LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Friday,
July 23, 1993
The House met at 10 a.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Verna Mason, Abby Mason, Lucille Mason and others requesting the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) to consider making as a major priority the establishment of a solvent
abuse treatment facility in northern
* * *
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Victor Spence, Henry S. Spence, Olive Peterson and others requesting that the
government of
PRESENTING
REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mr. Bob Rose
(Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Eleventh
Report of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Law Amendments
presents the following as its Eleventh Report.
Your committee met on Wednesday, July 21,
1993, at 7 p.m. in Room 254 of the
Your committee heard representation on bills
as follows:
Bill 51‑‑The Municipal
Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur les municipalites
John Giesbrecht ‑ The
Your committee has considered:
Bill 26‑‑The Expropriation
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'expropriation
and
has agreed to report the same without amendment.
Your committee has also considered:
Bill 45‑‑The Coat of Arms,
Emblems and the
and
has agreed to report the same without amendment.
Your committee has also considered:
Bill 51‑‑The Municipal
Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur les municipalites
and
has agreed to report the same with the following amendment:
MOTION:
THAT
proposed subsection 603(5), as set out in section 11 of the Bill, be struck out
and the following substituted:
Qualifications
of auditors 603(5) A person who is
entitled to practise as an accountant under The Chartered Accountants Act, The
Certified General Accountants Act or The Society of Management Accountants of Manitoba
Incorporation Act, is qualified to be appointed under this section as the
auditor of a municipality.
Your
committee has also considered:
Bill
54‑‑The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant
la Loi sur l'evaluation municipale
and
has agreed to report the same without amendment.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr.
Rose: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by
the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), that the report of the committee
be received.
Motion
agreed to.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Report
Release
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First
Minister.
The people of
Mr. Speaker, the government announced an
agreement some time ago and also announced a task force to review the situation
of the viability of the hockey team and the recommendations dealing with a new
capital facility dealing with a new arena.
That report was completed at the end of June. The public awaits that report. There are very important decisions to be
made, we would suggest, around the report.
I would like to ask the government: Will it release that report today so the
people of
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
Leader of the Opposition for raising that issue because I know that he, like
we, believes that the Winnipeg Jets hockey club is a very important asset to
the city of
He knows their economic value and he knows
their value not only in terms of making this capital city a very attractive
place in which to live, work and invest, but giving it a profile well beyond
our borders. I know that when we
presented the Order of the Buffalo Hunt to Teemu Selanne, he was very
supportive of that and the team and so on.
I thank him for raising that very
legitimate issue. I also know that he
was supportive of our initiative of appointing the Mauro commission because of
the high credibility and the broad understanding of both finance and business
and the city's needs that Mr. Mauro brought to the table. That particular move and the arrangements
surrounding it have made it possible for us to eliminate the kind of conflict
that was there between the ownership of the hockey club and
We, too, are very anxious to have the
Mauro report tabled with us so that we can table it publicly. We have not received the Mauro report, and I
repeat that very strongly: We have not received
the Mauro report. When last we were in
touch with Mr. Mauro yesterday, he was out of town, and it is expected that sometime
early next week, we will indeed receive that Mauro report, and we will table it
forthwith.
The
Government
Funding‑Conditions
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): I would like to encourage the government to
table that report prior to the concurrence motion, so questions can be asked
about that report, and issues can be raised and debated in this Chamber, so
that we can have a debate about the recommendations and a public role through
the governments in those recommendations.
I would like to ask the Premier: In light of the fact that the present
agreement with the Jets, which deals with losses being covered by the
provincial government and the civic government, only concludes in three hockey
seasons from now‑‑it was only a very short‑term arrangement‑‑what
strategy has the government itself developed for the issue of private ownership
and obligations of private owners?
We see Mr. Pocklington in
*
(1005)
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, as the
member knows, we have steadfastly maintained that any commitment on our part
for public funding, whether it be to a new arena or to whatever other elements
might be contained within any recommendations of the Mauro commission, would be
totally dependent on the ownership of the Jets, whatever form that ownership
may take, making a long‑term commitment to the use of that arena, to the
rental of that arena and also to remaining in the city of
There would be absolutely no question that
we would not make any commitments if we did not have something like at least a 20‑year
lease commitment. We have suggested that
we would, as collateral to ensure that obligation was maintained, want to have the
franchise of the hockey club as collateral to ensure that it could not be sold
out from under the city or the province.
Mr. Doer: I would concur with the Premier that long
term would be a minimum of 20 years.
Is the Premier saying to us today that
this will be a minimum bottom‑line position for the provincial government
so that we will avoid in
Are we saying, bottom line, minimum 20
years as the long‑term definition for public support of this project?
Mr. Filmon: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his
support of our position. The answer is
yes.
Student
Records
Pilot
Project Report Release
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, this
government's penchant for hiding reports is becoming painfully obvious.
In Education, not only did the minister
not provide a report, she even refused to admit that it existed. Either the minister was so incompetent that
she did not know that her department had conducted a student records
information pilot project, or else she did not want to reveal its
existence. She attempted to conceal it,
Mr. Speaker.
Take your pick. Either she refused to admit it existed, or she
did not want to reveal it and concealed it.
Since we only obtained this report through
freedom of information, I want to ask the minister: Why did she refuse to acknowledge the
existence of that report, and why has she failed to act on it for three years
in this important area of the department?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to have the
representative of the paper shredders union come and ask that question. A man who was part of a government, a man who
sat in cabinet for three years and refused to proclaim The Freedom of Information
Act so that they could hide everything from the public and then shred anything
that they did not want the public to know.
That is absolutely ridiculous for him to
even ask that question. It is absolutely
the most foolish thing that I have heard this entire session. But I am not surprised, coming from the
member for Dauphin.
*
(1010)
Student
Records
Pilot
Project Report Release
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, once again we got a desperate
nonanswer from this Premier. We are the
ones who passed The Freedom of Information Act; it was this government who did
that.
The Premier has come once again to the
rescue of his Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) to avoid answering an
important question.
I want to ask the minister clearly,
straightforwardly, why she failed to acknowledge existence of this report and
act on it for the last three years. She
cannot avoid answering that question.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker,
I know that the member has received the 1990 report. It does discuss a pilot project. As the member knows, we are very concerned
and interested in the area of student records, and as I have said to the member
during the 70 hours of Estimates, we are certainly moving ahead in that area.
Mr. Plohman: She even failed to admit it existed during
the Estimates. I want to help the
minister with this.
Since on page 11 of this report, which we
received through freedom of information, it says that the failure was due, and
I quote, to lack of leadership and commitment, I want to ask this minister: Is this failure to act and this lack of
leadership her lack of leadership that this report is talking about, or is it the
former Minister of Education, or both?
Mrs. Vodrey: The issue of student records‑‑the
tracking of students, the courses that students take, the enrollment where students
are attending school‑‑has been a very important one for a very long
time. This government has recognized the
importance of tracking students. This
government has recognized the importance of making sure that we know where
students are attending school and also the completion rates of student performance.
As I have said during the Estimates
process, we are moving ahead with a student records process, and I am looking
forward to explaining it further to the member as it actually comes forward.
Untendered
Contracts
Justification
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we have
consistently heard in this session from the government that they simply do not
have the money available to fund what they believe to be very important social
programs, such as the Student Social Allowances Program, such as home care
needs, other things in the health care system.
Mr. Speaker, as a result of that, I was
somewhat surprised and shocked to see that in the last three months there have
been 14 untendered contracts totalling $168,244 for things such as repair in
cleaning a wool tapestry, various interior design services required as need may
be, interior design consulting, approximately 14 contracts which I would like
to table this morning totalling $168,000.
In this time of fiscal restraint, when we
are cutting people off of things like Student Social Allowances, how come this government
is letting contracts like this totalling those dollars for things like interior
design needs?
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, I am very surprised that the member would even get up after not
spending one minute in Government Services on a $113‑million budget, and
he gets up and asks about some consulting.
Mr. Speaker, there is a process in place
that we do with our interior design consultant work. That is a process where we spend somewhere in
the vicinity of $113 million. We spend
about $650,000 in one year on consultants.
Mr. Edwards: We spent dozens of hours in Health and in
Family Services discussing the cuts that this government made. What we heard was: We have no money; our priorities are going to
be in these areas, but we have no money.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, their priorities
apparently are in increasing untendered contracts to interior designers.
My question for the minister: Not one staff position went down in this
year's Estimates, 43.2 positions in the subappropriation on Accommodation
Development, which does the interior design work, not one staff year, not even
one‑tenth of one staff year decrease, and yet we see $168,000 in three
months in untendered contracts for interior design work.
How does the minister justify that, when
his cohorts are saying they have no money to keep kids in school?
*
(1015)
Mr. Ducharme: Mr. Speaker, we have 10 million square feet of
office and warehouse space that we must maintain here provincially. Is he suggesting that we allow the roofs to
fall down, we do not do any painting in these particular offices or do not do
any carpeting in this particular office?
I would suggest to him that maybe next
time he asks for something in this particular building, he will see that the reason
why we go to untendered and consultants, he will see that most of these
consultant jobs‑‑there is not one of them‑‑is an amount
of money that you use to go out for tender.
The consultants that you carry forward ask you to do it this way. There
is a list of consultants that is available who approach our different
departments and ask for that particular work.
I am surprised, again, that he would
forget to even go through the $113 million that we spent and did not spend one minute
in Estimates in regard to those.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, 14 untendered contracts, one has
to do with architectural services, none have to do with engineering services. These are all interior design. This does not have to do with protection of
the government's assets in those buildings.
This has to do with interior design work to talk about how to space
things and apparently where art should come up and, meanwhile, that amount of
money equates to 28 people being cut off of Student Social Allowances services
at the rate of $6,000 per year approximately.
How does this minister justify that type
of expenditure in this year when everybody is being cut back, child protection
is being cut back, health is being cut back, and we are spending $168,000 in
three months on untendered contracts for interior design?
Mr. Ducharme: First of all, if the member had gone to
Estimates, he would have seen that interior design is not just dealing with draperies
and carpet. It is dealing with
accumulation and accommodation of space available in this government. If he wants to turn around again and if he
had gone to the Estimates process, he would have seen that this department, for
the first time in the history of
Education
System
Aboriginal Student Statistics
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, we have a labour force in
Will the minister tell us when that
information will be available?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker,
the member in the process of Estimates wanted to make sure that Manitobans
identified themselves, were forced to identify themselves by background. I explained to the member at that time that
the records are not kept in that way.
This member has wanted Manitobans to be
forced to identify themselves by background in everything they do.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, in the student record system
pilot project of 1989 that this department conducted, that exact question was
asked.
I want to ask the minister: Did the department find an appropriate and
effective way to define aboriginal students through that pilot project? What was learned from that pilot project?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the member, we are
moving ahead now with a management information system within the Department of
Education and Training that will help us keep a tracking of students across
This member has asked continually for us to
identify students very specifically by way of background. As I explained to her in the process of
Estimates, we do have a Native Education Branch. Our Native Education Branch
does work‑‑(interjection)
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) has already had an
opportunity to put his questions and get his answers. The honourable member for Wolseley right now
is attempting to get an answer.
*
(1020)
Point of
Order
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on page 5
of this report that we talked about earlier, it says specifically that‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Dauphin is
attempting to put another question under the guise of a point of order. He does not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Education and
Training, to finish with her response.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, as I explained to the member when
we were discussing issues relating to our Native Education Branch on the K‑to‑12
side, that branch is working very carefully with communities, with individuals,
but also with all Manitobans because these issues affect all Manitobans, are
important for all Manitobans.
Information
System
Priorities
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, why is the one million dollars
to be spent on education information systems this year to deal primarily with
school information rather than student information? Could the minister tell us why that is the
priority now?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker,
as I explained to the member, there needs to be a phase‑in of the volumes
of information which this department would like to be able to keep track of on
behalf of Manitobans. So the system has been set up in a way for schools and
for the department to begin to put the information together in a way that it
will be the most useful in the shortest amount of time.
Housing
Starts
Provincial
Comparisons
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday, I released information
providing disturbing economic statistics that
We now have information of further serious
decline of the economy. In the first
half of 1993,
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the
minister. What are the reasons for this
relatively chronic, weak economic situation in
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, it must
be drawing to the end of the close of the session. We get all the economic questions in the
first week and the last week, and we do not have many in between. So it is a good sign, and I am happy to
receive the question.
Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge that the
forecasts with respect to the national economic growth are going to be
decreased, and that is difficult news to accept across the land. I think that we will be hearing more detail
with respect to the forecast coming out of the Conference Board, indeed other
forecasts, over the course of the next number of weeks.
It is all laid basically at the feet of
all the provinces across the land which have decreased their deficits upward of
$8 billion. Almost all of the reasoning
and the rationale behind that, which of course this government supports, flows
out and impacts not only housing starts, to which the member refers, but also a
whole host of other statistics.
There is just not as much public money
being directed toward many of the activities as was borrowed in the past, and,
Mr. Speaker, we know the benefit of that of course is reduced control on taxes
and hopefully a moderation with respect to the service stats on the debt.
*
(1025)
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, to some extent that is a credible
observation, but the fact is our neighbouring province of
Our sister provinces have engaged in
deficit reduction too, so why is‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has put his question.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, the member has got me
again. I do not know why
Let me say, this government has been
actually quite kind to the
I would only ask that the member be so
kind to us, and recognize the debt we inherited from him and what we have been trying
to deal with over the course of the last six years.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Regrettably, this is not a one‑year phenomenon. We have had a steady decline since 1988.
So my question to the minister is: What explanation does he have, if any, for
this steady decline, virtually a steady decline since 1988? How can we explain that in 1988 we had 4,448
starts, and now this year we will be lucky to end up just over a thousand starts
at the rate we are going, probably the lowest level since the Great Depression
of the 1930s?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I have not looked at the numbers recently. I do not know what the base year over year
was in
Let us look at the base of
Health
Care System
User Fees
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker. some‑‑
An Honourable Member: Does anybody else over there not get a question?
Mr. Edwards: You should let Brian write one of his own one
of these days.
Mr. Speaker, some 14 and a half months ago
the Minister of Health came forward with his health reform action plan. That plan was unequivocal in its statement
that the government would not resort to user fees, did not believe in user
fees, that these were not part of the plan and would not be part of the plan.
I want to just ask the Minister of Health
today to restate his commitment to that and assure Manitobans and assure
members of this House that that unequivocal statement remains as true today as
it was then when he put it in his letter.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no question
on this side of the House that we support the Canada Health Act, its five
principles. That has been stated in the
health reform document. I have stated
that at every opportunity where I had an opportunity to present the reform package
anywhere in
Inherent in that statement is the
commitment that we will not introduce user fees which would break our
commitment to uphold the Canada Health Act and, Sir, we have not.
Facility
Fee
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to hear that continued belief and continued commitment on the part
of the government.
Mr. Speaker, it has given me some concern
that in fact there are private facilities in this province. There are a number of private clinics in the
province which charge what is called a facility fee. I know the minister will be familiar with
these. That is a fee that a user pays to get the service for day surgery.
I did a little checking and at least with
one of them, cataract surgery is $510, carpal tunnel surgery with a new scope is
$350, and so on and so forth, up to approximately a thousand dollars, depending
on the surgery. That to me is a user
fee.
Can the minister indicate how that process
squares with his commitment not to have user fees in this province?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable
friend will fully acknowledge that each and every one of those private clinics
he refers to were established in the mid‑ to early '80s and have been in
operation, undertaking in a lot of cases noninsured surgery, in other words,
some procedures that were removed from the insured services list. In some cases they have, since mid‑'80s
and occasionally even earlier than that, offered services that are insured
which are provided in the hospital.
The opportunity to provide fully covered
insured service exists comprehensively in
*
(1030)
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, as the minister I am sure will acknowledge,
a key part of the quality of service is the speed with which people have access
to the surgery they need. We understand
that there have to be decisions made on the importance and the emergent nature.
I just want to read from an ad which was
in the Winnipeg Free Press and indicates that treatment is available at a time convenient
to a person's personal schedule if they want to pay this fee.
Mr. Speaker, my concern is, as we are
increasingly ranking these surgery provisions, we will be creating a two‑tier
system if we allow this type of fee‑for‑service system to
proliferate.
How does the minister square that type of
fee for covered insured services, making it more convenient for those who can pay? How does that square with his commitment not
to have user fees?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, very easily.
Let me indicate to my honourable friend
that the health care system in
Sir, in doing that, I simply remind my
honourable friend that, even though the Canadian Hospital Association questions
the survey methodology, the most recent Fraser survey has indicated that
Antiracism
Strategy
Comic Book
Distribution
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I would
like to table a copy, and also I have 57 copies for all members for the Pages
to distribute whenever they have time.
My question is for the Minister of
Education.
I would like to ask the minister if she
would take an active role in the distribution of this comic book and purchase
copies for distribution and recommend its use to every school board and educational
institution in
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker,
certainly the Department of Education and Training has been very active in the
whole area of concerns about racism and in multicultural education.
We remind the member that we released, a year
ago in May, our policy on multicultural education, and we have in process our race
relations guidelines to be released shortly for the schools.
Whenever it has been requested that we
look at a piece of information for distribution to the schools, certainly the department
and I will look at it, and then we will come to a conclusion.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: I appreciate the response from the Minister of
Education and her commitment, as I understand it, to review it and consider
distributing it to educational institutions.
I would ask her if she would consider
purchasing enough copies for each school board and educational institution in
the
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, as the member may know or may not
know, we do have a process within the Department of Education and Training to
review literature which has been produced by people within the community. That system looks at it in relation to both
our libraries within schools and also anything which may be of use within our
curriculum.
I would let her know that there is a
process which this would go through, and I will see that it is started through
the process.
Family
Life Centre of
Funding
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
The Family Life Centre of North Winnipeg
is a nonprofit organization, has no government funds. They are desperately looking for a tiny grant
to help market this comic book so that all institutions and groups in
I would like to ask the Premier if he
would raise this with his ministers and find a way to come up with a small
grant to help this fledgling organization market this comic book so we can all
deal with racism in our society and increase understanding through laughter.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I was not
listening to the question. I was not
sure that the question when it began was directed toward me, so I would ask if
the member would mind repeating it.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: I would just mention to the Premier that the Family
Life Centre of North Winnipeg is a nonprofit organization, does not have any
government funds, but needs a tiny grant to help market this comic book which
is a very useful tool in dealing with racism and promoting understanding
through laughter.
Would the Premier discuss this with some
of his ministers and find a way to come up with a tiny grant for the Family
Life Centre of North Winnipeg to help market this useful educational tool?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, since I am not familiar with the
material, I would ask that the member have the organization correspond with my
office, and I will take the matter up with the appropriate minister.
Replacement
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): When this government eliminated the Manitoba
Environment Council they severed a long‑standing link with the scientific
community in
My question is for the Minister of Environment. How is he selecting the individuals for his
six‑member appointed body that is going to replace the Manitoba
Environment Council? Are there criteria
that have been developed for selecting these individuals, and can he table that
criteria in the House?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I have
undertaken to consult with the existing members of the council to advise me on
names and on criteria that might be used to bring people to committee to assist
me in this area. I think the member
should be quite satisfied to know that we will probably have a more active
environment council this fall.
Ms. Cerilli: Can the minister explain how he expects to
replace the scientific expertise of more than 50 individuals with six people
appointed through his office?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that frustrates
me about this process is that I, in fact, believe that the people who are part
of these networks that the member refers to will still be quite knowledgeable.
They will still be free to provide
information to me, and I expect that those who will be appointed this fall to
the revamped commission will be able to use that network to continue to garner the
information and the expertise that comes from the work of those people.
I expect the network to be widened, not
narrowed, unless of course they refuse to work with me.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, the minister is expecting people
who have been advising government for a number of years to apply to offer that
advice on a continuing basis, and I do not think that is reasonable.
Given that the council is mandated in
legislation and that there are a number of issues that now have passed which they
were not advising the minister on, can the minister tell us when his new
council will be established?
*
(1040)
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to be a little bit
disappointed by the approach that the member is taking because she seems to be
implying that people of expertise and environmentalists of good will will be
unwilling to work with me unless I pay them to provide their advice.
That is not the approach that I think is
out there in the community. I think that
those who are truly concerned about environmental matters will work with me,
that they will work with the new council.
The appointment of those members will be forthcoming early in the fall.
Ostomy
Program
Social
Assistance Recipients
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister
of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) a question about the letter received from
the Assistant Deputy Minister of Health to all ostomy patients, and asked the
Minister of Family Services why they got this letter and if it was being
corrected. The minister stated that they could use their health card.
I would like to inform the House that the
minister was wrong, that they have never been able to use their health card for
ostomy supplies. It has always been
direct billed to Home Care.
So I would like to ask the Minister of
Family Services if he would correct the record.
Since he put misinformation on the record yesterday, would he correct
himself?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker,
the member may also want to correct himself when he talks about the many
hundreds of people writing letters on an issue like this. I checked with my department. We have had no inquiries by mail. In fact, the only inquiry I have is one that he
sent me about 10 minutes ago across the House.
We will certainly deal with that
individual, and I thank the member for bringing it to my attention.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Burrows, a very short question.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, one of his Income Security
offices has had phone calls.
Can the Minister of Family Services tell
the House why it was necessary for us to fax his department a copy of the
ostomy letter? Why does his department
not have it? Why do we have to‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I certainly would feel that the member has
worked very diligently to come forward with one letter, and compliment him for
his hard work on this issue. I would
assure him that this one letter that has come forward from him will be answered.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Committee
Changes
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Law Amendments for Friday, 1 p.m. session, the member for Morris (Mr. Manness)
for the member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger), the member for Charleswood (Mr.
Ernst) for the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer), the member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings)
for the member Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), the member for Fort Garry (Mrs.
Vodrey) for the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister), the member for
Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson) for the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose)
and the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) for the member for La Verendrye
(Mr. Sveinson).
I move, seconded by the member for St.
Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Law Amendments for Monday, 9
a.m. session, be amended as follows: The
member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose) for the member for Morris (Mr. Manness),
the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) for the member for Ste. Rose (Mr.
Cummings), the member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh) for the member for Fort
Garry (Mrs. Vodrey), the member for River East (Mrs. Mitchelson) for the member
for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson) and the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr.
Pallister) for the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
I move, seconded by the member for St.
Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities
and Natural Resources for Monday the 9 a.m. session, be amended as follow: The member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) for
the member for Riel (Mr. Ducharme), the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) for the
member for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer), the member for Ste. Rose (Mr.
Cummings) for the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik).
Motions agreed to.
NONPOLITICAL
STATEMENTS
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Agriculture
have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? (agreed)
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I would
like this opportunity to spend a couple of minutes paying tribute to some
volunteers in
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the board of
directors of the Manitoba Agricultural Hall of Fame inducted three more people
to that esteemed group of people of some 90 individuals who have been inducted
into the hall over the last about 15 years.
The three members inducted yesterday were a Mr. Jimmy Moffatt from
Carroll and
Mr. Speaker, there was a very special
individual who was introduced to the Hall of Fame yesterday. It was a Mr. Peter Fidler who was an employee
of the
The third member inducted yesterday, was
Mr. Andy Forsythe from High Bluff, who was an elevator operator and lived in
the period 1874 to 1956.
I would like to pay tribute to the
volunteers, the board of directors, who have carried on this tradition for
several years of honouring Manitobans, and making Manitobans feel proud in the development
of their province and of the three very esteemed individuals who were
introduced yesterday. I thank all of the
volunteers for their efforts in that direction.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I do not have a copy of the names that the
minister mentioned, but I do know one of the people, and that is the person who
is working as the pork promoter across
To the other members and the families of
all of the people who were inducted, we extend our congratulations and
recognition for the work that they have done for this province.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
House
Business
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask for unanimous leave of the House‑‑and I have talked to
the Liberals, and I have not had a chance to talk to the NDP House leader‑‑as
to whether or not we can move Bill 50 and 53, one of them being the statute law
amendment bill, and the other being victims of crime, which were referred to a
committee for, I believe, Monday morning, whether or not we could bring them to
this afternoon's Law Amendments, and consider them after Bill 55.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to allow the
honourable government House leader to move Bills 50 and 53 to Law Amendments this
afternoon?
An Honourable
Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No leave.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, would you call Bill 28, please.
DEBATE ON
SECOND
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
Wellington (Ms. Barrett).
Ms. Becky Barrett (
I would like to start today, as I ended
and ran out of time yesterday, apologizing for a word I put on the record. I was talking, I believe‑‑and I
do not have Hansard yet‑‑so I have to go on generalities, but I was
discussing the political appointments of members of the Multicultural Grants
Advisory Council and the Multiculturalism Secretariat, and I used a word that I
should not have used.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker,
in the Chair)
*
(1050)
I started to apologize, and I would like
to continue my apology. I said
"political hacks," and the word "hacks" has no business
being in the context of the people who have been appointed to these
organizations. I have a great deal of difficulty,
as my caucus colleagues do, with the process of appointing people to these
important positions, but I do not have any difficulty with the individuals who
are so appointed. I wanted to make it
very clear that I did not‑‑the word "hacks" was inappropriate,
and I would like to apologize through Hansard and through my comments today for
the use of that word.
Having done that, Mr. Acting Speaker, I
would like to continue on in my discussion about the implications and the background
of The Manitoba Intercultural Council Repeal Act. I was talking about the politicization of the
Manitoba Intercultural Council by this government and, most particularly. by
the current minister responsible for the Intercultural Council, stating that
her actions belied the language and the words she used when she talked in a
variety of venues about the politicization that the previous government had
undertaken with MIC.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to put on
the record some of the comments that the Minister of Culture placed in Hansard
on May 30, 1983, when the Honourable Eugene Kostyra was introducing the
legislation that brought into being the Manitoba Intercultural Council. I would like to read these comments into the
record because they show the previous government's commitment to the concept of
arm's‑length organization. They
show the previous government's commitment to the concept of independence. They
show the previous government's commitment to the concept of advice, and that
underlies the institution of the Manitoba Intercultural Council. I would like to put them into the record because
they show very clearly, I believe, the distinction between the previous NDP
government's commitment to the Manitoba Intercultural Council and its
principles with the current minister and government's lack of commitment to
those principles.
The first thing I would like to quote from
the then‑Minister of Culture, the Honourable Eugene Kostyra‑‑there
are a couple of reasons given for the legislation enabling the government of
the day to appoint up to one‑third of the total Manitoba Intercultural
Council.
This has been a sore point with the
current minister. It has also been, I
must admit, a point of contention in the multicultural community and within the
MIC itself. Mr. Acting Speaker, it is an
issue that we, after 10 years, would recommend that the minister look at
changing. I would like to put on the record,
for everyone's edification, the rationale for this particular part of the MIC
legislation 10 years ago.
The government appointments are limited to
a maximum of one‑third of the total council, and this was as a result of
a recommendation made by the Interim Liaison Committee on Multiculturalism,
which is a result of their consultation with the representatives of the
ethnocultural organizations throughout
Mr. Acting Speaker, in 1982 and 1983, when
the government of the day did extensive province‑wide consultations
before they implemented The MIC Act, this was a recommendation from the community
that the government have the authority, which is permissive in the legislation,
to appoint up to one‑third of the council.
The reasons for that recommendation were
basically two. The first is that the
multicultural community throughout the
We all know that the
The second reason given by the
multicultural community at that time in 1983 for giving the government the
authority to appoint was that there might be situations where an individual was
not closely linked with a particular multicultural group or a particular
ethnocultural community, but that there would be a need felt by part of the
council and the government for that person's expertise. So this was another reason that the multicultural
community thought it was appropriate for the government to have an ability to
appoint representatives. I just wanted
to put that in the record, Mr. Acting Speaker, because that has been a point of
contention in recent times.
The individuals and groups who were
consulted with by the government in 1982 and 1983 were also very concerned that
the MIC not be some rubber‑stamp type council for government. They wanted a council that was going to give
good advice to the government, that was going to have the ability to carry on
some research and was going to liaise with other groups and not be under the
complete control or domination of the government.
Mr. Acting Speaker, this is exactly what
the Manitoba Intercultural Council did right to this very day. It was established and it has functioned throughout
its 10 years with those kinds of activities.
As I read into the record yesterday, the range of publications external
to their recommendations to government shows the power and the appropriateness
of those kinds of activities of the MIC.
The Minister of Culture the Honourable
Eugene Kostyra recognized as well that‑‑and I am quoting here‑‑"it
may be from time to time, . . . that it is advice that the government itself may
not want to hear at particular times, but I think if we are going to have a
meaningful Council in the Province of Manitoba, we want that kind of
freedom."
By that, the minister was stating that it
is uncomfortable to have an organization that is independent and filled with
people who have an understanding of important issues to provide advice to the
government. It is uncomfortable for the
government because there will be times when a government will hear something that
it does not want to hear or that it is going to have difficulty in
implementing.
That, Mr. Acting Speaker, the government
of the day, the New Democratic government of 1983, was willing to do, because
they knew it was important to have that kind of independent voice giving advice
and speaking out for the concerns of the multicultural community in the
It is tragic that that basic trust and
respect over the past five years has been steadily eroded and it has now come
down to Bill 28, the repeal of the Manitoba Intercultural Council, a piece of
legislation that, as I stated before, should never have been brought
forward. It belies the minister's stated
commitment to multiculturalism. It
serves no useful purpose for the people of
I would like now to discuss at some length
the process that was undertaken by this government leading to Bill 28, the dissolution
of the Manitoba Intercultural Council.
Basically, it will be a discussion of the Blair report. For individuals and groups who follow
multicultural issues, the Blair report will be very familiar.
*
(1100)
Prior to my discussing the Blair report,
the process that led to the Blair report and the recommendations following from
the Blair report, I would like to talk a bit about and quote from the August
1988 report of the Manitoba Task Force on Multiculturalism, submitted to the
Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation, the Honourable Bonnie
Mitchelson. The report is entitled,
Multiculturalism is for all Manitobans:
Towards a Horizontal Mosaic.
The report was obviously begun prior to
the change in government in May of 1988, but the report was given to the current
Minister of Culture in August of 1988.
It stated some very interesting things, Mr. Acting Speaker, in relation
to the Intercultural Council.
I would like to quote: The Manitoba Intercultural Council must have
its own role strengthened as an advisory body to government. It must receive a new role as an advocate of ethnocultural
concerns before government.
The final statement in the executive
summary of this task force: That there
be a principle and rationale outlined and a multiculturalism policy developed
in continued consultation with
Now the government has put forward a
multiculturalism act, has made a multiculturalism policy statement. Mr. Acting Speaker, we submit, on this side
of the House, those statements, those policies and that act ring hollow in
light of the government's intention to eliminate the Manitoba Intercultural Council.
This task force stated in its
recommendations that MIC should not be eliminated, should not be emasculated,
but should in fact be strengthened and broadened and that its mandate should be
extended to advocacy as well as advice.
I would like to quote again from this
report. I quote: The MIC has performed admirably in its role
of adviser to the minister since its inception in 1983.
Another quote: We believe that the growth of the advocacy role
is appropriate and that it must be acknowledged in the legislation.
Then this task force has a series of
recommendations on the functions that they believe the Manitoba Intercultural
Council should undertake. I will not
read them in their entirety, but I will outline generally. These functions, Mr. Acting Speaker, respond
to the recommendation that the MIC have not only an advisory but also an
advocacy function.
They recommend that the MIC be retained,
that the current role as an advisory body should be reaffirmed and strengthened
and that the government, through the Minister of Culture, Heritage and then‑Recreation,
should continue to refer matters to the MIC for subsequent advice, should
continue to meet with the council at least once a year.
It also recommended that the MIC request
that the minister respond in writing to the issues raised and advice offered by
MIC from time to time in order to strengthen the advisory role of MIC.
This task force, which was as a result of
extensive consultations again throughout the province by the then‑NDP government
does not talk about eliminating or reducing the role of MIC, does not say
anything about the fact that MIC has outlived its usefulness. No, precisely the opposite. This task force report states very clearly
that MIC has performed admirably and its role should be strengthened and
expanded, not curtailed.
It also states again the recommendation
that its legislated mandate be broadened to include advocacy and that the
legislation be amended to that end.
Then it goes on to list 18 additional
functions that it feels MIC should undertake, ranging from the continuing and
expansion of their current functions to additional functions. I would suggest that this also states and
shows very clearly that MIC was performing a vital function, functions that
should be expanded, not contracted.
There were other recommendations dealing
with recommending that the minister undertake an analysis of the roles of the various
parts of MIC, that there be an annual report on financial expenditures and that
MIC be subject to an external audit.
I spoke yesterday about the results of
that external audit which were undertaken on MIC and the fact that the external
audit found only minimal problems with the audit functions of MIC.
So, Mr. Acting Speaker, we have in late
1988 a task force that had been far ranging, making recommendations not to
contract but to expand the function of MIC, stating very clearly that MIC performed
a valuable function, that it should be expanded and that the minister should be
held accountable to MIC for the recommendations that MIC brought to her, a far
cry from what the minister has ultimately done, which is put forward a bill
that will eliminate completely MIC as an independent body legislated by the
government.
I would like now to talk about the Blair
report, about the process that led to the Blair report and the comments by some
of the members who participated in the Blair report.
J. Don Blair was hired by the Minister of
Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson) to, and I quote from Mr.
Blair himself: She has retained me to
review the role, mandate and structure of the Manitoba Intercultural Council
and provide recommendations on its future.
I am quoting from a letter that Mr. Blair
sent to all of the community organizations in the province that dealt with multiculturalism.
We have no quarrel about that
statement. It is appropriate at 10
years, or going on 10 years, for an organization that was as groundbreaking as
the MIC was to be reviewed and to look at its future role.
We had a task force in 1988 making
recommendations. Since 1988, the
government has steadily cut away the role and the authority of MIC, as I have
stated earlier, in taking away its granting function, in putting in place The
Multiculturalism Act without any reference to MIC, in establishing the Multiculturalism
Secretariat, but still MIC had legislated authority and legislated
responsibility and it was 10 years so it was time to do another review. That is fine.
However, the time lines that Mr. Blair
gave the multicultural community to respond to his questionnaire was not
fine. The letter that was sent out as a
covering letter to the survey on the Intercultural Council was dated July 6,
1992. Mr. Blair requested responses by
August 15, 1992. Anyone who has ever had
anything to do with research, with questionnaires, with that kind of request
for consultation knows that six weeks is absolutely not enough time to do
this. We know that the mails do not deliver
next‑day service; as well, it is the middle of summer. July 6 to August
15 is the height of the summer season when organizations have wound down. It is the height of the summer season when
individuals who want to consult with their organizations will have a very
difficult time to do this. We wonder,
Mr. Acting Speaker, if this was not done deliberately so that the minister
would be able to say she had consulted, that Mr. Blair had asked for
consultation and had received responses‑‑but at the worst possible
time of the year.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
The survey itself was six pages long and
included a number of questions about the responding organizations and then
purposes of MIC: asking if the
organizations believed that MIC had performed its functions; asking a question
if the respondents believe there is a need for an advocacy body on behalf of
ethnocultural communities in Manitoba; then asking the respondents to comment on
the objectives of the Manitoba Intercultural Council; asking if the
organizations feel they have been well served by MIC; and then asking two
questions on the structure of MIC: one,
is the representation of MIC providing the proper mix to fulfill its purpose,
and should the structure remain unchanged and should the Manitoba Intercultural
Council be fully elected by its members and any other suggestions they might
have?
*
(1110)
Mr. Acting Speaker, on the surface, these
are not illegitimate questions to ask, but as I have stated, the time frame was
far too short. An organization is not
able to consult particularly small ethnocultural organizations who have, in
many cases, no staff, or if they have a staff, have a part‑time staff who
have difficulty getting their groups together on short notice, probably, and
all of those difficulties are exacerbated by its being the height of
summer. So we have some major concerns
about the process that was undertaken, just the timing of the process.
As well, Mr. Acting Speaker, they sent
out, I think, just under 1,000 questionnaires.
They received just over 100 back, which is indicative, I would suggest,
of the lack of time that these organizations had to respond. Mr. Blair, then, as well, interviewed
individuals one‑on‑one in private interviews.
Again, that in and of itself is not a bad
idea, because a written questionnaire with structured responses does not always
give you the range of ideas, concerns and recommendations that you might get
out of a one‑on‑one, in‑person interview. So we have no concern about that part of the
process; however, again they were very short.
The time to set these interviews up was very short.
In some cases that I know of, people have
told me that they volunteered to be interviewed by Mr. Blair. People who are very active in the
ethnocultural community and some of them active in MIC were denied
interviews. In many cases, in several
cases as well, an interview was set up, Mr. Blair cancelled it, and it never
got rescheduled. So that part of the
process appears a bit murky to us.
The real concern we have‑‑well,
one of the major concerns we have with the process, both in the written survey
and in the interviews, is the fact that we have no idea who these people and organizations
were who responded either in writing or in face‑to‑face
interviews. Mr. Blair in his report
stated that he did not append a list of either the names or the organizations
or the general kinds of organizations that responded because of client
confidentiality.
Now, again, that is a spurious and a very
unusual process to have been undertaken by any legitimate research
component. You can always protect the
identity of a particular individual or a particular group by not listing
specific names of individuals or groups, but you talk to people who do research
and write papers about psychological issues, where they do case study analyses,
they do not give names or identifying characteristics, but they do give the
reader an understanding of the kinds of people, the kinds of groups that they
dealt with in their research.
We have no idea if there were communities
that did not respond at all, organizations representing communities that did not
respond at all. We have no idea of the
range and the breadth of the kind of communities and organizations that
responded. We have no idea how Mr. Blair
chose the individuals whom he spoke with personally. We have no idea of the criteria he used. At the very least, he could have listed the
criteria he used for calling and making appointments with individuals to
speak. We do not have any of that. That leads us to suspect the validity of the
recommendations that Mr. Blair made to the minister.
The recommendations, too, are very
interesting, because there are six major recommendations. The first recommendation is that The MIC Act
be repealed, and that is the recommendation that the minister accepted. Recommendations 2 through 6 gave the minister
an alternative, and these are the recommendations that we say on this side of
the House, and many of the multicultural community organizations in the
province also say should have been accepted by the minister.
They deal with amendments to The MIC Act
that should be undertaken, such as that the act be amended to remove the power of
government to appoint council members, to appoint the chairperson and to hire
the executive secretary, that the MIC look at its mandate and provide a clearer
definition of whom it represents and a specific role and mandate acceptable to
its membership, internal processes for electing executives and those kinds of
things, that MIC look at longer term plans and goals for which it is
accountable to its membership, to the government and to the public, co‑ordinate
a communication strategy, a formal and effective mechanism between MIC and the
government to provide feedback and advice, the government continue its
statement that multiculturalism is all inclusive and that the government should
facilitate a conference to consider the state of multiculturalism in Manitoba
and the structures and strategies necessary to ensure continued development of
multiculturalism.
Those recommendations, with the exception
of the first one, would have, had they been implemented by the minister, gone a
long way towards addressing the issues that had been raised about the role and
function of the MIC over its 10‑year history. We suggest, Mr. Acting Speaker, that the
reason the minister chose not to act on those recommendations but chose instead
to act on the other recommendation that it be repealed is because the minister
and the government she represents did not believe in the MIC, did not believe
in what it was doing and did not want to have an independent advisory/advocacy
body looking at multiculturalism issues.
What it wanted instead is what it is now
going to get with the repeal of MIC, and that is a totally politically
appointed group of individuals through MGAC to provide funding for organizations
and the Multiculturalism Secretariat which, as I have stated earlier does very
little outreach and liaising with community and the community
organizations. The Multiculturalism Secretariat
does basically internal interdepartmental linkage functions. Actually, when I stated that it did very
little outreach, that is not completely 100 percent accurate, because at virtually
every function that I have attended in the last year, the executive director of
the Multiculturalism Secretariat has been very present, and in many cases, he
is the one who is presenting a cheque to an organization.
*
(1120)
A brief detour if I may, Mr. Acting
Speaker, on that process, because that to me encapsulates and exemplifies the politicization
that this government has undertaken in regard to multiculturalism, when the
Manitoba Intercultural Council had the authority to distribute lottery funds to
multicultural and ethnocultural organizations, the cheque was delivered on
behalf of the Manitoba Intercultural Council at arm's length, virtually external
agency to the government. So it was MIC
that was providing the funds.
Today, when a cheque is issued to a
community organization, it comes from MGAC completely politically appointed by Order‑in‑Council,
and the cheque says it comes from the government of
This is just not fearmongering like the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) talks about. We need only
point to the advocacy groups of this province, such as the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty
Organization, the friendship centres, other community groups that have had
their funding eliminated completely by this government as an example of what
can happen when the purse strings are completely controlled by political
appointees, answerable not to the community that elected them, because not a
single one of those people who distributes lottery funds to community
organizations was elected by the public.
Every single one of them was appointed by the government.
The only advocacy group that remains in
the
With that brief detour, I would like to
put on the record some concerns about the Blair report itself. These concerns were very eloquently outlined
by Dr. Yantay Tsai, who is a past chairperson of the Manitoba Intercultural
Council from 1985 to 1987. He lists
eight major concerns with the Blair report.
One, the survey information was
invalid. I have spoken about that, the
fact that we do not know who returned questionnaires, and we do not know who
was interviewed. Yes, I have specific figures. There were 117 of 971 questionnaires returned
and 91 individuals interviewed.
I quote from his report: This deliberate concealment of information source
would allow maximal manipulation of data to suit a particular outcome. The scarcity of returns to the questionnaires
and the secretive manner by which conclusions are derived invalidate the report
completely. Any decision based on such
unreliable survey clearly lacks credibility.
A severe criticism of that‑‑he
goes on to talk about the fact that crucial facts were distorted, and the
report makes a number of erroneous assertions which have led to untenable
conclusions. There are three main areas which I will briefly outline.
There was a distortion in the Blair report
of MIC's original mandate. The report
states that the original goal of MIC was to make the government more
knowledgeable about
It then argues that the advice of MIC is
no longer needed because the government has already reached an increasing awareness
of multiculturalism. Well, we all know
that is not accurate.
It does not matter what government there
is; the issues around multiculturalism never are static. They are always changing. We are always finding new problems and
concerns that we have to deal with.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker,
in the Chair)
We have raised some of these issues in the
House in the last three months. The idea
that there is no problem with Manitobans accepting the concept of
multiculturalism is fallacious at the best.
Example two, the report claims that MIC
does not represent all groups because its self‑identification principle
excludes certain organizations. It says
that MIC only represents special‑interest groups. This is a fallacious argument because everyone
knows that an act that talks about the multicultural community is, by
definition, exclusionary, as is the act that talks about and deals with the
public education system or the health care system.
Mr. Blair states that groups in our
society are well developed. Mr. Acting
Speaker, multicultural groups in our society are as broadly ranging as any
other group in our society. There are
multicultural communities and organizations in
Anybody who knows the statistics, as do
members opposite, on immigration patterns knows that is the reality. To say that all multicultural groups are well
developed and do not need the assistance of an advisory and an advocacy body is
erroneous in the first order, and Mr. Blair should have known better.
The community views were
misrepresented. Mr. Blair states that
the community views represented in the questionnaires were fairly consistent. Well, we have to take Mr. Blair's word for it,
because he never did say who returned the questionnaires. He never said to whom the questionnaires were
distributed. He never said anything
about the characteristics of the individuals he interviewed. He certainly never summarized the kinds of responses
to each question that he received. He
selectively made quotes.
We have no way of knowing what kinds of
quotes, what kinds of concerns, what kinds of issues were raised, because there
is nothing in there except what Mr. Blair wants us to hear and wants us to
read.
The report, No. 4, states that the
problems with MIC are the fault of MIC.
We are saying that is not accurate.
The problems with the Manitoba Intercultural Council relate specifically
to the interference of the current government in the workings of the Intercultural
Council to the increased political representation on the council and to the
ultimate goal of this government, which is to eliminate the council.
Mr. Tsai goes on to talk about the fact
that the report misconceives what multiculturalism is all about. The report says it is a process and then says
it is a new concept of intercultural understanding. Multiculturalism is in flux, is in process, which
is precisely why you cannot say that an organization like MIC has fulfilled its
function, because things have concluded.
It does not work.
There are self‑contradictory
remarks, fallacious arguments and no convincing rationale are the other major
items that Mr. Tsai has talked about in the report.
As well, the Chinese Community Council of
Manitoba made a statement in response to the Blair report where they say, from their
perspective, the question is whose advice the government wants to listen to,
the advice of the representative body of the communities or that of the party
loyalists and supporters who make up‑‑end quote. Those party loyalists and supporters, whether
they are actually members of the Conservative Party or not, they are all political
appointees.
It calls into the question the
government's professed commitment to multiculturalism if it refuses or is
afraid to listen to the advice of the representative body of the ethnocultural
communities, which is clearly what the government is afraid of. It is afraid to listen to that external
advice. It is afraid to listen to advice and recommendations from a group that
it does not totally control. That is why
it is eliminating MIC.
The Chinese Community Council of Manitoba goes
on to say, and I quote: Until the late
1980s‑‑parenthetically, I might add, the time when the Conservative
government was elected‑‑the MIC had been the single most effective
and important organization in defence of multiculturalism and its promotion. It was the standard bearer of the cause of
multiculturalism. It has remained a
vital symbol of multiculturalism. The
dismantling of the MIC under whatever guise will be seen as an abandonment and defeat
of multiculturalism in
*
(1130)
This is exactly our position, Mr. Acting
Speaker. We feel that it is vital that
the multicultural community in
Not only MIC, I think it is not just the
Manitoba Intercultural Council, but it is important that we all agree, and we
on this side of the House agree, I do not think the government does, that there
is a need for an external advisory advocacy body. Clearly, the government does not agree on it,
because they are eliminating the one external advisory body that this government
has been able to avail itself of for the last 10 years.
What concerns us, Mr. Acting Speaker, is
that this government is taking away the intercultural council at a time when it
has never been more important to have an organization such as MIC. We are
living in a society which is changing daily.
We are living in a province whose ethnic make‑up is changing
daily. We are becoming more and more
cosmopolitan. This is a positive statement. This is a wonderful thing to be happening.
It is remarkable to see how individuals
and communities come to the
These groups are all part of the
multicultural kaleidoscope that makes up
We have representatives, as I stated, from
the newest nation on
It enriches our province, it enriches our
lives, the reality of multiculturalism, and whether we like it not, we are
going to have to deal with the many, many, many issues that this fact leaves us
with. We are dealing with, or not
dealing with, or in some cases dealing fairly well with, and in other cases
dealing not at well with the issues of racism that face us in our society.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I would not for a
moment suggest that racism is a new phenomenon.
It has been with us as long as there have been three people on the face
of the Earth, I am sure. Its face
changes as the composition of our society changes. I remember learning in my history books in
the
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Now, today, that may seem a bit strange,
particularly when one considers that the political history of the United States
has been very definitely impacted on by the Irish from Massachusetts, most particularly
the Kennedy family, which is 120 or 130 years of history in Boston and
Massachusetts political life, but 100 years ago, they had a great deal of
difficulty in getting jobs. Today, the Irish form one of the strongest and most
powerful groups in North American society.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker,
in the Chair)
I am using that as an example of how
things change and how the issues of multiculturalism and the groups that are
affected by the issues of multiculturalism change as our society changes.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Mr. Speaker, I will now conclude my
remarks very briefly by saying, I appreciate the ability to have spoken for
longer than the 40 minutes traditionally allotted to speakers. I feel, and we feel on this side of the
House, that the issues that the Manitoba Intercultural Council over its 10‑year
history have addressed have been vital issues to the province of Manitoba, to the
people of Manitoba and, most particularly, to the multicultural communities in
the province of Manitoba.
We feel the government's actions in
proposing Bill 28, a bill which would eliminate the legislated mandate of the
Manitoba Intercultural Council, are ill thought out, ill conceived and should
be revoked. We feel that time, and a
very short period of time, will prove us correct, that for all of its problems internally,
the Manitoba Intercultural Council was and still is a very effective
organization. Without the legislated
mandate and support of the government, there will be no organization that will
be able to provide the kind of advice and assistance and recommendations to the
government that the MIC was able to provide.
We commit ourselves, here and now, to
reinstituting the Manitoba Intercultural Council, after public hearings, once
the government has changed. This is a
pledge that I make on behalf of my caucus and my party, because we feel, Mr.
Speaker, it is essential that the multicultural community in Manitoba have a voice
that is heard by the community, by the government, and it is essential for the
government to listen to that kind of voice, a voice of reason and advice and
advocacy that the Manitoba Intercultural Council has provided for over 10 years
to the people and government of Manitoba.
*
(1140)
Mr. Speaker, I hope the government
reconsiders its decision to introduce Bill 28.
I fear it will not. I think it is
a sad day for the
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Motion agreed to.
Committee
Change
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Niakwa): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it 12:30?
(agreed)
The hour being 12:30, this House now
adjourns and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. Monday.