LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Monday,
July 26, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): I wish to inform the House of the unavoidable
absence of Mr. Speaker and, therefore, in accordance with the statutes, would
call upon the Deputy Speaker to take the Chair.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
Madam Deputy Speaker: I have reviewed the petition (Mr.
Hickes). It complies with the rules and
the practices of the House. 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 there is a very serious solvent
abuse problem in northern
WHEREAS according to the RCMP over 100
crimes in Thompson alone in 1992 were linked to solvent abuse; and
WHEREAS there are no facilities to deal
with solvent abuse victims in northern
WHEREAS for over three years, the
provincial government failed to proclaim the private member's anti‑sniff
bill passed by the Legislature and is now proposing to criminalize minors
buying solvents even though there are no treatment facilities in northern
WHEREAS for nine years, the 25 Chiefs who
comprise the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, supported by medical officials,
police and the area Member of Parliament, have proposed a pilot treatment
project known as the Native Youth Medicine Lodge; and
WHEREAS successive federal Ministers of
Health have failed to respond to this issue with a commitment; and
WHEREAS the
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Madam Deputy Speaker: I have reviewed the petition (Mr.
Ashton). It complies with the rules and
practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?
(agreed)
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the state of Highway 391 is
becoming increasingly unsafe; and
WHEREAS due to the poor condition of the
road there have been numerous accidents; and
WHEREAS the condition of the road between
Thompson and Nelson House is not only making travel dangerous but costly due to
frequent damage to vehicles; and
WHEREAS this road is of vital importance
to residents who must use the road.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
* (1335)
PRESENTING
REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mr. Bob Rose
(Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments): Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to present the
Twelfth and Thirteenth Reports of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments.
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant):
Your Standing Committee on Law Amendments
presents the following as its Twelfth Report.
Your committee met on Thursday, July 22,
1993, at 9 a.m. in Room 254 and 7 p.m. in Room 255 of the
Your committee heard representation on
bills as follows:
Bill 35‑‑The Fisheries
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la peche
Pascall Bighetty ‑ Assembly of
Bill 47‑‑The Residential
Tenancies Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur la location a usage
d'habitation
Michel Mignault and Alan Borger Jr. ‑
Professional PropertyManagers' AssociationBob Hanson and Peter H. Warkentine ‑
The Apartment InvestorsAssociation of ManitobaGail Jarema ‑ Private Citizen
Bill 49‑‑The Summary
Convictions Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi
sur les poursuites sommaires et apportant des modifications correlatives a une
autre loi
John Ryan ‑ Private CitizenEllen
Olfert and Rene Jamieson ‑
Bill 52‑‑The Manitoba
Foundation Act; Loi sur la Fondation du Manitoba
Dan Kraayeveld and David Cohen ‑
Your committee has considered:
Bill 35‑‑The Fisheries
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la peche
and
has agreed to report the same with the following amendment:
MOTION:
THAT
the proposed section 33, as set out in section 4 of the Bill, be amended
(a)
in subsection (1), by adding in the part precedingclause (a), "and
after such consultations with fishermenaffected as the Lieutenant Governor in
Council considersappropriate" after "commercial purposes"; and
(b)
by adding the following after subsection (2):
Transfer
of individual quota entitlements 33(3) A
regulation made under subsection (1) shall provide that a fisherman is not
entitled to transfer or dispose of his or her individual quota entitlement in
respect of an area in Northern
Transitional
33(4) A fisherman who becomes the first
holder of an individual quota entitlement under the regulations made under
subsection (1) shall not be entitled to transfer or dispose of that individual
quota entitlement until one year after the day he or she first becomes the
holder of that entitlement.
Your committee has also considered:
Bill 47‑‑The Residential
Tenancies Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur la location a usage
d'habitation
and
has agreed to report the same with the following amendments:
MOTION:
THAT
section 7 of the Bill be renumbered as subsection 7(1) and the following be
added after subsection 7(1):
7(2) Subsection 25(3) is amended by striking out
"subsection (1)" and substituting "subsection (1) or (2)".
MOTION:
THAT
the proposed subsection 183.1, as set out in section 58 of the Bill, be amended
by striking out "making an advance" and substituting "an advance
is made".
Your committee has also considered:
Bill 49‑‑The Summary
Convictions Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi
sur les poursuites sommaires et apportant des modifications correlatives a une
autre loi
and
has agreed to report the same without amendment.
Your committee has also considered:
Bill 52‑‑The Manitoba
Foundation Act; Loi sur la Fondation du Manitoba
and
has agreed to report the same with the following amendment:
MOTION:
THAT
subsection 8(3) be struck out and the following substituted:
Other
trustees 8(3) Subject to subsection (2),
when the first institution is designated by regulation in a category of
institution that represents
(a)
all educational institutions;(b)
all hospital institutions; or(c)
all museum institutions;
the
board shall include two trustees in respect of that category of institution,
appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council from a list of nominees
submitted by each category of institution set out in clauses (a) to (c).
All of which is respectfully submitted.
* * *
Mr. Clerk: Your Standing Committee on Law Amendments
presents the following as its Thirteenth Report.
Your committee met on Monday, July 19 at 9
a.m., Tuesday, July 20 at 9 a.m., Wednesday, July 21 at 9 a.m. and 7 p.m.,
Thursday, July 22 at 9 a.m. in Room 254 and Thursday, July 22, 1993, at 7 p.m.
in Room 255 of the
Your committee heard representation on
bills as follows:
Bill 24‑‑The Taxicab Amendment
and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les taxis et
apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois
John Mann ‑ Private CitizenRandy
Delorme ‑ Private CitizenJasbir Chahal ‑
Your committee has considered:
Bill 24‑‑The Taxicab Amendment
and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les taxis et
apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois
and
has agreed to report the same with the following amendments:
MOTION:
THAT
the proposed subsection 4(1), as set out in subsection 5(1) of the Bill, be
amended by striking out "directly or indirectly".
MOTION:
THAT
subsection 5(2) of the Bill be struck out and the following substituted:
5(2) Subsection 4(2) is repealed and the following
is substituted:
Penalty
4(2) Any person who contravenes this
section is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction
(a)
for the first offence, to a fine of not less than $100.and not more than
$500.; and
(b)
for a subsequent offence, to a fine of not less than$250. and not more
than $1,000.
MOTION:
THAT
subsection 10(2) of the Bill be struck out and the following substituted:
10(2) Subsection 11(3) is repealed and the
following is substituted:
Penalty
11(3) Any person who drives a taxicab
without first obtaining the licence referred to in subsection (1) is guilty of
an offence and is liable on summary conviction
(a)
for the first offence, to a fine of not less than $50.and not more than
$250.; and
(b)
for a subsequent offence, to a fine of not less than$100. and not more
than $500.
MOTION:
THAT
the proposed clause 14(1.2)(c), as set out in section 12 of the Bill, be
amended by striking out "left in custody" and substituting "if
the holder cannot be found, left in the custody".
MOTION:
THAT
the proposed subsection 14(1.3), as set out in section 12 of the Bill, be
struck out and the following substituted:
When
notice is given 14(1.3) A notice is
deemed to be given
(a)
on the third day after the date of mailing if sent byregistered mail as
provided under clause (1.2)(b); or
(b)
on the day when it is left in the custody of an adultperson as provided
under clause (1.2)(c);
unless
the holder of the licence or permit to whom it was addressed establishes that
he or she, acting in good faith, did not receive the notice until a later date,
through absence, accident, illness or other cause beyond his or her control.
MOTION:
THAT
the proposed clause 14(1.8)(c), as set out in section 12 of the Bill, be
amended by adding "if the holder cannot be found," before "left
in the custody".
MOTION:
THAT
the proposed subsection 19(3), as set out in subsection 17(3) of the Bill, be
amended by striking out "Every" and substituting "Subject to
subsection 14(1.8), every".
MOTION:
THAT
the proposed subsection 19(6), as set out in subsection 17(4) of the Bill, be
struck out and the following substituted:
Completion
of proceeding 19(6) Where a quorum
exists at the commencement of a meeting of or hearing or other proceeding
before the board, and thereafter a member thereof dies, resigns or for any
reason becomes incapable of acting, the remaining members may complete the
meeting, hearing or proceeding or any adjournment thereof; and any decision
with respect to that meeting, hearing or proceeding made by a majority of the
remaining members shall be deemed to be a decision of the board as if a quorum
had been present.
MOTION:
THAT
Section 19 of the Bill be struck out and the following substituted:
19 Section 21 is repealed and the following is
substituted:
Penalty
for non‑payment of fares 21(1) Any
person who engages a taxicab that is licensed under this Act and who, on demand
being made at the termination of the trip, fails to pay the proper fare to the
driver or owner of the taxicab, is guilty of an offence and is liable on
summary conviction
(a)
for the first offence, to a fine of not more than $250.;and
(b)
for a subsequent offence, to a fine of not more than$500.
Payment
of fares and costs 21(2) When a court or
justice convicts a person of an offence under subsection (1), in addition to
and at the time of imposing any fine, the court or justice
(a)
shall order the person to pay the proper fare to thedriver or owner of
the taxicab if it has not been paid; and
(b)
may assess costs against the person payable to thedriver or owner of the
taxicab.
Order
filed in court 21(3) The driver or owner
of the taxicab may file in the Court of Queen's Bench of
MOTION:
THAT
section 21 of the Bill be struck out and the following substituted:
Coming
into force 21(1) Subject to subsection
(2), this Act comes into force on a day fixed by proclamation.
Royal
Assent 21(2) Section 19 comes into force
on the day this Act receives royal assent.
MOTION:
THAT
the French version of the title of the Bill be amended by striking out "a
d'autres lois" and substituting "a une autre loi".
MOTION:
THAT
Legislative Counsel be authorized to change all section numbers and internal
references necessary to carry out the amendments adopted by this committee.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. Rose: I move, seconded by the honourable member for
Motion agreed to.
MINISTERIAL
STATEMENTS
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I have a brief statement for the House.
Manitoba Water Resources Branch advises
that the flash‑flood watch issued for the
One of the areas hardest hit is along the
Red River from Morris to
In the
The Red River continues to rise due to
heavy runoff in the
The Red River Floodway is ready for
operation and is designed to come into service at discharges over 30,000 cubic
feet per second. Currently, the
The flash‑flood watch will likely
continue until Tuesday. More specific forecasts for the
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank
the minister for his statement and thank his staff who I am sure are working 24
hours around the clock on this very, very urgent situation in the
We are almost in a situation of very
different weather patterns in very different regions of the province. Northern
Madam Deputy Speaker, we know that many
citizens of
I know that with the city of
I know upstream from
* (1340)
We recognize that not all members affected
in the basin are covered by the floodway, and we would encourage again the
minister to take whatever means at their department's disposal with the
Department of Highways and the department of emergency measures to deal with
people outside of the floodway district.
We hope this recent rain and moisture is
not going to have a long‑term impact on the crops in
I thank the minister for his
statement. We in the opposition look
forward to raising our concerns directly to him, and of course in times of
emergency we will work with him and his government in the most co‑operative
way we can on behalf of the citizens affected by this water. Thank you.
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Madam Deputy
Speaker, I, too, want to thank the minister for coming forward today in a very
timely way with this information, which of course is important for members to
know but, more importantly, important for the citizens of this province to know
who are going to be affected by these very heavy rains.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I simply want to
bring to the minister's attention that this morning in my office, and in some
of the other members' I am sure, there were a lot of phone calls. Those phone calls were coming because other
emergency lines set up through the city and around the province were not able
to be accessed simply because of the volume.
I wonder if the minister would take under
advisement anything he could do working with the minister responsible for
emergency measures to supplement the information that people have access to,
because of course there are concerns which are arising around the province from
people who have never experienced the type of flooding they are experiencing in
their homes, and they are concerned about the safety and what they should do
and what they should not do.
I just wanted to bring that to the
minister's attention as something that maybe could be done in disseminating
information to bring a sense of calm. I
think most people are able to deal with this, but in particular I think seniors
and others who are in their homes are going to need all the assistance that we
can give to understand what they should do and what they can and cannot do to
alleviate the situation.
As well, I of course am sure that the
minister is in consultation with his counterpart in cabinet the minister
responsible for emergency measures to determine what designation should be
given to this, what provisions can be made available to people and I am sure
that may flow from an assessment of what kind of damage has occurred, because I
think early indications are that it is extensive not just in the city, but
obviously in the entire
I would appreciate further updates from
the minister on a personal level, or in the House preferably, as to what might
be done at a provincial level to buttress the dissemination of information and
the emergency lines which are available, and, secondly, to determine what
designation might be given to this very unfortunate level of water coming in
this short time span, so we can ensure that we access whatever additional
powers are necessary for the government to deal with it and perhaps even what
relief funding there may be, if any, for individuals who have been so seriously
affected by this unpredictable and very serious event.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do want to
thank the minister again for coming forward.
I would like to ask him to maintain contact and come forward on an
ongoing basis with information as it comes to his attention and also to work
with the City of
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Social
Assistance
Reform
Education Programs
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, my question is to the
Premier.
We know that governments make
mistakes. One of the greatest mistakes
we feel this government has made is the cutback on student social
allowances. After the government stated
in its Speech from the Throne in November of 1992 that education is the key to
unlock opportunities for our economic growth and prosperity in terms of our
future, the government then went and cut student social allowances which was
acknowledged by a number of people to be a good way to get people education and
training and get them off the dependency cycle.
After they have done that, they have then announced they are going to
reform the welfare system.
I would like to ask the Premier: Will this reform of the social assistance
program in
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Madam Deputy Speaker, in all likelihood, it
will, and the reason is we can perhaps make more efficient and more effective
use of the dollars in being able to address those needs.
* (1345)
Student
Social Allowances
Program
Cost Analysis
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): The government, after 16 questions from this
side on the question of student social allowances, has not yet tabled any cost‑benefit
study, any cost‑effectiveness study, of the decision and the rationale to
cut student social allowances.
The Conference Board of Canada, Madam
Deputy Speaker, is stating that for every person who is unable to complete
education or receive training, it costs
Madam Deputy Speaker, if you look at the
over 1,000 people who are being cut off student social allowances, that works
out to some $32 million for people cut off in the province of
I would like to ask the Premier: What is their calculation of the long‑term
costs for students cut off from student social allowances, the long‑term
cost to
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Madam Deputy Speaker, as we have discussed
before, the member keeps assuming there are no other alternatives for these
people.
In the course of the debate, we have had
evidence put forward that some of these people utilize the program merely as a
means of being able to move away from their homes in order to do that. Others
quit jobs in order to go onto the program, Madam Deputy Speaker, so the fact of
the matter is there has been a whole host of different‑‑because of
the lack of criteria for utilization, we believe there will be more effective
and more efficient ways of providing this kind of support for the students who
might require it.
Alternatives
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, how can this Premier sit
in this House and cut back student social allowances, cut back students in mid‑course
from education and training, admit that education and training is important,
admit that the words in the Speech from the Throne about it being the key for
future economic opportunity are valid, and at the same time not provide the
alternatives in the budget they tabled in this Chamber, not provide the
alternatives for those 1,100 students, not provide the alternatives to those
people looking at those kinds of education and training programs?
Why did the government not have that
alternative in place for those students, so we do not have people cut off in
mid‑term and cut away from careers in mid‑term as this government has
callously done over the last couple of months in their budget deliberation?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): There is no suggestion that people are cut
away from careers, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The fact of the matter is these people are
involved in various levels and various programs of education which may or may
not lead to a career. The fact of the
matter is we have indicated that the matters will be addressed in a type of
program arrangement we believe will be more effective and more efficient use of
public tax dollars.
* (1350)
Waiting
Lists
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Madam Deputy Speaker, if any Manitoban were to
call
They would find that more than 15 courses
have been either reduced or eliminated at the college. They will find that overall student
enrollment is less now than it was five years ago. They will find that every existing program
has a waiting list of at least one year, if not two years.
I want to ask the Minister of Education
now to acknowledge that Tory policies, both federal and provincial, have, in
fact, closed the doors of training and are giving a generation of young
Manitobans a future of unemployment.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I absolutely reject, absolutely totally, what that member has
said. She is just completely wrong.
I would say to the member, first of all,
she speaks of young Manitobans. I am
sure she knows that Manitobans of all ages attend our educational institutions,
including
I would also remind the member as well
that with the colleges having moved to governance, which is a major initiative,
it allows the colleges, therefore, to set up other kinds of training. Some of it may be short‑term
training. Some of it may be longer‑term
training which they negotiate themselves directly.
Course
Cancellations
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister continues
to look at enrollment issues as essentially minor accounting problems.
I want to ask the minister to explain why
Is there any connection in this government
between education and training and industrial strategy?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Madam
Deputy Speaker, as I explained to the member when she first raised this several
months ago, the reduction in telecommunications specifically has been by one
intake. There are continued
intakes. There is another intake which
the member well knows, had she in fact checked with the college. She also knows that this reduction was a
result of the federal funding change, and how the federal government is
providing funding for training through the colleges, flowing it through the
provincial government.
The member also knows that the colleges,
now that they have moved to governance, may in fact be able to renegotiate that
particular intake or another one back directly from the federal government.
Adult
Basic Education
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Will the minister confirm that the reason
Is this now the future for Adult Basic
Education in the
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): The
whole issue of Adult Basic Education is a very important one to the Department
of Education and Training. Therefore, as
I spoke about in the 70 hours of Estimates, I outlined to the member at that
time how this department and this government is now looking to provide a more efficient
Adult Basic Education program, and to also widen the opportunities for
Manitobans in terms of Adult Basic Education, because the member knows that for
some of those individuals, they actually required literacy training.
Student
Social Allowances
Program
Information Tabling Request
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): As the First Minister
will know from the committee reading of the student social allowance act and
the questions posed in this House to his minister by me, I, too, share the
concerns of the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), the Leader of the New
Democratic Party, that withdrawal of that service is absolutely backward,
absolutely inconsistent with everything this government purports to be about in
terms of education.
But I heard today some new things. The First Minister seems to say that students
have left home to access this program, and they have quit jobs to access this
program. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, that
is absolute nonsense. If one had
attended the hearings, everyone who knew anything about this program said
everything exactly opposite to that.
There was absolutely no evidence that came forward about that, either
from the minister or from any of the presenters.
Can the First Minister table any evidence that
those things he is relying on to defend his cut of this program are in fact
true?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): If the member were paying attention to the
issue, he would see that‑‑
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Filmon: Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for
* (1355)
Mr. Edwards: That type of attempt to dodge the bullet is
not going to serve this Premier.
This Premier has made statements‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable Leader of the second opposition party, to pose a
question.
Mr. Edwards: I have a further question for the First
Minister.
He also indicated that there was no
guarantee that careers would be available, in any event. What evidence is there that these people will
be less able to have a career, less able to get off the welfare system if they
do not have an education? That is the
only hope. That is what we heard time
and time again at the committee.
What evidence does this First Minister
have that withdrawing this program will do anything to help those people, and,
in fact, will not cause them absolutely irreparable damage in their search for
a career?
Mr. Filmon: Madam Deputy Speaker, in responding to the
member's initial questions, all he needed to do was to read the newspaper
coverage of the various debates that have taken place now for at least three
months on the issue. People acknowledged
on the record and were named in the newspaper, who said they quit jobs to go
onto this program.
So I do not need to do his research for
him. All he has to do is pay attention
to the debate instead of get involved at this late stage.
The fact of the matter is that we have
said, if you are going to spend public money, you should have some idea that it
will create positive effect, not that you will be able to say it will not
create any negative effects. It is one
of those things that he is saying, like chicken soup, it would not hurt. Well, it costs a lot of money. There is a tremendous investment of the
public in it, and we want to be assured that we are having a positive effect
and that we can direct the dollars to get the maximum benefit. That is the whole principle behind the
decisions being made.
Mr. Edwards: My final question for the First
Minister: If, in fact, he is saying that
this program did not work, it was unsuccessful, can he produce the study that
shows that? Can he produce the study
that his department presumably did to show that this does not work?
Secondly, can he tell us, if this does not
work, what will work? What new program
is he going to replace this with? Nothing.
The fact is they are cutting, they did it in an unthinking way and they
have nothing to replace it with.
Mr. Filmon: Madam Deputy Speaker, again, if he had paid
attention to the debate, the Leader of the Second Opposition would know that no
other government in
Secondly, the Leader of the Liberal Party
is alleging that we are saying that we have no other program. We have said there is another program that is
being developed that we believe will be more targeted and a more effective use
of tax dollars.
SOSAR
Program
Elimination
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Madam Deputy Speaker,
there have been so many programs eliminated by this Conservative cutback
government that it amounts to a vicious attack on the poor. In addition to the elimination of the Student
Social Allowances Program‑‑(interjection)
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am certain all honourable members would
like to afford the courtesy to the honourable member for Burrows to pose his
question.
* (1400)
Mr. Martindale: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have learned today
that this government has eliminated another program called SOSAR which allowed
single parents to attend university full time.
In fact, that was a requirement, they must have attended full time. This allowed many individuals, including a
social worker I just spoke to a few minutes ago, to get off social assistance,
to get a full‑time job, to be totally independent and to be paying taxes.
I would like to ask the Minister of Family
Services: Why did his government
eliminate this excellent program which allowed many people over the years to
get off social assistance and into paid employment?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I think the member is aware that this department in the past
has spent upwards of $12 million to $13 million on training programs for people
on social allowances. All of the
training programs have now been moved over to the Department of Education.
I have also indicated and the member is
aware, in the whole area of social assistance, this is a very dynamic
area. There are major changes that are
taking place across
Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the minister why did he
and his government, when given a choice between assisting people for two to
four years to become independent, choose to eliminate this program instead of
allowing it to continue, the alternative being they are on social assistance,
perhaps even indefinitely. Why did they
make this choice?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Deputy Speaker, the training programs
for the Single Parent Job Access, the Gateway program and others are still in
existence. If there are people who meet
those guidelines, they will be allowed to persist with their educational plans.
If there are extenuating circumstances
that take them beyond the regulations that are in place there now, I would
personally look at those on an individual basis. If the member has a particular case, as he
often does, if he wants to bring the case forward, I would see that that
individual gets fair treatment.
Mr. Martindale: I thank the minister for that helpful answer
because, indeed, I do have a particular individual I would like him to look
into the circumstances of, who is six months from graduating, who, when she
graduates, could be earning $38,000 a year, instead of being paid $13,000 a
year on social assistance‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Does the honourable member for Burrows have a question?
Mr. Martindale: Can the minister look into this particular
example, but also will his government reconsider not just for one individual,
but for many people who want to get a university education, instead of being on
social assistance?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I had already indicated that I would ensure
that the individual the member is representing would get fair treatment. However, I am always cautious with the
member's examples. Last week, he talked
about hundreds of phone calls and letters, and then produced one he had written
himself.
We are looking into that, and if you do
have other examples, we would be pleased to look into them and see that, by the
guidelines and regulations, individual Manitobans do get fair treatment.
Education
System
Reform
Action Plan
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of
Education talks about initiatives in education but provides no definitive
action plan for education reform.
During the Estimates, the minister
repeatedly failed to provide information on the timetable and scope of any
legislative reform or reform of The Public Schools Act. She has no plan, no timetable and absolute
confusion.
In view of the fact, Madam Deputy Speaker,
it has been almost six months since the legislative report of the panel on
legislative education reform was received by the minister, I want to ask this
minister whether she today can provide this Legislature with an action plan on
reform of The Public Schools Act in this province.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): As I said
in the announcement last week, we have six major initiatives which are ongoing
in the Department of Education and Training. They are interlocking initiatives,
and the reform of The Public Schools Act is one.
As the member knows, I am sure he may have
heard during committee hearings, perhaps he did not, various organizations who
presented have said they have received a copy of the report and that they are
looking at their responses, and as he will have remembered, perhaps he will
not, they have not yet forwarded the responses from the field into the
Department of Education and Training.
Public
Schools Act
Amendments
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to ask the
minister specifically, in light of the fact that there are major educational
issues that need addressing by this minister, including such issues as equal
opportunity for students across this province, greater community involvement of
schools, the medical requirements of special needs students, violence in the
schools‑‑I want to ask the minister whether she is committing to a
major rewrite of The Public Schools Act that will deal with these critical
issues in education.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister
of Education and Training): As the member knows,
we already have a number of those issues ongoing. The member may know, he probably does not
remember, but in the 70 hours of Estimates, we spoke about the $3 million that
is specifically designated to initiatives to deal with violence in the
schools. We have a boundary review
ongoing. The Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard), myself and the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) looked
very carefully at medically fragile children, and before the next school year
we will be able to make a joint announcement on that initiative. That will be a policy initiative, Madam
Deputy Speaker.
However, in terms of the reform of The
Public Schools Act, this government has believed in consultation. We released the document to the field, and we
are awaiting their response.
Mr. Plohman: Madam Deputy Speaker, during the Estimates,
the minister could not even say‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Plohman: I want to ask the minister: Will she commit today to ensuring that these
important issues I have brought forward to her during the Estimates and in this
Legislature will be addressed in the next session of the Legislature by way of
major amendments to The Public Schools Act?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Deputy Speaker, the member is not
listening. The answer to the member is that we are already dealing with a
number of those issues. I have explained
to him how we are dealing with violence in the schools. I have explained to him how we are dealing
with medically fragile children and the issues that have been outlined for the
reform of The Public Schools Act we now have out in the field. We are awaiting the response of the field to
that particular report, and then government will be looking at the initiative
for the reform of The Public Schools Act.
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Energy and Mines.
In 1971, the Manitoba Mineral Resources
Corporation was set up and the mandate, which is still current, was to assist
in the discovery and development of new mines in
I wonder if the minister could indicate
whether or not that indeed is his intention and, if so, what has prompted this
retreat from the government's active involvement in promoting the mining
industry in
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Madam
Deputy Speaker, let me assure the member that we are aggressively supporting
the mining industry with all the new programs that have been introduced by this
government, the encouragement for prospecting and developing, work with the
prospectors of this province. I am
encouraged by the numbers of people showing interest in the mining industry in
As far as it relates to the specifics of
MMR, I answered that question during the committee report, and I would refer
the member to those Hansard notes.
Mr. Edwards: Madam Deputy Speaker, I do recall that
discussion. I was there at the time.
I want to ask the minister again, and if
the answer is that MMR is not considering the selling off of its assets then
let that be on the record, is he or is he not considering the selling off of
the assets of the Manitoba Mineral Resources Corporation?
Mr. Downey: Madam Deputy Speaker, what I indicated, and I
will refer again to the members of the Legislature, is that in the interests of
the people of
Review
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker,
the minister speaks of a review. Can he
indicate to the members today what stage that review is at, who is doing it and
when we can expect to hear back from the minister as to the review on this very
important issue? He seems to be saying
that the review is obviously going to consider whether or not to sell off the
assets, but is unwilling to indicate today whether or not that will be the
political decision.
Can the minister indicate if the review is
going on, who is doing it and when we can expect a decision to be made on this
important issue for all Manitobans, but in particular northern Manitobans?
* (1410)
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Madam
Deputy Speaker, as far as an outside review, there is not an outside review
going on by anyone else.
As far as I am concerned as minister, as I
said in the Estimates process‑‑or I am sorry, not the Estimates
process but committee review, it would be taken under review by my office as to
the effectiveness of MMR, and, of course, the Hansard which comes from that
committee further expresses my comments as it relates to this matter.
Flood
Condition Monitoring
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson):
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to put my
question to the Minister of Natural Resources.
Having driven into the city of
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I thank the honourable member for a very appropriate question.
I report to honourable members that we do
have, by and large, good relationships with our neighbours to the south. I note the long‑standing operations,
for instance, of the facility controlling the streams in the southwest like the
Souris, where we actually have board members sitting on the board that controls
the Darlingford structure just in the
The area the honourable member refers to
and is more familiar with has more problems.
We do have an ongoing relationship.
We are members of the international coalition that meets on a fairly
regular basis that has to do with the
I do know that during the '70s when we had
two major years of high water, '74 and '79, there was some very high‑level
consultation going on between the governors of
Disaster
Assistance
Mr. Jack Penner
(Emerson): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is very obvious that
the opposition members, in light of the fun they are making of the question,
have very little sympathy for the huge number of‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
I would remind all honourable members this is not a time for
debate. This is a time for questions.
Point of
Order
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order,
the member for Emerson, in his remarks, was impugning the motives of members
opposite, who were encouraging the member for Emerson to simply tap the
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) on the shoulder and ask the question,
rather than abuse the rules and use Question Period, which is for the
opposition to ask questions of this incompetent government.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for Flin Flon did not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Penner: Madam Deputy Speaker, I find it rather
interesting that the honourable member for Flin Flon criticized‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Deputy
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Emerson is
attempting to pose his question, but even I cannot hear him over the roar.
The honourable member for Emerson, to
quickly pose a supplementary question.
Mr. Penner: I would like to ask the Minister of Natural
Resources whether he and the department are prepared to ask the Minister of
Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) and his disaster relief program whether they would
participate in the same manner in the
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): One of
the unique features is the difference in the kind of flooding. The kind of flooding we experienced in the
I have to commend governments, both
federal and provincial, over the past 20 years, that have done a tremendous job
of drought‑proofing, to a large extent, the
But, Madam Deputy Speaker, the most
important point the honourable member makes is such a valid point. We have massive and major economic loss being
experienced in the
ARCOR
Board
Members' Severance Pay
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Madam Deputy Speaker, speaking of wasting
millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers' money, since January of 1989,
the Aging and Rehabilitation Product Development Corporation has had a board in
place appointed by the two levels of government.
Madam Deputy Speaker, my question to the
minister responsible for this centre and of the government's funding: Was the minister made aware of, was the
minister consulted, did the minister have any part of the decision to provide
some $685,000 in severance of wasted taxpayers' dollars to the members of this
particular corporation who were severed from their employment?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): The member for Flin Flon, I believe, is
fully aware that there is an independent board that has been set up by the two
levels of government to make decisions as it relates to the operations of
ARCOR.
It was a board decision in terms of the
termination of some six employees. I
should correct the honourable member that the figure, the terminations costs,
that were quoted in one of the newspapers over the weekend were partly
incorrect. There was a letter sent from
the chairman of ARCOR to one of the newspapers here in town that did a
breakdown of what those termination costs were.
While they are still significant, I agree,
the termination pay was some $285,000, not the six hundred and some thousand
dollars that the honourable member is referring to, certainly a very
significant sum of money, and I am not denying that, but the decisions had to
be made to get that corporation back on track.
I believe now it is on track in terms of
accomplishing the objectives that were originally set out for that corporation.
* (1420)
Audit
Tabling Request
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Madam Deputy Speaker, the hundreds of jobs
that were promised by the creation of these centres of excellence have
disappeared along with most of the Tory promises.
My question to the minister is: Given the fact that there has been an audit
of this particular operation, can the minister now indicate when he will table
the results of that audit so that members of this Legislature can judge whether
the government and this minister have acted in the interest of taxpayers,
preventing the loss of money and the wasting of millions of dollars in
something that has produced virtually no jobs?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): The annual financial statements are
certainly available to the member for Flin Flon.
It is interesting to note, Madam Deputy
Speaker, we just went through the Estimates of my department which is
responsible for this, and not a single question was asked about ARCOR, obviously
now being driven by media coverage of this issue, not by any research being
done by the member for Flin Flon.
I think what the member for Flin Flon is
referring to is an independent internal management review that was done by
ARCOR in 1990 by the accounting firm Coopers and Lybrand, which deals with a
range of issues, a range of personnel issues that are confidential to that
corporation because of the sensitivity around many of the issues they deal
with. At this particular point in time,
the advice is that report should not be released.
Mr. Storie: Madam Deputy Speaker, the fact that this
minister is 50 percent responsible for this mess, for the fact that there are
no jobs and that millions of dollars have been wasted, a reasonable question to
the Minister responsible for Industry, Trade and Tourism: Will he now table the auditor's report so
that we can see who is responsible for this mess and why it has been such a
dismal failure on behalf of the taxpayers of
Mr. Stefanson: Once again, I assume the member for Flin Flon
is referring to this internal management review that was done by Coopers and
Lybrand back in 1990 that dealt with a series of issues the board took action
on. It dealt with some personnel matters
that the board took action on, and that is the reason you have the severance
pay figures.
It also led to some actions that the board
has taken to reduce their annual expenditures by some $1 million. It also dealt with some issues around product
commercialization and a refocusing of the organization in terms of meeting the
original objectives.
It is interesting that only the NDP can
argue these kinds of issues out of both sides of their mouths. I get questions occasionally about research
and development. Here is an area of
research in terms of independent living for our aging community and product
commercialization.
The board, an independent board, has taken
action to deal with that. They have a
mandate to be self‑sufficient by 1996‑97, and I believe that will
occur. The report the member is
referring to is an internal management report that deals with a range of
personnel issues that, not unlike many organizations, are separate and distinct
reports.
I will gladly provide the financial
information, the annual financial statement, and I look forward to future
Estimates processes where we can talk about all of the finances on ARCOR, Madam
Deputy Speaker.
Barley
Industry
Continental
Market
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture
if he will recognize that the changes that are being made by this continental
barley market are having a negative impact on farmers, and will he take
seriously his responsibility as Minister of Agriculture and address the
concerns of those people who are gathering at the U.S.‑Canadian border
today, protesting the change to a continental barley market?
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Madam Deputy
Speaker, as the member well knows, this is a rather controversial issue. There are people on both sides of the
argument, but there are farmers who believe the opportunity is one they have
wanted for a long time, and the time is right to do it. They say the price will go up. On the other side, the people whom she stands
up for are the people who say the price will go down, and they do not want it.
What is available to the farmers is
choice. Those who want to move the
market in barley and sell it themselves have that option. Those who do not want to sell it themselves
can sell it to the Canadian Wheat Board, and the Canadian Wheat Board can sell
it in the
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is all about
choice. Nobody is forcing the other side
to do what they do not want to do.
Choice is what farmers have wanted, and it is offered to them at this
point in time.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Deputy Speaker, the choice that farmers
have in this is lower prices for their barley.
Madam Deputy Speaker, because there was
not full consultation on the change to a continental barley market and because
the majority of producers who are affected are not in agreement on this, will
the Minister of Agriculture contact the new Prime Minister and ask her to
reverse this decision of a move to a continental barley market until there is
thorough consultation?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Deputy Speaker, as I said in my first
answer, those who do not want to sell it direct can sell it through the Wheat Board
who can sell to the
Further, within six years, a review will
be done, and if at that time it is deemed it is not a workable solution, it can
be reversed, Madam Deputy Speaker. The
situation is, nobody is forced to do what the other side wants. It is pure choice, and that is what the farm
community wants.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The time for Oral Questions has expired.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
House
Business
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker,
would you call Bill 28 followed by report stages, please, and I will give
further instruction at that time. Well,
let us do it now.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we will then follow
report stages with the process around
I would ask whether or not there is a
willingness of the House to waive private members' hour and rise at five
o'clock and then come back to the House to do House business and committee work
beginning at seven o'clock tonight.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to
waive private members' hour and recess the House at 5 p.m. to return at 7 p.m.
to continue regular House business? (agreed)
Mr. Manness: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would also ask for
concurrence of the House to sit concurrently in two committees outside, plus
the committee inside the House most likely dealing with concurrence at the
time, at 7 p.m. Could you ask for that
agreement?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to
have two committees running concurrently outside the House commencing at 7
p.m., as well as committee in the House to deal with concurrence? (agreed)
Mr. Manness: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would then call Economic
Development committee at seven o'clock tonight to hear Bill 42 and also Law
Amendments committee to hear Bills 53 and 28, should it pass the House this
afternoon.
I forgot that Bill 53 had been shown in
the Votes to be in the Economic Development committee, so could we move Bill 53
from Economic Development to Law Amendments?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to move Bill 53 from Economic
Development committee to Law Amendments committee? (agreed)
Mr. Manness: Yes, then, Madam Deputy Speaker, my request
then holds‑‑Economic Development committee at seven to consider
Bill 42 and Law Amendments committee at 7 p.m. to consider Bills 50, 53 and 28,
if, indeed, it passes this afternoon.
* (1430)
Committee
Change
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), that the composition of the Standing
Committee on Economic Development be amended as follows:
Motion agreed to.
DEBATE ON
SECOND
Bill 28‑The
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of 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 Inkster.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
I just want to notify all members of the House that the Speaker has been
given notice that the honourable member for
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Deputy Speaker, the only reason for that
is just to ensure that if, by chance, I need an extra few minutes, I can go
ahead on it, so I can finish my remarks on it. (interjection) The Leader of the
New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) is right, it is a bad bill. It is a bill that should never have seen the
light of day.
I wanted to go over what has happened with
MIC over the last number of years, five years, so individuals have an
understanding of what it is this government is doing with respect to the
concept of multiculturalism in the
Let me start off by talking about when I
was first elected back in '88. One of
the first things I saw the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs.
Mitchelson) do was to take away the funding authority from the Manitoba
Intercultural Council. The minister
favoured the Manitoba Grants Advisory Council over MIC, because she was wanting
to have more input in terms of who and which organizations were going to be
receiving the multicultural grants.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that was
when we first understood what direction this government was going to be taking
on multiculturalism in the
I think, if you follow it from that point
right to today, where we now have before us Bill 28, which will in fact
distance MIC from government and could potentially lead to a very fatal blow to
the organization as we know it, that is unfortunate, because the concept of the
Manitoba Intercultural Council is a very positive one.
I want to comment on that, because time
after time we are given different opportunities inside this Chamber to talk
about multiculturalism, and it is very easy to give lip service to
multiculturalism. Many individuals will
talk about or relate to multiculturalism as the songs, dance and the ethnic
cuisines that are there, and believe that that is in fact what multiculturalism
is in most part.
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is only
one aspect of multiculturalism. I have
been given the opportunity as a multicultural critic, to go out to a number of
different events over the past few years, and I like to talk about multiculturalism,
and when I talk about multiculturalism, it is more than just the song and the
dance.
We are talking about the political,
economic and social integration, at the same time appreciating what those
individuals have brought from their homeland, whether you are first generation,
a recent immigrant, or 15th generation, that we do have a sense of
responsibility to ensure that those cultures and our ancestors' traditions,
cultures and heritages are in fact preserved, because that is what gives us our
Canadian identity.
A story that I often make reference to is
one from a teacher in the north end. She
had a student teacher come into her classroom once, and the student teacher
started off by asking the children what they had for breakfast. The first child that she asked this
particular question, the response was, of course, I had fried pork along with
rice.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the student teacher
kind of looked at the student in a very odd, peculiar way type of thing, and
then continued to go down asking some children in terms of what they had for
breakfast. Another student was asked, of
the same ethnic background as the first one, and had said fried eggs and toast,
and the more traditional, if you like, type of breakfast.
Well, the teacher brought the student
teacher to that latter student and asked in fact: Did you have that eggs‑and‑bacon‑and‑toast‑type
thing? The student had replied no, but I
thought that is what the teacher wanted to hear.
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, you can have
racial incidents by accident. Those accidents,
if you will, will occur. Then you will
have incidents which are fairly clear.
You have the different extremes, right from the Ku Klux Klan hotline, if
you like, to an incident that can happen that is very innocent‑‑at
least appears to be very innocent in the classroom.
What is most important is that we as
legislators realize that both are in fact wrong and that we need to do what we
can to ensure that incidences of these natures are minimized.
I would refer members to read the
Combatting Racism report in particular that the Manitoba Intercultural Council
put out, and you will see that the best way to fight this particular issue of
racism is through education and tolerance.
This is something in which it has been suggested to the government in a
very, very strong way.
It would have been back in 1990‑‑November,
I believe it was‑‑when MIC brought forward this particular report
and made some fairly simple recommendations that would have been very easy for
this government to follow.
One of the ones, and I have brought it up
on numerous occasions to the current minister, was that one‑day cross‑cultural
experience for all of the MLAs inside the Chamber. Yet we do not see this government acting on
issues of that nature.
I do believe that when we talk about this
multicultural society that we live in, actions speak louder than words do. This
is what this bill again is doing. The
actions of this government in this particular bill is not going to benefit the
multicultural fabric that we have, because MIC deals with issues such as
racism, deals with issues such as systemic barriers that are put into place and
quite often reports not only to legislators or politicians, but community
members, because the Manitoba Intercultural Council itself is made up of
representatives from all the different ethnic groups.
I have had the opportunity, as I say, to
have met many of the different individuals, and I am not aware of any other
organization that has as many participants from different ethnic backgrounds
involved in one organization. That is
the reason why I say the concept of the Manitoba Intercultural Council is a
very positive one and that if in fact you want to be able to make some strides
in terms of dealing with those real multicultural issues that are there, you
need to have organizations such as the
* (1440)
What this government is doing through Bill
28 is in fact a backward step. Now, I
wanted to put this into proper perspective in terms of what it is that this
government is doing. Having said in
terms of how important that we recognize that actions do speak louder than
words, I want to talk about some of the actions that this government has done.
I made reference to the Intercultural
Council and the funding it used to have in terms of granting authority to the
different multicultural organizations.
The minister took that responsibility away from MIC and put it into the
Manitoba Grants Advisory Council. Well,
what is the difference between the two organizations?
MIC, in most part, is elected from the
different ethnic communities and the minister does have some input in a sense
that she is able to appoint the chair and also other members onto the board
itself.
This is the agency that used to give the
grants, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that granting authority was taken and given
to MGAC. Well, MGAC is 100 percent
appointed from the minister. If you look
at the background of MGAC, you will clearly see how it is being manipulated and
used by the government to try to take credit for the different organizations
that are receiving grants as if it is this government that is giving the money
to that organization, as opposed to MIC that was giving the money on behalf of
the taxpayers. It was just an allotment
that was assigned through the lotteries.
Let us take a look at the MGAC. We remember the first chairperson of MGAC was
David Langtry. David Langtry is an
individual who has been the recipient of criticism from myself and not only
myself, but by a number of other individuals who are out there in terms of his
affiliation to the Conservative Party and why it is that this individual would
in fact have been the chairperson of MGAC.
Well, then we had the provincial election. It is wonderful to see
individuals running for office, but Mr. Langtry ran for the Conservative Party
in the riding of Kildonan.
After the election in Kildonan, the
government created the multicultural secretariat's office, and David Langtry
was taken from the campaign defeat and put into that particular position. Madam
Deputy Speaker, one could question in terms of why it is that you bring up
individuals. I think this is very
symbolic.
What happened was this office was created,
and one of the first things that was done is more positions were hired. Well, another individual, the campaign
manager of Mr. Langtry, was brought into that office. Then there was another individual who was
brought in through the civil service, and whatever happened to that particular
individual? One should talk in terms of
why it is that she was moved out or requested to be moved out, possibly because
of some of the ongoings that were going inside this particular office.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this office cost the
taxpayers a considerable amount of money.
The idea again of having a multicultural secretariat's office is a very
positive one, but who is kidding who on this?
If we take a look at it, I would argue that the first and foremost
priority that the current secretariat will have is not the multicultural
secretariat, but rather the Conservative Party.
It will be interesting to see in terms of
I go out to different events. The
secretariat's office is out there whether it is the secretariat himself or the
campaign worker who was there for Mr. Langtry in the 1990 provincial
election. The office itself is being
used as an extension of the Conservative government, of the Conservative Party.
(interjection) The Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) says I am very
suspicious. For good reason, I am very suspicious. I am sure if he was attending the same events
I was attending‑‑and no doubt he is attending different events‑‑he
would see these individuals, and the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) is an
individual who attends a good number of the events I attend and will attest
that these individuals are in fact there.
If in fact you mingle around and you talk
to some of the individuals who are attending these functions, they know, Madam
Deputy Speaker. They are not being
fooled by this government. When they see the multicultural secretariat's
office, it is the Conservative Party, and it is nothing more than that.
The government tries to sell this off as a
civil servant. Madam Deputy Speaker, if they are trying to say it is a civil
servant, then how can you make it such a political appointment? Are we saying
that the civil service‑‑I will give some in terms of that there is
a need for some appointments based on politics, but they are very selective
positions. Anything within the civil service,
I say an absolute no to.
This particular position, I believe,
embodies a lot of the negative feelings that are out there when it comes to
patronage that the public as a whole holds of politicians generally. It is reinforced every time we go to an event
in which these individuals appear, and you talk to other people and they give
you the sort of comments that they have to say.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if we look again,
going to MIC‑‑and that is the one aspect, the granting powers, if
you will, and how those were taken away.
The multicultural secretariat's office also had those two positions that
I referred to, and those were policy analysts.
Those positions took away another power from the Manitoba Intercultural
Council, because that is what MIC was supposed to do. It was supposed to be advising the
government, looking at different issues, analyzing them, coming up with advice
and recommendations to the government of the day. Well, this is something that the
multicultural secretariat again took on as part of their responsibility.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government then
comes out with this multicultural policy booklet. Inside this multicultural policy booklet, it
made reference to having a multicultural act; from this booklet would come an
act. We saw that particular piece of
legislation come in last year at which time I had the opportunity to speak on
the bill and the concerns that I had. I
had a number of concerns about that particular bill, and some of them were
addressed. In fact, we did get some
amendments to the bill in the winding days or hours of last session, but there
were some concerns that were not ever considered.
* (1450)
We had the multicultural act
introduced. The minister responsible for
the act, when I asked her what she was doing with the Manitoba Intercultural
Council, the minister's response to me was, well, we now have created the Don
Blair report or task force. Mr. Blair
was going to review what MIC is all about, its mandate and where it should fit
in with any multicultural act. Maybe The MIC Act should just remain there in an
amended form and so forth.
Madam Deputy Speaker, at that time, I
indicated, or at least I was of the opinion, that the minister knew what it was
she was wanting to do, that the consultant that was hired knew what his job
was, and that was to assist the government in getting rid of the
I remember one bill, Madam Deputy Speaker,
that I introduced. It said something to
the effect that MIC, the appointment of the chair, the minister should no
longer do; that MIC should be able to appoint their own chair; that the
appointments of the executive director should come from within, again, the
minister should not be appointing. The
minister, to her credit, stood up and said, yes, and that the New Democrats
were wrong when they brought in the legislation, and they allowed for them to
do that.
In fact, it implied to me, and it was very
clear, that this government was going to be bringing in a multicultural act,
and in that multicultural act they will address that particular problem, that
she disagreed with the Liberals because she felt that the Liberals were doing
it in a piecemeal fashion. She said, why
would you want to do it this way when in fact we are going to bring in a
multicultural act which will take all of this into consideration?
During the debate and discussion of the
multicultural act that was in last session, I found the specific quote from
Hansard that I brought up to the minister.
The minister could not refute or challenge that what she had assured at
least the Liberal Party, the Liberal caucus, was that she was going to bring in
MIC or make some changes to MIC that would, in fact, be incorporated‑‑or
at least gave us the impression that it would be incorporated into the
multicultural act.
That is why I was very surprised to see
that, when the multicultural act came forward, it was not included. That is why we had proposed amendments and
asked questions on it and lobbied the minister to incorporate MIC into the
multicultural act. The minister, at that
time, having changed her mind from the Liberal Party's bill dealing with MIC,
had changed her mind and said, well, this report is coming back with
recommendations, and then we will deal with the Manitoba Intercultural Council.
So we continued on with the discussion and
debate on the multicultural act. As I
said, we did get some amendments. You
know, if you look at the multicultural act today, there is really and truly not
that much to it. You have the
multicultural secretariat's office established in the legislation. You have the Outreach Office, which, I
believe, may be established and a wonderful preamble that I believe no one
inside the Chamber would say otherwise.
So, if you listen in terms of what it is I
have been talking about, the multicultural secretariat, you might wonder why it
is that we took the position at the time on that particular piece of
legislation. Again, for many
individuals, especially those individuals who are at the other end of the
systemic barrier or racism, Madam Deputy Speaker, they want government to be
proactive and to do what they can to deal with the many different issues that
are there. It is very easy for
government to say that the multicultural secretariat's office is there to serve
you, very easy to do that.
In fact, as I said earlier, the concept
is, in fact, a valid one and a good one, but given the background and in
particular what this government is doing with the multicultural secretariat, we
would be better off not to have the secretariat's office and to use that money
and put it into the Manitoba Intercultural Council or some other expenditure
that deals with the issues, whether it is English as a Second Language training,
recognition of credentials of immigrants who come to
Madam Deputy Speaker, the money would have
been a lot better spent in those areas than the way this government is using
and manipulating the multicultural community, the multicultural community being
all Manitobans, with this particular office. That is, in fact, what the government
is doing. That is very unfortunate,
because the organization that has lost the most as a direct result of this
particular minister's actions is the
Madam Deputy Speaker, what has the MIC
done that is so wrong? During the debate
on the multicultural act, because I had unlimited time, I had the opportunity
at that time to go at length in terms of what MIC has done for
I have, from the 1993 Biennial
Ethnocultural Assembly, a list of the registered delegates and organizations
they represent. I would like to
challenge the minister to come up with another organization that represents so
many different ethnic groups in the
I do not believe she can. She might be able to make reference to the
Folk Arts Council. The Folk Arts
Council's primary focus is with Folklorama.
The
I want to list some of those organizations
so that members of the Chamber are, in fact, aware. This again comes from the '93 Biennial Ethnocultural
Assembly.
Registered delegates range from the
African Association of
Madam Deputy Speaker, we are talking about
four pages of organizations that participated in the last assembly. I covered just a handful, and these
individuals are community leaders within the different organizations they
represent.
That is the reason why I say, you know, if
you do not like the name, the Manitoba Intercultural Council, maybe you have a
better name. Maybe the minister has a
better name of what it is she would like to call this organization, but come up
with that name.
The concept is a very good one, and this
government is ignoring that concept. I,
for the life of me, do not understand why, because I look at it and I try to
understand what it is that the Manitoba Intercultural Council has done to this
minister or this government that has made them take the actions they have
taken.
I do not see any reason why the Manitoba
Intercultural Council could not be included in the multicultural act, no reason
at all. I would like to hear from the
minister why she believes that the MIC has no place or no role in the
multicultural act.
I would argue that the concept of MIC
should, at the very least, be incorporated into the act. If she does not like the name, change the
name, but at least incorporate it into the multicultural act. If you cannot do that, then what is the sense
of even having the multicultural act?
I do not see the reason being the multicultural
secretariat's office or the Outreach Office.
Yes, the concept of those are very positive. If government chose not to manipulate, they
would be very beneficial, but surely to goodness the Manitoba Intercultural
Council is just as valuable.
I would argue that an organization such as
this is more valuable because they can bridge the different cultures and ethnic
groups that are out there. It is
reflected in terms of the individuals who make up the particular council. It reflects all the different ethnic groups
that are out there.
* (1500)
We talk every day, Madam Deputy Speaker,
about issues that come before this Chamber.
Well, if you want to be able to deal with some of these issues, you need
to have the community leaders of the different ethnic groups who are out there
talking about and dealing with the different issues that a particular community
might be facing, because what might be important to one community, possibly
because of an immigration wave or whatever it might be, is not necessarily of
the same importance to another community.
You could get a good example of that by
just looking at the issues that continually come up with the different
organizations that are out there. There
are different organizations I talk to where racism is the biggest issue. Other organizations talk about lack of
recognition of credentials as their biggest issue.
It varies tremendously in terms of what
the different communities require, but what we need to do is to ensure that the
different communities are, in fact, working together, because if you do have
that, I would suggest to you we will have more harmony in society in the
future. We should be fostering
organizations, not destroying organizations such as the Manitoba Intercultural
Council.
I wanted to go over some of the
recommendations. The minister brought
forward this particular piece of legislation because of the Don Blair
report. Mr. Blair's report has received
a considerable amount of criticism from different leaders of the different
ethnic communities. Even I myself, as
the critic for the Liberal Party, have been somewhat critical of it, and for
good reason.
These are the highlighted areas, as per
the news release back on February 4, 1993, where Mr. Blair's first recommendation
is that The MIC Act be repealed, and then it goes on: In the alternative, that The Manitoba
Intercultural Council Act be amended to remove the power of government to
appoint council members, to appoint the chairperson and to hire the executive
secretary.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe that the
minister had a choice. The minister did
not have to dismantle the Manitoba Intercultural Council legislation, and wipe
it out entirely. Even if the minister reads Mr. Blair's report, the second‑‑and
this comes from the highlight that her government has put out. It says that, as
an alternative to repealing The MIC Act, The MIC Act be amended to remove that
power of government to appoint council members, to appoint the chairperson, and
to hire the executive secretary.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is what the
Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson) said she agreed
with. She agreed with taking that power away from the minister and giving it to
the board itself, MIC. But she takes the
argument that we in the Liberal caucus put forward five years ago, and she went
a step further. She believes or tries to
tell the House that this particular bill is justified, not only because she is
concerned about the aspects that we have raised, but she wants to make it even
that much more independent.
The best way to do that is to do the first
recommendation, which was to repeal the act completely, in its entirety. To this day, I have yet to hear the Minister
of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson) put up a valid argument
as to why MIC has to be repealed, that the changes that she is hoping for, the
changes that Mr. Blair is suggesting to her, could not be incorporated within
the multicultural act.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if she feels that
she cannot do that, if she is unable to bring MIC or incorporate it into the
multicultural act, then why does she feel that she has to repeal it? Why does she not follow what Mr. Blair is
suggesting as an alternative to repealing the act‑‑that is, just to
make those modifications that were being suggested to her a number of years
ago? I would like to hear from the
minister why it is that she feels so firmly on it.
Mr. Blair suggests that the Manitoba
Intercultural Council develop a clear definition of whom it represents, a
specific role and mandate acceptable to its membership; specific processes for
an election of delegates and council members, committee members and executive
members; a process to ensure some degree of continuity of council and executive
members; staggered terms to allow for elections of half members while the other
half remain to provide continuity; a longer term plan with goals and objectives
for which it is accountable to its membership and to government and the public
in the event the act is not rescinded.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it goes on, and I
would suggest to you that everything that Mr. Blair is talking about could be
done in the multicultural act. If the
minister does not want to bring MIC into the multicultural act, everything that
Mr. Blair is talking about can be done within the current Manitoba
Intercultural Council Act or what Bill 28 is going to take away.
This is not an issue that is new to this
Chamber. If you have been listening to
my comments, you will see that we have brought it up on numerous
occasions. I, as the critic for the
Liberal Party, had taken the minister at face value, in particular, in the
session prior to last when I last introduced the MIC bill into this Chamber.
In that particular bill, I had suggested
to the government that they give them that appointment power and that they also
give them back the funding authority. We
had amended and changed our bill, the bill that the Liberals were putting
forward, because I believed at the time that the minister was, in fact, onside
with us on the appointments. I did not
expect her to come onside with the funding, unfortunately, and nor do I expect
her to come onside with the funding. The
only way, Madam Deputy Speaker, I can see a change in the funding is with a
change in government or, at the very least, a change in attitude possibly from
a different minister.
This session, unfortunately, the Chamber
will never hear it, so I wanted to read it anyway. I was going to be introducing a resolution on
behalf of the Liberal caucus. It happens
to be Resolution 69, and with the government's approach to private members'
hour, this resolution will not, in fact, be debated.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
* (1510)
Mr. Speaker, you will find that the
resolution has a lot to do with this particular bill, and it reads‑‑and
I would have moved, and I would have had a seconder, I am sure; at least I
could have selected from any member of the opposition party because I believe
that New Democrats are onside with this particular resolution, and that would
have read: That the Manitoba
Intercultural Council has a significant role to play in the multicultural
society in which we live. Whereas the
Manitoba Intercultural Council can provide
Mr. Speaker, this particular resolution
would have been put on the table back in November or December of 1992, well in
advance of Mr. Blair's report coming out.
The reason why we brought forward this resolution is because I was
convinced at that time that in fact what the Minister of Culture, Heritage and
Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson) was doing with MIC and the way in which she
brought the Don Blair report and after having an interview with Mr. Blair in my
office, this government had absolutely no intention of bringing MIC into the multicultural
act.
I had no idea in terms of this
government's ability to be able to respect the hard work of hundreds of
volunteers over the last number of years that have put in endless hours towards
making
I find that very upsetting, and I am sure
many individuals find it upsetting. I
believe that the minister does owe it to those individuals, to those groups
that she talks to, an explanation as to why she feels that the Manitoba
Intercultural Council, The MIC Act, has to be repealed because even Mr. Blair
himself has not concluded that MIC has to be repealed.
The individual that they recruited to put
the death nail in MIC did not, Mr. Speaker, say that it had to be repealed, in
fact, recognized that as an alternative, there are some changes that were in
fact necessary that would have given the minister everything that she wanted
when she brought in this particular bill a couple of months ago.
I listened and I read why the minister
brought in this piece of legislation and everything has to do with giving MIC
that much more of an independent feeling, if I can put it that way, Mr.
Speaker, that the government does not want to control it in any way. Well, I find that to be a fairly poor excuse,
and I do not believe that it can justify it.
I have had a number of reasons to believe
why this minister is not a big fan of the Manitoba Intercultural Council and it
stems back to a number of years ago, in fact, when the government was in
opposition. I am fully aware that when
the New Democrats brought in the Manitoba Intercultural Council, the
Conservative Party at the time believed that the NDP were going to be using
this as an organization that was going to politicize the multicultural
community. (interjection) Mr. Langtry knows.
I have talked about him quite often.
Mr. Speaker, when the New Democrats
brought in this piece of legislation, the Tories opposed it. Why did they oppose it? They opposed it
because they believed that the NDP were going to use this organization in order
to manipulate the different ethnic groups.
They were very upset with the government of the day at the time and
suggested, in fact, that what they were doing was wrong.
Well, knowing full well that the Manitoba
Intercultural Council maybe at the time might have been very political in its
makings, I believe that over time, what we have seen is the Manitoba
Intercultural Council become apolitical.
I can say that knowing full well, in fact, that this is the case in most
part. As the multicultural critic, I believe I have attended maybe three
assembly meetings of sorts, and I believe I have been at maybe one, possibly
two, executive meetings of the Manitoba Intercultural Council.
At no point in time‑‑and I
would challenge any member of the MIC or the minister or the secretariat's
office to tell me that I have tried to manipulate or to use the Manitoba
Intercultural Council as a political diving board, if you will. I really and truly believe that there are, no
doubt, some individuals within MIC who are, in fact, political. I could not tell you how involved they might
be in politics. I can say I am not aware
of any who have helped me in my provincial elections at all.
I do believe, very much so, that MIC was
evolving into a very apolitical organization, and I believe the organization
could have been a lot healthier had the government chosen to foster it, as
opposed to destroying it.
On the few occasions I have been able to
meet with MIC in the form of general meetings, I have been very impressed and
pleased with the high level of discussions in debates that have been presented
at these meetings.
The minister herself made reference in
Question Period a while back when I asked her about that cross‑cultural
awareness day for the MLAs. Her response
was that she does not need to anymore because MIC provided this cross‑cultural
day experience for us. She recognized,
at least at that point, that, yes, MIC has done some things even she
appreciates.
I believe the minister is oversensitive to
the Intercultural Council. I think she
feels she got burnt in her first meeting or possibly the second meeting because
I can recall back in '88 when the member for Selkirk at the time, Ms. Charles,
stood up and asked a question about MIC.
I believe it had something to do with the advocacy role, and the
minister did not have a very good first meeting with the executive.
* (1520)
I think that, unfortunately, that
particular meeting has remained in the mind of the minister, and she is
somewhat vengeful and has not‑‑nor will she rest until she feels
that MIC, as we know it, no longer exists.
That is very unfortunate, Mr. Speaker,
because one of the reports which I have had ample time, and I know the minister
has, to go through was the last one that really MIC did of any great detail or
depth that I am aware of anyway. They
could have done others. It was the one
with respect to the "Combatting Racism in
Mr. Speaker, there were a lot of volunteer
hours that were put into coming up with this report. It is close to 100 pages in length. The minister is quite content to throw it out
the window and, along with that, has discouraged a great number of individuals
that would have participated in a much more active way had we had a minister or
a government that gave MIC the respect that it deserves. Unfortunately, as a result of that lack of
respect, I do not see the future of the Manitoba Intercultural Council being as
bright as it could have been, had the minister done the right thing. That would have been to incorporate MIC into
the multicultural act, even if it disagrees entirely with giving it any money
whatsoever.
I could go through organizations‑‑because
the minister has the list of the different organizations, ethnic organizations
that receive money every year from government, from MGAC, if you will. Now the minister is taking the money away
from an organization that I believe had potential to do a lot more for
Manitobans as a whole than any other organization that MGAC has likely even
given a grant to.
I think the minister has not done a
service to this Legislature by bringing in this particular piece of
legislation. I believe the minister, at the very least, if she plans to go
ahead with this bill, should bring in a bill next session that will incorporate
the concept of MIC into the multicultural act. I know that I will be working
between now and the next session to come up with such a private member's
bill. Hopefully, we will see some
reforms inside the Chamber that will see private members and the work and
effort that private members put into bills and resolutions be given more than
just lip service and just appear on the Order Paper and never reach a vote,
because I do plan on putting in some time in coming up with a bill that will
reflect the concept of MIC.
Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, I will not have to
introduce it, because the minister will take a look at the current multicultural
act and be able to make a decision that, for all intents and purposes, yes, the
multicultural act says a lot of wonderful things and has some good concepts in
it but has, in most part, proven to be a major disappointment to those
Manitobans who looked to government in terms of coming forward with some
creative ideas.
There are things that government can do to
give strength to the multicultural act, things that it can do such as working
with the Multiculturalism Secretariat's office and the Outreach Office, to do
what she can to ensure that the civil service is, in fact, depoliticized, and
only time will tell. I look forward to
the next session when, no doubt, the government once again will give some direction
on its beliefs in policy on multiculturalism in the
Thus far, over the last five years, I
would suggest to you that it has been a real disappointment, that the
government did have an opportunity, and, unfortunately‑‑and I do
not who is advising the minister. Well,
I have a good idea who is advising the minister, but I will hold back on those
comments. Hopefully, we will see
something coming from this department that will do some benefit to the
community.
She has often talked about the data bank
in terms of credentials, ESL. I think
that we could see some tremendous results if we see a firm commitment in those
areas. I am not, as of yet, convinced
that the government has committed what it could in those areas, areas in which
we will really have an impact on the everyday lives of individuals who are out
there who are experiencing a lot of frustration.
Having said those few words‑‑and
I know the member for
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (
The whole concept of the Manitoba
Intercultural Council was a bold concept.
It was a bold concept with some flaws and some serious weaknesses, but
it was indeed a bold concept that we would have a council reporting to a
minister, who would advise the minister on issues affecting the multicultural
dynamic of this province.
Canadians took a very different
attitude. We said that immigrants could
arrive in this country, and that they could, in fact, maintain some of those
characteristics which they brought to this nation from their earlier
nation. We even went a step further, not
too very long ago, and said that they could, in fact, have joint citizenship
with their old country and with their new country as a mark of respect to their
heritage, to what they had been and to now what they are.
When The Manitoba Intercultural Council
Act came into being in 1983 in the
There are within any nation what we call
waves of immigrants. The older an
immigrant population has been living in the nation, usually the easier their
assimilation. By the second generation,
they usually speak English or French, as the case may be, with the same fluency
as those who have lived here for many generations, and so their ability to find
employment, their ability to understand what their children are learning in
school, their ability to get in touch with social services, their ability to
practise their democratic processes, those all become easier as, of course, the
language becomes easier for them.
Although
* (1530)
One does not have to ask the aboriginal
members of this Legislature if their people have experienced prejudice. They were our first people and we talk about
them with that kind of respect, but we do not treat them with that kind of
respect, and they have spent generations and generations in this country
subject to prejudice, prejudice on the basis of the fact they were our first
peoples. We know that there has been
prejudice in this land on the basis of religion, we know there has been
prejudice in this land on the basis of ethnicity and we know there has been
prejudice in this nation on the basis of colour.
I suspect there are very few people in
this Chamber who know that in the city in which I grew up we had segregated
schools until 1954. You know, when we
talk about segregation, we tend to think of it as a concept for
There has been prejudice in this country
with respect to people of colour for many generations, but it is not just with
respect to colour. Francophones in the
So when the superintendent had made the
walk from the train station to the classroom, miraculously the classes were
then in English, but, of course, they had been of regular nature conducted in
French, because we decided, in our lack of wisdom in 1890, that we would
disallow the use of French in this Chamber and then in 1916 we would refuse to
allow it in our school system. So our
Francophone people can talk very personally, many of them, about the prejudice
that they felt as they were being raised in this particular province.
One does not have to speak to too many
Chinese people to have them talk about the Chinese head tax, that it was only
immigrants who came from
We know that in World War I, not just
foreign nationals were incarcerated, but Canadian citizens of Ukrainian and of
German origin were put in jails, that we went to drastic changes for example‑‑silly
ones in my opinion‑‑but we had to change areas like
So prejudice based on ethnicity and colour
and religion and language is not new to
I was amused when I read over the member
for
How better to politicize an organization
that is supposed to offer you free advice than to say, well, we want to listen
to your point of view, but we insist that we appoint the chairperson and we
insist that we hire the executive director.
If you want to keep an organization independent, you do not do it that
way.
So the politicization of this new
wonderful act that should have been a bellwether of good news began with the
very establishment of the act itself in 1983, but this new government elected
in 1988 had an opportunity to change that.
They had an opportunity to depoliticize and to give back to MIC the
ability to appoint their own chairperson and to hire their own executive
director, but what did they do? Oh, no,
they decided they would politicize it even further, and now they are over there
saying, not me, too, so the not‑me ghost is once more alive and well in
the Chamber.
The first thing they did was, of course,
to take the funding from MIC. What was
the basis for that wonderful decision?
Well, the decision, of course, was based on an Auditor's Report that
said, well, they were not handling their finances very well.
Well, you know, if we listened to the
Auditor's Report, we would watch government tumble time after time after time,
because year after year after year, auditors at the federal level and
provincial levels across this nation keep saying, the government is not doing
very well and these are all the recommendations I have.
So if we used Auditors' Reports as the
basis of removing power, there would not be a government, no matter what its
political stripe, in power today. All of
them would be gone.
So the reality of using an Auditor's
Report to take away entire funding was just, quite frankly, a bit of
facetiousness. If you would really and genuinely want to tighten up the funding
of MIC, then by all means do so, tighten up the funding. Make sure that the accounting principles used
are far more valid, far more reasonable, far more logical.
Had that been done, then funding could
have remained with MIC. But there began
the slippery slope until we have before us an act today which would like to do
away with the Manitoba Intercultural Council in its entirety. That, Mr. Speaker, I would say to you, is a
very backward step.
What we have replaced it with, of course,
is a Multicultural Grants Advisory Council and a Multiculturalism Secretariat,
and we have two representatives of those groups upstairs in the gallery
listening with bated breath obviously to the opposition comments about the two
organizations.
The tragedy with respect to both of those
organizations is that one is unnecessary, the Multicultural Grants Advisory
Committee, because MIC could have been doing the work.
The second, the multicultural secretariat,
has been, in fact, politicized by the present government. None of the positions at the top were ever
open to civil service competition. I
have said in this House before, and I will say it again, because the person in
charge of the Secretariat is in the gallery, and that is, if we had had an open
competition, he would have, in all likelihood, won it because he had the
qualifications to be the person who got the job. But the very fact that we did not do that
politicized it, and that is the weakness.
* (1540)
If the government had had the courage of
its convictions and had opened it for competition, I find it difficult to think
they may have gotten anybody better qualified than David Langtry, but they
have, unfortunately, emasculated his role because they politicized it. So he has been unable to be the quality of
the person that he could have been because of the emasculation process that
went on.
That is a tragedy, and that is what has
made the secretariat not have the kind of reputation that it should have in the
So I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is a very
sad day when we as a group of legislators have before us a Manitoba
Intercultural Council which is going to be cast on the winds.
The minister, in essence, brought into
being a
And, yes, the minister and other ministers
who come after her should have the advice of those people who live within those
communities, advice freely given with no political linkages so that they can
speak their minds and that they can speak as eloquently as it is possible to
speak about those problems which they are facing in day‑to‑day
Mr. Speaker, I regret that we have this
act before us. I have no choice but to
vote against the act because of what they are doing to it, that there will be
no council with any reporting responsibilities to the
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks by
saying that the Liberal Party will vote against this act. We will vote against it, because what we have
watched since 1983 now for 11 years is politicization from the NDP coupled with
politicization by the Conservative Party.
As a result, the communities that desperately need to have their voice
heard are not being heard. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Committee
Changes
Mr. Speaker: Just to accommodate the House, prior to
putting the question, I will recognize the honourable member for Gimli who will
have a committee change.
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for
I move, seconded by the member for Niakwa
(Mr. Reimer), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments
be amended as follows: the member for
Gimli (Mr. Helwer) for the member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh); the member
for Emerson (Mr. Penner) for the member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst); and the
member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) for the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr.
McAlpine).
Motions agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: Following along the vein of co‑operation,
I believe the honourable member for Point Douglas would like to make some
committee changes.
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): I move, seconded by the
member for
I move, seconded by the member for
Motions agreed to.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 28, The
Some Honourable
Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No?
The question before the House is that Bill 28, The Manitoba
Intercultural Council Repeal Act; Loi abrogeant la Loi sur le Conseil interculturel
du Manitoba, be now read a second time.
All those in favour of the motion, please
say yea.
Some Honourable Members:
Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members:
Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call in
the members.
A
STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Cummings, Dacquay, Derkach,
Nays
Alcock, Ashton, Barrett,
Carstairs, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Edwards, Evans (Interlake), Evans
(Brandon East), Friesen, Gaudry, Gray, Hickes, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Maloway,
Martindale, Plohman, Reid,
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Yeas 27, Nays 24.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
REPORT
STAGE
Bill 26‑The
Expropriation Amendment Act
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 26, The Expropriation
Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'expropriation), reported from the Standing
Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
* (1620)
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister
of Justice, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance, that Bill 26, The
Expropriation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'expropriation, reported
from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in. Agreed?
An Honourable
Member: On division.
Mr. Speaker: On division, Bill 26.
Bill 37‑The
Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment
and Consequential
Amendments Act
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Finance (Mr. Manness),
THAT Bill 37 be amended in the proposed Section
99 as set out in Section 5 of the bill by striking out "64 years" and
substituting "65 years."
I move, seconded by the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 37‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
We do one at a time.
It has been moved by the honourable
Minister responsible for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, seconded by
the honourable Minister of Finance, that Bill 37, The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi
sur la Societe d'assurance publique du
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Speaker: On division.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Finance (Mr. Manness)
THAT Bill 37 (The Manitoba Public
Insurance Corporation Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant
la Loi sur la Societe d'assurance publique du
Motion presented.
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few
comments at this time, very few comments.
We had a lengthy discussion in committee on various ways and means that
we might be able to include in the legislation.
As a matter of fact, I believe our opposition group put up over 35
amendments to try to improve the bill as we saw it, and with a positive approach
try and make the bill even more effective than it already is.
I am pleased to note that the minister is
making this one amendment which, in effect, is increasing the benefits for seniors
because we are moving the age limit up from 64 to 65. There are some other
amendments we agreed to in committee stage that we were pleased to see, and the
amendment was accepted by the minister and the government that MPIC must assist
an accident victim in rehabilitation.
Rather than making it optional, we made it mandatory.
Also, another very important amendment, I
thought, was allowing a claimant to have access to his or her file being held by
the corporation. This is a practice that
was developed a few years ago by the Workers Compensation Board. I think it is a good practice. It is helpful to the claimant and, indeed, I think,
to the whole process.
Also, there was another amendment I
thought was positive and I believe was taken from one of the recommendations of
Legal Aid
We still have some concerns about the
bill. We would like to see the appeal
process strengthened. We brought in some
amendments along those lines. We were
not successful but we had a good debate on them. I do not know whether it is a matter of the
minister being totally opposed to some of them.
I think his approach is, well, let us see how this legislation works and
see whether we can make some improvements after a couple of years of experience.
The other concern we had, Mr. Speaker, is
with regard to the level of benefits. We
thought, in particular, death benefits should be improved, and we made a number
of amendments along those lines. We were
not successful in getting those passed by the committee, but at least we put
them on the record, and we had a debate on them. That is something I hope the minister and the
government in the future will look at.
One thing we were very pleased with is the
acceptance by the minister of the suggestion that there be a three‑year
mandatory review of the operation of the new system. That is included in the legislation, and we
are also providing for public representation at that mandatory three‑year
review, so therefore it is definitely open to the public to participate in
this. So I think that is a good
move. It is something that again was recommended
by Legal Aid
Mr. Speaker, this bill ushers in a major
change with the way MPIC is going to operate in the future. I am satisfied that it implements the basic
recommendation of the Kopstein report, that we go to a no‑fault system,
abandoning the tort system that we have had to date. I believe that there are many people in
I know there is some opposition,
particularly among the legal profession, but basically my impression is that
the people of
This particular bill, as I understand it,
is based essentially on the
I agree with Judge Kopstein on this. Also, I believe that it will keep the
pressure off of escalating premiums. I
think that is important as well, because the people of
So, with those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I
again say that we still cannot believe that the minister has brought it in; nevertheless,
we are pleased that he has made this particular move. Thank you.
Mr.
Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, I want to stand to speak to the amendments put forward by
the minister. We are prepared to support
the amendments; however, not the bill.
That position has been articulated in the past by our critic, the member
for Osborne (Mr. Alcock).
I want to repeat it here today that this
piece of legislation is not a good piece of legislation for
* (1630)
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
indicates that this is not third reading.
I am aware of that. I have
indicated that the amendments are worthy of support. I simply want to clarify and ensure that the
government understands that support for these amendments, in a small way, makes
better a bad bill, but does not make the bill acceptable.
This is a retreat from the position which
was fought so hard for by the New Democratic Party so long ago. It is, indeed, ironical and, I think, quite
sad that the New Democratic Party today has capitulated to the point that they
are turning their backs on the very principles of universal coverage in The
MPIC Act that was put forward by, I think, their most respected Premier, the
former Premier Mr. Schreyer. Their
former leader Mr. Pawley quarterbacked this bill through this House through a lot
of adversity.
I have heard many times a member say that
they have never seen committee hearings as hard fought as those in which all of
the private insurance agents showed up to object to this piece of legislation,
but they persisted. They went through
that, and they put into place The MPIC Act and the Autopac scheme, and it has
proven a very successful program.
Now, to see the New Democratic Party jump
into bed with the Conservative government and the private insurance industry in
this province and turn their backs on the universal coverage and the whole
principle behind universality in motor vehicle coverage is indeed sad. I think it gives some indication as to why
the New Democratic Party is where it is in this country and in this province.
I do not think they need to look any
further than this bill in this province, Mr. Speaker, to understand why they
are where they are. They set out
principles which were correct. They fought
hard for them. They achieved them, and
now 20 years later they are letting private industry back into a business that
they do not deserve to be in, that is not good for the
This bill is discriminatory, I believe, on
the basis of age alone. This amendment
makes slightly, marginally better a basically discriminatory piece of
legislation. It cuts off benefits based
on age and age alone. No matter what the
loss was, your age and age alone will detract from your ability to collect loss‑of‑income
benefits. That is wrong. That is wrong for all of those people out
there in our community who still do earn a living at 64 or 65 or 68 or whatever
their ages, who still will have income loss if they are in a motor vehicle
accident.
How this government can unilaterally,
arbitrarily cut off benefits based on age and age alone is beyond me. To see the New Democratic Party supporting
that takes this bill, in my estimation, Mr. Speaker, into the realm of a truly
unholy marriage in this House between the Conservatives who are now letting
private industry, private insurers back into this market, and the New Democrats
who, for who knows what reasons, are standing behind a bill which is wrong and
turns their back on the principles that built Autopac in this province.
An Honourable Member: Read the Kopstein report.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I have read the Kopstein
report. The Kopstein report said nothing
about cutting people off on age and age alone.
That is what this amendment is about.
He did not and never would say that because you are 64 or 65 you should
be cut off benefits. That is what this
bill says.
You, the New Democratic Party, are
supporting that legislation. It is
pathetic, Mr. Speaker. There were lots
of ways to reform this system, not the least of which was to put a cap into
place to deal with the 89 percent of personal injury claims which fall under
$10,000‑‑89 percent.
I challenged the minister at the time, and
I say again, even if you had taken that to $15,000 you would have been well
over 90 percent of the claims that you could have covered without the tort
system and with the administrative tribunal that they have put in place,
putting that cap into place, which is what
This is insurance. Would people go out and buy their fire insurance
for their homes and say, the only criterion for me is the cost? It does not matter what the cost is. If it does not pay for your house when it
burns down, it is not worth it. When this
insurance does not cover you for your loss, no matter what the premium is, it
will not be worth it. You buy insurance
for the worst‑case scenario, and the fact is that they are selling this
plan on the premium and the premium alone.
They are not telling people what they are
covered and what they are not covered for, Mr. Speaker. It is a bad bill. It is bad for the motorists in this
province. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Finance (Mr. Manness),
THAT Bill 37 be amended in the proposed
subsection 100(1) as set out in Section 5 of the bill by striking out "64
years" and substituting "65 years" in the section heading and in
the subsection.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Cummings: I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness),
THAT Bill 37 be amended in the proposed
Section 101 as set out in Section 5 of the bill by striking out "65
years" and substituting "66 years" in the section heading and in
the section.
Motion
agreed to.
Mr. Cummings: I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness),
THAT Bill 37 be amended in the proposed
subsection 102(1) as set out in Section 5 of the bill by striking out "65
years" and substituting "66 years."
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Cummings: I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness),
THAT Bill 37 be amended in the heading
preceding the proposed subsection 104(1) as set out in Section 5 of the bill by
striking out "from age 65" and substituting "from age 66."
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Finance (Mr. Manness),
THAT Bill 37 be amended in the proposed
subsection 104(1) as set out in Section 5 of the bill (a) in the section
heading by striking out "age 65 to 67" and substituting "age 66
to 68" and (b) in the subsection (i) by striking out "65 years"
and substituting "66 years," (ii) by striking out "66
years" and substituting "67 years," and (iii) by striking out
"67 years" and substituting "68 years."
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Cummings: I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness),
THAT Bill 37 be amended in the proposed
subsection 104(2) as set out in Section 5 of the bill by striking out
"68" and substituting "69" in the section heading and in
the subsection.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Cummings: I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness),
THAT Bill 37 be amended in the English
version with proposed subsection 111(2) as set out in Section 5 of the bill (a)
by striking out "64 years" and substituting "65 years" and
(b) by striking out "age 65" and substituting "age 66."
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Cummings: I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice
(Mr. McCrae),
THAT Bill 37, The Manitoba Public
Insurance Corporation Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant
la Loi sur la Societe d'assurance publique du
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister responsible
for MPIC, seconded by the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that
Bill 37, as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Economic
Development, be concurred in. Agreed?
An Honourable Member: On division.
Mr. Speaker: On division.
Agreed and so ordered.
* (1640)
Bill 43‑The
and
Conseque ntial Amendments Act
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister charged with the administration of The
Motion agreed to.
Bill 45‑The
Coat of Arms, Emblems and the Manitoba Tartan Amendm ent Act
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Bill 45, The Coat of Arms, Emblems and the
Manitoba Tartan Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les armoiries, les
emblemes et le tartan du
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister
of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, seconded by the honourable Minister of
Justice, that Bill 45, The Coat of Arms, Emblems and The Mantioba Tartan
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les armoiries, les emblemes et le
tartan du
Some Honourable Members: On division.
Mr. Speaker: On division.
Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 46‑The
Criminal Injuries Compensation Amendment Act
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson),
that Bill 46, The Criminal Injuries Compensation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant
la Loi sur l'indemnisation des victimes d'actes criminels), reported from the
Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister
of Justice, seconded by the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and
Citizenship, that Bill 46, The Criminal Injuries Compensation Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'indemnisation des victimes d'actes criminels,
reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in. Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: No. On
division.
Mr. Speaker: On division.
Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 51‑The
Municipal Amendment Act (2)
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Mr. Speaker,
I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 54‑The
Municipal Assessment Amendment Act (2)
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): I move, seconded
by the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), that Bill 54, The Municipal
Assessment Amendment Act (2) (Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur l'evaluation
municipale), reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be
concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I wonder
if you would canvass the House, and with unanimous consent of the House, revert
back to Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees, so that Bill 55
could be reported back to this House.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to revert to
presenting the reports by Standing and Special Committees? (agreed)
PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL
COMMITTEES (continued)
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Fourteenth
Report of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Law Amendments
presents the following as its Fourteenth Report.
Your committee met on Friday, July 23,
1993, at 1 p.m. in Room 255 of the
At the July 23, 1993, 1 p.m. meeting, your
committee elected Mr. Reimer as Chairperson.
Your committee adopted at its July 23,
1993, 1 p.m. meeting, the following motion:
MOTION:
THAT
the Committee on Law Amendments on July 23, 1993, set a 20‑minute time
limit on presentations only‑‑with unlimited time for questions.
Your committee heard representation on
bills as follows:
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
Water Kucharczyk ‑ Private CitizenSandip
Dholakia ‑ CUEW (Canadian
Your committee has considered:
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
and
has agreed to report the same without amendment.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. Reimer: I move, seconded by the honourable member for Sturgeon
Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
REPORT
STAGE (continued)
Bill 55‑The
Legislative Assembly Amendment and Consequential Ame ndments Act
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, with
the leave of the House, I move, seconded by the member for Thompson (Mr.
Ashton), 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), as reported from the Standing Committee
on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave? (agreed)
Motion agreed to.
Messages
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I have a
message from His Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor.
Mr.
Speaker: The Lieutenant‑Governor,
Yvon Dumont, transmits to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba revised
Estimates of sums required for the services of the province for Capital Expenditures
and recommends these revised Estimates to the Legislative Assembly.
Signed by His Honour, Yvon Dumont,
Please be seated.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of
Environment (Mr. Cummings), that the said message, together with the Estimates
accompanying the same, be referred to the Committee of Supply.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and
that the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be
granted to Her Majesty.
Motion
agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee to consider of the
Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the honourable member for
SUPPLY‑CAPITAL
SUPPLY
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Will the Committee of
Supply please come to order.
We have before us for our consideration
the resolution respecting the Capital Supply bill. I would remind members that as the 240 hours
allowed for consideration of Supply and Ways and Means resolutions has expired,
pursuant to Rule 64.1(1), this resolution is not debatable.
The resolution for Capital Supply reads as
follows:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her
Majesty a sum not exceeding $293,145,000 for Capital Supply, for the fiscal
year ending March 31, 1994.
* (1650)
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Chairperson, I
move, seconded by the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs.
Mitchelson), that the Committee of Supply concur in all Supply resolutions
relating to the Estimates of expenditure for the fiscal year ending March 31,
1994, which have been adopted this session by the two sections of the Committee
of Supply sitting separately and by the full committee.
Motion presented.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
In the Objectives under the
I have a question about a particular
conference that I have a bit of a concern about that I would like to ask the
minister about. That is a conference
called Damsels in Distress that is sponsored by the Women's Advisory Council,
the Junior League of
I have no quarrel about any of the content
of the conference as outlined in the introductory statement that was given to
me. I think it is called The Manitoba Sequel Strategies for Empowering Young
Women in
I do, however, have a real question about
the title, Damsels in Distress, in the context of the objective of the Manitoba
Women's Advisory Council and of, I am assuming, certainly the minister, and
that is‑‑and it may seem on the minister's part to be a small item
but I think that it is important‑‑the phrase Damsels in Distress
connotes women, young women in particular, who are unable to function in an
equal manner. It is an old‑fashioned
expression that connotes young women who need to have the assistance of others
and more powerful people in order to have the assistance of others and more
powerful people in order to be able to function.
I am just wondering if the minister can
explain, in the context of what we all want to see, which is women, and particularly
young women, being empowered, along with the fact that we all want to see
attitudes change so that that will enable women to become more empowered and to
take their rightful position in our society, how that fits in with this
particular heading of this conference.
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister responsible for the Status of Women): Madam Chairperson, as I believe the critic of
the official opposition does know, the Manitoba Women's Advisory Council, yes,
by legislation is appointed by government, but from time to time they undertake
certain initiatives in partnership with‑‑they have done other things
in partnership with the Junior League, working with the Women's Institute and
other organizations. I know just
recently they have been working very closely with women's organizations dealing
with the issue of midwifery. So there
are different partnerships that are developed from time to time based on the
issues that the Manitoba Women's Advisory Council feels are issues that are
pertinent to the day.
As far as the title of the conference
goes, I cannot indicate to my honourable friend who exactly chose the
title. I know that it was not a
conference that necessarily had to be approved by government or by my
ministry. It is a title that was chosen
by the Junior League, by the
I know that the conference is targeted
toward adolescent women and targeted toward those who work on a regular basis
with adolescent women such as educators, guidance counsellors, parents and so
on. I suppose, hopefully, and I would
imagine some of the expected results they would have is a heightened awareness
of some of the problems that our adolescent girls have in socialization which
has become very topical, and it is something that ministers responsible for the
Status of Women across the country discussed at our last ministerial meeting
when we got together.
There was a paper, indeed, that had been
worked on. It is one of those areas, I
think, that we want to ensure that our young girls and our young women are on
an equal playing field with boys and men. Education and training, of course, is an area that
we need to focus on. I think targeting a
conference working with or doing workshops with educators, with guidance
counsellors within our education system who deal and have a major impact and a
major influence on how our young girls and women grow up, the choices that they
make at the career options that are presented to them are extremely important.
The name of the conference, I suppose, is
something that I could go back and ask whether there was specifically a reason
why that name was chosen. I think what
we are still looking toward, and what I do not think we are seeing, and we
would all agree today we are not seeing that our young girls and our young
women are having the same opportunity in many instances. Maybe it is a matter of working very closely
in community partnership with education and with parents to ensure that we are
in fact channeling our young girls in the same directions and encouraging them
to pursue the same options and opportunities as our young men do, will
hopefully have a positive impact on continuing to ensure that we end up with
our ultimate goal of equal opportunity, equal access and equal options.
Ms. Barrett: Madam Chairperson, I agree with the minister
and stated in my earlier question that we were not disagreeing at all on the
content of the conference.
I would like to say just that one of the
three elements that this conference is to look at is a positive self‑image,
and I am quoting from the brochure talking about relationships, power, control
and role modelling. I am just suggesting
to the minister, I would appreciate it if she could check back and find out
where this title comes from because I think, frankly, the title Damsels in
Distress does not fit with a positive self‑image that talks about role
modelling. I think that there are a lot more
'90s kinds of titles that could have been used, that would have been more
positive in identifying what this conference is going to look at. I appreciate the minister's taking the time
to check that out. I mean it in the most
positive kind of constructive way. I
think it is a good conference, and I just think the title is unfortunate.
I would just like to ask the minister when
she thinks she will be able to get back to me with that information on the conference
title and, frankly, if there is an opportunity at this point to maybe change
it.
Madam Chairperson: The honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and
Citizenship, for a very brief response.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I do not know how broadly the
pamphlet has been circulated. I take the
suggestion very seriously, and I agree with some of the comments that were put
on the record by the member for
Madam Chairperson: Order, please.
As previously agreed, the hour being 5 p.m., I am leaving the Chair with
the understanding that this committee will reconvene at 7 p.m.