LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday,
March 16, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
TABLING OF
REPORTS
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Northern Affairs): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to table the Northern Manitoba Economic Development Commission
Northern
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I am tabling today the
Annual Report for 1990-91 and 1991-92 of the Seizure and Impoundment Registry,
as well as the Fifth Annual Report of the Victims Assistance Committee.
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us
this afternoon Mr. William Witting, who is the Consul General of the
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
Also this afternoon, I would like to draw
the attention of honourable members to the public gallery, where we have with
us today Miss Miranda Kowalec and her parents Alan and Christina Kowalec. Miranda is a Grade 6 student at Balmoral
Hall, who is the
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the First
Minister. We have learned today that 19
more employees have been laid off at Northern Telecom. That follows on 45 jobs that were lost a
couple of months ago, and it follows on another 45 jobs that were lost a year
ago.
Ironically, when we were asking this
government yesterday about tough choices, we asked questions about the training
grants and payroll deductions for corporations for training purposes. This
company has received $65,000 from the provincial government, which is the same
amount of money this government is cutting from the
I would ask the Premier: Would he consider redeploying money that he
has had for training grants, particularly to companies that are laying people
off in the province and putting it to the vital social services that the Premier
has announced he cut yesterday?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday to the
Leader of the Opposition, it is not just a question of whether or not services
are provided; it is whether or not those services are available elsewhere. The ones that he referred to are obviously
available elsewhere.
The other aspect of his question, Mr.
Speaker, again is wrongly put because we do not make grants to the
businesses. In fact, what we do is
provide them with a credit against their payment of their payroll tax. We reduce the amount that they pay on payroll
tax in keeping with the amount that they spend on educating and training
people, which is indeed a very much needed investment in our economy, and we
believe it is important. Even though the
New Democrats do not want to see investments in training and education, we do,
and the program has proven to be a very successful one to encourage businesses
to invest in training and development of their human resources.
* (1335)
Aboriginal
Friendship Centres Funding
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, that is why there were over 300
people working at that plant when the NDP was in power, and there is almost
half that amount now with the Conservatives in power in terms of that very
vital plant.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Premier
defended his cuts for people, for agencies when I asked him the question saying
that these agencies that we have cut do not provide services to the people of
I direct the Premier to the Indian and
Metis Friendship Centres across the province that provide housing counselling,
that provide institutional support. They
provide drug counselling, cultural counselling, provide elders programming‑‑again,
inconsistent with the Premier's announcement‑‑provide volunteer
programming for aboriginal people, provide fine option programs, provide youth
programs, provide income tax services for aboriginal people and provide job
counselling services for those people in the inner city and many communities across
The government's announcement yesterday
laid off some 33 people working all across the province with the people again
who are some of the most vulnerable in our society. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the government
has corporate grants to Linnett Graphics of over $1 million. It has corporate grants that they have
announced with the Vision Capital Fund of $15 million.
Why does the Premier not cancel a few of
those corporate grants and keep that $1.3 million for those people working with
the most vulnerable people in Manitoban society?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I repeat, the Leader of the
Opposition is misrepresenting what is happening. These are not grants to corporations. There are investments in the developments of
technology, investments that have been made by previous governments, including
New Democratic governments.
The things that he referred to are exactly
the same kinds of program decisions and investments that were made by the
government of which he was a part when they invested in computers in Unisys,
when they spent some $30 million on computers with Unisys. If he wants to call those grants to
corporations‑‑that was a New Democratic policy‑‑he may
do so. The fact is that the ones that he
refers to are investments in technology development which employ, I might say,
many, many people in high technology fields because of the fact that these
investments are being made.
Student
Financial Assistance Program Funding
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we did not cut back the grants to
vulnerable people in our society. We had
a balance between investments in corporations and investment in people.
This government is cutting all the grants
to people and leaving in place all the grants to corporations, and that is
clear from the Premier's answers here this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary to the
Premier: The government has announced
the reduction in support for student social allowances. This program has been assistance to social
allowance recipients to get an education, to hopefully get off of welfare, to
get off social assistance, to get into meaningful employment.
I would like to ask the Premier: How many people will be cut off of their
educational opportunities with the reduction from this government? What will be the long‑term economic
impact of it not allowing some individuals in our society to get the education,
to get the training and to get off welfare as they plan their life careers, Mr.
Speaker?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, as the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) indicated yesterday, there are
many difficult choices that have to be made in putting a budget together.
I would take this opportunity to remind
him of what Premier Romanow said in January when he said, for a New Democrat
who is used to being in government when the economy is expanding and who is
used to redistributing wealth, the change to creating wealth and to taking back
concessions given to people in better times is so darn difficult.
I would mention to the member for
Concordia that these are difficult times and the government is making very
difficult decisions. The program that
the member is asking about is one that did not exist in other provinces. These students who are primarily high school
students will be finishing up their programs in June, and after that, this
program will be terminated.
* (1340)
Education
System
Medical
Services
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, a potentially serious situation
exists in our schools and our daycares because relatively untrained people are
providing medical procedures such as catheterization, tube feeding and
medicines to children. In some
locations, in schools, kids line up at the principal's office to receive their
medicine.
MTS, unions and parents have all pointed
out the dangers of this situation, and the Manitoba Medical Association is
doing a medical audit of Winnipeg School Division No. 1 as a result. What, if anything,
is this government doing to provide adequate and safe medical treatment for our
children in schools and in daycares?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I do not
know whether my honourable friend wanted me to answer the question, but I will
indicate to my honourable friend that this issue has been before the government
for several months now, and a meeting was held with Winnipeg School Division
No. 1 last year, I believe, in December.
What we are attempting to do is a number
of things in co‑operation with the school trustees and the school
divisions of the
Mr. Chomiak: My supplementary to the same minister: Why is the government, therefore, firing the
four nurses who have developed the only on‑site comprehensive program to
train paraprofessionals in Winnipeg School Division No. 1, the only one I am
aware of that trains them, provides them assistance and monitors them to all,
not only schools, but to daycares? Why
is the government firing these nurses at the end of the month?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I am not accepting my honourable
friend's analysis of initiatives verbatim, as he states. Within the Ministry of Health, we have
actively been pursuing a co‑ordinated approach available across the
province to resolve the issues that have been identified, as I say, by MTS and
by MAST.
Now, that discussion with those two
professional organizations and my ministry, in collaboration with the Ministry
of Education, will lead, I hope, to a reasoned program which is understood by
all and will in many ways alleviate some of the concerns that have been raised
by teachers in the classroom and indeed, Sir, school divisions.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary to the
same minister: The only program of its
kind in existence will end at the end of the month. Will the minister consider funding the pilot
project that has been before his ministry, the Minister of Education (Mrs.
Vodrey) and, I believe, the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) office for months now and
has received no response?
Will he consider funding this program for
20 months at $177,000 and take some of that money out of some of the money they
are going to pay to their American consultant who flies in here, Mr. Speaker,
and who probably costs more in one month than the whole program will cost in a
year?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, despite all my honourable
friend's rhetorical flourish and attempt to gain attention that he possibly
does not earn, that is exactly the process this ministry and this government
has embarked upon in discussion with the school divisions as represented by
MAST and other individuals who are concerned about the issue of a potentially
complex medical services provision within the classroom.
Student
Financial Assistance Program Funding
Elimination
Impact
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): I have a question for the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness), as the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) seems
unaware of the answer and the Minister of Finance seems to be making most of
the decisions in this government.
Mr. Speaker, when a child becomes a ward
of the state, it is usually because their family is so abusive or so dangerous
that they are no longer seen as capable of caring for the child, and in other
circumstances, when a child's family is so impoverished that they can no longer
provide care, we have always allowed these children a route out of that
poverty. We have allowed them the chance
to get educated, and we have supported them in receiving that education.
This government has now made the decision
to cease that support as the Minister of Family Services just said. What I would like to know is, how many
students will this affect this year?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, we have about 1,200 to 1,400 students in this program who are
completing their course by the end of June.
Following that, the program will be terminated.
Mr. Alcock: How easily he says it, Mr. Speaker.
* (1345)
Alternative
Funding
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of
Education: Will there be grant and
bursary support available to these 1,200 students to allow them to continue
their education or further it at university?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): The
member is asking about the Manitoba Student Financial Assistance Program, and I
have explained to him, that by the way, is the second application students
would make. The first one is to the
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I realize the government finds
this a funny issue, but the rest of us do not.
Funding
Elimination Impact
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Can the Minister of Family Services tell us
this: Of these 1,200 students, in the
fall, how many will remain on municipal or city social assistance rather than
come on the provincial program?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): As the
member is well aware, those individual students, as they finish their high
school this year, some of them may be returning to high school, may be
returning home to complete that high school program, others will be accessing
programs that the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) has just referenced to go
on to other forms of study.
Child
Daycare Centres
Staff
Salaries
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government of
This government then, after cutting the
grants to the organizations, went on to attack women and children by reducing
the number of subsidized child care spaces by 400, requiring subsidized parents
to pay an additional $1.40 a day, reducing operating grants by 4 percent and
for licensed nursery schools by 50 percent.
Does the Minister of Family Services
expect child care centres and nursery schools to continue operating due solely
to the subsidy provided by their staff, staff who are professionals but who are
underpaid, have no pension plan and few benefits?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, as I have indicated in the past, the budget line for daycare is one
that has had the most dramatic increase of any budget line in government. It has virtually doubled in the last five
budgets. Our budget line again will
increase there, and we will be spending upwards of $47 million on preschool
children who are subsidized in daycare homes and daycare centres.
I did have the opportunity to attend the
provincial Day Care Conference in
Unlicensed
Care Monitoring
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, this province used to have the
best daycare system in
Will the minister tell the House how his
government, as a result of freezing licensing of new child care spaces, will
monitor the proliferation of unlicensed caregivers? How will this government protect children being
cared for in unmonitored homes? Does
this minister not see the relationship between‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, if the member wants to do an interprovincial comparison, the
Subsidized
Spaces–Fee Increase
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): How can this minister justify stealing from
the poor and contravening the agreement between provincial and territorial
ministers of Family Services made in
* (1350)
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, I would tell the member that the care for children in daycare centres
and daycare homes is a very, very expensive proposition. It costs the government, for fully subsidized
children, in the neighbourhood of $7,000 to $8,000 a year per child. We are asking families that have subsidized
children to participate in that cost by asking them to pay $1.40 a day.
Point of
Order
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): On a point of order,
Mr. Speaker, I should have risen a moment ago, but just so the members opposite
do not feel or come to believe that the word "stealing" is something
that is parliamentary when it is not, I would refer you to the unparliamentary
list, which indicates very directly that the word "stealing" is
something that should not be used within debate or indeed Question Period.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): On the same point of
order, Mr. Speaker, in determining whether language is unparliamentary or not,
it is very clear that context has to be taken into account. The member was not suggesting the minister
was individually stealing anything, but anybody who is observing what is
happening in
Mr. Speaker: On that point of order raised, I also was
attempting to find the word in Beauchesne, and quite clearly the word is
unparliamentary. I would caution the
honourable member that that word will not be tolerated. I did not get my hands on it at the time, but
I would caution the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the words
"stealing from the poor" in spite of the fact that it is a good‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Unqualified.
I would like to thank the honourable member.
Child and
Family Services Agencies
Foster
Family Training
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Can the Minister of Family Services give
us the assurance today that additional resources will be made available to the
Child and Family Services agencies in the
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, the agencies would now be responsible for
the training. In the past, they have
done the recruiting of foster homes.
They have done the licensing of foster homes, and in the future, they
will do the training of foster homes.
This morning, I met with the executive
directors of the three mainstream agencies in the province, along with the
presidents of their boards, to go over this with them. We believe that we will have an opportunity
with department staff and the co‑operation of those agencies to put in
place a plan where they will not only do the recruiting and licensing, but also
be responsible for the training.
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Family
Services guarantee today that there is not only a plan in place with these
agencies, but that there are the resources in place for these agencies to do
the training, seeing as how Child and Family Services agencies today not only
do not have the resources to do additional training, but they are putting
children into hotels because they do not have the foster families and the
services available? Will there be additional
funds available for these services to be able to provide this essential
training for foster‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, I have just finished saying that
agencies have recruited and licensed foster homes in the past. They will
continue to do that. There will be times
when there are emergencies where other forms of accommodation will have to be
used on a very short‑term basis.
In my discussion with the board chairs and with the executive directors
this morning, we talked about staff resources and financial resources that we
could identify to assist with that training.
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, cool comfort indeed.
* (1355)
Foster
Families Recruitment
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Well,
Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is factually incorrect. I just indicated in my previous answer that
we would dedicate staff resources and financial resources to do this particular
job. I would also point out to her that
the rate that she raises, the basic rate in
Offender
Employment Program Funding
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the‑‑[applause]
I want to thank honourable members, but that is not good for my campaign, and I
will not be taking advice on leadership from a number of the members opposite.
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
Minister of Justice. A week ago, the
minister told me in this House in response to a question, that the reason it
was okay that someone like Mr. Timothy Zaber only spent six out of 90 days in
jail for domestic assault was that, and I quote: " . . . what we are talking about is
supervised work being done while under a temporary
absence. . . ."
However, Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the
government's announcement, work programs in the community was the only excuse
the minister gave, and yesterday the John Howard Society program for offender
employment was eliminated.
My question for the minister: What is the current excuse for release of an
offender convicted of domestic assault after one‑fourteenth of his
sentence now that we know there is no offender employment program?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Despite the fact that the honourable
member has said that he will not accept advice from this side of the House on
how to run his campaign, I would offer one suggestion, and that is that after
five years as a critic for the Justice portfolio, he could at least get his
facts straight. It might be helpful
during his campaign. That would be one
little piece of advice.
I say to him that the announcement
yesterday about the John Howard employment program and the issues he has been
raising recently with respect to temporary absences and work programs being
carried out under that are not directly related.
So the honourable member tries to import
into a debate something he has all his facts wrong on, something else on which
he has his facts wrong.
Mr. Edwards: The minister does not put any contrary facts
on the record. He just huffs and
blows. There are no contrary facts that
he has come up with.
My further question for the minister, Mr.
Speaker. The government press release
says a priority is protective services for Manitobans. How is the elimination of the John Howard
offender employment program, whose sole purpose is to successfully reintegrate
offenders into society as law‑abiding citizens, how is the elimination of
that program in keeping with the government's commitment to protect Manitobans?
* (1400)
Mr. McCrae: I think the honourable member will agree,
despite all of the demands for more spending by him and his colleagues, that
the
Unfortunately, the offender employment
program run by the John Howard Society, with every good intention on their part
and on the part of the government at the time it got going, the evaluations of
that program have not been as positive as we would have liked. They have not met the expectations that we or
John Howard would have liked to have seen.
Seizure and
Impoundment Registry
Production
Costs
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that the minister
raises spending every dollar carefully.
My question for the minister: I have just been handed the Seizure and
Impoundment Registry booklet which is made up of four pages that says anything‑‑there
are another nine pages that say nothing in this booklet. Mr. Speaker, two manila covers, two pages of
pictures of the minister and‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Edwards: . . . for every dollar they have spent, and
this government continues to spend excessively on totally useless things like
pictures of the Minister of Justice and his acting deputy Attorney General.
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I
know it upsets the honourable member that the reports distributed in this House
have covers, Mr. Speaker. I know that is
upsetting to him, but most books that I have ever read had covers, too.
The other thing that I should raise, after
a lot of kicking and screaming, we finally managed to get the honourable member
for St. James to support our anti‑drinking and driving campaign. Part of
that legislation calls for information to be made available to members of this
House by way of a report on the registry.
The honourable member ultimately supported that legislation. I would have assumed he would want to know
how it is working, and that is what these reports are all about.
Aboriginal
Friendship Centres Funding
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier suggested
that friendship centres in this province were being cut because they do not
provide services to the vulnerable. I do
not know the last time the Premier set foot inside a friendship centre, but if
he came to the Ma‑Mow‑We‑Tak Friendship Centre in Thompson,
he could observe the elders program, the hospital visit program, the medical
interpreter escort program, the education workshops, the literacy programs, the
youth programs that provide services to more than 30,000 people in our
community in Thompson.
I have but one very simple question to the
Premier. If this is not providing
services to the most vulnerable, what is?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I know that in their wonderful
world in which they can take no responsibility, the New Democrats of this
Legislature can stand up‑‑[interjection] I certainly do not take
responsibility for the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli). I can say that without equivocation and with
a great deal of pride. They take no
responsibility. They are unwilling to
look at the very difficult challenges that face every government in this
country. They need only listen to their
colleagues who are in government, the Roy Romanow's, the Bob Rae's of this
world, who are making very, very difficult choices, massive cuts in health care
and education, because they are dealing with reality. They are not dealing with the never‑never
land of the New Democrats of Manitoba, which is shear irresponsibility.
Mr. Speaker, we have to make difficult choices. We have to look at the options, and we have
to look at the future. We want to
protect vital services in the province.
We cannot simply fund everything and, particularly, we cannot fund
things for which there may be alternatives, for which there may be services
being provided by others.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Filmon: It is the children of this province who will
have to pay back for the deficit spending that the New Democrats‑‑increased
taxes that will be a millstone around their necks and ensure that they never
have the opportunities of their parents' generation. That is a very sad legacy. That is a very sad priority that New
Democrats have chosen.
I repeat for you, that other provinces in
which New Democrats are in office are taking these measures and even more
difficult measures, because they know and understand responsibility. They do not sit there and chirp away in their
irresponsible fashion like the New Democrats of Manitoba.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, to quote another Tory, you, sir,
had a choice and you cut the friendship centres.
I guess it is no accident there is no
friendship centre in Tuxedo and there are no friendship centres in all but one
of the NDP ridings.
I want to ask the Premier, will he now
admit, Mr. Speaker, what is patently obvious to anyone who has looked at the
list of the grants that was released, that the real agenda here is
politics? You cut those who speak out
against you. You cut those who do not
share your political philosophy. Will
the Premier admit to what is actually happening?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, the old adage that when you have
nothing of substance to say, shout and scream, is very, very obvious by the
demeanour and the actions of the member for Thompson and his colleagues.
My short answer to his question is
absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.
Brandon
Friendship Centre, Inc. Funding
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, in the cuts that the government
announced yesterday, is included a cut in the annual grant to the Brandon
Friendship Centre amounting to an elimination of the annual grant, amounting to
$76,300, which means, according to the chairperson of the board, Rita Cullen,
that two workers dealing directly with disadvantaged youth in the community
will be laid off in two weeks, and programs to help idle youth stay off the
streets and from getting into trouble will be eliminated.
My question to the Premier or to the
minister is: How can they say that these
cuts do not affect services for people when in the
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, the Brandon Friendship Centre has a budget in excess of a million
dollars. The province is responsible by
grant in the past for 8 percent of their total grant. Just as other groups in society are making
some fundamental changes, in health reform, in school divisions, I think the
friendship centres also have some changes that they have to make.
Again, I point out to the member that we
are only responsible for a small portion of their total funding, and the board
of that friendship centre will have decisions to make internally as to how they
allocate those funds.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Maybe the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae)
would like to respond, because we are talking about specific programs that help
specific youth in that community from disadvantaged homes.
How can we expect the level of juvenile
delinquency to be kept down in the city of
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, this is part of their global
funding. As I indicated in my previous
answer, the board of the Indian‑Metis Friendship Centre in
Again, I point out that our contribution
is 8 percent and that they will have the ability within their global budget to
make those changes.
Mr. Leonard Evans: I wish the minister was right, but according
to the chairperson of the board, they will be laying off two people. They cannot afford to keep two people who do
work with young people. That is
categorical. The drop‑in centre in
the evening will be closed down as well.
So I am asking this minister or this
Premier (Mr. Filmon) to reconsider and reverse this decision to cut an
important grant so that this centre can continue to maintain services to young
people, including the summer program activity and various other school programs
and to allow the drop‑in centre to stay open in the evening so these kids
have a place to go. But it is going to
be closed‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
* (1410)
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, the member seems to indicate that
they are going to close the doors when 92 percent of their million‑dollar
budget is still in place. The board of
that centre is elected, appointed to make policy decisions, to make decisions
on expenditures. They are facing the
same tough decisions that all other organizations are facing at this time. With
government revenue declining, this was a difficult decision for us to make.
Child
Daycare Centres
Subsidized
Spaces–Fee Increase
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the whole purpose of a subsidy in daycare is to provide the
opportunity for a parent to have that child in that child care space because
the parent cannot afford it. A subsidy
is not given because the parent has money; the subsidy is given because the
parent has no money.
When you look at the child care centres in
the inner city of the city of
Is this minister suggesting that there is
any viability left for these child care centres when they will not get enough
money to keep in operation?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Daycare
subsidies are a complex issue. I would
invite the member to come to Estimates, and we can deal with this in more
detail.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, this government has reduced the
seek‑employment subsidy from eight weeks to two weeks. Not only have they cut students so that they
will not be able to go to school any longer, they have now said that those who
have the opportunity to find employment, that they used to give a step up‑‑will
get eight weeks of subsidy and a child care space while they looked for that
employment. Yesterday that was cut to
two weeks.
Child care centres that I spoke with this
morning said they cannot develop a relationship with a child in a two‑week
period of time.
Can this minister tell this House how
women are to go out and find employment when they will not have a child care
space so that they can conduct interviews‑‑so that they can find
jobs?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I would invite the member to join in the
Estimates process within the next hour, and we can look at this in some detail.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, let me tell the minister that I
will participate in the Estimates process only when they tell me what they are
doing to every other department in this government, and that I am not going to
have my parliamentary rights removed from me.
Will the minister tell this House
now: How many child care spaces he
thinks will be eliminated in this province as a result of his decision to
charge subsidy parents $2.40 a day?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, the daycare issue is one that the
Liberal Party has avoided in the past, and I would invite the member to
Estimates to go into some detail on this.
Mr.
Speaker: The time for Oral Questions
has expired.
Speaker's
Ruling
Mr. Speaker: I have a ruling for the House.
I am ruling on a matter of privilege
raised by the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) on March 11,
1993. In speaking to the matter of
privilege, the honourable member stated that the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard) on March 3, while answering a question, stated that outpatient
services for children would continue in most, if not all, of the locations
currently, including St. Boniface and
The honourable member for Kildonan then
went on to say that the next day an official in the Minister of Health's office
sent a letter to community hospitals indicating that children's outpatient
surgical services would be provided by the Children's Hospital only. Therefore, the claim of privilege was that
the Minister of Health said one thing in the House but had already made a
different decision.
The issue here is whether there is a prima
facie case of privilege; I do not believe there is. I would refer to my rulings of June 13 and
June 19, 1991; " . . . a motion of privilege should be worded in such a
way that another member is alleged to have deliberately or intentionally misled
the House" and a member "' . . . must support his or her charge with
proof of intent.'"
The motion put forward by the honourable
member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) did not indicate that the Minister of Health
(Mr. Orchard) deliberately misled the House, nor did the member in his comments
provide proof that the minister deliberately set out to mislead the House. I would also quote from page 191 of
Parliamentary Privilege in
It is clear that this case is a dispute
over the facts which, according to the rulings of previous Speakers in
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I will recognize the honourable Leader of the
second opposition party (Mrs. Carstairs).
The honourable Leader is moving a motion, I believe, at this time.
Prior to recognizing the honourable
member, I believe the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) has a
committee change, so I will recognize the honourable member for Point
Committee
Changes
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
Agreed and so ordered.
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts be amended as follows:
the member for Arthur‑Virden (Mr. Downey) for the member for
I move, seconded by the member for
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
Agreed and so ordered.
NONPOLITICAL
STATEMENTS
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Government
Services have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister of Government Services):
I would like to congratulate Coach Jerry
Ilchyna and the Freshmen Girls who defeated
* (1420)
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Energy and Mines
have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Thank
you, Mr. Speaker and members of the House, for an opportunity to make a
nonpolitical statement.
I was pleased to have Miranda Kowalec as my
guest today, Mr. Speaker. Miranda is a
Grade 6 student at
Copies of the calendar were made available
to you through the respective caucus offices earlier this year. You will find Miranda's work in the month of
May.
She shows us two neighbourhoods and
reminds us that the choice is ours. The
right choice, without question, is to be responsible, to be resource wise and
energy efficient. It is a proud moment
as we pay tribute to Miranda, Mr. Speaker.
It should be noted that Miranda produced
her winning art work for the Fort Whyte Centre Summer Nature Day Camp Poster
Contest. The enthusiasm of 180 youngsters who participated serves as a constant
reminder of just how important it is that we are resource conscious for the
sake of our children and our grandchildren.
Thank you.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek
have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Gerry McAlpine
(Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise
today to pay tribute to a group of young people in my constituency, the
Sturgeon Creek Collegiate cheerleaders who won the provincial cheerleading
competition held at Sturgeon Creek Collegiate on March 6: Karen Alho, Wendy Bueckert, Kim and Shannon
Chartrand, Alana Dodge, Amber Hayden, Jen Horsman, Cheri Keller, Judy Lawrence,
Wendy Leland, Mary‑Ann Manness, Jackie Monteith, Patty O'Brien, Jennifer
Olynick, Jackie Papineau, Heather Patterson, Jedda Rempel, Adrienne Shewfelt,
Heidi Swanson, Nicole Vigilance and Kristy Warner. The coaches were Kim Vigilance and Marni
Barnes.
I would ask all members to join with me in
wishing the young people well as they travel to
MATTER OF
URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for
Mr. Speaker: Before determining whether the motion meets
the requirements of our Rule 27, the honourable member for
A spokesperson for the government and the
other opposition party will also have five minutes to address the position of
their party respecting the urgency of debate on this matter today.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, I rise on what I consider to be
a very serious matter happening in the events of this Chamber, events which
have never happened, not only before in this Chamber but not in any Chamber of
this country.
In this province we had a history and
tradition up until 1983 of introducing a Main Estimates book, and then it could
be followed by a budget. I accept that,
and there is no question of that. That
has also been done in the House of Commons, but neither in the House of Commons
nor in this Chamber has it ever been done, to our knowledge and to any
knowledge we have been able to acquire from House of Commons staff, that they
have introduced independent Estimates of a few departments and cherry‑picked
departments and not presented at the same time the Main Estimates book. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the relevancy‑‑
Some Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mrs. Carstairs: In order to introduce this motion, a number
of conditions have to be met. As you
know, Mr. Speaker, there was a letter sent to you earlier this morning indicating
my desire to introduce this motion at this particular point in time.
It also has to be proven that there is no
other time within the debating mechanism for this particular motion and
discussion to take place. I would
suggest to you that we have tried consistently to get this debate on the floor
of the Chamber, and we have been unsuccessful in our attempt to get it on the
floor of this Chamber.
Something happened yesterday afternoon
which had never happened in my years of experience in this House. I quite frankly spoke with one of the deans
of the legislative press gallery to ask her if she could recall any event in
which an individual had risen at their place in order to speak on a motion and
had been denied the opportunity to so speak.
The purpose of that individual speaking at
that particular point in time was to explain as well as he could the problems
and difficulties that we feel as an opposition that we are having imposed upon
us. The whole purpose of rules and
proceedings is that individuals‑‑
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): You were not here.
Mrs. Carstairs: I was in the Chamber, with all due respect to
the Minister of Finance, when the member for
So we have tried to facilitate this
debate. I very carefully reviewed all of
the rulings that you cited, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the motion which the
government had put on the Notice Paper last Wednesday and addressed on
Friday. You talked about March 16, 1883,
and June 1, 1898, April 8, 1948, the 24th of April, 1961, and the 14th of May,
1964. None of these rulings, with the
greatest respect to your position, had anything to do with Estimates. They did, indeed, have to do with the aspect
of whether a motion could be introduced which would suspend the rules of the
House. That was true.
The issue that I want to deal with today
in the matter of urgent public importance is not the issue of whether we can
suspend the rules of the House; it is the issue of whether a parliamentary
tradition is being broken in this Chamber, as to the presentation of individual
Estimates without the presentation of the full and Main Estimates book.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that
we have not had an opportunity to debate that, nor will we have an opportunity
to debate that. I urge you to allow that
kind of debate to continue today because, without that, this House is in
serious jeopardy of creating a precedent which I would suggest to you is highly
dangerous.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) has
indicated that in this instance it would only be a week, or a week and a half,
but you, Mr. Speaker, stand up day after day after day, and you cite what has
happened on other occasions in other Chambers and in other Houses. Once this becomes a precedent of this House,
it can, not only be used in this Chamber, it can be used in other Chambers
throughout this country, in the House of Commons and in other parliamentary
systems of government.
We are suggesting that we are going to
establish a precedent in
I would suggest that is not a tradition
that we wish to have as a legacy to the parliamentary system, not only of this
province but of this country, yet that is what the Minister of Finance and the
government of the day are suggesting that not only should be possible but is
desirable.
* (1430)
Mr. Speaker, it is not possible now, and
it should not be possible today or any other day, because it desperately
infringes upon my rights as a member of the opposition to do my job to the best
of my ability. That is all I ask of
these members, that I be given the opportunity to do my job to the best of my
ability. I cannot do that by seeing an Estimate in isolation from all other
Estimates.
I would be irresponsible if I could not
say to the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), why are you being
cut in this way, if I do not know what has been cut in the Department of
Education or I do not know what has been cut in the Department of Highways or I
do not know what has been cut in Urban Affairs or I do not know what has been
cut in Rural Development.
How am I supposed to be able to make those
kinds of judgment decisions without that information?
Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to take this
motion extremely seriously and allow the members of this House to debate this
important matter of urgent public importance.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): I, first of all, want
to deal with the technicalities as to whether this is a matter of urgent public
importance.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): It is.
Mr. Ashton: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal House leader
(Mr. Lamoureux) says, it is, from his seat.
I believe it is your decision, Mr. Speaker, and this House's decision,
ultimately, as to whether it is a matter of urgent public importance.
In terms of the mechanism that was used in
this case, I am obviously satisfied. We
are satisfied that proper notice was given.
Mr. Speaker, without even getting into the question as to whether this
is important enough to set aside the normal business of the House, I would
point out that our rules‑‑I am reading from page 18, 27.(5)‑‑indicate
there are a number of restrictions in regard to matters of urgent public
importance. In particular, our Rule
27.(5)(c) says "The motion shall not revive discussion on a matter that
has been decided in the same session"; and "(d) The motion shall not
anticipate a matter that has previously been appointed for consideration by the
House, or with reference to which a notice of motion has previously been given
and not withdrawn;".
Mr. Speaker, I raise those two points
because it appears that some of the debate that took place in justifying it
referenced a debate that already took place last week in a matter of privilege,
took place yesterday in a point of order and yesterday in debate on the motion
to go into Committee of Supply for Estimates and also perhaps could be considered
to anticipate debate at a further point in time in regard to going into
Estimates.
I think the difficulty that we are facing
here, Mr. Speaker, in this particular case, is the Liberals want to make a
point. I think the more they get into
the procedural wranglings, the more they are losing not only their point, but
the point of the situation we are faced with.
I would say it is very clear that everyone in the opposition would
prefer to have not only the Estimates, the full Estimates book, but the budget
as well. There is no requirement the two be introduced concurrently, but we
would like to see the entire budget tabled.
We find it unfortunate that the minister, because his government is
continuing to cut back on a daily basis the vital services in this province,
has moved back the budget date and we are in this situation.
Mr. Speaker, the problem we run into in
this particular case is‑‑just take yesterday: 56 organizations had their funding not cut,
but eliminated, slashed by this government. We want to have the opportunity to deal with
those cuts as soon as possible. As I
said, in an ideal world, we would prefer to have the entire Estimates process,
but let us face the reality that if the budget date is on April 6 and we then
have the normal time period of debate, we will not be dealing with a detailed
Estimates discussion until well into the middle of April.
The bottom line is, we want answers
now. Not only do we want answers, we
want to be able to put this government on the spot and we want them to reverse
many of the kinds of vicious cuts they brought in and the kind of announcements
we saw yesterday, Mr. Speaker. So this
is the dilemma we all face in this House. It is a dilemma that I do not blame
the Liberals for in the sense that the government has moved back the budget
date and the government is making these kinds of cuts and does not have the
complete Estimates process.
Mr. Speaker, if the question comes down to
whether we should discuss the cuts that are taking place in Family Services in
the middle of April and have to hear the kind of responses we heard today from
the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), wait for the Estimates‑‑by
the way, he was incorrect when he said that we could ask questions on the child
care office; that has not been released by this government‑‑if that
is the choice, we would rather discuss the substantive issues than continue
with the procedural wranglings.
I appreciate the Liberals wanted to make a
point, but they have made it on the point of privilege, they have made it on
the point of order, they made it in debate yesterday. Mr. Speaker, today they can make the same
point in regard to the discussion on the motion to go into Estimates. All of the motions are debatable, and it is
well within their rights.
I spoke yesterday‑‑[interjection]
Well, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal House leader talks about being in
wonderland. The point is, these concerns
can be expressed in other ways. There is
no reason to have a matter of urgent public importance. If it had been a matter of urgent public
importance on dealing with cuts in Family Services, we would have been the
first ones to support it. We should not
be using MUPIs to raise procedural points that have been raised and can be
raised in other ways.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would
say to you that the Liberals are abusing the rule calling for an emergency
debate. I would end by telling you, in
my view at least, if this is ruled in order, then everything under the sun can
be used as a guise for emergency debate.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party, of course,
are very sensitive on this issue, because they are taking a beating in the
public mind, because they are embarrassed, because we know and they know that
we are chewing up $5,000 a day in being in this Chamber‑‑[interjection]
It is $10,000 a day, I am reminded.
Indeed, we have been sent here in the
spring session to work. Mr. Speaker, 50
members of this House, approximately, want to work and seven do not. Fifty are wanting to work, wanting to ask the
very critical questions dealing with the decisions and the rationale behind
some of the announcements made yesterday, but seven do not.
The Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs.
Carstairs) said we cherry pick departments.
Not true. We offered up the
economic side of the portfolio. That was
pointed out to me as being cherry picking, because we have not offered up a
human services department. We went in an
area where we had not even finalized decisions.
I tried successfully, finally, to get Family Services up, one section‑‑one
or two lines, Mr. Speaker, with a promise that by Wednesday or Thursday of this
week, the whole department's Estimates would be presented, so we could not be
accused of cherry picking, so there would be a major social department on one
side and an economic department on the other side, so we could not be accused
of cherry picking.
Mr. Speaker, the members say that we put
down one of their members because we moved a motion‑‑pardon me, we
stood our own motion. I say to the
members opposite, when they claim that they tried to facilitate debate, the
best word I can think of is hogwash.
Yesterday, the bells rang for two hours‑‑two hours, when the
members could have been debating the issue.
What took so long to decide how you were going to vote? Did it take two hours? No, the word is filibustering, nothing more‑‑pure,
unadulterated filibustering, nothing more.
When the members talk about the fact that they
are trying to facilitate debate, I say to the Leader of the Liberal Party, be
honest with yourself. You do not let the
bells ring for two hours if you are trying to facilitate debate‑‑and
be honest with all the members of this House.
Mr. Speaker, we stood debate. I acknowledge that. We adjourned debate, which is our right to
do. We adjourned debate because it was
obvious that members opposite were going to do nothing more than try to again
filibuster that debate. Then what do we
do? Last night at eight o'clock, we
came, which we are allowed to do under the rules, and tabled the sequence of
Estimates which we are allowed to do under the rules, in keeping with the
rules. The Liberal Party was offended
with that. They were offended with that,
because we were following the rules, the rules of this House, and they were
offended with that.
Mr. Speaker, from that we moved a motion
to set up the Committee of Supply and, yet, all the time when the Leader of the
Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) said they were trying to facilitate debate, I
saw two people, I heard three people who spent two hours trying to argue
against why it was that we should not set up a Committee of Supply to deal with
the issue.
* (1440)
So, Mr. Speaker, the member talks about
precedent. She does not want to see this
then be enforced on other Houses because of the fact it becomes a
precedent. We have a 240‑hour rule
which I would tell you is a precedent, because nowhere else in the land is 240
hours devoted to Estimates, yet nobody has seen fit that they have to follow
that model. If the Leader is so
concerned, I would say why then would not other Legislatures and other
parliaments put into place a rule prohibiting the fact that you take apart the
Estimates book, which can be done. Her
argument on precedent setting that is going to spread throughout the whole
commonwealth is wrong. It is absolutely
wrong.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are, again I say
to you, filibustering, plain and simply, under the guise of a point of
principle. I would indicate to you that
there is absolutely no urgency. There is
absolutely no case made as to why there should be a debate on this. Furthermore, I call this tyranny of the minority,
seven members. Mainly, I say to you that
the Liberal Party are desperate for an issue.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Speaker's
Ruling
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank all honourable members
for their advice as to whether the motion proposed by the honourable Leader of
the second opposition party (Mrs. Carstairs) should be debated today.
I did receive the notice required under
our subrule 27.(1) and according to our Rule 27 and Beauchesne's Citations 389
and 390, the two conditions required for a matter of urgent importance to
proceed are (a) the subject matter must be so pressing that the ordinary
opportunities for debate would not allow it to be brought on early enough; and
(b) it must be shown that the public interest will suffer if the matter is not
given immediate attention.
I would remind members that
"'Urgency' . . . does not apply to the matter itself, but means 'urgency
of debate,' when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the House
do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and the public interest
demands that discussion take place immediately."
I am ruling that there are other
opportunities to debate this matter; one, the House is now debating the motion
to create the Committee of Supply; two, there will be a debatable motion to
refer the tabled Estimates to the Committee of Supply; three, the member will
have the opportunity to grieve when the motion to resolve itself into the
Committee of Supply is moved.
Therefore, I am ruling that the honourable
member's motion does not meet the criteria set out by our rules and practices,
that is, there are other opportunities for the matter to be debated.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I challenge your ruling.
Mr. Speaker: The ruling of the Chair having been
challenged, all those in favour of sustaining the Chair, 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.
Mr. Lamoureux: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call
in the members.
The question before the House is, shall
the ruling of the Chair be sustained.
A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as
follows:
Yeas
Ashton, Barrett, Cummings,
Dacquay, Derkach, Dewar, Doer, Downey, Driedger, Ducharme, Enns, Ernst, Evans
(Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Filmon, Findlay, Friesen, Gilleshammer,
Helwer, Hickes, Laurendeau, Manness, Martindale, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh,
Mitchelson, Neufeld, Orchard, Pallister, Penner, Plohman, Praznik, Reid,
Reimer, Render, Rose, Santos, Stefanson, Storie, Sveinson, Vodrey, Wasylycia‑Leis,
Wowchuk.
Nays
Alcock, Carstairs,
Edwards, Gaudry, Gray, Lamoureux.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Yeas 44, Nays 6.
Mr. Speaker: The ruling of the Chair is accordingly
sustained.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would
you call Bill 2.
DEBATE ON
SECOND
Bill 2‑The
Endangered Species Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), Bill 2, The Endangered Species
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les especes en voie de disparition,
standing in the name of the honourable member for Flin Flon, who has 31 minutes
remaining.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, I began my remarks the other day
on Bill 2. I had only a couple of
additional comments that I wanted to relay to the minister through my remarks
dealing with Bill 2. Those related to some
concerns that have been expressed, I believe, to the minister directly. It has to do with, I guess, the purpose and
the meaning behind the wording changes, particularly those that reference
indigenous species.
I think generally the concern is that there
is a perception that indigenous species, of course, may be interpreted
differently. It is difficult sometimes
to put a time frame on what indigenous species may in fact be. Over a period, in terms of epoch, animals do
transfer, wildlife transfers. What was
one time indigenous to
There is a concern that we may be in fact
empowering the minister to do or to undo things which historically should not
be changed and, Mr. Speaker, that is, I think, a genuine concern, although I
have to say that personally I do not share that concern too deeply.
I think perhaps the minister, when we get
to committee stage, could perhaps clear up some of those concerns, perhaps by
just commenting from his own perspective on what that might mean and how those
things may be determined in the future.
With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I am
going to conclude and let someone else join the debate.
* (1550)
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Would you call Bill
3, Mr. Speaker.
Bill 3‑The
Oil and Gas and Consequential Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), Bill 3, The Oil and Gas and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant le petrole et le gaz naturel et
apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois, standing in the name
of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, Bill 5.
Bill 5‑The
Northern Affairs Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Downey), Bill 5, The Northern
Affairs Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les affaires du Nord, standing
in the name of the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain standing?
[agreed]
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Bill 8, Mr. Speaker.
Bill 8‑The
Insurance Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Consumer and Co‑operative Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh), Bill 8,
The Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les assurances, standing
in the name of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Bill 10.
Bill 10‑The
Farm Lands Ownership Amendment
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), Bill 10, The Farm Lands Ownership
Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la
propriete agricole et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois,
standing in the name of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).
An Honourable
Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would
you call Bills 11 and 12.
Bill
11‑The Regional Waste Management Authorities, The Municipal Amendment
and Consequential
Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), Bill 11, The Regional Waste
Management Authorities, The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments
Act; Loi concernant les offices regionaux de gestion des dechets, modifiant la
Loi sur les municipalites et apportant des modifications correlatives a
d'autres lois, standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr.
Clif Evans).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 12‑The
International Trusts Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), Bill 12, The International Trusts Act; Loi
sur les fiducies internationales, standing in the name of the honourable member
for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would
you call Bills 13 and 14?
Bill 13‑The
Corporation
Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), Bill 13, The Manitoba
Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi
constituant en corporation le Fonds de participation des travailleurs du
Manitoba, standing in the name of the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr.
Storie).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 14‑The
Personal Property Security
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister
of Justice (Mr. McCrae), Bill 14, The Personal Property Security and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant les suretes relatives aux biens
personnels et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois,
standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain standing?
[agreed]
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would
you call Bills 15 and 16, please.
Bill 15‑The
Boxing and Wrestling Commission Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), Bill 15, The Boxing
and Wrestling Commission Act; Loi sur la Commission de la boxe et de la lutte,
standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 16‑The
Public Schools Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. Vodrey), Bill 16, The Public Schools
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles publiques, standing in the
name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased this afternoon
to be able to speak to Bill 16, The Public Schools Amendment Act.
I must say, as well, that I was pleased
that the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) gave opposition members the
opportunity to be briefed on this particular bill by her deputy minister and
senior staff and, certainly, I appreciated that opportunity.
It would have been interesting if the critic
for the NDP had been at that particular briefing as well. I always feel that it is never too late to
learn and one can always learn more information. So I certainly appreciated the opportunity to
not only hear what the minister's staff had to say about the bill but in fact
to pose questions to her staff as well.
So I do thank the minister for that opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, The Public Schools Amendment
Act that this government has presented in the House I think is indicative of
the style of management that we are seeing from this government. We have
started to see since the fall when this House first came into session and the
throne speech a management style that borders on dictatorship. [interjection] I
hear comments from the member for Niakwa, who asked me to speak on the
bill. I guess I find the comments from
that member indicative similar to her comments last night where she seems to
perhaps lack sometimes the understanding of how you approach a subject from a
broader perspective and then talk about the details. That is how I plan to approach my comments as
I speak about this bill today.
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I believe
that this bill is indicative of the style of management of this particular
government, because what we are seeing is a government who is saying to the
education community out there, we want you to run your school divisions. We want you to run your organizations,
whether it is Manitoba Teachers' Society or Manitoba Association of School
Trustees. We want you to ensure that
education is delivered in a quality manner in the
What they are saying with this bill is, we
are going to take away some of that autonomy.
They are saying that they are going to put a cap on what school
divisions are able to tax their taxpayers.
They are suggesting, and I recall the minister saying in this House that
in fact she was doing this to ensure fairness across the system. Well, in fact, it does exactly the opposite.
It does not create fairness in the school system, in the education system in
this province.
We are starting to receive information
from school division after school division after school division, and they are
saying to us, this is basically creating an inequity from one school division
to another. Because of the way that this
particular amendment act reads, what will happen is that in fact there will be
a difference in the services which can be offered in one school division versus
another, so that in St. Vital School Division, their taxpayers may receive a
decrease in terms of the amount of tax that they are going to pay in relation
to schools, but they may not be able to provide the same level of services as
perhaps the River East School Division that may find that their taxpayers will
be paying 2 percent more. That is not
fairness in the system, Mr. Speaker.
That is definitely an inequity.
We also see a number of inequities between
the rural school divisions and the urban school divisions. What this bill does is it creates an
unfairness to the system, and that unfairness in the final analysis translates
to an individual child who is attending school being offered a very different
type of service, quality of service, from one school division to another.
What this bill purports to do is to say to
school divisions, we are taking away your autonomy to make decisions. I find that a great contradiction, because we
have the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) who also stands in this House and
who also says to Manitobans, we are going to no longer hire speech and hearing
clinicians to provide services out in the school divisions. You as a school division will now be
responsible to hire those specialists. We
are going to give you a grant of $45,000 to do that.
The reason that the minister uses for this
decision is she wants to give more control to the school divisions. Well, that is in direct contradiction to what
this bill, Bill 16, is saying. On one hand
she is saying, take more control. On the
other hand she is saying, we are going to take that autonomy and that control
away from you.
* (1600)
That is a basic contradiction, and I would
ask the Minister of Education and Training‑‑and I look forward to
hearing comments from the other ministers on this particular bill‑‑what
is the rationale behind what this government is doing in regards to education
and training? What is the purpose of
Bill 16 but to take away autonomy from the school divisions?
How can education and training be seen as,
and I quote, the keys to unlock a world of opportunity, unquote, as purported
by this government in their throne speech, when in fact they are tying the
hands of education officials, of teachers, of parents, of school trustees?
They are tying the hands of these
individuals in this province so that, in fact, they are making it very
difficult for these people to make reasonable decisions so that they can
deliver a quality service to our children in the
Mr. Speaker, what the real tragedy is
about this Bill 16, which is a symptom of how this government is treating
education in this province, is that it may not be the first year and the second
year and the third year of these policies that have the most impact, but the
impact will be seen perhaps in four and five years and down the road, right
until another generation of children come into the school system. That is going to be the real tragedy, where
the services that school divisions are able to offer will be so severely
impaired that the deterioration of education in this province will be so severe
that it will take decades to restore that to the
One looks at this bill and sees how this
government in a very autocratic way is saying to the school divisions, you are
only allowed to do X, Y and Z. We will
not allow you to raise funds in another way.
We have also cut back your funding.
This is not a fair bill because what happens is, although it is an
average of a 2 percent cap and there is an average of a cut in terms of the
Department of Education, that translates very differently depending on which
school division you talk to.
In some school divisions, the cut amounts
to less than 2 percent, but in other school divisions that cut in terms of real
dollars amounts to over 5 percent in some situations. How can school divisions be expected to
deliver a quality education service in their classrooms when their hands are
tied, when they are not allowed to make decisions, and when, in fact, there is
no leadership and no support from this government or from this Minister of
Education (Mrs. Vodrey)?
School divisions are beginning to say they
are going to have to have larger classrooms.
They are going to look at cutting services, such as special needs
services. Surely, Mr. Speaker, when it
comes to special needs, those children are some of the most vulnerable children
that we have in our education system today.
Even before these cuts, what we saw from parents out there and from
teachers who were involved with special needs children is the real difficulty
expressed by parents and teachers, a real difficulty because they said the
dollars and the services that are now available are still fairly sparse. They, in fact, do not meet all the needs of
our special needs children.
What happens, Mr. Speaker, when a government
forces education officials and educators of this province into a siege
mentality? What happens is that those individuals, whether it is at a
university level or within the public school system, are forced to protect
whatever it is they have left. They are
forced into a situation where it oftentimes becomes survival of the fittest;
and, when that occurs, the best decisions are not made for our children. Oftentimes, the decisions that are made are
based out of protectionism, and they are based on survival of the fittest. So
such programs and services for some of our most vulnerable children do not
occur.
When we look at Bill 16, The Public
Schools Amendment Act, this type of bill, I would suggest, is probably
unprecedented in recent history here in Manitoba in terms of this Department of
Education headed by this minister suggesting to the people of Manitoba that
they are going to take away the autonomy of school trustees who were duly
elected by their constituencies to do the best job that they could in terms of
providing a service in education. Those
school trustees, Mr. Speaker, want to do a good job. They do not want their hands tied. They want to be able to work with their
constituents. They want to be able to
talk to the people in their community and ask those individuals what the best
way is to deliver a service.
This government likes to stand up in
Question Period and in the House and talk about how this side of the House
suggests that we should spend, spend, spend.
Well, that is not true, because in fact we have not said that on this
side of the House. We recognize that we
have a crisis in terms of economic times not only in the
What we are concerned about‑‑and
this bill is a perfect example of that‑‑is the shortsightedness of
this government, the regressive nature of their policies. I use the word "policies" loosely,
Mr. Speaker, because I really wonder if in fact there is a policy framework
behind what this government is doing, other than the bottom line that they have
to try to reduce the deficit, and they have no thought to what the future is
going to hold for Manitobans.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
That is very, very unfortunate because in
1988, this government was elected, duly elected by the people of
We would have hoped that in fact they
would have started that process‑‑and I say in 1989 because I am
giving the benefit of one year to get their feet wet as a government‑‑at
least in 1989 that they would have started this process and actually taken the
concept of partnership, which they talk about so much in this House, and
actually put some teeth into what partnership really means.
Why did they not do this in 1989? Why did they not work with the people in the
education system? Why did they not come
up with a strategy as to where they wanted to see education move over the next
five years?
In 1992 we saw a throne speech from this
government in the fall that referred to education and education reform. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, we support
education reform. We supported health
care reform in this House. We were not
afraid to take the risk to do that, because health care reform was very important
and is important.
We support education reform. We very much support the idea that the
education system needs to be reformed in the
* (1610)
Well, you talk to any parent, any teacher,
any school trustee out there, and they will tell you that curriculum is
probably the most important thing that we need to be concerned about. We need to have curriculum that is on the
cutting edge. We need to be prepared to
have our children be competitive in the 21st Century. We are not going to be able to do that with
the regressive policies of this particular government.
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Like what?
Ms. Gray: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs
wants to know what‑‑[interjection] Name one policy. Well, I have to admit that it is a little
difficult to come up with some education policies from this particular
government. If I use the term loosely,
policies, one policy is obviously taking away autonomy from school
divisions. That is very clear by the
bill that is being presented, Bill 16‑‑very, very clear, that they
are taking away the autonomy of school divisions and school trustees.
It is also very obvious, when we talk
about policies of this government, that they support destreaming. They support the concept of destreaming, and
there are a huge number of parents groups out there who are right now trying to
lobby the minister to get her to possibly change her mind. It is also true that this government, in
terms of a policy, supports standardized testing across the province. We read that in the throne speech.
So these are all examples, I can tell the
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh), of policies that
this government has adopted. [interjection] Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, the
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs suggests the answer was not good enough. Well, I agree with her, because in fact all I
did was repeat what the government has come up with, and you are right, it is
simply not good enough. She is right on
when she says that.
This bill is very, very fundamental, not
just because of the capping that it will create across school divisions, not
because it is going to make the school divisions' task almost impossible in
terms of how they are going to come up with enough dollars just to maintain
services, but the fundamental point behind this bill is, again, to me, a
management style which indicates that now that this government is in a majority
situation, they basically feel they can do whatever it is they need to do to
basically reach the bottom line.
They do not care about the future of
children in our province. They do not
care what the consequences are going to be because their planning is on an
election cycle. So they may be concerned
about what they are going to do in the short term, but as the third party in
this House, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are concerned with what is going to happen
to the next generation of Manitobans, to the next generation of children in
this province. That is what we are concerned about, and that is what we feel
that Manitobans are concerned about.
I receive over 10 phone calls a day from
individuals who want to speak about education, whether they are teachers or
whether they are parents. I receive at
least two letters a day from someone across the
I will say it again to the member for
Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer), and I have had people from Minnedosa tell me, if
you have to make tough decisions, and it is a choice between having smaller‑sized
classrooms versus giving community services dollars to put roofs on curling
rinks, to put cross‑country warming shacks for people, I am sorry, but I
believe the people out in Manitoba will choose education. They will choose their children over those
kinds of services.
I know that there are communities across
this province, including the one that I come from in Virden, who have utilized
Community Places dollars, but those individuals, as well, are saying that in
fact if it is a choice between Community Places dollars and providing someone
in the school system to do counselling on substance abuse, they will choose the
individual in the school system to provide a service to children regarding
substance abuse versus building another curling rink.
That is what Manitobans are prepared to
do. Those are the priorities that
Manitobans want to see. They are asking
this government and they are asking this Minister of Education and Training
(Mrs. Vodrey) to take some leadership and start to work with the education
officials, work with the trustees, work with the parents, because it is very
difficult times, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is very, very difficult, and tough
decisions have to be made. We believe
that if we had an understanding from this government of where some of the
dollars are going to be going, i.e., if we had the Main Estimates to at least
know what the expenditures were as far as looking at the overall picture, we
would even be more informed and could indicate to the government if we, in
fact, support their priorities.
I recall the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard)
suggesting last night that there were not cuts to spending in regard to the
cuts that we have seen announced in Education, in Family Services and other
areas, but, in fact, there was going to be a reallocation of dollars.
Well, if they are not cuts and that money
is simply being transferred to provide other services, we would like to know
where those dollars are going. What are
the services that this government has prioritized? Are they going to be in the area of education
and training? Are they going to be in
the area of health care?
Education and training has to be
prioritized by this government. This
government talks about education reform; it talks about the importance of
it. This minister talks about consultation
with school divisions. I have yet to
talk to a school division in this province that has felt that the minister has
actually consulted with it.
She also suggests that her door is always
open. Well, there is a difference
between having your door open and receiving people. There is a difference between that and
actually showing leadership and actually taking the initiative to say, here is
what I want to accomplish; here is what I want to know.
The minister should be going out and
saying to these organizations and school divisions, I want to meet with
you. I want to talk to you about X, Y
and Z. Here is what our framework
is. Here is what our education reform is
all about. The minister should be taking
some leadership to go out and talk to school divisions, because we know there
are not going to be easy decisions that have to be made.
We are quite prepared, Madam Deputy
Speaker, to support this government if we feel that it has made decisions which
are in the best interests of Manitobans, particularly in the area of education
and training, because we are on the record as supporting this government in the
area of their health reform initiative.
We are not afraid to support this government on an education reform, but
we would like to see a plan.
What is the education reform that is
contemplated by this government? Is it
simply Bill 16? Is it simply The Public
Schools Amendment Act where they are going to be taking away the autonomy? Is that the policy that this government
purports for education and training?
We would be very happy, Madam Deputy
Speaker, if this minister was prepared to sit down with all of the school
divisions, to sit down with the officials from the Manitoba Teachers' Society,
to sit down with the organizations of parents out there and reconsider this
piece of legislation and reconsider it within the context of what exactly does
this government want to do in regard to education and training.
Let us know where the reform is to
be. Let us know what you are looking
at. Is the minister going to be looking
at curriculum changes? Is the minister
going to be looking at the existing funding formula? Is the minister prepared to look at the
taxation base and where we receive our dollars from for education and
training? Is the minister prepared to
look at the co‑ordination of services among Health, Justice, Family
Services and Education? Is the minister
prepared to look at that?
These are all areas within education and
training that should be part of an overall review, should be part of an overall
education reform. Is the minister
prepared to follow up on her promise to have a school division boundary
review? Is she prepared to follow up on
that?
* (1620)
What she has actually done with this bill
and with similar policies that she has created, she has actually said to the
school divisions, well, it is up to you to share resources. I force you to share resources because of the
lack of funding and the way I have determined that you will receive your extra
funding. It is actually up to you to do
that but you will have to come up with how you are going to share the
resources.
Again, she has forced them to do it in
very adverse circumstances.
What she should have done was said, we
need to review the entire structure of the Department of Education, of school
divisions and how they operate and the services that are provided. Let us have a reasonable review. Let us set up a system where we can logically
look at this, and let us all try to agree on what are the best ways to approach
restructuring of school division boundaries.
What is the best way to look at the services that are currently provided
to the Department of Education and Training?
Why was this minister not prepared to do
that, Madam Deputy Speaker? Why was she
not prepared to follow up on her talk about school division boundary
reviews? Now what she has forced‑‑she
has really created ad hockery throughout the school divisions because of her
approach to the education and training.
We find that simply unacceptable, and we believe that Manitobans out
there find that equally unacceptable.
We would ask that this minister please
reconsider her decisions, reconsider this piece of legislation, sit down with
the officials from the various organizations, talk to the people in the
communities, talk to school division officials, not just simply talking to her
cabinet colleagues, because with all due respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think
it is very important that she talk to people who work in the education system
and who know what will happen in education if she continues on this slippery
slope of regressive policies within the education field.
So we do urge that the minister review
this and consider withdrawing this piece of legislation. It is regressive. It is done without consultation. It was done in a manner which suggests
autocracy and dictatorship and not partnership, which this government likes to
purport. We would ask that it be
withdrawn and that in fact she reconsider it.
We are prepared to work with this minister to ensure that appropriate
education reform does occur in the
Thank you.
* * *
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy
Speaker, as we have completed all the bills before us, I wonder if you would
call private members' Resolution 9.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Resolution 9.
Point of
Order
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Madam
Deputy Speaker, because the government obviously has shown intent that they
would like to be able to debate this resolution, I would be more than happy,
with leave of the House, to introduce it on behalf of the Leader of the Liberal
Party (Mrs. Carstairs), and she will be up shortly, in which she can debate it.
If the government wants it debated during
government business, we will be more than happy to at least introduce it.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave of the House to permit the
honourable member for
Some Honourable Members:
No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: No.
Leave has been denied.
Mr. Manness: Madam Deputy Speaker, would you call then
Resolution 13.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Resolution 13.
Point of
Order
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very pleased to
hear that the government wants to debate the Liberal resolution, very pleased
to hear that. In fact, again, like the
previous one, I would be more than happy to introduce that resolution so the
government can, in fact, speak on that resolution, if there is leave of the
House.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the honourable member for
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been denied.
Mr. Manness: Madam Deputy Speaker, again I ask whether or
not‑‑well, no, I will not.
Madam Deputy Speaker, seeing the Liberals
are not in their place to debate their resolutions which I have called‑‑
Point of
Order
Mr. Lamoureux: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, the
government House leader is not allowed to say who is present and who is not
present.
I can assure him that we have more than 50
percent of our caucus here during government business. I only wish they had 50 percent of their
caucus here during private members' hour.
At private members' hour, when our resolutions come up, our members are
here, unlike the government.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order. It is a dispute over the
facts.
* * *
Mr. Manness: Madam Deputy Speaker, this is the greatest
percentage of Liberals I have seen in the House since the beginning of the
opening of the session.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would ask you to therefore
call Resolution 46.
Madam Deputy
Speaker: Resolution 46.
Point of
Order
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am starting to feel bad.
The House leader has forgotten the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), the
member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), the member for‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Is the honourable member for
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, on a point of order, Madam Deputy
Speaker, again, with the leave of this Chamber, I would be more than happy to
introduce that particular resolution or to debate any of the other four members
who are in fact here who would like to debate a resolution in government
business.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Does the honourable member for
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: No.
Leave has been denied.
* (1630)
DEBATE ON
PROPOSED MOTIONS
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I
am having great difficulty. I am calling
the Liberal resolutions. They are not
here to debate them. I have done them a
great service and, of course, they choose not to debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker, would you call then
the motion in my name, namely, that this House, at this sitting, will resolve
itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Point of
Order
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): The
government House leader had requested that we could have Resolution 9 debated and
was concerned in terms that‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for
* * *
Madam Deputy Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable government
House leader that this House, at this sitting, will resolve itself into a
Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty, standing in
the name of the honourable member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), who has 10
minutes remaining.
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very pleased to
continue my comments on this particular motion.
This particular motion is really
requesting that this House go into the Committee of Supply and discuss the
Estimates.
There is a particular problem with the
request that this government is asking.
The difficulty with the request is that in fact we do not have the
complete picture available to us as to what is the financial situation, what is
the financial position of this particular government.
They have tabled in this House to date
Estimates for the Department of Family Services, Estimates for Highways and
Transportation, Estimates for the Department of Agriculture, or some Estimates
for the Department of Agriculture. They
are suggesting to all members of this House that we resolve into the Committee
of Supply and that we discuss these three departments and not have an
understanding of the entire financial picture of this government.
We have already made a compromise to this
government because we have said to them, we recognize you may not have the
entire information regarding your revenue, we recognize you may not be able to
present your capital expenditures but, surely to goodness, this government
should be prepared to introduce the entire Main Estimates‑‑[interjection]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
I am experiencing great difficulty hearing the honourable member for
Crescentwood.
Ms. Gray: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Surely this government should be prepared
to table the Main Estimates so that in fact we can act as a responsible
opposition, so that in fact we can best represent the people of
It is very, very important that we have an
understanding of what the entire picture is because, and I quote exactly from
the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), who said in this Chamber last evening in
response to our concern about the recent press releases about cutting of dollars
and eliminating funds to a number of community organizations who we believe
provide services, whether it is friendship centres, whether it is the
Association for Community Living, whatever the agency, his response was, we are
not cutting funds, we are reallocating funds.
I said at that time, and I will repeat
again because it bears repeating, that in fact the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard) just proved our point and made very well the principle that we are
explaining in this House today. If in
fact they are not cuts as those examples of elimination of funds were
yesterday, if in fact those dollars have been reallocated to other areas within
the various government departments, have been reallocated for other priorities,
then we as a responsible opposition in the third party, we want to know where
those dollars have been reallocated to.
We want to be able to say to Manitobans, yes, we agree with that
reallocation of funds or, no, we do not agree, but we have not been afforded
that opportunity, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We have not been allowed to see a complete financial picture.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this government
talked about total quality management and certainly purports that, at least in
regard to health care reform, it is essentially an important way to go in
regard to planning, implementing and changing the health care system in this
province. I was looking through a book
this morning that Ernst and Young had prepared and I believe had presented to
this government on total quality management, and they talk about some of the
key factors, the key stages that are necessary in order to accomplish total
quality management.
The first thing that they talk about is
create a common understanding. Well, I
ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I ask the members of this House, how does
this government create a common understanding of what their goals and
objectives are, where they want to proceed with their budget, unless they are
prepared to give us the entire information?
They need to be prepared to give us the Main Estimates.
Let us know what the spending is across
the other 23 departments. Are there
similar cuts? Are there increases in
some departments? Are there increases in
some divisions, in some sections of some departments? What is the exact situation? If you are going to create a common
understanding which is the first stage of planning for total quality management
which this government purports to agree to, we need to have all of the
information. We need all of the data
that is available to us to be able to make reasonable decisions, to be able to
be responsive opposition.
The other thing in the planning stage that
this government says that they believe in, they say that you have to develop a
vision and you have to change strategy.
Well, in order to change strategy, Madam Deputy Speaker, you have to
know what the strategy is and you have to know what that vision is. How can one determine what the vision is of a
government which is responsible for 26 departments when in fact we only see a
snapshot of three departments? Is the
government suggesting that these three departments are in fact representative
of the entire 26 departments? We do not
know that. [interjection] Well, my honourable friend the critic for Education,
the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), says in fact that there is no vision.
There is just cutting and slashing.
You know, I really have to disagree with
the member on this. I really do, because I believe that in some indirect way
the government probably does have a plan and they have a goal, and they have
something in mind. The problem is we do
not know what it is, and Manitobans do not know what it is, because if in fact
their plan is that they have to reduce expenditures in all the departments
because revenues are so flat, if in fact that is the plan, then at least we
need to know that, and we will not know that unless we get all the
expenditures. [interjection]
Again, my honourable friend the member for
Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), when they stand up in this House, they talk about the cutting
and slashing. That is all they refer to,
yet I have not heard any solutions from the members in the official opposition.
I have not heard any solutions as to what are the answers, what are the
priorities.
We have not heard any priorities from that
side of the House on health care reform.
We have heard a lot of complaints about the way the government is going
in regard to that, but we have not heard any suggestions. At least we, on this side of the House, in
the third party, have offered suggestions in regard to health care reform and
we have more suggestions. We have
offered suggestions in regard to education reform.
We have at least suggested, let us start a
consultation process with people out in education. That means creating a common understanding
among all the stakeholders, and you cannot create a common understanding
amongst all the stakeholders, when you do not have all the information in front
of you.
I cannot believe that the ministers in the
government, particularly the ones who own small businesses or who are farmers
would ever make a strategic plan for one year or two years or five years unless
they had all the financial information in front of them. I cannot believe that they would do that.
I cannot believe that they would suggest
that any business would, in fact, only take the data and the information from
one division or one section, take it to their board of directors and say, well,
here is a little piece of the pie, this is what we are doing, now make the
decisions for the entire year. You tell
us what our goals are going to be, but we do not have the rest of the financial
information.
* (1640)
That is totally irresponsible. There is absolutely no logic to that. I really cannot believe that members on
either side of this House actually accept the fact that you should be making
decisions without all of the information.
It goes against every basic management principle that there is or there
ever was. I do not really believe the
members on each of the House are prepared to accept that.
Now, unfortunately, I saw a lot of
mismanagement when the NDP were in power, very much, so perhaps their
management principles are a little askew.
I can see that my time is running out and, again, I will close by saying,
we recognize what the principle is behind the government not bringing in all of
the Estimates. We are prepared to
work. Bring in the Estimates and we will
work. We will be responsible opposition.
Thank you.
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Madam Deputy Speaker, what a pleasure it is to
rise today on an important parliamentary debate. The member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine),
I think, and others in his caucus make light of this debate, but I recall
speeches in this House‑‑[interjection] Perhaps the member for
Sturgeon Creek would be quiet and he might learn something.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I wanted to give him
some words of wisdom from one Sterling Lyon, the erstwhile premier of this
province, the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. Sterling Lyon would
never, ever, ever have supported the type of convenience that this government
is seeking at the expense of the parliamentary process. He was first, foremost and always a defender
of the parliamentary process.
Mr. Manness: I will ask
Mr. Edwards: Well, I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) does defend it. Madam Deputy
Speaker, I think the Minister of Finance should have asked Mr. Lyon prior to
doing what he is doing here because he would have known clearly from that
former member, now member of the Court of Appeal, that governments come and go
but the parliamentary process must be preserved, and the integrity of the
parliamentary procedure, or we all lose and all Manitobans will lose. We should never, ever allow any government to
choose the convenience of the particular moment that they find themselves in
and at the expense of setting a precedent which will affect this province, this
Chamber, for all time, and, indeed, the parliaments around the world because we
rely on decisions.
We look at decisions from parliaments all
across the globe. We cannot allow this government to bastardize the process and
choose convenience over what is clearly convention. To bring forward a part of the budgetary
process without seeing the whole goes against not only parliamentary
convenience, but, as with most rules that stand the test of time, it is based
in logic, and the logic is nobody, nobody ever in any business or any
enterprise and, indeed, should not in any government attempt to debate the
whole with only part of the information.
I mean, that just makes sense, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is why this rule has been there for
decades and centuries, because it makes sense.
Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, this budget has
not come forward, of course, we know, because this government just has not got
its act together. It just does not know
where it is going. It does not have‑‑[interjection]
Well, the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) says that is true, but he is
supporting this government in their fiscal incompetence, Madam Deputy Speaker,
and the only possible reason for that is that he and his former government
wrote the book on fiscal incompetence.
It is no surprise then that they are in the same boat with the
government, supporting this type of piecemeal approach to the budgetary process
in this province.
The people of this province deserve
better. The people of this province
deserve to have the full picture, and until they have the full picture,
everyone in this province, and certainly every member of this Chamber, is fully
within their rights and, I would argue, under an obligation to demand that the
government come forward with its fiscal plan for the budgetary year.
What business would ever‑‑what
CEO or president would ever take to the board of directors about a part of the
process and say, let us start debating this aspect of the business without
giving the whole picture? You would not
do it. You just would not do it. It would not happen.
In every business that members on the
opposite side are involved in, every business enterprise, Madam Deputy Speaker,
they would never tolerate that. Not for
a second would they tolerate a detailed examination, which is what the Estimates
process is, without knowing the whole picture.
Why? As with any enterprise, and
this is no exception, there are interrelationships of necessity, and, indeed,
those interrelationships are proven time and time again, as members of this
House, as the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) recently said. He stood up and said: We are not cutting; we are reallocating.
Well, if that is what they are doing, if
we are going to debate the Estimates, we have to know where the money is going.
We have to know where it is coming from, where it is going to. Anybody who has
ever sat through Estimates knows that that is the gist of what we are
doing. We are not just talking about
cutbacks. We are talking about where
money goes, how it is spent, who is cut more, who is cut less. That is the gist of the Estimates process.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is just logic,
that is just common sense, and that is being sacrificed for the convenience of
this government because of their fiscal incompetence. They cannot come forward with a budget, they
cannot tell the people of this province where they are going, they do not
know. They are hiding, they are asking
us to bypass a convention which has stood the test of time, and why? Because they cannot get it together. That is
it. That is the only reason, and that is
not good enough. I dare say, their own
predecessor, Mr. Lyon, would never, ever, ever have stood for this. He defended the parliamentary process in this
House first and foremost, and this party is a shadow, is a shadow of what he
stood for in this House on the issues of parliamentary process.
Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, proof, of
course‑‑just an example of the interrelationships between the
departments is the fact that this government and other governments regularly
take whole branches and whole divisions and move them between overall
departments.
Some examples in my experience: Corrections went from Family Services to
Justice; Workplace Safety and Health was Department of Environment, went to
Labour. It made sense, but the fact is,
these are not stand‑alone branches.
They have interrelationships between the various areas of government; of
course they do. When you get into these
branches, when you get into these departments, any review of any hour of
Hansard in the Estimates process will reveal that all kinds of other
departments and considerations and branches are brought into the process. That is just the way it works.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister in one
department that I am responsible for, Highways and Transportation, did bring
forward the Estimates book in that department.
There was a desire to get into Highways and Transportation. Well, let me just remind the Minister of
Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) that a lot of the debate we had last
year was about Rural Development.
Highways and Rural Development are linked down the line.
The review of Hansard from last year's
Estimates will show that. We were
constantly comparing and the minister was constantly defending his Highways
program in terms of what was happening to Rural Development. He used it constantly. He brought in Agriculture as well. He brought in recreation and Tourism to talk
about highways and defend them, and this money was being spent here and this
money was being spent here. He was
drawing the web of the interrelationships between these departments, and that
is legitimate, that is logical. That is
what he was doing, and we were asking him questions on that.
Now this government wants to bring in
Highways and Transportation and have us talk about this $93‑million budget
for a new Highways program. He wants us
to bring that in, and we do not have any information about Rural Development;
we do not have any information about Tourism, Madam Deputy Speaker.
[interjection]
The member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) says,
let him tell us. Well, is the member for Dauphin saying that we will just let
them tell us whatever they want to, we do not demand any documentation to
substantiate what they are saying? Is he
saying he puts his implicit faith in every word that is going to come out of
the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) saying, oh, well, do
not worry, you will see. I am going to
be bringing money from Tourism. I am
going to be covering that, or I am going to be bringing money from Rural
Development. He believes in these people
to do that?
He has been so brought into the fold on
this that he wants to sit here and put it to these ministers and let them just
tell us whatever they want, and he is not‑‑[interjection] Trap
them. I see. Good thinking.
* (1650)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I dare say, the
member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) knows full well. He is talking tongue‑in‑cheek. He knows full well that this is wrong. He knows.
He would never have tried to do this when he was in government because
he knows it is wrong. It is
illogical. It is unparliamentary. It does not make sense. It is just wrong. [interjection]
Well, I think what people expect of the
official opposition is to defend the parliamentary process because, you know
what, the parliamentary process works first and foremost for the
opposition. We are here and we have
rules to allow us, the opposition, to do our job. We keep the government in check. That is our
job. That is why we are called the
opposition. We are supposed to do
that. We are not supposed to cave in
when they want to bend the rules because if it is this rule today, it will be
another rule tomorrow. [interjection]
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is always a treat
to hear from the member for
I feel badly for him, because I think he
probably would like to say some things on the record, but they have a muzzle on
him somewhat like they did the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik). He is paying his dues and probably hoping for
better things in the future, but it has not worked for others. His predecessor, the former member for
There is a point at which one has to
assert one's own right to stand up for one's constituents. I have yet to see the member for Portage la
Prairie (Mr. Pallister) do that, but I look forward to the day he does come out
of his shell, do what the people of Portage la Prairie elected him to do,
because I know those people in Portage la Prairie. They are freethinking individuals. They want a spokesman for their cause. They do not want some lap dog for the Premier
(Mr. Filmon). They want a spokesperson,
and that is what they had in the former member, and they want it again.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I await the day the
member for
It is very important, and I know the
Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme) knows as a businessman that it
is important to have all of the facts before you before you attempt to
determine spending priorities.
Now, obviously, for the government to have
come up with the Estimates for these three departments, they have made those
choices. They had to have. How could they make decisions about Family Services,
and Highways and Transportation, hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars
without looking at the whole picture? Of
course, they did. That is exactly what
they do before they come up with these things.
Why are they hiding? More importantly, what are they hiding? That is what we would like to hear. Why not show us the whole‑‑what
are they afraid of? Let us see the whole
show. Let us see where they made the
cuts, where they put money. That is
their right. I have no problem with
that. They control the fiscal future of
this province. They do that. That is their right, but it is their
obligation to come forward publicly to the people of this province with the whole
picture.
That is their obligation, a parliamentary
obligation, as I say, which has stood the test of time, not just for a few
years, a few decades, a few centuries, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are talking about throwing that to the
wind. [interjection] I hear others making strange noises on the other
side. That is not that uncommon in
itself, but as I have told the member for
I am prepared to‑‑[interjection]
Well, if the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) is going to speak, I am
certainly prepared to have him take the floor.
As soon as I am finished with my comments, I very much look forward to
that member's comments because he has made many, many important comments in this
House. He regularly puts very intuitive
comments on the record, the member for La Verendrye does. I know he will have some thoughts about this
as a man of principle. When I am done, I
look forward to his comments because it is an important debate.
I dare say it is an historic debate, I
think. We are talking about undercutting
a tradition which has become, I think, a convention over time in the
parliamentary procedure. It is
unprecedented. I go back‑‑I
think it is unprecedented mostly because it just makes no sense. As with most good rules that stand the test
of time, they have logic at their base, as does this one.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
We have an obligation to the people of
this province as opposition members to have these debates to assess the record
of this government, and we can hardly wait to do that. We cannot do that until we have the whole
picture. For the member for
If anybody in his department came to him with
this kind of piecemeal approach, they would be out the door if he was doing his
job, out the door, and told, go and get me the whole picture. Go and tell me all, show me the
interrelationships which have led to this budget in front of me. There is no obligation. In fact, there is no right on this government
to come forward in the type of piecemeal approach they have. I want to know, Mr. Speaker, I want to know
what they are hiding, because they could not have come forward with the
Estimates they have without having a good look at the Estimates for the whole
shooting match. They had to see the
whole procedure to come up with these Estimates. Where are they?
How come other provinces can come up with
these in due time? It is not the federal government. Other provinces do not have that
problem. How come this province
does? How come this government, which
has attempted to build its reputation on fiscal responsibility, Mr. Speaker‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House,
the honourable member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) will have 21 minutes
remaining.
* (1700)
PRIVATE
MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., time for Private
Members' Business.
DEBATE ON
SECOND READINGS‑‑PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 200‑The
Child and Family Services Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), Bill 200, The Child and Family Services
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services a l'enfant et a la
famille, standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms.
Wowchuk), who has seven minutes remaining.
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Also standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Family Services
(Mr. Gilleshammer).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing in both members' names?
[agreed]
Bill 203‑The
Health Care Records Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis), Bill 203, The Health Care
Records Act; Loi sur les dossiers medicaux, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
Bill 205‑The
Ombudsman Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), Bill 205, The Ombudsman Amendment Act; Loi modifiant
la Loi sur l'ombudsman, standing in the name of the honourable member for
Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
SECOND
READINGS‑‑PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Speaker: Are we proceeding with Bill 202?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Are we proceeding with Bill 208?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Are we proceeding with Bill 209?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: Are we proceeding with Bill 211?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: Okay.
PROPOSED
RESOLUTIONS
Res. 7‑‑Free
Trade With
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): I move, seconded by the member for Dauphin
(Mr. Plohman), that
WHEREAS since the Free Trade Agreement
with the United States was signed, Manitoba has lost thousands of jobs, with
employment in the manufacturing sector showing a decline of more than 20
percent; and
WHEREAS the Premier of Manitoba clearly
stated his opposition to free trade with Mexico during the 1990 Leader's
Debate, saying, "I am not going to be supporting free trade with
Mexico"; and
WHEREAS the Premier then changed his
position, indicating that the government of Manitoba would support a Free Trade
Agreement with Mexico if the deal met six conditions; and
WHEREAS the Government of Canada has
concluded an agreement in principle with the United States and Mexico that
represents a serious threat to the workers and residents of all three
countries; and
WHEREAS none of the conditions outlined by
the government have been met in this agreement; and
WHEREAS many Manitobans continue to have
grave concerns about the formalization of the North American Free Trade
Agreement and its impact on workers' wages and benefits; and
WHEREAS there has been no public
discussion about the elements of the North American Free Trade Agreement; and
WHEREAS the government of
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Premier to state his final position
on the Free Trade Agreement signed with Mexico and the United States, including
whether the agreement meets the six conditions he established last year; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly
unanimously oppose the North American Free Trade Agreement because it will mean
fewer jobs and lower employment and environmental standards; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Assembly
urge the government to consider holding public hearings throughout the province
to discuss the dangers of the North American Free Trade Agreement for Manitoba
jobs, industry and social programs; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this
opposition be voiced to the federal government in the strongest possible way.
Motion presented.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a touch dated
in the sense that since we have raised the questions in this Chamber on NAFTA
on a number of occasions, the government has, after the parliamentary committee
has come and gone from Winnipeg and Manitoba has taken an on‑the‑one‑hand‑and‑on‑the‑other‑hand
position on NAFTA‑‑and I will get to that very specifically.
This resolution calls on the government to
be a little stronger, a little firmer, but I will concede that since this
resolution was placed before this Chamber, the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) has put together a position on NAFTA.
Now, it is interesting to look through the
very cleverly worded position that was tabled in this Chamber some three months
ago on NAFTA by the minister, because the six conditions are dealt with, but
you have to really take a look at the six conditions and you have to translate
these sort of quasi‑weasel words in the resolution of the minister and
put those against the actual six conditions to really determine what the
minister is really saying about NAFTA.
Mr. Speaker, I will ask you whether the text
of the agreement dealing with the apparel industry is contrary to the
government's six conditions or supported by the government's six conditions in
the NAFTA agreement. I suggest to you
that when you look at the minister's six conditions, the minister is not
objecting to the apparel provisions of NAFTA, the triple transformation, in his
statement in this House.
When you look at things like the generic
drug industry, it is referenced in the minister's statement‑‑I am
going by memory right now, but it is referenced in the minister's statement‑‑but
of course that is in the context of the NAFTA agreement and, as we have pointed
out to the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and
to all and sundry, that of course will override any federal legislation on
generic drugs, and we all allegedly are concerned about the jobs in the generic
drug industry in Manitoba and the cost of health care in terms of the NAFTA
agreement‑‑again, very clever words by the government on the issue
of generic drugs.
The government does agree with the
position we have taken before when we cited the Sierra Club and Mr. Pope from
the Sierra Club in the United States and environmental groups in Canada that
the environmental protections that they had set out as one of their conditions
is not being met. I applaud the
government for that condition.
I also will say that the labour standards
is also a provision that this government has stated as one of the conditions,
and again they state that that issue needs further work.
Mr. Speaker, I was quite surprised then,
because it looks to me as if the government of the day is not taking a
Conservative position on NAFTA; i.e., unfettered free trade, corporate trade,
whatever you will. It is not taking a
New Democratic position to be opposed to the removal of sovereign investment
decisions in
That is why I was quite‑‑[interjection]
Well, the member must be flattered that the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) have kind of gone down the
middle of the road on this NAFTA agreement‑‑very, very clever in
his statement. I guess that is why they
had to wait for the‑‑I hope that amendment is out of order. I hope the minister is not talking to the
Speaker in the middle of our speech about whether this amendment, which he is
surely not going to move, is in order or not.
Mr. Speaker, it is a very carefully worded
statement. I have to say, we were
absolutely pleased that we had half a conversion on the road to
Mr. Speaker, this is fairly
important. We were pleased that the
minister came up with a statement, but we were very disappointed how late he
was. We were pleased that the minister
was reviewing this issue, but we were disappointed that we had to table the
drafts in this House, the
I recognize that there is not a total
consensus in
Mr. Speaker, many of the groups that also
appeared before that committee were opposed to NAFTA and were opposed to it for
very, very good and sound reasons. I
refer the minister to the Environment Committee of Manitoba and its
presentation on the environmental impact of NAFTA on the province.
Since then we have received a tremendous
amount of information on the impact of NAFTA on water, that, of course, being a
very precious commodity. Some of the
colleagues across the way fought on water protection years ago in the Garrison
Diversion project, and we should have fought against the loss of sovereignty
and water in the Canada‑U.S. trade agreement, but we should certainly
stop that now in NAFTA.
Mr. Speaker, I am worried that the
Conservatives in this House and in
* (1710)
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, what are they going
to do with the federal Conservative government?
Why did they refuse to release their own position on NAFTA until after
the House of Commons committee had left town?
Was that because they did not want to be offside with the Mulroney
Conservative government? They had the
document since August of 1992. They did
not present their position until well into December of 1992, coincidentally a
couple of days after the parliamentary committee had gone.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that we are
left with the only conclusion on that process, that the government did not
really want to take a position and offend their Conservative cousins in
What are they doing now on the leadership
convention? Are the Manitoba
Conservatives making the issue of free trade and NAFTA an important issue in
the Conservative leadership convention?
When I hear members opposite talking about running federally, when I
hear members opposite talking about what candidate they are going to support
federally, are they making it a condition?
Are they saying to Kim Campbell, we do not want to go with NAFTA. I am not going to support you unless you
oppose NAFTA on behalf of Manitobans? Or
are they going to do the hallelujah Conservative chorus with all these
leadership candidates, Mr. Speaker, and jump on the Conservative bandwagon?
[interjection] There we have it, the hallelujah Conservative choir right over
there.
It does not matter whether Kim Campbell or
Patrick Boyer or Jean Charest or somebody else is going to be the Leader of the
Conservative Party. They obviously do
not care. They are not making this a condition. They do not care at all, Mr. Speaker.
Now look at what is happening in the
What are the members opposite going to do
about it? Oh, they are going to amend
this resolution with a self‑serving amendment saying how great they
are. I can say, how great thou art, and
they are going to say that they are right here with us in this battle, but I am
waiting for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) to stand
up to his federal Conservatives. I am
waiting for the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to stand up to the leadership contenders
and say that this Manitoba Conservative Party will not support any candidate
for leadership unless they stand with the Manitoba Legislature and be opposed
to the NAFTA agreement. Then we will
believe that members opposite are sincere.
Mr. Speaker, we believe that NAFTA is even
worse than the Canada‑U.S. trade agreement. The countries that are doing well in the
world, they have liberalized trade. I
have absolutely no problem with opening up trade, no problem whatsoever. We are a trading country. We are a trading province. I would ask the minister, when he talks about
his trade statistics, do not just talk about exports, talk about imports. Do not just talk about the percentage of
money increasing, talk about the deficit of trade, because deficit of trade is
key.
I am pleased that our deficit of trade
should decline right now with the
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, if I could have a little order
here.
Mr. Speaker, we believe that the Canada‑U.S.
trade agreement and the extension to
Secondly, it deals with the resources,
period. Why would we want to give away
resources? Even Margaret Thatcher did
not give away North Sea oil in the
We are opposed to NAFTA because it does
not allow for a government to make sovereign investment decisions. You cannot have a job strategy, you cannot
have an economic strategy without a sovereign investment strategy. That is clear.
We are opposed to NAFTA because it does
not have any ability to raise the environmental standards up and to raise the
labour standards up. It has only an
ability to lower the standards, which we believe will result in negative
impact.
Mr. Speaker, we believe that the
government should be much stronger in its opposition to NAFTA. We believe the minister should not be moving
a self‑serving amendment here in the Chamber today, in his predictable
way.
We believe the government should stand up
to the Mulroney Conservatives and stand up to all the Conservative leadership
candidates.
Is there going to be a real change in the
federal Progressive Conservative Party or are we going to see more of the same,
the big corporate agenda for the Conservative Party and a bad trade agreement
for Canada and a bad trade agreement for the people, I believe, of Canada,
United States and Mexico?
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I too rise to speak on this
motion, motion No. 7 regarding the issue of free trade with
I will not read into the record again‑‑I
do not know how many times it would be‑‑the six conditions that we
as a government have put on record, going back to June and July of 1991 when we
formulated a position on the proposed North American free trade.
I should indicate again that was after
extensive consultation with Manitobans from all sectors, from all groups,
whether it was business, labour, academia, or whatever field it might be. We met with them and we consulted with them
because ultimately they are the people who are going to have to live and work
with any proposed North American free trade agreement.
It is interesting to note that we put
forward that position back in July 1991.
We have consistently taken the message to federal‑provincial trade
ministers' meetings. In fact, I would
suggest that we were the first province to come out with a clear position in
terms of the concerns that we had relative to North American free trade. Unlike many of the other provinces in
We brought focus to very important issues,
and I am glad to see that the focus that we brought to them ended up getting
the support of parties like the New Democrats and the Liberals from across
Canada, in fact, the members in this House supporting some of the very
important conditions that we put on record.
When the Leader of the Opposition made his
comparison between Liberal positions, Conservative positions, NDP positions,
Jean Chretien, I was a little confused I have to admit in terms of what he was
saying about the New Democratic Party. I
got the impression at that point in time, when he was talking about
Conservatives supporting liberalized trade and New Democrats having concerns,
that he opposed the liberalization of trade, that he believed in putting up
barriers around Canada, believed in putting up barriers around Manitoba and had
no confidence in Manitobans, in the ability of Manitobans to compete in the
Canadian context or in the global economy.
I am glad that at the tail end of his comments, he seemed to clarify
that, that he did, if I heard him correctly, say finally that in many respects
they do support liberalized trade.
* (1720)
I am pleased to hear that, the recognition
that that is fundamental to the economy of
I am also pleased to see that after we had
put forward this position back in July of '91, we carried it to the federal‑provincial
ministerial meetings, we corresponded with the federal government on many
occasions on our position, we sent them copies of our declaration here in this
House, we sent them copies of correspondence on individual concerns, whether it
was the apparel industry or whether it was Bill C‑91 in the
pharmaceutical industry. We have
continued to put forward the concerns of this government and the concerns of
Manitobans.
Finally, in December of 1992, it was with
some pleasure that I noticed again that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer)
made a presentation and, by and large, his submission paralleled the concerns
that we had been putting on the record, that we had been putting forth in this
House on many occasions.
I have a copy of the presentation on the
North American Free Trade submitted by the Leader of the New Democratic Party
and the Trade critic and, once again, they get into areas very much that we had
already put on the record on many occasions, read into the record, answered
questions of the Leader of the Opposition and the Trade critic.
Environmental standards‑‑the
position outlined in this paper parallels the concerns that we had put
forward. Labour standards‑‑the
issues here parallel the concerns that we had put forward. So I was pleased to see that they are
supporting the position that we have taken in terms of recognizing the concerns
and what is required to truly make a fair and equitable trading agreement.
It is also interesting to note the
reaction now in the
I have to go to a couple of specific
issues that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) touched on, because I am not
sure he does a service to the issue if he tends to muddy the waters and not be
crystal clear on certain aspects of the agreement.
He has raised the issue before, as had the
Liberal Party, on the issue of water exports.
I want to clarify my understanding of the proposed North American Free
Trade Agreement in that particular draft document.
There is no mention of water in the body
of either NAFTA or the FTA text, but water is listed in the tariff schedules as
Item 22. It is clear that the kind of
water in Item 22 is primarily natural or artificial mineral waters and aerated
waters, whether containing or not containing some sweetener. Ice and snow are also explicitly mentioned
because there may be some bagged or party ice.
I have to point out that there is nothing
whatsoever in either NAFTA or the Free Trade Agreement which would require
Canada to divert a body of water to the United States, just as there is nothing
which would require Canada to issue a mineral licence for a particular body of
ore or a cutting licence for a particular stand of timber.
However, even if what the Leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Doer) and others have hinted at was true, that there was a fear
of the diversion of some body of water from
Article 409 of the Free Trade Agreement
states that either party may maintain or introduce a restriction otherwise
justified under articles, and it goes on at length. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion Article
409 has the effect of allowing
The point I am making when I speak to water
very specifically, and I know it is a genuine concern of Manitobans and of
Canadians and rightfully so, but in terms of this particular draft agreement I
have outlined already, my interpretation and my understanding of the agreement
is also provided by officials within my particular department and officials
from across Canada. I think to paint a
suggestion, that again, whether it is a water issue or any other natural
resource or any aspect of a trade agreement, to paint a picture of something
being to the detriment of Manitoba or Canada that is inaccurate, if that is the
case, does not do justice to the process or to the agreement or any aspect.
So I would caution all members, whenever
we talk about an agreement of the magnitude and detail of a proposed free trade
agreement that we are accurate with our comments. I am suggesting that in the area of water
some comments have been not necessarily entirely accurate and have led to some
concern and confusion unnecessarily, Mr. Speaker.
In terms of our outstanding conditions,
Mr. Speaker, in December of last year I outlined again our analysis of how the
final text met our original six conditions, and we said at a minimum at least
three fundamental conditions were still not met‑‑the issue, as we
have already talked about, of labour standards, the issue of environmental
standards, and the issue of adequate adjustment provision. We outlined that in some detail again here in
this House, forwarded a copy of that text directly to the federal minister of
trade and had the opportunity at trade minister meetings to put forward that
position and that concern on those kinds of occasions. So, once again, I know from the feedback that
I have had from the federal government, our position is perfectly clear, to
quote other members of this House, and there is no doubt in the minds of the
federal government the position of our government and the genuine concerns that
we are expressing on behalf of Manitobans.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer)
referred to the issue of no public hearings, Mr. Speaker, and I would encourage
him to take a look, if he has not already, at the position paper that we tabled
in this House back in December, and the Appendix A which is attached to it
which goes into detail outlining the extensive consultations that took place
with, again, individuals across this province, whether it was the Manitoba
Fashion Institute, the Canadian Manufacturers Association, the Winnipeg Chamber
of Commerce, the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business, the Canadian Export Association, Winnipeg 2000, the
Manitoba Federation of Labour, the Electronics Industry Association of
Manitoba, the Software Association of Manitoba, Prairie Implement Manufacturers
Association, various companies like New Flyer Industries, Motor Coach
Industries, Manitoba Printing. I could
go on and on and read the additional four or five pages.
Mr. Doer: What about my next‑door neighbour? Does he get a chance to speak?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Doer) refers to his next‑door neighbour.
I could also read names that are attached to these organizations, and I
would assume one of them might well be the Leader of the Opposition's next‑door
neighbour.
To suggest that there is a difference
between individuals who represent organizations and other Manitobans, I find
that a stretch that is bewildering, because these are all individuals who live
here in our province, they work in our province, they raise families in our
province, and one of them might well live next door to the Leader of the
Opposition. One might live next door to
anybody else in this House, but without reading the names, we are talking about
hundreds of individuals who live in this province and are concerned about the
future of this province and came forward expressing their position on the North
American Free Trade Agreement, the proposed North American Free Trade
Agreement, and clearly spoke, I believe, on behalf of their sectoral
organizations but also Manitobans as ordinary Manitobans, as neighbours of all
of us and as concerned citizens of this province.
So I think, in concluding that our
position has been consistent, we have not done this in an ideological fashion
like potentially other parties in this Chamber, most notably the comments from
the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) that even though, on the one hand, he
expresses the need for liberalized trade and the opportunities it creates for
Manitobans and the need for Manitoba to participate in that kind of an
environment, he still falls back to the staid, old position that they have
always had that, no, we are not prepared to support, we just unequivocably are
not prepared to support any expansion of trade agreements.
We were saying this particular agreement,
we have concerns about it. We are not
prepared to support it until the conditions we have put forth are
addressed. Some of them have been
addressed. Some of them are still very
much outstanding and need to be addressed.
So I am somewhat concerned about the comments of the Leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Doer).
I am pleased to hear his support for the
conditions that we put forward and the support for our position on labour
standards, his support for our position on environmental standards, his support
for our position on adequate adjustment provisions. That is encouraging because we have talked
about the need for co‑operation and the need for support. I am pleased that he is supportive of those
positions that we have taken. He even
went so far as to table his position at a parliamentary committee hearing and
again supported primarily most of the issues that we have already put on
record.
* (1730)
Having said all of that at this time, I am
pleased to move, seconded by the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau),
THAT Resolution 7 be amended by deleting
all words following the first "WHEREAS" and replacing them with the
following:
WHEREAS the government of Manitoba
recognizes the existence of a global economy and supports measures to increase
trade of goods and services by Manitoba firms; and
WHEREAS the government of Manitoba has
established mechanisms to encourage innovation through the establishment of the
Economic Innovation and Technology Council to facilitate the necessary changes
to foster competitiveness; and
WHEREAS the government of Manitoba
indicated its general support of liberalized trade involving Canada, the United
States and Mexico subject to fulfillment of six conditions; and
WHEREAS the government of Manitoba tabled
a Position Paper on the proposed North American Free Trade Agreement (referred
to as "NAFTA") before the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba in
December 1992; and
WHEREAS the Position Paper indicated that
the government of Manitoba shall withhold its support of NAFTA until and unless
the Government of Canada fully addresses the enforcement of labour and
environmental standards and ensures the adequate funding of comprehensive
labour force adjustment measures; and
WHEREAS the Position Paper was developed
after broad consultation with Manitobans.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba support the position of the government of
Manitoba withholding support of the North American Free Trade Agreement until
and unless the Government of Canada has adequately addressed all six conditions
outlined in the Position Paper; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly
support the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism in conducting further
discussions with the Government of Canada to ensure that all necessary measures
are taken to address labour and environmental standards and to provide
comprehensive labour force adjustment measures under the proposed North
American Free Trade Agreement.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the
opportunity to speak on this very important issue.
Point of
Order
Mr. Doer: The resolution tabled by the minister,
notwithstanding his self‑congratulatory statements, Mr. Speaker, is‑‑the
substance of his resolution and his amendment is substantively different than the
resolution that calls for opposition to the proposed NAFTA.
The request to just support the six
conditions of the provincial government alone is quite different than opposing
NAFTA. I believe that that is
substantially different from the resolution, and I believe, Sir, that you
should rule the minister out of order with this self‑serving amendment.
Mr. Speaker: I will be reviewing the amendment, and I will
decide in a moment whether or not it is in order.
Mr. Doer: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the
motions are quite different. One calls
on this Legislature to oppose the NAFTA agreement totally in the RESOLVED. The other RESOLVED is clearly asking the
Legislature to support the position of the government of
So, Mr. Speaker, I think you should rule
it out of order.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable Leader
of the Opposition for his advice on this matter. We will decide in a moment.
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would argue very strongly that the amendment is in fact in
order. The point that the Leader of the
Opposition raises I would propose is really a moot point.
If one opposes free trade, one must have a
reason to oppose it. I think what this
resolution does is define the parameters on which this province would either
accept or reject it. It defines further
the resolution moved by the Leader of the official opposition.
Mr. Speaker: The Chair is considering the amendment at this
point in time, and I thank again all honourable members for advice on this
matter.
On the points of order raised, I would
like to remind all honourable members of Beauchesne 567: "The object of an amendment may be either
to modify a question in such a way as to increase its acceptability or to
present to the House a different proposition as an alternative to the original
question."
Therefore, it has been moved by the
honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), seconded by
the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau),
WHEREAS the government of Manitoba
recognizes the existence of a global economy and supports measures to increase
trade of goods and services by Manitoba firms; and
WHEREAS the government of Manitoba has
established mechanisms to encourage innovation through the establishment of the
Economic Innovation and Technology Council to facilitate the necessary changes
to foster competitiveness; and
WHEREAS the government of Manitoba
indicated its general support of liberalized trade involving Canada, the United
States, and Mexico subject to fulfillment of six conditions; and
WHEREAS the government of Manitoba tabled
a Position Paper on the proposed North American Free Trade Agreement (referred
to as "NAFTA") before the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba in
December 1992; and
WHEREAS the Position Paper indicated that
the government of Manitoba shall withhold its support of NAFTA until, and
unless, the Government of Canada fully addresses the enforcement of labour and
environmental standards and ensures the adequate funding of comprehensive
labour force adjustment measures; and
WHEREAS the Position Paper was developed
after broad consultation with Manitobans.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba support the position of the government of
Manitoba withholding support of the North American Free Trade Agreement until,
and unless, the Government of Canada has adequately addressed all six
conditions outlined in the Position Paper; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly
support the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism in conducting further
discussions with the Government of Canada to ensure that all necessary measures
are taken to address labour and environmental standards and to provide
comprehensive labour force adjustment measures under the proposed North
American Free Trade Agreement.
The honourable minister's amendment is in
order.
* (1740)
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, with regret, I am going to have
to speak against the amendment. The
reason for that is not that I do not respect the competence of the
minister. I do. I think that he has, by and large, been
forthright with the members of this House, but the fact is that his amendment
calls for us to support his and the government's activities on this
matter. The problem with that is not so
much the six conditions. Six conditions,
we could come up with more, but the problem is that we just have not seen the
results of anything that this government has done in getting those six
conditions in place. It is just a
government that has not had any impact, and that is the problem.
When I first came to this House, we were
in the throes of dealing with another international matter, and this
government's inability to‑‑not this minister, he was not in the
House then‑‑deal with that and protect Manitoba's interests, I
think, belied the fact that this government talks a different line here than it
apparently does when it is discussing things with Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, of course, I am talking about
Rafferty‑Alameda.
I remember, and I know the NDP have some
explaining to do on this one, too, but when we came to this House, the ministers
at that time in the fall of 1988 gave us the same type of rhetoric. They talked
about defending
When the facts came out, embarrassingly
for this government, in court, the truth was revealed. The document came forward and what it showed
was
Now this party, our party, and I believe
in freer trade. There is no question about that. We need a worldwide move towards freer trade.
[interjection] The member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) points that out.
Mr. Speaker, the only problem with this is
that the Conservative government in
Mr. Speaker, there have been all kinds of
discussion about what has happened since free trade and how much of these
current economic problems we can tie to free trade. Probably people on both sides of the debate
are bringing in extraneous factors, unfairly, but I think when you cut away
those irrelevancies on either side of the debate you are still left with the
fact that we are seeing an economic restructuring taking place in our country.
We are not just seeing a recession when
things are down and they are going to come back. We are seeing manufacturing industry jobs
leaving this province, which we will never get back. We are seeing structural change. You only have to go to the industrial
companies, not only in this province but in
You know, Mr. Speaker, business is like
that. It goes where it can make the most
money. I understand that. If I was in business‑‑and I have
done lots of work with business people.
I understand that their primary goal is to make money. They want a profit because if there is no
profit you do not survive. The bigger
the profit is, the more chance you have for re‑investment and growth and
more jobs. That is the point‑‑and
the more taxes you pay.
Mr. Speaker, government's role is not to
stifle that business. Government's role
is also not to let the business community direct our future with unbridled‑‑without
some restraint. Government has a role to
play in containing and controlling some of the unfortunate consequences of
business being allowed to, at all cost, chase the almighty buck. We have a role to play. We cannot abdicate that role.
Mr. Speaker, the problem with the Free
Trade Agreement is that it simply opens
Our resource base is our ace, if you will,
Mr. Speaker. That is what we had. That is what they do not have. What have we done? We have essentially gone to the
Mr. Speaker, if you are in a manufacturing
industry, you are employing‑‑it is a labour‑intensive
industry. Where are you going to go to
expand? If you can get natural resources
from this country for the same price as if you are here, if you can get them
south of the border, your labour cost is your biggest cost. Any manufacturer will tell you that.
Manufacturing and industry, the major cost
is labour, and you are going to go where your labour cost is lowest. You are going to go where you can deal with
your labour force with the least restriction.
You are going to go where you do not have to worry about pollution, you
do not have to worry about the restraints of workplace safety and health
legislation. You do not have to bother
with those things. The added advantage
for these people is that they can go closer to the major population centres
which they mostly serve.
We have given up any right to control
profit making from our resources. We
have given up any right to demand that in return for providing this abundance
of resources, we get some jobs and some investment. We have given that up. That is the fundamental problem with the Free
Trade Agreement in my view, Mr. Speaker. We just got it wrong. We gave up the only thing we had, the only
leverage we had to keep the jobs in this country.
I remember companies coming to us in the
heat of this debate and singing the praises of expansion: Just give us the Free Trade Agreement. We are going to win, we are going to win big
and we are going to expand.
Do you know what has happened to those
companies now? If they did win at all,
if they did make money, they expanded all right. They expanded in
Oftentimes the Free Trade Agreement is
defended by saying, well, look at the Auto Pact. The Auto Pact has been wonderful. We have
achieved so much. We have built
Free trade has none of that. This agreement has none of that. That is the problem, and these same people in
the last gasping days of their tenure in office in
Mr. Speaker, on the international market‑‑and
I know the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) has had many discussions about
the impact of restricted trade on agriculture, agricultural subsidies. There are all kinds of problems. We acknowledge that and agree with that. We want to see the worldwide community deal
with these things effectively, obviously.
So why did we go and get‑‑and I really believe, swindled‑‑swindled
in a free trade deal with the
* (1750)
Why are we entering into those arrangements
with those countries without the guarantees that our interests will be
protected, that our resource base will not go for free to those nations to
develop their manufacturing industry and to create jobs for their people and
bigger profits for their companies?
We have essentially doomed ourselves
through this arrangement to forever be the hewers of wood and the drawers of
water. That is what we are doing. We have essentially said, that is fine. We
will just be the ones who, if you will hire us, we will help you just extract
the resources and take it somewhere else.
That is what we have done, and it is wrong.
Again, I do not say that this minister is
not being forthright with us in the House; I think he has been. My problem is they just have not done the
job. They just have not gone and taken
what they have said in this House and been tough with the government in
Mr. Speaker, as a result, it is with
regret that I am not able, and our party is not able, to support the
government's amendment on this resolution.
Thank you.
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this
debate opposing the amendment introduced by the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) and, ultimately, to support some of the ideas that we
have just heard from this side of the Legislature.
There is no question that the North
American Free Trade Agreement is a serious threat to the sovereignty of
Canadians know full well the extent to
which we have lost jobs because of the Free Trade Agreement with the
We have seen our industrial base being
seriously eroded. We have seen it right
here in the
I give you one example from my own
constituency, Marr's Leisure Products, manufacturer of fibre boats. Their main market was in central
They moved the entire plant from the city
of
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that we
have lost jobs. You can look at the town of
There are other examples as well that one
could cite chapter and verse of important manufacturing jobs that have been
lost because of the Free Trade Agreement.
The
They would vote against the proposed North
American Free Trade Agreement because what they would see, what they fear is
simply more job losses, more shifting of industries, more shifting of
manufacturing plants out of this country south to Mexico.
We have seen already what has happened in
part of
It is a very natural thing to shift your
business, to shift your industry to the low‑wage areas but, Mr. Speaker,
there is a lot more to it than that, and the Americans have expressed their
concerns. In fact, I would not be
surprised whatsoever if the American government finally did not go along with
the agreement as we now know it.
President Clinton has indicated a great
number of concerns about the environmental impact, about the impact on the
health and safety standards and, of course, on the threat to jobs
themselves. There are powerful interests
in the American congress who are now stating publicly that they are not happy
whatsoever with NAFTA and would be very happy to see it completely defeated.
So I would not be at all surprised, Mr.
Speaker, if the American government itself does not proceed with this
agreement. The sad part of the matter is that the present government, in its
dying days, Mr. Wilson, the Minister of Trade, is determined to push it through
the House of Commons even though opinion poll after opinion poll after opinion
poll indicate that the Canadian people do not want NAFTA, they do not wish the
Canadian government to go ahead with the North American free trade deal, but
Mr. Wilson and Mr. Mulroney and the existing government is determined to force
it down the throats of the Canadian people, force it down their throats, in a
very, I would say, undemocratic fashion.
What we have with the proposed North
American Free Trade Agreement is really a new economic and social constitution
that is redefining the powers of all levels of government, federal, provincial
and municipal and, like the original Free Trade Agreement with the United
States, NAFTA will, if enacted, become entrenched as a supreme law with powers
to override not only federal but provincial legislation as well.
It is based on a vision of the
As we were falsely promised under the
original Free Trade Agreement with the United States that we would have jobs,
prosperity and protection, as I indicated, after more than three or four years
of the free trade agenda, where we found that it has not been in the interests
of Canada, we now see the federal government attempting to extend and enhance
the Free Trade Agreement to become the NAFTA agreement.
So really, the NAFTA agreement is a
refinement of the Free Trade Agreement, and it is not a vision, Mr. Speaker,
which provides for sustainable development in the future in the interests of
Canadians or Manitobans.
We have had the full impact of the free
trade vision, we have had the Tory agenda, the so‑called neoliberal
agenda for the continent and the hemisphere.
I say, Mr. Speaker, it is a vision which is not in keeping with the best
interests of this country and of this province.
As I indicated, the real significance of
the free trade, NAFTA agenda is that it supersedes our ability as a nation to
determine our own destiny. For example,
if we believe that a sustainable agricultural sector is an essential component
of our vision of future development, we must accept that NAFTA restricts our
ability to design national programs and policies, it restricts our ability to
design provincial agricultural programs and policies. We must be subservient to this agreement.
Secondly, it restricts our ability,
federally and provincially, to deliver programs which best meet our needs, the
health and welfare programs that our people want and deserve. We will be restricted. Our efforts there will again be subservient
to the economic interests of the marketplace.
Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, if we as Canadians
or as Manitobans try to protect our rich natural resources and access to energy
in an environmentally or economically sustainable manner, we must accept that
NAFTA guarantees other countries equal rights to our resources.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for
Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) will have six minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House now
adjourns and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).