LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday,
July 22, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Dewar). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out
the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Clif Evans). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out
the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
PRESENTING
REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Tenth
Report of the Standing Committee on Economic Development.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Economic
Development presents the following as its Tenth Report.
Your committee met on Friday, July 16 at 1
p.m., Monday, July 19 at 9 a.m. in Room 255 and Tuesday, July 20, 1993, at 7
p.m. in Room 254 of the
Your committee heard representation on
bills as follows:
Bill 37‑‑The Manitoba Public
Insurance Corporation Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant
la Loi sur la Societe d'assurance publique du
Larry Baillie ‑ Private CitizenBarry
Steinfeld ‑
Written submissions:
Dale Botting ‑ Canadian Federation
of Independent BusinessHenry Enns ‑ Disabled Peoples' InternationalGrace
Harris ‑ Private CitizenJennifer Jenkins ‑ Private CitizenTamara
McRitchie ‑ Private Citizen
Your committee has considered:
Bill 37‑‑The Manitoba Public
Insurance Corporation Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant
la Loi sur la Societe d'assurance publique du
and
has agreed to report the same with the following amendments:
MOTION:
THAT the definition "dependant" in
the proposed subsection 70(1), as set out in section 5 of the Bill, be struck
out and the following substituted:
"dependant" means
(a) the spouse,
(b) the person who is married to the
victim but separatedfrom him or her de facto or legally,
(c) a person whose marriage to the victim
has been dissolvedby a final judgment of divorce or declared null by
adeclaration of nullity of marriage, and who, at the time ofthe accident, is
entitled to receive support from the victimunder a judgment or agreement,
(d) a child of the victim(i) who was under the age of 18 years at the time
ofthe accident, or(ii) who was substantially dependant on the victim atthe time
of the accident, and
(e) a parent of the victim who was
substantially dependant onthe victim at the time of the accident;
("persone a charge")
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 70(2), as set out
in section 5 of the Bill, be amended in the part following clause (b) by adding
"in its opinion" after "determine an amount that".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subclause 71(2)(c)(iv), as
set out in section 5 of the Bill, be amended by adding "other than a snow
vehicle capable of registration under subsection 5(13) of that Act," after
"The Highway Traffic Act,".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 75(1), as set out
in section 5 of the Bill, be amended in the part preceding clause (a) by adding
", or a dependant of a victim," after "a victim".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 75(2), as set out
in section 5 of the Bill, be amended by adding ", or a dependant of a
victim who dies as a result of the accident," after "a victim".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 77(1), as set out
in section 5 of the Bill, be amended
(a) by striking out "from any
person"; and
(b) by striking out clauses (a) and (b)
and substituting thefollowing:(a) from any person who is not resident in
MOTION:
THAT the proposed section 78, as set out in
section 5 of the Bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
Entitlement to recover from non‑residents
under other Acts 78 Notwithstanding
section 72 (no tort actions), where a person receives compensation under The
Workers Compensation Act, The Criminal Injuries Compensation Act or The Health
Services Act in respect of bodily injury caused by an automobile, the body that
authorizes the compensation is entitled to recover any amount that it would be
entitled to recover under its Act
(a) from any person who is not resident in
(b) from any other person who is liable
for compensation forbodily injury caused in the accident by the person
referredto in clause (a), to the extent that the person referred toin clause
(a) is responsible for the accident.
MOTION:
THAT the proposed clause 81(2)(b), as set out
in section 5 of the Bill, be amended by adding "that" after "the
benefit".
MOTION:
THAT section 5 of the Bill be amended by
adding the following after section 98 and the heading "Victims Aged 64 or
Older At Time of Accident":
Application of certain provisions 98.1 Sections 81 to 98 and section 103 do not
apply to a victim who is 64 years of age or older on the day of the accident.
MOTION:
THAT the proposed section 104, as set out in
section 5 of the Bill, be amended by striking out "A victim" and
substituting "Notwithstanding sections 81 to 103, a victim".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed section 122, as set out in
section 5 of the Bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
Entitlement of child and parent of deceased
victim 122 Where a deceased victim has
no dependant on the day he or she dies, each child and parent of the deceased
victim, although not a dependant of the deceased victim, is entitled to a lump
sum indemnity of $5,000.
MOTION:
THAT the proposed section 137, as set out in
section 5 of the Bill, be amended by striking out "may" and
substituting "shall".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed section 142, as set out in
section 5 of the Bill, be amended by renumbering it as section 142(1) and by
adding the following as subsection 142(2):
If
employer does not provide information 142(2)
If the employer does not provide proof of earnings within six days, the
corporation shall consider the claim on the basis of information provided by
the claimant and acceptable to the corporation until such time as the employer
provides the proof of earnings.
MOTION:
THAT the proposed section 145(2), as set out
in section 5 of the Bill, be amended by adding "the person and" after
"the medical report to".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed section 147, as set out in
section 5 of the Bill, be amended by striking out "whose application for
review or appeal under this part is allowed" and substituting "who
applied for a review or appealed a review decision under this Part".
MOTION:
THAT the section 5 of the Bill be amended by
adding the following after the proposed section 149:
Disclosure of documents to claimant
149.1(1) A claimant may, on giving
reasonable notice to the corporation, examine and copy any document in the
corporation's possession respecting the claim and is entitled, on request, to
one copy of the document without charge, but the corporation may prescribe a
fee for providing more than one copy of the document.
Exempt information 149.1(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to exempt
information as defined under The Freedom of Information Act.
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 156(2), as set
out in section 5 of the Bill, be amended
(a) in the heading, by adding "or
reimbursement" after"indemnity"; and
(b) by adding "or reimbursement"
after "administer theindemnity".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed section 158, as set out in
section 5 of the Bill, be amended by striking out clause (b) and substituting
the following:
(b) refuses or neglects to produce
information, or to provideauthorization to obtain the information, when
requested bythe corporation in writing;
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 159(1), as set
out in section 5 of the Bill, be amended
(a) in the English version of the part
preceding clause (a),by striking out "convicted of" and substituting
"convictedunder";
(b) in clause (d)(i) by adding "or subsection 249(2)" after
"clause249(1)(a)";(ii) by striking out "294(4)" and
substituting "249(4)";and
(c) by striking out clause (f) and
substituting the following:(f) section 253 or subsection 255(1) (operating a
motorvehicle while impaired), or subsection 255(2) (impaireddriving causing
bodily harm) or subsection 255(3)(impaired driving causing death);
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 165(2), as set
out in section 5 of the Bill, be amended by striking out "under 164"
and substituting "under section 164".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 170(2), as set
out in section 5 of the Bill, be amended by striking out "appeal" and
substituting "apply for a review of the decision".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 174(1), as set
out in section 5 of the Bill, be amended
(a) in the heading, by striking out
"deputies" andsubstituting "other commissioners"; and
(b) by adding "and other
commissioners" after "deputy chiefcommissioners".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed section 179, as set out in
section 5 of the Bill, be amended by striking out "section 172" and
substituting "this Part".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 180(1), as set
out in section 5 of the Bill, be amended by striking out "section 172"
and substituting "this Part".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 185(3), as set
out in section 5 of the Bill, be amended by striking out "14 days"
and substituting "30 days".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 193(1), as set
out in section 5 of the Bill, be amended by striking out "an industrial
accident" and substituting "accidents arising out of and in the
course of employment,".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 193(2), as set
out in section 5 of the Bill, be amended
(a) in the part preceding clause (a) by
adding "or any otherAct that is in force in or outside
(b) in clause (b), by adding "and
subject to section 78 ofthis Act" after "(7.1) of The Workers
Compensation Act".
MOTION:
THAT section 5 of the Bill, be amended by
adding the following after the proposed subsection 193(2):
Effect of election under this Part 193(3) A person who elects compensation under this
Part is no longer entitled to compensation under The Workers Compensation Act
in respect of the bodily injury.
Corporation and W.C. Board to make agreement
193(4) The corporation and the Workers
Compensation Board shall make an agreement respecting the allocation and
reimbursement between them of compensation paid by them under this section.
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subclause 194(1)(a)(i), as
set out in section 5 of the Bill, be amended
(a) by striking out "an income
replacement indemnity" andsubstituting "compensation"; and
(b) by striking out "a wage loss
benefit" and substituting"compensation".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed subsection 194(2), as set
out in section 5 of the Bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
Person may appeal under either Act 194(2) The corporation or the Workers Compensation
Board shall give written notice of the joint decision made under subsection (1)
to the person, and the person may appeal the joint decision either to the
commission or under The Workers Compensation Act within 90 days after receiving
the notice or within such further time as the body to which the appeal is made
may allow, and the decision made on the appeal is binding under this Part and
The Workers Compensation Act.
MOTION:
THAT the proposed section 195, as set out in
section 5 of the Bill, be amended
(a) by striking out "this Act"
and substituting "this Part";and
(b) by adding ", the Unemployment
Insurance Act (
MOTION:
THAT the proposed section 200, as set out in
section 5 of the Bill, be amended by adding the following after clause (p):
(p.1) increasing the ratio referred to in
subsection 165(2);
MOTION:
THAT section 5 of the Bill be amended by
adding the following after the proposed section 200:
Review 201
The minister shall, within three years after the coming into force of
this Part, undertake a comprehensive review of the operation of this Part
involving public representation and shall, within one year after the review is
undertaken or within such further time as the Assembly may allow, submit to the
Assembly a report of the review.
MOTION:
THAT Legislative Counsel be authorized to
change all section numbers and internal references necessary to carry out the
amendments adopted by this committee.
MOTION:
THAT the title of the French version of the
Bill be amended by striking out "D'AUTRES LOIS" and substituting
"UNE AUTRE LOI".
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr.
Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by
the honourable member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the report of the
committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
TABLING OF
REPORTS
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I am
not introducing any more bills. I am
wondering, though, if I could revert just for a moment to Tabling.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave to revert to Ministerial
Statements and Tabling of Reports? (agreed)
Mr. Manness: Pursuant to Section 56(3) of The Financial
Administration Act Relating to Supplementary Loan and Guarantee Authority, I am
tabling a report giving certain information under that requirement.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
APM
Management Consultants
Home Care
Program Contract
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, so far we have seen four Connie
Curran contracts paying Connie Curran and her company over $400,000 per month
plus expenses, probably tax‑free.
The Minister of Health is not giving us the fifth contract, because they
are following the usual pattern, as they did with the hospitals. First they cut programs, then they cut
nurses, then they tabled the contracts.
In home care they have cut programs, the
home maintenance and others. They cut 10
home care nurses yesterday, 10 VON home care nurses.
Why is the minister now afraid to table in
the House the Connie Curran home care contract?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, if I indicated how many
inaccuracies, factual disinformation my honourable friend had in his preamble,
you would rule me out of order (a) for taking too much time, and (b) for
probably violating the rules of parliamentary language, but my honourable
friend is truly a stranger to the truth.
First of all, VON manages their own
nurses. I do not hire or fire a single
nurse at VON. My honourable friend knows
that and attempted to present information otherwise.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell my honourable
friend that when we complete the contract on the home care services management
review‑‑and it is kind of interesting that Tuesday of this week
when I met with MSOS they led off with the observation that we needed to truly
investigate our management of our Continuing Care Programs‑‑I will
provide that contract to my honourable friend, to the media, to everybody else,
as I have every single other contract, which is the only reason my honourable
friend has any questions to ask.
* (1335)
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, the minister said the same thing
when nurses were fired from St. Boniface and Health Sciences Centre. He is
never responsible for any of the cuts and any of the nurses and any of the
thousands of people who are affected by his health care cuts.
Can he confirm, Mr. Speaker, that a
steering committee on the Connie Curran home care contract has already been
appointed and, in fact, the steering committee has already met with the Connie
Curran people and they are already working on this contract, from a U.S.‑based
consultant who knows nothing about home care?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, for the last four months we have
been investigating methods of making the Home Care Program more effective in
its delivery. My honourable friend says
we ought not to look at that.
Let us settle it, what my honourable
friend is saying. My honourable friend
is saying that every time management within our funded agencies, hospitals,
personal care homes, our contracted agencies of service providers such as VON,
that every time one of those organizations makes a staffing change, including
layoffs, I am responsible.
That has never been the case. It is not the case today. It was not the case when Howard Pawley was
the Premier. It was not the case when
Sterling Lyon was the Premier. It was
not the case when Schreyer was the Premier.
We give those organizations budgets and
management responsibility which we expect them to carry out to provide quality
health care to Manitobans and to preserve and protect medicare, Sir.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the minister did not
answer the question. He did not confirm
that the steering committee has already been appointed and has already met.
Can the minister also confirm that the
contract, which he says he will table, already calls for Connie Curran to cut
further millions of dollars from the Home Care budget, Mr. Speaker, that that
will be in the contract, and the minister confirm that he is afraid to table
the contract because he is afraid of public criticism given the devastation
that they have provided to the home care system this budget year?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, if in our investigation of how
we manage the delivery of home care services‑‑bearing in mind, and
I know my honourable friend maybe does not accept what I indicate, but when we
met with the Manitoba Society of Seniors on Tuesday, the very first issue that
the president indicated to us was that he believed we needed a management
overview of the Home Care Program.
If in doing that management overview we
are able to provide our services, which are increasing with an increasing
budget, if we are able to provide those services with fewer management more
effectively, more efficiently, surely my honourable friend would not be
advocating spending money in inefficient management processes. I know NDPs do that, but surely not even my friend
would do that.
Northern
Telecom Layoffs
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, almost six weeks ago we raised
in this House the fact that Northern Telecom
Can the minister indicate today whether he
has met with Northern Telecom officials and whether he can tell us today the
fate of the 200 jobs that are in
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, the member for Flin Flon is
correct in terms of announcements coming from Northern Telecom today in terms
of the impact of a billion‑dollar‑plus loss during their second
quarter, resulting in what they are suggesting will be some 5,200 people
affected in their entire organization, some 2,000 people affected in
We have been working continually with
Northern Telecom in terms of their presence here in
We will continue to work with them to
ensure there is a continued presence in
* (1340)
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, we have had those assurances
before more than a year ago. More than a
year ago, the minister said, and I quote, we are working with Northern Telecom
in terms of their presence here. They
still have a presence of 213 people, and we want that to expand and grow.
Mr. Speaker, my question is: What has the government done? Can the
minister tell us one concrete thing the government has done to assure us that
the 213 jobs or the 200 jobs now that remain in
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, here we go again with the
unbelievable position of the members of the New Democratic Party. You have a plant here in
We have been working with them in terms of
what they can do in
At this particular point in time, there
are no decisions on the
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, I think it is time that the
minister was truthful with Manitobans.
We are in jeopardy of losing this plant.
The minister knows that as well as anybody else in this House. We have lost 14,000 manufacturing jobs since
this government took office.
My question is: Why will the minister not abandon all the
pretty public relations exercises and the rhetoric? Why will he not table a plan of action to
keep those 200 jobs here? What is he
going to do? Is he going to throw up his
hands as he appears to do now?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, as usual, I do not think the
member for Flin Flon listens. There is a
product being produced at a plant that is losing market share. There is no market for that particular
product. What good does it do for any
organization to produce a product that does not have a market?
We are working with the company in terms
of products that can be produced here in
They are interested in
* (1345)
Prime
Motor Oil
Environment
Cleanup Costs
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, many
months ago the Department of Environment investigated Prime Motor Oil's site in
St. Boniface and determined that there were many improprieties at that
site. In fact, there were some 1,260
barrels that would need to be cleaned up as a result of improper holding of
solvents and toxic waste.
The cost was estimated at approximately
$250,000. We are advised that it is, in
fact, quite possibly substantially more than that, upwards of $400,000.
Back in February the minister indicated
that they were going to be investigating the cost of this cleanup. They were also going to be referring this to
the Justice department to determine whether legal action would be
appropriate. Thirdly, they were going to
be looking at ways of recovering that cost from the principals of Prime Motor
Oil.
My question for the minister is: Can he, today, give us an update and, in
particular, how much of that $300,000 or $400,000 are the taxpayers of this
province going to have to pick up of the clean‑up costs?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I am not
sure who is advising the member about the cost.
The figures I have are not as high as his but, nevertheless, this is a
serious situation. We asked the Manitoba
Hazardous Waste Corporation to come in and classify the material and provide
advice in that respect.
We have now received that advice and we
are proceeding cautiously for the care of the environment and also to make sure
that we are not unnecessarily exposing the government in any liability. But we are proceeding in this case.
True
Resource Management
Staff
Investigation
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Well, the question, and
perhaps the minister can answer it in his next answer, is: How much of the hundreds of thousands of
dollars‑‑because clearly it is hundreds of thousands‑‑are
we likely to have to pick up from the cost of that?
My second question for the minister
is: The residents association in St.
Boniface has expressed concern about the True Resource Management application
and, in particular, has expressed the concern about who the principals are of
that company. They have an application
before the department for a similar site in St. Boniface. Is the minister doing a search of the
principals of that organization, in particular perhaps Mr. Dave Gural, who is
general manager of True Resource, who was involved with Prime Oil in their
problems and was involved with Solvit?
Of course, we all know the problems they had.
Is the minister investigating, as the
residents asked, the background, education, qualifications and experience of
the staff, given that the general manager, Mr. Gural, has had involvement with
all of those problem organizations in the past?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Well, I am not going to
talk about specific individuals in my answer.
Certainly when we put the Manitoba Hazardous Waste Corporation through
what is probably the most rigid process that has ever been undertaken in this
province, we set a standard that we expect all new licences to meet, extremely
difficult, and that includes a number of the aspects that the member has
raised.
I want to assure him through you, Mr.
Speaker, that we do not take lightly the responsibility that we have in this
case, nor do we take lightly any licensing responsibilities we have before us.
Mr. Edwards: In an effort to assist the minister in doing
what the residents have asked, which is to investigate the principals of True
Resource while they are considering a licence, I want to table correspondence
dated November 12, 1992, to potential customers signed by Mr. Dave Gural,
general manager of True Resource Management.
I want to get a commitment from this
minister that he will specifically investigate, as the residents ask, the
background, education, qualifications and experience of the staff behind True
Resource Management, because it appears clear that at least Mr. Gural was
involved with Prime Oil, which was a disaster, and it is now going to cost us
hundreds of thousands of dollars, and I believe was involved with Solvit as
well. We all know what happened in June
of 1988 when that blew up in St. Boniface.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Second
Opposition is essentially asking if we are prepared to do due diligence in
dealing with existing operations that he refers to and any new licences that we
have before us, and absolutely we will.
Unemployment
Statistics
Provincial
Comparisons
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister of Finance.
Greg Mason, a very well‑known
My question to the minister is: Why is
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, not
accepting any of the preamble from the member, but if it were indeed correct, I
guess he should ask the question maybe of his colleague the member for Radisson
(Ms. Cerilli) or indeed the whole negativism toward development in any fashion
for the members opposite.
Let me say that we are well aware of the
numbers that have been released. I am
understanding of the fact that some of the economic forecasts across the land
are as a result, or at least they are being attributed to the reduced deficits
of the provincial governments, that that is obviously having some impact on the
economic forecasts. That is to be
expected.
There are two ways to go. You can buy your economic forecast by
borrowing more money, and that can work as long as the Department of Finance
does not become the largest increased spender in government, and that is what
we have in the
* (1350)
Mr. Leonard Evans: If you have no answer, Mr. Speaker,
bafflegab. You have bafflegab.
My question to the minister: How does this government propose to stimulate
the economy and provide more jobs?‑‑because I notice that our
sister
So what are you going to do about it? Maybe you should be looking at what the
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt we can all use
selective statistics. I will use
mine. In the last six months there have
been increases in the
The member chooses not to use those in his
preamble to his question. I say to him,
he is doing nothing more than try to destruct and destroy, indeed, the good
image around
Mr. Leonard Evans: We are not alone in observing this, because
Greg Mason has observed how disappointing the economy has been in the first
half of this year.
Economic
Growth
Government
Policy Review
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): My question to the minister is: Will he recognize finally that his economic policies
have failed and should be changed, because the unemployment rate has gone up
from 8.9 in January to 10.2 in June, and the number of people unemployed has
increased 7,000? Surely this government
has to recognize that its economic policies have failed. The rest of the country‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, in the
first six months of this year, we have the second‑lowest unemployment
rate in the nation.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what type of
answer the member wants me to give. If
he wants me to give one, as he uses the term full of "bafflegab,"
talking about the good things we have done, I will. But if he wants to talk about, realistically,
economic growth, and if he wants to talk about how governments in the past in
this land have bought those numbers purely through borrowing money and causing
interest rates to soar, if that is his solution, I am saying Manitobans have
rejected that totally.
The party opposite continues to flounder
totally with the former approach of trying to buy economic growth numbers
purely through borrowing money. We
refuse to do that, because that represents increased taxes today and into the
future.
* (1355)
Ostomy
Program
Social
Assistance Recipients
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, on July 13 I asked the Minister
of Health (Mr. Orchard) a question which he took as notice. I have given up on the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard), as have seniors and disabled and people using home care services.
So instead, I will ask the Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) if he has finally received a copy of the
letter from the Department of Health regarding the charge for ostomy supplies,
the new Tory tax on the sick.
Has the Minister of Family Services
received this letter? All his clients who have ostomies need the supplies.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, in terms
of my honourable friend's issue that he raised, yes, a letter went out to all
those Manitobans who are on the ostomy program, informing them of the changes
that we had put in place, changes, which I have reminded my honourable friend
and others in the New Democratic Party, that still make our ostomy program the
least expensive of programs, in comparison, for instance, to
Even with these changes, which I
acknowledge, Sir, are significant, it is still the most economic program for
ostomates in the
Ostomy
Program
Social
Assistance Recipients
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister
of Family Services if his staff have got in touch with all of their social
assistance recipients about this letter since they have received it. In fact, we faxed a copy to an Income
Security office, because they did not have it.
What is this minister doing about it? Is he informing their clients and their
department about whether or not this letter applies to them?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): I know in
previous discussions with the honourable member, he is well aware that our
social allowance clients do have a health card which looks after their health
needs. In fact, less than a year ago we
even extended the use of that health card to members of the disabled community
and single parents as they move into the workforce for the first year so that
these people can transition into work without the fear of losing their health
benefits.
So I know the member is aware of
that. I would simply remind him that all
of our social allowance clients do have a health card which looks after their
health needs.
Mr. Martindale: Will the Minister of Family Services inform
all the social assistance recipients of this policy?
I would like to give him the name of a
particular individual after Question Period who has been waiting for a couple
of weeks for staff to get back to him and has heard absolutely nothing. These people
are extremely frustrated; they are phoning us for information, when this
department should be giving them correct information.
Will this minister do that?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I would look forward to receiving that
information from the honourable member.
I think I can say without fear of contradiction that we have not
received one call or one letter in my office to do with this, but certainly we
give the response that people who are on social allowances do have the ability
to use their health card.
Continuing
Care
Price
Waterhouse Report
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, we listened with interest to the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) today as he talked about management practices
within the Continuing Care Programs and the need to examine that as indicated
to him by the
I would ask the minister: Now that he has had six years to deal with
the recommendations in the Price Waterhouse report, can he report to this House
if in fact he has been able to do that, particularly the ones relating to
management and management practices?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I was distracted momentarily,
but if the issue my honourable friend is raising is in terms of the management
issue within the Continuing Care branch, yes, that is under review within the
ministry.
I reference my meeting with the MSOS
executive Tuesday of this week in that they, in essence, confirmed that we were
probably undertaking an appropriate review of the management and delivery
structure in home care which has been in process, Sir, as I indicated in an
earlier answer already today, because that was the first observation that the
president of the MSOS made on Tuesday of this week.
I think that any outcome of a review of
our management structure will do nothing but enable us to provide more services
to more Manitobans, which I think is everybody's goal in health care.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, with a supplementary question to
the minister.
He has referred to a review, and he has
referred to in process. That leads us to
believe that after six years, 10 priority recommendations still have not been
acted upon and that in fact we are still spending taxpayers' money on continual
reviews.
Can the minister tell us, or table in the
House: Have the 10 recommendations, as
indicated in the Price Waterhouse report, been acted upon? Can he table that information in the
House? It has been six years.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, a number of the recommendations
in the Price Waterhouse report were acted upon.
I can provide my honourable friend with an update as to which ones have
been acted upon.
Appreciate the Price Waterhouse review was
undertaken, as my honourable friend indicates, six years ago by the previous
government. In the ensuing six years the
program has grown, as I have indicated, from some $38 million when we came into
government to a $69‑million program today, a very significant increase in
the program, not a decrease, as some in this Chamber would indicate.
With that kind of growth and particularly,
Sir, with the addition of services which were not even provided in 1987 when
the review was undertaken, naturally we are now reviewing our management
structures to see if they fit with today's needs in the Home Care Program, not
the six‑year‑old needs that were identified six years ago.
* (1400)
Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, with a final supplementary to the
Minister of Health.
The Minister of Health knows full well
that the management principles that occurred six years ago are the very same
ones that could be used today.
My question for the minister is: Is he prepared to indicate which management
practices were reviewed when he took office five years ago as a result of this
Price Waterhouse report? Is he prepared
to indicate which ones were looked at and which ones he is now going to be
looking at‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I believe that in fact this very
issue was explained fully about five Estimates ago, with the member for The
Maples posing the questions as to what initiatives we have taken in terms of
the management process.
Sir, as I indicated to my honourable
friend, a number of those recommendations were acted upon. Surely my honourable friend the Liberal would
acknowledge that six years ago the program was probably $32 million at that
time in terms of six years ago.
When we came into government it was some
$38 million. Surely my honourable friend
would acknowledge that not to review our management process today would be
inappropriate given the context of change that we are undertaking throughout
the health care system. That is what we
are doing, Sir. That is what the NDP did
six years ago.
The program has changed
significantly. It has almost doubled in
terms of its financial commitment. It is
providing substantially more complex services today, and a review is
appropriate.
Labour
Market Planning Report
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Education
is dragging her feet on a Labour Force Development Strategy for
The Parkland labour market planning
profile was completed by Employment and Immigration
Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Education
received this report, and can she tell us what action she is taking to address
this educational inequity in the
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): In the
70 hours of Estimates when we looked at issues in the Department of Education
and Training, we did have a look at the grade achievement levels of Manitobans,
people in various geographical areas. We
also spoke about distance education as one method in which people around
The member knows that we have recently
completed a Task Force on Distance Education and that distance education may
very well be applicable not only in the K‑to‑12 side but also in
the post‑secondary and training areas of education.
Mr. Plohman: Since the report further reveals that nearly
two‑thirds of aboriginal people are not working in the
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, you know, as always, it is
important that the member and I both are looking at the same document. I have found that interpretations differ as
the member has looked at documents that I have also viewed.
Let me just tell him, as I explained in
the 70 hours of Estimates, some of the initiatives. I have spoken about the distance education as
a potential.
The member also knows that Assiniboine
Community College‑‑as our three community colleges have just moved
to college governance, the colleges will now be in a position to negotiate
training programs very directly. No
longer will that have to come through government.
The member also knows that our community
colleges also have satellite areas which are able to deal with not only the
city of
Mr. Plohman: The minister has not even said, Mr. Speaker,
if she has this report.
I want to ask the minister if she concurs
with the Employment and Immigration Canada mandate as stated in this report,
which is to reduce employment inequities and disparities especially for
aboriginal people and women.
How can she justify the reduction and
elimination of the Human Resource
Mrs. Vodrey: When we were discussing the issue of labour
force and labour market, I did explain to the members who are present at the
time that the government of
In terms of the allegations that the
member has made, let me remind him again of the almost $10 million being spent
on the ACCESS programs by this government, on the reorganization into advanced
education and training of the training side of this department. That will allow for far more opportunities
and a greater spectrum of training programs than have existed in the past.
Community
Colleges
Government
Funding
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): My question is also for the Minister of
Education.
The minister is aware that all of
Will the minister tell us, now that we are
four months into the academic year, how much less will be available for
academic and training programs for
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): As I
explained to the member during an earlier discussion in Estimates on the
community colleges, the federal government has made some changes and made some
reductions. The government of
In addition to that, our colleges have now
moved to governance. It now allows the
colleges to negotiate directly with the federal government for training
programs so that the colleges now may offer the diploma programs, certificate
programs. They may also negotiate for
the short‑term training programs.
Those short‑term training programs will produce revenue for the
colleges.
Ms. Friesen: But the minister does not know how much
revenue and nor do the colleges.
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Will the minister confirm that there have been
waiting lists for more than a year in many programs at
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): The
colleges have had waiting lists, because when people are applying to courses at
the college they have not been identified by specifically a student
number. Some people apply to a number of
different courses, and it is very difficult by virtue of looking at a waiting
list to know how many people are actually intending to attend that course, that
or other courses.
One of the jobs at the colleges now will
be to actually have an accurate way to look at the intention of students who
wish to register, whether or not their registration in certain courses is a
first, second or third choice.
Area Needs
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Will the minister tell the House how
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): The
member truly underestimates, first of all,
In addition to that, I point again to the
ability of the college to negotiate short‑term training programs, which
are revenue producing. I also remind the
members that the college has satellite areas as well, which are able to look at
the needs of Manitobans where those satellites are located.
* (1410)
HIV
Infections‑Blood Transfusions
Communication
Strategy
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, today it
has been reported that the Ontario Ministry of Health, in conjunction with the
Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons, is embarking on a letter writing
campaign to all physicians in the
I asked the minister about this a number
of weeks ago, and he said that he was secure in the knowledge that people were
well enough informed in
Mr. Speaker, my question for the
minister: Given that the
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, when
last my honourable friend raised this issue, it was exactly the process that I
outlined to him that, in collaboration with the Manitoba College of Physicians
and Surgeons, we hoped to undertake that kind of encouragement to physicians in
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, given the urgency of this for the
many patients in
When are the letters going to go out? When is the proactive approach to this issue
going to take place from this Minister of Health?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I will stand to be corrected, but
it is my understanding that we are anticipating that as part of, I believe, the‑‑
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Natural
Resources. No. Okay. The honourable Minister of Health, to finish
his response.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, it was expected that the
communication to
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, we of course, as many Manitobans,
I think, will eagerly look forward to that plan coming to fruition on this very
important issue. One of the issues
raised with the
Can the minister indicate whether or not
that is a concern that his department has and whether or not they have
consulted representatives from the Department of Justice on this issue and on
the extent of the advertising campaign that they may be legally obliged to do
for liability purposes?
Mr. Orchard: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not have any opinion
from our Justice department.
Victorian
Order of Nurses
Layoffs
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Might I take the opportunity to respond to a
question from the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) wherein yesterday he
questioned the rationale for 10 layoffs at Victorian Order of Nurses.
I am informed by my assistant deputy
minister, who contacted Bob Layne, executive director of the Victorian Order of
Nurses, who has indicated that 10 casual staff are affected.
Five of the nurses were hired in June of
1993, three were hired in March of 1993 and two in February of 1993. They were hired for short‑term
replacements as follows: eight were for
vacation replacements, one was for a maternity leave replacement and one was a
direct service district nurse replacement.
I think that puts a little different light on the circumstance than the‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Committee
Changes
Ms. Becky Barrett (
I move, seconded by the member for
I move, seconded by the member for
Motions agreed to.
Committee
Changes
Ms. Becky Barrett (
I move, seconded by the member for
I move, seconded by the member for
Motions agreed to.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to make a couple of announcements with respect to standing committees. Given that Bill 41 has now completed public
presentation and has started clause by clause, because there will be some
amendments, we would propose that committee sit at nine o'clock, Monday
morning, to consider clause by clause of Bill 41.
Law Amendments will continue to sit
tonight dealing with Bill 24. Mr.
Speaker, we would request unanimous consent of the House to take the remainder
of Bill 52, which was The Manitoba Foundation Act, which really only has one clause
to consider, and move that over into Law Amendments and deal with it
expeditiously just before the consideration of Bill 24.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave to allow the honourable
government House leader to move Bill 24, the remainder of it, into that other
committee? (agreed)
Mr. Manness: Also, Mr. Speaker, at this time, Law
Amendments will consider Bill 55, should it pass the House today. That would happen tomorrow afternoon at one
o'clock.
However, if Law Amendments does not
complete its work with respect to Bill 24, then I will have to again move it to
another committee.
Mr. Speaker, at this time would you call
Bill 53.
DEBATE ON
SECOND
Bill 53‑The
Justice for Victims of Crime Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), Bill 53, The Justice for Victims of Crime
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les droits des victimes d'actes
criminels, standing in the name of the honourable member for St. Boniface.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I adjourned yesterday so that the
member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) could speak on it today.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, that is fine.
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to speak on this Bill 53, The Justice for Victims of Crime Amendment Act. The primary thrust of this bill is to gain
further levels of political control over the Justice for Victims of Crime fund.
Now some historical perspective is
necessary to understand this fund and what has happened under this current administration. In fact, there was a tariff of sorts put on
fines provincially levied some years ago when the act was brought into
existence by the former administration.
Those tariffs on fines went into a fund
which then came under control of the Justice for Victims of Crime board, which
was a board appointed by government to oversee those funds. Their mandate was to support victims
services, in fact, to initiate victims services, because there was thought to
be and, in fact, there was a great lack of victims services in the community.
Their mandate was to give start‑up
funding. They were not to fund these
programs for multiple years; they were to give start‑up funding. The program, in my estimation, having been
simply an objective onlooker, was working fairly well.
* (1420)
When this government got elected, they
changed the board somewhat, but, for a brief period of time, left it
intact. Then the government issued a
discussion paper in which part of the discussion was a proposal to meld that
fund, and take from it, some monies for crime prevention, so that the same fund
would be used for crime prevention and victims.
That was summarily rejected by virtually everyone in the community, and
so that went by the wayside.
Following that, the Criminal Code
provision provided for a surcharge on federal fines to be brought into place,
so that there would now be a surcharge on both the provincial and the federal
fines. The federal government said, we
will put the surcharge on federal fines and essentially give it to the
provincial governments to use in the area of victims services.
I think that the minister and I may have
some disagreement over this, but I recall at the time‑‑and I do not
have the Hansard here‑‑but some discussion, and I believed at the
time, commitment that those federal funds, that federal surcharge would go into
the same victims of crime fund. I see
the minister shaking his head. This is
the essence of our disagreement on this matter, but, in any event, that is
beside the point.
The main point is that the federal
surcharge did not go into the victims of crime fund. It was kept separate. Now, in the final chapter of really moving
away from that board, and moving away from community control over these funds,
the government is proposing in this legislation to allow for funds in the
provincial victims fund to be used for government programs as directed by
government.
In the Estimates process, the little of it
that we had in the Department of Justice, I questioned the minister on this,
and it was clear that the decision as to what those funds will be spent on in
terms of government programs would be a government decision. There would be no prerequisite of approval by
the community board. It would be a
government decision as to how to spend those monies, what amount of those
monies, and on what government programs.
So it is bringing that fund increasingly
into the minister's office, into the political sphere. Time will tell how much of that fund is left
to that board. We do not have any
discussion on numbers from the minister, but, of course, time will tell how
much of it actually is left in the hands of that board, which, I believe, has
been seriously undercut, and, in fact, all but made redundant by the politicization
of those monies.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
It is one thing to have a board which is
politically appointed, albeit it is politically appointed, but it is still a
board. People are picked from
representative sectors of society as they have been in the past. It is an appropriate way, I believe, to leave
discretion in the hands of that type of board, to consider these proposals that
are made. I know the minister says that
the problem was that these groups came forward, and they got funding for the
first years. Then they came knocking on
government's door. Because now they
could not get funding from the victims fund anymore, they were at government.
I think the answer to that was simply
perhaps‑‑and I would have been amenable to this‑‑an
amendment, some reasonable discussion with the board resulting in an amendment
which would have allowed that board to‑‑at least for some portion
of its funding, I think I would have put a cap on it, but some percentage of
the yearly revenues‑‑be used for continuing programs, those that
had not been successful in getting other funding, had a proven track record,
and had a proven success rate in what they were attempting to do. Not all of the funds, but a proportion of
them, could have been dedicated for ongoing programs, leaving a smaller portion
available for new programs, albeit that is true.
The question has to be asked: How many years or how many decades do we need
a fund to fund new victims programs? At
some point you have too many with too many names when perhaps you should have
concentrated on a smaller group that had proven themselves, had stood the test
of time, and were doing work that was recognized in the community as positive
and worthwhile. I think it would have
been an appropriate time, after those years that the fund had been in
existence, to take a portion of the revenues and be prepared to dedicate those
to ongoing programs. That would have solved this problem.
I suspect the reason that was not turned
to, that fairly obvious way of dealing with the concern the minister brings
forward, is that this is a way of taking these funds into essentially general
revenues to fund whatever the minister feels he can designate as victims
services. Let us be clear, Madam Deputy
Speaker, this minister has, and I am sure will continue to designate virtually
anything in the justice system as victims services, and one can take a broad
interpretation or a narrow interpretation.
I believe that, as the pressure comes to
dedicate that money to whatever in the justice system, which ultimately all of
it can indirectly be justified in some vague way in the interests of victims,
increasingly you will see that fund used for general revenue purposes for
ongoing programs which exist today, existed in the past and should exist in the
future. This is, in effect, I believe, a
money grab by the government to take money out of a special dedicated fund, out
of the hands of the community representatives and out of that general focus of
new and innovative programs specifically, directly dedicated to victims and
into more removed, less direct general programs of the Justice department. I am to a certain extent, of course,
speculating on that, but I think that is the agenda. I think it has been in the past. I think it looks to me like it is going that
way.
I would have preferred, as I said at the
time that the federal monies became available, that we perhaps change the
mandate of the board‑‑I would have been open to discussion about
that‑‑perhaps to discuss a new way of them doing their work. Over
time in a quite insidious manner to undercut their work, and over time, in
effect, while leaving the shell in place, moving more and more into government
control, direct government control of this fund, in my view, Madam Deputy
Speaker, that is not being forthright and up‑front about what is really
going on here.
I believe, as I have said, what is really
going on here is that the government is taking control of as much money as it
can, which had previously been dedicated to community boards, private
boards. We have seen a general disdain
for community involvement in decision making from this government. Whether it is the Child and Family Services
agencies or this board or many others, this government generally jealously
guards that decision‑making power for its purposes, which, of course, are
driven by political determinations, and have generally, as I say, been
disdainful of public participation in those select areas where it is deemed
appropriate.
This is one of them. This board was doing its work, doing it
well. I believe we might have changed
their mandate, statutorily. This is not
the answer. The minister, I believe,
should be forthright about what he is doing.
In reality, he is gutting this board and taking away its authority, not
directly but indirectly, and, I believe, in a fairly, as I have said, insidious
manner, given that the pattern over the last number of years has been to
consistently take away the monies available to it and bring it into the
government fold, the minister's office in particular. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 53, The Justice for Victims of Crime Amendment Act (Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les droits des victimes d'actes criminels).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some Honourable Members:
No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: No?
All those in favour, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members:
Nay.
Madam Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Madam Deputy Speaker: On division.
Agreed.
* (1430)
Point of
Order
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
On a point of order, I may have missed it a little earlier, but by way
of inquiry I wonder if the government House leader a little while ago announced
an order for the bills. Perhaps the
assistant government House leader could help us by discussing for a few moments‑‑on
the other hand, Madam Deputy Speaker, we could go to Bill 50 immediately.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Regrettably, that is why the Deputy Speaker
was sitting here in awe, wondering what the next bill might be called. The direction was Bill 53.
* * *
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I would ask if we could call Bill 50. I believe we will be moving toward second
reading of Bill 55 later on this afternoon or shortly, but if there is a will
to debate
Bill
50, and then we can adjourn that debate to make room for second reading of Bill
55.
Bill 50‑The
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1993
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill
50, The Statute Law Amendment Act, 1993 (Loi de 1993 modifiant diverses
dispositions legislatives), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister
of Justice (Mr. McCrae), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Is there leave to permit the bill to
remain standing?
Some Honourable Members:
No.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Madam Deputy
Speaker, this is a fairly regular occurrence, as all members will of course
know. In a session to pass a statute law
amendment act which tends to be one that is omnibus in the sense that it covers
various pieces of legislation and as a rule does not involve controversial or
substantive changes. What it
traditionally involves is relatively innocuous changes in bills which need to
be made for grammatical purposes, for clear reading purposes.
On occasion we have had concerns about
specific provisions and raised them. I
note that this bill deals with The Communities Economic Development Fund Act to
bring the provisions into line with the provisions of The Crown Corporations Public
Review and Accountability Act with respect to quarterly financial statements.
I note that there is a minor change to The
Provincial Court Act dealing with Section 8 and the chairperson of a nominating
committee.
I note that The Financial Administration
Act is changed to authorize the minister to write off uncollectable debts due
to the government without prejudicing the government's right to collect them in
the future‑‑obviously an important one in view of the liabilities
which are clear today and likely to be in the future arising from things such
as the cleanup of the Prime Oil site.
I note that there are some changes to The
Homesteads Act, points of clarification, I am told, in order to ensure an
orderly transition.
I note that there is a minor change to The
Housing and Renewal Corporation Act; The Marriage Act; The Land Titles Office
is dealt with in various acts; The Public School Act is amended to ensure
awards of the board are valid.
I note that there is a change to The
Public Trustee Act to reflect the current office practice as it relates to
calculation of payment of interest on client accounts. I have some familiarity with the difficulties
in that department.
The Rural Development Bonds Act is being
changed to remove from financial institutions the benefit of the government's
guarantee that is available to other bondholders.
Finally, of course, I note from the
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) that there is a minor change to The Teachers'
Pensions Act. I am sure that they are
eager to have us make that change, so we would not, of course, want to stand in
the way of that. It is a change which
corrects a subsection which was felt to create an ambiguity between the role of
the investment committee and the role of the board in connection with
investment decisions.
Madam Deputy Speaker, quite frankly, the
members of the opposition parties do rely on the tradition that these are
nonsubstantive and that they are noncontroversial. We have looked at these, but that is not to
say that at the committee stage if there are presenters, if there are some
difficulties, if these things come to light‑‑the government will be
held to answer these. Today, I am
certainly not going to block speedy passage of this to the committee, nor am I
going to go into any great detail on any of these changes to these bills.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do want to advise
the Minister of Justice, who, I understand, will be sponsoring and speaking to
this bill at committee, that we reserve the right, as we do with all of these omnibus
pieces of legislation, to raise specific concerns at the committee stage,
should they come to our attention between now and then or indeed at the
committee.
With those few comments, Madam Deputy
Speaker, we are prepared to see this bill move to committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 50, The Statute Law Amendment Act, 1993 (Loi de 1993 modifiant
diverses dispositions legislatives). Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? (agreed)
* * *
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker,
I would ask you to call Bill 55, please.
SECOND
Bill 55‑The
Legislative Assembly Amendment and Consequential Ame ndments Act
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey),
that Bill 55, The Legislative Assembly Amendment and Consequential Amendments
Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Assemblee legislative et apportant des
modifications correlatives a une autre loi), be now read a second time and be
referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Manness: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am introducing Bill
55, The Legislative Assembly Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act. I am
pleased to bring this bill forward at this time with the co‑operation of
and after a significant amount of consultation with all the parties of this
House.
I would like to take a moment to express
our thanks to the work of several members who were particularly involved in
putting this bill together. I will not
name them, but I would like to reference certainly one member from our side,
the member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst), who had an awful lot to do with helping
our party strike a consensus.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there is perhaps no
more difficult issue for members to deal with than their own remuneration. I am confident that all members have heard
from their constituents on this issue from time to time and, let me say, many
times over the course of the last several months.
I think it is worthwhile to reflect on the
evolution of this process over recent years.
Many members will remember a previous bill‑‑55, by
coincidence‑‑that also followed an intense period of discussion
amongst all three caucuses.
Madam Deputy Speaker, Bill 55, as I said,
is the same number as the December 1988 bill that dealt with members'
benefits. At that time of that earlier
bill‑‑I say this not in any pious way because I fully supported
that bill‑‑I reflected on the difficult course we as elected
members embark upon whenever we attempt to balance our own needs with the
myriad demands on government and our taxpayers.
I think that we have heard since that time
from Manitobans that they no longer accept the principle that elected members
should determine their own salary and associated benefits. This is what has led us to propose the step
that without question constitutes the most significant aspect of this bill,
which is the power it provides to a nonelected body to decide, borrowing from
the bill's own language, the indemnities, allowances and retirement benefits to
be paid to members. This is a step we
have not taken lightly as government members, nor, I am sure, as members of the
opposition.
We will certainly not end the debate on
this point with this bill. I would say,
Madam Deputy Speaker, that, indeed, there are those who are saying that the
Legislature ultimately should determine what it pays itself. As I said yesterday, and hopefully it is
accepted by others, were we in a different time, were it a perfect world, that
might be the case. The reality is,
today, the public wants it taken from our hands and put into an independent
outside group.
Madam Deputy Speaker, on that vein, all of
us understand that governing is about making difficult decisions, but I believe
what we have heard from the public is that there exists, if not an inherent
conflict, then at least a perceived conflict in members dealing with their own
salaries, and that it is not acceptable for elected members to make decisions
on this issue. We have accepted that
criticism, and we are responding with this bill which will put into place a one‑time
commission to make these decisions.
We recognize in proposing this step that
it is a road not travelled by many legislators in this country, and for that
reason we have given this commission a second task, that of critiquing their
own process and making recommendations to us as to how a future process may
take place. We do this because we
recognize that we are engaged in an evolutionary process, and we are taking a
long‑term view.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not dwell in
detail on the other elements of the bill.
However, there are certain parts that I do want to put on the
record. The new Part 2 of the act would
establish the commission and provide it with the power of deciding members'
indemnities, allowances and retirement benefits. It also carries over from the current act,
with some changes, provisions about severance, caucus payments and the
privileges pertaining to printing, mailing and use of telephones.
A number of general provisions, such as
what payments are to be made statutory charges, how payments are to be approved
and made and what reports to the Legislature are required, have been carried
over from the existing act. Members of
all sides of the party saw the benefits, and, indeed, the public disclosure was
there and there were good portions that this bill would intend to maintain.
To ensure that members can continue to be
paid indemnities and allowance until the commission makes its regulations, the
existing provisions respecting indemnities and allowances must remain in place
for an interim period, and that period being, of course, until the end of this
Legislature.
* (1440)
The effect of the amendments to the
pension's provisions is to freeze participation in the existing pension plan
when the retirement benefit plan established by the commission's regulation
comes into force. These provisions will
attempt to achieve this transition in a fair and reasonable manner by leaving
undisturbed those pension rights that have been earned as a polling day of the
next general election. In all cases, the
right to receive the current pension continues to arise when the person ceases
to be a member, and the person's years of service, including service after
polling day of the next general election, equals or exceeds 55.
On another point, I would like to stress
that any indemnities and allowances as determined by the new commission are
subject to the reduction set out for members in Bill 22, The Public Sector
Reduced Work Week and Compensation Management Act.
I would also like to put on record our
reasoning with respect to the timing of this process. In a nutshell, it is, in our view, critical
to establish the indemnities and allowances of members with all dispatch so
that future candidates have the benefit of this certainty as they consider
careers in public life. As a result, the
coming‑into‑force provisions have been drafted such that (a) the
provisions setting up the commission come into force on Royal Assent; (b) the
amendments to the existing law regarding severance and printing and mailing
privileges come into force on Royal Assent, and all of the existing law about
indemnities, allowances and members' pensions, with those amendments, remains
in force until the commission has done its work; and (c) when the commission
completes its work, all of the existing law about indemnities and allowances is
repealed, and the amendments of that freeze participation in the existing
pension plan come into force.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in closing, members
of this House know there is no way you can legislate integrity, but we also
realize that, as the calling that all of us have been elected to be is so
important to the working of democracy, it is so important that there be
confidence, and a growing confidence, in what it is that we do as representatives
of the people, at this point in time we have unilaterally, yes, but certainly
in unison agreed to the process that I have laid before you.
I think that once the commission has had
an opportunity to report, Manitobans will see that, at this point in time, the
process‑‑and, of course, Bill 55 deals with process. It does not deal with levels. It deals purely with process, and I have to
reinforce that over and over again. Once
Manitobans have seen the process, I am sure that they will be‑‑hopefully,
they will be well pleased and certainly happier than they have shown themselves
to be over the course of the last number of months. Thank you.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
I wanted to go over a bit in terms of the
process. I recall what happened back in
December of 1988 when in fact we had increased the access accounts: the public uproar and how incensed so many
individuals of the public were to see a piece of legislation that came from
nowhere passed. As MLAs, even though it
was not money going directly into our pockets, our access allowed us to spend
more money in our ridings whether it was with a staff person, a constituency
office and so forth.
Even though we as legislators were able to
justify having the increase we believed in, the public reaction was very
negative. I believe primarily because they felt that we as elected officials
should not have the ability to decide how much money we are going to get paid
or what type of access accounts or benefits that we should be having or be
entitled to.
This has been an issue ever since I was
first elected back in 1988; the Speaker will know well. At my first LAMC meeting, in fact, there was
discussion about an independent commission of sorts, that we need to deal with
the issue of salaries and other aspect of benefits and so forth because there
was a general feeling that what was currently there was not good enough.
Fortunately, or unfortunately‑‑as
I am sure, most people would argue unfortunately‑‑we proceeded
ahead with the access accounts, but we left everything else off and did not
talk about the importance of this so‑called independent commission. Over time, because of persistence of some,
you have seen a gesture that resulted back primarily towards the end of 1992,
an agreement from all three political parties inside the Chamber that we do
need to act.
Discussions then began first within LAMC
and amongst House leaders. I know at
times House leaders had others designated to do some of the discussions, but
the bottom line is that the representatives from the caucuses were able to,
first and foremost, reach that consensus from within the caucus.
You know, I am sure each caucus was like
the Liberal caucus in the sense that there was varying opinion. Some might have felt that this is the way to
go; others felt that was the way to go.
So the individual caucuses were able to come up with a consensus.
It was not just a one‑time consensus
because what we had to do is we had to go back, as House leaders most often,
and say, this is where we are at now.
There was a considerable amount of negotiating. At times, it was just two House leaders; at
times, it was the three or whatever it might have been. So I do not believe it was an easy feat to
have been able to accomplish what we have before us today, and that is, for all
intents and purposes, a consensus that I believe all 57 MLAs would agree on.
When I had said that the Liberal caucus
had agreed to what we have before us today, it was based on the caucus
discussions that I had. I feel very
comfortable in believing that my caucus colleagues in particular support Bill
55.
Now there were some concerns that were
raised‑‑and ideas. The minister went through some of the points,
and I wanted to go through a few of those points also.
It is important for us that we saw that
the commission will recommend a process for reviewing MLAs' salaries and
benefit provisions in the future. In
fact, this commission is going to come back to us with a recommendation in
terms of frequencies. How often? Should
this be something that is mandated, that occurs after every provincial
election, or every 10 years? The
frequency is very important.
* (1450)
It also will come back with the
recommendation on whether it should be based on people, or individuals versus
positions, which, again, is very important.
What we want to try to do is for the future because ultimately we want
to strive to get the perfect system. I
think the next best thing would be to have the commission itself not appointed
or brought up from the Legislature.
Hopefully, the commission will be able to address‑‑well, we
should not say "hopefully"; we know that the commission will be able
to bring that particular issue back to us.
In the news service that was sent out, it
made reference to a number of things. It
talked in terms of the‑‑or made mention to the deciding of
taxability of the MLAs' salaries. That
is something in itself, again, prior even to this discussion; I have been
involved with other discussions with the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), the
members for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) and Thompson (Mr. Ashton), dealing with that
particular issue: Should MLAs have a tax‑free
portion?
Madam Deputy Speaker, again, at that
particular issue, I feel safe at saying I was not aware of any MLAs who
believed that in fact we should have a tax‑free portion of the
salary. So it will be interesting to see
what the commission has to say about that particular issue.
It also is to decide on the salaries of
cabinet ministers and other MLAs who have positions with additional
responsibilities. Again, if we look at the current system, is the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) of the province paid appropriately for the service that is
rendered? The third opposition‑‑and
I guess this is a conflict for me even to comment on it‑‑the third
opposition House leader is not accounted for, or the party Whip, the Minister
of Health (Mr. Orchard) versus, let us say, the Minister of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh), and the amounts that they are getting paid.
Determine the method and extent of public
disclosure of details of MLAs and individual expenditures. Madam Deputy Speaker, we will recall in terms
of individuals and, in particular, the public, that they do have a right to
know in terms of what it is that we are spending our tax dollars on. We can remember the commotion raised about
the access accounts. Again, this is something that the commission is going to
be looking at, how is it best to disclose what monies, or how politicians are,
in fact, expending those dollars?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not want to
speak long on this particular bill, but I do want to emphasize that by giving
it to an independent commission is not to say that MLAs are underpaid or have
too much in terms of benefits or are overpaid.
That is not the reason why I personally entered into this. I personally felt very strongly on this
because I, on principle, just disagree with the concept of MLAs' setting and
passing their own salaries and benefits.
I, in some cases, and others, no doubt,
could argue why it is maybe we should be receiving less, and some will argue
why it is that we should be receiving more; why it is we do not need an access,
and why it is we do need an access. But
it should not be us, Madam Deputy Speaker, who decide that.
Come January 31, we are going to have a
report, and whatever that commission reports on, I am sure that you will be
able to find something there that would reflect negatively in terms of maybe a
substantial increase in one area, but we could also see a decrease in another
area. We do not know what is going to
happen. That is really when the
question, the moment of truth, is going to be before this Chamber. Right now, it is easy for us to say, yes, the
concept of an independent commission is a wonderful thing. The real question will come on January 31.
What is the reaction going to be from the
Leader of the Liberal Party and the Premier and the Leader of the New
Democratic Party if there is something there?
Those individuals, maybe the president of the MFL or the president of
the Chamber of Commerce‑‑those individuals who have credibility in
dealing with the media, as so many members of the public do, Madam Deputy
Speaker, how are they going to respond, come January 31? That will have an impact on how successful
this process is actually going to be.
I hope and trust‑‑and it is
primarily because I believe in the integrity of all 57 people inside this
Chamber‑‑that we will act responsibly when the commission does
report; that whether we agree with or disagree with one aspect or more than one
aspect of the report, we accept it; and that we at least suggest that this was,
in fact, the best way to deal with this particular issue.
Having said those few words, Madam Deputy
Speaker, we are quite pleased to see it go to committee. I am very glad to see that individuals,
members of the public were told that it will be going to committee tomorrow at
one o'clock and, hopefully, that we do listen, and that members from the
public, because they have had the notice, will come forward and express the
concerns that they might have, in particular, if they have some ideas that
might even make the next time that much smoother. Thank you.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I just want to indicate,
first of all, that because of the need to get this matter into committee with
some notice, and while we have had public notice, official notice, a number of
our members will, unfortunately, not be able to be here in time to vote,
including our Leader. I just spoke to
our Leader five minutes ago, who is currently in northern
He indicated that he wanted placed on the
record his 100 percent support for this, along with two other members who are
currently in northern
I just have a very few comments. There has, indeed, been a lot of discussion,
Madam Deputy Speaker, and I want to give some indication to members of the
public of the tone of the discussion. I
want to begin by saying that I do not think anybody in this Legislature really
has relished the idea at any point in time of having any direct or indirect say
in terms of what our remuneration, pensions and salaries are. In fact, in the years that I have been here,
we have had a system in place to set a series of salaries and benefits, and we
have been in the rather unique position of actually only voting, over the last
12 years I have been here, for reductions and freezes in terms of salary. There have, indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, on
the other hand, been some changes in allowances over that period of time that
have resulted in increases, and I think in many ways reflected the changing
nature of the job in this province.
I think most members of this Legislature,
I would say all members of this Legislature do not run based on the salary,
remuneration, et cetera. I think it is
something that obviously is a question that gets asked but I would suspect
there are many members of this Legislature who probably found out after they
were elected the kind of demands and the actual salaries, pensions and benefits
that were in place. I think that should
be recognized. That is not why we enter
this House. We enter it far more to
serve the public.
But you know, when we are elected to this
House we have to deal with that decision under the current set of
circumstances, either directly or indirectly, because while we do not vote on
our own salaries every year, we have a formula that is put in place. While we do not vote on our pensions, there
is a formula that has been in place since 1979.
Indeed, there have been other decisions that have been put in place in
previous years that are once again part of our legislation.
* (1500)
Madam Deputy Speaker, the paradox here is
that we are based on a system whereby parliament, in this case the Legislature,
has the final decision. You know, we do
not always as individual MLAs vote on decisions that affect us directly. We have very strict conflict‑of‑interest
rules that ensure there is neither a direct nor an indirect conflict‑of‑interest
where there is any matter that has any financial implications affecting the
member. If we own shares in a company under certain circumstances, we not only
have to declare that, we have to withdraw.
If we own property we have to do the same thing. If we have family members who are in the
situation, we have to do the same thing.
The irony with the decision that affects us most directly, we have no
mechanism to avoid any perceived or direct conflict of interest, and that being
our salaries, pensions, remuneration and allowances.
What this bill does is it sets up a
mechanism that is independent and binding.
Once this bill is passed, we are setting in place a process that will
decide for the next Legislature the level of those salaries, benefits and
remuneration.
When we vote today, Madam Deputy Speaker,
let it be very clear that we have no sense of where it will go because we have not
excluded anything from consideration.
Everything is included. Not only
that, this bill essentially freezes, for example, existing pensions and allows
the commission to do what it sees fit in terms of retirement benefits, if any.
It allows the commission to deal with
salaries in whatever way, shape or form it sees fit, including in dealing with
the question of whether there should be a tax‑free allowance, something
that I know has personally bothered me for many years and many other members of
this House. It allows this commission to
deal with allowances and disclosure and it does it in a way that is upfront,
that is independent and that is binding.
I would point, Madam Deputy Speaker, to, I
think, the increasing evidence that the vast majority of the public and the
vast majority, if not all, MLAs support this.
I think it is because we in this House are moving this way because we
want to see perhaps some restoration of the faith of members of the public in
terms of the political process.
I really feel, we saw just recently on the
Senate, for example, the kind of cynicism that people have seen when you see a
very self‑interested direct move taken in that case by a body that was
not even as accountable as Members of Parliament or members of the Legislature. It is not good enough just to criticize the
Senate for its indefensible activities.
We have to go forward beyond that and this bill sets up that process. It does not allow us in any way, shape or
form to have any vested interest in this process. We are not cherry‑picking. We are sending all issues and we will abide
by those decisions.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have no idea what
the final result will be. There may be
some adjustments but they may be up, they may be down in terms of the level of
salaries or pensions or benefits. That
is not the point. We are not bringing in
this bill to get a certain result. We
are bringing in this bill to bring in a process of fairness, and that is why I
once again indicate on behalf certainly of our caucus and certainly of our
Leader and the members who will be unable to attend this recorded vote, but I
am sure will be here for third reading, that this is the route to go.
In fact, if this process works
successfully, it may become an example to other Legislatures because there has
never been another Legislature that has brought in such a comprehensive and
such a binding process as this, Madam Deputy Speaker.
With those words we look forward to the
vote and look forward to the public hearings tomorrow and look forward,
hopefully, to a process that will provide a model to other Legislatures. Thank you.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
The question before the House is second reading
of Bill 55, The Legislative Assembly Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
(Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Assemblee legislative et apportant des
modifications correlatives a une autre loi).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some Honourable Members:
Agreed.
Mr. Manness: Yeas and Nays, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: All those in favour, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members:
Yea.
Madam Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
In my opinion, the vote is unanimous.
Mr. Manness: A recorded vote, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
*
(1510)
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 55, The Legislative Assembly Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Assemblee legislative et apportant
des modifications correlatives a une autre loi.
All those in favour of the motion will
please rise.
A
STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Alcock, Ashton, Barrett, Carstairs,
Cerilli, Chomiak, Cummings, Dacquay, Derkach, Dewar, Downey, Driedger,
Ducharme, Edwards, Enns, Ernst, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake),
Filmon, Friesen, Gaudry, Gilleshammer, Gray, Helwer, Lamoureux, Laurendeau,
Maloway, Manness, Martindale, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Orchard, Pallister,
Penner, Plohman, Praznik, Reid, Reimer, Render, Rose, Santos, Stefanson,
Storie, Sveinson, Vodrey, Wasylycia‑Leis, Wowchuk.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Yeas 48, Nays 0.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.
* * *
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would
you call Bill 48, please.
Bill 48‑The
Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1993
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), Bill 48, The Statute Law Amendment
(Taxation) Act, 1993; Loi de 1993 modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives
en matiere de fiscalite, standing in the name of the honourable member for
Kildonan who has 20 minutes remaining.
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity yesterday
of speaking on this bill, the hundred‑million‑dollar tax bill that
this government has brought forward through its budgetary measures.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker,
in the Chair)
I indicated in my comments yesterday the
difficulties we had with the government's tax measures, not the least of which
were those tax measures that are on top of those already present in this bill,
most notably, those taxes on the sick and the old that have been imposed by the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) in the form of taxes and user fees, in the
form of the home care equipment supply user fees that have been introduced, in
the form of user fees on colostomy equipment for the first time in this
province and, in addition, the various fees and dramatic increases to nursing
home rates and the like that have been perpetrated on the people of Manitoba by
this government and this budget.
In addition to all those increases, we now
have the hundred‑million‑dollar tax bill that this government has
introduced, that is before us today. It is
something that, as I indicated in my comments yesterday, we have a good deal of
difficulty with, measures such as the expansion of the PST on goods, measures
such as a retroactivity that is applied to the application of these taxes, and
the other measures to reduce the tax credits to homeowners in this province,
which is a very unfair and inequitable approach to taxation, because it is done
across the board.
It is done regardless of income,
regardless of the value of the property.
It is simply a confiscation of $75 from every homeowner and, in
addition, an additional tax grab from senior citizens based on a means test,
all of these measures at a time when our economy is probably the worst it has
been perhaps since the Great Depression, at a time when our economy is stalled,
and when Manitobans are having a good deal of difficulty finding the resources
to make ends meet. Even those who have
the resources to make ends meet are suffering the terrible effects of this lingering
recession, which as we heard in reports this morning and as we heard in
questions in Question Period, the recession that seems to be over in every
other region of this country except Manitoba.
It is funny how members opposite are
always willing to point to other provinces when it comes to health care, or any
kind of measures, any other measures, but when you talk about Manitoba being
the last economy to come out of the recession, when you talk about Manitoba's
manufacturing jobs being the worst in this country, when you talk about the devastating
effect that government policies have had on this economy and when you look at
other provinces, how Manitoba fares poorly, the silence is very perceptible
from members on the other side of the House when it comes to comparisons on
that level.
Nonetheless, it is clear that the timing
of these hundred‑million‑dollar tax increases by this government‑‑all
tax increases are invariably not positive, but the timing is particularly bad
when so many Manitobans are hurting, the effect of this lingering recession. It is lingering in
So we find it very, very difficult to
support these kinds of measures that impose further taxes on the backs of
Manitobans, many of whom are already struggling to make ends meet. In addition, we have situations in this
budget in particular, where we have taxes imposed on top of taxes, imposed on
top of user fees, referred to by the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) as
contributions, but taxes nonetheless, taxes imposed upon individuals who can
ill afford it.
It is a double effect; it is a pyramiding
effect. It is a cascading effect on
individual taxpayers. Many of these
individual taxpayers are double and triple whammied by these tax increases
because they affect all in this particular budget.
* (1520)
I need only refer to events in the
constituency that I represent where every street that I have visited, there are
individuals who are unable to find employment.
There are individuals with university degrees who are unable to find
jobs. These people are going to have a great deal of difficulty paying these
additional hundred‑million‑dollar taxes that have been imposed upon
them by this government in this particular bill, as well as the various user
fees that have been imposed on top of them in the health care field this budget
by the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and the effect that may have on their
services and, in particular, a lot of the measures, for example, the cutback on
the home care maintenance program and the elimination of up to at least 2,000
people, if I use the Minister of Health's (Mr. Orchard) figures.
The deputy minister has given different
figures and various departmental officials have given different figures, but at
least 2,000 Manitobans are cut off the home care maintenance program with a
pitiful attempt on the part of the government to defend that by saying somehow
it is a program that was put in place by the NDP, which can be nothing further
from the truth when the program that was put in place in 1984‑85 was of a
co‑ordinating nature which was to provide services in addition to those
already provided by home care and for those already who were not qualified and
could not get through the threshold of home care. The government persists in
making the arguments on that basis, but I do not think that it is being
accepted by any Manitobans.
What is being clearly acknowledged is that
this government, with already the highest deficit in the province's history,
$862 million, as identified by the former member for Rossmere, this government,
who says they are managing the economy well, have got the worst of all worlds,
Mr. Acting Speaker. We have a hundred‑million‑dollar
tax increase in this particular bill in the face of the largest deficit in our
history, very poor management. In
addition, we have the health care user fees that have been imposed which
cascade on the backs of the very same individuals who are being forced to pay
these dramatic draconian increases in taxes.
Mr. Acting Speaker, those conclude my
comments. I am certain that many of my
colleagues on this side of the House will have much to say about this
particular bill and the measures that have been imposed on the backs, the
hundred‑million‑dollar tax increases imposed on the backs of
Manitobans. Thank you.
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Acting Speaker, I am pleased to rise and
speak to Bill 48, not because I am pleased with the government's actions with
regard to this bill, but that I do have the opportunity to respond and react to
what the government has done with regard to taxation by way of The Statute Law
Amendment Act, 1993.
Some of my colleagues have called it the
hundred‑million‑dollar tax bill.
That is an accurate description of what this is from a government that
says they do not tax, they will not increase personal taxes to the people of
The people of
In addition to this huge tax increase this
year, and I will go into elements of that which are contained in this bill,
they had the largest single deficit in the history of this province, from a
government, again, that said they are responsible, they are going to reduce borrowing,
they are going to put the province on a sound financial footing.
Five years after coming into government,
they are still running up huge deficits, larger than any New Democratic
administration in this province, much larger.
They are still trying to call it something that it is not. Instead of saying that they had an $862‑million
deficit, over $300 million higher than the previous high for a deficit in this
province‑‑a figure $862 million was used by their former colleague
the member for Rossmere before he resigned because he could not stomach this
government's provision and statements about the deficit, was one of the
reasons, misinformation that went out to the people of Manitoba that somehow it
was only a $562‑million deficit.
The member for Rossmere said, no, that is
not true, and as an accountant, he was eminently qualified to speak about
that. He said, no, it is not $562
million. It is not even $762 million as
the government would have us believe, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
stated, $762 million by way of a $200‑million rainy day fund that was put
back into the coffers of the
That hundred‑million‑dollar
bill came due last year, and a bill was sent by the federal government, so it
is another hundred million dollars on the deficit. So the deficit is $762 million plus $100
million, which equals $862 million.
We did not get the response that we wanted
from the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme) there because perhaps
math was not necessarily his best class, but it is $862 million. Now, the government is going to have to live
by that figure when they go out to the people of Manitoba, whether it be in the
next election, whether it be in the by‑elections and defend spending and
tax increases, spending increases that have resulted overall in an $862‑million
deficit, and they will have to defend the complete failure of their economic
policies to move the province out of the recession and the deficit position of
the Province of Manitoba.
They have gone the opposite way, so that
is going to be tough for them to defend.
They would like to leave the image that somehow they are so frugal and
that they are excellent managers. The results speak for themselves far better
than any words can say, when you can simply show people an $862 million deficit
by the minister responsible for deficits, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
in this province.
Yet they continue, Mr. Acting Speaker, to
call down the previous New Democratic government as if somehow there were these
great windfalls of revenue and the government was misspending in those
days. Let us take a look, because in the
final year of the Pawley government we left a $58‑million surplus in this
province, a surplus‑‑
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Order,
please. Could I ask the honourable
member to explain to me how this is relevant to Bill 48?
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Speaker, what has happened then is
that they have ignored those facts, so now the government has to come back with
Bill 48 and bring in tax increases to offset these huge deficits that they have
put in place. I think that is something
every Manitoban should be aware of and should be able to understand so that
there is that connection, because even the Acting Speaker failed to see the
connection when he asked that question of me.
I think it all comes clear now, not only to the Acting Speaker but also
the members opposite, as to how that relates.
Why did the government have to bring in a
hundred million dollars in tax increases this year? Because they failed in their economic
policies, because they have run up the largest deficits in the history of this
province. That is why they have brought
it in. At the same time, Mr. Acting
Speaker, they say, we do not increase taxes.
Let us look at one of the examples, Mr.
Acting Speaker. In this bill, Bill 48,
we see a substantial decrease in a property tax credit that people in this
province have come to enjoy over the years from $325 down to $250. That means we have a poll tax that is applied
to every homeowner in this province, regardless of income, of $75‑‑(interjection)
Now the Minister of Health understands
that. He understands $75. He says, well, that does not affect me too
much, I can handle that. What about those
people in the lower income levels who cannot afford his cuts in health care, in
addition to the $75 decrease in the property tax credit, which is in fact a
poll tax increase of $75 for every homeowner in this province?
* (1530)
An Honourable Member: Silly, silly.
Mr. Plohman: That is a fact. That is not silly. That is a fact. It is like the Thatcher poll tax. That is what it is. This government likes
poll taxes, so they put in place a poll tax that applies in the same number‑‑(interjection)
No, it is not a progressive tax, Mr. Acting Speaker. When you have a progressive tax, you use a
percentage. When you use a percentage,
it is related to income. They are not
using any percentage here. They are
using a poll tax, a set amount of dollars.
It is Tory thinking, Thatcher‑like thinking, Reagan‑like
thinking that comes up with those kinds of policies.
We have a $75 increase in this bill for
every homeowner for their property taxes, and the government has the nerve to
say we are going to pass Bill 16 because we do not like to see property tax
increases in this province.
What hypocrisy, Mr. Acting Speaker. Can you imagine? Here they are saying, well, it is okay if we
do it. We can increase the property
taxes by $75 for every homeowner in this province, and we can increase the
costs for pensioners by way of eliminating the pensioners' tax reduction of
$175, the pensioners' tax assistance. We
can eliminate that from pensioners. It
is okay for us to do that, but we are not going to let those school boards
increase taxes. No way. We do not believe in tax increases for
property in this province.
Well, there is the most hypocritical
statement by this government, actions by this government, which lay bare their
true feelings. It is a matter of whether
they increase the taxes, but no other level of government. They wanted to buy some leeway for the public
to accept property tax increases, and they thought it would be really tough if
the school boards increased the property taxes as well. So this was one way to buy a little slack in
there so that they could jump in with their $75 tax increase across the board.
There is nobody that is going to believe
in this
The people are not going to believe
it. They are going to try and explain it
in a straight‑faced way, and the people are going to say: Go on, that is hogwash. Do not try and tell me that. I know it is not true. Who do you think I am? Do you think I believe that nonsense. They are not going to believe that nonsense,
and I can tell the members opposite, do not even try it on the people of
I think they can use that same argument
that I am making with regard to their explanations with regard to the
Pensioners' School Tax Assistance Program; it can also be made here. There is a tremendous additional tax in
addition to all the taxes that the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) is placing
on people who are sick, children, youth in this province, people who need
health care, the additional user fees which he calls contributions.
In addition to those special fees and
taxes, which are being put on by this Conservative government, we get these
major tax increases in this tax bill. We
see them even to the level of the sales tax which they are now saying they are
going to‑‑without calling it that, by way of their actions, they
are demonstrating that they believe in harmonization of the GST with the sales
tax, something that they said, no, we are not going to do that. We are not going to harmonize the sales tax
with the GST.
They did that in this bill, Mr. Acting
Speaker. In this bill they have
harmonized, to a great extent, the sales tax in the
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): You betcha. You betcha.
Mr. Plohman: There is the member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard)
not realizing how transparent he is when he says, you betcha. I am going to go out and work for a
Conservative.
Mr. Gerry McAlpine, Acting Speaker, in
the Chair)
They are trying to perpetuate the myth
that somehow the federal government is going to change courses. They are going to be good Conservatives
because Mulroney is going to be gone and
Mr. Acting Speaker, I find this bill
galling, quite frankly, because it is this government when in opposition who
said New Democrats are the only ones who increase taxes and that Conservatives
do not increase taxes, and they have kept their promise. What do they do? Where are their priorities with regard to tax
increases and tax decreases? That tells
the story.
Are they in favour of the working people
of this province and the poorer people, the low‑income people, the middle‑income
people of this province? Are they
supporting those people who generate the income and the taxation for the people
of
We look at where they have given the
breaks. The property tax increases that
were made are one example, but where are the breaks? Look at the breaks. The post‑secondary and health education
levy, which the Tories call a payroll tax‑‑now that was an effort
when it was implemented to offset‑‑(interjection) Yes, well, there
is Pawley's payroll tax, they say. That
was an effort to offset the decreases in revenue from
Now the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard)
should know that well now as Minister of Health. He argued, oh no, they are not decreasing
their transfer payments. They are not
decreasing them, but in fact the Liberal government nationally and then the
Tory government nationally were over the years and still are decreasing overall
the transfer payments for health and education, Mr. Acting Speaker. You know what that means. The government has to find the money. Where do they find the money? They put in
place the health and education levy.
Now we have a government who comes along
and reduces the revenue from that particular tax. Each year, Mr. Acting Speaker, we are seeing
millions of dollars being lost by way of cuts in corporate taxes by way of this
particular measure alone, and this is the kind of priority that this government
displays when it comes to taxation relief.
I would imagine they are still on their old kick that somehow this
trickle‑down economics is going to work in this province, going to put
people to work, that the corporations are going to be so pleased and thankful
that their taxes were reduced, they are going to hire more people and create
jobs in this province. No, they are
not. They are not. They have not done it.
My colleague the member for Brandon East
(Mr. Leonard Evans) just illustrated in the Question Period today that
* (1540)
That is the result of their trickle‑down
economics. So much for assisting and
helping the average working people in this province, so much for putting people
back to work. You know, Mr. Acting
Speaker, they must realize that if they put people back to work, they would
increase their tax revenues, and they would not have the record deficits that
they have had in the last number of years.
They should put people back to work, but
they are not doing it. They are throwing
people out of work. They are sucking
money by way of the VLTs out of rural
We can look at the statistical information
across this province, nowhere better is it illustrated, nowhere better is that
failure of economic policy illustrated than in the Parkland of the province, as
we saw from their labour profile. We
have two ministers from the
Then they proceed to tax, then they
proceed to increase the taxes to average Manitobans, and the result is that we
have more and more poor people in this province, people who are having to rely
on a dwindling social safety net which this government cuts as well by way of
the social assistance payments in the
Now, I want to tell you, Mr. Acting
Speaker, this Bill 48 typifies the government's callous treatment of the
average people in
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker,
in the Chair)
Let us talk about‑‑you know,
these members opposite like to create artificial issues. They like to leave the impression to divert
attention away from the real economic issues, from the fact that they are
sucking money out of the rural economies by way of Bill 48 and the taxations
that are taking place by way of VLTs, and there are no jobs being created. People are fleeing the rural areas of this
province. Then they want to divert
attention away from this by somehow saying, oh, the NDP is against PMU. The NDP is against Ayerst. What utter and complete nonsense! They will stop at nothing to cover up their
failures in rural
We see one example of some success as a
result of a plant that was started in the '60s and '70s, and that was improved
upon during the Pawley government of this province. This government has done nothing to
contribute towards that expansion; therefore they have to tax the people of this
province by way of Bill 48, because they have done nothing to create jobs and
expand the rural economy. That is what
has happened in this province.
Let them not deflect from their failures
by leaving the impression that somehow the New Democrats are not supporting the
PMU plant in
Let them not attempt to take credit and
discredit New Democrats in any way, shape or form, because that is simply not
true, that is not factual, and the people of
Let us get back to the failures of this
government as outlined in this bill‑‑
Point of
Order
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Acting Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if you could ask the honourable
member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) to speak up a little. We are having trouble hearing him on this
side of the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): The honourable minister did not have a point
of order, but I would ask the honourable member for Dauphin to possibly remain
relevant to the bill.
* * *
Mr. Plohman: How much do I have left?
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): 15 minutes.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Speaker, I will attempt to speak
as loudly as I can. I know it is
difficult for members in this House when they are having all kinds of side
conversations to hear what I am saying.
They do not want to hear certain things. The Minister of Natural
Resources would rather not hear that the information they have been attempting
to put on the record and spread throughout the
I want to once again dwell on some of the
major failures of this government with regard to Bill 48, The Statute Law
Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1993, which was brought in, because in this document
we find a tremendous number of tax increases that are going to hurt the people
of
I think that the government must admit to
the people of
I want to give them some advice, because
they always say all they get is criticism, they do not get any advice. I want to tell them, Mr. Acting Speaker, the
first thing they are going to have to do in order to avoid these kinds of
measures, which are poll taxes across the board to the people of Manitoba, like
the $75 tax increase on all properties and the reduction in the pensioners' tax
assistance, all of those measures, they could avoid them by ensuring that
rather than reducing jobs and supporting projects and programs and policies in
this government that reduce jobs, they could avoid these tax increases by increasing
jobs in this province. We have to put
people to work. That has to be the
primary consideration. People want to
work. We cannot support our health
programs and our education programs and social services unless we do have some
major initiatives to put people back to work.
It is ironic that this government follows
the same path of Grant Devine in Saskatchewan, because they increased taxes,
they still ran up record deficits just like is being done in Manitoba now, only
a few years later.
In
* (1550)
You cannot reduce the deficit if you do
not have people working, and you cannot give your tax breaks to the
corporations and hope they are going to put people to work. It does not work. They do not have confidence in this
government. They are not going to do it
alone.
Sterling Lyon found that out. Sterling Lyon brought this province into a
recession ahead of the rest of the country in 1980, and it took a New
Democratic Government to move us out of that recession, because we made jobs a
priority in this province by way of the $200‑million jobs fund.
But this government has no policies for
job creation, so while people languish in their homes, on the streets, we get
no jobs, we get no tax revenue, and it is a tremendous waste of dignity of people
in this province. It is a tremendous
loss of the human resource.
Somehow the people on that side of the
House, this Conservative government, have to realize that if they do not make a
primary goal and put in place programs for jobs, then we are going to see
continued stagnation of the economy, we are going to see declines in revenue,
we are going to see increases in the deficit, and the government is going to
have to come in with more tax bills like Bill 48 to pay for it.
They are going to have more cuts like they
are doing in home care, like the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) is trying to
justify in this House, and call it something other than it is. They are going
to have more cuts in the public education system like this Minister of
Education (Mrs. Vodrey) has presided over.
They will attempt to explain them and
justify them by way of deficits, and the deficit is precisely their
failure. They do not know that yet. They do not realize that yet, but we
understand that on this side of the House, and we are going to make that
message loud and clear across this province every opportunity we have, because
it is precisely because of the government's failed economic policies that we
are seeing cuts in these programs and, I might add, Mr. Acting Speaker, the
lack of commitment and a sense of fairness and justice by this government.
So where do they go? To the most vulnerable people in society,
those who cannot fight back, the sick and the elderly and the disabled, and
minorities, children. Those are the
people they attack in their program cuts.
That is what we have seen in this province over the last number of
months in the last budgets that have taken place.
Then on top of it, we see a hundred‑million‑dollar
tax bill in combination with those cuts.
We look through‑‑and I illustrated that‑‑the
Parkland labour profile, and we see where people are not working, where they
cannot find jobs, where the average income in the Parkland‑‑of
which the member for Roblin‑Russell (Mr. Derkach) is a minister and his colleague
the member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings) in the Parkland. They preside over a situation where people in
the Parkland make only $12,000 average yearly income versus $17,000 in the rest
of the
They preside over the cut of the Human
Resources Opportunity Centre, and they defend that cut rather than coming to
the rescue of those people who are impacted.
When I moved a motion in this House to have that money restored by way
of reduced management, in that particular area, the member for Roblin‑Russell
(Mr. Derkach) and the member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings) spoke against it,
against their own constituencies.
We see no strategy by this Minister of
Education (Mrs. Vodrey) to address those serious problems in the Parkland
dealing with inequities and wages and the high unemployment rates that are
taking place there, and the fact that there is nearly double the rate of people
who have not completed Grade 9 education in the Parklands compared to the rest
of the province. I say, Mr. Acting
Speaker, that this government has to take responsibility and develop policies
for that. If they are going to increase
taxes, like Bill 48, they are going to have to bring in programs to address
those problems and those inequities and those disparities across this province.
They are going to have to develop a labour
force development strategy in this province, and put in place programs targeted
to meet it, but they are not doing that.
They are failing to do it. They
are trying to deflect. The latest
deflection, of course, is boundary review, Mr. Acting Speaker, because they can
make that the major issue in this province over the next 16 months. Meanwhile all the other educational issues,
they hope, will be forgotten, and their failures with regard to educational
reform and failures in distance education and all of the other issues that we
have been raising with the minister during Estimates.
So measures like Bill 48: failures; failures; failures to develop
strategies; failures to put people to work; failures in income for the
province; failures in meeting the targets that the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) has himself set up. Always
optimistic estimates, this year he finally went pessimistic with his estimates. Is he going to say, well, we are finally
right; we are doing even better than we estimated? All the other years he has overestimated the
revenues and underestimated the expenditures, said his deficit was going to be
less than it was.
It is a record of mismanagement by that
Minister of Finance who inherited a positive financial position in this
province in 1988, a surplus, and turned it into a deficit, the largest in the
history of this province, $862 million plus the $58 million he inherited as
well‑‑over $900 million, almost a billion‑dollar turnaround
by this Minister of Finance. Let him not
portray himself as a frugal manager of the resources of the people of this
province. He is a temporary custodian
who is going to be remembered for the largest deficit in the history of this
province, and a minister who, along with his colleagues who sit there so
complacently, brought in a hundred‑million‑dollar tax increases at
the same time while running up those deficits.
What a failure! What a dismal
record!
The people will judge that record, Mr.
Acting Speaker, when they have an opportunity to do so, and the sooner the
better. As soon as the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) has the courage to bring in either the by‑elections or a general
election in this province, then we are going to have an answer on this. That is when we are going to see the true
colours come out. They are not going to
be able to hide behind their slick media coverage and their veil of media
protection in this province, because then the people are going to see their
true colours during that election campaign. (interjection) Well, let us just
see it.
Now, the Minister of Health says that is
not the case, that I do not know what I am talking about. We will see about that. I wonder how pleasant his reception is going
to be as he rides in his convertible in the parade in Morden this year, when
the senior citizens there see the cuts that he has made and the disabled people
see it, and the farmers in the area and the small businesses see the dismal
record of this government. How many
smiles is he going to get from the people of
As I say in conclusion, this bill typifies
this government's insensitivity to the people of
They are going to continue to fail,
because they cannot learn that jobs are the No. 1 priority in this province,
and it will not happen through their tried and failed policies in this
province, their trickle‑down theories that they were trying to put in
place from the 1930s. It did not work
then; it is not going to work now.
These cutbacks are only hurting the
vulnerable people. It is about time they
woke up, changed the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), changed the Minister of
Education (Mrs. Vodrey), and hopefully, some new blood in there will make a
difference in the next session. I do not
hold out a great deal of hope. I do not
hold up much hope, but I know the Minister of Health's feet are getting pretty
heavy. His boots are filled with cement,
and he is going straight to the bottom of the river, Mr. Acting Speaker, that
is where he is going. I want to say that
the people of
Mr. Acting Speaker, this bill is a
testimony to this government, its failures.
Thank you.
* (1600)
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
They like to walk around and talk around
the province that they are not increasing any taxes; that they have not
increased taxes, but in reality this is a hundred‑million‑dollar
tax grab. There are many areas that this government is raising taxes in and
reducing services throughout the province.
We have to look particularly at what they
are doing with property taxes. The
changes that they have made have hit everybody across the province, but in
reality it has hit those people on low incomes at a much greater percentage
than it will hit those on high incomes.
We see that pensioners will have to pay an additional $175 in school
taxes. The assistance program that was
brought in place will now have to be paid by seniors and they will have to
apply back for it on their income tax.
There is a minimum property tax.
It has been reduced from $325 down to $250.
It is unfortunate that this government
makes attempts to say that they are not increasing taxes, but in reality, Mr.
Acting Speaker, this act will allow them to raise many, many taxes. This
government wants people to think that they are concerned about the economy of
this province and that they are doing a good job.
When we look at the statistics that the
member for Brandon put forward this afternoon that there are 6,000 less people
working in this province than there were previously, the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness) tries to indicate that is because of the dire straits this
province is in. But when you look at
other provinces, a province such as
The member for Roblin‑Russell (Mr.
Derkach) is grasping at straws again, trying to increase their image in rural
They may try to convince people that they
are in support of the rural economy and that they are helping people in rural
Manitoba, but the people in rural Manitoba, you have to give them much more
credit than that, because they know what this government is doing. Those people in rural
I would think the member for Roblin‑Russell
would be very concerned to know that the percentage of people in that area who
have less than a Grade 9 education is double what it is in other parts of the
province. It is a very serious problem,
but this government chooses to ignore the problem and not put in the extra
services. They have restricted the
school boards' ability to raise the funds if they want to bring in the extra
services for the children. They have not
addressed the issue that has been raised many times in many of the areas of
first‑year Distance Education that has been raised so many times and the
need has been identified, but they have chosen to ignore it.
But more seriously, I think it is a shame
when we have an area of the province that has such a high number of people below
the standard post‑secondary education, and such a high number of people
who do not even have a Grade 9 education, and in other parts of rural Manitoba
where we have such high unemployment and people on low income levels that this
government is not addressing the concern of lack of jobs in those communities,
and not looking at ways to stimulate that economy.
It is unfortunate that this government
chooses only to use rural
Mr. Acting Speaker, when we look at those
statistics also we see the high number of people that are unemployed in rural
communities and in the aboriginal communities.
I would wonder whether any extra effort is being made to stimulate the
economy in those areas and to create some jobs, rather than investing more money
into social income security, into welfare.
Why is this government not looking at how we can stimulate that economy
and get more jobs in? (interjection)
The member across the way said that I want
to cry, cut off welfare. Well, I think
that if he took the opportunity to visit some of those people who are on
welfare, he would find that the majority of them would much rather be working,
and they would be very appreciative if this government would make the effort to
do some job creation rather than putting more money into welfare‑‑but
to understand that you have to visit with those kinds of people and you have to
understand where they are coming from.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I have many of those
people in my constituency, and many of those people in my constituency on
social assistance and on low incomes are going to be affected by the changes
this government has made to taxation.
They like us to believe that they have not increased taxes. They made an election promise that they would
not harmonize the GST and the PST, and what did they do? They have in fact made a very significant
increase in taxes by broadening the retail sales tax and expanding it to many,
many items.
For example, meals under $6, you have to
pay taxes on; snack foods, prescription drugs and newspapers, a very important
tool of communication in rural
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
They go on to outline the importance of
newspapers in rural
In rural communities, we more often rely
on a weekly newspaper, but it is a very important source of information,
whether it be advertising for business or various announcements, local
news. There is a concern that this
increase of taxes on the newspaper is going to reduce the amount of
circulation, and it is going to decrease the circulation, hamper business, but
then there are other things that this government has done that has hurt the
rural communities. That is the whole
issue of Sunday shopping.
* (1610)
Although rural communities said loud and
clear that Sunday shopping was going to hurt them, that it was going to drain
revenue out of their communities and force businesses to close down, the
government insisted on turning a blind eye to that. In fact, when they were asked to go to the
rural communities to hold public hearings, they refused to do that, and they
tell us that they care about the rural community. I find that hard to believe when they take
these actions that have a negative effect on our communities.
So I think that it is very important that
when people are in government, they do listen to the people and that they take
actions that are of a positive nature.
Certainly the actions that this government has taken are not positive,
and they have not been able to fulfill the promises that they made when they
indicated that they would not be raising taxes, that they would not be reducing
services because, Madam Deputy Speaker, they have increased taxes in many areas
by increasing the tax on many goods that are now subject to provincial sales
tax and the GST and by increasing the amount of property tax, which is very
devastating for many people, particularly, as I say, for those on low
incomes. But considering the amount of
taxes that this government is raising in additional taxes, I am surprised at
the amount of services that they are reducing, particularly the services that
they are reducing in the health care field.
Last year, we many times raised the
cutbacks to the home care, particularly in the
When the services were being reduced, when
we tried to get some information from the‑‑although the clients
were telling us that their services were being reduced, there was a gag order
on the people within the department, and nobody would say how much the amount
was that was going to be reduced.
However, after all the cuts were made, we found out that each department
or each home care delivery unit was told that they had to cut X number of hours
and that had to be reduced, and they had to find them somewhere, and that is
what they did.
What we have is many people now who are
without service. It is unfortunate
because many of these people will, in fact, be forced into personal care homes
where they will in reality lose some of their freedom. They will not have the flexibility that they
have or be able to live with the same dignity that they could live when they
were living in their own communities.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are many
parts of this Statute Law Amendment Act which have had a negative impact on the
community. There is one section that I
have not been able to get a clear answer on, and that is the reduction of tax
preference on gasohol by 1 cent per litre.
When I asked that question in Agriculture, I was trying to find out
whether that would be less of an incentive to produce ethanol in the
As I have stated before in this House,
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am interested in that part of the act because there is
tremendous interest in ethanol production in the Swan River area, and a group
of people have done a tremendous amount of work and travelled into other
provinces, both into Saskatchewan and Alberta, to look at how those provinces
are handling the production of ethanol and what kind of supports there are for
those people. If there is a viable
market, and if the people can get that industry off the ground, it will have
great economic value for the area, but for that industry to get off the ground
we have to have natural gas in the area.
I have had this discussion with the
Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) many times. I look forward to hearing the results of the
study that this government made a commitment to in the last budget, where they
said they were doing a study of gasification of rural
The government should makes up its mind
what it is doing with the Repap cut area.
There are people who are interested in, as I have indicated earlier,
different types of operations using pulp, using the hardwoods in the
Madam Deputy Speaker, I guess that it is
disappointing that the government would try to tell people that they are not raising
taxes, but in reality there are many taxes that they are raising. The taxes that they are raising are causing
the greatest difficulty for those who are on low incomes. It only stands to reason if it is an across‑the‑board
tax, those who are on low incomes will end up spending a greater portion of
their dollars on services. When we have
tax increases on goods that these people have to purchase, it is going to hurt
them more than other people. It is going
to also be a problem when the tax bills start to come out very soon and the
people get their tax bills and see what an increase they really have to pay
because of actions of this government.
There will certainly be an increase for pensioners, when they get their
tax bills‑‑
An Honourable Member: You are talking in generalities. Give us some detail, please.
* (1620)
Ms. Wowchuk: The Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey)
wants to hear examples. Well, he knows
full well what the examples are because he is the one that sat around the
cabinet table and made the decision. He
made the decision on property tax. He
made the decision on the Pensioners' School Tax Assistance Program, so let him
not sit there so innocently and ask somebody else to explain it, because he knows
full well what they are.
He knows that he was part of the decision
to expand the retail sales tax to many goods.
He sat around the cabinet table when the decision was made to extend
retail sales tax to newspapers, which the local newspapers association in rural
He also sat at the cabinet table when the
decision was made to drain money out of rural
I want to touch on one other area that
this government has failed on in rural Manitoba in not listening to the people,
and that is in the farming community when the farm groups in this province said
that they were opposed to a continental barley market and they asked the
government, they asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) to stand with
them to oppose it, they asked the Minister of Agriculture to talk to Charlie
Mayer to try to change his mind on this, and this government sat silent.
The majority of people in rural
They would not stand up with rural
Manitobans on the barley issue. Now we
are going to have rail line abandonment speeded up in rural
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think we will see
the consequences of this government for many years. Rather than see increased activity in rural
Some of those communities are quite
worried right now because the rail line is washed out in the
That is right, and I hope the minister
will keep his word, and I am sure he will.
It is not only grain but there are other commodities such as pulp that
are hauled out of that area, and it will be very devastating to the communities
that are suffering right now. If you take
a small community and you lose an elevator, to some it might be just one or two
jobs, but in a rural community one or two jobs is a very great loss. It impacts on the businesses; it impacts on
the schools.
I would hope that we would have the
Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger) standing behind us and those communities
and fighting and giving us some assurance that those lines will be repaired,
and we will continue to see activity.
Madam Deputy Speaker, people in rural
communities are suffering enough and will have to pay out additional money
because of taxes brought in under this Statute Law Amendment Act. They cannot afford to lose jobs and they need
economic growth. They cannot afford to
lose services. The activities that are
being promoted by the federal government and, I believe, supported by this
government, because certainly they are sitting silent on the barley issue and
on the change in the method of payment, certainly will not help the rural
communities.
The other area, Madam Deputy Speaker, that
I want to touch on is in the fishing community.
This government has removed in this budget the freight assistance for
fishermen and has also ignored many of the requests that fishermen have called
for assistance and particularly with unemployment insurance.
They have talked to the Minister of
Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) and hoped that he will talk to the federal
Minister responsible for Fisheries to try to get some of the assistance that is
in place for the East Coast fishermen, have it in place for fishermen here in
Manitoba, but we have not had any responses to that.
So if we just do not address these
concerns, we are going to have no economic growth in these communities; we are
going to have more people going on social assistance. I have to say that I think it is far more
important that this government invests some of these taxes that they are
collecting as a result of this bill into job creation, into education, so those
people who are in these areas where there is no source of income for them now
have the opportunity to get an education so they can fill some of those jobs.
We hear that the jobs of the future are
high‑tech jobs, jobs that require a lot of education. So this government should be taking that
money and investing it into those communities, investing it into distance
education to give people in the remote areas the opportunity to get an
education and fill some of those jobs as they become available.
Under this administration, Madam Deputy
Speaker, there certainly are not very many of those jobs available. There are less jobs available right now
according to the stats that have just been put out, but certainly we should be
giving people the opportunity to get an education and be prepared for those
jobs when they are available.
That opportunity should be there for not
only people in urban centres, but for people throughout the province, in the
North and in rural
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, the legislation
that this government has brought in is a disappointment because they try to convince
people that they are not increasing taxes, that they are not cutting services,
they are not reducing the opportunity for education. In reality, they are doing many of these
things, and they are creating a two‑tier system. Those who have money will always have
services, and those that do not have money will have less opportunities, and
the actions that they are taking or lack of action that they are taking on farm
issues is going to cause greater problems and cause farmers to end up in a much
lower income bracket.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, with those
comments I want to say that I am disappointed in the steps that this government
has taken, and I would hope that they would be more truthful in some of the things
they are saying, particularly when they say that they have not increased
taxes. They have to admit that they have
increased taxes, but they have also dramatically reduced services in rural
Thank you.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
* (1630)
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): Madam Deputy Speaker‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
I wonder if I might ask the understanding of the member for Broadway to
have the member for Gimli report committee changes prior to commencing your
remarks. Would you give leave?
Mr. Santos: Yes.
Committee
Changes
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing
Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) for the
member for Brandon East (Mr. McCrae), the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr.
McAlpine) for the member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh), and the member for
Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) for the member for Morris (Mr. Manness)
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Mr.
Santos: Madam Deputy Speaker, in passing Bill 48 the
Progressive Conservative government of
The Premier of this province in the
general election when seeking mandate from the people said: read my lips, no taxes. But when we look at
the activities of this government we find many, many new taxes. For example, there is now a tax on raw
tobacco leaves, four cents per gram, 57 cents per ounce. The broadening of the scope of the retail
sales tax, in fact, operates as a new tax on meals in restaurants even under
$6, tax on any snack food for the children.
They even do not stop taxing people who
are not supposed to be subject to tax, because they are in fact, Madam Deputy
Speaker, taxing infants when they tax the baby supplies of the little
ones. They are taxing children, too,
when the children need some clothing that will cost more than $100, and they
are taxing the kids in school because they are taxing school supplies. Not only that, in taxing school supplies do
they not know that they are taxing knowledge and the process of education? In taxing education they are in fact
prejudicing the future of this society and of this province.
They also tax the personal hygiene supply.
Even the things that most people need in
their personal care, for themselves, they tax.
They tax circulation of information because they tax newspapers and
magazines. They tax the sick who need
some prescription drugs, because they are taxing the prescription drugs.
They are not truly complying with the
promise that is the precondition of their getting into a position of power in
this government. They say one thing, and
they do another. They are not really
doing away with the taxes, but instead, they are hiding the taxes.
Many people who belong, they think, to the
middle class in this province are thinking that they are still middle
class. The fact of the matter is that
they make too much money to avoid taxes and yet too little money to pay those
taxes. After they pay their taxes, they
suddenly discover they are no longer middle class.
The truth of the matter, Madam Deputy
Speaker, is that taxes really never die; they simply change their names. So the government will always be in this
dilemma of trying to raise revenue and yet still trying to fulfill their
promise of no taxes. But that is no
longer possible.
Taxation is a matter of supply and
demand. The government demands; the
taxpayer supplies. In fact, in this
world, there are probably three things where the supply exceeds the demand: In
matters of troubles in this world, there are more supply than demand; matters
of advice; and matter of taxes.
They are not only taxing the money of the
taxpayers of this province, they are taxing the patience of the voters of this
province. There is nothing wrong in
imposing legitimate tax in order to pay for legitimate public services if the
government has the necessary courage to face up to the responsibility by explaining
the rationale and justification of new taxes.
But it is certainly not up front to
promise that there will be no taxes despite the reality that we need more
revenue in order to run our public services.
However, in imposing the taxes, they chose the very segment of the
people who are least able to carry the burden of taxation. They are imposing taxes on the children. They are imposing taxes on the poor. They are imposing taxes on the elderly, on
the disabled, this government of the day, the Progressive Conservative
government of this province.
The government of the day, being the
majority party in the Legislature, of course, has the necessary authority to
make the decision, and the minority will have to be bound by the majority
decision, but this government is selecting the wrong segment of the population
to carry the burden of taxation.
They try to trim the budget, but it seems
that there is a mishap. Instead they are
trimming the taxpayers without the taxpayers knowing about it, because the
taxes are hidden. There is only one
consolation among the poor of this province.
The only consolation is that they do not have to worry about being
audited for their taxes, because the taxes they do not know they are
paying. The taxes are hidden, and the
taxes are buried in such a way that they will not be held politically
accountable for the taxes that they impose.
There is an instance where in doling out
money to researchers and consultants who will study the conditions of the poor,
that is a wasteful way of spending the public resources. If the government of the day will directly
give the money that they spend in studying the poor, giving the money to those
who need it the most, they probably will be alleviating the conditions of the
poor in this province.
I have one suggestion so that people will
not be poor. The suggestion that I will
probably make is that we should win the war on poverty by abolishing buying on
credit, abolishing credit cards. You can
only spend money that you have got, but with the use of credit cards, you are
spending money you still have not earned.
How can you get out of a deficit position or a debt situation if we
continue trying to buy things on credit?
In imposing the taxes on the poor in the
form of hidden taxes, what this government is doing is that this government is
trying to evade its political responsibility.
They are afraid to explain to the public the need for new tax revenues
and new taxes. We have seen across the
border, for example, the newly elected president of the
There is only a rationale explanation that
the new revenues of the government will be needed in order to finance needed
and necessary public services. I do not
think that the taxpayer and the people of this province will not be able to
understand that.
* (1640)
In imposing, this government is always
saying, we are going cut the deficit, we are going to trim the budget, but what
happened? When we compare the total
deficit the year before, it is higher than the year after. They cannot escape increasing the deficit and
they are even trying to hide that by ignoring some of the liabilities of this
government. Therefore, I say that
despite the promise of no tax, this government, in fact, is imposing taxes and
they do not want the people to know about it so that they will be able to evade
that accountability to explain what the taxes are for. They promised tax cuts but the way they do
tax cuts is so slow, even slower than a helicopter hovering over a nudist
colony. They are so slow.
What they did actually, Madam Deputy
Speaker, is that they authorized a reduction of tax preference on gasohol by
one cent per litre. This is good, I want
to be fair. I also point out the good
things that this government is doing but I condemn their hypocrisy in hiding
taxes. I condemn their insensitivity in
imposing taxes on the sick, on the poor and on the elderly.
Sure they extend the 10 percent
manufacturing investment tax credit to their friends. They increased the exemption for small
businesses for the payroll tax. These
guys, these are their friends and these are the people who are or should be
expected to share a part of the burden of governing the burden of taxation.
What they do is they abolish those programs that help the poor.
Let me make a quotation, Madam Deputy
Speaker. It is written, like a roaring
lion and a charging bear is a wicked ruler over poor people. I think it is immoral for any government who
are supposed to protect the helpless and the powerless in society to instead
impose the hidden taxes on those vulnerable segments of our people. For example, this provincial government
decided to discontinue the
These are people who need the help, and
they deny the help. That is not a good act of government. We have pockets of poverty in this country
and in this province. If we set a
minimum of $10,000 as the low‑income cutoff, as early as 1986, 60 percent
of our seniors with disabilities are below this poverty line. Now it is about 70 percent of seniors, and
mostly among them the females are below this poverty line.
They do not have any income equal to or
greater than $10,000. They have less
income than that. To impose the hidden
taxes on these people who are without resources, people who cannot pay them
because they need the money for their survival and for their other basic
necessities, is an act of an oppressive government.
Therefore, in imposing the hidden taxes on
the vulnerable, powerless and helpless segment of our people, this government,
in fact, is oppressing those people. It
is an act of oppression on the poor and the helpless in our society. In doing so, I say that this government has
lost its legitimacy to govern.
It is easier to be poor in terms of the
purse, but if you are poor of justice, when you are poor and devoid of
fairness, then it is worse than the poverty of the purse. My definition of a Tory is a politician who
never meets a tax that he does not seek to hide.
Do they not understand that because of
pockets of poverty in this province there are some Canadians who are with
disability who have to drag themselves across the floor in their own home
because they could not get any home care attendant to help them?
Do they not know that there are certain
people with disability in this province who have to pile up enough food in
their beds on Friday nights and Friday evening so that they can last through
the weekend because they do not have anybody to help them during the weekend?
It is an act of oppression for any
government to impose the burden on people who cannot carry those burdens of
governance. This is no longer justice; this is oppression. It is written: Again I came and saw all the‑‑(interjection)
If the member so wishes, I will do so.
Again I came and saw all the oppressions that are done under the sun,
and behold the tears of the oppressed, and they have no one to comfort
them. On the side of their oppressors
there was power, and there is no one to comfort them.
* (1650)
If
any government charged with the responsibility of helping those who need help,
if any government charged with the moral duty of making life livable for those
in the shadow of life failed to carry out that responsibility and instead of
helping those who need help were imposing the extra burden on those people, on
their citizens who need help, this is an oppressive government, and an
oppressive government will have no more power, no more legitimacy, no more
mandate to carry on governing the affairs of the people.
They are in fact applying the principle of
justice that is no longer acceptable in life and in civilized society. They think that because they have the power,
they will do what they want. This is the power theory of justice. This was espoused a long time ago by Plato in
the republic speaking through the lips of Thrasymachus when he said justice is
nothing else than the interest of the stronger, and as the government must be
supposed to have power, the only reasonable conclusion is that everywhere there
is one principle of justice which is the interest of the stronger.
That is what this government is
displaying, Madam Deputy Speaker, in trying to destroy all the vulnerable
groups in this province, in taking away their support, in destroying and
removing some of the help that they need in order to become useful members of
society. For example, they removed the
grant to foster parents who are trying to help the children who have no parents
grow up in a responsible way in our civilized society, because they think they
are strong.
The reasoning is this. If they are strong, they have the right to
exact from the weaker whatever serves their interests as the stronger. For the weaker, what will the weak do? They know that if they try to follow their
own interests and oppose the stronger, it will be to their own detriment. Therefore, rather than follow their own
interests and disobey the wishes of the stronger, now constituted into laws and
regulations, they would rather silently suffer because they are weak.
If we pursue policies and programs that we
ourselves cannot defend, it is the wrong way to run the government of this
province. I appeal to those in
government that we raise the standard of policymaking to a level that is wise
and honest to which all reasonable people can support.
What has been true according to Lord Acton
has been realized in this government.
Lord Acton said, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
An Honourable Member: Who said that?
Mr. Santos: Lord Acton.
But that is not exactly correct.
If we analyze the situation, power is good if it is power over ourselves
because the more power, the more control we have over ourselves and our
condition of existence, the happier we are, the more freedom we enjoy. It is the power therefore over others that is
dangerous, because the more we increase our power over others, the more we get
corrupted; and the more power we have over other people, the less power those
other people have over themselves and the more oppressed they are.
The trouble even with our means of
communication in civilized society is that we cannot really go and say things
directly by saying what we mean and meaning what we say. There are certain conventional practices in
our society that makes the truth of the observation that we are moral beings
but we live in an immoral society, because we create social structures, social
institutions that try to hide the truth.
House
Business
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Government House Leader): Madam Deputy
Speaker, the hour is approaching five o'clock, and if you canvass the House, I
think you would find a willingness to waive private members' hour.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to waive private members' hour?
(agreed)
* * *
Mr. Santos: Madam Deputy Speaker, let me summarize what I
have been saying. This majority
government, like any other government, has a responsibility to help the
helpless people in society, but in doing so, they said no taxes. Yet what they do does not jibe with what they
say for they are imposing many hidden taxes.
There is nothing wrong in imposing taxes except that it is imposed
particularly on the poor, the powerless, the sick, the children, the elderly,
who are least able to protect themselves.
I say, in doing so, this government, in fact,
without knowing it perhaps, is oppressing these people. When they do, they lose the legitimacy, the
mandate to govern for the general welfare of all the people. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
We oppose it. I would refer all individuals to read
comments that have been put on the record from members of the Liberal caucus as
to why it is we do not support this government's taxation policy. Having said those few words, again, we do not
support the bill. That is all I have to
say. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): There are many things that were part of the
Minister of Finance's (Mr. Manness) budget this spring that affected my
constituents. There were cutbacks in
child care. There was the elimination of
the Student Social Allowances Program.
There were many things that adversely affected many low‑income
people.
* (1700)
I have had much to say about this in
Estimates and in Question Period and will get another chance in Interim Supply.
This bill is probably even more significant.
When you consider how upset seniors are, disabled people and others who
are receivers of home care services, when you consider how upset they are with
the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and with this government, imagine how
upset they are with this government, with these financial changes, the
financial impact of this bill and the Minister of Finance's budget.
These are kind of the hidden cuts, the
things that have not got nearly as much publicity as they should have, because
these are going to affect far more people than many of those other changes,
cuts and elimination of programs. In
fact, almost every day we discover more programs that have been changed that,
for some reason, were not announced, or there were so many changes that we
found out about them only in the Estimates process. Not having time to read the Estimates of all
the other departments, we have to find out from our colleagues or from
constituents and other people who phone us.
This spring, this Conservative government
did a lot of sneaky things. There were
many sneaky things, but one of them was to take things out of the Department of
Family Services and put them in Education so that we could not ask the Minister
of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) questions, or when we tried to ask
questions of the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey), she refused to answer
those questions and said we had to ask them of the Minister of Family Services.
So it was very difficult to get a handle
on what was cut, what was eliminated and what was gone, unless, of course, we
had time and took the trouble to ask our colleagues, which we have done. But it was very difficult to fit together all
the pieces because of the shell game of moving things around from department to
department, therefore, making it difficult to critique this government. It was like a puzzle, but it was a sneaky
puzzle. That is the point I am making.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
However, as time goes by people will feel
the impact of these budget changes. The
significant single‑tax measure is the broadening of the retail sales tax
base to include items previously exempt, for example: restaurant meals under $6, snack foods,
nonprescription drugs, newspapers and magazines, personal hygiene supplies,
certain safety equipment, school supplies, baby supplies, sewing patterns and
children's clothing items costing more than $100.
Just to use but one example out of this
lengthy list, school supplies, if people were reading the newspapers and
listening to TV and radio at the time of the budget, they might have caught
some of these items. Probably most
people did not read all of the coverage.
You cannot blame them for that.
Budget documents are very thick.
It does not always all get covered in the media. Probably people did not take notice if there
was any coverage at all of the fact that school supplies were going to be
taxed, so the impact of this will not be felt by the public, by children and
their parents until August or September of this year.
Here we have a budgetary decision that was
probably announced somewhere in April when the budget came down which people
really will not feel until August or September.
It is going to be the parents who are going to feel it. They are going to look at their receipt, and
they are going to be paying 14 percent sales tax instead of 7 percent. They will suffer, particularly low‑income
people, particularly people who live in constituencies like Burrows and Point
Douglas and Broadway and Wolseley and to a lesser extent a number of other
constituencies. Certainly many, many
constituents in rural
This is one of the sneaky proposals of
this government, where publicly they stand up and they say, we are not
increasing taxes, but it is quite obvious that they are.
Point of
Order
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member
for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) has used I think inappropriate and very likely
unparliamentary language on two occasions now during this debate in the last
five minutes or so, and I would ask you to call him to order.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I am
trying to look quickly at Beauchesne and I do not find "sneaky" as
being unparliamentary, but the Speaker might want to look and see whether it is
and rule on this alleged point of order.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I am
reading here on the list of items that have been subject to intervention. There is nothing between "sleazy"
and, well, I do not know if I want to repeat the other word that is listed
here, where it might appear alphabetically on the one list, Citation 492. I am looking here at Citation 489, which are
all items that have been subject to being ruled unparliamentary. There is nothing that appears between
"small and cheap" and "stealing," which is where I would
understand this word would appear alphabetically.
So I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker,
that the word "sneaky" is not unparliamentary.
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable
acting government House leader and indeed commented on by the honourable member
for Burrows and the opposition House leader, I would like to quote from
Beauchesne's 491: "The Speaker has
consistently ruled that language used in the House should be temperate and
worthy of the place in which it is spoken.
No language is, by virtue of any list, acceptable or unacceptable. A
word which is parliamentary in one context may cause disorder in another
context, and therefore be unparliamentary."
In this case I do not believe the
honourable member's comments did cause any grave disorder, but I would caution
the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
* * *
Mr. Martindale: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your advice, but
my observation still stands. This
government is afraid to do things by the front door that they are doing through
the back door through their budget. I
would consider that sneaky because the public did not notice, and they got away
with it. But they are going to pay the
price at the polls, and people are going to take note of this, because we are
going to tell our constituents.
We are putting out a tax guide to the Tory
budget to translate their language, because they use things like a contribution
when what they really mean is a tax on the sick, a Tory tax on the sick. This is a user fee, and they are afraid to
call it a user fee. They are calling it
a contribution‑‑what hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker.
We will continue to highlight this kind of
discrepancy in their rhetoric and in their budget and their actions and their
words until everyone in
Another part of the shell game,
particularly when it comes to language, is to say that they are not increasing
taxes. That is what they would want the
public to believe.
Now, at the next election, I think they
are going to change their rhetoric. They
are going to say, well, we did not really mean we are not going to increase
taxes, and that is not really what we sort of said. What we meant was, we are not going to
increase income taxes. They are going to
qualify it.
But they do not need to raise income taxes
because they are raising all these other taxes through numerous other
means. That is what I mean by raising
taxes through the back door and being sneaky about it. I have a number of items here, and I only
talked about the first one.
The second is that through this bill, the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) is tightening the application and the
provincial sales tax to private sales of automobiles.
* (1710)
Then another sleeper, the $175 Pensioners'
School Tax Assistance Program will be income tested for all recipients.
Pensioner homeowners with incomes under $23,800 will now have to apply for
benefits under their income tax return next spring. So they pay it up front this year, and they
get a rebate next year. That is my understanding of how it works.
There are a number of people who have
phoned me and who phoned other MLAs saying, what is this government doing, and
why are they doing it? We provided them
with an explanation and said, this is the government that does not believe in
raising taxes, but look what they are doing.
They are raising it on your municipal property tax bill, an action which
I have referred to previously as sneaky, probably the best way to describe it.
Pensioner tenants will continue to apply
to Manitoba Housing for their assistance.
The maximum remains at $175 per year.
Next, the minimum property tax credit is
reduced from $325 to $250. Well, the
government would talk about not raising things, but if you lower a tax credit,
in effect, you are raising taxes. This government will not admit to it, but
that is what they are doing. It is an
automatic tax increase. It affects
everybody the same amount regardless of ability to pay. (interjection) It is
offloading and taxes, as the member for St. Boniface says.
There are numerous problems with all of
these tax changes, but this particular one is very unfair in that it is going
to impact more on low‑income people than higher‑income people. In fact, that is the general effect of many
of these taxes on people, to use my constituents as an example, who have modest
homes in the north end, who are paying very low property taxes. If you compare
their tax increases with people in Charleswood and Tuxedo and Lindenwoods,
represented by members opposite, the impact is very, very different.
Next, all property tax claimants will be
required to make a minimum contribution of $250 towards their local property
taxes directly as homeowners, or through their rent as tenants before they are
eligible for provincial tax credits.
Now, once again, this is probably
something that is going to affect only low‑income tenants, and this is an
example of Tory fairness. They talk
about fairness, and they talk about sharing the pain, but when it comes down to
it, in terms of tax changes, there is no equal sharing of the pain because
those who can afford to pay are not taxed at the same rate as those who cannot
afford it.
When you look at the programs that are
being eliminated and the grants that are being eliminated, certainly there is a
bias against low‑income organizations and individuals. When it comes to individuals, this government
totally eliminated the grant to the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty Organization. The Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) eliminated the Student Social Allowances Program.
Just today, I got a letter from someone, I
presume a resident of the inner city, because their son was a student at
This Minister of Education and Training
(Mrs. Vodrey) somehow expects that these people can finish high school without
any money to live on. It is a totally
unrealistic expectation. This minister
and this government is totally out of touch with my constituents and many
others who are forced to live in poverty and now have less money to live on.
These people came out and they spoke very
eloquently, and they made presentations to the government. Regrettably, very few students were able to attend,
but school principals and others came and they were very angry. In fact, when the hearing was over, one
individual could no longer contain his anger, having listened to all the
presentations, and he screamed at the Conservative members on the committee as
they were leaving, and they all walked by him on the way out of the committee.
I talked to this individual in the rotunda
and found out where he lived. He told me
that he had always voted Conservative before, but because your government
eliminated the Student Social Allowances Program, so that he cannot go to the
Adult Education Centre, he is going to work for George Hickes in Point
They are alienating even their
supporters. Some of their supporters,
amazing as it may seem, are also poor.
What they did was they alienated another 1,100. Usually this government does not alienate
1,100 people at a time; they are more fond of alienating groups of, say,
10,000. Ten thousand nurses, they
alienate, and then they alienate 12,000 teachers, and now 1,100 former students
who benefited from the Student Social Allowances Program.
So, Mr. Speaker, what is going to happen
is that this is a gradualist bill, because people are gradually going to find
out what the true impact is of this. As
people realize that there is a tax on restaurant meals, as people realize that
there is tax on school supplies, as people pay their property taxes, and eventually
large numbers of people are going to realize that there is a total lack of
fairness in the Minister of Finance's (Mr. Manness) budget, because it is
impacting on low‑income people, much more so than higher‑income
people.
That means that the people in the
constituency of Burrows have been much more impacted by this budget than people
in more affluent parts of
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking very briefly
on this bill and then we will have a vote.
Our caucus opposes this bill, and I will not use the word
"sneaky," for the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), largely because
I think the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) has adequately made his case,
that this is indeed a government that could be described in that form.
An Honourable Member: I am going to phone Mr. Beauchesne right now.
Mr. Ashton: I know the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr.
Ernst) wants to make sure the word is added in the next edition of
Beauchesne. I think that is highly
advisable.
I want to deal with a couple of issues,
because this is a taxation bill. I want
to focus in on the fact that this government can no longer claim that it has
not raised taxes. In fact it has. A number of areas have been dealt with, but I
want to focus in on some of the impacts that are happening in my constituency.
Let us look at the fact that we have an
increased gas tax, Mr. Speaker. Has that
resulted in better roads in northern
Sixty‑five percent of accidents have
been accidents where they have involved road conditions and more than 60
percent have involved run‑off, people being run off the highway because
of road conditions. That is a
reality. I have raised the concern about
384 which affects the member for The Pas' (Mr. Lathlin) constituency. The fact is there are difficulties with the
northern roads and they are particularly noticeable at this point in time. I want to say to the Minister of Highways and
Transportation (Mr. Driedger) and I want to say to the government that I feel
that there has to be action on those particular matters.
I can point to other problems in terms of
Highways and Transportation. Mr.
Speaker, on Friday there was a significant problem in the community of York
Landing with the ferry. That is the only
access to road service at this time of year.
There is no all‑weather road into York Landing because of low
water levels in the community, because of Manitoba Hydro they were running the
situation when the ferry was hitting the ground, the rocks, a very difficult
situation, and threatened to cut off the community.
They attempted to contact both the
Minister of Highway's office and the Department of Highways and Manitoba Hydro.
Because it was a Friday and the reduced workweek, they were not able to get
through, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad to see that the Conservative
members are looking upward for inspiration.
They have to look upwards for inspiration. They need some right now.
An Honourable Member: Steve, at least these babies have wings.
Mr. Ashton: To the member for
An Honourable Member: Things certainly are not looking up over there.
Mr. Ashton: Well, we do not have to look up for
inspiration. We get it from our
constituents on a daily basis when they phone us and tell us to keep raising
these kind of issues in the House. In fact, it was only a couple of days ago I had
a call from someone who lives in Leaf Rapids, commutes back and forth between
Leaf Rapids and Thompson and, in fact, pointed out the fact that she had just
travelled the road.
I think the Minister of Environment (Mr.
Cummings) should be aware of how difficult it is for northern residents in
northern
I raised in the House, Mr. Speaker, the
fact‑‑(interjection) Well, I ask the Minister of Environment has he
ever been down Highway 391? Has he ever
been down Highway 391? Indeed, if he
has, I think he will acknowledge that it has to be one of the worst stretches
of road in this province, matched only possibly by the road into Cross Lake and
Norway House and possibly only by the road up to Gillam. I point out all of those just happen to be in
northern
* (1720)
Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the
reality of what is happening in terms of the situation that we are faced with
in terms of those road conditions. You
know, I asked the Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger) to look into a problem
that was identified with a stretch of road by
I want to publicly do this, and I did it
briefly in Question Period the other day.
I am doing this obviously with no ulterior motives. In this case, I cannot refer to the presence
or absence of the minister, but let us put it this way. I am not saying this only to the Minister of
Highways in the House currently. I wrote
to the minister. The minister
investigated that, and it was determined that curve was rated for 100 kilometres
an hour. The policy of the Department of Highways is to have 120 minimum, to
have 20 kilometres an hour above the amount that is rated for the speed limit,
so that curve should be rated at 100.
The Minister of Highways has written back
and said he is going to consider reconstruction of that particular curve based
on the concern that was expressed to me by people living in Wabowden and in
Thompson, based on a very tragic set of circumstances. He has indicated he is looking out for the
next construction year. I want to say,
Mr. Speaker, that I want to publicly thank the Minister of Highways for that
response. I realize I will have to go
through the process, and I am optimistic that something will be done.
It is in the same spirit I am raising a
concern about the other highways, because sometimes in this House, we do get
into differences on a partisan basis, but surely the safety of our roads should
not be something that should have to become a partisan issue. I will make it an issue if there are still
safety problems, but at least in the case of this one incident, the Minister of
Highways has done a very good job in responding. I am looking forward to a
response on Highway 391, which I have been raising in this House on a
consistent basis, Mr. Speaker.
I wanted to raise in the context of this
bill the statute law taxation bill, because this deals with taxation. We have not seen results of the increased
taxes on highways in northern
I would bet you, in the Minister of
Environment's (Mr. Cummings) constituency in Ste. Rose, he would probably find
the same reaction too. I do not think
most people object to gas taxes when there is a direct correlation in terms of
safer and more convenient roads. I know
the Minister of Environment probably supports that principle in this particular
case.
That was the comment I wanted to make on
this bill, Mr. Speaker. I am opposed to
many of the other sections of the bill that deal with the increased tax burden
on seniors. That is something, I think,
that has to be dealt with, and the whole taxation package of this
government. The bottom line is that this
bill is a continuation of the unfair policies announced in the budget. It is breaking a campaign promise from 1988
and from 1990 on behalf of this Conservative government. It does not surprise us.
The Minister of Environment knows that
about the only thing that is biodegradable and recyclable in this House are
Tory campaign promises. They seem to
biodegrade after an election to get recycled for the next one. So that does not surprise us. It does not mean it is right. I was talking about the biodegradability and
recyclability of Tory campaign promises. You announce them, they then kind of biodegrade,
disappear, and then you recycle them for the next election. I really think that is about the only thing
that can be said in terms of this particular bill.
The bottom line with this, Mr. Speaker, is
we will be opposing this bill and letting Manitobans know that this
Conservative government that made these promises in 1988 and 1990 has once
again broken its word to the people of
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 48, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1993; Loi de 1993
modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives en matiere de fiscalite. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion? Agreed? No? Okay.
Hold it here.
The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 48, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1993; Loi de 1993
modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives en matiere de fiscalite.
All those in favour of the motion, please
say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Speaker: On division.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: What is the will of the House? Is it the will of the House to call it six
o'clock?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Government House Leader): Would you call Bill
28, Mr. Speaker.
Bill 28‑The
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson), Bill 28, The
Manitoba Intercultural Council Repeal Act; Loi abrogeant la Loi sur le Conseil
interculturel du Manitoba, standing in the name of the honourable member for
Burrows.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I would dearly love to speak on
this bill, but I did not bring it with me so I am going to let my critic speak
on this bill instead. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Okay‑‑and also standing in the
name of the honourable member for
Ms. Becky Barrett (
I have placed on the record quite an
extensive background outlining the genesis of the Manitoba Intercultural
Council, which was proclaimed in 1983 by the then‑Minister of Culture,
the Honourable Eugene Kostyra, and contrasting it with what the government of
the day currently has done with the Manitoba Intercultural Council.
The Minister of Culture, Heritage and
Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson) in her discussions with the Manitoba
Intercultural Council and the members of the Legislature and other interested
parties has stated as one of her main reasons for bringing in Bill 28, which in
effect repeals the Manitoba Intercultural Council as a legislated body of the
province of Manitoba, that the Intercultural Council has concluded its work,
that it does not need to have legislative mandate, that it needs to be, in
effect, an external organization like all the other multicultural organizations
in the province of Manitoba and that it can continue to do the work that it has
been doing for the last 10 years just as effectively from outside the
legislative framework.
Mr. Speaker, the minister continues to put
this position on the record in the face of virtually unanimous opposition from
the MIC in its last biennial meeting in April, and certainly in the face of
opposition from both opposition parties in the Legislature.
Mr. Speaker, so that the people of the
province of Manitoba do not just take my word for it, I would like to discuss
at some length this evening what the Manitoba Intercultural Council has
achieved in its 10‑year history and, by extension, what will be lost if
Bill 28 actually goes through and the Manitoba Intercultural Council no longer
has a legislated mandate.
I am going to read into the record, Mr.
Speaker, 41 items. That is the list of publications of the Manitoba
Intercultural Council as of January 1993, so in effect a little over nine years
of existence. I am sure there have been
additions since January, but this is a fairly exhaustive list. I think the people of
Publications, Mr. Speaker, are only one
aspect of the jobs that the Manitoba Intercultural Council has undertaken in
its 10‑year history, but it is, I think, an excellent indicator of the
kind of work that this group has been able to achieve. It is an indication of the loss that will be
faced by the people of
* (1730)
I will read this into the record. It should not take very long.
Number 1 was a survey on Supplementary
Language Schools 1983‑1985, published in May 1986.
Number 2 was a discussion paper: Taxation of Cultural Facilities, prepared by
the Standing Committee on Cultural Affairs and Heritage Resources, December
1986.
I might add here that the MIC has a very
extensive and well‑developed series of standing committees that do
remarkable work.
Number 3 was a report: The State of Ethnocultural Arts and Crafts in
Urban Winnipeg: Needs and Aspirations,
December 1986.
Number 4 was an issue paper: Media Coverage and Portrayal of Manitoba's
Ethnocultural Communities, January 1987.
I would suggest that an issue paper
dealing with media coverage in the portrayal of
Number 5 was a submission dealing with
Manitoba Hydro's Affirmative Action Program, in January 1987, again, looking to
the government Crown corporation to bring some recommendations and some ideas
to another government department.
Number 6 was recommendations dealing with
the Department of Culture, Heritage and Recreation's Ethnocultural Heritage
Support Program, March 1987, another advisory paper to the government of the
day.
Number 7 was a submission to the House of
Commons Standing Committee on Communications and Culture respecting matters
relevant to legislative issues which should be addressed in a new broadcasting
act, Bill 136, the Canadian Broadcasting Act, in April 1987.
This is not just a provincial piece of
legislation, but this shows that the Manitoba Intercultural Council was able to
bring recommendations and a report to the federal level as well.
Number 8 was another submission to the
Report of the Task Force on Broadcasting Policy ‑ Legislative Issues,
April 1987.
Number 9, a submission on Family
Reunification, to the Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Labour,
Employment and Immigration in April of 1987; April of 1987 a very busy month
for MIC. Also dealing with a major issue
that faces the multicultural community not only in
The Manitoba Intercultural Council was
able because of its legislated mandate and its staff complement and the
resources provided by the government of the day to make a presentation to the
federal government on the issue of family reunification outlining the
Number 10, a report. Community Assessment of MIC Members,
Alternates and Community Organizations.
April 1987. Again, the MIC was
not afraid to look at itself, was not afraid to look at its composition and was
not afraid to talk to the community at large about what additional supports
might be necessary or changes.
Number 11.
In April of 1987, MIC made recommendations on the Prix Manitoba
Awards. My understanding, Mr. Speaker,
this was the first of such awards and MIC had some input there. The Prix Manitoba awards‑‑I might
put on the record‑‑was another project of the Culture minister the
Honourable Eugene Kostyra and his very capable replacement the Honourable Judy
Wasylycia-Leis.
The 12th report was a submission, again,
to a federal body on Educational and Institutional Radio made to the CRTC in
May of 1987.
13. The Report of the Task Force on
Broadcasting Policy ‑ Legislative Issues, May '87.
Number 14, Submission. Responses/Recommendations: Immigration Levels
1988‑1990, Consultation Issues.
June 1987. Again, a major issue of importance to the entire community,
immigration.
Number 15.
Manitoba Intercultural Council made a submission to the High School
Review which was initiated by the then‑Minister of Education the
Honourable Jerry Storie. This submission
was made in June of 1987. Again, this
was the kind of input to a major issue of importance to the people of
Number 16, Research Report. Multicultural Issues Related to Child
Care. Prepared by a summer student in
consultation with the policy analyst and the executive secretary in September
of 1987. We will not have this kind of
report after Bill 28 is passed.
Number 18, Report. Multicultural Policy and Initiatives of the
Government of Manitoba 1970‑1987 prepared in January of 1988.
Number 19, Submission. Observations on the Green Paper of the Task
Force on Multiculturalism in
Number 20, a submission on
Number 21, another submission, again to
the federal government, House of Commons Legislative Committee on Bill C‑93,
The Canadian Multiculturalism Act in May of 1988.
Mr. Speaker, we are now into the time
frame at which the provincial government in the
A report on the Service Provisions to the
Ethnic Elderly in August of 1988, another major issue which is still facing us.
Number 23, Research Report: Obstacles to Equality of Access to
Employment. This is on credentials and
accreditation, another issue that plagues all of us in
An issue paper on the Affirmative Action
Program in Manitoba Crown Corporations, October of 1988. Again, good advice prepared by the MIC to the
government in
An issue paper on the Examination of
University of Manitoba's TOEPL policy, October '88.
A submission on the Enhancement of
Educational Opportunities for All Ethnic and Cultural Groups, December 1988.
A report on Manitoba Intercultural Council
Recommendations, a listing of the recommendations made to government from the
years of 1983 to 1988, reported in January of 1989.
A report on the Comparison of
Recommendations of Task Force on Multiculturalism versus the Manitoba
Intercultural Council's recommendations.
A submission on MIC's observations on the
Report of Manitoba's High School Review Panel, January '89. Not only did MIC make a presentation to the
high school panel two years earlier, but they also took the time to observe and
make suggestions and comments on the review of that panel.
A submission on The Report of the
* (1740)
A submission to the
A submission on the Task Force on
An issue paper on eligibility criteria for
the appointment as Commissioner of Oaths.
A submission to the Task Force on Folk
Arts/Folklorama, June '89.
A recommendation on a background paper and
recommendations on the multicultural policy for the province.
A submission to the Manitoba Arts Policy
Review Committee.
So you can see as we are getting to the
end, the depth and the range of the issue papers, the policy recommendations
that MIC was able to present to all levels of government.
A submission in April of 1990 to the City
of
A submission to the
A report in October of 1990 on Combatting
Racism in
A report in February of 1992 on the
Perceptions and Evolution of Multiculturalism in
Finally, in January of this year, a submission
to the University Education Review Commission.
I thought, Mr. Speaker, that it was
important to read into the record the list of external submissions and reports
and recommendations made by the Manitoba Intercultural Council over the last 10
years. This does not include, which I
could have read into the record had I had more time, the page after page after
page of recommendations that the Intercultural Council has made to the
provincial government in the last 10 years.
This council has done superlative service
to the governments of
As I stated, Mr. Speaker, in 1991, the MIC
put forward a report and recommendations on combatting racism in
The government of the day, two years ago,
commended highly the information that was given to them by MIC, yet just two years
later, we are now debating in this House the death of the Manitoba
Intercultural Council as an advisory body to the government and an advocacy
body on behalf of the entire multicultural community in the province of
Manitoba.
The Minister of Culture, Heritage and
Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson) has talked about how there are agencies within
government today that can take over that advisory and advocacy role to the
government on issues of multiculturalism.
She speaks of the Multiculturalism Secretariat. We have talked in this House at length, both
in Question Period and in Estimates, about the fact that the Multiculturalism
Secretariat bears absolutely no relationship to the MIC, not the least of
which, the Multiculturalism Secretariat is composed entirely of government
appointments.
But the roles of the two organizations are
very different as well. The
Multiculturalism Secretariat is lodged totally within the Department of
Culture, Heritage and Citizenship. Its
staff people are government employees, and all of the people who work in the
secretariat are government employees. As
a matter of fact, they are Order‑in‑Council political appointments
of the government.
Basically, the role of the secretariat is
not to work with the multicultural community as an umbrella organization
representing the interests and concerns of the multicultural community to the
government of Manitoba, the Multiculturalism Secretariat is an internal
organization that works and attempts to link various governmental departments
together, and only marginally deals with external organizations and issues.
That is not to say that there is not a
role for internal interdepartmental work on the issues of multiculturalism, and
we have stated that is a very important role for some group to play, not only
in multiculturalism, but in all other areas of the government. However, the Multiculturalism Secretariat
does not do what the MIC did do, which is link with external organizations.
Mr. Speaker, I would like next to spend
some time in refuting what the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship
(Mrs. Mitchelson) has stated in various venues over the years as a reason for
the elimination of MIC, and that is that MIC has become too political.
Mr. Speaker, the Manitoba Intercultural
Council has become too political as a direct result of what this provincial
Conservative government has done to MIC.
The first thing that the Minister of
Culture stated, and that was several years ago, actually the government, when
trying to implement some revisionist history, talked about how the then‑Minister
of Culture and Heritage, the Honourable Judy Wasylycia‑Leis, politicized
the process by appointing a certain person as chair of the MIC instead of
having MIC appoint their own chair.
Mr. Speaker, I want only to deal with this
issue in one element, because we have talked about it at length and I do not
want to spend too much time on it. I do
want to read into the record a letter written by the then‑Leader of the
official opposition, the man who today is the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of the
Mrs. Pamela Rebello, the woman in
question, the woman who by this provincial government for the last five years
has been pilloried and mocked and made fun of and accused of all kinds of
things in the last five years, the woman that the Minister of Culture and
Heritage points to as the instigator of the downfall of MIC‑‑I want
to read into the record a letter written to this woman by the then‑Leader
of the Opposition, the Honourable Gary Filmon.
This letter was written February 25, 1988.
He says:
Dear Pam, Congratulations on your recent appointment as chairperson of
the Manitoba Intercultural Council. Your
many years of experience and service to our cultural and artistic community
will serve you well in this richly deserved appointment. Janice joins me in congratulating you on this
honour. Yours sincerely, Gary Filmon.
This is the same person who along with his
Minister of Culture and Heritage is now saying should not have been appointed
because she politicized the process‑‑very interesting. Not only that, but the current Minister of
Culture and Heritage says that she had no options because the then‑minister
Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis, had appointed Ms. Rebello as chairperson.
I would like to read into the record
another letter, dated June 9, 1989, a year and two months after this current
Conservative government had been elected, identifying to the acting chairperson
of the Intercultural Council that she was pleased to inform you that the
Manitoba government has chosen to appoint the following for a two‑year
term to the Manitoba Intercultural Council, and then goes on to list 17 names
that the provincial Progressive Conservative government appointed to the
Intercultural Council.
This is from the same government that now
talks about how the former New Democratic government had politicized the
process by appointing people to the MIC.
Did they make a change to the legislation eliminating that? I think not, Mr. Speaker. In fact, they appointed more people and a higher
percentage of people to the MIC than the New Democrats ever did. I would like to say that in the two‑year
term 1985‑87 there were 48 elected representatives to MIC, nine
appointments by government for a percentage of government appointments of 19 percent.
In 1987‑89 there were 48 elected
appointments, elected members, and seven appointed by the government, which is
a reduction to 15 percent.
* (1750)
Then, Mr. Speaker, we come to the
Progressive Conservative years, to the Minister of Culture, Heritage and
Citizenship, who talks now about how the New Democrats politicized the process
and politicized MIC to the point where its utility is gone. In 1989 to 1991, there were 46 elected
representatives and 16 appointments by the government for a percentage of
35. Over one‑third were government
appointments. In 1991 to '93, which are,
if this bill goes through, the last appointments, there were 43 members elected
and 15 government appointments, again for a percentage of 35 percent.
Now I would suggest to members opposite
and to the people of the province of Manitoba that for the Minister of Culture
and Heritage to say time and time again in the House, to make personal
accusations, personal comments about the previous Minister of Culture and
Heritage, the current member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis), is
unfair, untrue and should‑‑I am putting on record right now what
actually has happened to the Manitoba Intercultural Council.
Not only did the government not choose in
its authority to make changes to the MIC act which would have eliminated
political appointments, which we on this side of the House are not in
opposition to, and which the Manitoba Intercultural Council itself approved in
principle; the government chose not to take that avenue of amendment. No, the government for five years now has
used the authority that it has in the current MIC act, which is not, the
government shall appoint, but the government may appoint. So it is not prescriptive legislation; it is
enabling legislation.
The current Progressive Conservative
government has actually in many cases more than doubled the percentage of
political appointees, government appointees, to the MIC council than did the
New Democrats, and I think it is shameful on the part of the government as a
whole, and most particularly shameful on the part of the Minister of Culture,
Heritage and Citizenship, to continually stand in her place in the House and in
public and chastise the previous minister for what she says is
overpoliticization of the process when she herself has taken politicization to
a new height.
In another area, the government has been
saying that the changes to the authority of MIC, which took place, I believe,
in 1989 when the funding and granting authority of MIC was removed from MIC and
given to the Multicultural Grants Advisory Council, otherwise known as MGAC‑‑the
government stated at that time and has stated since then that one of the main
reasons for doing that was that MIC was unable to effectively grant monies to
multicultural communities in Manitoba, and that there was some question about
their ability to effectively do that.
I would like to state that the Provincial
Auditor's Report, which was released in September of 1988, did identify some
problems. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Provincial
Auditor identifies a huge number of problems every year in the Auditor's Report
about the government of the day, the problems that they have in their audit
procedures and the recommendations that are made.
It does not matter what political stripe
that government is. It is a huge process and you expect to have recommendations
made as to how to be more effective and fair in your auditing procedures. The Provincial Auditor's Report in no way
suggested that the granting authority should be removed from the Manitoba
Intercultural Council.
In fact, the Auditor's Report states quite
clearly, and I quote: The system for
approving and disbursing grants has the basic controls one would expect in an
entity such as the Manitoba Intercultural Council. The system has served the province, the
Manitoba Intercultural Council and the ethnocultural communities reasonably
well.
The Auditor gives the MIC auditing process
at least as high a mark as it has given the provincial government in the last
few years. So there is no financial
reason for removing the granting function from MIC.
There is a political reason. All of the members of MGAC are politically
appointed. Every single one of them is
an Order‑in‑Council appointment.
So here again, Mr. Speaker, is another indication of this Conservative
government making political hay out of an organization such as MIC which should
not have been politicized.
The current Minister of Culture, Heritage
and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson) at the time that the Provincial Auditor's
Report was released said in her news release of September 16, 1988, and I
quote: I must commend MIC, said the
minister, not only for their long‑standing dedication to the
ethnocultural community, but their willingness to work towards implementing the
recommendations of this special audit.
Together these recommendations will assist in the development of a long‑term
strategy for the council to ensure it is fulfilling its primary role of
representing the ethnic community's concerns to government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in September of 1988,
shortly after the minister, as government, had been elected, she is on record
as saying the Manitoba Intercultural Council was doing its job and doing it
well. She was also agreeing with what
MIC's job was, which was representing the ethnic communities' concerns to the
government.
Well, what will happen, if Bill 28
actually does pass, is there will be no effective umbrella organization
representing the multicultural ethnocultural communities' concerns to the
government.
There will be a number of small and not‑so‑small,
well‑organized and not‑so‑well‑organized communities
and organizations that will ask for and receive financial support from the
government, but there will not be an overall, overarching umbrella organization
that has representatives from virtually every major ethnic community in the
province, that together has a voice to make recommendations and raise concerns
on behalf of those communities to the province.
What will remain in place is a politically
appointed funding body, the MGAC, and a politically appointed Multiculturalism
Secretariat whose stated goals are basically internal government linkages and
information and recommendations. So the
multicultural community in the
What concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is not only
the loss of MIC, but the real reasons for that loss. It is not because MIC was not representing
the community. Nothing is further from
the truth. It is not because it had
outlived its usefulness. Nothing could be further from the truth. But the reason‑‑we state very
clearly on the record‑‑for the elimination of the Manitoba
Intercultural Council was: This
government does not want to have an effective, external, objective organization
bringing recommendations, concerns and constructive criticisms to this
government on behalf of the multicultural community in the
What it has done is it silenced that
voice, and it has put in its place political hacks. I use the word "hack," and perhaps
I should not have‑‑political appointees who, by definition, are not
objective and external to the political process. In the guise of depoliticizing the
multicultural community‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
This matter will remain standing in the name of the honourable member
for
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 6 p.m., this House is now
adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Friday).