LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday, March 26, 1992
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Mr.
Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of J. Sprout, S. Dunphy, A.
Staniscia and others requesting the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) call upon
the Parliament of
Ms.
Rosann Wowchuk (
Ms.
Becky Barrett (
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Thompson):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Heather Molchanko,
Rosalind Muskego, Dennis Linklater and others requesting the government show
its strong commitment to dealing with child abuse by considering restoring the
Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign.
Mr.
Conrad Santos (Broadway): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Pat Rhodes, Laura Epps, Colleen Bruce and others requesting the government show
its strong commitment to dealing with child abuse by considering restoring the
Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign.
Mr.
George Hickes (Point Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Alice Vorst, Rose Buss, John Doyle and others requesting the government
consider funding the Abinochi preschool program to ensure it continues to
operate.
Ms.
Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Cynthia Wood, E. Creeley, L. Harper and others requesting the government
consider funding the Abinochi preschool program to ensure it continues to operate.
Mr.
Speaker: 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?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
THAT
the bail review provisions in the Criminal Code of
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
* *
*
*
(1335)
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?
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
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, I have a statement for the House, and I will await the
distribution of the copies to the Leaders opposite.
I
would like to provide the House with a brief report on the First Ministers'
meeting on the economy which concluded yesterday in
That
document summarizes the main conclusions of the conference.
Before
I left for
Some
Honourable Members: Hear, hear.
Mr.
Filmon: The Prime
Minister has given a commitment in principle, and Ministers responsible for
Highways and Transportation have been asked to work out implementation details as
soon as possible‑‑[interjection] I am being heckled by the member
for
As we
expected, Mr. Speaker, there was strong support for a national highways policy
from most provinces and territories. Clearly, the federal government has bought
into our view that the national highways policy is fully consistent with all of
We
also made some progress on other fronts as well. On interprovincial trade, we have agreed to
accelerate the reduction of trade barriers and work toward a code of conduct to
avoid harmful investment competition. My
colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) is now
the chair of the Committee of Ministers on Internal Trade. The ministers will be meeting here in
On
international trade, we had a discussion of the North American free trade
agreement negotiations, and I reiterated the six conditions
*
(1340)
In
our statement of conclusions, we agreed on the need for an updated review of
trade priorities, co‑operation in trade promotion, and the importance of
a strong and assertive policy approach by the Canadian government to defending
On
health care, we agreed on a joint meeting of Health and Finance ministers and a
joint commitment to co‑operation and program management and reform. We also agreed on the importance of better co‑ordination
in integration of other social programs including income support. On training, we identified two major priorities: the need to review disincentives to work in
training and existing unemployment insurance and social assistance programs,
and ways to encourage more private sector investment and skills upgrading.
On
Agriculture, we discussed a number of issues and all provinces reiterated their
full commitment to an early resolution of the GATT based on
Our
discussion on fisheries focused on foreign overfishing and the need for strong
federal action in this area as well.
We
also confirmed plans for the federal government to begin collecting provincial
taxes on liquor and tobacco at the border, and we agreed to continue
discussions of other options for creating a more level playing field for
Canadian retailers.
These
conclusions and the others we reached in
As
members are aware much of the debate outside the meeting, and to an extent
inside, centred around federal offloading and its impact on the
Part
of the reason
These
problems are only partly related to revenues.
There are also expenditure control problems, both have to be addressed. The best way of dealing with these problems
is to work co‑operatively with other provinces.
Both
the federal government and the provinces have responsibilities which must be
met. Federal offloading has to stop, but
provinces have to make some tough and difficult choices and decisions too, and
we have to work together.
I
thank you, Mr. Speaker.
*
(1345)
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to respond to the statement of
the Premier to this Chamber, the results of the March 24‑25 meeting‑‑operative
word, results, Mr. Speaker.
We on
this side heard a lot of debate in the last three meetings with the First
Ministers, listened very carefully to the media reports arising out of the
meetings. We just received the copies of
the communiques that were arrived at over those meetings just a moment ago.
Mr.
Speaker, we hope that there were positive results from the meeting because the
1.5 million Canadians who are unemployed, the 52,000 Manitobans who are
unemployed, the huge numbers of people increasing every day on our welfare
rates need results. They do not need statements and communiques full of sound
and fury signifying nothing.
On
the good news side, our former Minister of Transportation, our present Minister
of Transportation (Mr. Driedger) and many Ministers of Transportation over the
last number of years have fought very hard for a national transportation system
in this country‑‑an east and west link. Many of us believe that we should be building
up our east and west links over the last number of years instead of moving very
quickly to our north and south routes, Mr. Speaker, like the Premier opposite.
Mr.
Speaker, we await the results of the meeting on the highways position. Will it be a national system? Will it be just a federal‑provincial
system? Will it be $850 million over the
next 10 years from the federal government to the provinces? Will it be $250
million, that we heard from the Minister of Transportation, over the next 10
years from the federal government? Will
it be new money for job creation on our highway development program or will it
be as the Prime Minister stated yesterday in his statement, it will be the
reallocation of federal money? That begs
the question, where will the reallocation come from. Will it come from
Mr.
Speaker, we agree with the proposal. We
would like to see what the proposal actually is in terms of what the federal government
agrees to. As our member for Transcona
(Mr. Reid) stated yesterday, we have had lots of promises before from the federal
government. Before the last federal
election we had the national child care program promised, made right here in
front of the Western Glove corporation, and that evaporated after the election.
We
suggest to the Premier, you better get the cheque from the Conservatives and
you better be sure that they are marching to the beat of a real economic agenda
and not just marching to the beat of their own Conservative election agenda in
this country, Mr. Speaker.
The
Premier raised the issue of Education and Training. We are pleased to see that the First
Ministers are dealing with the issues of disincentives. We have spent, ourselves, in this Chamber $90
million more on social assistance over two budgets from the provincial
government; yet they, themselves, cut $10 million out of the community colleges
last year and said they were going to spend $2.5 million more in this budget
but added $1.1 million in their own actual Estimates. We want to see real results in this area, Mr.
Speaker, and again we will await to see the announcements of the government.
On
the issue of cross‑border shopping, we do support the Premier's position
that the federal government should not require the provinces to harmonize the
GST as a condition of dealing with cross‑border shopping. We agree with the Premiers of the country on
that point. It is absolutely‑‑what
should I say, the term blackmail is inappropriate‑‑but it is
absolutely wrong for a federal government to require the provinces to harmonize
their dastardly GST that has resulted in thousands of Canadians losing their
jobs, has resulted in a devastation of our retail sector, devastation of our
tourism sector. It is absolutely unconscionable
that the federal Conservative government would require all the provinces to
bring in that harmonization, and we applaud the Premier for saying
"no" to that harmonization. We
look forward to what results they may come up with in this whole area that
seems to be at an impasse between the federal government and the provincial
government.
In
the area of interprovincial trade, Mr. Speaker, we were pleased to see some
announcements on interprovincial trade.
I have often felt, and we have often felt, that something like the investment
initiative is a good thing. Provinces
bidding against provinces, whether it is
We
note, Mr. Speaker, that there is again another meeting in September on
interprovincial barriers. We also note
that the communiques include a reference to regional realities, and we would
ask the government to pay particular attention to the regional reality of 90
percent unemployment in northern
In
the area of agriculture, I was surprised the government did not mention the
whole issue of the offloading of the federal government onto the provinces of
partial payments on agriculture. This is
a big problem in western
*
(1350)
In
the area of health care reform, it raises the whole question, and this is a
question for all governments of all stripes including NDP governments, Liberal
governments and Conservative governments.
What public input is going to go on for this ministers' meeting? The Finance ministers are going to meet, the
Health ministers are going to meet, but when is the public, the greatest
stakeholder in our health care system, going to have some say on the kind of
reforms that are going to take place in our health care system?
I
would urge this government to open the doors and open the windows on health
care reform in this province. There is committee
after committee after committee, and we want to have access, the public wants
to know what is going on, Mr. Speaker, in their health care system.
I
note that the Premier made a big point of raising the whole issue of
offloading, Mr. Speaker. It is
absolutely clear that the federal government, over the last 10 years, the
federal Conservative government especially after 1984, has proceeded with massive
offloading onto the provinces. I would
hope that all the Premiers stand together on the federal offloading dealing
with the federal government.
I
remember that when we asked this body across the way, when they were in
opposition in 1985, to join us in standing up for medicare and post‑secondary
education, they refused to do so, Mr. Speaker.
One
final point dealing with the communique which we will be raising is of course
to the North American free trade agreement. We, on this side, do not believe
the public has any say on what is going on with this international trade
agreement. We, on this side, will be
fighting for public input into the trade arrangements that are so crucial to
everybody's daily lives in this province.
Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it is good to have the Premier
back in the House. Unfortunately, it is sad that he could not bring anything of
any concrete measure with him today. I
do not lay all of that blame with our Premier, but we have a situation in which
13 governments sat for 14 hours and did not come up with one concrete proposal about
anything. They have commitments in
principle, but no money. They have more
studies. They have more ministerial debates
and conversations but not a single initiative to address the very serious
economic problems facing
Mr.
Speaker, rather than deal with every single one of the areas, I want to deal
specifically with one. When the minister
went on Tuesday‑‑just the evening before, the day before we had some
discussions about the need for training and retraining‑‑he said
there were going to be some positive initiatives. Well, look at what has come out of this. We are going to review the disincentives to
work. What terrifies me is there is the
sense that somehow or other thousands and thousands and thousands of Canadians
are not working because we are not providing them with the right
incentives. Thousands and thousands and
thousands of Canadians are not working because there are not any jobs out there. There is nothing in this documentation that
provides them with jobs.
The
second thing they said they were going to do was they were going to encourage
the private sector to invest more in the training of workers. There is a total opt‑out of
responsibility on the part of all of the First Ministers of this nation to do anything
for the people in this country who need appropriate post‑secondary
education, who need appropriate retraining as they move from job to job to
job. There is nothing for them to even have
a glimmer of hope that we are going to be able to meet the competitive
challenge that faces all of us as we end this century and begin the next
one. It is a lot of words directed
towards the most vulnerable, but no commitment to change the system that got us
into this position now and will do nothing to encourage us to get out of it.
Hon.
Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban Affairs): Can we revert, Mr. Speaker, to tabling‑‑
*
(1355)
Mr.
Speaker: Is there
leave of the House to revert back to Ministerial Statements and Tabling of
Reports? Leave. It is agreed.
Mr.
Ernst: I would
like, Mr. Speaker, to table the Supplementary Report of the
Hon.
Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the 1989‑90
Annual Report of the Conservation Districts of
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
North American Free Trade Agreement
Public Hearings
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First
Minister.
Mr.
Speaker, the First Minister has opposed the North American free trade agreement
in August of 1990. He has now modified
his position, and he has the conditional position of the provincial government,
the six conditions which he reiterated in his statement in the Chamber today.
We
discussed this issue in the Premier's Estimates on Monday night, and he stated
to us that he would be raising the whole issue of the proposed North American
free trade agreement with
Mr.
Speaker, some Premiers are saying, shelve this agreement until we have digested
the effects of the American Free Trade Agreement. Others were asking for a greater commitment
for input.
I
would ask the Premier: Did he receive from
the Prime Minister a commitment that the Canadian public would have input into
this very, very vital proposed trade agreement that would affect their lives in
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Doer: Again,
that is consistent with the Prime Minister's comments of treating the Premiers,
to some degree, without any commitment for even a First Ministers' meeting and
treating the Canadian public as if this is a matter of imperial debate with the
governments and not a matter for the public.
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): A further question, Mr. Speaker. We have a copy, as many other members of the Canadian
public, of the
I
would ask the Premier: How many of the
six conditions that
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, that matter is being reviewed by
the officials of the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism and the
minister. After they have done their
review and analysis of the draft, they will be reporting to cabinet, and I will
be able to discuss that matter further with the Leader of the Opposition when I
have received that analysis.
Mr.
Doer: Mr.
Speaker, we have reviewed the document.
Some of the crucial areas established by the Premier, areas like health and
safety standards, areas like workers' rights, areas such as the environment
which we raised in the Premier's Estimates on Monday night, are not
specifically covered by this agreement. There is absolutely no protection in
the draft document.
I
would ask the Premier: When is
Mr.
Filmon: Mr.
Speaker, we will do, I think, what people expect of us, and that is to review
the matter very carefully. I am not certain
whether the document that the Leader of the Opposition has is the collective
draft position of the three countries. I
am not sure whether it is some other older version or what it is, so I would
not want to jump at that conclusion.
I
will report further when we have done the analysis, when our officials have
made their concerns known and when we are in a position to discuss it further.
Funding
Ms.
Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education.
The
Premier has just identified, as a priority, the need to review disincentives to
work and training for Manitobans, but I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the
biggest disincentive for Manitobans is in fact the decrease of places for post‑secondary
education in
Will
the minister tell the House exactly how many new places will be opened to
*
(1400)
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, given that the Minister of Education and Training was not
at the meetings in
That
is a nation‑wide problem. It stems
from the fact that many of the rules of these programs‑‑and even I
was not aware of how these rules especially apply to seasonal workers such as fishermen
in the
If
you take away those disincentives to work and training, then you can turn your
attention to the needs that are there in terms of the skill shortages that
still exist in some areas of our economy and in terms of the opportunities that
exist for people to go into areas where there are jobs but they lack the skills. That is the first point.
The
second point of the issue is with respect to what is happening in other
provinces. The NDP in
Ms.
Friesen: How the
Premier has the gall to talk about Saskatchewan‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. I should remind the honourable member
for Wolseley that I have recognized you for your supplementary question, and a
supplementary question should not require a preamble. Would the honourable member kindly put your question,
please?
Community Colleges
Funding
Ms.
Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I
will repeat my question to the Minister of Education.
Last
year her government cut more than 500 places at
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): The
member for Wolseley does not want to acknowledge that the New Democratic
government in
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Beauchesne is very clear that answers should be
brief and relate to the matter raised, Mr. Speaker. We were willing earlier to give the First
Minister some leeway‑‑and if indeed he wants to get involved in
debate‑‑but he is the Premier of Manitoba and he is asked a
question about the situation in the community colleges in
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. On the point of order raised, I shall
remind all honourable ministers that answers to questions should be as brief as
possible and should not provoke debate.
* *
*
Mr.
Filmon: I want
to re‑emphasize that
I
might say to you, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the preamble that was put forward
by the member for Wolseley, that $3 billion of the deficit of the
Ms.
Friesen: Mr.
Speaker, now that all Manitobans have seen the Premier twice not answer a
question, may I again put to the Minister of Education and Training, given that
there are 3,000 more youths unemployed in
Mr.
Filmon: Mr.
Speaker, the member for Wolseley may not like the answers, because she may be
sensitive about the mismanagement of the New Democrats who left $10 billion in
deficit in this province when we took over government. She may not like that.
Point of Order
Ms.
Friesen: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is not an issue of whether I like or dislike
the answer, it is a question of whether‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member does not
have a point of order. It is a dispute
over the facts.
* *
*
Mr.
Filmon: I
repeat, I can understand why the member for Wolseley is very, very sorry to
hear about the mismanagement and incompetence of her New Democratic colleagues
who left a $10‑billion deficit in this province.
We
are working with the young people of this province. That is why we brought in a Partners with
Youth program for new youth employment opportunities. That is why we have increased by $2.5 million
funding at the community colleges for new programming directed to target areas
of opportunity for the young people of this province.
We
are doing something on it, unlike
National Highway Policy
Federal Funding Commitment
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my questions are to the Premier
with regard to the First Ministers' meeting.
I would hope that we could talk about
Mr.
Speaker, my question is very simple.
There have been a number of stories since yesterday which indicate that
the Prime Minister is not going to put any money on the table for the Highway
Construction Program. There have also
been some stories that say that there is going to be an expenditure of some $38
million.
Will
the Premier tell us today just how much in the way of a dollar commitment he
has from the Prime Minister towards the National Highway Program?
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr.
Speaker, I know that the member opposite, who has never been in government,
does not understand the fact that when agreements are being negotiated that
involve tens and hundreds of millions of dollars, the agreements are not made
across the table by an exchange of views at a meeting among the First
Ministers. Those agreements are the
product of substantial review of figures and analysis of projects that can be
done and some agreement as to cost sharing, some agreement as to source of
funding and all of those things. The
fact is, that for the first time after certainly five years of effort, effort that
I might say was spearheaded by this administration, our Deputy Minister of
Highways Boris Hryhorczuk has been the chair of the deputy ministers' group who
have put together the proposal. It is
very complex as to potential sources of funds. It is very complex as to the
cost sharing, as to the potential construction.
*
(1410)
This
is the first time that the federal government has agreed in principle to
participate in this. That is a major
step forward. We now believe, having the
agreement in principle, that we will work towards the details of the program.
Like
any federal‑provincial cost‑sharing program, I can tell her that
the SDI program was negotiated for four years before it was finally signed on
the dotted line. I do not believe it is going
to be the case with this particular program because the Prime Minister has
indicated he is interested in a short timetable so that we can have some impact
in this construction season. Having said
that, I will be happy to have further information as soon as the details are
able to be agreed to.
Provincial Funding Commitment
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): The question was very simple. I did not want to know how much more analysis
was going to be done, how many more studies were going to be done, how much
more negotiations were going to be done.
I wanted to know, very simply, has the federal government committed any
new dollars to this program? The answer
is obviously, none.
Can
the Premier now tell us what commitment he and his ministers have committed
beyond the $13 million in the budget for their share of a National Highway
Program to take place in the
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I repeat that the federal
government has made no statement as to whether or not there will be dollars
committed on the program. That is a
matter open to negotiation as is the formula for sharing of costs between the
province and the federal government.
I
know that members opposite do not want to see anything done in this province
because it will fit their political agenda.
The fact of the matter is, this government will keep working to ensure
that we get work, jobs and investment in this province as long as we are
here. We will not be dismayed by the
negative attitudes of people opposite who do not want to have anything happen
in this province.
Mrs.
Carstairs: The
answer to that question is that the province has not put any new money into
this
National Training Program
Education Minister's Involvement
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): In the training announcement that accompanied
the documentation the Premier distributed today, he said that the various
initiatives highlighted in the paper referred to ministers responsible for labour
market matters and for social services.
Can
he tell the House today why there has been absolutely no involvement of
Education ministers in planning an education initiative for our young people?
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): In
most provinces, the ministers responsible for labour market matters are the
ministers of education and training.
Student Social Assistance
Benefit Increase
Mr.
Doug Martindale (Burrows): As
the recession gets worse, more and more groups in our society are being
affected. The latest group is students
and the proof is the opening of a food bank outlet at the
There
is a student social allowance program which has been described by a university
official as a convoluted program wherein students must jump through numerous
hoops in order to get very little assistance.
Can
the minister responsible for student social allowances explain why the
allocation for living expenses has not been increased so that students are
forced to rely on food banks to feed themselves and their children?
Hon.
Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, we have made quite a remarkable
number of reforms in our Social Allowances Program in the last few months. I would point out that while other provinces
are slashing health and school funding‑‑as we hear today in
As
well, we have created a new program for the disabled, as my honourable friend
knows and, I believe, he supports. We
have also flowed the tax credits in a different way so that recipients receive
$60 a month on a more timely basis, an initiative that my honourable friend has
spoken quite favourably about, although I think has now changed his mind. We have also dealt with the liquid assets
problem and allowed recipients to retain more of the funds that they receive
through the social allowances from other forms.
I
tell the member that we have made some remarkable changes in the social
allowances and we have some more reforms coming. We tabled a bill just
yesterday to deal with the municipal social allowances, and we will have an
opportunity to take a look in some detail at that I am sure in the coming
weeks.
Mr.
Martindale: Mr.
Speaker, since the minister did not answer the question, I think university
students will find his answer very disappointing.
Social Assistance
Head of Household Regulation
Mr.
Doug Martindale (Burrows):
Why does the Minister of Family Services condone a policy whereby male
students can be designated head of household and continue on social assistance,
but women cannot; and instead if a man moves in they are transferred to city
social services?
Hon.
Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, there are very complex
regulations and standards that are part of the Social Allowances Program. These are constantly under review, and I have
indicated some of the reforms that we have made in recent months.
I can
tell the member that there are other areas that we are currently looking at to
try and use the money that we have available.
I indicated to the member just yesterday that this department received
the largest increase in increased funding across government, and a part of that
certainly is for social allowances and part of that is for the reforms that we
have indicated that have already taken place.
Mr.
Martindale: Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services if he will commit
now to eliminating this discriminatory practice before it is challenged in
court rather than after.
Mr.
Gilleshammer: Mr.
Speaker, I have already indicated to the member that there are a number of
areas under review within the social allowances. We have made some remarkable changes already this
year. We are looking at some new
legislation on the municipal social allowances and all other ways of putting
money in the hands of low‑income Manitobans.
I
might just remind the member that the federal minister announced with the
federal budget, Minister Bouchard, that there are some very dramatic changes
coming with the flowing of some $400 million to lower income families across
this country, and that the federal government is committed to a CRISP type of program
that we have been encouraging them to do, and we think it may be quite similar
to the program that we do have in Manitoba at this time.
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please.
Benefit Increase
Mr.
Conrad Santos (Broadway):
Any influential person, who is just, would normally be expected to
intercede for another person or group who suffers an insult. This Mulroney government, which itself has
contributed to the prolongation of national recession, has added insult to
injury by just announcing a 37‑cent increase for old age pensions. Has the honourable Minister responsible for
Seniors contacted his federal counterpart and told him that this would be an
insult to the senior citizens of
Hon.
Gerald Ducharme (Minister responsible for Seniors): First of all, he wants to talk about insults;
that particular government over there has no way of talking about insults.
Mr.
Speaker, the pension plan right now is based on inflation. In '81‑86, I am sure the citizens of
55 Plus Program Restoration
Mr.
Conrad Santos (Broadway): Mr. Speaker, to partially offset this
difficulty for senior citizens, is this honourable minister prepared to restore
the 55 Plus program so that the senior citizens can at least buy one stamp and
one cup of coffee?
*
(1420)
Hon.
Gerald Ducharme (Minister responsible for Seniors): For 60 months they did not allow any seniors'
increases.
Also
for the member across the way, maybe I can mention something for the
record. February 20, 1992, the Minister responsible
for Seniors, Janice MacKinnon, announced cutbacks to seniors on financial
assistance. Would you speak to your
cousin in
Funding Restoration
Mr.
Conrad Santos (Broadway): Responsibility means to accept something for
what you have done or not done. Will
this honourable minister talk to his colleague in cabinet and at least persuade
him to restore the cut to the tax‑assistance program office, which has
helped thousands of seniors prepare their income tax returns?
Hon.
Gerald Ducharme (Minister responsible for Seniors): Mr. Speaker, we have had consultation with the
different groups. Age and
I
wish my friend would go and speak to these particular groups before he comes on
the floor not knowing that they are being serviced by Age and
Legal Aid Services
Minister's Intention
Mr.
Paul Edwards (St. James): My
question is for the Minister of Justice.
In September 1987, an evaluation report on Legal Aid
Mr.
Speaker, the 1991 Annual Report of Legal Aid
Mr.
Speaker, my question for the minister:
Why is the minister doing this at this point? Will he be upfront with Manitobans and admit
to members of this House what his true intentions are, and if they are not to
move to a public defender system which eradicates freedom of choice for
impoverished Manitobans?
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr.
Speaker, it is because of impoverished Manitobans‑‑young, old and
in between‑‑that we are determined to carry on a Legal Aid program
in this province. For whom is the
honourable member speaking? We are
determined to the extent of over 11 percent increase for this coming fiscal
year for the Legal Aid account, $1.3 million more going into that than last
year. I am not sure which people the
honourable member is speaking for in his question today.
Mr.
Edwards: Mr.
Speaker, it is quite clear who I am speaking for, the 67,000 impoverished
Manitobans who have to use Legal Aid. If
the minister‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please.
Private Bar
Mr.
Speaker: The
honourable member for St. James has been recognized for your supplementary
question. Kindly put your question now,
please.
Mr.
Paul Edwards (St. James):
Mr. Speaker, for the minister again:
Why has he chosen to make cuts only to the private bar side of the Legal
Aid plan, suggesting that his only agenda is in fact to get rid of freedom of
choice for Legal Aid clients, when the 1991 Annual Report made clear that the
private bar handled 70 percent of the cases, some 47,000 cases at an average of
one‑third of the normal cost of handling those cases?
An
Honourable Member: Are you on retainer for this question?
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr.
Speaker, it is not my‑‑
MATTER OF PRIVILEGE
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member for St. James,
on a point of order.
Mr.
Paul Edwards (St. James):
Mr. Speaker, a matter of privilege.
Some
Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please; order, please. This is a very serious
matter.
Mr.
Edwards: Mr.
Speaker, a matter of privilege has two aspects.
One is timeliness and the second is that it is to be followed by a
motion. At the end of my comments, I
will follow this by a motion.
Mr.
Speaker, I clearly heard the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), I think
all members did, implicate or suggest that I was on a retainer for asking this
question, clearly indicating‑‑
Some
Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member for St.
James has the floor. A spokesperson for
the government will also have an opportunity to bring their case forward. Right now we will hear the honourable member
for St. James.
Mr.
Edwards: Mr.
Speaker, the asking of that question by the Minister of Environment was
insulting, draws an allegation toward my profession which is being a
lawyer. I suggest to you quite clearly
that suggests to members of this House that I am in some kind of a conflict in
asking this, that I am accepting a retainer for doing it.
Mr.
Speaker, let me draw to your attention that at least half the cabinet are
practising farmers, including the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), who
talks regularly about farming and about programs for farmers, programs that put
money into the hands of farmers. The
member for
I and
other members of this House are regularly the subject of that type of insulting
derision, which does nothing for the reputation of this House in the community,
does nothing for other Manitobans in other professions who seek to come to this
House. It is an insult to all of us, and I ask you to sanction this minister.
I
want an apology now, and if no apology is forthcoming, I move that this matter
be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections forthwith. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is seconded by the member for
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On the matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker, we
have a very clear tradition in this House, and indeed in all Legislatures and
all Parliaments, and that is that we do not reflect on members, we do not
attribute unworthy motives. In fact,
Beauchesne 484(3) is very clear: ".
. . a Member will not be permitted by the Speaker to indulge . . . or to impute
to any Member or Members unworthy motives for their actions in a particular
case . . . ."
Mr.
Speaker, earlier I heard the Premier (Mr. Filmon) from his seat, when the
member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) was asking a question, asking whether this
was a conflict of interest. I just heard
the same comment, similar imputation, from the Minister of Environment (Mr.
Cummings) who asked if the member for St. James was on a retainer for asking
this question.
Mr.
Speaker, members opposite seem to make light of this, but if indeed a member
was on a retainer for asking a question, that would be serious enough to lead
to the resignation of a member. I have no doubt that the member for St. James
is asking a question in his role strictly as a member of this Legislature. What
the Minister of Environment is suggesting is akin to bribery. It has no role in this House, and the right
thing for the Minister of Environment to do would be to stand right now in this
House and apologize, not just to the member for St. James, but all members of
this House.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the motion as presented. I imagine it is written and in your
possession.
We
are all honourable members in this House.
I was sitting by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), and I want
to assure you that certainly no unworthy motive was impugned. I also want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that
a question was asked, as often is the case from individuals who sit in their
place, as seems to be the custom of this House.
I know members certainly on the opposition benches have asked questions
just like that. I have been asked many
questions over the years as to my role as a practising farmer with respect to
government decisions on agriculture policy matters.
*
(1430)
Mr.
Speaker, usually in cases when we are asked these questions, not on the record,
and on the record the question is either answered yes or no. In this case, the member for St. James (Mr.
Edwards) seems to, in a very sensitive fashion, take issue with the question.
Mr.
Speaker, I do not know how it is you rule on this type of question because
certainly in my mind, even though from time to time we should be very careful
of what we say, all of us, everybody from time to time asks a question of
another member. Maybe from time to time we all go a little bit too far, but if all
members of this House are going to rush to their feet and in an issue attempt
to tattle and attempt to bring something forward, I can say members in this
House could be doing it on all sides all the time, and members opposite know
that.
What
is at issue here, Mr. Speaker, is the intent and the reflection and the
intonation of any comment. I can say
every one of us can become highly indignant at a comment that comes across from
the other side of the floor, depending on the nature of that remark. I say to the member, every one of us could
rise on our feet and bring forward a matter of privilege, choosing if we so
wish to take out of that remark something much more serious than if we want.
I can
say, Mr. Speaker, half the time in a forum, in a highly charged political forum
such as this, we could be on our feet demanding apologies from the other
side. So the system would never work,
and I know that‑‑
An
Honourable Member:
Personal attacks are not parliamentary.
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please.
Mr.
Manness: Personal
attacks‑‑who among us in this House, out of the 56 of us, are pure
with respect to that, how many of us? I do not know if there is one of us. So for the member, any member, to rise and
say that they are something holier than thou with respect to any of these sorts
of issues, in my view, Mr. Speaker, puts you in a very tenuous position.
I
would say that you, Mr. Speaker, should not rule in favour of the motion, and
indeed if any member feels that they should exact an apology out of some other member,
then obviously a member may want to rise and do so in their own freedom. Thank you.
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a very serious
matter. I, from my seat, heard what the
Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) said, and I will put it on the
record. He said: Is he on retainer for asking this question?
That
is what the minister had said, Mr. Speaker.
I think it is imperative that the minister stand up to apologize to the member
for St. James (Mr. Edwards) because I will say that no other member whom I am
aware of has ever stood up time after time to declare conflicts of interest
wherever there has been a hint of a conflict of interest, whether it has been
in our own caucus, whether it has been inside this Chamber. The member for St. James has done the
honourable thing and stood up and admitted a conflict.
I
would cite that the Minister of Environment is imputing motives. I would look to a couple of points. One is in terms of our own rules, where we
look at rule No. 40(1): "No member
shall speak disrespectfully of the reigning monarch or any other member of the
Royal Family, or of the Governor‑General, or of the Lieutenant‑Governor
or the person administering the Government of
I
would also, Mr. Speaker, cite Beauchesne's quotation 487: "(1) Threatening
language is unparliamentary. (2) Words
may not be used hypothetically or conditionally, if they are plainly intended
to convey a direct imputation. Putting a
hypothetical case is not the way to evade what would be in itself
disorderly."
It
was very clear what the Minister of Environment said. He had imputed motives from the member for
St. James (Mr. Edwards), and I would ask that the Minister of Environment do
the honourable thing and apologize to the member for St. James immediately, and
failing that, I would suggest as the motion has said, that it be sent to the
Privileges and Elections Committee. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon.
Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, on the matter that has been
raised, I certainly think that there has been some misrepresentation of the
intent of any comments that I may have made off the record. If, per chance, the member had, and obviously
has, taken some offence to what he assumed that I have said, I certainly wish
to apologize to the House and make it very clear that it was not a reflection
on his character.
Mr.
Speaker: I would
like to thank the honourable Minister of Environment. That does conclude this matter.
* *
*
Mr.
McCrae: It
will give the honourable member comfort to know that I remember his question,
Mr. Speaker.
In
1987, 500 private lawyers were paid a total of $5.8 million. In 1991, 510 private lawyers were paid a
total of $8.6 million. That is almost a
50 percent increase in payments. I am here
to ensure that impoverished, disadvantaged, poor people in this province
continue to receive legal services.
Mr.
Edwards: Mr.
Speaker, what the minister does not tell members is that this represents
handling 47,000 cases at an average cost of $185 per case.
My
question for the minister: Why has he
chosen, Mr. Speaker, to make cuts to the private bar side only, when it is clear
that those 70 percent of the cases are being handled on the annual report's
evidence, the annual report of last year, at roughly one‑third of the
normal cost? That is a two‑thirds reduction
in the handling of a normal case. Why is
the minister choosing the private bar and the private bar alone?
Mr.
McCrae: Mr.
Speaker, the honourable member is wrong.
The average cost per case to the private bar has increased from $391 in
1987 to $500 in 1991. Ten private
lawyers were paid over $100,000 by Legal Aid last year, and one lawyer was paid
over $200,000 last year.
Judicial System
Court Transcription Services
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr.
Speaker, while I am on my feet, I would like to deal with a question raised
yesterday by the honourable member. He
asked three questions. I have a very
brief answer which could deal with the matter.
When
the court monitor program was expanded, the machines that were initially
introduced were subsequently replaced by machines that were smaller, portable
and less inclined to malfunction in the difficult circumstances that often face
the circuit court in the North. Since
the introduction of the smaller machines, they have been used on the circuit
serviced out of The Pas for 79 court circuits and have malfunctioned only twice.
In
Thompson, the monitors in question have been used for 133 sittings with only
two failures, including the one noted by the honourable member yesterday. There is no indication of transcript delay in
Thompson as a result of monitor usage, and the only significant delay
experienced in the recent past was attributed to a court reporter, Mr.
Speaker. In The Pas, turnaround time per
transcript has been approximately 30 days with the exception of very long
trials.
Wheat Prices
Government Initiatives
Mr.
Edward Helwer (Gimli):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of
Agriculture. In light of the asking
price for wheat at
*
(1440)
Hon.
Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that the
Wheat Board is doing an excellent job of marketing grain, clearly into a market
that has been strengthening prices. I
have discussed it with both the ministers involved, and about two weeks ago I
sent a letter outlining the basic economic details and the fact that the farmers
need the money in their hands for that commodity in 1992, not to wait till
January of 1993 for the final payment.
So I assure the member that, yes, we are working on that. I hope that they will have some announcement
before too long.
Apprenticeship Training
Mandatory First-Aid Certificate
Mr.
Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr.
Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Labour. Several years ago a policy was implemented in
the Apprenticeship Branch which required apprenticeship trainees to produce a
first‑aid certificate before their credentials would be issued. This was based on the findings of a study
which showed that inadequate and inappropriate responses were common at the
scene of workplace accidents.
Mr.
Speaker, I am going to table a memo from the Acting Director of the
Apprenticeship Branch which indicates that this valuable policy is going to be
dropped effective immediately as a result of a cabinet decision. My question for the minister is: Why is this
policy being eliminated, and why did he not stand up to his cabinet colleagues
to ensure that the safety of workers in this province is protected?
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, what the member should appreciate
is that the matter in question is not the elimination of first aid as part of a
training or curriculum or discussion.
The question is, is a first‑aid certificate a requirement of the
standing for that particular trade? They
are two different issues. As minister
responsible, I would encourage the department of Curriculum Development to
carry on with first‑aid training, but the question as to whether or not
it should be a requirement of the qualifications for this specific trade is
another matter. That is to what I think
the member is referring.
Mr.
Reid: Mr. Speaker, I
do not see how this is going to‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Question,
please. Order, please.
Mr.
Reid: My
supplementary question to the same minister, Mr. Speaker, is: Given the concern that this decision has
caused for the workers and the staff of the Apprenticeship Branch and the workers
in the
Mr.
Praznik: Yes, Mr.
Speaker, again, I think the member for Transcona has to appreciate the
issue. Including first‑aid training
in apprenticeship programming is certainly a valid part of it. It is something we want to encourage, but
whether or not one's qualifications to be a machinist or any other, a mechanic or
any other trade in
Apprenticeship and Training Branch
Staffing
Mr.
Daryl Reid (Transcona):
My final supplementary to the same minister.
Given
the dangerous precedent that this removal of this certificate‑‑
Mr.
Speaker:
Question, please.
Mr.
Reid: ‑‑in
this province indicates and the removal of Ms. Marilyn Kenny as the director of
the Apprenticeship Training branch in this province, will the minister explain
why he and his department have removed a person of Ms. Kenny's experience from the
Apprenticeship Training division of the Department of Labour in this
province? I would like to table letters
of support for Ms. Kenny and the good work that she has done.
Mr.
Praznik: Yes, I
am actually very, very surprised at the question from the member for Transcona
because‑‑Mr. Speaker, I am‑‑the matter involving Ms.
Kenny is a personnel matter, and decisions that were made with respect‑‑[interjection]
The member for Transcona, from his seat, says she is a leader in the field. We
have never denied that, but there are matters involved in this. If I were to bring them to the floor of the
House, I would be totally castigated by members opposite because they involve personnel
matters within the department and personal information with respect to Ms.
Kenny.
Mr.
Speaker, it would be very unfair to discuss a personnel matter such as that on
the floor of this House. I say very sincerely
to the member, if he was aware of all the facts regarding that matter, he would
not ask that question today.
North American Free Trade Agreement
Labour Standards
Mr.
Reg Alcock (Osborne): I
have a question for the First Minister about his discussions with the Prime
Minister on the North American free trade agreement. I would like to quote just an article on the
negotiations on the conditions in the Maquiladoras‑‑something like
that. It says: "It is a world of child labour, terrible
safety conditions in factories, and pollution whose full toll on workers'
health has yet to be known."
Also
in this proposed agreement from the latest round of discussions is a proposed
chapter on sanitary guidelines that suggest that in setting standards, each
country should try to minimize negative trade effects, suggesting a lowest‑common‑denominator
approach. Now the Premier, in his own six
conditions, rightly set forth the position that labour standards are something
that should be addressed in the agreement and we should move to a common
highest level of labour standards across the three countries.
My
question to the First Minister is: Did
he receive a commitment from the Prime Minister that they would not sign such an
agreement unless it included such a provision?
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier):
The commitment of the First Minister of this country was that there
would be further consultations that would involve the provinces, either
Premiers or their designates, perhaps lead ministers on trade, and that those further
consultations would be the appropriate forum in which concerns, criticisms,
suggestions about any potential agreement would be able to be discussed,
debated and placed on the table.
Mr.
Alcock: Mr.
Speaker, my question to the Premier is very simple.
He
put forward his six conditions. He
reiterated them at this meeting. Did he
receive a commitment from the Prime Minister that the second of his six
conditions, that of labour standards, would be met?
Mr.
Filmon: Mr.
Speaker, I think that the member for Osborne should read today's Globe and Mail
editorial so that he will understand that the sole and complete prerogative
under our constitutional division of powers for entering into international trade
agreements is that of the national government, the federal government.
The
fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister did not give any assurances on
any issues with respect to this agreement to any of the First Ministers,
because he reminded them that it was his sole and complete prerogative. He did give assurances of further
consultations and opportunities for concerns to be aired, debated and so on.
We
have put on the table that very condition that he speaks of, as one of our six
serious concerns to be met by any free trade agreement. That is the basis upon which we will judge whether
or not such an agreement is good for
Mr.
Speaker: The time
for Oral Questions has expired.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Mr.
Speaker: During
Routine Proceedings, I inadvertently missed the honourable Leader of the second
opposition party (Mrs. Carstairs) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae)
under Introduction of Bills. I would
like to revert to Introduction of Bills.
Is there leave?
An
Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: Leave,
it is agreed.
Bill 66‑The Child and Family Services Amendment Act
(2)
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), that Bill 66, The Child and Family Services
Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant
la Loi sur les services a l'enfant et a la famille, be
introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time.
Motion presented.
Mrs.
Carstairs: Mr.
Speaker, very briefly, this will be a very minor amendment to The Child and
Family Services Act. What it will do,
however, is to make it possible for siblings to be able to get in touch with
siblings who have also been adopted to other families.
At
the present time, they can get in touch with those siblings if they are part of
the birth mother, but they cannot get in touch with them if they have, in fact,
also been adopted. This paves the way so that if those siblings want to be in
touch with one another, and both indicate that they do wish to be in contact
with one another, then it is possible for it happen.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 72‑The Law Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness),
that Bill 72, The Law Reform (Miscellaneous
Amendments) Act, (Loi sur la reforme du droit (modifications
diverses), be introduced and the same be now received and read a first time.
Motion
agreed to.
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (
*
(1450)
Mr.
Speaker: Does
the honourable member for
An
Honourable Member:
Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: Leave.
It is agreed.
Mr.
Lamoureux: Earlier
this morning, late in the morning we had a Ken McColm who is walking across
I
think that we just want to, as I am sure all members of this Chamber, commend
Mr. McColm for doing the work that he is doing in crossing
* *
*
Mr.
Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Speaker, do I have leave to make a
nonpolitical statement?
Mr.
Speaker: Does the
honourable member for Sturgeon Creek have leave for a nonpolitical
statement? Leave. It is agreed.
Mr.
McAlpine: Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of all Scots and all clans here
in
Tartan
Day is already held in
The
Scots, in many cases, came to this land against their wishes, their lands
expropriated by their clan chief or English landlords. Their will to work hard in helping to
establish a new life saw the building of a country and this province.
April
6 was chosen as Tartan Day by the Federation of Scottish Clans, and I am proud
to say that this day has now been chosen in
For
the record, Mr. Speaker, and the benefit of this Chamber, I will read the
proclamation that was signed by our Premier (Mr. Filmon) this morning. It reads:
WHEREAS
the Selkirk Settlers settled in
WHEREAS
Scots played a significant and integral role in the establishment of
WHEREAS
Scottish Manitobans continue to make outstanding contributions to
WHEREAS
April 6th has been chosen as "Tartan Day" in
WHEREAS
WHEREAS
WHEREAS
the Scottish Canadian community supports the ideals of multiculturalism,
treasures its heritage and wishes to present the most valuable elements of this
culture to all Canadians;
NOW
THEREFORE BE IT KNOWN THAT I, Gary Filmon, Premier of
I
congratulate and I thank our Premier in giving this matter such positive and
speedy attention on behalf of all Scots and clans in
Mr.
Speaker, I ask that all members of this Chamber please help us to celebrate Tartan
Days in
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Downey), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the
Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider and
report of the matters referred, particularly Bill 67.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider and report of the matters
referred, particularly Bill 67, with the honourable member for
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Bill 67‑The Interim Appropriation Act, 1992
Madam
Chairperson (Louise Dacquay): Order, please.
Will the Committee of the Whole please come to order to continue to consider
Bill 67 (The Interim Appropriation Act, 1992; Loi de 1992 portant affectation anticipee de credits).
Mr.
Reg Alcock (Osborne): Madam
Chairperson, I note that we are absent the Minister of Education (Mrs.
Vodrey). As you will recall from
yesterday, as we closed, there were a number of questions that had been posed
to the minister, and she had indicated she would be coming back to the House
with some information.
I
would just serve notice that I have a series of questions I would like to ask
the minister, as I stated yesterday.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader):
Madam Chairperson, I do not know what
commitments the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) made yesterday. I can tell the member that the Minister of
Education is presently making a significant government announcement with
respect to French governance and, I understand, will be away from the House yet
for another hour, hour and a half.
If
the commitment has been made by our new minister to answer certain questions,
yesterday, I know those will be answered.
If the member is waiting for the response to those questions in the context
of today, I cannot make that commitment.
If
the questions are on general funding, as the acting minister, I certainly will
attempt to answer any questions that the member wishes to put.
Mr.
Alcock: If I
understand the House leader for the government correctly then, the minister may
be available after this announcement at four o'clock or thereabouts, or later
or tomorrow morning.
Madam
Chairperson, I am quite prepared to continue right now in the absence of the
Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey), and I will come back to those questions
when she appears in the House so we can get the answers to the questions we
discussed yesterday.
In
the interim, I would like to address a few questions to the Minister of
Finance.
I
would also suggest, though, to the government House leader (Mr. Manness) that
there are a number of other ministers whom we may wish to question, and perhaps
a few of them should be here in the House as we begin this process.
To
begin with, let me start with a question that we raised with the Finance
minister and one I raised yesterday with the Minister of Education. It was relative to the mythical $2.5 million
for new government programs. Perhaps the
minister can understand how he made such an error in his budget announcement.
*
(1500)
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Madam Chairperson, I did not make any error
in the budgetary announcement whatsoever when I announced a $2.5‑million
program; indeed there will be details in due course provided with respect to
that $2.5‑million education college course programming announcement.
What
I did say in the budget was that government was committing $2.5 million to a
new program. That does not mean that
indeed when one goes into the Estimate booklet, they are going to be able to
identify an additional $2.5 million.
That was never the intent.
As I
indicated to the member before, when the decisions we made in last year's
budget flow through, that would take more than just '91‑92 budget; there
would be some fallout of those decisions appropriated yet in 1992‑93. Yet 1992‑93 will also be the year when
we are introducing the program of $2.5 million which will flow, not only in
1992‑93, but in some part, a smaller part, in '93‑94.
The
announcement did not say that all $2.5 million in isolation was going to flow
within '92‑93, but neither does it address the fact that a portion of the
old programming is still within the next fiscal year.
The
announcement is correct; it is a $2.5‑million program in its own merit,
yet there is no way that the member, in going through the Estimates number, is
going to be able to reconcile the $2.5‑million program announcement with
indeed a $2.5‑million increase in the line estimate. [interjection]
Madam
Chairperson: Order,
please. I wonder if I might request the
honourable members to have their private meetings either outside the Chamber or
in the loge.
Mr.
Alcock: Thank
you, Madam Chairperson. I appreciate
that request also; it had become difficult to hear the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) as he was endeavouring to explain this.
In
the Budget Address that the minister read in the House and in the statement
included in the budget it says:
Significant increases have been provided in the Education and Training budget;
funding support for schools, including a new school finance program, is up 6.8
percent; grants to universities, up 3 percent; the introduction of $2.5 million
in the new training programs at the province's community colleges.
There
is a total of $1,164,000 in funding increases to the province's three
colleges. That is the total
increase. The Minister of Education
(Mrs. Vodrey) said yesterday that there were some new costs against that for‑‑just
a minute‑‑[interjection]
Madam
Chairperson: Order, please
Mr.
Alcock: Just
throw the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) out of here, please.
Madam
Chairperson: Order,
please. I requested earlier the co‑operation
of all honourable members engaging in private conversations to please either
remove themselves from the Chamber or to the loge. The honourable member for Osborne (Mr.
Alcock) is experiencing great difficulty in conveying his question to the Minister
of Finance (Mr. Manness), and I personally am having great difficulty hearing
him as well.
Mr.
Alcock: Thank
you, Madam Chairperson. The Minister of Education
(Mrs. Vodrey) yesterday indicated there were some significant draws against
that $1,164,000. There were merit increases
at the colleges; there is a negotiated salary increase; there is the new
college governance program, and I believe she mentioned a couple of other
initiatives, so presumably, of the $1,164,000 that has been made available in
the budget, not all of that is going to new programs. That is going to other costs and other initiatives.
In
order for there to be $2.5 million worth of new programs, presumably there has
to be some number of old programs that are eliminated. Can the Finance minister indicate which
programs are being eliminated?
Mr.
Manness: Madam
Chairperson, I cannot indicate that. I
know that with respect to new programming in the fall of '92‑‑and I
am subject to correction, but as I recall reviewing the decisions we made
around the Treasury Board, we called upon no reduction in the fall of '92
programs from those that exist right now.
There
still, though, will be, within the '92‑93 fiscal year, a draw down as a
result of the decisions made a year ago, programs that have not completely yet
phased out and will carry into the '92‑93 fiscal year, into the college
fiscal year ending in the end of June, so that is reflected in those
statements.
To
the best of my knowledge, we have made no decisions with respect to the fall of
'92 that are going to reduce programs vis‑a‑vis those which are in
existence right now or those that are winding down now as a result of the
decision made a year ago. We made the
major reductions in programming in the Estimates leading into '91‑92.
Mr.
Alcock: Would the
Finance minister agree that the statement that significant increases have been
provided and including, as a follow‑up to that sentence, the introduction
of $2.5 million, is essentially misleading.
There is no increase of $2.5 million in the Education budget, that there
may a reallocation of funds within that budget to new programs, but it is not
by way of an increase of $2.5 million dollars.
Mr.
Manness: We are
arguing semantics in the sense that were the fiscal year‑end of the
province the end of June, you would certainly see a significant reduction in
the '91‑92 numbers. The base
leading into '92‑93 would have been reduced, and it is on that reduced
base that we make the claim that we are increasing programming $2.5 million,
not all of which will flow in '92‑93. I acknowledge that‑‑not
all of which will flow in '92‑93.
That
is why when we made the statements, like we did within the budget that percent
funding to the public school system would be 6.8 percent and/or to universities
3 percent, we did not follow that and say that increased funding budget over
budget was going to increase by a factor of some certain percent because that
would have been inaccurate.
That
is why we said we were introducing a $2.5 million program with respect to
reintroducing courses at our community colleges that were in keeping with what
the market demand wanted. It would take
more than several months to reintroduce all of those courses, and indeed it may
take funding into the '93‑94 fiscal year before all of the $2.5 million
program could be up and running.
Mr.
Alcock: So, like
a lot of the announcements in this budget, it is not quite a reflection of this
year's reality. It is a hope for future
years.
Can
the minister given us an indication of what portion of the $2.5 million in new
programs we will see this year?
Mr.
Manness: I am
hoping over half of it; if not, three‑quarters of it. In due course‑‑and maybe the
minister yesterday indicated what courses we were going to reintroduce and
introduce for the first time as quickly as those course contents can be
developed, and indeed as quickly as we can open entry into those courses, we will.
Our
problems are not so much with instructors.
I mean, we can hire instructors.
Our problems are with developing the courses because some of this is new
course content. I say to the member, we
would just as soon have all those courses opening September '92. A significant portion of them will be, but
not all of them.
Mr.
Alcock: We are
back to a bit of perhaps a misunderstanding here, but we have $1,164,000 in total
new funds allocated. The minister
indicates that roughly half of $2.5 million, $1.25 million will flow this
year. Where is it coming from?
Mr.
Manness: It is
coming from the line appropriation.
Mr.
Alcock: What
is being reduced in order to free up $1.25 million?
Mr.
Manness: Nothing
is being reduced other than those courses that were impacted by decisions made
exactly a year ago, the impact of which has flowed somewhat into the '92‑93
fiscal year.
*
(1510)
Mr.
Alcock: Okay,
turning to another matter‑‑in the first page of the budget, there
is a statement here, you reference the Conference Board's prediction that the
Can
the minister tell us what his understanding of that rate is?
Mr.
Manness: As I
recall, it was 2.4 percent, the Conference Board of Canada, a 2.4 percent
increase, which was above their estimate of the national average which at that
time I thought was 2 percent. This is
subject to correction.
I
wonder if the member could tell me, when he says page 1, is he meaning page 1
of the text? Yes, he is talking on the
fourth paragraph. I will sit down for a
second, Madam Chairperson, and try and correlate that to some other information
in the back of the document.
Mr.
Alcock: Madam
Chairperson, I am pleased that the minister is going to try and correlate that
information in the back of the document because the figure 3.2 has been used,
but in the back of the document, it is indeed 2.4. I believe the difference though is the
average. The average is the 2.4 and the
Conference Board has us somewhat above that.
Has
he spoken to the Conference Board about their very optimistic prediction, and
can he tell us what it is based on?
Mr.
Manness: Mr.
Watson, my economist, did speak with the Conference Board because we wanted to
be very sure as to exactly what this, in our view, optimistic forecast was
based upon.
I
believe the Conference Board said they understood that there would be public
investment, particularly in the area of Conawapa that would drive this. By the information that they had at their
disposal, this is the way it reflected throughout the numbers. We pointed out to them in all sincerity and
honesty that we did not believe that Conawapa would be proceeding as quickly as
they thought maybe it would and, of course, that then may result in a change in
the next forecast coming out of the Conference Board. It is hard to say.
I
know there will be a lot of changes. I
know, for instance, that
I
know I have talked to other Ministers of Finance and Treasurers yesterday when
I was in Toronto, and some of them‑‑in fairness to them, I will not
indicate who‑‑indicated that they will be doing downgrading from
Conference Board, indeed, even private forecasting. They will be doing some downgrading of their
forecasts of economic growth as they present them in their budgets to come down
over the course of the next number of weeks.
This
is not a perfect science, No. 1; No. 2,
it depends at what moment in time you want to reflect what it is you hear. That
is why I say to the members opposite, as they have asked me this question
before in Question Period, that still the methodology that we have inherited
from the former government, who inherited it from the
Mr.
Alcock: Yes, I
think that is probably a reasonable approach, frankly. So the average that you took at the time that
you put the budget together was the 2.4 which you said was following the traditional
process of producing a composite. Does
2.4 represent the Manitoba Finance department's current best guess as to what the
economic growth in this province will be in this year?
Mr.
Manness: Yes, it
does, as a minimum. I mean, we are aware
of some other good news that has not at this point been factored into our
numbers. There is an awful lot of
interest in this province by investors from outside. I would say at this point it is a minimum vis‑a‑vis
the national number. Now, if the
national number drops significantly, and there are some larger provinces to
whom I was speaking yesterday who believe that their numbers are going to drop,
obviously that would have significant impact on the national number, and then
obviously‑‑you know, we are not an island unto ourselves, the
province of Manitoba. Then I would say
our 2.4 average would also be downgraded.
But right today, given the information that we have, we would say that
2.4 would be the minimum growth, and indeed maybe 3.2 is too optimistic, but
still we think we would be higher than 2.4 if everything was going to work
itself forward, as we would hope, in the country.
Mr.
Alcock: Then can
the Finance minister explain to me the relationship between retail sales tax
revenues and growth in the economy?
Mr.
Manness: Well,
there is a relationship. I do not know
how strong the correlation would be if one were to go back and do an analysis. Certainly as a rule of thumb, when I look at
my monthly estimates of revenues, I give the greatest weighting to sales tax
revenue, because it is the best that I have.
How good it is as a barometer of the economy is still very much in question,
but I can tell you it is the best source of information that I have.
To
that end, I find it kind of interesting that members a year ago, of all the
opposition parties, when we had sales tax increasing in this province as
compared to '90, in other words January '91 over January '90, when Manitoba
increased 1.4 percent‑‑nothing spectacular‑‑but 1.4,
whereas all of Canada was down 4.3, not a question was asked. I mean, we stood out quite astonishingly vis‑a‑vis
other provinces a year ago. So our base is
higher relative to theirs. So all of a
sudden January '92 comes along, now we compare it to January '91, and, yes, I acknowledge
that we had growth of only 0.6 percent by Stats Canada numbers. Pardon me, it says 1.4 percent. I do not even know where I get‑‑Manitoba
retail sales in January are positive with 1.4 percent growth. Oh, no, this is '91 over '90. I am talking now '92 versus '91 where our
growth was 0.6 percent whereas the national average was 3.8 percent.
*
(1520)
So in
that snapshot of period of time it looks like we are lagging, but when you look
over the year before, we did not get the benefit for the significant
increase. So I say to the member, they
are positive, that is reflected in my revenues, my revenues are positive. I will also tell the member that the revenues
over forecast were significantly positive.
Does it mean we are out of the recession? I do not think I can give the member that
answer at this point in time.
Mr.
Alcock: Well, it
is interesting. I wondered about this also. You know, it seems that the most direct
indicator of people's willingness to consume is the retail sales tax. I went back to the introduction of the
program, and I have tracked retail sales tax revenues from when it was
introduced in the mid‑'60s to the current budget and looked at the
relationship between growth and the economy and retail sales tax. It is a little difficult in a couple of
years, because the NDP did increase it twice and that masks what may or may not
have occurred, particularly in the '81‑82 recession. There was a period because of a reporting
change in the mid‑'70s under the
However,
the Finance minister (Mr. Manness) has said two things. He has said that he credits retail sales tax
revenues as being somewhat of a reflection of what is happening in the economy. He has said in the next year he expects that
the composite forecast of 2.4 percent growth is an accurate one, and may even
be a little stronger than that, and yet, in his budget, if I am reading it
right, he is forecasting a 4.5 percent drop in retail sales tax revenues. That is after you take out the impact of the
telecommunications credit, which was a good one. I mean, I support that, and I supported it in
my speech, the change in telecommunication.
So my
question is, can the Finance minister (Mr. Manness) reconcile these two things
that seem to be somewhat at odds with each other?
Mr.
Manness: Madam
Chairperson, I ask the member not to look, in this case, at budget over budget,
because the $610 million that he wants to compare it to‑‑I am
talking now retail sales tax March ending '93 versus March ending '92‑‑the
$610 million is the reference year, the year we are ending now is not accurate. The Third Quarter Report would tell him that
that indeed $610 million has not been met, that indeed, as I recall, and I do
not have the third quarter forecast in front of me, but I think it is somewhere
around $560 million, $550 million, somewhere in between. That is the revised actual of the year we are
about to complete.
So
what I am then saying is that what I expect to happen in '92‑93 is
roughly a $20 million or $30 million increase from forecasted actual '91‑92. That, therefore, is growth. I do not know what the growth is; I have not
done the arithmetic. Maybe it is not
2.4, but it is growth.
Mr.
Alcock: If that
were borne out that would indeed be growth. Are his retail sales tax revenues
on‑line with that prediction right now?
Mr.
Manness: Yes, they
are. They have been. We are one of the few provinces in
Mr.
Alcock: Madam
Chairperson, I appreciate the efforts that the Finance minister is making to
answer these questions, and I do not want to suggest that I am not interested
in going further.
But
the Minister of Industry and Trade is in the House and may only be here for a
short while, and I have a few questions that I would like to ask him so that he
is free to go and do whatever it is he wishes to do. I do appreciate him coming into the House, so
I shall come back to the Finance minister in a minute.
I
wonder if the minister can start off just by‑‑as he was not given
an opportunity to tell us what occurred in the meetings he was at, relative to
the North American free trade agreement, if he can tell us what the status is
of the discussions at the present time.
Hon.
Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam
Chairperson, as I indicated not long ago in this House, we, back in late
February, received a copy of a working document, a draft document, from the
federal government, outlining the positions of Canada, the United States and
Mexico in terms of North American free trade, some 400 pages long, areas where
there seems to be basic agreement and several areas where there is disagreement. It was provided to all of the provinces, in confidence,
by the federal government, and I do give the federal government credit for that
in terms of the willingness to share information and the openness in providing
us with the opportunity to do a review of that document.
Since
we have received it, what we have been doing is, our officials have been going
through it, working with other departments where there are direct
relationships. We have been hearing
about some issues like transportation, areas of concern and so on, so we are
working with the ministry of Transportation in terms of some of the issues
affecting that department. But we are
also going, in some instances, directly to sectors, the whole garment and
apparel industry. We are dealing with
the Manitoba Fashion Institute in terms of some of the concerns that relate to that
particular industry.
So, Madam
Chairperson, what we are doing is, at the official level, an analysis of that
document in terms of recognizing the concerns that we were made aware of when
we went through the public consultation process back in May‑June of 1991,
with the opportunity to put those concerns forward. I see, at some point, there being an
unbracketed agreement, I guess is the best way to put it, which still would not
be a final agreement but a document that once it starts to crystallize, at that
particular point in time, I would certainly hope that there would be the
opportunity to go forward with much more extensive public consultation, the opportunity
certainly, to share more information with other members of this Legislature.
But
at this particular point in time, the document that we have been provided with
is a working document provided in confidence.
We do not have the authority to be releasing it to any individuals, but
we do appreciate the opportunity to work with it.
I
should conclude, Madam Chairperson, that the Minister of Trade, the federal
minister, clearly indicated that before any agreement is reached that we would
have the opportunity for full input, there would be another Trade ministers'
meeting. I would anticipate, based on
the discussions that took place in the last two days, that there would be
discussions most likely at the First Ministers' level on this issue. So, clearly, there will be that opportunity
before any conclusion is reached.
The
final point is that while, through various aspects of the media, there has been
an indication that an agreement might be imminent, the federal Minister of
Trade indicates to me that, in his opinion, an agreement is not imminent and
there will be ample opportunity for continued input from us as a government and
ultimately for Manitobans on this issue, Madam Chairperson.
Mr.
Alcock: Some time
ago, the minister stood in the House and read to the House his list of
conditions for the negotiations that they were entering into, and I guess the
position, as the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has pointed out, that this Minister of Industry
and Trade does not have the authority to enter into these agreements. But that is your operating position, and that
is certainly one that I think received the support of the House.
I
think there are some areas that have arisen and they add to the questions and
concerns that are being raised as a result of these negotiations, and I want to
ask a couple of specific questions on that.
I
just want to reference the six points that were made in the announcement the
minister made in the House. It has been
stated by this minister, and it has certainly been stated by the Premier, that
those are
The
second one, if I have my order right, was that the agreement called for Mexico
to move its labour standards towards the labour standards in the U.S. and
Canada, that recognizing that their standards throughout, that their child
labour and workplace, health and safety and whatever, were considerably below
that of the U.S. and Canada, that contingent upon agreement or one of the
conditions for signing such an agreement would be that they were to upgrade
their labour standards.
Now
in the draft agreement which I have seen, which is the one that comes out of
the latest round‑‑the February 21, I believe, round‑‑there
is not that assurance. There is not even
that discussion, and I am wondering if the minister was able to raise that with
the federal Trade minister and has an explanation for why that condition has
been omitted from that document.
Mr.
Stefanson: Madam
Chairperson, certainly I have had the opportunity at Trade ministers' meetings
to put the six conditions on the record.
I want to indicate that the federal government is very well aware of our
six conditions. The Minister of Trade is
certainly well aware.
In
terms of the analysis that we are currently doing, the concerns that the
honourable member raises might very well form part of our response to the draft
document that has been provided.
Clearly, once our analysis is done, as I have indicated, on the
individual issues, we will be responding, but we certainly will be pointing to
areas that our six conditions are not met, and of course, continuing to
reiterate our six conditions to the federal government.
We
are very firm on those six conditions.
We have said that on many occasions.
The federal government is very clear of our position, and as I have
again indicated in this House before, in terms of the responses of the
provinces, we, more so than any other province, have outlined very clearly our
position. Several provinces to date have
not adopted a position. To the best of
my knowledge, no province has responded to these draft agreements that we have
all been provided with. So I think
everybody is doing the due diligence, the thorough review, that one would expect,
as I have already outlined without being repetitive.
*
(1530)
We
are doing a review. We are consulting
with various sectors and so on. Clearly
that issue will be addressed as part of our response to the federal government.
Mr.
Alcock: The
member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst) has referred to the six commandments. I would hope that there would not be only six
in this particular negotiation.
I
want to assure the minister at this point that I am not looking to be
excessively critical of what has gone on.
I understand the complexity, and certainly, from attempting to scan 480
pages of bracketed document, one gets a feeling for just how complex this
agreement is.
I was
interested.
Mr.
Stefanson: I cannot
speak for the federal government in terms of their acceptance of our six
conditions. There has not been a clear
indication one way or the other as it relates to all six conditions, but I do
know that discussions are taking place relative to labour issues and labour
standards and discussions are taking place relative, certainly, to
environmental issues. How far those discussions go and how much they become
encompassed into any future agreement are part of the ongoing negotiations.
As I
have indicated, certainly the federal government is very well aware of our
positions and that we will not support any North American free trade agreement
unless those six conditions are in fact met.
So I try not to be repetitive, but it is very important to remind all
members in the Chamber that that is our position and we have made that.
Again,
I am fortunate to be sitting at the table and I have had the opportunity to
reiterate this on several occasions at Trade ministers' meetings. I, at least, take pride in the fact that we
as a province have been much more specific and have probably done more work
than many other provinces on this very important issue.
Mr.
Alcock: Am
I correct in my understanding that the
Mr.
Stefanson: Madam
Chairperson, to the best of my knowledge,
Mr.
Alcock: I do not
wish to put words in the minister's mouth, but if I understood what he said on
this: that the absence of references to
labour standards and environment are not necessarily indicative of the overall
direction of this agreement, that those two items specifically are subject to further
negotiation and are part of ongoing discussions, and that we may yet see those
two issues included in a North American free trade agreement. That is what I understood the minister to say
on this. Does this indicate that the
federal government, the federal Minister of Trade has accepted those two, not
the whole six, but those two conditions as part of their bottom line for the
negotiations with the
Mr.
Stefanson: In
terms of the preamble of the honourable member, yes, that is a correct
interpretation.
In
terms of the federal government, I cannot necessarily indicate that they have
accepted them, but they have clearly recognized them as important issues that
need to be addressed. So discussions are taking place as it relates to those
two issues, labour standards and environmental issues.
Mr.
Alcock: In
Question Period I would not be allowed a hypothetical question, so I am going
to serve notice that this question is hypothetical. The minister can choose to answer it or
not. But these six conditions were put
forward as
Mr.
Stefanson: I will
put it in my own words, we have said in this House on many occasions that we do
not support a North American free trade agreement unless these six conditions
are met.
Mr.
Alcock: I thank
the minister for that. Now, I want to
add a seventh area, and it is one that comes out of an examination of this draft
document, and that is this discussion about standards. It is a general discussion, but it does raise
the question, for example, on sanitary standards, that in order to, quote,
facilitate maximum freedom of trade, that the standards of the country of origin
would be the ones that would be accepted.
The
lowest common denominator would be accepted.
The implication that has been drawn from that, for example, is that food
stuffs packaged and processed in
Now,
is this an area that, perhaps, was omitted when the Minister of Trade (Mr.
Stefanson) first looked at this agreement?
Does not this constitute a significant lowering of
Mr.
Stefanson: Madam
Chairperson, as I indicated, besides reviewing the document with the view of
how the document either meets or does not meet our six conditions, we are also
viewing it as it relates to any concerns that we would have relative to
Certainly
our position on other issues, as the honourable member well knows, on the
environmental issues, on the labour issues, has been quite the opposite‑‑that
they should not be driven to the lowest common denominator. Quite the opposite, that they should rise to
the higher common denominators, in those particular instances, of
I
would suggest that the same principle will apply in the area that the
honourable member refers to, and certainly if it is part of our final review
that that is recognized as a definite concern, it will form part of our
response to the federal government.
The
six conditions, while they are very important‑‑as I have already
said‑‑we are not only looking at the agreement with the six
conditions in mind, we are looking at it as we think each and every item
affects
Mr.
Alcock: I grant
the minister that it is not possible to anticipate every possible problem prior
to going into discussions, and some things arise during the midst of discussions
and certain conditions that they have sought to impose on this, or may now seek
to impose on this, may simply not have been recognized at the time.
But
there is a suggestion here that the proposed chapter on sanitary guidelines is
attempting to set standards in such a way that each country should try to
minimize negative trade effects, and this is suggesting a lowest‑common‑denominator
approach. Was that concern raised with
the minister at the discussions in
Mr.
Stefanson: Just for
clarification, Madam Chairperson, you are requesting whether that was raised at
the Tourism ministers' meeting?
Mr.
Alcock: No, I am
sorry, with the Trade ministers' meeting. In the discussion with other
Ministers of Trade, you were looking at the NAFTA and with the federal Trade
minister. The minister has referenced
several discussions with the federal Trade minister. There is a new element that has arisen as a
result of the leak of the draft agreement, and that is this question on lowest
common denominator in the setting of standards.
I am wondering if that issue was the subject of discussion in the meetings
the minister was at. The minister's
reference means with the Trade minister.
Mr.
Stefanson: Madam
Chairperson, that specific issue was not raised at ministerial meetings.
Mr.
Alcock: Has the
minister been made aware of this particular concern?
Mr.
Stefanson: Madam
Chairperson, I have a draft report in my office now upon my return that flags a
series of concerns that I, at this particular point in time, have not had an
opportunity to review.
Mr.
Alcock: I wonder
though, has the minister had discussions on this agreement with the Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs
(Mrs. McIntosh)?
*
(1540)
Mr.
Stefanson: As I
have indicated, Madam Chairperson, initially, appreciating the six conditions
that we have suggested and the consultation that we had with citizens of
Manitoba, the business sector, the labour sector, academic and so on, my officials
were in attendance at all of those meetings and had an opportunity to recognize
the many concerns. At this particular stage,
the review that I refer to that is being done is being done at the official's
level.
I
cited the one example in transportation.
Clearly in agricultural issues we work very closely with the Department
of Agriculture, as would be the case with any issues that affect any other
department within government.
At
this particular time, as part of the overall analysis, the review is being done
at the official's level as the Premier (Mr. Filmon) indicated in the House
today. Based on the overall review that
is being done, and I have also touched on in some sectors discussions taking
place with the private sector, a report will be brought forward for the review
of cabinet that I can be obviously sharing and working with all of my
colleagues.
Mr.
Alcock: I would
just encourage the minister to bring forward information on that particular
provision and to state as clearly as he has Manitoba's position on other areas,
to state Manitoba's position on that particular area, because it would seem to
be one that would be of considerable concern to people in this province.
I am
going to leave the NAFTA with that. I
would congratulate the minister on his new responsibilities as chairman, if I
understand, of the Ministers of Trade, or chairman of a working group. Perhaps the minister can clarify for us what responsibilities
they are taking on.
Mr.
Stefanson: I will
be co‑chairing the Committee of Ministers of Internal Trade for
I am
also pleased to see that besides being given the mandate to pursue that entire
issue, it has been expanded to address issues as it relates to a code of
conduct in terms of investment in various provinces across Canada to try to
minimize the investment bidding wars that occasionally take place across Canada
and certainly are not to the benefit of governments within Canada or the
citizens of Canada.
I
very much look forward to the challenges of that committee. We will be meeting, I believe, in
Mr.
Alcock: In the
statement that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) tabled in the House, it talks about
interprovincial trade barriers and what they call competition for investment. It sounds like a very positive
announcement. I assume that this is the
part of the working plan for this particular committee that the minister is
chairing, and I note here, if it is starting on May 1 of '93, it has a
completion date of March 31, 1995. I am wondering
why it is going to take us two full years to reach agreement on this particular
issue when there seems to be broad support for it across the country.
Mr.
Stefanson: Good
question, Madam Chairperson, and in fact I am actually quite pleased to have
the March 31, 1995, deadline as some provinces were suggesting even a later
deadline. At one point there was a
suggestion of 1997. While there seems to
be general acceptance of the principle, one has to appreciate that there is a
great deal of work to be done, because it goes beyond the procurement practices
of governments and Crown corporations and municipalities and school divisions,
so the whole procurement practices of all of those bodies have to be reviewed
and adjusted to incorporate opportunities across Canada.
It
also then goes into the regulatory side, that any jurisdictions that have any
regulations that in any way put barriers to other provinces in doing business
in that particular province, so while on the surface it might seem like a
fairly simplistic principle to adopt, if you think of it in terms of the many
aspects, it is a very detailed degree of work that has to be done, Madam
Chairperson. So while the three‑year
time frame standing here might seem a long ways away, I would suggest that to
do the job that is required and to get the support of every province in Canada
with what finally we come forward with, that kind of time frame is definitely
required, plus with the added responsibility now of the code of conduct on
investment opportunities.
We
have seen recent examples of at least one company going across Canada trying
to, entice might be too strong a word but, influence governments to investment
in a particular operation and clearly that is a whole other issue that we will
be addressing. There are concerns of provinces in terms of regional disparities
that come into play and those kinds of decisions as well. So it is a very complicated issue in many
respects, so while there has been the endorsation in principle there is a lot
of work that remains to be done, Madam Chairperson.
Mr.
Alcock: Madam
Chairperson, I think it is a very positive initiative, frankly, and I think
that the minister was very polite in his comments about companies going across
the country trying to entice, negotiate or develop some differential treatment. I think there are other terms for that, such
as to play one off against each other or one off against another in kind of a
negative sum game that ultimately leads us into a form of, if one follows game
theories, of a prisoner's dilemma, that you are always negotiating down. The problem in this case, of course, is that
you are negotiating away the various support programs that form the foundation
for our social support system in this country.
So it is a very dangerous practice and one that we have allowed to go on
for too long.
I was
party to a lengthy discussion about a similar negotiation among a series of
states on the eastern seaboard where they are attempting to do exactly the same
thing to prevent companies from playing states off against each other. I wish the minister well in that initiative,
and hope that he can move that one along.
I
would like to know how the federal government defines its role in those
discussions.
Mr.
Stefanson: That, to
a certain extent, will flow from our meetings, Madam Chairperson. Clearly, there is very much of a role for the
federal government to play in this entire issue, not necessarily so much
because of their own procurement practices, but because as well on the
investment promotion side they too have various programs in place across
Mr.
Alcock: Madam
Chairperson, certainly they have a role to play. They also are the major link when we are
talking about international trade and creating opportunities in this country and
bringing companies into this country, and they are caught in the same kind of
game, if you like, between this country and the
The
federal government has another role to play, and it is a role that we have
recognized in our Constitution relative to equalization, and it is a role the
federal government has recognized in a number of its institutions as it looks
at attempting to address regional disparities.
So that rather than simply negotiate agreement that creates a level
playing field across Canada, which, in fact, is not a level playing field because
of the influences of distance and infrastructure and other sorts of
considerations, the federal government has had a role to push back against that
and to facilitate the development in certain regions of the country that are
not perhaps as‑‑
*
(1550)
So in
a sense they have a role that sort of hangs over all 10 provinces and works
against the free flow of resources and companies and investment, intentionally
so. We have decided that as a country
that we would attempt to do that. Is
that a position that has been taken by the federal Trade minister, and is that
a role we will see them playing in these discussions?
Mr.
Stefanson: A good
question. I do not have the communique
in front of me, but clearly one of the aspects of it was as part of the overall
review that we will be doing as internal Trade ministers is to recognize and
address, as part of our review, the issue of the various needs of provinces and
regions within provinces across Canada and the regional disparities.
So
the honourable member is correct that it is not as simple as saying that you
equalize the playing field completely across our country and everything is fine
for all regions. There are important
considerations as they relate to various regions within many of our provinces.
I
guess the short answer is clearly that it is going to form a very important
part of the work and review being done by this committee.
Mr.
Alcock: I thank
the minister for taking the time to answer those questions. I will close on that with this particular minister,
and let him get on to the business of reading the 480 pages of bracketed text,
which is no joy, I can assure him.
Perhaps
I could move to the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst), and just ask him a
few brief questions on the situation that confronts us relative to the town,
the rural municipality, the about‑to‑become independent area of
Headingley.
Can
the minister review for us the current state and the preparation for the
separation of Headingley from the city of
Hon.
Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban Affairs): All is in readiness for the creation of a new
rural municipality in Headingley; however, one obstacle stands in the way, and
that, of course, is the passage of Bill 45 presently before the House.
The
government requires the passage of Bill 45 in order to formalize the creation
of the Rural Municipality of Headingley, giving authority then to proceed with
an election for the people there to create their new municipal council.
As I
indicated in my opening remarks on the introduction of second reading of Bill
45, in order to accomplish that election in Headingley, to create the municipal
structure that is required in order for them to prepare for a January 1
takeover for operation purposes, as much time as possible is required to give them
that opportunity.
The
longer we delay the question of the bill, the longer that it takes to formalize
the creation of the municipality, the less time the people of Headingley will
have to prepare for the operation of their own municipality, and that is
unfortunate for the people of Headingley.
Some
suggest that it is unfortunate for the government. Let me tell you, the government is not going
to have to carry out those efforts in Headingley; it is the people of
Headingley. Their new municipal council will have to carry out all of those functions
and prepare to operate as a new municipality, and it is they who need the
time. It is they who need as much time
as possible to prepare for the time that they will assume responsibility. Unfortunately, the matter has been somewhat delayed.
As I
understand the concern that is coming across in speeches that have been
indicated‑‑I have indicated on a number of occasions‑‑I
am prepared to introduce amendments to accommodate many of the concerns that
have been raised by honourable members opposite, no matter how inaccurate they
may be.
Nonetheless,
the basic principle of the creation of the municipality by regulation, which
has been chastised in this House by a number of speakers, is the way every
other municipality in western
The
boundaries are adjusted by regulation, the municipalities are created by
regulation. The suggestion from members
opposite that there is some deep, dark plot afoot here is wrong. We are simply following what has been the
norm in western
Much
longer, certainly, than I have been in this Legislature, probably longer than I
have been in public life. Nonetheless, that
is what we propose. Now, if members
opposite choose not to pass this bill and wish to delay it for whatever reason,
that is their prerogative. They are
members of the Legislature and they have the right to do that.
I ask
them, though, to consider the ramifications for the people of Headingley. It is not the ramifications for me; it is not
the ramifications for the government; it is not the ramifications for anyone
except those residents in Headingley who have for five years patiently waited
for this day to come.
They
are patiently waiting still, but I do not know for how much longer. I suspect that if this matter is delayed very
much longer there will be a number of rumblings of discontent.
Mr.
Alcock: Yes. What the minister is hearing today is one of those
rumblings. I have many good friends in
Headingley, and they are very concerned.
They have made their decision about wanting to separate. They wish to get on with the business of separating
and now, as I understand‑‑and I would like the minister to clarify
this for me.
I
spoke on Bill 45, and I believe my party has spoken on Bill 45, and we raised
some concerns. The minister has, to the
best of my knowledge to date, addressed those concerns, and has indicated he is
prepared to bring forward some amendments that specifically address those
concerns.
I
believe it is the position of my party that we will pass this bill, and get it
into committee so that we can get on with the business of allowing Headingley
to elect its council and to separate. So
I would like to understand a little more clearly, why we are not proceeding
with that process.
Mr.
Ernst: Madam
Chairperson, I am a little surprised that the member is not familiar with the
rules of the House. The bill is in second
reading before the House, members are speaking.
Each time the bill has been called, members have spoken, as is their right.
Mr.
Alcock: Well,
could the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) explain to us then, at what
point do we begin to get into serious trouble in the preparations? I mean, we have heard at some length the
variety and the number of steps that have to be taken in order to complete this
transition. It is now coming to the end
of March, we are hoping to have a council in place by the end of December. What is the time frame that Headingley needs
to do this in a responsible manner?
Mr.
Ernst: I assume
the member wants a date, following which it would be too late to hold a
municipal election in the community of Headingley, prior to the fall.
I
cannot give him an exact date, but it is somewhere between the 9th and 12th of
April. If we do not have an opportunity
then to have this matter concluded, in that little window of opportunity, then
it will be too late to hold an election in June, and it will force a
postponement of that election until likely September, perhaps even October.
It
would be inappropriate, I think, at this point, to suggest that an election in
July or August would be in the best interests of the community because of the
fact that many people are absent on vacation and other activities and therefore
would not be available to participate.
Particularly
this time, it is the first time. I think
almost everyone in the community, certainly whom I have spoken to, because it
is the first time, it is an historic occasion, it is one that has never
happened before, to my knowledge, would like to have that opportunity.
Madam
Chairperson, I would say, in that time frame, early April, within a week or so
of when we return to the House.
*
(1600)
Mr.
Alcock: I thank
the minister for that answer, and I hope that we will have that bill passed in
the appropriate period of time.
There
was a question that came up at one of the meetings I was at just recently about
the division of assets between the City of
Mr.
Ernst: No, it
has not, Madam Chairperson.
There
will be a division of assets undertaken, assets and liabilities. That, under the normal process, under The
Municipal Act, is taken place by the municipal board, and they have absolute
jurisdiction. Whatever the municipal
board decides, happens. There is no
appeal.
In
this case, because of the potential ill‑feeling, shall we say, because of
the relative size of the two bodies as well‑‑under The Municipal
Act, normally, it is two smaller rural municipalities which decide that one
piece should belong to one as opposed to the other and they get together and
they sort it out and that is done. It is
two relatively equal partners.
In
the case of the City of Winnipeg on the one hand, with its high‑priced
lawyers and so on, as we saw at an earlier municipal board meeting, and the
poor little Rural Municipality of Headingley on the other side, it was decided,
in the process, that the division of assets and liabilities, the final
decision, would be taken by cabinet, to ensure that the municipality is not unduly
burdened by a huge debt that will make it virtually impossible to operate.
Ultimately,
the Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council will decide what the
division of assets and liabilities will be.
The municipal board will be asked for an opinion. They will be asked to conduct a hearing and
carry on the things they would normally do except that they will not have the
final decision.
I
might say, Madam Chairperson, that in addition to that it was anticipated that
this division of assets and liabilities would be undertaken by the new council
of the R.M. of Headingley as opposed to the provincial government on their
behalf or some other group. It seemed
appropriate to us that the new council should be the one to decide. They will be the elected representatives of
the community. They will be the democratically
elected people who will have to answer to the community and, therefore, they
are the logical ones in order to carry out this division of assets and
liabilities negotiation, but they have to be elected before they can do that,
and before they can become elected we have to pass Bill 45.
Mr.
Alcock: I must
confess, I am not often comforted when I hear that certain decisions are going
to be moved into the hands of the Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council,
but I will make an exception in this particular circumstance. I think there is a great deal of
concern. I was somewhat younger at the
time of the amalgamation of all the various cities and towns under Unicity. I
was somewhat younger. I was hoping the
minister would point that out, but the minister was not as young as I was.
(Mr. Marcel
Laurendeau, Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
Perhaps
the minister could just refresh my memory.
At the time at which the various townships and cities, whatever, were brought
together, all those assets were simply acquired by the new corporation. There was no payment. Charleswood did not get pieced off in some
way because it had a newer arena versus somebody else having an older piece of
property or somebody had a new fire engine and somebody had an old fire
engine. Simply, everybody got what was
there to serve the people. Is my memory of
that correct?
Mr.
Ernst: Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, what happened was that all municipalities were merged into
one so what happened was, all of the parts became the whole. There were no divisions taking place so there
was nobody to divide it up with.
Everybody was put into one pot and so there was no division of assets
necessary.
Mr.
Alcock: Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, as I understand it, though, there also was no consideration given
for the age or quality of the assets in various regions. It just all came together and everybody got
it.
The
question is, how serious is the concern about the division in this case, that
there are assets that are obviously built and maintained for the use by the
people in Headingley? Is it in the
minister's opinion possible to simply separate the two and give them at no cost
the assets to which they have come to rely on over the past number of years?
Mr.
Ernst: Yes.
Mr.
Alcock: Thank
you very much. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I
thank the minister for taking the time to speak to me on this matter.
I
think it is an important one, and I can assure him of my support and co‑operation
and that of my party in getting this bill moved as quickly as possible through
the House so that we can get on with the process of allowing the people of
Headingley to do what they have voted to do.
I think any delay is simply irresponsible on the part of this Chamber
and I hope it will not continue.
I
would like to move to the Minister of Government Services. I note a reference
in the budget to some changes in the purchase and operation of
automobiles. I am wondering if the
minister can explain to me what is indicated there, what is meant by that.
Hon.
Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Government Services): Just to get a little bit of information, what
we have decided to do is‑‑as the member knows throughout
What
you will do is you will form a company which will be run with a little bit more
flexibility. What they will do is they will
be allotted X number of dollars for a program to set up the saleable
automobiles to the different departments.
Their answer will be bottom‑line statements. As they see fit, they will have to produce a
statement each year answering to the government. However, the idea of it is to
have a more flexible type of operation.
What
happens now in government services, especially with automobiles, is that there
seem to be a lot of expenses and a lot of charges which seem to fall between
the cracks, where now a specific department will say we are now leasing
automobiles from this company. I call it
a company because it will be operating like a company. It is on a trial basis. We hope to have it in structure, fully
occupied, going, within about three years.
The
staff will be the same complement of staff we have. The unions have supported our concept. The employees are very, very excited about it
because it will be perceived as, for instance, say a body shop working in there
that is working now. They will actually
be able to charge like a body shop and work like a little company within
another company.
The
whole idea is to form a‑‑and we call it a special operating agency.
Mr.
Alcock: Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I am interested in the concept. I believe it was under the
The
department which was accessing that service would pay the fee and would
moderate its own use of the particular commodity being supplied. However, there was always a problem in determining
two things: the quality of the product
provided and the pricing.
I
will digress for a moment just to tell the Minister of Government Services a
story that I have always wanted to tell the Minister of Government Services.
In
1981 I believe it was, I became the Superintendent of Seven Oaks Centre for
Youth. It was a mess, to say the least. The
place had been destroyed.
An
Honourable Member: What year was that?
Mr.
Alcock: In
1981. In fact, it was under the
At
the Seven Oaks Centre for Youth, we needed beds because the kids were sleeping
on mattresses on the floor and on blankets and pillows on the floor. As a newcomer to management in government, I
asked what the process was. I was told
that there was an arrangement like this, that you went to Government Services
as a supplier, that you identified for them what it was that you wanted, and
that you requested it, and they would supply it at some sort of price.
*
(1610)
I
went out dutifully downtown, and I priced bunk beds because that was what I
wanted. I wanted steel‑piped bunk
beds. I priced them at various
locations, found that a good, sturdy quality bunk bed would cost $600. I wanted 16 of them. I was told there might be some processing and
transaction costs associated with Government Services, so I made a request for
16 bunk beds and made a budget application for $16,000. When I got the bill from Government Services,
it was $91,000 for 16 bunk beds that I had priced at $600 a piece.
The
problem was that between the request and the fulfillment were a whole series of
design steps of processing by various organs of government, with the result
that the cost that the item was being supplied at was just completely different
from the cost that I could purchase the goods on the street. I would like to know, when I hear the
minister talking about a department of government, once again, operating as a
supplier of services on some sort of fee basis, what is going to be done to
ensure that the rates that are being charged departments are competitive?
Mr.
Ducharme: That is
the whole idea of the SOA in regard to vehicles. Once we quote on a department, if we are not
in the ballpark, they do not have to buy from us. We have to be competitive. The whole idea is that this fleet of vehicles
would administrate their own budget and manage it like an outside business. They have to be competitive.
I
guess also that it gives them the flexibility of‑‑as you would
probably appreciate when you are dealing with automobiles, when a government
comes in and they have a fleet of about 2,400 automobiles, all of a sudden
Treasury Boards come in and say, well, we can get another 40,000 more
kilometres out of an automobile and stretch it.
They were not realizing that, when you do that, sometimes a mechanical
breakdown in cost adds to it. It
probably would have been more worthwhile at the time to maybe have sold or
traded these automobiles in. There are certain
automobiles that it probably is beneficial to trade in earlier because of the
type of automobile, et cetera.
I
think the whole intention of this initiative is not to privatize the particular
fleet that we have. The whole idea is to
provide them a better method of managing their costs. The whole idea is that if they do have a
plan, say the plan was over five or six years, and Treasury Board has decided
that here is the money allotted to you for those five or six years, you operate
it, the only thing is you must operate it and not have any losses.
On
the bottom line, you must show a profit, but at least they have the
availability to figure out for five or six years and say, here is where we are
going. Then no one comes at the middle term
of that five years and says, I am sorry, but we have now changed course. You now have this company that said, hey, you
have given us authorization to get going, we have not lost any money on our statement,
so why would you interfere in the process.
That is basically the idea behind the SOA.
Mr.
Alcock: The
organization must show a profit, if I understand the minister correctly. Are government departments doing annual leasing
of equipment and services from them?
Mr.
Ducharme: Right
now, under the new concept, that is what they would be doing. Under the concept now, you could have a department
that turns around‑‑they might have 20 automobiles; then, all of a
sudden, you get into a budget year and someone might give the instructions, you
have to give back 10. This sometimes
reflects in Government Services' operating, because all of a sudden they have
10 automobiles back. The capital that
they get back might not be the right time to do that.
If
you get into more of a specific, the member from his area comes to the SOA and
says, I am going to be leasing a vehicle for five years, we set up that cost,
and it is directly resolved to him. That
is what we do with the different departments.
It does
not say that it could not probably get involved in other leasing agreements,
with maybe other Crown corporations, et cetera, like the Manitoba Telephones or
the Hydro, which are operating on their own.
Now, maybe because they have smaller fleets, they might be able to
appreciate and benefit from our type of purchasing and our type of repairs that
we have set up.
Mr.
Alcock: Do I
understand the minister correctly that a department that has a desire to have a
vehicle‑‑I will be simple about it at this point‑‑can
lease the vehicle through this organization and access a service contract of
some sort through this organization? Are
they free to lease the vehicle some place else?
Mr.
Ducharme: Under the
present program, they must get them from Government Services. However, what we are saying is that, under this
particular system, they have to be competitive or else there will be nothing
preventing someone from going out and leasing from somebody else.
Remember,
though, you have an advantage in this particular system. They will be able to borrow at whatever the
government borrows at, so there are different advantages to this particular SOA. Also, there are advantages to the amount of
purchasing that this department or that this SOA does.
To
give you an example, we just bought an automobile recently, a Crown Vic that
was under $18,000, fully loaded. Apparently, we can buy them cheaper than some
companies, U‑drive companies, can buy.
There is that power of purchasing that is very, very good.
Mr.
Alcock: Let me
clarify this. There are a couple of possibilities
here. If the department can go to this
particular organization, and they can ask for a bid on the supply of a certain
vehicle or a certain number of vehicles, then they could presumably go to a
private‑sector company of some sort and ask for a bid. They would be free to choose whichever bid
best met their budgetary and service requirements and everything else.
If I
understand the minister correctly, he believes, because of the competitive position
of this particular service, given that it can access money at a lower cost and
has lower borrowing costs, and presumably some capital costs that have already
been underwritten or written off, that it will be able to provide those
vehicles at a lower average cost and provide the services at a lower average
cost, and at a competitive cost, shall we say, on a competitive basis, and we
will be able to compete directly with other such suppliers in the community.
Mr.
Ducharme: Our fleet
division has compared costs of automobiles to leasing from private. We have even noticed that
Mr.
Alcock: This
division, or the service that it is replacing, does it currently service Hydro,
the Telephone System and others?
Mr.
Ducharme: No, not
at the present time. I just used it as
an example of another market. The City
of
Mr.
Alcock: So, in
addition to providing a competitive service to government departments that are
no longer required to go to it but would be attracted to it because of lower
operating costs, that this entity could then compete for contracts from the
City of Winnipeg, presumably some municipalities, Hydro, MTS and the like?
Mr.
Ducharme: That is
not the position now because we feel it will take us at least three years to
get into the SOA to make sure that our program has started and our costs are
started and get rid of a lot of the existing vehicles, and it is going to take
a while to do that. If the member thinks
we are going to compete with the other sector at this present time, that is not
the idea. It is not to go into the
business and compete with the other sector.
I used the Hydro and Telephones because if they happen to come forward,
maybe we could look at that.
Mr.
Alcock: Presumably if you are freeing up what has been
a captive market to date in allowing people to go out and access other
services, then you may be competing to attract other business. Would you also be envisioning attracting
business from, say, a private corporation that wanted to lease its vehicles
through you as opposed to leasing them in some other manner?
Mr.
Ducharme: We are
not contemplating that right now simply because we feel that the first‑‑the
SOA that we are going into is a three‑year pilot project to get going, and
we feel that we will have our hands full just on servicing and looking after
the present vehicles that we have got and getting it on stream. We are not looking at going in and competing
with those other private companies at this present time.
*
(1620)
Mr.
Alcock: Is it
the minister's intention to have this facility on line April 1 of this year in
its start‑up phase beginning to operate in this manner?
Mr.
Ducharme: The
intent is to get the program starting April 1, '92. It is our same staff. We are using the same person who has been
managing it. His name is Dennis
Ducharme, no relation. He has the
expertise, and the only thing that would probably stall some of that would be
we hope to get a‑‑we have had the use of an old, old computer. I know my friend across the way was asking the
question and likes computers.
We
have got an old, old, old computer there that has to be replaced that runs our
operation now, and we are hoping to get that on line as quickly as
possible. The idea is now to start our
pilot project as of April 1, '92. There
will not be any visible changes that he would see at the present time.
Mr.
Alcock: Now as we
look at this new operation again, at some point the minister is going to say,
go. He is going to say, it now starts here. That is April 1, and after April 1 presumably
the various departments of government which up to now have not been free to
enter into their own agreements but have always been directed to Government
Services to access vehicles, as of April 1 those departments where they can
identify or acquire a more competitive position with some other supplier are
then free to do that.
Mr.
Ducharme: There
has not been a directive. I guess that
will be during the process of our next Estimates.
However,
with the costs we have seen right now, and I cannot answer what type of
directive we will get from Treasury Board when we are doing our Estimates on
who they can go to purchasing or leasing these vehicles from. However, I can look at the directive of SOA
that we are going to continue to operate these vehicles, have them run their
course, and I am sure that we can be competitive, that if someone is coming
forward, we have already priced some of the competitors out now, and we have
had no problems competing with them. I
do not see any directive from us or anything that I see in the near distant
future, at least during our three‑year pilot project, that anyone would
want to go anywhere else and lease their vehicles.
Mr.
Alcock: If I
understood the minister correctly, then maybe I misunderstood his earlier
statement. Is he saying that during this
first three years that there‑‑I mean, I understand his confidence,
and he has outlined reasons why he is confident that this entity can offer a
competitive service. It would seem to have
some competitive advantages with its infrastructure and its financing. However, he did say or at least led me to
believe that the intention here was to put some competitive pressure on the
supplier, and to do that, that meant organizations that were currently leasing
vehicles would have a choice to make. If
this entity could prove itself to be competitive then they could go there. If they were not able to prove themselves
competitive, then they were free to go someplace else.
Now,
has he now said that during the first three years they will not be able to do
that?
Mr.
Ducharme: I am not
saying that. I am saying that I do not know
what the different departments will choose.
If they were to come to Treasury or someone saying, hey, your SOA is not
competitive, we would like to go somewhere else, then I guess at that time that
decision will have to be made. I guess,
like the whole budget process, if someone can show that we are not being competitive,
I guess that option is there.
Mr.
Alcock: I guess
that is what I am trying to ascertain, because right now it is not there. Right now, in order to even understand
whether or not it was a competitive bid, that department does not have the
opportunity to go and access such a bid.
They access their vehicles through the Department of Government
Services.
Now,
the minister is proposing something that I think is revolutionary and may be an
effective way of demonstrating an ability to deliver a cost‑effective
service. That only would seem to apply
if departments are free to access the competitive services some other way. Otherwise, you know, they can get all the
bids they want if they are still forced to go to the same shop.
So
the question is, at what point, will it be April 1, will it be, you know,
September 1, will it be at the end of the first three years, will departments
then be free to seek and enter into agreements with other suppliers?
Mr.
Ducharme: The only
thing I can answer to that, I guess, after when the SOA starts on April 1, and
someone comes to us or goes to Treasury and said, we need X number of
automobiles to operate for the next four years or for the next so many kilometres,
and they go to Treasury and say, listen we can rent from someone else
cheaper. Well, then I guess Treasury
Board at that time will have to decide to what extent they can lease them.
However,
right now there seem to be some gaps in getting the true cost in different
departments with automobiles, and there seems to be a little overflow on where
those costs are going. Now, this is a much better way to figure out the costs
and be a little more flexible in running it like it should be. If it makes money, then where does the money
go? Should the money go back into the
government as a whole or should it go back into the different departments who
are actually making use of this SOA?
Mr.
Alcock: Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I think I will pass the microphone to the member for
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I would ask the Minister of Finance first: When an allocated amount is allotted in the
budget, does the Minister of Finance have the authority to exceed that amount that
has been allocated?
Mr.
Manness: The
government, the Minister of Finance unilaterally does not have the power to
exceed anything. The government of the
day has the power to exceed only when the House is not sitting by a vehicle
called Special Warrant. At that time, if
there is a request to surpass a vote attained through the ordeal of 240
Estimate hours and all those resolutions, if a department comes forward and
requests to spend beyond that, that can only occur by way of Special Warrants
of the Executive Council. That can only
occur when the House is not sitting.
Mr.
Lamoureux: Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I have been sitting inside the Chamber for a while now, and
I have always heard the Minister of Finance and some of his colleagues from
their seats, and in fact on the record, when they talk about monies that have been
allocated. They say that, in fact, once
you allocate a dollar figure, that is all it is, it is just an allocation. It is a projection in terms of how much is
going to be spent, that you cannot in fact spend right up to the dollar. Even though a certain amount of money might
have been allocated out for a particular line, and the department goes, as it
gets closer and closer to that figure, the Minister of Finance would have
argued that in fact they will never spend right to the dollar, but they have to
at least give the impression, have to spend somewhere below that line.
I
will ask the Minister of Finance to comment on that.
Mr.
Manness: The
member for
*
(1630)
I can
say to the member that this government, if one wants to look either
provincially vis‑a‑vis other provinces, or if they want to look at
the historical record over the last 12 years, as to how much we have spent in
Special Warrants as compared to other governments, they would be, hopefully,
happy to find out that we are at a level roughly 40 percent or 50 percent in
real terms as compared to our predecessors.
Now, this year for instance, in terms of '91‑92, I believe, we
have warrants up in the area of $90 million, $40 million or $50 million of it
as a result of welfare and the appropriation directed toward agriculture.
I
personally take some satisfaction, I think all ministers do, that we were
within $40 million or $50 million of a $5‑billion budget.
An
Honourable Member:
That is not bad.
Mr.
Manness: That is
not bad when you consider 80 percent of it is basically in three or four
departments. So, if the member is saying
that we, therefore, do not need to be governed by the resolution or the vote in
this House, and that we, therefore, can unceremoniously continue to pass
warrants so that we can basically spend anything we want, I say to him, he is
wrong. We take those votes in this House
with respect to those resolutions very seriously, and departments are under
tremendous pressure in the last two months of the year to make sure they do not
overspend their salary accounts or indeed their other expenditures with respect
to the votes‑‑intense pressure.
Those
departments that are seen in the last month or two wantonly trying to spend, so
that they can get closer to that number, just for the sake of spending‑‑I
am talking now about the incidentals and the other. I am not talking about the program expenditures
in Health and/or Education which we do not have control of. by the way, other
than in home care. I say to the member,
he is wrong if he thinks that we can spend beyond it.
Obviously,
with every government, if they believe in the democratic principle that you
come here and you represent your constituents, and that the power of taxation
which is so powerful to take away from one to give to another should not be
violated, then I say to him there always will be some element of lapse. Traditionally,
it has been $50 million. It has then
grown to $60 million, and I believe in this year's budget we put it up to $70 million‑‑one
and a quarter percent of the total budget of $5.4 billion. Not a large amount.
Mr.
Lamoureux: Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I find that I would concur with the Minister of Finance in
many of the comments that he said on the record, when he talks about the
democratic principle, but what the Minister of Finance does is he is very selective
when it comes to his Orders‑in‑Council or Special Warrants for
budgetary expenditures. He talks about
how important it is that, as we pass these lines, we adhere to those lines,
that we should not have to go and request Special Warrants for everything. This is really what the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness) is saying.
Well,
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will suggest to you that the Minister of Finance is
very selective on the Special Warrants that he will allow for. I will suggest to you that the Minister of
Finance in fact does not mind Special Warrants coming from ministerial support
staff. What I will do is, I will suggest
to the Minister of Finance, if he looks at his previous year budget, let us
take a look at the Executive Council, where there was allocated out $1.581
million actual spent.
Mr.
Manness: Where
were you in Public Accounts?
Mr.
Lamoureux: The
Minister of Finance says where was I for Public Accounts. Well, let us deal with the issue before us,
and that is, the allocated amount in the previous budget for Executive Council
is $1.581 million. Actual spent was
$1.594 million.
Now
the Minister of Finance will stand up and he will say, well, it is not that
much. It is not that much money. So we underestimated a bit, but let us put it
in the proper context. This is a support salary for the Premier of the province
in essence for the salaries. This was
how much of an increase? Well, last year at the same time when he brought in
this particular line, he froze the civil servants at zero percent. Did the
Civil Service line exceed what was allocated out? I wonder if the Minister of Finance could
actually answer that question.
We
take a look, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, at the Intergovernmental Relations
Secretariat's office‑‑$292,100 was allocated out and in fact
$295,100 was spent.‑‑[interjection] The Minister of Finance is very
sensitive to this, and this is well in order during Interim Supply. If he does not understand that, well, I
encourage him to stand up on a point of order and say that it is in fact out of
order that I should not be asking questions like this. In fact, these lines of questioning deal strictly
with this bill, because you are requesting advance on the monies. I am asking you questions dealing strictly
with the budget.
So, Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I hope that the Minister of Finance will answer the
question, why, if he is against these Special Warrants, does he allow a Special
Warrant for this particular office?
Mr.
Manness: Of
course, the member there, he does not even know it, but the factual information
he uses is correct. His argument is
wrong, because you see that is the year end.
That is the adjusted.
When
we asked Executive Council for additional spending in a certain line, it does
not mean that the whole department ultimately does not come in for less. It means in that special line and every
department, many of the larger departments have several votes, but in that one
vote, for instance, in Natural Resources, in Parks line, we are short of
money. The department runs out of
money. They cannot just take the
transfer, take it out of the Water Drainage there and move it over to the
Parks. They cannot do it.
So in
that one vote, they have to come to Executive Council by the laws of The
Financial Administration Act and seek support to spend beyond that.
Now
the whole department, once the books are closed, still may have a surplus lapse
of $2 million to $3 million. So the member
does not even know of what he speaks, except he has the final year‑end
numbers there. I say to him, as I have
said many times in Public Accounts, and that is where this question should be
addressed, this is a Public Accounts.
*
(1640)
What
Bill 67 is attempting to do is seek the support of the Legislature for four
months' spending out of the next 12‑‑nothing to do. I can tell the member, during the next four
months we are not going to be going to cabinet for Special Warrants. That is why we are bringing the interim
supply bill here. So he is completely
off‑base, completely off‑base.
An
Honourable Member: In
10 months‑‑
Mr.
Manness: But I am
not talking about 10 months. Bill 67, Committee
of the Whole, is directed towards four months, at which time there will not be
a requirement for any Special Warrants.
Now,
to make his point for him because he has done such a miserable job of making
his own point, what I have said often, that, once the Public Accounts have
reported, '90‑91 in that case, indeed, if a department has been over its
global expenditure‑‑like Executive Council, to use his number‑‑the
minister responsible and/or, more importantly maybe, the deputy, should come
before Public Accounts and explain the overage.
An
Honourable Member: You do not understand.
Mr.
Manness: That
member, over there, for
Mr.
Lamoureux: The
Minister of Finance, I think he is missing out on a few points here. I am comparing budget to budget. I do not know how the Minister of Finance can
try to explain to this House that these questions might be more appropriate in
Public Accounts, but I am not even going to try to speculate as to why he can
possibly even think of something of that nature.
But
what I want to talk about, Mr. Deputy Chairperson‑‑
An
Honourable Member: Because he does not want to answer the question.
Mr.
Lamoureux: ‑‑because
he does not want to answer the question, as one member has suggested, and that
could be the case.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I am going to suggest to you that the Minister of Finance
is being somewhat deceptive. Really and truly,
what the Minister of Finance has done, on several cases, is‑‑where
it would be sensitive, where it is politically sensitive to say, well, we are
not going to be allocating out that much this year, and then the following, on
the actual, after the budget has been passed through Order‑in‑Council
and Special Warrant, increase that amount.
Where
it is politically sensitive to do the reverse, they in fact do it, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson. When we look at the Department
of Labour, we see in the Department of Labour‑‑and this is budget
over budget, the allocated amount, this is support staff for Labour‑‑allocated
amount was 383 from last year's budget for the minister. This year, in the actual, it was 394, another
increase.
Now
he will go into his rant and rave and he will say that, well, this is the
department, it is a resolution, and we can do this and that and this, and the
member for
What
the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) are doing is,
the areas in which they want to say, and stand up in the Chamber and say, we
are giving an increase to this particular line by such and such a percent, is
not necessarily true, because the actual amount that is spent far too often is
a lot less than what has been allocated.
The minister, when that is pointed out to him, stands up and he says,
well, we cannot spend to the dollar.
Well,
we know he cannot spend to the dollar, but he can actually exceed a line. Where it is convenient for the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) and his ministers to say, we are allocating this amount
of money out‑‑the programs, the things that actually have the
impact on the individuals‑‑the Minister of Finance and his
colleagues are in fact overestimating in order to say that they are giving the
big substantial increases, when year over year, it is not happening that way.
What
I would do to the Minister of Finance is refer him to the Department of
Health. Something that comes up all of
the time is the hospital allocation, and last year we allocated out, it was
$915.926 million. That was last year's
allocation. This year, the actual amount
spent was $892.463 million. That is a substantial
difference. This is a program that has
an impact and is in the government's best interest, because the Minister of Health
(Mr. Orchard) will stand up every time someone asks the question in this
Chamber and say, well, look how much of an increase we are giving to the
Department of Health. Look how much of
an increase.
Year
after year, they stand up and they say, we are giving such and such an increase
to the Department of Health, such and such an increase to Family Services, and
they say those are our priority areas, but they consistently underspend in
those areas. Then they say, well, we consistently underspend because we cannot spend
to the dollar. Well, that applies where
the government wants it to apply.
Where
they do not want it to apply, they issue out the Special Warrants. As I pointed out in the Premier's Office, while
at the same time they told the civil servants in the
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I do not believe that the government, when it stands up in
Question Period and talks about its commitment to Family Services, to health
care is really as sincere as they try to make it out to be, because they consistently
underspend. When they consistently
underspend, they criticize the opposition parties for saying, well, why do you
not spend? If they consistently
underspend, why do they not allocate what they really and truly believe is
going to be spent? Why can they not say
that this how much money we are going to be spending, and then, if necessary,
they can do like they do for the ministerial offices and issue a Special
Warrant requesting additional monies?
Ideally,
as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) himself has pointed out with his first
response, we would not like to see any Special Warrants. We do not want to see any Special Warrants, ideally. The Minister of Finance, from his seat says,
hah. Well, the Minister of Finance is the one that has been issuing these
Special Warrants, and he should be reviewing the Special Warrants that he has
been issuing out and compare them to the support staff and so forth.
The
Minister of Finance, I see he wants to comment on it. I will wait with bated breath, and see what
he has to say this time to try to justify his budget.
Mr.
Manness: Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, the member for
The
reason they do not is because the NDP have been in government, and they know
when you come down to asking the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) when he
comes before us with a GRIP program, when you ask him the question: What is the enrollment going to be? How many farmers are going to take advantage
of it? He will say, geez, I do not know
for sure.
Is it
going to be 70, is it going to be 80? I
said, you have to tell us, because we have to print a number, and he will say, well,
gee. This puts a tremendous amount of
pressure on that minister. He does not
want to be too low, and he does not want to be too high. If it is too high, he knows I am going to
have something to say. So the Minister
of Agriculture says, well, 75 percent enrollment in GRIP, and we print that, 75
percent.
The
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) comes in before Estimates, and
we say, okay, what is the volume take‑up going to be in the area of
social assistance? The prices are fine;
we fixed the price side; and the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) knows
this. We can fix the price side because
we are the ones that set the price. But
what about the volume increase? We will
say to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), and he will say: Well, geez, you know, what is the economy
going to do?
Is
the increase on the volume up‑take‑‑is it 10 percent, is it
20 percent in this context, or is it 30 percent? I will tell the member if he wants to listen‑‑he
probably does not. If he wants to
listen, the variation is between a 10 percent volume and a 30 percent volume‑‑is
how many millions of dollars? Many, $5 million,
$10 million.
We
come to the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard).
We know what we are going to do with the fee schedule of the MMA. We say, well what about the volume
increase? The population is stable, what
is the volume turnover going to be, all of us going to see doctors? Is it 1 percent, is it 2 percent, or is it 3 percent,
or is it 4 percent? He says, I do not
know. What are the doctors going to do?
Yet,
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in all of these volume decisions, in all of them, what
the difference can be is $200 million‑plus. Yet that member has got the gall for
criticizing us because we are out 1.25 percent.
We build it into the lapse number, and we call it $70 million.
We
are not perfect. I guess he would be
perfect if he were in our role, and he could budget right to the dollar. I cannot do it, but I guess he could. Now, if he wants to criticize us, and say,
well, then do not say your programs are going to go up by 6.8 percent, that
already say that they are going to go up 1 percent less, to already take into
account the lapse.
Well,
that is fair criticism. What he is
saying is, do not sell all of your programming in government as a 4 percent increase
if indeed you think you are going to be lapsing 1 percent. Sell it as a 3 percent increase. That is a fair statement. But do not let him stand there and criticize
us for, within a $5.4 billion budget, being out 1.25 percent.
*
(1650)
Only
an idiot who has never been in government would say that, because the NDP will
not. They know you cannot budget within
1.25 percent. Maybe the member opposite
in his household can, and I can tell the member, he does not have to take my
word for it, ask the Auditor.
Ask
the Auditor if we are fooling around with numbers, and ask him whether or not
we are deliberately in one area overbudgetting and others underbudgetting. He will see consistency year after year after
year in all the departments, because that is one area you do not fool around
with, because if you do the credit‑rating agents, who know a heck of a
lot more than that member about the books, all of a sudden would frown on your
accounting practices. I do not care who
you are, you do not screw around with the numbers as you are preparing your
budget. If you do, you ultimately get trapped, and you get caught and you pay a
tremendous price.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, before I give the floor up to members, I would like to
suggest that the committee temporarily interrupt its proceedings so that Mr.
Speaker may resume the Chair, so that we can determine whether there is
unanimous consent of the House to waive private members' hour. If there is, the Committee of the Whole can
immediately resume sitting to continue considering the matter now before it.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: I
would like to suggest that the committee temporarily interrupt its proceedings
so that Mr. Speaker may resume the Chair, so that we can determine whether there
is unanimous consent of the House to waive private members' hour. If there is, the Committee of the Whole can
immediately resume sitting to continue considering the matter before us. Agreed? Agreed.
IN SESSION
Mr.
Speaker: Is it the
will of the House to waive private members' hour? No?
Leave is denied.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Bill 67‑The Interim Appropriation Act, 1992
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster):
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, let me start off, because the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) said some very strong words, and it is a good thing I
have such thick skin, I must say. I hope
the Minister of Finance has thick skin too.
I would ask the Minister of Finance, because only an idiot, if I can
quote the Minister of Finance, only an idiot would believe that you need to
have Special Warrants all the time for the number of times that this Minister
of Finance has issued for Special Warrants to increase ministerial support
staff. The ministerial support staff is
something that is fixed through each minister.
You should have an idea. You
should know in terms of how many people you have and how many people you are
going to have‑‑
An
Honourable Member:
Now you are talking history.
Mr.
Lamoureux: Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, it is not talking two things. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) would
like to take it on the one side. He is
being selective, and I will choose to be selective too. The Minister of Finance used a Special
Warrant in order to increase ministerial support staff, but tries to say that
the government only uses Special Warrants when it is an absolute must.
You
know, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think that the Minister of Finance is doing a
disservice by saying that the different programs, the different initiatives,
the different offices, all of which at some point in time might require a
Special Warrant. He made reference to the program with the Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Findlay). Well there
are things that you just cannot call, and there is a need to have a Special
Warrant. One does not question that. What I question is in terms of the
selectiveness of this government in issuing Special Warrants for some of its departments.
I
will ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), just in case he might have the
information offhand, but if he does not, if he could return to the House and
give a direct answer as to how many Special Warrants were issued for
ministerial staff and their Executive Support staff. How many Special Warrants were given for the
number of the departments in Executive Support staff?
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): I cannot answer the question. Again, that is a Public Accounts. That is post‑history. He is asking us to comment in respect to a completed
fiscal year, '90‑91 and/or '91‑92.
I do
tell him that it does happen from time to time, and it usually happens as a
result of smaller departments that have limited salary accounts within their
administration, within their executive branches and indeed where a special
consulting contract is done or there is reason to bring in somebody for a short
period of time to undertake a special project.
That is well known.
I
mean, if you had loosey‑goosey rules where you could now go into the
salary account all the way down the branch or somewhere within the department,
the member would never see it, but we do not allow for that. Thank goodness we do not. I tell him, it happens very, very
infrequently, but there is always a good reason for the odd time it does
happen.
Mr.
Lamoureux: Will the
Minister of Finance make a commitment to the House to bring back the number of
Special Warrants issued for the Executive Support staff of the government's
ministers?
Mr.
Manness: All
departments? Well, sure, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. I have no problem with that, and I will
undertake to try and have it. I
certainly will not have it tomorrow.
Mr.
Lamoureux: Another
thing that I had made reference to the Minister of Finance in my response to
the budget was in regard to what we felt was an excellent initiative, and it
was an initiative that was first used by Sterling Lyon.
The
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) no doubt will support this initiative
now as he did back then, no doubt, but the then Premier Sterling Lyon, in order
to try and get the economy going, what he did was, he reduced the provincial
sales tax for a short period of time.
I am
wondering if the Minister of Finance can make some sort of a commitment or
explain to the Chamber why he would oppose reducing the provincial sales tax,
as is being suggested from the Liberal Party, from 7 percent to 4 percent for a
period of three months in order to try to get individual Manitobans buying in Manitoba,
hopefully creating more jobs for Manitobans?
Mr.
Manness: I have
been with Liberal Finance ministers from across
*
(1700)
The
member seems to suggest that we can do it the other way around. Our consumers kicking in will in itself
provide the stimulus, the spark, needed to get out of this recession. I say to him, that is foolhardy, you might
have an uptake for a short period of time, but then you could have a sudden
call that will destroy the fragility of whatever you have been able to build over
two or three months.
It is
too risky in the shortfall. I mean the
situation now is ever so much different than it was in the
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: The hour being 5 p.m., committee rise. Call in
the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Committee Report
Mr.
Marcel Laurendeau (Deputy Chairperson of Committees): The Committee of the Whole has considered Bill
67, The Interim Appropriation Act,
1992 (Loi de 1992 portant affectation anticipee de credits),
and directs me to report the progress and asks leave to sit again.
I
move, seconded by the honourable member for
Motion agreed to.
Mr.
Speaker: The hour
being 5 p.m., time for Private Members' Business.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS‑PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 16‑The Health Care Directives Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the
proposed motion of the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) Bill 16,
The Health Care Directives Act; Loi
sur les directives en matiere de soins de sante, standing in the
name of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard).
An
Honourable Member:
Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there
leave that this matter remain standing?
An
Honourable Member: Agreed.
Mr.
Speaker:
Leave. It is agreed.
Bill 18‑The Franchises Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the
proposed motion of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), Bill 18,
The Franchises Act; Loi sur les concessions, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there
leave that this matter remain standing?
An
Honourable Member: Agreed.
Mr.
Speaker:
Leave. It is agreed.
Mr.
Speaker: On the
proposed motion of the honourable member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), Bill 25, The
University of Manitoba Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur l'Universite du Manitoba, standing in the
name of the honourable member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render).
An
Honourable Member:
Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there
leave that this matter remain standing?
An
Honourable Member: Agreed.
Mr.
Speaker: Leave.
It is agreed.
Bill 27‑The Business Practices Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the
proposed motion of the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), Bill 27,
The Business Practices Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les pratiques commerciales, standing
in the name of the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
An
Honourable Member:
Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there
leave that this matter remain standing?
An
Honourable Member: Agreed.
Mr.
Speaker:
Leave. It is agreed.
Bill 31‑The Municipal Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the
proposed motion of the honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), Bill
31, The Municipal Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les municipalites, standing in the name of
the honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer).
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Is
there leave that this matter remain standing?
An
Honourable Member:
Agreed.
Mr.
Speaker: Leave.
It is agreed.
Bill 50‑The Beverage Container Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the
proposed motion of the honourable Leader of the Second Opposition Party (Mrs.
Carstairs), Bill 50, The Beverage
Container Act; Loi sur les contenants de boisson, standing
in the name of the honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer).
An
Honourable Member:
Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there
leave that this matter remain standing?
An
Honourable Member:
Agreed.
Mr.
Speaker: Leave.
It is agreed.
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr.
Speaker, this is a bill that is long overdue.
The Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) has stood up in
Question Period and has asked questions regarding what the government is doing
in terms of trying to get bottles collected so that we are not seeing them
lying in our ditches and all over the province.
It is
not the first time that I have had an opportunity to speak on this bill. In fact, it it is a bill that has been introduced
previously by the Liberal Party, and, as right now, the government decided to
ignore the bill.
Well,
I am concerned because I believe that the private members' bills are
important. There is a lot of work that
is put into private members' bills. This
bill is something that, as I said, has come up before. The government chose not to do anything with
it. It has been on the Order Paper now
for a while, Mr. Speaker, as a number of the bills that you previously called.
I
know full well what the Liberal Party's position is on this bill, but, Mr.
Speaker, I do not know what the government's position is on this bill. What the government‑‑
An
Honourable Member:
Sit down and we will tell you.
Mr.
Lamoureux: The
Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) says, sit down and I will tell you. Mr. Speaker, I am going to be expecting, as the
government expects us to comment on their bills, the government to start
standing up and speaking on our bills, because the Deputy Premier himself has
said, sit down, allow us to comment, and we will comment. So‑‑
An
Honourable Member: I
did not say that.
Mr.
Lamoureux: Okay, not
necessarily like that‑‑he did imply, the Deputy Premier implied
that I should sit down and then he might stand up and speak to it. That might be a bit fairer an assessment of
it.
Mr.
Speaker, this bill will go a long way in terms of recycling. I think it is imperative upon the government
to start getting on the record as to what they think about this bill, to tell
us, in particular the sponsor, the Leader of the Liberal Party, as to why they
support or why they do not support the bill.
Mr.
Speaker, the bill does a lot of good things, and
This
bill came up through a tour that we had in northern
This
bill will encourage environmentally sound management of beverage containers
throughout the province. It is really an
antilitter measure that will reduce the recent proliferation of beverage
containers, particularly in rural areas.
Although steps have been taken in recent years to manage waste better, a
great deal of work remains. Mr. Speaker,
this bill will go a long way in advancing that cause, and I would like to see
the government express what they feel on this particular bill, as I do for
other bills.
I had
the opportunity to discuss some of the bills, or make reference to the bills to
the deputy government House leader (Mr. Praznik), and had made reference to him
just a couple of days ago that we would like to see the government start
standing up and speaking to our bills, much in the same fashion as we speak to the
government bills.
So,
having said that, I am going to sit down in hopes that the government will
start standing and speaking on bills, as we give them that courtesy, because we
feel the government legislation is important, that we are obligated to comment
on, and put our position on the record for those bills.
But
equally important is the effort that is put in from opposition members‑‑and
in fact, some backbenchers‑‑into the bills that they bring forward
to this House. Such is the bill that we
now have before us, and I would ask the government to give us the same
courtesy, and to speak on the bills.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker: As
previously agreed, this matter will remain standing in the name of the
honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer).
Bill 51‑The Health Services Insurance Amendment
Mr.
Speaker: On
the proposed motion of the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), Bill
51, The Health Services Insurance Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance‑maladie, standing
in the name of the honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer).
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr.
Speaker:
Stand? Is there leave that this
matter may remain standing?
An
Honourable Member: No.
Mr.
Speaker: No? Leave is denied.
Mr.
Edward Helwer (Gimli): I
appreciate the opportunity to take a few minutes and speak on this bill. I really think our Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard) has done an excellent job in
Some
Honourable Members:
Hear, hear.
Mr.
Helwer: That is
right.
I am
really pleased that in the Interlake area, or the area that I serve of
An
Honourable Member: Tell us a little about Stonewall and the surrounding
area.
Mr.
Helwer: Well, I am
just telling you a little about the new hospital they are going to build there.
Actually,
the member for
An
Honourable Member: Well, they did not do anything.
Mr.
Helwer: No, the
former government just let the thing go to ruin, actually. They did not even give the hospital district there
enough money to keep it in decent repair.
I think they spent it all in Dauphin and some of the other
districts. But the health care system
under our present minister is in good condition. We have a good system in
I
think we can honestly say that we have one of the best systems in
An
Honourable Member: What about
Mr.
Helwer: Oh, I do
not know much about
*
(1710)
I
should also talk a little bit about the hospital and the health care system in
Gimli. There is an area where, because
of the population growth of the community from probably 3,000 residents to
about 20,000 residents in the summer, that hospital is taxed to the limit when
we have all the tourists and all the campers and the cottagers when they come
to Gimli. So it puts unfair pressure
onto the health care system there.
They
also should be commended for the job they do with their ambulance at Gimli,
because they are setting an example for the rest of
We
have also recommended to the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and the
Department of Health that we use Gimli as a training centre for ambulance
drivers from all over Manitoba because of the expertise that the ambulance
attendants have and the supervisor of the ambulance has, and because they have
an area out at the industrial park where they can train drivers. The area is
being used for that already, so there is an area there that is an excellent
place for training drivers.
I
also want to talk about the centralization that has taken place in the health
care system itself in the Interlake area.
As an example, Stonewall, Selkirk, Gimli, Teulon and Arborg, these are
the main centres in the Interlake area, and each one is really specializing in
a certain area. This will give a better coverage
for all the people in the Interlake area and also will save some money for the
government of
Mr.
Speaker, I served for about 10 years on a hospital board and realize the
problems of hospital boards and the difficulty they have in balancing their
budgets, especially when their budgets are based on an occupancy rate of the
former year. They have a difficult time
in balancing their budgets.
I
know that the Manitoba hospital services commission works very hard to try to
satisfy these rural facilities and make sure that they do have proper staff on
at different times of the day and night so that they can serve the people of
the area properly.
Also,
the boards of these facilities work very hard.
They have to deal with staff and finances of a facility, and sometimes it
is difficult for the people on these hospital boards who are ordinary citizens
just like everyone else around you, you and I. They have to bring in some
expertise sometimes to be able to deal with these different groups such as the
Nurses'
An
Honourable Member: Keep it up, Ed.
Mr.
Helwer: No
problem. [interjection] That is good if we have got enough.
An
Honourable Member: Tell us about the last time you were in the
hospital.
Mr.
Helwer: I have
never been in the hospital. I am healthy
and there is no need for hospitals really, because I do not smoke or do not‑‑[interjection]
No,
but I just want to say that I think our health care system is now doing a
better job on working on the prevention of illnesses, and I think that is the
proper place to work on, that is the proper thing to do, to spend our money on
the prevention rather than the cure.
Certainly we have done an excellent job on this.
Mr.
Speaker, so with that, I will conclude my remarks on this bill at this time.
Mr.
Manness: Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey),
that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 54‑The Consumer Protection Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the
proposed motion of the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), Bill 54, The Consumer
Protection Amendment Act; Loi
sur la protection du consommateur, standing in the name of the
honourable member for
Some
Honourable Members:
Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing?
Some
Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: Leave.
It is agreed.
SECOND READINGS‑PUBLIC BILLS
Mr.
Speaker: Are we
proceeding with Bill 36? No, okay.
Bill 55‑The Workers Compensation Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: Are we
proceeding with Bill 55? Okay. Bill 55, The Workers Compensation Amendment
Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi
sur les accidents du travail.
Mr.
Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), that Bill 55, The Workers Compensation Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi
sur les accidents du travail, be now read a second time
and be referred to a committee of the House.
Motion agreed to.
Mr.
Reid: This is a very
important bill, I believe, because it will afford protection for those members
of our society that currently provide us with firefighting protection. It is something that is not currently allowed
under the legislation that is in place in this province right now, The Workers Compensation
Act.
We
did have that particular legislation that was in place. It was actually a
regulation, itself, that afforded firefighters that protection, the firefighters
throughout our province. We have seen
since that time, of course, the challenging of that regulation through the
court systems, where the honourable Justice Lyon struck down that regulation
and said that it should be part of the legislation of The Workers Compensation
Act itself, if there was to be specific referral to protection for the
firefighters of our province.
*
(1720)
Since
that time, there have been several bills introduced by the previous critic for
Workers Compensation, the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), on this topic. We have seen time after time after time that
this government refuses to act on this particular piece of legislation. I know in my discussions with the
firefighters of this province‑‑and we have had many discussions
with them‑‑that they realize and recognize the importance of this
legislation and what it means to their members throughout the province, not
only those that are employed full time in the firefighting forces in
communities like Brandon, and Winnipeg, and Thompson, and other communities,
but those that are in volunteer firefighting forces throughout the province as
well.
They
all play a very important role in protecting the safety, the lives and the
health of the residents, and the property of the residents, and the property of
We
find, Mr. Speaker, that the diseases quite often and most often affecting the
firefighters in our various communities are those ordinary diseases of
life. I am talking about cancer of the
liver, and cancer of the lungs, brain dysfunction, kidney and liver
dysfunctions, and other diseases. These
are specifically excluded from compensation; therefore, we find those that put their
own lives or health and safety at risk in defense of other members of our
society are not being protected by what would be considered to be fair and
reasonable means of protection.
This
bill will go a long way toward ensuring that firefighters receive the
protection to which they are entitled. We see quite often, and I will use
examples, these blazing infernos on our television sets when we watch our news
in the evening after a long day at the Legislature.
An
Honourable Member: I
thought I saw one when you were on last night.
Mr.
Reid: That was
quite a fire storm, I must admit.
An
Honourable Member: That
was Albert, who was on fire.
Mr.
Reid: It was
the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) who was on fire, there
is no doubt about that.
Mr.
Speaker, I refer specifically to a fire that I am sure we will all remember and
that is the fire in Quebec, where the warehouse went up in flames, the St.
Basile le Grand fire, I believe it was, where PCBs were stored in that
site. There was also the tire fire in
southern
I
think about those firefighters going into those situations to look after the
interests of society, to suppress that fire, to control and retain as much
property as possible that would be left over after the fire. These firefighters do it day in and day out
as part of their normal duties. I think
the least we can do for them, Mr. Speaker, is to take the necessary steps to protect
their lives and their safety, not only themselves, because it is their
families, as well, who are going to be impacted by any diseases that they might
incur as a result of their occupation.
I am
quite fortunate, I admit, that in my neighbourhood I have three firefighters as
neighbours, so we have regular discussions on the type of lives that
firefighters lead and the circumstances that they must encounter as part of
their normal job and duties. I am quite
concerned. Even in my own neighbourhood
last summer we had a grass fire that was attended to by the firefighting forces
of the City of
For
the Minister of Northern Affair's (Mr. Downey) information, it was the Domtar
site that I unfortunately happened to live close to, and that all the
neighbours in that surrounding area are very worried about.
I
remember very clearly the firefighters going to fight that particular fire and
noticing very clearly that there were unusual coloured flames coming out of
that particular fire, and I am talking green and blues, not the normal grass
fire colour that you would see in a yellow‑type flame. So it is very obvious that there were
chemicals involved here, and yet I see firefighters going into that particular
fire situation without utilizing the necessary proper respiratory equipment and
protection equipment that they would normally have and use in situations like
that.
I had
to question the decision of those who are in charge of situations like that,
where they do not enforce the proper procedures of the members that are
fighting those fires, so that they do utilize the proper equipment. In my discussions with firefighters
throughout my community, that reside in my community, it used to be a standard
macho image that firefighters had that if you cannot go into a fire and take a
little bit of smoke you are not a true firefighter. Well, that image is slowly changing, Mr.
Speaker. We are seeing the changeover in
generations of the firefighters in our province who are slowly realizing, as
are many other members of our society, that it is necessary for them to wear
the proper respiratory equipment, whether it be the 30‑minute or the one‑hour
self‑contained breathing apparatus, so that when they go into burning
buildings they are not putting themselves at risk.
Studies
have shown, Mr. Speaker, that it is not only the firefighters themselves that
are being placed at risk, but it is also their families that are being placed
at risk by failure to utilize proper protection and to give firefighters that
necessary support. It has been clearly
shown in studies of animals and of those who are employed in the firefighting
forces that birth defects can result from either maternal or paternal exposure
to toxins. Exposure of the male of the
species to even small doses of toxins can produce defects in offspring without
affecting the fertility of the male.
Firefighters
as a regular course of their job ingest these toxins, Mr. Speaker, whether it
be through the lungs or chemicals on their skin or in some other fashion, Mr.
Speaker.
These
can be deposited in the different organs of the body and can, over a period of
time, create difficulties by way of the normal diseases of life, the things
that we think would occur in natural cases, but since the firefighters are
exposed to that, their risk is greatly increased.
I
find it interesting, Mr. Speaker, that one of the main opponents to this
particular piece of legislation when it was in regulation form, and I suspect
would still be in opposition to this type of legislation, would be the City of
Now,
it is unfortunate that a government would see only the dollar value on how it
is going to impact upon the bottom line, and they do not realize the human consequences
that are involved in the decisions that they are making. They are only worried about the dollars here
and they are not concerned about the health, the safety and the well‑being
of those that are defending our lives and our property in our communities
around the province. For the information
of the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), the document is here for him
to view if he wishes to come over and read it.
The
City of Winnipeg goes so far as to say that the introduction of the proposed
amendment at that time to the Workers Compensation Act, they would allow
firefighters this protection, is a regressive step, as the City of Winnipeg
calls it, which will complicate the issue of fair treatment for all workers
concerning the compensability of occupational diseases.
Now,
studies have shown, and the documentation is readily available on City of
Winnipeg records for the members opposite that wish to have a copy of this,
that when I talked a few moments ago about Bill 59 eliminating the opportunities
for any of the normal diseases of life to be included for compensation for
these firefighters and their families, this excludes them because they have a
higher risk or a higher incident rate of heart disease, lung difficulties, lung
cancer. That, I think, should be
included in The Compensation Act as special considerations for those that are
involved in firefighting in our province.
*
(1730)
I
will read you an example of an individual in firefighting, and it was quite a
large blaze that involved quite a number of firefighters attending the scene of
this blaze, and this particular firefighter was the fourth person to die of
cancer after battling this chemical blaze three years before. So the effects of going into hazardous
situations while fighting fires do not rear their ugly head during that
particular firefighting activity or even in the few months that follow, but it
is in time down the road that these diseases start to occur.
This
particular individual, a 57‑year‑old veteran of the force was among
several firefighters and police officers who responded to the fire, to that
chemical fire at that particular plant.
It goes on to say that in addition to the four men who died as a result
of fighting that fire, 13 others who responded to the fire have been afflicted
with various ailments including one case of skin cancer, and one of Parkinson's
disease. Other problems reported include
kidney and liver dysfunctions, all as a result of one fire.
So I
think there are enough examples, and there have been enough studies to show
that firefighters put themselves in harm's way to protect our interests in
society. I think it is the least we can
do is to defend their interests and to afford them and their families the
protection that they should be entitled to.
That
is why we have brought forward this Bill 55 that will hopefully have the
support of the government members opposite, and then we can see it go forward
and have it included in The Workers Compensation Act.
This
government, I believe, only views this legislation from the bottom line. They only talk and are only worried about the
bottom line consequences for the budget applications of the particular
jurisdictions involved. I do not think
that it should be considered solely on that aspect.
One
other article that I have, Mr. Speaker, spells out quite clearly studies that
have been done. When we used to keep
much more involved records on the occupations of the parents of children who
are born in our various facilities throughout the province, the children of
firefighters seemed to be more susceptible to congenital heart anomalies,
especially septal defects. These are
probably due to their father's exposure to inhaled or absorbed toxins, reports
a team from the
There
was a study that was done of some 22,000 B.C. children who were born with
defects. It was broken down into two categories
when they used to keep records on the occupations of the parents who were
involved. Of the two categories, Mr. Speaker,
there were 33 defects of the infants who were born with difficulties at
birth. The first examined the ratio of firefighters
to all other paternal occupations and the second identified the offspring of
police officers. Both are similar in their
education, their physical build, their fitness and their socioeconomic status
and both attend fire scenes. Yet we see
a higher incidence of the normal or ordinary diseases of life in these two
particular occupations than we would normally see through the other areas of
our community, and how these diseases would impact other members of our
society.
Mr.
Speaker, with that, I hope that I can have the support of other members of this
Legislature for this very, very important piece of legislation. It is very important to the members of our community,
because it provides us with the protection that these firefighters so
unselfishly go forward into burning buildings that so many of us leave in such
a hurry and put their lives at risk, and yet we do not afford them the
protection to which I think they are entitled.
Therefore, I ask the members of this House to support this particular
piece of legislation to give those firefighters that protection.
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Conrad Santos (Broadway): I welcome
this opportunity to be able to speak on Bill 55, The Workers Compensation Amendment
Act. This will only restore what the
court had nullified in 1989 when the firefighters were protected by means of
regulation which was passed by the NDP government in 1977.
Right
now the firefighters are left without any protection in a very risky and
dangerous job that involves the protection not only of property, but most
importantly of the lives of people in the community. In a sense the services of a firefighter is a
kind of public goods. Public goods are
those goods that are not divisible into discrete units that can be consumed
individually by one person to the exclusion of all other persons. It is not that way as in the case of private
goods or services. The nature of public
goods is such that a consumption by one member of society does not necessarily
exclude the other members of the society from using the same service or the
same output without any extra cost, because it involves what the economists call
externalities, that is to say side effects that could either be beneficial to
third parties, to people who are not involved in the transaction itself.
(Mr. Ben
Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
If I
sell a private good or service, then I impart some value to him and he pays me
a value and he can exclude all the other members of the world in enjoying what
he had bought from me, because it is a private good or service, but
firefighting is a public good, it is like national defence, it is like justice.
You cannot give it to one and deny it to any others. It must be given to everybody, and it cannot
be excludable in the sense that you can exclude other people from consuming
it. It does not cost any more by letting
the other people enjoy it. In a sense,
the firefighters in our society are public servants in the sense that they are
rendering public service to the rest of the members of the community, and in
doing so they are doing it at the risk of their life and limb. Therefore the kind of service that they are doing
to society is a very important type of service because the cost of it involves
their very lives.
Any
kind of hazardous occupation like that of miners or firefighters or policemen
and the like, which involves the risk of death or the risk of being disabled
for life, is a very dangerous kind of job that calls for some kind of extra protection,
and yet the paradoxical thing is that, instead of us giving special protection
to these people, we are denying the protection that we grant to a normal
worker, to an ordinary worker.
What
does it profit a man even if he gains the whole world and he loses his
life? What valuation shall we place upon
the life of a human being if he loses his life in defending and protecting our
property and our lives against the risk of fire? What is it worth to us? There are many attempts in quantifying the
value of human life. What does it cost
to give up one's life?
Opposed
to this is what they call the theory of human capital. What they do in order to quantify the
monetary value of human life is that they look at your earnings, your capacity
to earn, and they project it to your lifetime, and they capitalize whatever it
is that you can earn throughout all your lifetime and that capitalization is
the value of your life. The only problem
about this kind of quantification is that people who have no ability to earn,
by definition, will have no value in their lives. So that is not exactly a perfect way of
quantifying the monetary value of human life, but that is one approach: to measure your earning capacity, year after
year, project it to your lifetime and then capitalize it as a single amount and
that is the value of your life. That is
the human capital approach to valuation of human life.
*
(1740)
Another
way is what they call the willingness‑to‑pay approach. How much are you going to pay, if you have so
many resources at your command in order to protect your life, to reduce the
risk of danger to your life? That is the
rationale behind insurance protection.
You pay a certain amount of premium in order to reduce the risk of your
life, and whatever it is, you are willing to pay.
If
you are a millionaire or a billionaire, maybe you will pay everything that is
within your command in order to protect your life. Again, it varies from person to person. This kind of measurement is too subjective to
be applied in a normal kind of valuation of how much it costs to pay for the
life of a person.
Another
way to do this, of course, is by looking at the behavior and actual facts in
the industry, what they call behavior of the labour market data, in relation to
the cost of the salary they pay with respect to the risk involved in the occupation
of the job. For example, you notice that
there are certain pay scales that are appropriate to certain types of occupations
that are too hazardous or too risky.
Maybe spies who risk their lives every day are paid so much. Miners who go underground, deep into the
bowels of the Earth to dig resources, probably deserve some kind of extra
pay. People who go out in the North on
the DEW line, in the cold area in
Firemen,
without leaving the place of the community, had, of course, to incur in the
exercise of their occupation extra risk that could leave them deformed, could
leave them disabled, could even kill them in the course of their
employment. Yet, when it comes to the
compensating of these unfortunate accidents in the course of their occupation,
lawyers will have to debate the issue of whether or not the death or accident
took place in the course of doing one's own occupation or not.
Indeed,
if we have to adopt any kind of rule or any kind of standard in order to
compensate people who suffer, to assure that people who are victims of
accidents in the performance of their tasks, they should be compensated,
regardless of assumption whatsoever, by conclusively assuming that the accident
had taken place in the course of their work employment. By permitting this nice legal distinction of
whether or not the accidents take place while doing one's job or not, then they
delay the compensating of those unfortunate victims of accidents.
(Mr. Speaker in
the Chair)
Even
some of the allocated money intended for the victim had to go to those lawyers,
who have to argue the issue and to appeal the issue and to prolong the
issue. In the ultimate analysis, the
victim will get less and less the longer the issue is dragged on in the court
system.
In
other societies, for example, in New Zealand, if you happen to get into an
unavoidable accident, there is a general, overall insurance protection, and you
do not have to argue the legal issue of whether the accident happened in the
course of employment or not. They only
have an administrative remedy. All you
need to do is present to an administrative official the facts of the case, and
they will compensate you right then and there without any legal issue of whether
it took place in the course of employment or not. This is a simpler system that works for the betterment
of all the members of our community.
On
the other hand, because of the influence of the legal profession in our
society, they argue a case from the very lowest court up to the highest
court. In the course of all these arguments,
thousands and thousands of dollars may be involved, and in the long run who
gets the money? Those who are defending and
arguing the niceties in legal issues of whether the accident happened in the
course of employment or not.
The
fact of the matter is that the accident happened. The fact of the matter is that somebody was
harmed. The fact of the matter is that
somebody got injured. The fact of the
matter is, that person, the victim, must be compensated by society if it is not
due to his fault.
I
think this is a good way to broaden the base in order to compensate victims of
unfortunate accidents, particularly people whose occupation requires that they
keep their security of home, they keep the security of their job, risk their
life for the sake of the protection of the life and property of the other
members of the community.
Mr.
Speaker, there are many ways of serving humanity, but by doing an occupation where
the risk is highest for the sake of the security of the property and lives of
others, that is the highest form of service anyone can render. What rationalization then can we conjure in
order to justify excluding these people from the protection of The Workers
Compensation Act?
What
logic or illogic can we invoke in order to deny these people the protection
that they deserve? None that I can see, unless
of course we would like to make life so difficult for people whose only
occupation is the protection of our lives and property.
Mr.
Speaker, if we love ourselves, if we love our community, if we love the rest of
our members in our society, then we must not hesitate to give the necessary
recognition for the dignity of the service that they are rendering to our
society and to ourselves and by extending to them the protection that they need
in the performance of their task, in the performance of their job.
It
has been stated, and I quote, and I end with this quotation: "Greater love
hath no man than this, that a man may lay down his life for his friends."
Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on the proposed amendment
by my colleague the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
Mr.
Speaker, this amendment, unfortunately, is before the House because of a sad
sequence of events which I guess underscore the lack of commitment of the
government in particular to a fair and equitable Workers Compensation Act that
does as was originally intended, and that is protect the financial integrity of
injured workers in this province, that recognizes that injured workers
contribute willingly, make sacrifices willingly, with the understanding that
the Workers Compensation system is going to recompense them and their families
in a fair way should they be injured on the job.
I
think, unfortunately, we have seen this government renege on that promise. I remind members of the Chamber that when the
Workers Compensation system was established, it was established with, I guess,
a compromise on both sides. The
compromise was this: Workers gave up the
right to sue employers for negligence, for criminal negligence, for failing in
some respects to protect the interests of the worker at the job site.
At
the time that was deemed a fair trade, and the trade would be that when a
worker was injured on the job he could apply through the Workers Compensation
system for benefits which would be paid to him until such time as he was able
to go back to work.
The
companies, the industry at the time believed that it was compromising because
it had the right, of course, to deny responsibility for accidents. In some cases, no doubt using the legal
system, justice was not served and companies could reduce their costs, at least
have no ongoing operating costs, by attempting to deal with every civil case
brought against them because of negligence and injury in the workplace, fight
it out in court, hoping perhaps in many cases that injured workers would simply
not have the financial resources to challenge the company's position.
*
(1750)
So,
Mr. Speaker, there was some sense that when the Workers Compensation system was
introduced there was giving on both sides.
What
has happened over the last number of years is, I believe, an undermining of
that principle, and it is being done in many ways, and this is only one of
them.
My
colleague the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) I think outlined the scope of
the problem. The fact of the matter is that
we now know much more about the nature of job‑related injuries and
illness than we did 10 years ago and 20 years ago and so forth. Today we understand that injury on the job is
not simply a broken leg or a broken arm or a broken eardrum or a damaged
eardrum. Mr. Speaker, we now understand
that work‑related illness is much broader than that.
Part,
of course, of that recognition is due to the fact that workplaces have
introduced much more subtle agents in the workplace that have caused damage,
sometimes over a very long period of time.
Mr.
Speaker, firefighters are a group who are exposed to a hazard that is both
obvious on the one hand and subtle on the other. Everyone can recognize that when a fireman
gets injured on the job, when he is attempting to chop a hole in the roof and falls
off the roof, or when he is burnt by fire in a physical way trying to rescue
someone from a burning building, those are obvious injuries. The Workers Compensation Board deals with firefighters
in the normal course of events, handles those compensation claims the same way
it would handle the compensation claim of any worker on any industrial site in
the
We
get into a more complicated area when we start to deal with the hazards of
working in a workplace where there are unknown chemical agents being released
into the air, when there are unknown effects of heat and smoke and agents in
the air, and toxic chemicals, that do not have an immediate effect on an individual's
health, but have a long‑term degenerative effect on a person's
health. That is what we are dealing with
here, a recognition that firefighters are not like other workers. They do not work in workplaces that are like
other workers.
I, in
considering this bill, talked about, well, should firefighters be treated any
different than short‑order cooks? Short‑order cooks stand over a
hot grill, are exposed to gases and oil and grease and chemicals, no doubt, of
one kind and another, but there are also rules that govern the health and safety
of those workplaces. The stoves have to
be hooded, there has to be air exchange, there is a recognition that short‑order
cooks are exposed to hazardous materials‑‑smoke. They are protected by regulation.
Mr.
Speaker, many other workers are exposed to hazardous chemicals. In the smelter in Flin Flon, for example,
workers are exposed to particulate matter that may contain cadmium. Well, in workplaces where that is possible
there are vented hoods to prevent or limit the exposure of workers to those
chemicals.
Firefighters
are different. Their workplace can have,
by the nature of their work, no such safety systems in place. They charge into places where most of us
would fear or dread to tread, so to speak.
Their workplace is by its very nature different from the workplace that
other people are exposed to.
What
does the scientific community say about the effects of firefighters in the
course of their duty being exposed to these chemicals and these agents and
these particular circumstances? Does the scientific community agree that this
workplace is different? Does the
scientific community agree that the impact of working in these kinds of
situations have a long‑term effect on the health and the safety and the
security of these individuals?
Mr.
Speaker, the answer is yes. There are
many, many, many studies which have identified the risk that firefighters
face. I will just quote from one, The
British Journal of Industrial Medicine, this is 1990, notes that respiratory
mortality among firefighters is higher than would be expected in normal population,
accounting for age and sex and so forth.
It notes that the firefighters suffer chronic respiratory morbidity from
their occupational exposures. It also
goes on to say that this particular study has shown that firefighters are
probably at increased risks for dying from nonmalignant respiratory diseases.
This
increased risk may have been missed in previous studies because of the
limitations of using general reference population. So it is not only malignant respiratory
problems, but also nonmalignant respiratory diseases are shown to have a higher
incidence in firefighters. A major study
that was conducted in the early 1980s in
I
want to begin by reading the first paragraph of the summary of that study, and
it said: Firefighting is a strenuous and
often dangerous occupation. In addition
to the obvious safety hazards, firefighters are exposed to a wide variety of
toxic substances, some of which are known or suspected cancer‑causing agents. There is some evidence from previous
epidemiological studies that firefighters may be at increased risk of
developing certain cancers.
Mr.
Speaker, the big "c" word, something that everyone in this Chamber
has had touch their lives in one way or another. I would expect that there is not a person in
the Chamber who has not known someone, a friend or a relative or a family
member who has contracted cancer, but for firefighters, as this study points out,
this is an increased risk.
We
are talking about a broad range of types of cancer. Melanomas‑‑this
particular study said that firefighters had a statistically significant
threefold excess of melanoma of skin cancer compared to a state‑wide
reference group, to a control group, three times the likelihood of contracting
melanoma of the skin.
Bladder
cancer‑‑firefighters again had a statistically significant excess
of bladder cancers compared to state‑wide control groups. This excess is about twice what the control group
would normally have expected to contract over their lifetime. So, we are talking about twice as many
bladder cancers in firefighters.
Lymphoma‑‑threefold
increase over what might be expected from a control group. Other cancers‑‑pancreatic and
leukemia were also at increased levels.
Although there was not the same statically significant relationship, the
fact of the matter is that there were increased numbers of those kinds of
cancers in firefighters.
Mr.
Speaker, the studies could be read into the record ad nauseam. There is ample evidence for this Chamber to
accept the fact that firefighters are at increased risk because of the nature
of their work. The risk goes beyond
cancer. The risk also goes to other
kinds of illness, including heart attack, heart failure and heart disease.
The
government, I believe, the members of the government certainly have at their
disposal enough information to assure themselves that the amendment that is
being proposed here‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. When this matter is again before
the House, the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) will have four
minutes remaining.
The
hour being 6 p.m., this House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 10
a.m. tomorrow (Friday).