierte que je reconnais dans ce discours de reponse le serieux avec lequel
le role legislatif de l'opposition est demontre.
Madame la vice‑presidente, afin de conserver
l'objectivite de mes pensees je dois neanmoins avouer un certain regret a
propos du discours du leader de la seconde opposition. Mon regret est que ce discours n'ait pas ete
le Discours du trone. Le premier
ministre lui‑meme a reconnu non‑seulement le bien‑fonde de la
plupart, sinon de toutes, les resolutions annoncees par le leader liberal, mais
il a surtout pu savourer un logicisme constructif que l'on n'a pu entrevoir
dans la degringolade de mots subjectifs du chef du Parti neo‑democrate.
Il
est regrettable de constater que le negativisme prend de plus en plus d'ampleur
chez les NPD, ce qui est probablement a la source de leur etroitesse d'esprit
demontree par une critique constante et vide de toute suggestion corrective. Mais je ne voudrais pas m'eloigner plus
longtemps du sujet principal de mes propos qui est le programme que le
gouvernement pretend nous presenter. [interjection]
I
will come back.
Madame la vice‑presidente, quand je dis
"programme", je suis genereux, car il n'y a rien dans ce que le
gouvernement nous presente qui n'a pas ete annonce ou suggere auparavant.
Au
risque de le repeter, les Manitobains et les Manitobaines savent deja trop bien
que le dollar est trop haut, et que Brian Mulroney‑‑
An Honourable Member: What?
Mr. Gaudry: A Tory.
‑‑est
trop preoccupe par son image personnelle qu'il n'a pas le temps de s'inquieter
des interets de notre pays; encore moins des interets de notre province.
Et
en ce qui concerne son image, le pauvre est irrecuperable; il n'a meme plus besoin d'aide. Meme Picasso ne pourrait en redresser le
portrait.
En
ce qui concerne des initiatives en matiere de croissance economique, on nous a
annonce la restructuration du ministere de l'Industrie, du Commerce et du
Tourisme qui, desormais, mettra l'accent sur des initiatives strategiques. Si de par l'existence meme de ce ministere,
il n'etait pas deja dans les objectifs du ministere de l'Industrie, du Commerce
et du Tourisme de mettre l'accent sur des initiatives strategiques afin de
stimuler la croissance economique de notre province, qu'est‑ce que ce
ministere a donc fait pendant les trois dernieres annees?
Madame la vice‑presidente, en matiere
economique, l'action d'un gouvernement doit permettre d'aboutir a un certain
nombre de resultats. Je crois que le
premier resultat economique fondamental, c'est de faire du
C'est pourquoi j'attache pour ma part la plus
grande importance a ce que l'action sociale du gouvernement soit tournee, par
priorite, vers les plus defavorises et vers ceux et celles qui souffrent a
l'heure actuelle de la transformation necessaire et indispensable de notre
economie.
Et
puis il y a un troisieme aspect, que je crois tres important du point de vue
economique, c'est de donner a l'economie manitobaine une dimension nationale et
internationale.
Bien entendu, cela veut dire d'abord le
Il
n'est pas concevable, en matiere economique, de proner une politique d'echange
commercial orientee singulierement vers un pays etranger, meme voisin, tout en
ignorant les provinces avoisinantes et qui se trouvent etre les autres
composantes constitutionnelles de notre nation.
C'est, pour ma part, ce que je crois etre
l'objectif fondamental, parce que je ne vois, pour une province de la dimension
du Manitoba, que deux issues: ou bien se
refermer a nouveau sur elle‑meme, et vivoter, a l'abri des humeurs
americaines de l'Accord du libre echange, et par consequent deperir, ou bien
alors etre en mesure de participer pleinement au marche international, avec ses
dimensions actuelles qui s'ouvrent deja, pour englober non seulement le monde
occidental, mais aussi le monde de l'Est.
Il
va de soi que cela suppose une transformation des esprits, que cela suppose un
effort d'investissement considerable, et que cela suppose des ententes
interprovinciales et des creations d'entreprises de taille nationale dont il
existe tres peu encore au Manitoba.
Le
En
matiere de renouveau economique pour notre province il s'agit la d'une
transformation enorme, et le gouvernement demontre une nouvelle fois qu'il
craint de ne pas etre en mesure de prevoir et de prevenir les consequences sociales
de cette transformation.
En
ce qui concerne le domaine social, il est de rigueur pour un gouvernement de se
soucier de la vulnerabilite des enfants et des femmes.
Je
fus encourage quelque peu quand le gouvernement declara continuer d'accorder la
priorite aux refuges pour femmes et enfants vulnerables.
J'interpretais ces propos dans l'optique
positive que la "maison Teresa" recevrait le financement adequat afin
de repondre aux besoins de la collectivite.
Quelle deception et surtout quelle meprise de
ma part d'avoir ose croire que finalement le gouvernement repondrait aux
besoins des femmes franco‑manitobaines necessiteuses d'un environnement
propice a attenuer leurs peines et leur douleurs.
Quand le gouvernement se dit pret a mettre
davantage l'accent sur les soins en milieu communautaire et a s'efforcer de
mettre une plus grande proportion des fonds disponibles a la portee des
nombreux services competents au sein de la collectivite, je me dis que la
circonstance de ces propos ne pouvait etre meilleure.
En
effet, Madame la vice‑presidente, le "Service de conseiller" a
Saint‑Boniface vient tout juste de recevoir son certificat national
d'agrement. Ce certificat est la
reconnaissance officielle de la qualite professionnelle des services qu'offre
depuis deja bien longtemps cet organisme a la collectivite dans le domaine du
"counselling". Il est donc
juste d'en deduire que dorenavant le "Service de conseiller"
rencontrera les nombreux objectifs du gouvernement en matiere de services de
prevention, de traitement et de soutien au sein de la collectivite. D'ou la conclusion logique d'un appui
financier de la part du gouvernement.
Et
j'ose encore esperer tres sincerement que malgre tout, le gouvernement trouvera
les moyens appropries et necessaires afin de demontrer que ce meme gouvernement
sait reagir de facon responsable face aux efforts de la collectivite.
[Translation]
Madam Deputy Speaker, it
is an honour for me to rise in turn to say a few words about the government's
planning as presented to this Assembly during the Budget Debate, which is the
fifth to be introduced by this government.
There are certain
fundamentals that have to be contained in a budgetary plan in order to nourish
the economic and social growth of a society or a people.
It goes without saying
that this government's political and financial agenda does not distinguish
itself with any innovation. It does not
announce any extraordinary measures. It
does not give any gleam of hope to Manitobans of finding a safe way out of the
numerous and so unfortunate ups and downs of the economic recession that we are
currently experiencing.
In any parliamentary
system, such as the one whose benefits we have the privilege of enjoying in
Canada and Manitoba, respect for the civic duty of each member must give due
honour to the confidence expressed by the electors, regardless of whether we
sit on the government benches or with the party or parties of the opposition.
Ideological allegiances
must serve as a common thread while all the same not allowing reflection to
overstep the bounds of reality. The
raison d'etre of our Legislative Assembly, to contribute to improving the
living conditions of Manitobans, must be the source of inspiration that enables
the government and the opposition to complement each other.
I will not at this time
be discussing systematically the differences on both sides because that is
something that is already done on a regular basis. Nonetheless, I would like to emphasize that it
is the role of the opposition to point out forcefully and appropriately the
deficiencies of the government.
It is not only logical
for me to support the speech given recently by the Leader of the Liberal Party
in response to the throne speech, but it is, above all, with pride that I
recognize in that speech the seriousness with which the legislative role of the
opposition is demonstrated.
Madame Deputy Speaker,
in order to maintain the objectivity of my reflections, I must nonetheless
confess to a certain regret regarding the speech given by the Leader of the
second opposition party. My regret is
that this speech was not "the" throne speech. The First Minister (Mr. Filmon) himself
recognized not only the validity of most, if not all of the resolutions
proposed by the Liberal Leader, but he, above all, was able to savour the
constructive logic that we could not divine in the cascade of subjective words
from the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
It is regrettable to
observe the negativism that is steadily increasing among the NDP, which is
likely the source of their narrow‑mindedness as demonstrated by a
constant and empty criticism of any positive suggestion, but I would not wish
to stray any longer from the principal topic of my remarks, which is the
program that the government claims it is presenting to us. [interjection]
[English]
I will come back.
[French]
Madam Deputy Speaker, when I say "program," I am
being generous because there is nothing in what the government is presenting to
us that has not been announced or proposed previously.
At the risk of being
repetitive, Manitobans already know too well that the dollar is too high and
that Brian Mulroney‑‑
[English]
An Honourable Member: What?
Mr. Gaudry: A Tory
[French]
‑‑is so preoccupied by his personal image that
he has not the time to worry about the interests of our country and even less
about the interests of our province.
Insofar as his image is concerned, the poor man is beyond redemption. He can no longer even be helped. Even Picasso could not fix his picture.
Insofar as economic
growth initiatives are concerned, we were informed of the restructuring of the
Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism, which from now on will focus on
strategic initiatives. If by virtue of
the very existence of this department it was not already within the objectives
of the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism to focus on strategic
initiatives aimed at stimulating the economic growth of our province, then what
has this department been doing for the past three years?
Madam Deputy Speaker, in
the economic area, government action must make it possible to achieve a certain
number of results. I believe that the
first fundamental economic result is to make
That is why I personally
attach a great deal of importance to government social action that is directed
as a priority to the most disadvantaged and to those who are now suffering as a
result of the necessary and indispensable transformation of our economy.
There is also a third
aspect that I believe is very important from the economic point of view, and
that is to give the Manitoba economy a national and international dimension.
Of course, Madam Deputy
Speaker, first of all that means a Canada where commercial trade is far too
often nonexistent. This is due among
other things to a problem at the national level, which I will call the Mulroney
problem. It is inconceivable in economic
matters to extol a trade policy directed exclusively at a foreign, albeit
neighbouring, country while ignoring the adjacent provinces which are the other
constitutional components of our nation.
Madam Deputy Speaker,
that personally is what I believe to be the fundamental objective, because I can
only see two ways out for a province of Manitoba's size, either to turn inward
once again and scrape by in the shadow of American whims under the Free Trade
Agreement and consequently fade away, or else be in a position to participate
fully in the international marketplace with its present dimensions that even
now are opening up to encompass not only the western world, but also the
eastern world.
It goes without saying
that this presupposes a transformation in thinking and presupposes a
considerable investment effort and presupposes interprovincial agreements and
the setting up of national scale businesses of which very few exist yet in
In the area of economic
renewal for our province, this is an enormous transformation and the government
is showing once again that it is fearful of not being able to foresee and
prevent these social consequences of this transformation. In regard to the social domain, it is
essential for a government to address the vulnerability of women and children.
* (1600)
I was somewhat
encouraged when the government stated that it was going to continue to give
priority to shelters for vulnerable women and children. I interpreted these words in the positive
expectation that Theresa House would receive adequate financing in order to
meet the needs of the community. What a disappointment
and, above all, what a misunderstanding on my part to have dared believe that
finally the government was going to meet the needs of Franco‑Manitoban
women who were in need of an environment that was propitious to alleviating
their sorrows and their hurt.
When the government
states that it is prepared to place greater emphasis on community care and put
a greater proportion of available funds within the reach of the many competent
services within the community, I feel that the timing of this declaration could
not be better. As a matter of fact,
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Service de Conseiller in St. Boniface has just
received its national certification, and this certification is an official
recognition of the professional quality of the services that have already been
offered for some time by this organization to the community in the counselling
area.
So it is appropriate to
deduce that from now on the Service de Conseiller will meet the numerous
objectives of the government in the area of prevention, treatment and support
services within the community. The
logical conclusion of that would be financial support from the government. So I hope, very sincerely, once again, that
in spite of everything, the government will find the appropriate and necessary
means to demonstrate that this same government knows how to react in a
responsible way to community efforts.
[English]
Madam Deputy Speaker, I
also have to stress the critical need of confronting elder abuse. Many seniors in
There is, at the present time, an urgent need
to address the situation of the lack of shelters for abused elders. Most of the time the facilities being used
presently do not respond to the needs of the seniors faced with mobility,
hearing and sight impairments.
Moreover, we must not forget about the great
number of our seniors faced with financial difficulties. In order to eliminate the administrative
delays for our seniors to get reimbursed, the introduction of a resolution to
create a Pharmacare card based on a system that will require seniors to pay
only their deductible would be more than appropriate.
Madam Deputy Speaker, northern concerns have
received a lot of lip service from a succession of provincial governments over
the years‑‑note, please, I said previous governments‑‑but
unfortunately these promises have rarely survived the transition to power. Since I have worked in various northern
regions myself in the past, I can empathize with the issues of concern to the
northern communities.
In
addition, I will be making a few comments about the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry,
rural development bonds and hydroelectric development, issues, which in
previous consultations, northerners have listed as priorities.
The
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry report, AJI, is, in my opinion, one of the most
important documents any government has been presented with in a long time. It indicates that the fundamental purpose of
government, to protect its citizens and to provide a system of justice to
provide order in society, is flawed, a fundamental flaw that must be addressed
and it must be addressed now.
The
Liberal Party agrees with the report's statement that the justice system has
failed
Let
it be noted however that justice for aboriginal people goes beyond the judicial
system. Self‑government and the
settlement of land claims must be accomplished for the aboriginal communities
to prosper as well as for those that surround them.
The
settlement of land claims will provide the economic base in the establishment
of self‑government including an aboriginal justice system. It will also provide the political base to
manage the economic resources to make aboriginal communities self‑sufficient
and prosperous.
We
in the Liberal Party are committed to a moratorium on the further disposition
of Crown lands. We support the
amalgamation of the
The
Liberal Party in
However, I am convinced that the children's
advocate must report to the Legislative Assembly and not to the minister in
order to fully respect the impartiality necessary to protect and defend the
children's welfare.
Madam Deputy Speaker, while the government is
turning its back on the city of
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Liberal Party will
give the government some credit for its introduction of the rural bonds program
in the last year. We have no difficulty
in complimenting the government when it adopts Liberal campaign promises, when
the government adopts good policies.
The
member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) mentioned before, asked me to compliment
him, and I did, but they were using our policies. Unfortunately this is one of the few positive
measures the government has taken and this budget does not build on this
base. Last year this government cut
community development from which was to spring the solutions to economic
diversification. This year the trend continues as community development
receives a further 9.4 percent cut.
The
offloading of provincial responsibilities onto municipalities continues with a
1.9 percent cut to the local government services division with municipal
support grants being cut by 57.4 percent.
An Honourable Member: I think you are teaching Ben too much. He did not realize that.
Mr. Gaudry: I am just giving him statistics that have come
out of the budget in case he could not read them.
The
Finance minister (Mr. Manness) apparently has no qualms about attacking the
federal government for offloading while doing the very same thing to
municipalities in
Madam Deputy Speaker, when the government
changed the name of this department from Municipal Affairs to Rural
Development, it was to be a sign that government was prioritizing economic
diversification, but, like too many other government moves, the name change was
more flash than substance. The
department has not geared itself toward rural economic development and has
functioned as the same old Department of Municipal Affairs with a different
name. Again, there has been no vision of
what might be.
This budget does provide some hope that the
government will finally start listening to rural communities when it comes to
economic development. The lottery‑funded
Rural Economic Development Initiative program announced will be something that
I, the Rural Development critic, will follow closely. It may prove useful, and we hope that this
government will simply not turn it into a new patronage trough to curry
votes. If the government is committed to
real economic development I will help with this program because I recognize the
importance of rural diversification.
As
Liberals, we are eagerly looking forward to the details on this initiative and
hope that we will not be disappointed as the rest of the budget paints a dark
picture of the government's commitment to rural
Through all this, I am led to believe that the
social and economic well‑being of northern communities was deemed less
important than the energy needs of southern Manitobans by provincial governments
over the last 30 years, 20 of the NDP.
* (1610)
It
is time for a new approach from the government and from Manitoba Hydro, an
approach that respects northern communities and the environment. The first step in doing this would be to stop
stonewalling on northern flood compensation.
The commitments made under the Northern Flood Agreement should be
respected by all sides. It also should
include participation by other communities.
Government's unwillingness to live up to these
terms has resulted in both sides spending far too much on legal and consulting
fees. This compensation money was
intended for northern economic development, not for the economic development of
our legal and consulting communities.
The
second step would be for this government and for Manitoba Hydro to concentrate
their efforts on energy conservation.
The government is being pushed reluctantly into conservation but it
should be embracing it as a means to save tax dollars and to protect the
environment.
Madam Deputy Speaker, can I have the time
left? I should be able to speak for an
hour and a half. I did not get a chance
to speak on the throne speech. What is
the time?
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has expended 22 minutes
of his allotted time. He has 18 minutes
left.
Mr. Gaudry: Conservation gives Manitoba Hydro time before
it needs to develop another power source.
I hope the minister is listening this time. This time can be used to do proper environmental
reviews and to bring northern communities into the decision making so that they
are not simply left to cope with a decision that will devastate their
communities. Hydro development has for
too long been based on the political goals of the party‑‑the NDP
when they were in power‑‑and not on the energy and economic needs
of Manitobans, particularly northern Manitobans.
Madam Deputy Speaker, hydro development must
be taken out of the political realm and put back into the economic and
environmental realms where it belongs.
Decisions must be made on the basis of energy needs‑‑remember
that‑‑and when it is going to be needed, environmental concerns and
sound economics, not on the timing of the next election. I truly believe that this kind of process
will benefit all Manitobans whether they live in
Above all, let us remind ourselves that
northern and rural communities are an important and vital part of the
environmental life and the economic development of our great
Madam Deputy Speaker, the cornerstone of rural
development is agricultural development, and while there are major increases
for GRIP and NISA, there is the same disturbing lack of vision in the
agricultural budget as it focuses on tinkering in the short term to the
detriment of long‑term development. [interjection] For insurance, for
NISA and GRIP.
The
agricultural community has been suffering for more than a decade from the twin
evils of drought and international trade wars.
While understandably the farm community has been forced to operate under
crisis management conditions, the government abandoned its role of ensuring the
long‑term economic development of agriculture in this province.
First the NDP and then the Tories concentrated
only on the present and failed to build an agenda for the future.
An Honourable Member: The Liberals are next, you know.
Mr. Gaudry: But they will build an agenda for the farmers.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have to agree with my
former colleague. Mr. Evans complimented
the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) the other day, said he was a good
minister. I have to put this on the
record.
An Honourable Member: Laurie thinks highly of you.
Mr. Gaudry: Yes, he does.
I told you I would compliment you today, and I intend to do that, but I
will attack you also.
Madam Deputy Speaker, agriculture is vital to
the future prosperity of our province.
Yet, during these difficult past 10 years no government has paid any
attention to where agriculture is going, indeed whether it will survive, and
this budget continues this unfortunate trend.
Drought has been a problem, but the government's only response has been
to pay more for support for crops that did not grow and to demand that the
federal government provide relief. The
GRIP program was introduced last year and now we are pleased to see the
government implementing NISA‑‑another compliment for you, Minister
of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay)‑‑even if it had to be dragged kicking
and screaming to do so.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
These are important steps but they are only
the beginning of what a responsible government should do‑‑I am not
saying irresponsible yet but it might come later. The introduction of these two programs add
significantly to the Agriculture budget and with these income stabilization
plans in place, we hope that the department starts addressing the long‑term
challenges faced by the agricultural community.
Mr.
Speaker, if soil conditions are changing and rainfall is becoming less dependable,
then the government should be looking at ways to adapt to the changing
world. It is not enough to complain
about the problems and ask for drought relief payments. The government's
response to soil degradation is to cut the budget of the Soils and Crops
Branch.
While many prominent scientists identify soil
erosion and degradation as the biggest environmental crisis facing the globe
today, this government cuts the funding to the Soils Branch. The continued productivity of our soil is
vital to long‑term sustainable agriculture yet this government cuts
resources. This is the lack of vision in
agriculture that does not bode well for the future.
Mr
Speaker, sustainable development is not a concept that is separate and apart
from the real world. It is the future of
resource‑driven industries and it is the future of agriculture as well.
There are a number of things that this
government could do or encourage to make the land and farms more productive,
but the only solution they have chosen is to take water from farmers in one
area and give it to farmers in another.
This is not a solution; it is only shifting the problem.
The
government trumpeted its land and water strategy and then promptly ignored it
when the positive media reaction had been achieved. Mr. Speaker, where has the follow‑up
been?
The
budget contains no added resources for shelter‑belt programs. Shelter belts provide protection for soil and
wind erosion as well as provide habitat for local plant and animal
species. They hold moisture in the soil
and reduce wind damage to valuable top soil.
The
government has also taken no steps to improve agricultural productivity by
developing a sustainable policy on the farming of marginal lands. All government programs are geared to putting
every square inch of land into agricultural production whether the land is
capable of sustaining profitable yields or not.
Marshes, bogs, woodlands and scrub lands have been cleared so more land
can be farmed. This causes problems in a
number of ways.
Environmentally,
we have seen the destruction of valuable wildlife habitat which leads to the
loss of animal and plant species from certain areas. In order to make these marginal lands more
productive, farmers must use more fertilizer and more chemicals which can have
negative impacts on the remaining nonfarmland.
In addition, the extra chemical and fertilizer costs increase the
farmers' cost and lead to tight profit margins given that the land is not
overly productive in the first place.
This leads to an increased cost to the
government and to all farmers.
Government support programs do not differentiate between marginal
farmland and productive farmland and therefore government dollars are going to
support production on land that should not be farmed at all. Mr. Speaker, this also means that there is
less money available to farmers on productive land that are suffering from
international trade wars and drought conditions.
* (1620)
Mr.
Speaker, a sustainable agricultural policy must be developed, a policy that
discourages farming on marginal land is needed, a policy that encourages
farmers to take marginal land out of production and return it to natural
habitat. Sustainable agricultural
policies like this have been successfully implemented all over the world but
this budget fails to address the problem and this inaction will have long‑term
negative implications for agricuture in the province. Decisions such as these take courage and this
government seems to be missing a lot of it.
Agricultural research and development has once
again been given the short shift in this budget and it is another example of
the lack of vision in this budget. The
grant for agricultural research has been cut by $75,500 or 8.6 percent.
While our agricultural competitors are
improving their productivity through R & D by developing new crop strains
and better soil management techniques, our farmers are falling behind because
of a lack of commitment on the part of both the provincial and the federal
governments. The government cannot focus
its vision beyond the end of its collective nose, Mr. Speaker, and as a result
the long‑term challenges agriculture faces are being ignored.
It
is unfortunate that this government believes that investing in the long‑term
viability of our agricultural system is not a priority. It is obviously not listening to the people
that elected it.
Monsieur le president, avant d'aborder la
question de la constitution du
Tout d'abord j'aimerais souligner le
"coup de chapeau" du premier ministre. Monsieur Filmon a en effet ete l'orateur
invite a l'assemblee generale de la Societe franco‑manitobaine le 1er
novembre dernier. Cette date marquait la
troisieme annee consecutive de la visite officielle du premier ministre. Ceci demontre sensiblement l'existence d'une
bonne communication entre Monsieur Filmon et la collectivite franco‑manitobaine.
Ceci
dit, j'espere que le premier ministre verra a accelerer l'etude du rapport
Gallant sur la gestion des ecoles franco‑manitobaines. Il me semble tres approprie que ce dossier
soit finalise au plus vite en l'englobant dans la revision des limites des divisions
scolaires, qui a ete annulee hier, de la province telle que stipulee dans le
Discours du trone.
Quant aux dispositions de la Partie III de la
Loi sur la Ville de Winnipeg, celles‑ci semblent avoir ete oubliees, car
elles ne sont mentionnees nulle part.
Durant son allocution du 1er novembre 1991
lors de l'assemblee generale de la Societe franco‑manitobaine, le premier
ministre a dit et je cite: "Nous
presenterons a l'Assemblee legislative un projet de loi pour rendre plus
claires et plus rigoureuses les dispositions de la Partie III de la Loi sur la
Ville de Winnipeg"
J'espere que le premier ministre prendra le
temps de m'expliquer ce qui est arrive a cette promesse.
Dans le secteur juridique, il est tres
deplorable de ne toujours pas avoir de presence francophone a la Cour d'appel
du Manitoba ainsi que la presence a plein temps d'un juge francophone a Saint‑Boniface.
Nous parlions d'initiatives innovatrices afin
de stimuler l'economie. Un centre
permanent de traduction juridique a Saint‑Boniface qui desservirait
l'Ouest canadien est probablement un tres bon projet pilote pour raviver
l'essor economique de la collectivite.
Monsieur le president, le dossier
constitutionnel est probablement le sujet de discussion le plus epineux en ce
moment. Tout en etant convaincu de la
possibilite de conserver l'unite nationale, je dois realiser neanmoins que les
chances de reussite sont tres limitees tant que Brian Mulroney sera le chef du
gouvernement federal.
Loin de moi d'avoir la pretention d'essayer de
resoudre les dimensions legales complexes de ce sujet. Nous avons assez d'experts constitutionnels a
l'echelle nationale, que nous pouvons leur faire confiance.
Le
leader du Parti liberal a deja annonce que les membres du caucus liberal
decideront selon leur conscience et opinion personnelles au travers d'un vote
libre, dans l'instance que le sujet soit presente devant cette chambre.
Quand allons‑nous connaitre les
intentions du gouvernement?
Il
est clair que le mot "distinct", quoique s'ecrivant de la meme facon
en anglais ou en francais, recoit la meme definition dans les deux langues avec
malgre tout une certaine difference.
En
anglais le mot "distinct" semble recevoir, en plus de sa definition
de base, un degre qualitatif qui n'existe pas dans la langue francaise.
Peut‑etre, pourrions‑nous songer a
remplacer l'expression "societe distincte" par "Societe
quebecoise" ou en anglais par "The Quebec society".
En
conclusion Monsieur le president, j'aimerais reconnaitre l'honnetete et la
franchise du premier ministre a implanter les suggestions et les
recommandations du Parti liberal.
Je
puis vous assurer, Monsieur le president, que mes collegues liberaux et moi‑meme,
qui siegeons dans cette chambre, continuerons a proposer des resolutions fortes
et pertinentes afin de contribuer au developpement economique, politique et
social de notre province du Manitoba.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, before
broaching the question of the Canadian Constitution I would like to make a few
comments in regard to French language services.
Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the Premier's hat trick. Mr. Filmon was, in fact, the guest speaker of
the general assembly of the Societe franco‑manitobaine on November 1 of
last year, and this date marked the third consecutive year of an official visit
from the Premier, which clearly demonstrates the existence of good
communication between Mr. Filmon and the Franco‑Manitoban community.
Having said that, I hope
that the First Minister will see to accelerating the study of the Gallant
report on the governance of Franco‑Manitoban schools. It seems to me very appropriate that this
issue should be finalized as quickly as possible by incorporating it into the
province's review of school division boundaries, which was cancelled yesterday,
as stipulated in the Speech from the Throne.
In regard to the provisions of Part III of The City of
In his speech on
November 1, 1991, at the general assembly of the Societe franco‑manitobaine
the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) stated, and I quote: "We will present to the Legislative
Assembly a bill to render the provisions of Part III of The City of
I hope that the First
Minister will take the time to explain to me what has become of this promise.
In the legal sector it
is highly deplorable that we still do not have any Francophone presence at the
Court of Appeal level in
We were talking about
innovative initiatives to stimulate the economy. A permanent centre for legal translation in
St. Boniface, which would serve the Canadian West, is probably a very good
pilot project to help revive the economic situation of the community.
Mr. Speaker, the
constitutional issue is probably the thorniest subject of discussion at this
time. Although I am convinced of the
possibility of maintaining national unity I have to realize, nevertheless, that
the chances for success are very limited as long as Brian Mulroney is the head
of the federal government.
Far be it from me to be
so pretentious as to attempt to resolve all the complex legal dimensions of
this subject. We have enough
constitutional experts at the national level that we can put our trust in them.
The Leader of the
Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) has already announced that the members of the
Liberal caucus will decide according to their conscience and personal opinion
through a free vote in the event that the subject is presented before this
House. Mr. Speaker, when are we going to
learn the intentions of the government?
It is clear that the
word "distinct," which is written the same in English and in French,
has the same definition in both languages with, however, a certain
difference. In English, the word
"distinct" seems to be given, in addition to its basic definition, a
qualitative degree which does not exist in the French language. We could perhaps consider replacing the expression
"distinct society" by "
In conclusion, Mr.
Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the honesty and frankness of the First
Minister in implementing the suggestions and recommendations of the Liberal
Party. I can assure you that my Liberal
colleagues and myself who sit in this House will continue to propose strong and
relevant resolutions in order to contribute to the economic, political and
social development of our
[English]
Mr. Speaker, before
concluding‑‑as I said before, I did not have a chance to speak on
the Speech from the Throne‑‑I would like to say that it is nice to
have you back and well in the Chamber.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, I want to echo what the
honourable member for St. Boniface has said, that I welcome you back into the
Chair. It is good to see you back here,
and I hope your health will be of such a nature that it will be able to sustain
the maintenance of the Chair over the next session and for many years to come.
Let
me say, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to also congratulate our Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) for coming forth with a budget that I think was well‑finessed
in a time of great difficulty for not only this province, but for all the rest
of this country and I dare say most nations of this globe, that it was a budget
that everybody should applaud in this Chamber.
A
$5.5 billion budget during times of economic downturns of the likes of which
this province and this country has seldom ever seen before, and the maintenance
of our most cherished programs and the increased spending in those most
cherished programs should be congratulated.
It
is a credit to our Finance minister (Mr. Manness), the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of
this province, the Executive Council, and Treasury Board, that they have been
able to assure society in this province that the Department of Health and our
health programs will not only be maintained, but that spending will in fact be
increased in those departments to ensure that not only will our health care be
of a nature that the opposition has raised concerns about continually, and have
accused this government of wanting to cut back‑‑continually, the
leader of darkness, the leader of gloom and doom in this Chamber has
continually indicated that this government, our government will cut back in
health care and Education and in Family Services.
Well, this budget hopefully proved once and
for all to the leader of gloom and doom, the leader of darkness, that we in
fact are committed to maintaining our social programs such as Health and
Education and Family Services, and also the maintenance of the programming in
many of the other departments that I intend to touch on a bit later.
What I want to see is the Premier of
Saskatchewan when he finally dares to bring forth his budget. I want to see from him spending increases in
Health of 5.7 or better. I challenge
that Leader of the Opposition and all his colleagues to defend not only last
year's Ontario's budget as they said they would be glad to do and debate what
Ontario is doing, but they will now also have to defend what Saskatchewan will
be doing and B.C.
I
dare say, I wonder whether all three of those provinces will come forward with
a budget that is similar to what our Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) has come
forward with at this time. I wonder if
they will be able to increase their Health spending and their Education
spending and, yes, increase their Family Services budgets by 8 percent, almost
9 percent, as we have done, $100‑million increase for Health, building
new hospitals in many of our communities in Manitoba, building new health care
facilities, which the former NDP government had totally, totally neglected, a
brand new hospital in Vita, a facility that the community will for many, many
years be able to be proud of. Yet, did
the previous administration pay any attention to the needs of those rural
communities and the health care facilities in those communities? No, they did not. They ignored it.
* (1630)
Similarly, we are going to keep on‑‑and
this budget clearly indicates our intention‑‑providing adequate
services for many of our rural communities, as well as maintaining our programs
in hospitals and health care in this city of
Now, we have heard the Leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Doer), and the critic for Family Services in the NDP party, as
well as the Liberal Party, continually condemn our ministers who have been
doing, I say, an excellent job of ensuring that not only our daycare centres
and our daycare programs will be enhanced and expanded, and that there will be
more daycare positions established in this province because of our commitment
to Family Services, that the Child Advocate's legislation that is being brought
forward during this session will be implemented.
What did the NDP do, the previous
administration? They did nothing. They talked and they talked, and that is all
they did; $52 million increase in Education, building new schools in small
communities such as Letellier, providing adequate linguistic services in
communities such as St. Jean, Ste. Anne, St. Malo, Letellier and St. Joseph,
ensuring that these people will have the ability to provide their children with
an education.
What did the previous administration do? They allowed our children to be housed in
dilapidated facilities that were not only health hazards but were fire hazards,
and what did they do? Nothing.
I
just heard the honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) a few minutes
ago be fairly critical of our economic renewal effort in this province. Let us take a look at economic renewal and
what is required. What is required to
stimulate the economy in this province?
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Penner: The honourable member for
How
do you spend more with one hand and reduce taxes with the other? There is a way. The way is this. You have to generate economic income to
provide jobs and get people working. Did
the previous administration, the NDP administration, know what that was all
about? No, they did not, because what
they in fact did was apply tax upon tax upon employment and more tax.
When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer)
is critical of our inaction in trying to stimulate the economy, lower taxes to
create more jobs, to get people to spend more money, to build more industries,
to provide jobs for our kids and incomes for a government that we can in fact
maintain our services‑‑that is what we are about. That is why we are spending $20 million in
the Industrial Recruitment Initiative.
Let
me say to the Leader of the Opposition that we are going to spend, as a
government, an awful lot of time ensuring that our province is competitive and
will remain competitive, taxation‑wise and otherwise, that we are able to
attract industries into this province from provinces such as Ontario, from
provinces such as B.C. and, yes, even from our American friends, because only
if and when we remain competitive will we be able to do that. That is, as the honourable member for
I
have heard the opposition be critical and say many things about industries
leaving this province because of the Free Trade Agreement. I find it very interesting that during the
last three years, from 1987 to 1990, the agricultural exports out of this
province have increased by some 20 percent, 20 percent exports to the United
States. Is it because of the Free Trade
Agreement? Well, maybe it is. Maybe it is
because of the Free Trade Agreement.
Maybe people in the
Virtually anything that we produce, we can be
proud of because of the quality of the product that we put out in this
province.
Secondly, we need to encourage our
manufacturing sector to expand their operations in this province, and the way
we can do that is by providing some incentives.
Now how do you do it? Exactly as the member for
We
are going to provide a temporary 10 percent income tax credit for investment in
new manufacturing and processing in
Well, that is their business. I say to you, that if the opposition were
serious about attracting and providing an economic climate in this province
that is attractive to industry and the rest of society, they would, in fact,
support this budget.
Technology, should we increase our technological
base in this province? Yes, I think we
should. Are the opposition members
prepared to vote for it? No, they are
not.
* (1640)
I
say, the million dollars that we received from the sale of the Manitoba Data Services
will, in fact, allow us to spend some money to foster and create industrial
innovation and technology and commercialization. Should we do that? The honourable member for
Should we enhance our export‑oriented
service industries? I think we
should. Will the opposition vote for
it? No, they will not because they do
not believe in providing jobs in this province.
They do not believe in encouraging industries and industrial development
in this province. They will vote against
it.
Sales tax exemptions for the 1‑800
numbers will be implemented. We will
provide the payroll training tax credit which will be extended to include
programs delivered in export‑oriented service industries, and we should.
Let
us look at Agriculture. I heard the
honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) today criticize the Agriculture
budget; yet, never in the history of this province has the Agriculture budget
ever been increased to the percentages that we have this year‑‑a
$23‑million increase. Yes, a $23‑million
increase, and they will vote against the increase in spending in
Agriculture. The opposition members will
vote against supporting Agriculture to that degree‑‑[interjection]
Yes, correct, some of the money that has been
indicated in the Agriculture budget will be used to underpin the two programs
which were established last year, programs that the farm community asked for. Did they ask for it? Did they receive it? Yes, they did; they
asked and they received. Are we going to
continue the program? If the farm community
wants to maintain those programs, we will continue them, if they want to
maintain them.
Are
there other things we should be doing in Agriculture? Yes, there are. There are many things that we could be doing
in Agriculture. We need to provide more
research money. We need to provide
marketing expertise. We need to provide
the technology to expand the special crop spaces in this province. We need to expand the manufacturing and
processing end of it. We cannot only add
to the raw products which are being produced, but we need to encourage even
processing beyond the initial process.
We need to put out some finished products in this province, and we can
use our primary renewable resource to do it‑‑agriculture.
Mr.
Speaker, we have some tremendous opportunities in this province. We have a soil base that is second to none in
all of
If
we accept the fact that over a three‑year period of time, we have been
able to increase our exports by almost 20 percent, and if we accept the fact
that that growth can in fact continue and be expanded under the free trade
initiative that we embarked upon a number of years ago, and if we accept the
fact that the North American continent trade pact can in fact be achieved and
we allow ourselves to be innovative enough and provide the people of this
province in rural Manitoba with the technology and the resources to do it, they
are going to do it.
An Honourable Member: That are a lot of ifs.
Mr. Penner: That is right.
The honourable member from the NDP benches says, there are a lot of ifs
here. That is exactly right, there are a
lot of ifs.
The
previous NDP administration never allowed themselves to be visionary. They sat there in their self‑serving
attitude and said, we will not allow ourselves to think beyond the parameters
of our own vision. We will not ask for
support from the agricultural community.
What did they get? That is
exactly what they got, no support from the agricultural community, and what did
they get? That is exactly what they got,
no support from the agricultural community.
We are going to work with‑‑and I said "if" before‑‑we
are going to work with that community.
We are going to provide the technology, and we are going to provide the
resources that are needed‑‑namely, No. 1, water. I want to talk a little bit about water,
because you give people half an opportunity to provide for themselves and they
will. They will go all the way.
We
put together two years ago a task force in the
Will they vote for a $23‑million
increase in the agriculture budget to allow us to take the first steps, to
achieve the goals that we need to achieve?
No, they will not. They have said
that they are going to vote against this budget. Are they going to support us in supplying the
water that southern
Are
they going to support the initiative that the task force in southern
Can
we provide the technology to do it? Yes,
we can. Can this government provide the
support that is needed out there to enhance rural
We
need No. 1, the technology, the water in rural
Highway 75, being the main artery to the
lifeblood of this province, to the lifeblood of this city of
Mr.
Speaker, I have heard so much criticism about the Repap industry that is
established in The Pas, and yet every day of the week that I drive into this
city, I meet lumber trucks heading which way?
They head south with a lumber product that we produce in this province
and export where? To our American
friends who love to buy our lumber. Yet
the NDP said we should not depart of our free trade agreement. Will they support the budget to enhance our
economic activity across the line? No,
they will not. Of course not.
* (1650)
Transportation is not only an important aspect
of rural
Many of the couriers are looking at
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker,
in the Chair)
What are the NDP going to do? What are the Liberals going to do? Are the Liberals going to support the
reduction of fuel tax to the transportation industry? No, they are going to vote against it. Are the Liberals and the NDP going to support
the increased activity in the mining industry?
Well, we said very clearly that we are going to provide a mining tax
holiday that will be introduced to permit companies to recover their full
investment in new mine priority in mining tax being applied. Will the member
for Rupertsland (Mr. Harper) support this.
Will the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) support this? Will the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie)
support this? How about the member for
Thompson (Mr. Ashton)? This is a major
industry in northern
Similarly, the construction of a new power
project, Conawapa, which will be a major, major employment initiative in
northern
We
are not going to be for it, but let me tell you, the people of northern
We
need to recognize what the previous NDP government has refused to do in this
province. They have refused to recognize
the creation of wealth in rural northern
Our
communities have been left and neglected entirely by which government? How many years was the NDP government in
power? What did they do in northern
We
are going to demonstrate to northern Manitobans very clearly, whether they
support us politically or not, that it is our intention to provide adequately for
them and their communities by providing services to their communities, by
providing jobs for their communities, and providing educational facilities,
health facilities to their communities.
Our
Minister of Transportation (Mr. Driedger) has been to
What does the NDP do? The NDP has simply given a tremendous amount
of lip service to those communities, and yet those communities have seen no
action.
Let
us look at the serious negotiations that have gone on in the Northern Flood
Agreement. Never in the history of this
province have we seen as much advancement in negotiations of the settlement of
the Northern Flood Agreement than we have during the last three years. What did the NDP do? They totally ignore it, the Native
communities and the need to settle once and for all the Northern Flood
Agreement.
There are, Mr. Acting Speaker, two areas that
I want to say a few things about before I sit down. One of them is tourism and the tremendous
potential that this province has in tourism.
I have heard time and time again some criticism being extended to our
government, and maybe rightfully so, in the tourism area. We do have a tremendous potential. We have a tremendous human resource living
just south of our border, and yet we do very little to attract those 250
million people into our province. We
have opportunities here, the likes of which very few provinces or very few
countries have in the world to attract that tourism traffic into our province.
It
is time that we took the initiative and spent some dollars and expended some
innovative time in attracting those tourists to this province. We need to, first of all, make more people
aware that
* (1700)
We
just need to go to
I
have told this story many times before, but I had the opportunity to go to
I
think we have a similar opportunity to go into the southern United States, into
countries such as Japan, Australia, South America, Africa and many other
nations of the world that have virtually never experienced our cold winter
climate. We can build the tourism
industry on our environment, be it winter, summer or any other season of the
year. We can attract people to our
natural resources, to the great hunting that exists in this province. When we talk about hunting, most of us see it
as somebody point a gun, pull a trigger and shoot something.
There are many ways of hunting. I, by the way, hunt by camera. I have shot many, many deer and I have shot
many, many ducks, and you are never out of season when you do it. I think we can attract that element of the
tourism industry to
We
need to take a positive attitude. We
need to tell our own people that the recession is over. We need to tell our people that the turnaround
has come. We need to tell our own people
about the beauty, to open their eyes and look at the beauty around them and
then to go tell their neighbours, our neighbours to the south, our neighbours
to the west, and our neighbours to the east and the north to come to Manitoba
to enjoy with us what very few people in the world have.
That is the very environment that we live in
every day, and we take so much for granted.
It takes only a little bit of effort.
It takes only a little bit of believing in ourselves and our own ability
to compete in that marketplace, whether it is in tourism, whether it is in
industry, or whether it is in the everyday commercial world. If we take a positive approach, and if we
believe in ourselves and our own ability, I believe that not only can we turn
this economy around, we can make this a great, great place to live in.
Others will want to live where we live. Others will want to emulate what we do, and
others will become followers and we will be the leaders. But, Mr. Acting Speaker, it takes an
attitudinal change, and that is the main ingredient that is required, not only
in rural
Mr.
Acting Speaker, that is why I think this Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
needs to again be congratulated for putting forward a budget that will maintain
spending on one side and increase and enhance our services on the other
side. That is a very delicate juggling
act, and our Premier (Mr. Filmon), our cabinet, our Treasury Board and the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) should be given an accolade of support.
The
opposition members should stand in their places and applaud the Minister of
Finance for this budget, and they should support the initiatives that we have
begun. They should start believing in
themselves and believing in ourselves and believing in
Each and every one of us should proclaim that
as being true Canadians and putting all our differences aside and ensuring that
the future of this great nation will be maintained for ourselves and our
families.
Mr. Elijah Harper
(Rupertsland): Mr. Acting Speaker, I am pleased to take part
in this Budget Debate, the fifth budget of this government.
Since being elected in 1981, I have witnessed
much progress. Unfortunately, many examples of backtracking on a number of
issues has taken place related to aboriginal people.
I
just heard the member speak on many issues concerning this country and how this
country can develop into a great nation.
As an aboriginal person and member of the First Nations in this country,
I find that we are always fighting an uphill battle and trying to get the
recognition of the aboriginal people in this country, a recognition of the
accomplishments of the first people, a recognition of the developments that we
have been part of in this country. I
know that I can go back into history in terms of how we have been left out as
aboriginal people.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
It
is only within a short while, particularly the last two years, that the
Canadian people have finally given the recognition. At least there is some debate happening in
this country. It was the aboriginal
people in this country that welcomed many of your ancestors. The members who are sitting here were
welcomed by my great‑grandfathers, met on the shores of maybe the St.
Lawrence River or else on the Pacific coast and also the
The
aboriginal people played an important role in the development of this
country. They shared the land and
resources that many of the Canadians enjoy in this country. So do not tell me that we are giving you
this.
It
is the aboriginal people that have given so much to this country.
[interjection] I do not find it amusing‑‑whether he is directing it
at me or not. The aboriginal people
finally have made a point in this history, but we will see whether there is a
political will to recognize the aboriginal people, the first peoples in this
country, and also to settle many of the outstanding issues today.
You
look at the developments in the North in respect to hydro development, in
respect to the forestry development, in respect to the mining development. All those resources come from the northern
part of this country. In all these years
of development we see a flurry of economic activity in many of those centres,
whether it be Flin Flon, Churchill, Gillam, Thompson.
How
many people are employed there? How many
people actually work there? How many
aboriginal people do work there, surrounded by those economic activities, our
towns that have been built up as a result of the hydro development, as a result
of the forestry products, as a result of the mining towns, the resources that
are extracted, from those resources?
* (1710)
In
those years, Mr. Acting Speaker, aboriginal people have been left out. You would think that the people who would
most benefit from those resources would be the aboriginal people themselves
right from their surrounding communities. Unfortunately, today we have very few
of the aboriginal people working in those centres, working in mining, working
in hydro development, working in forestry developments. The aboriginal people are pressured on
governments to put on programs, create economic activities strictly designed to
encourage aboriginal people and northern aboriginal people to work in those
areas.
As
an aboriginal person coming from northern
One
of the reasons why we have not been able to settle that is because of the lack
of co‑operation with the federal government. I know that the Minister of Northern Affairs
knows that when I was minister I passed an Order‑in‑Council to
settle the treaty land entitlement. Part
of the problem was the federal government.
The Minister of Indian Affairs, whose responsibility is to settle the
treaty land entitlement, was not prepared to deal with this issue, and it sat
on his desk and died there.
Also, I mentioned that when we were in
government we initiated many things.
There is no imagination on the part of the government. Many of the things that we initiated are a
continuation of what we did. There is
absolutely no imagination from this government at all, none whatsoever. If it was not for our government, many of the
things would not have happened.
You
look at the urban development strategy.
You look at the hydro development.
You look at the treaty land entitlement, the justice inquiry, the Indian
gaming commissions. All those things
were initiated by ourselves. There is
absolutely no imagination whatsoever. I
have not seen anything new at all from this government, none whatsoever. They knew that the initiatives that we were
working on could not be just shoved aside.
They were forced to deal with those issues.
You
look at the hydro, northeast hydro development.
We announced, as a matter of fact, in 1986 to build that hydro
line. As a matter of fact, a letter was
written in 1986 in November to the Minister of Indian Affairs. I remember the letter. Also, the following year, there was also a
subsequent letter written to the Minister of Indian Affairs to proceed with the
northeast hydro line. As a matter of
fact, in the first throne speech of this government, they announced the
northeast hydro line. That was a number
of years ago. Those are the initiatives
I am talking about which this government is beginning to implement today.
I
can tell you that when this project is finished, we will remind the constituents,
my constituents, of that initiative in 1986 .
I will tell you, we will be the ones who will cut the ribbon. I do not talk with forked tongue. I know what I am talking about.
An Honourable Member: You may cut the ribbon, but we are going to
turn on the lights.
Mr. Harper: All you do is turn off the lights. That is all.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, there are many issues that we need to deal with and this
particularly in the
Of
course, this government also has to start working with the aboriginal
people. I know there has been some
criticism of the lack of co‑operation between aboriginal leaders, because
there is an expectation on the part of the government to deal with issues like
the justice system. The justice system,
of course, points out to us that it has failed the aboriginal people in the
There are many reasons why it has failed the
aboriginal people. We represent say 10
percent, 12 percent, of the population in
There are reasons why this is happening. There are many aboriginal people who do not
know their rights, who do not know the process.
Many times they do not know they have access to legal counsel, and there
are many times they cannot afford the legal counsel. There are many times the process is so
inadequate that many of these people who provide those services do not have
time to explain to people‑‑Crown attorneys, lawyers.
Many times in our language there is difficulty
in translating the legal language into an aboriginal language. I will give you an example. There is a guilty and not guilty. If you ask an aboriginal, let us say if he
broke a window, and it might be in a circumstance where it was accidental. If you ask him if he was guilty, of course,
the aboriginal would say that he was guilty of the incident.
* (1720)
There is no understanding of the process in
terms of whether the thing was committed accidentally or not, and many reasons
why a lot of times the aboriginal person would just plead guilty. Other times
it might be just a tremendous sort of a shock to go through the procedure in
terms of an intimidating circumstance in the chambers or in a court room, that
some people would just not bother going through the process. We have many aboriginal people as a result of
misunderstanding, or being intimidated, or not completely advised of their rights,
the reasons why many of the people end up in jails.
One
of the main recommendations that the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry made to the
government, and suggested to the government, a strong recommendation, is that a
parallel and a separate justice system be established for aboriginal
people. That recommendation has been
made by the Canadian Bar Association before that. They are the ones who work in the judicial
system, and they are the ones who understand the legal process. They are in a position to understand that
there is a need for aboriginal people to establish a separate justice system.
I
find it incredible that this government is not prepared to establish that,
although they have endorsed the inherent right to self‑government in a
constitutional proposal for aboriginal people.
Part of that judicial system is the ability of the aboriginal people to
administer and control their lives so they are able to determine their future. It does not mean that we are more special
than anyone else in
We
will be able to deal with some of those crimes that may be committed in a
community, some of those break‑ins, all those things that are
committed. What happens today is that a
lot of the charges towards individuals are dealt with in a foreign
institution. People who commit the crime
do not feel they have committed a crime against the community or against the
individual because they are taken away, isolated and locked up in
I
think the community has also a responsibility because that person is from that
community. They have an obligation to
that individual. Once that person is
taken away from the community, many of the community leaders do not know what
is happening to that individual. That is
what we are trying to rectify. I do not
think it demeans the justice system, but rather the punishment that may be
given by the people or by the courts in the reserve would have a better impact,
a better result for the individual.
All
our lives as aboriginal people, if we look at the history, is to remove Indian
people and subject them to a institution.
That has been going on for many years; I do not need to elaborate that
in terms of the policies of the government.
I think everybody knows well of the policies of the government, the
federal government, in terms of policies of genocide, policies of assimilation
and integration, and in many of those communities, we see the results of those
policies.
You
talk about the dignity of people, but after years of assault against our
people, you know, telling aboriginal people in this country that they cannot
practise their religion, their spirituality, they cannot speak their language,
they cannot dance. Those are things that
the governments did many years ago, but today those things have an impact on
us.
The
residential school system is a classic example of using the educational
institutions to assimilate Indian people, to deny them their language and their
culture, that we were not worthy, that we were not good enough. That is why I say that as aboriginal people,
we have been able to overcome that, and there are many problems today as a
result of that. We see that happening
today. In many of those communities that
I talk about, we have unemployment well over 90 percent.
There is no hope for many of our young
people. They do not seem to see the
light at the end of the tunnel, that there is no reason to live, that there was
no purpose in life. It is tragic, it is
shameful that we cannot give that kind of opportunity to our children. The children are the future of this country,
the future of our nations. This is so
tragic, to see many of our young people commit suicide, that they have no
reason to live, but a reason to die, because it is doom and gloom.
I
think part of that process is to educate our young, that there are indeed
things possible in this world, things possible in Manitoba, things possible in
northern Manitoba, that they are able to live, able to be trained, able to be
who they want to be.
You
know, I find it amazing or incredible that when people talk about the recession
in this country, but the inflation is up, the cost of living has gone up, the
dollar is going down and the price of goods are going up.
In
northern
We
find it amazing too that in the North, whether it be in Churchill or Gillam,
you are able to buy a bottle of liquor at the same price as what you pay in
I
think we need to think about that, where we place our values and our
priorities, because I often think that we can be a very wealthy country in
terms of the distribution of wealth in this country.
* (1730)
Many people here enjoy a high standard of
living in southern
I
know when I was growing up I did not know how a world existed much beyond Red
Sucker Lake, and the kind of things that were happening outside of Red Sucker
Lake. As aboriginal people, our
philosophy has been one of sharing, one that extends the hand of welcome to
everybody, so that everyone would benefit from the land and resources, but the
governments have not reciprocated that to our aboriginal communities, and that
is a philosophy that my grandparents taught me, our elders taught us for many
generations.
You
know, you wonder where we are going today, what is happening in this country,
whether we are going to break up? What is happening in the world and all over
in terms of our wealth.
Recently I went to speak to a group of young
people, young children. I was looking at
some of the statistics that were presented to me. One of the statistics that amazed me was that,
in terms of the world's goods that are produced, 50 percent of the world's
goods are consumed by only 5 percent of the population, that there is an
imbalance of the distribution of wealth and the goods in this world.
Also, in terms of on a per capita basis
worldwide on health care, we spend, I think, $11 worldwide, $11 compared to $44
on military spending, four times greater spent than on health. I am not talking about education figures, I
am sure they are lower than that.
You
know, as mankind, as human beings, we have been able to achieve many
things. We have sent man on the moon, I
mean a great accomplishment in this human race.
I wonder sometimes, like, we have starving children all over the
world. We cannot even feed those
children. That is why I say, not
necessarily to this government in terms of where we are going as human beings,
that there needs to be more of a co‑operation.
I
say those things because as an aboriginal person, those are the very things
that we are concerned about in terms of sharing and caring and being able to
live in this country, so that no one needs to go hungry, no one needs to be
lining up for food banks.
Many of the communities where I come from do
not have food banks. They are able to
rely on many of the still‑traditional activities of hunting and fishing
to supplement their income or food sources.
Those are some of the things that we need to resolve with the provincial
governments in terms of treaty land entitlement and the treaties.
I
think when I mention those figures and also talked about the philosophy of
sharing, that it is those qualities that have kept us going for generations and
enabled us to survive the policies of the government. What we are asking for is nothing more,
nothing less, and that all we want to do is have the ability to maintain our
language and culture, be able to protect it, that we are able to administer our
own affairs, able to have our own governments, self‑governments for our
own people.
An Honourable Member: The problems will not go away, Elijah, the
problems will not go away.
Mr. Harper: The member says the problems would not go
away, but I think we have a greater responsibility, a greater input. I think we have been excluded for far too
long to make a difference.
As
a member in this Legislature, I think we have been able to get the Legislative
Assembly, the people of
Like I said, many initiatives that we did are
a continuation of this government. There
are no new ideas. I am very serious. He
knows that. He knows that many of the
things that we did‑‑I mean we can hold debate till freezes over,
who initiated these things, and I am just pointing out that there is lack of
imagination on the part of this government and the things that they have done.
As
a matter of fact, one of the reasons why we were not able to sign the northeast
hydro line was the lack of political will on the part of the federal government
that they were not willing to deal with us.
One
of the things that happened in the last year or so, particularly last fall, is
this government wanted to sign an agreement, but the community leaders did not
want to sign it, because they were excluded, and they had to force them to deal
with that issue until the communities were actually involved in that issue.
There are many things that they want to go
ahead and rush without the involvement of aboriginal people. They did not deal with them seriously. There were many issues that we dealt with.
Like I said, I know this minister is embarrassed because he has no imagination
whatsoever. Time and time again will
prove that.
In
terms of the treaty land entitlement, urban strategy, the Justice Inquiry, the
northeast hydro line, the list is endless. We did many things. Like I said, he had no imagination.
In
terms of the budget, Mr. Acting Speaker, I think we would want to go into
details with that. I know that the
Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) would want to question where his
priorities lie on the cutbacks that he has made to his department and the
transfer of programs from one department to another department to make it look
like he has increased his departmental Estimates.
We
will do that in the budget Estimate process when we have discussions with him
in the committee. I just want to put
those things on record and say that I have had the pleasure of speaking to this
budget and we will get to the details in the committee process.
Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker.
* (1740)
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau
(St. Norbert): Mr. Acting Speaker, it gives me pleasure
today to rise and just put a few words‑‑
Point of
Order
Mr. Gaudry: Can we have some French from the member for
St. Norbert, please?
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Reimer): The honourable member did not have a point of
order.
* * *
Mr. Laurendeau: Merci, Monsieur le president par
interim. On va essayer de faire ca pour
le membre de St‑Boniface (M. Gaudry) aujourd'hui si c'est possible. Ca fait que, s'il me donne un couple de
minutes, on va etre la.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurendeau: Thank
you, Mr. Acting Speaker. We will attempt
to do that for the benefit of the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry)
today. So if he gives me a couple of
minutes, we will get there.
[English]
Mr. Acting Speaker,
today it gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on the budget. I am really more than happy to congratulate
not only our Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), but our Treasury Board for
bringing forth a budget that I have not heard any complaints from anyone except
the prophets of doom and gloom on the other side of the House. I cannot understand how anyone, anyone except
the NDP, could knock us for a budget that has no increases in the personal
income taxes, no increases in business taxes, no increases in sales tax, and a
$101 million‑‑5.7 percent‑‑increase in Health.
Here we are, 5.7 percent in Health and they
are telling us‑‑
An Honourable Member: Turn it over.
Mr. Laurendeau: The honourable member from over there is
trying to give me some information. I am
sure the information he is trying to give me is the information going back to
1984 about his Leader who was the minister of, I believe it was the‑‑what
was it again? I think, oh, yes, it was
the minister of Crown corporations. That
was the year that they sort of fudged the books, some called it cooking the
books, some called it just rearranging the books, but their government called
it a $165 million deficit, Mr. Speaker.
That is what they called it. The
Auditor General of the time said, no, I cannot go out and lie. He said it in
the paper, he said, I cannot say this.
It is a $428 million deficit. How
can I say that?
How
did the NDP, how did that minister at that time in 1984 cook the books? He went and he stalled, he stalled and he
lied, Mr. Speaker. He turned around and
he called $125 million, we will not bring that forward, that was MPIC. Manitoba Hydro, we do not want to hear about
your losses. MTS, we do not want to hear
about your losses, but that is what they hid.
They hid the truth. They hid the
truth. That is what they did when they
were in power. They cooked the
books. I cannot believe it.
I
have a quote from the Finance minister, Vic Schroeder, his airy way of
dismissing a just accounting opinion, the concerns of Provincial Auditor
William Ziprick about his budget process.
I cannot believe it, Mr. Speaker, you know, the prophets of doom and
gloom. That is all we ever get from the
other side of the House is doom and gloom, doom and gloom.
An Honourable Member: Flip it over.
Mr. Laurendeau: You want me to flip it over for you, George? The
other side, George, is really interesting, and I believe the other side should
be brought forward to you, George. The
honourable member, I mean, the honourable member, I forgot we cannot‑‑it
is the honourable.
Mr.
Speaker, I think it is time we start looking at this province as a fruit. That fruit off of that tree has to get its
nourishment from somewhere. The province
is the trunk of that fruit‑bearing tree.
Where does that fruit‑bearing tree get its energy and all the
rest? It gets it from the root, but that
root needs to be fed. It needs to be
nourished, and that is what this government is doing within this budget. It is nourishing the roots to give the roots
energy to produce the fruit that is necessary for this province.
You
know, Mr. Acting Speaker, we are putting $20 million towards initiatives in
Mr.
Acting Speaker, there is one thing that we have got to learn to do and that is
get along in this province. We have got
to work as a team, and until the doom‑and‑gloom prophets of that
side of the House come forward and start working with us to renew the
investment in the
This province has got to work with labour and
with management and with industry to form a union, and that is what this
government is going to do. That is what
this government is accomplishing within this budget. It was a hard job for our Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness) to bring forward a budget, I believe, and I cannot believe how
good a job he did.
The
things that are coming forward, $101 million for Health‑‑5.7
percent increase. In social services,
there is an 8.7 percent increase‑‑8.7 percent. Yet the doom‑and‑gloom prophets
from the other side with their budget, through their make‑believe
policymakers in the Choices group, came forward. They wanted a 5 percent
increase.
Now
here we turn around and give an 8.7. Now
where could they be coming from? How
could they state 8.7 versus 5 percent? You know, I cannot believe that this is
the NDP people in there. What did the NDP government do in
I
challenge those provinces to follow what this province is doing with a vision
for the future. That is what this province
is doing, a vision for the future. We
are bringing forward initiatives that will aid the people of this
province. We are bringing forward
initiatives that will be brought forward in Education, in Health, in social
services, the three major departments within the province. That is the main area that we are hitting,
Mr. Acting Speaker.
The
Liberals speak from their seats, and that is all they ever do is speak from
their seats because they are usually sitting on a fence, and they are too busy
falling off it in either direction. They
can never decide where they are going to fall.
Point of
Order
Mr. Gaudry: All I want to put on record right now is I
think what we have to do is educate the government.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Reimer): The member for St. Boniface does not have a
point of order.
* * *
Mr. Laurendeau: I am glad the honourable member said
that. I am really happy that the
honourable member for St. Boniface stood today and said that, because that is
the first little bit of logic I have heard from the opposition side. All they ever come up with is negative,
negative, negative. Not the member for
St. Boniface though, he has had some positive comments, I must give him
that. The member for St. Boniface has
been very constructive in some of his criticism.
As
a matter of fact, his criticism was very small.
I will be surprised if he votes against this budget. I think he is going to have a hard time
opposing this budget. I think he is
understanding, capable, and will understand that this budget is for the
* (1750)
Il
est sincere. Le membre
[Translation]
He is sincere. The member for St. Boniface is sincere, Mr.
Acting Speaker. He understands that, for
the citizens not only of St. Boniface but of the province of Manitoba, he is
going to work for the province of Manitoba to see to it that we can all be mixed
together, if one might put it that way.
We are a province with two languages.
I am happy to be one of the Francophones of the
[English]
Mr. Acting Speaker, in
this province we have got one direction that we have to head in. We have to move forward into the future. We cannot have a negative doom‑and‑gloom
look all the time. Nobody can say
governments will always be heading in the right direction. They do make mistakes. If you do not make mistakes, you have not
tried.
There are a number of directions that we will
have to head off to in the future, and those directions, I believe, are a
necessity after what we have lived through with the NDP government creating
debts for us in the past, Mr. Acting Speaker.
The NDP debts were increased just immensely in the years past. I would like to go into the figures, but I am
not going to. I do believe that we
cannot live in the past. I think we have
to live for the future, and if I keep revisiting the past, it just makes me
sick. I think, for the benefit of our
province, it is time we start living for the future and forget that the past
ever happened. Forget that we ever had
an NDP government. That would be the
best because the nightmare is over, and we have a progressive government in
power today that is going to see that this province is nourished in the future.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, take the apple, take away the core, and what have you got? Nothing.
Take an apple with just the core, and what have you got? You have got nothing. To keep the core whole, you need that
protection around it, and that is why some of the initiatives that we are
bringing forward within this budget is to assist not only the city but the
province as a whole. The VLTs' profits
going into ready and the rest of the programs coming forward will assist in the
development of new initiatives in the communities surrounding the province.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, there are new programs coming forward that assist not only a
small diverse group, but the whole province, mining initiatives that are coming
forward that will assist the North. It
is time that the NDP learned that you cannot just listen to some certain
special interest groups. They have got
to take the entire impact on the province as a whole.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, transportation is very important in our province. Within this budget we have decreased the fuel
tax for locomotives. I think that was a
very important step taken by our minister, seeing as the impact on the
transportation of rail has been degressing over the past years. We have put $103 million into the highways
program this year. When the NDP were in
power, it had decreased to in the $60‑million range.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, this budget reaffirms
Mr.
Acting Speaker, the highways program not only benefits, again, the city of
I
got a little upset on the weekend when I read advertisements by a union
knocking our province for the funding that we gave to the city this year, Mr.
Acting Speaker. We increased it 4
percent. I felt that was more than fair‑‑a
more than fair increase for the City of
An Honourable Member: A million dollars a year, the next five years.
Mr. Laurendeau: That is correct, there is the million dollars
over the next five years. I mean, how
this union could say that we were neglecting the city of Winnipeg, I cannot
understand it, except for that the leader of that union is more concerned with
himself, I believe, and his existence, than he is in the existence of the city
of Winnipeg. If he was concerned for the
city of
Mr.
Acting Speaker, we get knocked as a province from the city all the time. I think it is time they look at their own
selves and see how they are managing the dollars, because we as a government
are learning to manage our dollars. I
think they, with their wisdom, have to learn to manage their dollars that are
allocated to them. It is nice to say, we
need more, we need more, we need more, but eventually you have to say, enough
is enough. We cannot spend, spend,
spend.
The
people have said they do not want tax increases. The people have spoken out. The people are coming out and saying in large
numbers, we do not want any more tax increases of any kind. They are explaining the services that they
are willing to lose, not only at the city level, but at the provincial level.
They are starting to ask for user fees within
certain areas, but they want value for their money, Mr. Acting Speaker. That is what this government is going to see
that the people of this province get, and that is value for their money.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, I believe it is about time that this Legislature starts
listening to the people. This government
is listening.
The
NDP come up with their doom‑and‑gloom tactics all the time and
knock us for what we are doing but that is their job. They are the opposition,
and the opposition's job is to doom and gloom, I guess. That is not the way I took it, but that is
what they do, so I take it is doom and gloom.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, to criticize is not doom and gloom. If they were to be doing some constructive
criticism, maybe then we would listen, but when all they do is knock, knock, knock,
nobody is going to answer the door for them.
Nobody is going to answer the door, because we are tired of hearing the
same rhetoric over and over and over again.
That is all we ever hear, knock, knock, knock, knock, knock.
Why
do they not try criticizing and using some positive techniques? I am sure that they are capable of it. I know the honourable members from the other
side could go back and get their minds together and circle an issue and come
forward with some positive reactions.
I
want to hear some negative from them on‑‑what is so negative about
no increase in personal income taxes, Mr. Acting Speaker? What is so negative about no increases in
business taxes? What is negative about
no increase in sales tax? Let us hear
them knock that.
Let
us hear them speak out against what we are doing with a $101‑million
increase in Health. Let us hear them
speak out against a $51‑million increase to Family Services. Let us hear them speak out about a $10‑million
reduction in the provincial education taxes for the homes, Mr. Acting
Speaker. No, they do not speak out
against those issues, because they know that is what the people of this
province want. That is what this
government is giving them.
Thank you.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Reimer): Order, please.
When this matter is next before the House, the
honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) will have 20 minutes
remaining.
The
hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stays adjourned until 1:30 p.m.
tomorrow (Thursday).