LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday,
April 15, 1992
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Sharon Evens, Maxine Gudnason, Marilyn Budzan and others requesting the
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) call upon the Parliament of Canada to amend
the Criminal Code to prevent the release of individuals where there is
substantial likelihood of further family violence.
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), and it complies with the privileges and
practices of the House and complies with the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition
read?
The petition of the undersigned citizens
of the
THAT of the 53 aboriginal languages in
The Abinochi‑Zhawayndakozihwin
Ojibwa nursery program which began in 1985 has taught children between the ages
of three and five the Ojibwa language, culture and history; and
The Abinochi preschool language program
seeks to promote and strengthen aboriginal languages and has been praised as a
model by groups across
The Aboriginal Justice Inquiry stated that
maintaining aboriginal languages is vital to rebuilding the culture lost
through years of colonization; and
The provincial minister's working group
studying the school recommended that long‑term funding be found for the
school; and
The provincial government recognized the
importance of the school in 1991 when it committed $64,000 to the school that
year; and
The provincial government has chosen in
1992 to not commit any funds to the program this year, threatening the future
of the school, while it is increasing funding to private elite schools by 9
percent after giving them an increase last year of 11 percent.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
* * *
I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member for
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 for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), 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
WHEREAS the Human Resource Opportunity
Office has operated in Selkirk for over 21 years providing training for the
unemployed and people re‑entering the labour force; and
WHEREAS during the past ten years alone
over 1,000 trainees have gone through the program gaining valuable skills and
training; and
WHEREAS upwards of 80 percent of the
Training Centre recent graduates have found employment; and
WHEREAS without consultation the program
was cut in the 1992 provincial budget forcing the centre to close; and
WHEREAS there is a growing need for this
program in Selkirk and the program has the support of the town of
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
* * *
I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), 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 Aboriginal Justice Inquiry was
launched in April of 1988 to conduct an examination of the relationship between
the justice system and aboriginal people; and
The AJI delivered its report in August of
1991 and concluded that the justice system has been a massive failure for
aboriginal people; and
The AJI report endorsed the inherent right
of aboriginal self‑government and the right of aboriginal communities to
establish an aboriginal justice system; and
The Canadian Bar Association, The Law
Reform Commission of
On January 28, 1992, five months after
releasing the report, the provincial government announced it was not prepared
to proceed with the majority of the recommendations; and
Despite the All‑Party Task Force
Report which endorsed aboriginal self‑government, the provincial
government now rejects a separate and parallel justice system, an Aboriginal
Justice Commission and many other key recommendations which are solely within
provincial jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
* (1335)
MINISTERIAL
STATEMENT
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have a statement for the
House.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide the
House with a brief report on the status of the current series of multilateral
meetings on the Constitution. As
honourable members know, federal, provincial, territorial and aboriginal
delegations met yesterday in
While there was extensive discussion on
many of the issues that are part of this
Members of this House are well aware of
the complexity of these issues. Our task
force took many months to reflect on many of the same issues that are the
subject of these meetings. Nevertheless, some encouraging progress is being
made. For example, our task force report
urged our fellow Canadians to adopt an inclusive
"Elected" is a given, but the
method of election is to be worked out.
"Effective" is agreed in the sense that no delegation wants to
create a Senate with no powers. We all
want the Senate to have enough power to make the House of Commons think
seriously about the effects of its policies on provinces and regions but not so
much power that it can bring the whole apparatus of the federal government to a
halt. "Equal" is still very
much on the table as well, and discussions continue. We believe it is critical, during this
I am also pleased to advise that the
The work on the division of powers has
progressed more slowly. In large
measure, this is because of the way
While some of the larger provinces are
seeking more responsibilities, I believe most of the participating governments
are more concerned with ensuring that the federal government lives up to its
obligations in the fields of equalization, Established Programs Financing, the
In this connection, honourable members
will be interested to know that one of the major accomplishments of yesterday's
meeting was a strong agreement among most provinces that the current
equalization provision in the Constitution needs to be strengthened. That agreement is consistent with our task
force's recommendation and is of major importance to
Mr. Speaker, we are one month into this
process. We have made some progress, and
although a great deal of work still has to be done, a substantial consensus on
a practical set of amendments may well be achievable by the end of May.
Mr. Speaker, I will continue to provide
regular updates to the House following each of the multilateral meetings. Thank you.
* (1340)
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
minister for his statement in the Chamber here this afternoon.
The members on this side remain pledged to
the all‑party report and the all‑party process that we have
established in
We note some of the areas of progress that
the ministers have made. We noted last
week that there was some optimism from the discussions dealing with aboriginal
self‑government and the inherent right of self‑government for
aboriginal people by the ministers at the table and from the aboriginal
leadership, Mr. Speaker. We join with
the thousands and millions of Canadians who feel this is long overdue to have
recognition of the inherent right of aboriginal people to self‑government,
and we are thankful that there was some progress in articulating that principle
at the ministers' meeting last week.
I think it is very important, Mr. Speaker‑‑those
of us in this Chamber who know very well about the issues of aboriginal people
remember that at the
When we are talking about participation in
the process, the minister has noted the lack of participation of
Mr. Speaker, I suggest very strongly that
the ministers of
As the minister has articulated, we
believe in a strong federal government with the ability to redistribute wealth
to individuals and to regions. That is
in direct contradiction to the position paper of the Allaire Report in
I would note, Mr. Speaker, that the
government has not mentioned the very important issue of the amending
formula. I think it is important to be
very specific that
Mr. Speaker, we would note that the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) a couple of weeks ago said that he would make available
his legal opinions to all members of this Chamber. I raised that question in the Premier's
Estimates. We have not received those
legal opinions yet, and it is very important for all of us who are going to be
working together that we have the legal opinions.
The Premier said on national television
that the social charter wording could affect the enforceability of Section 36
of the Constitution. We have been told
that may not be true, but if the Premier has legal opinions in that regard, we
would like to see those opinions as committed by the government some four weeks
ago in this Chamber.
Mr. Speaker, there are some other issues
that we are very interested in‑‑the Bank of Canada recommendation,
basically a monetarist policy in the Constitution we are opposed to, and I
believe Manitobans are opposed to, and I believe this government should be
opposed to it. You cannot talk about the
high interest rates in this country and then entrench in the Constitution a
monetarist policy.
Similarly, I would remind the government
that many women's groups in this province, many environmental groups in this
province, many aboriginal groups in this province, are very much opposed to the
Conservative proposal for entrenching in the Charter of Rights a section on property
rights. That is again contrary to the
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we are glad
the tone of the discussions are positive.
We are glad that there are lots of discussions going on between all
provinces except
* (1345)
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): I
welcome the report from the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs
(Mr. McCrae) in the
I share the same concern about the
inclusiveness of the Canadian clause or
My concern also is that there were
discussions yesterday with regard to the Senate, and there seemed to be, not
from this minister‑‑and I want to say that very clearly‑‑but
there seemed to be from others the sense of trade‑off, that you could
trade off effectiveness with equality.
They are not trade‑off positions.
There is no point in having, quite frankly, a reformed Senate that is
not also equal and effective. To say
that you are going to sacrifice equality for effectiveness or you are going to
sacrifice effectiveness for equality is not the name of the game here. If we are to have a Senate for which we are
going to spend multimillions of dollars, then that Senate has to be
effective. That Senate also must be
equal.
Finally, in terms of the debate and the
discussion of the division of powers, it is imperative that
I commend the minister for the
progress. I also, again, give the
warning signals which I know he is well aware of, and I again urge all of them
to do everything they possibly can to get the
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us
this afternoon eight visitors. They
include two Japanese exchange students, namely, Katuski Yamaki and Ali (I)
Murase from the Dakota Collegiate. They
are under the direction of Mr. Wayne Ruff, the principal. These are guests of the Deputy Speaker, the
honourable member for
On behalf of all honourable members, I
welcome you here this afternoon.
Also with us this afternoon, from the
Garden City Collegiate we have twenty‑five Grade 9 students. They are under the direction of Mrs. Carolyn
McCormack. This school is located in the
constituency of the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak).
On behalf of all honourable members, I
welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Employability
Enhancement Programs
Funding
Ms. Becky Barrett (
I would like to ask the Minister of Family
Services why he has reduced expenditures for the Employability Enhancement
Programs element to Family Services by $500,000 this year, which will service
95 fewer clients than last year.
* (1350)
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): These are
issues that we are currently discussing in our Estimates process. We have a number of programs that are
provided for social allowance recipients whereby they can access training and
education to enable them to get back into the work force.
Later this week we are announcing a new
program, the Partners with Youth program, which in part is going to provide
some additional programming for unemployed youth in
Two of our most successful programs that
we have maintained are the Single Parent Job Access and the Gateway
program. We feel these are programs that
have had a greater success rate, and we will be maintaining those and training
people as best we can to put them back into the work force.
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about
unemployed youth; we are talking about social assistance recipients.
The cost for the Employability Enhancement
Programs are one‑third the cost of providing basic social assistance
services for the people of
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the member
that overall we have increased the Family Services budget by almost 9 percent
in a year when other departments with tremendous demands have been unable to
increase their budgets.
Government, not only in
Even given these difficult times, we have
been able to increase our budget by some 9 percent, maintain programs, and this
year we are also providing a new program called Partners with Youth. Some of the individuals who will be accessing
that program are social allowance recipients.
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, 80 percent of the increase in the
Family Services department was not by choice; it was because they are mandated
to because it is social assistance. What
the department has done is it has chosen to take away $500,000 from programs
that had a 70 percent success rate by the government's own admission.
Why has this government chosen to decrease
the funding for successful job creation Employability Enhancement Programs that
were helping 500 social assistance clients every year get off social assistance
into jobs and into training? Why are
they doing that?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I would mention to the member that the
addition of some $10 million for other programs within Family Services is not a
small amount. We have evaluated the
programs, and we are supporting the programs that have been very, very
successful.
We are putting money into new programs to
provide employment, not only for unemployed youth but also for social
assistance recipients, and from time to time, we have to evaluate the
programming and make some changes and keep the ones that are successful.
* (1355)
Youth
Unemployment
Government
Strategy
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister of Family Services, who I understand this afternoon or later this week
will be making an announcement about a youth partnership program which, when we
consider that we have youth unemployment at 18.6 percent in this province, will
be a drop in the bucket.
Looking back at the programs for youth
before this government took office, we had a STEP program with 900 people
working in it; today it is down to 300.
We had a northern youth job program with 874 young people working in it;
today it does not exist. We had a
Mr. Speaker, why will this minister, why
will this government not go back and look at the record, take a lesson from the
past and set up some real, significant programs for young people and restore
real opportunities for our youth, a real partnership for youth?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, one of the inhibiting factors in creating new programs by this
government is the tremendous debt that was left by the member across the way in
his term in government. It has reduced
the flexibility, a flexibility that all governments are looking for to create
new programs. We are paying that
tremendous debt, that interest on the debt that was run up by the previous
government.
I do not know why the member would
criticize a program that we are about to announce, Partners with Youth, a
program that has met with a lot of support from municipal level
governments. They are looking forward to
this program, and I do not understand why the member for Brandon East would be
critical of it.
Social
Assistance
Employment
Creation Strategy
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): I make no apology in spending money for jobs
for young people to allow them to work.
There is real goods and services.
Would this minister have his senior staff
meet with the administration of the City of
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, the member says he makes no apology for the tremendous debt that was
run up in the mid‑1980s. He makes
no apology for the expenditures of the 1980s that we are inhibited by
today. I hear his fellow travellers in
We meet on a regular basis with officials
from the social allowance department of the City of
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, we left this government with a
surplus of money, not a deficit, a surplus, and you put it in the Fiscal
Stabilization Fund.
Will this minister have his deputy
minister today call up the administrator of the City of
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
* (1400)
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, I know that not only the City of
We have recently attended the MAUM
provincial meeting and talked to UMM representatives as well as the City of
Youth
Unemployment
Government
Strategy
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I take a certain amount of pride in bringing correct information into
this House, but I have to suggest that yesterday when I stood up and I said
there were 2,952 jobs that had been cut, I did not provide the most accurate
information, because when we went into the Estimates process, I found out that
there were another 530 jobs which had been cut between 1990‑91 and the
present time as far as employment programs for young people are concerned, and
the correct figure is now 3,482 jobs which have been cut in the last two years.
Can the minister tell this House on what
basis and on what philosophical background‑‑because one likes to
think they make it on the basis of some kind of party philosophy‑‑has
this government decided that young people are not worth investing in?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, I hate to make an attack on the member's pride, but some of the
information she brings today is not accurate.
One of the key factors that she is looking
at is the Manitoba Youth Job Centre Program, which simply registers unemployed
youth and youth looking for work. There
are going to be again 44 centres throughout the province to register any youth
who are unemployed and seeking work.
In 1985‑86, for instance, there were
just over 8,000 people who registered.
These were not jobs that were created.
These are simply people looking for work. Later on in the 1980s, there were some 12,000
children registered looking for work.
This year, we are estimating that there may be 9,000. Now, that estimate may be low. There may be 10,000 or 12,000. These are simply offices where people seeking
short‑term summer employment register.
So let not the member leave on the record
that these are job cuts. These are
individuals who are looking for work.
The government provides these offices where the individuals can
register. We are basing that on the
figures from the previous year, but there may be in fact more than 9,000 people
registering for employment.
Employability
Enhancement Programs
Funding
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I have
never known the Estimates of any government department under any administration
not to give the best possible news to their numbers, and the best possible news
to their numbers are down, down, down.
At the same time that they are cutting these kinds of job opportunities,
they are cutting out other programs.
Mr. Speaker, in light with the same kind
of philosophical rationale, can the minister tell the House today why, under
Employability Enhancement, a program called Job Access for Young Adults‑‑these
are young people who find themselves on social assistance wanting desperately
to get off‑‑that program has been scrapped in its entirety?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): The member
is asking the same question that the member for
In addition to the figures that the member
is putting on the record, we might also mention the Environmental Youth Corps
which employs a number of young people and also brings forth thousands of
volunteers across the province. This is
part of new programming that was introduced last year. As well, the senior level of government is
proceeding with the CHALLENGE program for 1992 and will be providing somewhere
over 2,000 positions in the work force for young people.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, nobody likes it, this government
nor opposition, but the increase expected for those who will have to look to
social assistance is 34 percent in the
Can this minister explain why, to this
House, there is not going to be one single person from that new group, those 34
percent new recipients, not one single placement in an Employability
Enhancement Program which will allow them to get off welfare and to get into
the workplace? Is this Tory philosophy,
people on welfare and social assistance and do not get them back to work?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We have maintained the majority of our
programming which puts people back to work.
I have mentioned the Single Parent Job Access, the Gateway program, the
HROCs that we have across the province.
These are the ones that have been successful. We have maintained those programs and are
confident a number of these individuals will be finding their way into the work
force.
Single-Industry
Towns
Equity
Insurance
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, I intend to give the government
an opportunity to do something it often says it would like to do, and that is to
accept positive solution from members opposite.
Last year, I wrote to the Minister of
Energy and Mines and asked him to begin to investigate the concept of equity
insurance for homeowners and small business people in northern
Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister
of Energy and Mines is: Will he today
indicate whether he will appoint a task force to begin to look at the
possibility of establishing an equity insurance program, a tripartite, a
multiparty equity insurance program to protect the investment and encourage
investment in our northern single‑industry towns?
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr.
Speaker, let me respond by saying that what we have attempted to do is to try
and change the attitude of the international mining industry, particularly the
Canadian mining industry, as to its attitude towards this province. We had the worst tax regime of any province
in this country as it related to the development of mines and the continuation
of building new mines.
It is our belief, through the mining tax
incentive program and through the mineral tax incentive program, the new mine
tax holiday, Mr. Speaker, that we will do more to encourage the long‑term
existence of those communities by new mine developments and by new mineral
exploration activities than other programmings that would bring in insurance
such as the member is talking about.
If that fails, Mr. Speaker, if we fail to
find new resources and new job opportunities through mineral extraction, that
is another option, but first of all, we had to change the draconian tax
policies that were in place under the NDP government.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, I gave the minister an
opportunity to be positive.
Mr. Speaker, maybe the Minister of Energy
and Mines can explain then why the Conservative government, in 1989, placed a
1.5 percent surtax on that supposedly impossible tax regime and has not lifted
it to this day. Can the minister explain
as well why yesterday at MAUM he was nominally supportive in face of some 450
delegates from municipalities across the province and today he has all of a
sudden turned his back on his commitment of yesterday? Will he now agree to support this resolution,
which is supported by‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The question has been put.
* (1410)
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, I have not turned my back on the
people of northern
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, we have today with us, in the
gallery, representatives of Leaf Rapids Town Council. They can tell this minister that communities
throughout northern
Mr. Speaker, the minister did accept the
premise that this concept may work. Will
he today announce the creation of a task force to begin the work immediately of
exploring the concept and seeing whether in fact we can develop an equity
insurance program that is not taxpayer supported, which will protect the
investment of northerners now and into the future?
Mr. Downey: This government has put in place a Northern
Development Commission which will look at all options and opportunities for
northern policy. I would recommend that
the member, I would recommend that the communities take before the Northern
Development Commission the very ideas that he has talked about so that it can
have the full and complete review of people who are fully knowledgeable and
qualified. We do not need an additional
commission; we do not need an additional task force. There is a mechanism
there, Mr. Speaker, for this idea and this proposal to be reviewed under.
Furnace
Inspections
Mandatory
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): My question is to the
Minister of Labour.
Mr. Speaker, nearly a month ago the
Canadian Gas Association issued a warning concerning the Flame‑Master
furnaces. About one week later, the
Minister of Labour was persuaded to put out a press release stating that Flame‑Master
furnace owners should have their furnaces checked immediately and that carbon
monoxide could cause headaches, nausea and even death.
Now, Mr. Speaker, since then the gas
company has been swamped with calls, as many as 850 alone on Monday. Is the minister now prepared to follow the
lead of
We would like to know what is holding him
back on this matter, because he has had a month.
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): First of all, in the preamble of the member's
question, he makes it sound as if someone had to twist this minister's arm to
issue a release. I have to tell him that
as soon as I was notified by my staff, we issued the release. In fact, I think the time might have been
five minutes from the time it was provided to me to give the okay to issue the
release.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the issue of
mandatory furnace testing, we in the Department of Labour are always interested
in assessing what in fact is causing the problem, what the risks are and what
is the best way to minimize those risks.
We are always prepared to entertain a
discussion as to the proper way to ensure that risks are reduced, but I caution
the member, in this particular case, we still have a fair bit of information to
gather, and just the idea of jumping into mandatory inspection is not
necessarily the answer.
Condemning
Authority
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): I would like to know if the minister will
require the gas company to have sign‑off authority before a furnace is
condemned so that perfectly safe units are not replaced, as was the widespread
case last year.
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): I am not quite certain I appreciate fully the
member's question with respect to sign off.
Under our appropriate legislation and regulation, the gas company has
responsibility to ensure that before they are providing gas, there is a safe
installation.
If the installation is not safe, they have
the provision to cut that off in order to ensure that gas is not going into an
unsafe mechanism. Perhaps the member
could expound in a subsequent question.
Mr. Maloway: Mr. Speaker, for clarification, perhaps I
could repeat the question to the minister.
We are quite clear that the gas company has authority on new
installations.
What the question was today, and was the
other day, was: What about furnaces that are being condemned? Currently, installers can condemn furnaces
and have new ones put in without the gas company even knowing about it. We want the gas company to have the final
authority before an old furnace is thrown out and a new one is put in.
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I see a somewhat inconsistent
comment with the gas company having final authority. I think yesterday we were in an exchange
where the gist of the member's questions was whether the authority ultimately
lies with the Department of Labour and not with the gas company.
Mr. Speaker, before a new furnace would be
put into place, the gas company, of course, would have to be assured that the
furnace is sufficient. I think the
member's concern is that an installer may condemn a furnace or a repair person
may think that a furnace is not safe and condemn that furnace. I believe what the member is asking for is a
second opinion on that particular decision, and I would be prepared to have
some discussions with him as to the proper process.
Always in those cases, if it is an
independent installer or contractor, I think some of the difficulties that took
place a few years ago or a year ago in installation are worth a second opinion.
Mr. Maloway: Perhaps we ought to put the minister in a room
with a Flame‑Master to see how‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Question, please?
Minister
of Labour
Meeting
Request
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, my final
supplementary to the same minister is: Considering
that aggrieved parties are quite angry over the lack of action on the part of
this government, will the minister agree to meet with a group of homeowners to
discuss this issue and perhaps have a better appreciation of the problem?
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would
be prepared to meet with a group of homeowners if the member would like to
arrange that.
I just say to the member, he talks about
lack of action, the greatest complaint that I have detected, of course, is
those people who are faced with the cost of repairing or replacing their
furnace or purchasing the replacement parts.
In the news coverage I read of the honourable member, he even
acknowledged that government cannot have responsibility to cover the costs of
replacing that equipment in all cases.
Mr. Speaker, obviously we are trying to
work with as many people as possible, the people who are affected, to resolve
the situation. I admit it is not an easy
situation. Most of the difficulty, from
the information that has been brought to me, has to do with those people who
are having difficulty in finding the resources to do the necessary repairs, and
there are programs available from the Department of Housing and others for
those who are low income.
Tray-Fee
Regulation
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Health.
The Canada Health Act does not allow extra
billing or user fees, but this government, like the previous NDP government,
continues to allow this practice in
Mr. Speaker, certain services like tray
fees, which are billed to the patients to cover the cost of providing the
necessary medical supplies for a required procedure in a doctor's office as
opposed to the hospital, they are not insured in
Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell this
House, as some other provincial jurisdictions recognize that is in total
violation of the Canada Health Act, why we are allowing such services in
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I missed
the specific name of the clinic my honourable friend brought on the‑‑[interjection]
oh, okay.
There have been, since we came into
government, I think about four or five, possibly, clinics that provide out‑patient
services, the most notable one being for cataract surgery. In those facilities, we pay part of the
physician costs, but additional costs are paid by the individual accessing the
service that, in many ways, is similar to a number of Manitobans who, for
reasons of choice, have accessed, for instance, a clinic for cataract surgery
in
Mr. Speaker, those issues have been
subject to discussion, the conclusion being that they would not be a violation
of the Canada Health Act, and subsequently there has been no imposition of any
negative penalty under the Canada Health Act.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, I will explain the question
again. I am not asking about those five
clinics. We are asking about a simple
question of a tray fee which is being charged in some doctors' offices for
minor procedures, and those services are not covered in the doctor's office. If the patient were to go to a hospital, those
services are covered.
The simple question is: Why do people have to pay in the doctors'
offices when those services are simply covered under the Canada Health Act and
we are paying in the hospital for these services?
* (1420)
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I recognize my honourable
friend's concerns with the tray fees.
There are other areas which have been brought to our attention in the
past in which physicians are asking for a contribution which has not
contravened the Canada Health Act, and my answer persists. We have not had this issue found to
contravene the Canada Health Act and have not taken action in that regard, Sir.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, will the minister not get a legal
opinion, as some provinces say, that charging such a fee is in total violation
of the Canada Health Act? Why can we not
have a simple legal opinion, and then we can make a final decision in
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I am troubled as to what purpose
the legal opinion would serve because this practice has been in effect probably
for a decade and is not a secretive practice, if I can put it that way, Sir,
and has not been found in contravention of the Canada Health Act.
That being the case, I do not know why I
would want to seek a legal opinion when the
Pharmacare
Clarythromycin
Exclusion
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, on two occasions the Minister of
Health told this House that clarythromycin, an anti‑infectant drug
important for people with AIDS, was being provided free of charge and,
therefore, that was the explanation for the fact that many people were being
hit with exorbitant drug bills.
I do not know if the minister had confused
clarythromycin with another drug because our information is that the drug
produced by Abbott Laboratories had never been provided free of charge and that
they had always charged governments and patients for clarythromycin.
I would like to ask the minister if he
would now like to clarify that statement and correct the record.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the
pharmaceutical in question is a pharmaceutical that has very narrowed
applications for ill Manitobans or ill Canadians or ill individuals. One of those narrowed applications, as
indicated by the head of pharmacology at the Health Sciences Centre, has one or
two applications in terms of people suffering from AIDS.
Mr. Speaker, that pharmaceutical has not
been granted an order of compliance‑‑I believe is the terminology‑‑from
the federal government and as such is not an included pharmaceutical in our
Pharmacare program.
Now, because of‑‑and I have
explained this to my honourable friend time and time again‑‑the new
wave of pharmaceuticals coming up, the past practice has been, by
manufacturers, that until they receive an order of compliance, they will
provide the drugs free during the clinical trial period of time. There is an interim period of time in which
the order of compliance from the federal government is made available.
Most companies have tended, in the past,
to provide those drugs free of charge.
There have been exceptions. This
is one of them. This is something that
all drug plans across
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister
if he would correct the record, and if he would indicate how he is dealing with
a serious problem for people living with AIDS in the
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, it is with difficulty that I can
change the policy of government.
Although my honourable friend can make the most emotional case around
this pharmaceutical, because it is dealing with individuals suffering
unfortunately from AIDS, there is a plethora of new drugs on the research
agenda, at clinical trials, for which the precedent was tended to be set, that
without order of compliance, the pharmaceutical manufacturers would begin to
charge for those pharmaceuticals. This is not narrowed to this drug. This is a policy across the board, that we
will not pay for those drugs until they are accepted on the Pharmacare list of
accepted pharmaceuticals, after they have received federal order of compliance.
To do anything less, Mr. Speaker, is to
signal clearly to the pharmaceutical multinationals that they can pillage the
taxpayer of
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: The issue involved is that we are dealing with
a cost‑cutting measure on the backs of people with AIDS. That is the
issue, Mr. Speaker.
I would like the minister‑‑I
would like to give him one more opportunity‑‑to clarify his
statements, to change the record and to give some commitment to people living
with AIDS, and he knows the implications of that, that they will at least have
the benefit of some coverage for an important anti‑infectant drug,
clarythromycin.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, we have engaged discussions with
Abbott, as the pharmaceutical supplier, to provide that pharmaceutical free of
charge until the order of compliance has come in. We will do that for every single new
pharmaceutical that comes in because this government will not use precious
taxpayer resources to line the pockets of multinational pharmaceutical
companies prior to the order of compliance, neither, Sir, would the New
Democrats if they were in government, but from the comfort of opposition, they
are willing to bail out multinational pharmaceutical companies.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. The policy is appropriate. It is emulated in many other provinces across
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
CN Rail
Producer
Car Drop Off
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Recently I wrote to the minister on a very
serious matter regarding the reductions of services to farmers on the CN
subline. The railway has discontinued
dropping producer cars at points such as Slater, Renwer,
I want to ask the minister: What action has he taken to address this
matter? What is he doing to represent
producers on that line?
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to the
member that the problem‑‑she raised it with me in the earlier stage
already. I have been making inquiries
about the problem that has existed out there.
The grain system is running pretty well at maximum right now, and I have
had people from the area bring their concerns over to the Grain Transportation
Agency. We are hoping to get it
resolved.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the
line is supposed to be protected until the year 2000, I want to ask the
minister what action he is taking to see CN lives up to its responsibility of
maintaining the Cowan subline and providing services, and I want to ask him if
he is in support of producer cars being dropped off at these sites.
* (1430)
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, yes, I support it. I am trying to work to make sure that these
cars get dropped off at those places.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Committee
Changes
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
Agreed.
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Economic Development be amended as follows:
the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) for the member for St. Norbert (Mr.
Laurendeau); the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) for the member for Sturgeon
Creek (Mr. McAlpine); and the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) for the member
for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson).
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
Agreed.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
House
Business
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to advise the House that as the Standing Committee on
Municipal Affairs completed its consideration of Bill 45 last night it will not
be necessary for that committee to meet this evening, so that will be
cancelled.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to call bills
in the following order. If you could
please call Bill 44, followed by Bill 12, followed by Bill 43, Bill 53, Bill
64, Bill 70, Bill 68, Bill 72, and then the remainder of the government bills
on the Order Paper in the order in which they appear.
DEBATE ON
SECOND
Bill 44‑The
Milk Prices Review Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), Bill 44, The Milk Prices Review Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le controle du prix du lait, standing in the
name of the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), who has 29 minutes
remaining.
Committee
Changes
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Prior to recognizing the honourable member for Dauphin, I wonder if the
House would grant leave to allow the honourable member for Point Douglas to
make committee changes. It is agreed.
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for
I also move, seconded by the member for
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Now, the honourable member for Dauphin, who
has 29 minutes remaining.
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak on
this bill on March 4, Bill 44 dealing with The Milk Prices Review Amendment
Act. At that time, I raised a number of
concerns with the minister that I felt he should consider.
I also indicated areas where we, in the
opposition, felt there were some positive developments insofar as the actions
being proposed by the minister, and I cited the issue of multiple component
pricing as one which we felt was timely, particularly insofar as the fact that
people tend at the present time to be consumers of milk where fat is not
emphasized. In other words, the fat
content is not the primary component that is of concern to the vast majority of
consumers.
As a matter of fact, in my own family,
most of our family drink skim milk. I
probably should drink a lot more skim milk when we drink any milk at all. The others drink 1 percent milk, and we have
moved off completely from whole milk and 2 percent milk. At one time, 2 percent milk was thought to be
the milk that people would drink if they were on a diet, or if they wanted to
drink something that is not fattening insofar as a dairy product, they would
drink 2 percent milk.
That has changed completely in the present
time, at least as far as our family is concerned, and I believe when I watch
consumers in the stores picking up their milk, the vast majority are moving to
at least 2 percent, but in many cases to 1 percent and skim milk. Therefore, they are no longer requesting or
demanding high fat content in any way, shape or form, insofar as milk is
concerned.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Madam Deputy
Speaker, in the Chair)
The only thing is it is really tough on
the coffee cup because most people find that skim milk does not go that well
with coffee. I find that I just cannot
drink coffee when I have 1 percent or skim milk. I guess on that side we still have to take
whole milk or half and half, which then we are back on the fat side again, but
the portion used is much smaller than you would if you were drinking a glass of
milk or two or three or four in a day.
Madam Deputy Speaker, obviously the
Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) does not know what the bill is about
because he assumes that I am not dealing with the bill. In fact, the minister would be well advised
to review the comments that I made previously and that I started with in that
we are dealing with multiple component pricing of milk as opposed to fat
content being the criteria.
I was elaborating for the minister's
edification and for other members who might be interested that I believe
consumer demand has moved away from heavy fat content into something that has
less fat and in most cases skim milk or 1 percent has become somewhat of the
norm for most people and their families.
We are gradually moving towards that, as I said, in our family where
half of us are now on skim milk and half are not. We are moving eventually to skim milk
hopefully, completely. It is, I think,
important in today's society that more people are health conscious perhaps than
previously, more aware of the harm that perhaps can be done to one's health
because of overconsumption of animal fats and hydrogenated fats as well.
We are living longer, and one of the
reasons that we are living longer is because of medical breakthroughs, but also
because of diet. I believe that people
are more conscious of the fact that there is such a thing as bad cholesterol
and cholesterol levels that can in fact result in blockage of arteries and
requirement of by‑pass surgery. In
many cases heart attacks result before remedial action is taken or dietary
habits are changed. In many cases they
are changed too late. For the people who
have suffered fatal heart attacks there is not such a thing as a change for
them, it contributed to their death, and they were not given a second chance.
In many cases nowadays people do survive a
first heart attack. I know many
neighbours and friends, and relatives even, who have suffered heart attacks at
a very early age, and subsequent to that, survived the heart attack, and went
into refit programs, changing their diet completely‑‑exercise
programs‑‑and are really quite fit now. One of the things they attempt to do is shop
wisely to avoid heavy concentration of fats in their diet, whether it be in
milk products, whether it be with cheese or cottage cheese or even sour
cream. There are light versions of these
products now. The light versions are
very often quite low in butterfat compared to the whole product, the original
product, that many people consume.
As well, people are more aware of the
impact of saturated fats and unsaturated fats, the difference between the two
and the impact it can have on their overall health over the longer term. I
think this is somewhat overdue. It is
perhaps something that should have been looked at in the past, Madam Deputy
Speaker. I am pleased that the minister
has seen fit to move forward so that people now will be buying a product I hope
that will be labelled with other nutrients, that will indicate to the public
and to the consumer the level of nutrients of such things as proteins, for
example, in milk and other milk products.
* (1440)
It is interesting. I saw an ad on television about
grapefruit. The company that was
advertising grapefruit was saying that if this was in the form of juice, it
would have all the nutrients in it outlined, but because it is a natural
product in the form of fruit, there is no labelling on it. It does not tell what exactly is contained in
that fruit that you might consume.
I think we have to change that. We have to indicate in all of these products
precisely the content of the important nutrients in milk and emphasize those,
make them more household terminology for people, for consumers, so that they
are aware of what they should be looking for when they are purchasing these
food products, that they are aware that protein is a good nutrient and minerals
are a good nutrient and fat is perhaps, in most cases, a harmful nutrient for
them.
I also noticed that in processed foods
people are becoming more aware of the difference between hydrogenated and
nonhydrogenated oils and the difference that has insofar as cholesterol buildup
and the cholesterol content of these foods, I think that there again we are
moving in the right direction. We have a
great deal of progress to be made, but we are moving in the right
direction. I think we are following
consumer demand and that is a healthy sign in more ways than one, healthy being
a very loaded word and used in that context.
So insofar of that aspect of the bill, I
indicated that we did not have any problems.
Insofar as the issue of flexible milk pricing, at present I understand
there is a trigger mechanism that triggers at 2 percent a change in the cost of
production. It would trigger a review that results in the increased cost being
passed on to the consumer and perhaps an increase plus or minus.
The minister notes that in some cases
there may actually be a drop in the cost.
If that was the case, then there would be a drop in the price of
milk. He is proposing to change that
mechanism. I had indicated in my speech
on March 4, and I think it is worthy of re‑emphasizing, that in fact he
may want to have a system that is triggered every six months, but also one that
might be triggered by a small percentage variation, so that in fact if there is
a change in a three‑month period, which there could very well be with the
world markets and the changes that are taking place, perhaps, hopefully not our
supply‑managed system, but where there is impact on the costs in a very
short time, there could be a passing on of those costs, or a savings to the
consumer even on a very short term, two months or three months or one month
since the last review. In other words,
it is not an arbitrary time period.
I felt that the minister might want to
have both systems in place, an arbitrary review that would take place every six
months, but another one that would be triggered by a change of say, 0.5 percent
or 1 percent or so in between, if that happened, in between the six‑month
period. I think that flexibility would
be something that the minister might want to consider, and perhaps he has
looked over that point if he has reviewed some of the things I was talking
about on March 4 in this House regarding this bill.
I think the issues that the minister
related contained in the bill with regard to the financial report and the
separate reporting mechanism to the Legislature of the Milk Prices Review
Commission, those points that he was making are something he might want to
consider, the comments that are made as well in that issue, because there is a
need, I think, in terms of the public perception to have an arm's length
commission to review the actions of the industry.
Perhaps by amalgamating it within the
department, it is less apt to have that objectivity and be perceived as
impartial and so on. I think that is
something that the Milk Prices Review Commission has resisted to a certain
extent over a period of time, and the minister now feels that due to the
savings that could accrue that he should embark on this change.
It may be that, there again, there will be
some loss of autonomy. I do not know. I guess it remains to be seen, and the
minister has to take the responsibility of that as to whether that will be
substantial, and whether, in fact, it will be justified in the longer term.
It may very well not be justified, and it
is perhaps just a perception. It is
something the minister has to be very sensitive to and aware of, I think, in
the future as he watches the operations of the commission with some of the
autonomy being removed.
Those are the major points that we have
raised with the bill, and I think it is important that the minister consider
those. I reflect on another aspect of
the arm's length operation of the board, and that is that the commission has
made a review in various times in history of surveying the costs and monitoring
the operations and so on amongst producers to ensure the cost‑production
formula adequately represented their costs.
It is possible there that, if the industry
is in itself conducting these reviews, the consumer and public interest is not
always put as one of the primary concerns.
The objectivity is not there to the same extent. While the review commission was undertaking
that, there was more objectivity there, and fairness ensured and the perception
of fairness.
That is one area where concern was
expressed to me, insofar as the future tallying of costs and developing of the
formula, and changes that might take place with the prices, based on the cost
of production, ensuring that it is done fairly.
So with that, I want to indicate that we
would like to see that this bill moves on to the committee stage. At that time, we can listen to views that
might be put forward by members of the public, or by consumer groups perhaps,
and by producer groups and producers as to their feelings on this. I do not anticipate that it will be
particularly controversial, but certainly we will want to hear from them before
making a conclusive decision on the exact and precise components of the bill in
its entirety. Thank you, Madam Deputy
Speaker.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Madam Deputy Speaker, I stand to put a few
comments on Bill 44, The Milk Prices Review Amendment Act.
The dairy industry of
In light of the changes in the dairy
industry, I feel that the pricing of milk according to the value of its
components is a very logical, if not to say positive, amendment.
It is a well‑known fact that the
consumers are paying more attention now to the number of proteins and calories
a product contains. Consumers want less
fat, and less fat is healthier for our society.
The way consumers have gone about this is that they are being more
conscious of the components of products such as milk. They, therefore, tend to buy the milk with
less fat in it. Very seldom do we see a
consumer purchasing whole milk nowadays.
The pricing mechanism that promotes what
consumers do not want and what is not as healthy for society should be changed.
This amendment seems to reflect the consumer's demand at this present time, and
it is one that we are willing to support.
As mentioned earlier, I would also like to
comment on the third category the Minister of Agriculture referred to, that
being the leading of the requirement for a separate account and annual report
from the Milk Prices Review Commission.
Madam Deputy Speaker, ending the
requirement for a separate annual report audit is a positive step at ending
waste in the government. The same
information will be available in the department's annual report, so the public
will not be less informed, while fewer tax dollars are being spent and less
paper is being used.
* (1450)
I realize, however, that this will mean
that the minister will not get the picture in print as often as he does now,
but the public will be better served.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to know
whether these proposed changes will affect the independence of the commission.
Would it not be possible to try for a system where a separate account can be
kept without the need for a separate annual report?
The disaster of the Farm Lands Ownership
Board annual report which was filled with 75‑percent blank pages which
the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) brought before the House in December, do
you remember that?
An Honourable Member: Yes, I do.
Mr. Gaudry: It is an example of waste. Perhaps the minister can look at putting more
of these relatively small annual reports in the department's annual report to
save more money. I hope the minister
will consider these‑‑[interjection] I know he will. We get good compliments for the
minister. I have been going around, and
they seem to be satisfied with what the minister is doing.
On this note, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will
not spend any more time, but we would like to see this bill go to
committee. I thank you very much.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 44. Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 12‑The
Animal Husbandry Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: Second reading of Bill 12 (The Animal Husbandry Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'elevage), on the proposed motion of
the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), standing in the name of
the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman).
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there will to leave the bill standing in
the name of the honourable member for Dauphin? [interjection] Yes, this is to
resume debate on second reading of Bill 12, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Dauphin. Is there
leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Bill 43‑The
Farm Income Assurance Plans Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 43
(The Farm Income Assurance Plans Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les regimes d'assurance‑revenu agricole), on the proposed motion of the
honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman).
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Madam Deputy Speaker, Bill 43 is an act short
in terms of its printed content in length in this House, but certainly not
short in terms of its impact in the issue that it raises and brings before this
House, a rather significant issue that has received much debate with regard to
the Gross Revenue Insurance Program.
I, frankly, was expecting that the
Minister of Agriculture was going to close debate on Bill 44 before it got
passed, and I would have had a little more opportunity to get some of my
information together that I intended to use in speaking to this bill. I do not know, but from what I heard on the
monitor in my caucus room, I believe the minister chose not to close debate on
Bill 44, which is traditional, and, unfortunately, caught me a bit by surprise.
[interjection] Well, I do have to. Yes,
it is a very important issue.
The member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) is
aware that perhaps GRIP in itself is a very big and important issue that has
profound ramifications for farmers and for federal‑provincial relations
and even for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), as we see in the bill that
is before this House. For that reason we
have considered the impact of this bill and of the program over the last year
and a half, as I am sure the minister has, and there is a broad range of
subjects that can be dealt with in relation to this issue. I think that they deserve a great deal of
consideration by the Liberal Party in
I have raised many of those issues with the
government over the past year. Of
course, there has been a review committee reviewing crop insurance as well as
GRIP in the province of Manitoba over the last number of months and over the
last year, since the implementation of GRIP, to see that the program could be
changed perhaps to make it more responsive, to make it more sensitive, to
ensure that it is fairer in its application.
Many of the concerns that were raised were
raised by us in this House last year, and I was rather disappointed that the
minister, at that time, Madam Deputy Speaker, felt that it had to be done right
then in that way. It was the producers,
he said over and over again in this House, who designed the program which was,
I think, at best an overstatement; and, because of that, it was the right
program at the right time, and far be it from him to insist that the brakes be
put on and that the program be revised and redesigned so that in fact it would
reflect the needs of all the producers in Manitoba to the greatest extent possible.
We found after that first year that in
fact there were several concerns‑‑well, a large number of concerns
with regard to how the program has worked.
There were some changes that were put in place at the last minute in the
first year, not to the extent that we hoped would be put in place, but that
were put in place at the last minute or in the latter stages of development of
the program‑‑I should not say at the last minute‑‑that
were somewhat positive to meet some of the concerns that were being outlined by
people.
For example, in the southwest corner,
people have been hard hit; farmers there had been hard hit by natural disasters
over the last number of years. I guess
you could call them disasters. A drought
is a disaster. Certainly droughts have
brought down the productivity, the yield in many of those areas in the
southwest, and many of the farmers there stood to lose a great deal because
GRIP was being based on past crop insurance experience. In those areas the farmers felt that it was
unfair, and I felt that their position was correct and that the minister was
not being fair in his implementation in the province.
I keep in mind that it was the federal
government and it was a committee and there was a minister and there was a lot
of parties involved in the implementation.
It is a cumbersome process, not necessarily that easy, but I ultimately
have to say that the minister is responsible, as the Minister of Agriculture in
So when the farmers came forward with
their concerns that they were being penalized even further, that those hardest
hit by natural disasters were the ones being hurt the most in this program,
Madam Deputy Speaker. I said that is
exactly true, and that should not be.
That is unfair, that is wrong.
What should happen is that under GRIP it
should have been ensured that there was a minimum coverage per acre to meet
what we call cost of production.
Whatever figure was used, higher than what they were insured at, would
have been positive for those producers.
Many of those producers were insured at $90, $95 an acre and they
estimated their costs at least at $140 an acre.
So they were falling way behind in terms
of breaking even and with the offset provisions here in
You were not able to earn additional
revenue until you were completely off the program in essence. So you would have to produce 70 or 80 bushels
per acre before you could actually start earning additional money above the
support price that you were insured at.
* (1500)
That offset has been something that has
been criticized and has hurt as well, because there was not an opportunity for
those farmers to, in essence, earn their costs back. It was very little opportunity. It was almost impossible.
So there they were faced with an insurance
level, a revenue insurance level, that was somewhere in the $90 to $100 range
and they could not make it. In many
cases, it would have been lower. I
understand this year some of those farmers are going to be faced with $70
coverage if they stay in GRIP because this year the minister is removing the
provision that I started to talk about, about five minutes ago, which was put
in near the end of the development of the program, which would allow for one
year only the area average to be used or the individual average under crop
insurance, whichever was the better.
So in the case of the southwest farmers,
most of them were able to take the area average which helped them, especially
those who were hardest hit. I felt that
the ones who are hardest hit should have been able to get some of the relief or
their fair share of relief from this program, because indeed they were the ones
most in trouble.
If you look at the southwest corner of the
province and you look at some of the municipal maps and the owners of the
properties in those areas, I understand a vast majority of them now have
changed hands in recent years. A large
percentage have been in the hands of financial institutions. Many of those quarter sections, a high
percentage, have been repossessed or turned back over to financial institutions
because the farmers could not make a go of it.
So here they were facing this kind of
difficulty at this time, coming off years of drought and low prices and so on,
and then they are asked to sign a program that will ensure that they continue
to lose money at a level of some $90 to $100 even with the area average‑‑some
$9,200. Now I am being told that the
minister has not listened to those concerns, and the provision that was put in
for one year is not being extended, so that those producers are being faced
with some, in cases that have been brought to my attention, $20 per acre less
coverage yet from that losing level in the first place, and they are still
having to pay premiums, and the premiums are going to be higher this year.
So, under those circumstances, the program
is absolutely useless for them, and yet some of them were in the program
because they felt that there was no alternative last year. There were a lot of suggestions and rumours being
made and bandied around that if you were not in the program, you were not going
to receive any third line of defense, as it is called, relief or any additional
support from governments, because you had to be in the program first or else
you could not get that additional help.
Many of them felt they were really thrown
out to the wolves, that there was really no alternative for them, so they would
have to join the program, even if it meant ensuring themselves at loss, paying
premiums to lose money. Those people had
some level of security though, because the area average was allowed if they
felt it was to their benefit.
Now they find that with premiums
increasing‑‑because the federal 25 percent share is being lifted
this year, their premiums are going up.
They may be going up for other reasons as well, and the minister has
still not relayed to the producers what their premium levels will be this year.
He probably knows as he sits at this
particular time what they are going to be compared to last year, but the
information has not gone out, as it should have been sent to the producers by
March 15 of the year that is covered as contained in Clause 37 of the contract
that farmers signed. I have pursued that
with the minister in this House, asking him for legal information that would
support his contention that in fact the contract has not been broken by the
government.
I believe that the contract has been
broken by the government, and that the information for the other clauses has
been sent out is all well and good, even though they missed the deadline there
by a couple of days. The minister tried
to say it was sent out by the 12th of March; in many cases the postmark was the
16th but the 15th was a Sunday, so I did
not argue with the minister on that point.
Just as we know for income purposes, if
the 30th of April falls on a Sunday, we are usually given one extra day without
penalty to get our income tax returns in.
In the same way, the minister was able to get that information out on
the Monday.
However, it did not contain all of the
information. It did not deal with Clause
37. Therefore, farmers who are trying to
make their plans about the coverage levels and support levels and premiums were
not able to do that, and they are still to a certain extent not able to do
that. The coverage levels for wheat,
using a revised IMAP, have resulted in higher coverage than would have been the
case if the original design of the program of the index moving average had been
used. However, the price is down from
the previous year. They know that right
now but they still do not know their coverage levels and their premium levels,
I should say, for the coming year.
Therefore, they do not know what the costs of the program are going to
be for them for various commodities.
When I speak about the moving average, it
is kind of ironic‑‑and the minister will probably have a lot of
stories or information to relate to this House about why it took so long to get
the change made, what the discussions were around the minister's table and why
some provinces‑‑he was blaming Saskatchewan for holding up the
process, but the fact is it was this minister and his colleagues who realized
they had made a serious mistake on the index‑moving average and,
therefore, they wanted to have it dickered with a little bit to result in a
little bit higher coverage.
We told them that this year. We told the minister last year. We said if you use an index‑moving
average, you are dropping off the high years and you are adding a low year
every year, you are going to have drop in price every year. He knows that. The minister knew that because he is a very
intelligent man, he knows these things.
He knew that the index‑moving
average was going result in lower support prices, but then he could not handle
it politically this year so he wanted it changed a little bit so it would not
be as big a drop.
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): By the letter of the
law.
Mr. Plohman: The minister says by the letter of the law,
and he can explain those things. The
fact is‑‑the minister will have to explain what he meant. If one index‑moving average was
presented by the bureaucrats, and then it was rejected by the ministers, if
that was the case, or by the committee, it went back and developed another
scenario which resulted in slightly higher coverage levels for No. 1 wheat, for
example, from $3.84 to $4.08. There was
maybe a difference in interpretation about what the coverage should have been.
We said to the minister in the first
place, use a cost‑of‑production pricing mechanism and put in place
the same kind of mechanism that is in place for other commodities.
We just talked about the Milk Prices
Review Commission, The Milk Prices Review Amendment Act that is brought before
this House, that there is a formula that is used. There are various variables that are plugged
into that, and every six months, as proposed by the minister, there will be a
change perhaps in the price of milk based on the cost of production. So there is a cost‑of‑production
formula and there is a margin so that these farmers who are producing these
commodities can make a profit on it and earn a living. Therefore, there is a total price that has to
be charged to the consumers.
We wanted that same kind of thing to be
done with regard to grain farmers with some caveats we had mentioned about
capping so that it was not wide open, open ended, in terms of total dollars
that could flow to an individual producer.
We felt that this was a positive way to deal with the issue. If they had used cost of production, he would
not have run into this problem now, and he is going to run into it every year
with this index‑moving average.
* (1510)
In fact, each year the price is going to
be dropping unless we see a major change in the world price, export prices of
these commodities, it is going to become an issue. The minister is going to be faced with the
dilemma of having to announce $3.50 and $3 wheat. At one point the world price, and hopefully
it will be soon with meat, that index‑moving average, would become
academic and farmers would not be too concerned about the index‑moving
average perhaps because they are going to get more on the market. We hope that happens soon.
In the meantime, we have a formula that is
just rolling itself right out of existence in terms of support prices. I think that was very unfortunate because it
does not recognize that there are increased costs faced by producers each year.
They only have to look at their fuel cost and their fertilizer cost and their
chemical cost, and if we do not have any regulation for those‑‑if
we are not going to regulate, and we are going to allow greater patent
protection, and we are going to allow more of this power into the hands of the
multinational corporations that are producing it, then we are going to have
rising costs. They will charge whatever
the market will bear, and the market is the farmer in that particular case, the
consumer of those products that he needs in order to produce his crops.
Of course, we realize as well, Madam
Deputy Speaker, we are hearing more and more about the productivity of soil
being eroded by the overuse of chemicals, and that is something that we hope
will change and that there will be less reliance on that over a period of
time. But I raise that because we know
that costs are increasing, and even because of the policies of this minister
and his government. He has been part of
a cabinet that has taken a mill off residential and forced municipalities and
school divisions to add additional costs on the local levy which has resulted
in a shift, in many cases, for farmers of up to 10 percent or 12 percent
increase on their farm land.
The same government, Madam Deputy Speaker,
says that they are going to take the tax off farm lands. The minister is just saying it, and they are
adding it on. They are adding it on this
year.
An Honourable Member: We are not adding it on.
Mr. Plohman: They are moving in the opposite direction, and
they say they are not moving it on. The
minister says he is not moving it on, but the fact is, as a result of the
actions of his colleague in government and his cabinet that he is a part of, we
have in fact seen a shift, and the minister knows it. He must be hearing about it already. He is going to hear more about it. KAP even
had it in their brief.
There is a shift this year from
residential to farm land again, and this government says that they do not
believe in taxing farm land for education.
That was the consequence, the result of their actions, and so farm costs
are increasing each year. That is why
the index moving average was totally ridiculous in its application in the first
place. It was again this year even
though they were able to, as the minister says, ensure that it adhered to the
letter of the law. Whatever the case
was, there needed to be some tinkering with that formula this year in its
application in order that the price would not even drop below $4 to some $3.84
a bushel for wheat which, again, did not reflect the increased costs. It is going the opposite way of cost.
So we have said to the minister that what
he should have done in the first place, and we say that again, is that he
should have ensured, and he should have fought for, a cost‑of‑production
type formula that could be used, that would ensure that the increased costs
would be reflected in that formula each year in the support price rather than
going down each year as it is through the mechanism that this minister adopted
along with his colleagues at that time.
Now, I really believe that the GRIP as it is now constituted is going to
be, and has been, limited help but basically overall a failure unless major
changes are made to it. Basically a failure, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it
did not ensure that farmers got the fair share out of the market for the new
goods that they produce and the wealth that they create.
I think it is worthy for the minister to
reflect that there was a movement and a term being used a great deal, I guess in
Canada and the United States called "parity pricing" at one time that
is not used to the same extent now, but it is certainly something that should
be the subject of study and discussion by the ministers in terms of the kind of
formula that should be used.
Because farmers are creating new wealth in
the country, if they are getting a fair return and their fair return would be
one-seventh of the economy of the price of all goods produced in the United
States‑‑one‑seventh. I
am not sure what that figure would be here in Canada, but if they are getting
their fair share, that money goes back into the economy and generates multifold
benefits over and over again in various facets of support industries to
agriculture. It is money that is
generated and created, wealth that is created as a result of the production of
new goods. It is not borrowed money, it
is not money on credit.
What we have now in the agriculture
community is record levels of borrowing and debt. That means that when support programs like
GRIP and NISA are developed, albeit, as I said earlier, insufficient to meet
the costs, but still for many people better than what they would have had with
no program, it does not go into the communities and generate that spin‑off
benefit to the extent that it should. In
many cases, it just goes to pay interest and to make back interest payments, to
pay back loans that have been incurred by these producers, as they have sunk
further and further into debt and are just barely able to keep their noses above
water so they can continue to breathe and exist.
The money is going direct from governments
into the banks to pay the interest, into the lending institutions. We are not getting that spin‑off. They are not getting that spending taking
place in the communities that generates economic activity and therefore
buoyancy in the economy and taxes being paid, and that is why we have the
continued recession in this country.
I think that the agriculture sector too,
and the debt that is being held by the agriculture sector has contributed a
great deal to the recession and the continuing stagnation of the economy.
I think money spent in agriculture is well
worth spending, and it is money that pays dividends back to the government and
to the province many times over, if, in fact, it is done properly. If support
prices are such that they do meet the costs of producing the goods plus a
margin, a profit for the producers, that money will go back into the economy
and will generate a great deal of economic activity and wealth and job creation
and taxes that will indeed assist in moving the economy out of the recession in
a hurry.
I do not think, when the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) says, oh, what is it going to cost, we talked about cost
of production, pricing, that he was considering the whole factor. Maybe he
chose not to consider the whole picture when he said that.
He wanted to leave the impression that we
in opposition just wanted more money poured out, and that we wanted a bigger deficit. That is what this government likes, to leave
the impression that it is New Democrats who want to run up the deficits, even
though they are running up higher deficits.
Their colleague Grant Devine in
* (1520)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you are only too
painfully aware of that, I am sure. We
saw a surplus when we came to the government.
We left them with a surplus. They
benefitted, I have to say, from large tax increases that were put in place.
That is why this government has been able to sit there and say they have not
raised taxes.
Yes, we raised taxes to pay for the
services that were there. Yes, we made
cuts in programming where it was necessary so that we could keep our spending
under control, and yes, we left the surplus when we left government. This government has turned a $55‑million
surplus into a $500‑million deficit in the span of three or four years,
and their deficit continues to grow in this province.
So I say to the Minister of Agriculture
(Mr. Findlay) that he should ensure that the kinds of spending in four
agriculture support programs do reflect the cost of production. Because only then can we ensure that farmers
are going to climb out of this whole debt spiral that they are in, and can once
again start contributing and spending that money in the communities where it
has that tremendous, positive effect on the local economy and on the economy of
the province and the country as a whole.
I think that the sooner this government
recognizes that fact, the sooner we will see a buoyant economy. Now we have said that in grain production,
since we export the vast majority of our production, that we cannot have it
open‑ended, because we cannot be subsidizing the consuming countries to
all that they will purchase from this country.
It is just not fair for the taxpayers to
do that even though there is a great deal of return, as I said. But the fact is, there have to be some caps
on, in terms of the amount of government dollars that would in go to support‑‑you
can talk about a quota system. I mean,
that is in the supply‑managed commodities, we have that. It is capped, the amount of production that
is paid.
An Honourable
Member: Which farm are you going
to cut down?
Mr. Plohman: Now, well, the minister says, what farm are
you going to cut down? The fact is that
we could have a sliding scale of support that would be acceptable to everyone,
that would recognize that there would be less support at the larger levels of
production, so that every farmer would have the support for the first amount of
production, 10,000 bushels or 20,000 bushels or a thousand acres or whatever it
might be.
Then on a declining scale, you would have
cost of production guaranteed, first of all, for the first amount of
production. Then you would slowly and gradually drop that off to three‑quarters
of cost production, or half, or whatever the case may be. I believe that ensures that the money that is
spent is targeted to the smaller producers‑‑to all producers‑‑but
ensures that there is that base of production that is covered for all
producers, and ensures that the population is maintained in our rural areas,
because we do want to have more farmers.
We want to have more people living in
rural areas. We want to have more
farmers on the land. I was driving along
the other day from the Hudson Bay Route Association. It was dark, and you could see the lights, as
you drove along, of the farms along the way.
Well, those lights are becoming fewer and fewer as you drive. Years ago the yard light was on almost every
quarter section or two. There were many
people on the land years ago. I am
speaking after Hydro was introduced of course.
There were still a lot of farmers.
Since then, that number has been dropping
off. Now you can drive along through
agricultural sectors and you will see very scattered lights as you drive, very
few, because the farms have been thinned out.
Farmers are becoming larger and larger in order to survive, some of
them. They think that is to survive but,
in fact, they are getting into more trouble and more debt, and in many cases,
the medium to larger farmers have been in some serious difficulties, as have
the smaller farms.
But the point is that we want to keep more
and more farmers on the land instead of less.
We must have programs that are targeted and tailored for the smaller
farmers, and this program did none of that, in GRIP.
In fact, it ignored the fact that the huge
corporate farms could take out hundreds of thousands of dollars‑‑I
hesitate to say millions but there may be a few‑‑out of this
program, supported by taxpayers, whereas the smaller farms, 500 acres or
whatever might have been the case, would take out very few dollars out of a
program such as this, in support.
It just is not enough to help them,
realistically, pay for their fuel and their taxes, raising their families, and
their machinery costs, which are continuing to increase, and their repairs and
all of that. So we need to have programs
that are targeted better to support those who need it most. We have not done that with this program. The minister has missed the boat with this
program in that respect.
So I say that one of the positive things
about the changes in Saskatchewan is that they have eliminated the offset that
was there‑‑and I talked about this earlier on‑‑where it
is deducted from your GRIP payout if you produce more and cannot even sell on
the world market, you get it deducted off your insurance level. I think that is
wrong, so I said to the minister, that is wrong.
An Honourable Member: How is it targeted?
Mr. Plohman: Now he asked me how it is targeted. I can tell you that‑‑well, what
is it now since the
Well, yes, there was a minority report of
NFU members, from the committee that the
But the fact is, Madam Deputy Speaker,
that six months is not a lot of time to make the kinds of major changes when
you are part of a national program.
Mr. Findlay: Why do you give excuses?
Mr. Plohman: No, no excuses, realistic: I am being realistic and the minister knows
that. Because you know the minister and
his colleagues use the excuse that they could not do anything about it because
of what the NDP left them in
They are still doing that, and it is five
budgets later. They are still saying that the taxes are our fault. Well, why have they not taken those taxes off
if that is the case? Why have they not
eliminated the waste if that is the case?
They could not find the waste that they talked about, politically,
before the '88 election, before the '90 election.
You see, it does work on the one side for
this minister to blame the previous government.
Then here we have a new government in Saskatchewan only six months old
and they are wrong to be blaming the previous government, or they should have‑‑[interjection]
No, they should have made all the changes they are going to make in the first
six months, with seeding season coming up, Madam Deputy Speaker, pressure to
make those changes.
The minister himself is in a mess here
because he has not got his changes in this province in on time. He has not announced them, and this minister
runs the risk of having all of the contracts declared null and void.
Now I would think that over a period of
time, and had the New Democrats been in government in
The Conservative provinces and federal
Conservative government ended up with a deal that resulted in massive
offloading onto the provinces, and it still did not result in a fair program.
This minister is a strong advocate of crop
insurance. He thinks that crop insurance
is the be‑all and end‑all. I
would think he thinks it is the greatest thing, and he actually feels I believe‑‑and
I will be putting words in his mouth‑‑that it almost should be
compulsory to belong. As a matter of
fact, in order to belong to GRIP he wanted it to be compulsory that you are in
crop insurance, and he even sweetened‑‑that is what he did.
[interjection] Well, the minister advocated in the House that they should be
part of crop insurance. As a matter of
fact, his lending agencies, MACC and the banks, were going around telling producers
that if they want to get operating loans, they would have to join GRIP. That was something that was being said.
The minister may say that it was never
said, and I think he has softened on that a bit. I hope he has, because I do not think it was
their business to tell them that, but in fact they were putting pressure on a
lot of producers to in fact sign up for GRIP if they wanted to get an operating
loan or they were going to be out of business forever. So it was‑‑[interjection] well,
and other loans that they were looking at through the Mediation Board.
The minister knows that through the
Mediation Board there was pressure being put on people to join GRIP. As a matter of fact, it was a policy, they
must join GRIP before they could get a renegotiation of their loans at that time. The minister knows very well that for a time
that was a policy. I do not know if that
is a policy at the present time.
Clearly, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have
seen a program that has helped some and hurt others. Insofar as crop insurance is concerned, the
people who had positive experience in crop insurance reaped a windfall from the
program. Those who had negative
experiences got hurt by the program, and those who were not in crop insurance
did not get their dues when they signed up for GRIP, because there was no
recognition of their good management and positive yield history in previous
years simply because they chose not to sign up for a voluntary program.
Now the minister cannot have it both ways,
that it is a voluntary program, that there is no way he believes it should be
compulsory, yet he builds into the program penalties for those who did not join
crop insurance over the years because it was a sound management decision not to
join up because they lost money by paying crop insurance premiums. They lost money, because the coverage levels
were not sufficient in many areas of the province. The Interlake was one of them.
* (1530)
In other areas, they found by in fact self‑insuring
themselves, they were able to take the bad years with the good years and come
out on top by not being in crop insurance.
Fair?
We raised that in this House. We
raised it throughout but, no, the minister went headlong with this
program. You had to be in crop
insurance. He even stood in this House
and justified through the policy that those people who are in crop insurance
have in fact paid a lot of money into crop insurance over the years, so maybe
they are entitled to get higher coverage.
Yet, it had nothing to do with GRIP.
They never knew GRIP was coming.
The minister did not know GRIP was coming. Crop insurance did not know
GRIP was coming.
Why would they have been entitled to some
kind of reward, because they were in crop insurance? Why not start them all at the same point, and
let them show that they are better managers or if the minister chose to in fact
allow increased coverage because of good management experience under crop
insurance, then allow an individual to prove through their own records that
they were indeed outproducing the average and were producing at a high level,
because of their good management skills and allow them to buy higher coverage.
The critical thing, Madam Deputy Speaker,
was how much coverage could you buy.
That was all. That is what
resulted in the amount of money you could get from the program is how much
coverage you could be covered for, how much you could buy. Those that could buy less were guaranteed to
receive some $30,000 less or more based on a thousand acres. We had done those kinds of examples. It really divided communities. It was very unfortunate. I say to the minister that has been one of
the disasters, the major faults of this program. He has a lot of work to do.
I will be watching with interest, when he
looks at this kind of a proposal which will give the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) the opportunity to place money in an account to be paid out. Sure that will have to be done, because the
premium levels that are paid in are not always going to pay the bills, so you
have to have a mechanism. I do not know
whether the minister feels‑‑he said he did not feel he was doing it
illegally up to now. This should have
been done last year when the program was brought in, so it could have been
fully debated in this House at that particular time.
I think the minister did not bring this in
last year, because he did not want to face the music and have the kind of
debate in this House on GRIP and the problems that it was facing at that
time. He felt now after one year it was
a little safer to do it. Why did he not
do it last year? Why did he not bring
this mechanism in? He knew that it was
needed or did he not know? It may be
that he did not know. You know why? You know why he did not know, because he was
not organized. He did not have his act
together.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member's time has expired.
Is the House ready for the question?
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): I move, seconded by the member for Kildonan
(Mr. Chomiak), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 53‑The
Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 53,
The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la manutention et le transport des marchandises
dangereuses), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Environment
(Mr. Cummings), standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River
(Ms. Wowchuk), is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing in the name
of the honourable member for Swan River?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave.
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise today to speak on
Bill 53, The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Amendment Act. The bill deals with‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Selkirk is
commencing debate on second reading of Bill 53.
Mr. Dewar: This bill deals with the cleanup of
contaminated sites within the province.
Site cleanup, as all members are aware, is a very costly and a very
lengthy process, one that I will be dealing with later on in the debate this
afternoon.
I would like to specifically deal with my
own constituency and nearby area and that is the ground water contamination in
the
I would like to refer now to some of the
notes provided to us by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) where they
talk in a little bit more detail on the bill.
I will quote from this. It says new past owners, handlers of the
dangerous goods and contaminants also tied to contamination, e.g.
That is, I believe, a direct indictment of
Bristol Aerospace at the Rockwood propellant plant in the
I would like to quote from one of the
former employees. I thought about it for
years, he states, a man who dumped barrels of assorted chemicals and debris
into a disposal pit at the Bristol Aerospace site as part of his job. He said the pit is likely the source of
solvents found in the water at the propellant plant and nearby residences. I almost swear by it. It works out perfectly
to where the wells are being tested.
A man who worked there for 20 years said
the rockets would come back from NASA and they would be filled with solid fuel.
They would scrape them out and put them into drums and most of the contaminants
then were burned. The actual raw
propellant left over after mixes are put into big oxidizer drums. I used to wonder what would happen, he would
say, even if these drums do not leak, they will rust and there is oxidizer in
the drums, and as soon as it gets wet it is like salt. As long as it is dry they are okay, but with
any amount of moisture they go bad. He
is wondering, he said a lot of people working at the plant have died of cancer,
and it is worthwhile wondering if it is worthwhile working there. Individuals are wondering if it is worthwhile
living there as well.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as I was stating
before, individuals are now wondering if it is worthwhile living there. This is probably the worst water
contamination problem in
I do not know if honourable members are
aware, what is between Stony Mountain and the Red River are of course the West
St. Paul, St. Andrews, Lockport areas of my constituency. I know the Liberals have no concerns about
this since they have no members outside of the Perimeter. I am surprised they know where
* (1540)
An Honourable Member: There are lots of members outside of the
Perimeter.
Mr. Dewar: The Liberals, I stated.
An Honourable Member: Oh, that is not nice. Bring back Gwen.
Mr. Dewar: That is interesting. He says, bring back Gwen, but I remember Gwen
Charles, the former member for Selkirk, in a newspaper article stated there are
no environmentalists left in the Liberal caucus. This is the position of one of their former
members. Gwen Charles stated this, so I
am glad you want her back, especially how she has denounced your leader so
often in the local media. I am surprised
you would like her back. Anyway, she is very honest. She is very, very truthful at least in that
one incident where she did say that there are no environmentalists left in the
Liberal caucus. She certainly was
accurate in that analysis.
Some of the chemicals found in this particular
area: trichloroethylene, and trichloroethane, that would be TCE and TCA. They are manufactured organic solvents,
colourless liquids with a chloroform‑like odour. They are used as cleaning solvents in dry
cleaning and degreasing agents in industry.
They have been used at the plant in the
I remember every summer, actually
throughout the year we would be outside and we would hear this explosion and we
would notice in the sky a huge plume of black smoke coming directly west of us
which was exactly what they were doing.
They were burning off these chemicals at that propellant plant and now there
is a general concern that the water table in the whole area may be
contaminated. The problem though is that
the Environment department has been very‑‑the people in the area no
longer trust the Environment department.
In a letter I wrote to the minister on the 13th of November, I say that
recognizing the seriousness of the problem the company has ordered its own
inquiry, however it is incumbent upon the provincial government to conduct an
independent inquiry. Only such an
inquiry would be able to reassure residents that their water is truly
safe. Additionally the provincial
government has an obligation to ensure that other potentially dangerous
chemicals and materials are not improperly stored in the adjacent area.
Residents in the area have been using the
artesian wells from the Oak Hammock area as a source of drinking water for
generations. In fact, I have, and
several residents of my constituency have used the water from the artesian
wells as their source of drinking water.
I asked the minister then if he would test that water and post the
results of the finding. As of yet
unfortunately, they have not. Again it
raises some serious questions about the actions of this minister in that area.
There is a sort of misinformation‑‑I
have again a letter from Dr. Joel Kettner.
He is the medical officer of Health in the Interlake region. He states, thus in accordance with the
guidelines, I am recommending that it is deemed safe to use your water for all
purposes and that no special measures be taken at this time so long as the measurements
stay within safety guidelines.
Again, of course we have a letter here
from Dr. Eva Pip, a professor at the
The Canadian Water Quality guidelines do
not even list TCA and TCE in its standards, and like thousands of others
chemicals they are only rarely found as pollutants in drinking water. Very little information exists as to their
toxicity, and virtually no data are available.
Chronic dosages needed to produce long‑term effects are generally
far lower than acute dosages, but unfortunately data on chronic exposure is
sketchy at best.
I asked the minister on the 13th of
November to conduct an independent investigation into this. His deputy minister stated, we were told that
So now we have a situation of incredible
confusion over there. Residents do not
trust
Again, it is so easy because we have
governmental documents here which back up our claim. The chemical spill at the
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): On a point of
order. If the member is going to read
selectively from press clippings, I hope he refers to the one heading that
refers to the task force as a miracle.
Some Honourable Members: Hear, hear.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Environment does
not have a point of order. It is a
dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Dewar: Madam Deputy Speaker, this option is estimated
to cost $878,000. Option No. 2, the
pipeline has been extended to include fringe areas from the main flue of
contamination. This option is expected
to cost $1.24 million. So you can see,
it is going to be very expensive to supply the individuals there with a
pipeline. Of course, the logical
question is: When are they going to be
receiving this pipeline, and who is going to be receiving water supplied by this
pipeline?
An Honourable Member: Right now.
Mr. Dewar: Well, great, because I am pleased the Minister
of Environment is acting on this issue because the area residents are very
anxious to have their water supply dealt with, and I want you to know
that. We assume that the government will
be moving in this direction very quickly.
I hope that the bill, once it does assess
the guilt, will deal with including Bristol, will be treating Bristol as part
of the problem, and will be fining them with a sufficient enough fine to deal
with some of these expensive costs.
Anyway, as I said before, we assume that the bill will deal with this
particular issue. We are pleased that
the government is bringing forth this legislation at this time, and now again
would state that they deal specifically with the
They are naming
With those brief comments, Madam Deputy
Speaker, I will end my comments now and leave it for my colleagues to continue.
* (1550)
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan
River): Madam Deputy Speaker, The Dangerous Goods
Handling and Transportation Amendment Act is an important amendment and one
that many people have been calling for, and we are going to pass this bill very
soon. I would like to put a few comments
on the record.
I think there have been many messes, so to
speak, left in the province where people have not been held responsible to
clean up what they have done.
Corporations have not been held responsible, and then have pulled out of
an area after they have had their development, after they have done their work,
and left the municipalities with that responsibility of cleaning it up.
It is time that people be held responsible
for what they are doing. It is not fair
that municipalities have to clean up, or other people who have to move into an
area get left with the cost. However,
although we are prepared to move on this, Madam Deputy Speaker, I just want to
mention that there are parts of the province where people are not aware of the
legislation and what the impacts of it are going to be. In fact, they appear to be very unhappy. That is in the area of Gimli. It is disappointing that this government has
not made the people of Gimli aware of the implications of the bill, because
they are being led to believe that the proposed pollution cleanup legislation
will be negative for them.
The mayor says that the intention is to
make landowners responsible for whatever pollution has occurred on their land,
and it is going to make the taxpayers of Stonewall responsible for the cleanup
of the PCBs on the golf course. It is
this kind of confusion that is causing a lack of understanding or information
available about the bill, that is causing problems for the people of Stonewall,
and I think that it would be the responsibility of members of government to
clean up.
The people in that area are also concerned
that the proposed legislation will provide a giant loophole for renters who
pollute the land, and will leave landowners on the hook for cleaning up the
cost. As I say, the government should
just clarify this as to whether or not there is going to be this kind of
responsibility.
The contamination with PCBs is a serious
problem and causing concern to people. I
hope that we can get this information out. With that we will allow the bill to
go to committee and give the people of the community an opportunity to have
their input to the bill and changes, and we can go ahead and rectify some of
the problems that are out in the community and deal with it.
Some Honourable Members:
Hear, hear.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members:
No.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Madam Deputy Speaker, after the long‑windedness
of the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), I must admit I was taken by surprise
with the short and concise statements of the fellow members, the member for
Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) and the member for
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am going to take
my guide, and rare as that may be, from the member for Selkirk and the member
for
This Bill 53, I must admit to the minister
I am pleased to see this bill before the House.
However, I approach it with some cautiousness, because as with other
bills the minister has come forward with in the environmental area, there is
usually lots of fanfare surrounding bills that appear progressive on the
surface. Seeing them come to fruition is
quite another matter. They tend to have lengthy periods of introduction in
terms of having an effect in the community at large.
I am concerned about the implementation of
this, and I want to see it come to fruition and have an effect in the
community. I challenge the minister to that.
I accept his comments, which he put on the record when he introduced
this bill at face value. I have no reason in respect to this bill, other than
his past record, to suspect that these will not be put forward in a timely
fashion.
The dangerous goods handling and
transportation area is an area which, of course, has gained prominence in
recent years in this country, with good reason.
There have been many incidents, including incidents in this province,
which have brought the public attention the need to adequately protect the
public in respect to handling goods, dangerous goods, goods which pollute for
many years to come, generations to come, and not just the transportation of
those goods, but the handling of those goods and their effect on local
environments.
The Domtar incident, of course, is
foremost in our minds in
This bill, of course, attempts to deal
with the issue of who should pay, who should clean up the mess that has been
created. We hope through preventative progressive legislation, if the
legislation that we have in place is enforced properly, to prevent these types
of occurrences. That is the hope.
In fact, we know on a daily basis that we
are not doing that as effectively as we should in this province. We are not unique in that, I do not mean to
suggest that we are unique, but that is clearly the area to concentrate our
foremost efforts on to prevent the pollution of our lands and air and water
prior to an incident actually occurring.
The province is certainly not
blameless. The province itself has been
involved in large‑scale pollution in this province. You do not need to look much further than a
block up the road here at the Remand Centre where the provincial garage was
which leaked for some, I believe, they consider at least 10‑15
years. There was gas leaking into the
soil from the provincial garage‑‑a shameful situation. A provincial government owned and operated
that provincial garage and was either unable to detect gas leaks or unwilling
to acknowledge a gas leak that was occurring throughout that period of time and
left an area in this city saturated with gasoline‑‑a shameful
situation.
When it came to light, one wonders what
the government does. The government is supposed to enforce the laws and would
in circumstances like that perhaps have laid charges. The government was put in a position where,
what were they to do when they, themselves, were the culprit?
Madam Deputy Speaker, another situation
came to light not so long ago, and I do not blame the Conservatives government
entirely for this one. It dates back to
1981, up in northern
* (1600)
They did not practise what they preached;
in fact, they did the opposite. They
were talking about being environmentally concerned, but when the truth be
known, up in northern
One wonders, had it not become a public
issue in this Legislature, whether or not it would be cleaned up even yet, but the
fact is that it has been dealt with now, and one hopes that we have learned a
lesson. The NDP have learned a lesson in
particular, in terms of practising what they preach.
I would be remiss if I did not, of course,
harken back to the Repap situation, Manfor as it was, which stands today, even
yet, as probably the single greatest embarrassement to the people of this
province in terms of its absolute lack of environmental control over the
operations and the wholesale destruction of the local environment in and around
that mill. A project which was
undertaken without even so much as an environmental study being done, and here
we have that same party, the New Democrats, rightly so calling for a high level
of environmental review, but it does not lie too well in their mouths to be
making those calls. They are the ones
who presided over this province being ranked tenth out of 10 in this country,
in terms of environmental protections and sensitivity. That was their legacy.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the motivation
behind this bill which is "make the polluter pay," is a principle
which deserves recognition in law.
Clearly, in cases where there is contaminated soil or land, the
department should have the power to order the polluter to clean up a problem,
even if that polluter is no longer the owner of the property.
Now, that is going to cause a rethinking
of obligations on the sale of a business, the sale of property. This will have ramifications for
corporations, individuals entering into purchase and sale agreements of ongoing
businesses and of property. One can
imagine the various further documents which will be required in a closing, a
transaction of this type, to ensure that people are protected and understand
where liability rests should a polluted situation be found out later on down
the road.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is for that
reason that I do have one serious concern about this bill, and that is its
retroactive application. I am willing to
listen to the arguments at the committee stage about the retroactivity and how
it will work, but keep in mind that transactions have gone on around this
province for many, many years which may, in fact, now be reactivated in terms
of the liability which would flow to the vendor of that property based on this
bill.
In principle, retroactive legislation is
regressive legislation. We should not,
in this Legislature, as a matter of course, be purporting to bind past actions,
past transactions, what has already gone on.
That is not good legislation in the normal course. There are extreme situations where
retroactive legislation is appropriate, but as a matter of principle,
governments should not seek to bind what has gone on before. Binding the future
is one thing, we have a mandate to do that, binding the past is another,
purporting to change the situation, tip the scales, in effect the legal
obligations from transactions which have gone on in the past. Of course, the principle is obvious. The people who entered those transactions
took on those legal obligations, or did not sign off those legal obligations,
had no way of knowing what future laws would say.
So it is unfair to go back and impose
obligations retrospectively. It is for
that reason that I do have some serious concerns about the retroactive
provisions of this bill. I, as a rule, look very closely at retroactive
provisions. As I say, I am willing to
have the minister explain this and give some assurances to meet those concerns.
But I start from that basis, and as much
as I would like to see polluters pay, as much as I would like to see the
corporate awareness changed so that this does become a reality of future
transactions, I am not sure how fair it is to look back in time and deal with
obligations which have already been taken on, a certain set of circumstances
already accepted.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the bill in general,
of course, as I have already indicated, is working in the right direction. This is an area which needs to be
clarified. It needs to be clarified not
just for actual owners, vendors of property, but insurers, investors. This is a growing area all over North
America, and you are seeing various state Legislatures in the
Of course, courts are searching for ways‑‑and
it is not clear yet what the common law will say about many of these
issues. In some cases it has been
clarified. The
What about a case of bankruptcy or
receivership? Do those people, does the
estate in effect take on the obligations of the polluter? What responsibility does the receiver have to
meet those obligations, and where do creditors rank in terms of the obligation
to clean up a mess if in fact the cleanup cost is going to eradicate any assets
in the corporation? Those are questions
which investors want to know, because if an investor is not going to, even a
secured investor, get the money out before the person pays a statutory
obligation to clean up pollution, they will want to know that when they lend
the money. They will want to have
assurances and perhaps even monitor whether or not that corporation is
functioning within the environmental standards so as not to expose itself to
what we are in effect doing here, which is imposing an enormous obligation,
potentially, on corporations.
I am not saying that obligation is not
correctly placed. What I am saying is that one of the things this bill seeks to
do is to define where that liability rests.
I guess in terms of that question, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have another
question for the minister which I will be hoping to canvass at committee stage,
which is: Is it clear enough that we
leave the level of discretion in his department that is left in this bill? Should we be seeking further to set out some
principles beyond polluter pay, then leave it to the department to assess what
level of pollution occurred when the former owner was in the property? I am not sure it is clear enough in this
legislation just where liability rests.
I think if we are going to move in this
direction, which is appropriate, if we are going to move in it, we do have an
obligation to think clearly about the principles we are espousing and put them
clearly in the legislation so that the open market, the potential losers as a
result of this legislation, will know exactly what their risk is, and their
investors and their creditors will know exactly what the obligation is and can
react accordingly‑‑another reason, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we
will want to look closely at the retrospective aspect of this legislation.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have those
concerns and as I indicated at the outset, we support in principle what this
legislation is attempting to do. We have
many questions as to the details of this legislation, but that is not to say
that we do not want this to move to committee.
We do. We want a full and
thorough canvassing of the issues we have raised at the committee stage. In terms of this legislation going further
beyond the committee stage, we reserve that decision at this point, pending the
outcome of those committee hearings at which time, of course, the minister
presumably will have the experts available, and we can ask the very questions
and more than what I have put on the record here today.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the house is the second
reading of Bill 53. Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Agreed?
Some Honourable Member: Agreed.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 64‑The
Child and Family Services Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 64
(The Child and Family Services Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services a l'enfant et a la famille), standing in the name of the honourable
member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), on the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Wellington.
Is there leave to permit the bill to
remain standing? Leave?
Some Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Bill 70‑The
Social Allowances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 70
(The Social Allowances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aide sociale et apportant des modifications
correlatives a d'autres lois), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), standing in the name of the honourable
member for Brandon East (Mr. Evans).
Stand?
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? Leave?
Some Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
* (1610)
Bill 72‑The
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 72
(The Law Reform (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act; Loi sur la reforme du droit
(modifications diverses)), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of
Justice (Mr. McCrae), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak).
Is there leave to permit the bill to
remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Kildonan? Leave?
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have had the pleasure
of reviewing the minister's comments given just a few days ago on this bill,
and I must say that his indication that the bill is relatively
noncontroversial, at this point, I cannot agree with.
I put on the record up‑front that we
are going to allow this bill passage to committee, but I also put the minister
on notice that at the committee stage, we are going to be seeking some answers
to many aspects of this bill, and at that time will be making a final decision
as to whether or not the bill should be supported.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in particular, I
want to indicate that the Law Reform Commission Report which recommended the
repeal of The Bulk Sales Act clearly was a result of a thorough analysis of the
law in this area, and I have no particular problem with that aim being achieved. As the minister points out, other provinces
have moved in this direction; specifically
Madam Deputy Speaker, with respect to the
issue of life tenants being liable for equitable waste, The Law of Property Act
amendments, that too appears to be relatively noncontroversial.
The withdrawal of the rule in Shelley's
Case with respect to The Mercantile Law Amendment Act again appears relatively
straightforward.
The concern that I have is under The
Liquor Control Act, Section 183. The
minister indicates that it is no longer necessary to have that provision in the
law. I am not so sure. My concern is not
that the penalty there of $1,500 is not appropriate, clearly, it is not. If responsibility flows in the circumstances
where an innkeeper overserves an intoxicated patron, an obviously intoxicated
patron, liability should flow. There is no question. The minister is correct when he says that
common law has surpassed that in the 1974 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.
But, Madam Deputy Speaker, I see no reason
why we could not preserve in legislation a clear indication that a penalty will
flow, and that liability will rest without setting a limit. I see no reason why we could not leave in the
legislation a clear indication to innkeepers that liability will flow, not just
at common law but in statute as well, to add to and buttress that
responsibility and make a statement from the provincial Legislature that we
will not tolerate innkeepers serving those who are clearly intoxicated. Not just in respect of their own health and
their responsibility to those individuals to not add to their waywardness in
becoming overly intoxicated, but also for those others in society who pay the
price for intoxicated individuals who then go out into the streets‑‑in
particular, I know in my constituency, which has a number of drinking
establishments right up against residential neighbourhoods‑‑wreak
havoc on local neighbourhoods, also for those who go out and get into motor
vehicles and take on the risks associated with driving intoxicated, not just
for themselves, but take on the risks that they impose on others in society who
might come into contact with them.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to review
this issue carefully with the minister to see if, in particular given this
minister's lengthy, noted statements on his fervent desire to do everything
possible to not promote and, in fact, to curtail drinking and driving, in light
of those comments, I want to canvass with him thoroughly at the committee stage
whether or not we should not be amending this provision, as opposed to
repealing it.
I can think of many ways that it could be
amended in a useful way while maintaining the message to all Manitobans that
provincially, under The Liquor Control Act, we do not accept the innkeepers
serving those who are obviously intoxicated.
I wonder if we would not do better to maintain that message, in some
form or other, in The Liquor Control Act.
So, with those comments, we are pleased to
have this bill move to committee. But I
would like the minister, specifically, to address his proposed repeal of
Section 183 of The Liquor Control Act at that time.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Bill 9‑The
Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 9
(The Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act; Loi sur le Conseil de l'innovation economique et de la technologie), on the proposed motion of the
honourable First Minister (Mr. Filmon), standing in the name of the honourable
member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
Is there leave to permit the bill to
remain standing?
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
* * *
Madam Deputy
Speaker: To resume debate on
second reading of Bill 10.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Madam
Deputy Speaker, just for clarification:
did you call Bill 72? I believe
that the government had requested 72. We
have a member who would like to speak on 72.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is that not the one the honourable member for
St. James (Mr. Edwards) just spoke on?
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Deputy Speaker, I understand that the
acting government House leader called 72 first, then 68. So then it would go to 68?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
My error. I neglected to call 68;
I am sorry, I jumped from 70 to 72. So
we will revert.
Bill 68‑The
Public Trustee Amendment, Trustee Amendment
and Child
and Family Services Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 68
(The Public Trustee Amendment, Trustee Amendment and Child and Family Services Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le curateur public,
la Loi sur les fiduciaires et la Loi sur les services a l'enfant a la famille), on the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), standing in
the name of the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak).
Stand?
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? Leave?
Some Honourable Members:
Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
* (1620)
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Madam Deputy Speaker, I commence comments on
Bill 68 with the same indication that I did on Bill 72, which is that I do not
view this bill as entirely noncontroversial.
I am prepared, and our caucus is prepared,
to have it go to committee, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, there are going to be questions on
many of the sections in this bill at the committee stage. I want to outline some of my concerns for the
minister so he can be prepared to address some of those at the committee stage.
The bill makes changes to The Public
Trustee Act and The Child and Family Services Act, as well as The Trustee
Act. The amendments to The Public
Trustee Act are varied. Let me highlight
some of the ones that I have concern about.
The minister indicates that the permissive provisions in the MPIC act
are preferable and all that are needed with respect to dealing governing
payments on behalf of infants or mentally disordered persons. I wonder if that is correct, and I am not
sure in what context the minister is talking.
If he is talking about infant settlements as a result of actions in
which MPIC is involved as an insurer, I do not think MPIC should be the final
word on payments that are made to infants.
My suggestion was that the full
involvement of the Public Trustee should be maintained. MPIC, after all, being an insurance company,
takes on the role of the defendant. It
acts as the defendant. It in a sense
owns the defence when it agrees to insure an individual who is
responsible. It is a party to the
action. I do not think we should be
taking away from that role by purporting to have it step into the shoes of the
Public Trustee and play a neutral role on behalf of an infant or otherwise
mentally disordered person.
I would not want to confuse the role of
MPIC and place it in an unfair position as both the defender of the interests
of the mentally disordered person or infant with its role in the normal case in
these situations which is that of one of the parties actually involved.
Madam Deputy Speaker, with respect to
eliminating the potential liability of the office of the Public Trustee
concerning mortgage sales agreements and tax sales certificates or
applications, again I have a concern. I
am not sure why we need to do away with that liability. I personally believe that, and this follows
through in this bill.
There is another provision of this bill
which suggests that the Public Trustee should not be responsible for costs in
an action which it defends if it can meet the test of defending it
reasonably. Now that is not a standard
that anyone else is entitled to avoid costs on.
Costs are set by courts in the normal course in this province based on
who wins and who loses. Acting reasonably, defending reasonably is not
necessarily the same standard as being successful in court. One can act reasonably and still lose.
Just because the Public Trustee is
involved in a case and acts reasonably but loses, I do not why the Public
Trustee should avoid costs. I am not
convinced by the rationale, at least insofar as it is put forward in the
minister's comments, because someone who sues the estate of an individual
represented by the Public Trustee should have the same rights and the same
obligations to pay costs as any other litigant.
I start from that premise and I do not see in the minister's comment
sufficient reasons to deviate from that.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I apply those
same comments and that same rationale to the attempt through this bill to
insulate the Public Trustee from liability in the area of proceedings such as
mortgage sales, agreements for sales, tax sales certificates or applications,
transmissions or caveats. I do not know
why we would want to further insulate the Public Trustee from liability.
The Public Trustee is staffed by competent
trained professional people, estate administrators and lawyers. They are fully able to protect themselves
from liability in those circumstances, in my view, and I do not think we should
statutorily protect them from the same liability that everyone else in society
is susceptible to in such proceedings.
Madam Deputy Speaker, with respect to the
other aspects of this bill dealing specifically with the Public Trustee, there
is an amendment which would add to the Public Trustee's ability to delegate day‑to‑day
personal supervision of clients to other departments like the Department of
Health and the Department of Family Services.
I have some concern about that.
The Public Trustee is a unique body, and
it has a unique role in this government.
That is, it is the body which comes forward in cases where people are
unable to defend themselves, to protect themselves, or in the event of estates
where there is no one to step in to administer the estate, that is their
role. In terms of protecting the
interests of mentally disordered persons and infants, it has a unique role.
I am very concerned about a statutory
ability to delegate that to Health and Family Services officials. They do not have the same role and mandate as
advocate for the mentally disordered and infant as the Public Trustee has. I do not think we should allow that
delegation statutorily to occur without making absolutely clear that ultimate
responsibility for protecting the interests of that individual lies with the
Public Trustee. I want that made crystal
clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, in any legislation.
I look forward to the minister amending
this bill or coming forward with proposals which will satisfy that mandate,
which should not be eroded in any circumstance, in my view, Madam Deputy
Speaker, given the unique role and purpose of the Public Trustee's office.
There are other amendments. The amendment which would allow trust
companies to avoid going to court every three years and simply appoint an
independent auditor makes some sense, I must say, given the other protections
in the act in terms of notification going out to the beneficiaries. The proposal in the bill to enlarge the
provisions for counsel for children in court proceedings under The Child and
Family Services Act does make sense, Madam Deputy Speaker. I acknowledge the minister's rationale given
in his comments for that, specifically dealing with underage parents and
ensuring that they have a right to legal counsel in proceedings. That was an anomalous situation arising out
of The Child and Family Services Act.
That is in effect putting into legislation what is already common sense
and in fact done in the courts, and that deserves support.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, it is
the provisions which seek to insulate the Public Trustee from the legal
obligations that everyone else in society is susceptible to and it is the
provisions of the bill which amend The Public Trustee Act to allow for
delegation which give me the greatest concern, and I look forward to the
minister coming forward with representatives from the Public Trustee's Office
to deal with those concerns at the committee stage.
Madam Deputy Speaker, with those comments
and those caveats on our agreement to send this bill to committee, our party
will conclude comments and look forward to those further answers and further
discussion at the committee stage.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Bill 10‑The
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 10 (The Manitoba Hydro Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Hydro‑Manitoba),
on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr.
Downey), standing in the name of the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr.
Plohman).
Some Honourable Members: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave.
Leave has been granted.
Bill 14‑The
Highways and Transportation Department Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on Bill 14 (The Highways and Transportation Department Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le
ministere de la Voirie et du Transport), on the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), standing in the name of
the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy
Speaker: Leave. Leave has been granted.
Bill 15‑The
Highway Traffic Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 15
(The Highway Traffic Amendment Act; Loi modifiant le Code de la route), on the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation,
standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson.
Some Honourable Members: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand. Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave.
Leave has been granted.
Bill 20‑The
Municipal Assessment Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 20 (The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'evaluation
municipale), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Rural
Development (Mr. Derkach), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Wolseley (Ms. Friesen).
Some Honourable Members:
Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing?
Some Honourable Members:
Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave.
Leave has been granted.
Bill 21‑The
Provincial Park Lands Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 21 (The Provincial Park Lands Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les parcs
provinciaux), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Natural
Resources (Mr. Enns), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
Some Honourable Members: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave.
Leave has been granted.
Bill 22‑The
Lodge Operators and Outfitters Licensing
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on Bill 22 (The Lodge
Operators and Outfitters Licensing and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi sur les permis relatifs aux exploitants de camps de chasse et de
peche et aux pourvoyeurs et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres
dispositions legislatives), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Natural
Resources, standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake.
Some Honourable Members:
Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave.
Leave has been granted.
Bill 34‑The
Surveys Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 34 (The Surveys Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'arpentage), on the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns),
standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
Some Honourable Members:
Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Bill 42‑The
Amusements Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 42 (The Amusements Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les divertissements), on the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), standing in
the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
Some Honourable Members:
Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave.
Leave has been granted.
* (1630)
Bill 47‑The
Petty Trespasses Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 47 (The Petty Trespasses Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'intrusion), on the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), standing in
the name of the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak).
Some Honourable Members:
Stand.
Madam Deputy
Speaker: Stand. Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing?
Some Honourable Members:
Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave.
Leave has been granted.
Bill 48‑The
Personal Property Security Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 48
(The Personal Property Security Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les suretes relatives aux biens personnels), on the proposed motion of the
honourable Minister of Justice, standing in the name of the honourable member
for Kildonan.
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave.
Leave has been granted.
Bill 49‑The
Environment Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 49, (The Environment Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'environnement), on the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings),
standing in the name of the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli). Stand?
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? Leave?
Leave has been granted.
Bill 61‑The
Consumer Protection Amendment Act (4)
Madam Deputy
Speaker: To resume debate on
second reading of Bill 61, (The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (4); Loi no 4
modifiant la Loi sur la protection du consommateur), on
the proposed
motion of the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs.
McIntosh), standing in the name of the honourable member for
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Bill 62‑The
Business Practices Amendment Act (2)
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on Bill 62, (The Business Practices Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur les pratiques commerciales),
on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave.
Leave has been granted.
What is the will of the House?
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Deputy Opposition House Leader): Madam
Deputy Speaker, if it is the will of the House, we would like to call it five
o'clock.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Madam
Deputy Speaker, have we gone through all the bills and the government
resolution?
Madam Deputy
Speaker: Yes, I believe I have
called all the bills for second reading.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would be prepared to
speak on the proposed government resolution which follows the second reading on
bills if this would be the most opportune time to do that.
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I think that this side would be prepared to grant leave for the
member to speak if it will remain standing as is and then we could proceed to
the private members' hour and we would agree to have it called.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the honourable deputy government House
leader calling the proposed resolution?
Mr. Praznik: Madam Deputy Speaker, I think we are agreed to
allow the member time to speak on that in the remainder of the hour. If it remains standing as it is on the Order
Paper, we are prepared to call it.
PROPOSED
RESOLUTIONS
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed resolution of the honourable
Minister of Justice and Attorney General (Mr. McCrae), standing in the name of
the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy
Speaker: Leave. Leave has been granted.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
It will be very interesting to see, in
fact, how the government, in particular some of the government backbenchers,
treat the whole issue of domestic violence.
Really what we are asking for is that the government use the appropriate
resources to ensure
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not have to
tell you how much we have heard this government time after time talk about the
importance of domestic violence and the efforts that are underway to reach that
zero tolerance. I know that the Leader
of the Liberal Party and myself and other colleagues from our caucus have put a
number of our concerns on domestic violence on the record, and have really
asked the government to take a much more proactive approach to domestic
violence. We can appreciate the work
that they have done thus far, but there is a long way to go.
One of the biggest concerns that I can
recall from a presentation that was made to our caucus regarding domestic
violence was with respect to where does an individual or a client go after
Osborne House or the shelters. This is a
legitimate concern that was being expressed to us a year and a half ago. We have some 20,000‑plus nonprofit
housing units throughout the province, and the government, when we raised that
issue back then, made a commitment in terms of these individuals would be given
a higher priority within the nonprofit housing.
We appreciated the gesture that was being
made from the government, but I would encourage the government, and in
particular the Minister of Housing (Mr. Ernst), that in fact there is another
role that the government can play by converting, by allocating out, some of
those units strictly for housing for individuals or clients that are leaving
shelters so that they are not in the midst of looking for a place to go after
they have entered into Osborne House or any shelter home.
The moral support that is needed, the
counselling that is required once you enter into a shelter is very important,
but far too often we see that that counselling is foregone primarily because
the individuals that are in Osborne House or in shelters are too concerned
about where are they going to go next.
It is a legitimate concern. What do they do next? Where are they going to be sleeping after
they are leaving the shelters? I think
that the Department of Housing does have a larger role to play. We have other areas in which there needs to
be more of an emphasis.
* (1640)
I make reference to some of the
recommendations that were put through, through the Pedlar report, where it
talks about the need for counselling, talks about the need to have all aspects
of society educated.
One cannot emphasis the importance enough
when it comes to the educational component of domestic violence because I
believe, as no doubt I like to think every member of this Chamber believes,
that domestic violence is a crime. We
have a responsibility, and here I look more so to the Minister responsible for
Education (Mrs. Vodrey) to take the responsibility and to take some action
within our own educational system.
We need to have or provide educational
programs for our youth because far too often, and statistics will demonstrate
it very clearly, you have individual spouses or children who are abused in the
home, and they will continue or carry that abuse to their own homes when they
grow up and they have their own families.
We have to use what resources we have
available to ensure that there is some form of an educational process, and
there are different ways that you can do it.
One is in terms of the educational facilities that we currently have. The Pedlar report made inference to the need
to have it as a part of the curriculum.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there are other
community organizations, I know of a number of different organizations within
my own riding that if they experience, or if there was an educational package
that could be made available to the different individuals or the different
organizations, that we would be able to get the message out. We do not solely have to rely on government
advertising. You need to be a lot more
aggressive in trying to accomplish what in fact the resolution is calling for
itself.
I do not believe the government is really
doing the things that can be done. That
is why when the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) proposed the
amendment, I was somewhat surprised on how low a priority the resolution was
given. I can recall when the government
tried to place blame on myself as a member for not allowing leave to have
another resolution, the exact same resolution, debated. They felt it was important that that
resolution be debated, and that resolution be passed and thought I was doing an
injustice to the individuals who care and want to do something about domestic
violence.
Well, we have seen a government, as
opposed to just the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey), bring forward a
resolution and the government has chosen to put it at the end. In fact this is the first time it has been
called now for how long?‑‑and that is more so as a request.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker,
in the Chair)
The government talked about domestic
violence. The government talks about
trying to achieve that zero tolerance, but its actions, Mr. Acting Speaker, are
far different from what they are talking about, and that is why we have some
reservations. We do not question in
terms of the sincerity of the resolution that was being proposed with the
actual content of it. I believe that all
members of the Chamber in fact support the resolution.
After all, and I will read because it has
been a long time since we have heard the THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, what it is
that the government and in fact all three political parties are trying to
accomplish, and that is that the Legislative Assembly support the position
adopted by the government of Manitoba in declaring Manitoba as a domestic
violence free zone where partner abuse is viewed as a criminal offence and in
adopting a tough stance against partner abuse.
Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, as I say, all
three political parties support that.
That is not being questioned. We
all want to achieve what the resolution is saying, but there was one very
important factor that was missing. That
was put on at the end of the resolution in the form of an amendment, because it
is one thing to talk about it because when we talk about it, we all support
it. It is another thing to take action
on what it is that the government is doing.
That is why the Leader of the Liberal
Party (Mrs. Carstairs) moved that we regret that the government has chosen not
to provide for the appropriate resources to ensure
That is why I think it will be very
interesting to see how the government is going to vote and the New Democratic
Party is going to vote on the amendment, because the amendment says a lot more
than just words. It is calling upon the
government to take action.
The resolution, including the amendment is
seeking direction from the Legislative Chamber, not from the government of the
day, not from an opposition backbencher or a government backbencher. So one
would like to think that the individuals on the government side will vote with
their conscience on this particular amendment as put forward from the Leader of
the Liberal Party, because if the will of the Chamber was to support, it the
government would be obligated by the Legislature to in fact allocate the proper
resources. As I pointed out, the
resources are just not financial. One of
the biggest and most important aspects of achieving what it is that we all want
to achieve inside this Chamber is the zero tolerance ultimately, Mr. Acting
Speaker, and there is nothing wrong with aspiring to get zero tolerance. It is something that we should all strive
for.
The single most important issue, in my
opinion, and I would argue in all likelihood in most opinion, is the one of
education. I do not believe that you can
have too much education on the whole question of domestic violence. As I have earlier said, in terms of our educational
institutions‑‑when I refer to educational institutions I am referring
to everything from the universities to our elementary, to our high schools, to
college programs‑‑that it is virtually unlimited in terms of if the
government chose to take some policy initiatives, could get a message
across. We have seen that there is a
line to fight domestic abuse and we saw the results from that.
It is interesting, you know, the other day
I was talking to a constituent and the constituent said it seems that domestic
abuse has more than doubled over the last couple of years. Why is that?
Mr. Acting Speaker, I think that what we are seeing is that more
individuals are feeling easier at saying, yes, I have been abused, whether it
has been my spouse or my parents. We are
seeing that there are more people coming forward.
The other day inside the Chamber we were
debating seniors abuse. Seniors abuse,
as I had made mention, was one of the other issues that also need to be
addressed. When we are dealing with
domestic abuse, in the back of our minds at the very least the abuse that seniors
are put into also have to be given the same sort of consideration.
When we talk about abuse we are talking
more than just physical abuse. We are
talking about mental abuse. We are
talking about financial abuse. There are
things that are out there that I believe that many of us would be very
surprised to hear about.
* (1650)
I know I have had the opportunity to
discuss this issue with individuals, in particular from Osborne House. One particular case that I had in my own
constituency and the issue that came out of that particular constituent was one
in terms of the police, that she felt the treatment from the police was most
inappropriate. Mr. Acting Speaker, there
were a number of recommendations that were brought forward that addressed this
particular constituent's of mine concern regarding the police, regarding some
other things that can be done.
We can recall reports that have said
things such as having more lights in bus shelters. You can recall hearing things about
educational awareness programs for our police, for our judicial system. To a certain degree, there are all aspects of
our society that need to have some sort of educational package, educational
conference of sorts that would allow them to become more in tune in terms of
what is happening the real world.
In this particular case of my constituent,
the individual had phoned 911. The
police had come down, and it ended up that she was the one that was taken over
to the Remand Centre. All throughout, I
have had discussions not only with this particular individual but also with the
City of
The issue is still ongoing right now. One of the objectives is the child. The child was, in fact, left in the house
with the father; and, as the mother had said to me, she was the one that called
911; she was the one that was being hit.
I am not trying to say that this particular individual was an angel and
that she had no right in being taken to the Remand Centre because other things
did occur, but what was forgotten is what initially happened between the two
and the child. The child was left
there. There was no immediate follow‑up,
from the best of my knowledge, that was given.
So, when we talk about awareness of
domestic violence and trying to achieve that zero tolerance, Mr. Acting
Speaker, we have to think in terms of all aspects of today's society. I know in the very first WHEREAS, where it
says, "endorsed the philosophy that abuse is a crime," is something
that I spent some time talking about prior to the amendment being amended. One of the most important things that we want
to try to get in the mind‑set of the public as a whole is that it is time
that individuals from society recognize domestic abuse, recognize elderly abuse
as a crime.
All we need really to look at is how
effective governments in the past have been able to get messages out to the
public. I will refer to another issue
like the drinking and driving. At one
time, Mr. Acting Speaker, drinking and driving was something that individuals
or the public at large did not think of as being as wrong as it is today. Now you see in our high schools, you see in
our bars where they have DDs, where they have Safe Grads, where the mind‑set
has changed when it comes to drinking and driving.
Mr. Acting Speaker, we need to have the mind‑set
of society changed on domestic violence.
We need all individuals in society to believe that domestic violence is
a crime and it is a very serious crime.
Domestic violence is not just a woman's issue. I know when the Attorney General appointed
his board which addressed domestic violence, one of the concerns that we had
was that all of the members on the board were in fact women.
Domestic violence is not a gender
issue. It has an impact on all of
us. Men have a role to play. We are missing out on a very important aspect
of domestic violence by trying not to say that it is a men and women's
issue. I say to the Attorney General
that is something that he should reconsider in the appointments or in the discussions
whenever domestic violence comes up, that you have to hear the stories from all
sides. We have to get a better
understanding why domestic violence is where it is at today and why this crime
has been allowed to continue in the fashion in which it has over the last
number of years, when in fact if the government's will was to see changes
occur, that they have the ability to implement those changes.
I go to the education. Mr. Acting Speaker, I have attended vigils,
as no doubt most members of this Chamber have attended vigils. When we start hitting the double digits on
vigils, it causes a great deal of concern.
Whenever there is one vigil, because every time we have a vigil that
indicates that some individual has suffered domestic violence to such a degree‑‑
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
* (1700)
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The hour being 5 p.m., and time for private members' hour, when this
matter is next before the House, the honourable member for Inkster (Mr.
Lamoureux) will have 15 minutes remaining.
PRIVATE
MEMBERS' BUSINESS
ORDERS FOR
RETURN, ADDRESSES FOR PAPERS REFERRED FOR DEBATE
Madam Deputy Speaker: Orders for Return, Addresses for Papers
Referred for Debate, standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Labour
(Mr. Praznik).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave to permit the Orders for Return to remain standing in the
name of the honourable Minister of Labour?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave.
Leave has been granted.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Madam Deputy Speaker, I regret a great
deal having to speak on this issue today.
This is an issue that should have been dealt with two years ago. The issue that we are discussing here is the
issue of Bill 91, so‑called antisniff legislation. The reason that we on this side have been
forced to use the Orders for Return process is because the Minister of Health
(Mr. Orchard) has refused for a year and a half to proclaim this legislation
after his government voted for the legislation in this House.
I would like to briefly refresh the
members' memory on what transpired with Bill 91. Bill 91 was an outgrowth of a real grassroots
community process. For years we have
known about the problems associated with individuals, and in many cases young
people having access to substances that they could sniff, hence the idea of
antisniff legislation.
In 1979, there was an antisniff coalition
established that worked very hard in the community and in the inner city
community in particular, and throughout the rest of the cities and towns and
rural areas of our province ensuring that the people of Manitoba understood the
problems and the issues concerned with the problem of sniffing.
Madam Deputy Speaker, Bill 91 came about
as a private members' resolution first brought forward to the House by the
member for
The member for
That, Madam Deputy Speaker, is not a
negative response to this bill. It is a
very positive response to this bill, and we on this side of the House
appreciated the response of the Minister of Justice at that time to this important
piece of legislation. He was not, at
that time, viewing this private member's bill as a partisan political piece of
legislation. He was legitimately seeing
the need for something like this and appreciating the support that was given.
On March 1, in his speech, the Justice
minister said we have to have legislation like this: " . . . in a matter like this there is
all kinds of room for agreement amongst right‑thinking and caring
Manitobans, which I trust all members of this House are." Another positive comment.
On March 8 and 13, 1990, the committee for
Bill 91 met. There were five presentations.
All were supportive with the exception of the Manitoba Medical
Association. On March 13 when the
committee went clause by clause, all the proposed amendments were
approved. Upon adoption of the bill as
amended, the Justice minister stated that he moved those motions so that the
Department of Health could do the work necessary to ensure that those who are
in the business of distributing these things on a legal basis are made aware of
the new rules. I do give commitments to
the honourable member for
One would suggest that on the basis of
that support by all honourable members of the House whether they are government
or opposition that Bill 91 would then be proclaimed, put into law and
regulations would be drafted so that this bill could, in fact, have some
positive impact on this serious problem, a problem which all members of this
House agreed was a serious problem. All
members of the House passed the bill.
All members of the House supported the bill in its form as passed by the
House.
On December 11, a good many months after
the passage of Bill 91, the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) was asked in
Question Period about the proclamation of that bill and he responded in the
affirmative. He stated that he would
proclaim the bill between the 2nd and 31st of January, 1991. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Health‑‑not
that I might add parenthetically for the first time in this House, nor
unfortunately for the people of Manitoba for the last time in this House‑‑did
not live up to the spirit or the intent of his statements.
In February 1991, the month after the
minister had stated the bill would be proclaimed, the staff from the Minister
of Health indicate that further study is required and no date for proclamation
has been set. On May 1, 1991, four
months after the Minister of Health stated the bill would be proclaimed, he
stated then that amendments may now be necessary to deal with technical
problems with enforcement.
Between May 1, 1991, and today, the member
for
As is the case in virtually all responses
to legitimate questions put by members of the House to the Minister of Health,
he refused to give an appropriate answer, continuing to state that there were
technical problems with the enforcement, and it would appear, perhaps
reconsidering his support for the bill that he voted for in‑‑
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Get it right. I was recuperating from an accident.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Ms. Barrett: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The government members present at the time
voted for the passage of Bill 91. The Minister of Health followed up that
passage by stating the bill would be proclaimed. Clearly, if the Minister of Health and his
cabinet and caucus colleagues were doing their job, if there had been major
technical problems with this bill, they would not have passed it.
The idea that this Minister of Health and
his government can sit here since February 1, 1991, and not proclaim the bill,
stating technical difficulties, is absurd, and it can only lead to one inescapable
and inexplicable conclusion, that the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), the
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), the Minister of Education (Mrs.
Vodrey), the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), the First Minister (Mr. Filmon),
all other members of the front bench and their caucus colleagues do not want
the bill proclaimed.
An Honourable Member: I am glad you just stayed to the front bench,
and did not include the second bench.
You know that back here you got friends.
Ms. Barrett: I would certainly hope that, not having access
to either the cabinet meeting or the caucus‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
* (1710)
Point of
Order
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I
think this a time for the honourable member to debate the matter before the
House and not to drive wedges between the first and second rows in this House.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) does not have a point of
order. It is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Ms. Barrett: Madam Deputy Speaker, I find it very
interesting that the members of the front bench and the members of the back
bench or the upper benches, as they choose to refer to themselves, find this
amusing.
This is an enormously important and
complex issue we are dealing with here.
Actually, it is not a complex issue, it is a very simple issue. It is the discussion about why the Minister
of Health (Mr. Orchard), with the implicit or explicit approval of his cabinet
and caucus colleagues, has chosen not to proclaim this bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this government
talks time and time again about difficult choices and how difficult it is to
make difficult choices in these tough economic times. I am just suggesting that they are once again
making a choice. The choice that this
government is making is a choice to hide behind technical difficulties, to hide
behind the fact that their staff have not had a chance or have not been able to
iron out the technical difficulties.
That is the action of a government that
has‑‑[interjection] I would like to conclude my remarks‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mr. Jack Penner
(Emerson): I believe that the member standing and
speaking on the opposition side just made a technical error in indicating that
the technical difficulties that this province was dealing with were in
technical nature only. They are not.
The farm community in our province will
indicate to you clearly and indicate to the member opposite that the economic
difficulty that they are facing is real and is not of a technical nature.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for Emerson does not have a point of order.
* * *
Ms. Barrett: Madam Deputy Speaker, if the member had paid attention,
the member would have known that the technical difficulties I was referring to
were the technical difficulties that the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) keeps
hiding behind, dealing with the proclamation of Bill 91.
There is no one on this side of the House
that does not know full well that the problems facing Manitobans, whether they
are from the rural areas, the cities, the towns, the communities or even the
northern part of our province, are having with the economic situation and the
total lack of any support on the part of this government.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that this
government will act as expeditiously on Bill 91 as it did when it removed
muscle massage from grocery store shelves and put it where they belonged, on
drug store shelves. I would hope that
the government will act as expeditiously on the private member's bill that is
coming forward from the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) dealing with
cooking wine.
However, I am not convinced, based on the
actions or inactions of this Minister of Health and his cabinet and caucus
colleagues in their cowardly inaction in dealing with the proclamation of Bill
91, and the people of
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mr. McCrae: Madam Deputy Speaker, a minute ago the
honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) was trying to drive wedges
between the first and second benches on this side of the House, and now she is
so desperate in her comments this afternoon to use language which, I believe if
you were to check, would be found to be if not unparliamentary then language
that would be of real concern to anyone dedicated to the highest parliamentary
traditions which we all try to uphold in this House.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable Minister of Justice does not have a point of order. The terminology used is not listed in
Beauchesne as an unparliamentary word.
However, I would caution all honourable members to choose their words
carefully.
* * *
Ms. Barrett: Madam Deputy Speaker, if, as the Minister of
Justice (Mr. McCrae) states, I appear desperate, I am desperate on behalf of
the people of
How many more are going to have to suffer
lifelong disabilities because of this government's unwillingness to proclaim an
act that it supported in this House?
That is not the action of a committed, caring, compassionate
government. That is the action of a government
that does not care for the people of Manitoba, and the actions of a Minister of
Health (Mr. Orchard) hiding behind his technical difficulties is not to be‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.
PROPOSED
RESOLUTIONS
Res. 13‑Selkirk
Psychiatric
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for Broadway (Mr. Santos),
WHEREAS the Psychiatric School of Nursing
has been situated in the Town of
WHEREAS the school has a
WHEREAS the school has contributed not
only human resources but also financial resources to the community; and
WHEREAS the Council of the Town of
WHEREAS the Council was not consulted by
the provincial government on this proposed closing; and
WHEREAS the Town of
WHEREAS the quality of care would not be
available without the high calibre of trained nurses acquired from the school;
and
WHEREAS the Town of
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba call upon the Minister of Health to consider
cancelling the proposed closure of the Psychiatric School of Nursing in
Selkirk.
Motion presented.
Mr. Dewar: Madam Deputy Speaker, I note with interest
that the mayor of Selkirk and the deputy mayor of Selkirk and councillor were
here earlier, but unfortunately they left.
Well, it would have been interesting for
the mayor and council, it would have been important for the mayor‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Dewar: It would have been interesting for them to
witness the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) defend this thing, this very, very
ridiculous closure in our community, but unfortunately they had to leave, I
suppose. Anyway, Madam Deputy Speaker,
this summer will be a very dark period in the history of Selkirk.
In July of this year, a 71‑year‑old
institution, the Selkirk School of Psychiatric Nursing, will close. Not only that, it is compounded, of course,
this summer; again, it is a very bleak summer.
It is compounded with the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer), another ill‑conceived act on his behalf when he decided to
close the Human Resource Opportunity Centre there as well. So I should have left this as an open‑ended
resolution. I could have dealt with both
of these issues at this very moment.
The Selkirk School of Nursing, of course,
will close this July, the last year of the 71‑year‑old institution
in the community. It is the community's
only postsecondary educational institution.
Its closure attacks the very soul of the community. I know that many, many of our residents in
Selkirk have attended the school. I have
a relative of mine who attended the school, and graduated, became a psychiatric
nurse, worked in the profession and still continues to work in that profession.
It will be a blow to the local economy as
well, of course, taking approximately a million dollars out of the local
economy. It will be even a greater blow to the psychiatric nursing profession
in the province as a whole. The closure
will leave
* (1720)
That was the concern that I raised when
this issue first came forward last year, that it will have a negative impact
upon the business community in our community, and you are seeing that now. At least, as I have stated, 12 different
businesses have closed, and the future for the others seems shaky at best.
We in Selkirk feel betrayed by this
minister, by this government. They have
isolated, by the closure in Selkirk, the major population base in this
province.
I remember I was at a town council
meeting, and there was an individual there.
He was in his first year, and now he will be in his second year, he will
graduate this year. He told the council,
he told everyone at the meeting, when he decided to become a psychiatric nurse
he checked out
He felt that would be a better
program. It was an excellent academic
program, an excellent teaching facility.
The young man from
Another woman contacted me during the
debate over the closure, and she emotionally explained what the closure would
mean to her. She is 38 years old, she is
married, she has children, and she felt that now in this stage of her life she
wanted to do something for herself. She
had raised her family, she had provided a home life, now she wanted to do
something that was strictly for herself.
She looked at different professions, she decided upon the psychiatric
nursing profession.
She went back to school to upgrade her
education. She took high school,
university classes in preparation for the formal training she had hoped to
receive at the Selkirk School of Psychiatric Nursing.
An Honourable Member: Now she cannot.
Mr. Dewar: Now she cannot, that is right. She looked around at different schools. She compared the different schools as the
individual before had done. She checked
schools inside the province, she checked schools outside of the province, and
when she made her decision she decided to go to the Selkirk school and she
applied.
Just after she had written her final
examination, she found that the school would be closing. She had spent all this time, money and effort
upgrading her academic skills, she spent time away from her family. Now she found out that the school was
closed. It struck her very hard.
She did not understand why the government
would close it. All these years of upgrading, all this money she found now was
wasted. She found it was too late at the
time to apply to
Instead of amalgamating the two schools,
they simply reduced the number of openings for psychiatric nursing in this
province. This is one of the many human tragedies of this particular closure.
At Bill 5, there was an individual who
came to present to the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) on that particular
bill.
She says:
I am here to address the closing of the Selkirk school of mental
health. I am one of the poor souls who
had hoped to have entered that school this fall. I have been working at this for the past
three years. The abrupt and sudden
closure of the school has affected myself very emotionally and very seriously
in that it was as though a rug was pulled from beneath my feet. I think closing the school in Selkirk is a
mistake for a great deal of Manitobans, a large population of them living
within the Winnipeg area, especially the would‑be students like myself
who cannot relocate to Brandon or other facilities.
When I was called for an interview in
Selkirk, one of the interviewers told me that the average student age is 28 and
that this career choice is usually a second career choice which means that the
would‑be students are probably settled and have commitments within the
She cannot get into RN programs because it
is past their closing date and the same thing with different university
programs as well.
So it had a very human cost when the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) decided to close this school. It has financial cost implications to
Selkirk. It has a human cost to the
individuals who are in the program or wishing to continue to get in the
program. It has a financial cost to the
community where, as I stated before, at least a million dollars have been taken
out. Thirteen teachers, 60‑odd students will not be there. They will not be out in the community. They will not be spending money. They will
not be economically contributing to the community at all.
What did the psychiatric nursing
profession feel about this? I quote from Miss Annette Osted, the Executive
Director of the psychiatric nursing association of Manitoba, and she said again
in a presentation on Bill 5: In April 1991,
there was a consolidation of two schools of psychiatric nursing through the
closure of the school at Selkirk and a decrease by almost half of the students
involved in psychiatric nursing education in Manitoba.
This action, taken prior to the development
of any transition plan, will seriously affect a number of graduates from the
remaining psychiatric nursing education program in 1993 and 1994. The decrease in intake from 70 to 45 students
means that the number of graduates will be about 30 instead of the usual 50 or
more.
The decrease of 40 percent will affect the
system just when mental health reform should be in the process of
implementation, just as in the traditional mental health system, and also the
personal care homes and general hospitals, psychiatric nurses are found in many
different places. They work in the
Alcoholism Foundation of Manitoba, the Agassiz Youth Centre, at different
hospitals, correctional institutions in the province, Deer Lodge Centre, the
Eden Mental Health Centre, the
It shows a diversity of this profession
and the very important role they play in the mental health care. Of course, if this government does not want
to listen, as they have not, maybe they wish to listen to other groups.
The Chamber of Commerce says: The Selkirk and District Chamber of Commerce
wishes to express its concern over your recent decision to cancel the
psychiatric nursing education and program in Selkirk. It is for this reason that the chamber has
endorsed the resolution passed by the town, urging your department to reverse
this decision. I am enclosing a copy of
the resolution and hope this will assist you in reconsidering.
The psychiatric nursing program is a
valuable component of our community. The
Town Council passed a resolution:
WHEREAS the Psychiatric School of Nursing
has been situated in the town of
WHEREAS the Psychiatric School of Nursing
in the town of Selkirk has a Canada‑wide reputation of excellence;
WHEREAS the school has contributed not
only human resources, but also financial resources to the community;
WHEREAS the council of the Town of
Whereas the council of the Town of
WHEREAS the citizens of the Town of
WHEREAS the quality of care would not be
available without the high calibre of trained nurses acquired from the
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council
of the Town of
* (1730)
This was carried and signed by the mayor
of Selkirk. The resolution, of course,
stresses the importance of the nursing profession, not only to the town, but
the importance of the psychiatric nursing profession in regard to mental health
care throughout the province. The
government's decision to close the school is a blow to the local economy and
even a greater blow to the psychiatric nursing profession throughout the whole
province.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I leave this
resolution and the future of the psychiatric nursing in the hands of my
colleagues, knowing that they will support this resolution and knowing that, by
their support of this resolution, they will stop the closure of this very
important institution in Selkirk. Thank
you.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to address a few
comments to this resolution by the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), and I intend
to propose an amendment at the end of my remarks.
Madam Deputy Speaker, perchance a little
history into the educational programs for psychiatric nursing might be
appropriate, since my honourable friend is concerned about the consolidation of
the two schools of nursing that was announced in last year's budget.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this government has
embarked upon probably the most progressive and most aggressive reform of the
mental health system that has ever been contemplated by probably any provincial
jurisdiction in
I would like to take ownership for
originality in that, but I cannot. For
20 years, governments in
They have not because it requires a
massive change from an institutional‑based setting for care to a
community‑based one. That means retraining of staff. That means changes in where we deliver mental
health services, changes which in the past without understanding of the
process, probably rightfully so, would have been resisted by the institutional
side of mental health.
We have taken the issue very seriously,
Madam Deputy Speaker. Over the three
years of preparation for launch of mental health reform, we have tried to bring
what were two disparate groups together, if I can be so direct as to describe
them, that being those proponents of institutional care versus those proponents
of community care. I have to say that
both of them had rather rigid positions four years ago, and there was not a
great deal of common ground. We have
worked co‑operatively. We have facilitated discussion between those two
groups.
Now they are working in concert to make
mental health reform in
Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, what does that
involve? That involves care
professionals who can provide care in a substantially enhanced and greater
amount in community settings. Who should do that? Well, there are a number of trained
professionals that can undertake that sort of service provision in the
community.
From the onset, I have enjoyed a good
working relationship with the registered psychiatric nurses of
Here is the challenge which is so
important as a key component of our consolidation of the psychiatric schools of
nursing, Selkirk to
They believe they can do it not only with
the current two‑year diploma program in psychiatric nursing, but they
believe they can contribute significant expertise through a baccalaureate
program in psychiatric nursing, a degree program which has a community emphasis
on care delivery, something which will be absolutely unique in Canada.
Where is the seed for that sort of an
educational program? Where does it lie?
It lies in
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will openly admit
that when we made this budgetary announcement, the Psychiatric Nurses
Association of Manitoba did not express joy and thanks. I openly admit that. But they recognized that we had a goal for the
future and they were part of that goal.
They have worked co‑operatively with us in government over the
last year, and that is why I was able to present the first $50,000 cheque with
my colleague the Justice minister (Mr. McCrae) to the registered psychiatric
nurses in
What was that first cheque of $433,000
designed to do? To commence the
development of an enhanced educational program in diploma nursing of
psychiatric care and the baccalaureate program of psychiatric nursing. That is progressive thinking by that
association.
Now I want to contrast that, Madam Deputy
Speaker, with the previous history of psychiatric nursing in
* (1740)
Madam Deputy Speaker, do you know where
the third school, which does not exist today, was located? It was located in
It might have been a pure and vindictive
closure by the NDP under Howard Pawley, but I would be only speculating in
making that kind of a conclusion, because no one in the Howard Pawley
government ever explained that unilateral, behind‑closed‑doors,
midnight skulking decision by the NDP.
I want to contrast that with the informed
process that we went through, albeit not without dislocation in the town of
Where is the member for Brandon East when
we need him? He is in that bunker again,
because he has to allow this newcomer to the New Democratic Party to kick up a
little fuss about the school closing in Selkirk, which I recognize is a
difficulty for the town of Selkirk, but he will not have the support of members
in the New Democratic Party when this resolution comes to a vote, because the
member for Brandon East has told the rest of the New Democratic caucus, hey
folks, we did it wrong when we closed the school of nursing in Portage la
Prairie. We were dead wrong that time.
This government is right. It has a vision for the future and we should
support this action by this government.
Now that is progressive government, that is thinking, that is a vision
for the future, Madam Deputy Speaker, something that has been woefully lacking
in the history of NDP government under Howard Pawley.
So it is with regret that I propose,
seconded by my honourable friend the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey),
THAT the resolution be amended by deleting
all words after the first "WHEREAS" and replacing them with:
the Howard Pawley government closed the
WHEREAS this closure by the NDP was done
without consultation and no plan of action for the future of the RPN in
WHEREAS the Government of Manitoba
recognizes the importance of the RPN as a caregiver; and
WHEREAS the Government of Manitoba
believes the RPN will play an enhanced role in the reformed, community‑based
mental health system; and
WHEREAS the consolidation of the
Psychiatric School of Nursing in Selkirk with the school in
WHEREAS the consolidation to
WHEREAS the Government of Manitoba has
recognized this opportunity by providing substantial support from the Health
Services Development Fund to RPNAM for the development of said education
programs; and
WHEREAS this opportunity will place
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House
do congratulate the Registered Psychiatric Nurses Association of Manitoba for
their foresight in developing reform‑minded education and training
programs; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House do
congratulate the City of
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House do
congratulate the Government of Manitoba for demonstrating foresight and vision
in working toward education programs in psychiatric nursing which will be
national leaders in their excellence.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Motion presented.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Due to the length of the amendment, I will be
taking the amendment under advisement and reviewing it in more detail, and we
will proceed to debate the main motion.
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a privilege to say
a few words on this resolution and the amendment on the resolution. It has been moved by the government to close
the psychiatric school in Selkirk. It is
being rationalized as a justification for improving mental health education in
this province. How can we improve things
by closing institutions and by laying off people? Is that the way to improve our mental
health? We are adding tremendous
pressure on those people who are laid off work.
They themselves will be the victim of mental health.
In our society we have so many problems
because of our, in my own opinion, preoccupation with material things of the
world. It is worry and stress that is
dragging us down, because we have forgotten the basic roots of our own
spirituality. I believe that all our
troubles, in terms of mental health problems, depression, are caused by the
trouble that we encounter in our workaday world because of our focus and
emphasis on the material things of the world that do not last after all. We are so worried about income, about status
and about other things that we become so preoccupied with things, and we lose
our mental stability.
Psychiatry is a body of knowledge that is
very difficult to master, because it digs deep into the spiritual and mental
and emotional roots of the human being.
Of all the branches of nursing, psychiatric nursing is the most
difficult branch of nursing because you have to deal with patients who are, by
definition in our conventional society, outside of the normal realm of
behaviour.
It is so easy to be infected by the
interactional effect of the kind of people that we deal with. As we often say, we become like those people
whom we interact with. Pretty soon some
of the psychiatric nurses themselves are behaving in a rather curious way
because of the effect of their interaction with their patients. It may be subconscious, it may not be
noticed, but they themselves are affected in their own forms of behaviour. Even
among experts, the psychiatrists themselves, it has been said that so many
psychiatrists are so worried this day about each other that they begin seeing
each other so that they can treat each other in a psychiatric way.
It is psychiatry that can tell us what
makes us people tick before we blow up.
* (1750)
An Honourable Member: That is a questionable assumption.
Mr. Santos: Why do you think the psychiatrists are called
shrinks? [interjection] Well, somebody said that we call them shrinks because
they shrink your wallet and your bank account. [interjection] Worrying, that is
not anything to a person's resolution of any problem.
An Honourable Member: What about stress?
Mr. Santos: Stress, that is not anything. The basic root cause of this is our lack of
self‑confidence, a lack of our inner capacity to deal with the problems
that we encounter in our everyday life.
This lack of confidence is because of our inability to believe in a
power greater than ourselves. Although
we can be master of our own destiny and captain of our soul, there are certain
areas of human life by which we are utterly helpless, in which case we have to
ask something‑‑some help from a power which is greater than
ourselves.
Our inability to do that would lead us and
drive us to depression, and all kinds of mental imbalance, and all kinds of
problems.
An Honourable Member: . . . on the psychiatrist's couch. That is where you shrink our wallets.
Mr. Santos: That is right.
I think sometimes it may give us some inspiration to understand some of
the belief system in other cultures.
There are cultures other than the Western, Christian, Judeo‑Christian
tradition that we have grown up with, that we can probably derive some kind of
lesson in dealing with life.
For example, one of the Eastern belief
systems, I would call it a system of morality; maybe you can call it a system
of religious belief. [interjection] No, this is about philosophical attitudes
toward life. [interjection] Yes, the kind of moral and spiritual values that we
should cultivate within ourselves.
For example, I encountered some literature
in some Oriental kind of religious system like Taoism in
These are the kind of lasting beliefs and
lasting values that improve human relationships. These are the kinds of ideas that, if we can
understand their meaning, last more than a lifetime.
An Honourable Member: Madam Deputy Speaker, what does this have to
do with the resolution that we have before us?
Mr. Santos: This deals with mental stability, Madam
Deputy Speaker. If you have basic moral
beliefs and values in your life then you can face all kinds of problems without
being unbalanced emotionally, without running to the psychiatrist's couch,
because you have that basic belief in yourself and in a power greater than
yourself.
If only people believed the other's word,
if only people kept their promises to one another, if only people paid their
own debts and lived up to their obligations, if all people performed their
duties and their responsibilities in an honourable way, then there is no need
to go to a psychiatric couch. There is
no need to go to any shrink. There is no
need to consult any psychiatrist. [interjection] Let every word that drops out
of our lips proclaim the uprightness of our hearts and the cleanliness of our
intentions. If we can go‑‑[interjection]
The beliefs that I have imparted to you,
the Oriental beliefs I have imparted to you are no different from the golden
rule that we have known all along. It is
the same thing that we have said, and we believe to live it and abide by it.
The golden rule says: Do not do unto others what you do not want
others to do unto you. If we follow that
basic rule, even in the observance of the rules of this Legislative Assembly,
there will be no need to invoke any kind of reprimand to any members, because
the rules are designed so that our behaviour will be canalized and guided
accordingly, according to the rules.
Rules are designed so that human relationships should be stable, so that
human trust will be mutual, so that reciprocity will be established, so that
our institutions will last longer.
Psychiatry, however, is a very dangerous
profession. It is a risky
profession. You have heard recently
about a psychiatrist who is now in trouble professionally. She is a well‑known psychiatrist in
alcoholism, but she has been accused of taking an unusual therapeutic measure
that regressed her client, by the name of Paul Lozano, to the age of a six‑year
old child, who has been dependent on her, and calling her "mom."
In the end, this client committed suicide
by imbibing too much cocaine. Now she is
under investigation. She has been
cleared of the allegation of sexual orgies and fantasy with a client, but she
has not been cleared about the inappropriate use of therapeutic practices to
the detriment of the client.
Psychiatry is a very dangerous
profession. You cannot fiddle around
with the essential spiritual and emotional nature of human beings.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy
Speaker: Order, please. The hour being 6 p.m., this House is
adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Thursday).