LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday, March 17, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of
the honourable member (Mr. Cheema). It complies
with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules
(by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition
of the undersigned residents of the
WHEREAS the principles
of health care, namely the universality and comprehensiveness, should apply to
the Pharmacare program; and
WHEREAS the Pharmacare
program's effectiveness is being eroded; and
WHEREAS in the most
recent round of delisting of pharmaceuticals, approximately 200 have been
delisted by the government of
WHEREAS the strict
submission deadline for Pharmacare receipts does not take into consideration
extenuating circumstances which may have affected some people; and
WHEREAS pharmaceutical
refunds often take six weeks to reach people; and
WHEREAS a health
"smart card" would provide information to reduce the risk of ordering
drugs which interact or are ineffective, could eliminate "double prescribing,"
and could also be used to purchase pharmaceuticals on the Pharmacare program,
thereby easing the cash burden on purchasers.
WHEREFORE your
petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly urge the government of
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker,
I am tabling today the 1991 Annual Report of the Manitoba Human Rights
Commission. The report has a cover, and
on the cover, is an important message for honourable members‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
NOTICES OF MOTION
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister
of Environment): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to table‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is there leave to revert to Ministerial
Statements and Tabling of Reports? [agreed]
TABLING OF REPORTS (continued)
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the 1992
Annual Report for The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation and the 1991‑92
Annual Report for The Clean Environment Commission.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the
Quarterly Financial Report, first quarter, Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation, and also an instructive booklet on Provincial Tax Comparison
throughout this country as of 1992.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Student Financial Assistance Program
Alternative Programs
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader
of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I asked the Premier a question on student social allowance programs,
a program that trained young people who were on welfare and provided them the
kind of innovative assistance to get on their feet and have an economic future.
At that time the
Premier did not answer the question. His
minister did not answer the question in talking about tough choices.
I would like to ask the
Premier, in light of the fact that he said yesterday that the decision to cut
all the social services was based on alternatives for people, what alternatives
for education and future job prospects will these people have with the cutback
by the provincial Conservative government that they announced on Monday?
Hon. Harold
Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I refer to the member's words on
Monday when he indicated there were difficult choices to make. This was one of the difficult choices.
For many of these young
people who are trying to finish their high school, they can remain at home with
their parents; others can access other support from programs within the
Department of Education and other sources.
* (1335)
Social Assistance Training Allowance
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader
of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker,
the rate of poverty and the increase in poverty in
Mr. Speaker, these
cutbacks are affecting the most vulnerable people in
Three years ago the
government announced in the budget that they would have training grants of some
$7 million as part of the reductions in the payroll health and post‑secondary
tax, the payroll tax.
In light of the people
who are most vulnerable in our society today, would the government reconsider
its priorities and reinstate the training allowances for people on social
assistance so they can get jobs, and reallocate that money from the corporate
grants that the government has announced?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker,
the member opposite keeps railing away against the training that is being
invested in upgrading the human resources capability of hundreds of
corporations and companies in
This government came up
with an innovative program to do that.
It has been working. There have
been thousands and thousands of Manitobans who have been trained and benefited
from that program. Now, I cannot
understand why the member opposite wants that program cut. It just does not make sense.
Student Financial Assistance Program Funding
Elimination Impact
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader
of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the $7 million is being spent for many companies that are not
increasing their workforces. Some
companies that are getting this training money from the government, were they
paid for it before? It may be a nice
luxury for the government to provide these training grants. Were they paid for that before? In tough times, perhaps the people who are
most vulnerable should be protected, rather than the people who are the least
vulnerable.
My question to the
Premier is: What is the long‑term
cost benefit for the
What is the long‑term
impact of that cutback of the Tories versus the long‑term economic impact
of the $7 million in training that they are now providing to these corporations
in
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker,
the only person who speaks just straight from his biases every day is the
member opposite. We all know that he has
an antibusiness stance that he brings to every Question Period, that he brings
to every statement he makes, for every comment he makes. His biases show, and we know and understand
those biases. But, what he is asking us
to do is to cancel the program that provides an incentive and an encouragement
for business‑‑
Some Honourable
Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Funding Elimination Impact
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker,
the Manitoba Foster Family Association have been negotiating a new agreement on
basic maintenance rates for the care of foster children. The Memorandum of Agreement commits both the
government and association‑‑and I quote from their Memorandum of
Agreement‑‑to maintaining and enhancing a working relationship
based on trust and good will.
How can this Minister
of Family Services say this in the Memorandum of Agreement and then cut the
funding to the Foster Family Association?
Hon. Harold
Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the member
yesterday, one of the major functions of the Foster Family Association was the
training of foster parents. I have
indicated that child welfare agencies are responsible for recruiting and
licensing foster homes, and at this time we are asking them also to be
responsible for the training of those foster parents.
I met with the agency
presidents and executive officers yesterday and working with our department and
with some existing funding, we think that this is a workable solution.
* (1340)
Per Diem Negotiations
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr.
Speaker, why did the minister not respond to the letter of the Foster Family
Association of March 4 in which the Foster Family Association said that they
understood that negotiations were completed successfully on January 11? Why did he respond by cutting the per
diems? Why did he respond by cutting
their‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Hon. Harold
Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I indicated yesterday that even
with the small reduction in the daily fee for foster parents of $2,
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, the problem is the cut
was nearly 10 percent and parents are saying how are they going to provide for
these children.
Funding Reinstatement
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Will the Minister of Family Services reverse the decision to cut funding
to the Foster Family Association, a valuable organization which provides
advocacy, training and support for foster families? Does he really believe that his department
can take over all those functions being carried out now by the Foster Family
Association?
Hon. Harold
Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, the short answer is no. We will not change that position, but the
member has not been listening to the answer. The department is not taking over
the training function. The agencies who
currently recruit and license those foster homes will now also do the training
of those foster homes and foster parents.
Funding Elimination Notification
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I went this morning to meet in person with the Manitoba
Anti‑Poverty Organization, a place I have visited frequently in the past,
but I wanted to go back today to meet with them with respect to the impact of
the decision made by the Minister of Family Services. At that meeting, they told me that the
minister himself had been there for a visit about a week and a half, two weeks
ago, and they had outlined for him the effect of their organization, the
programs of their organization.
Can the minister tell
me today why he did not tell them then that they were going to have their
funding from his department completely eliminated?
Hon. Harold
Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, we would love to get into the
broader discussion of these issues in the Estimates process.
Funding Alternatives
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on January 8 the minister wrote
to the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty Organization. He congratulated them on having presented a
budget which was identical to 1992‑93.
He asked them if, in his appreciation of their efforts to really try and
limit their cost increases, that he would ask them to look if they could take
even a little bit less‑‑no indication that they were going to have
no funding whatsoever.
Can the minister tell
this House today how he expects this organization to fund themselves when two‑thirds
of their funding came from the grant of the province?
Hon. Harold
Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, the many inaccuracies and misunderstanding
that the member exhibits would best be handled through the Estimates process.
* (1345)
Meeting Request
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, today the Premier received a request from the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty
Organization. The request was
specifically that the Premier meet with this organization and its board.
Is the First Minister
going to accept this invitation or does he lack the courage to meet with those
who advocate on behalf of the poor of the
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker,
speaking of lacking courage, we have the Leader of the Liberal Party who lacks
the courage to debate the Estimates on the entire Department of Family
Services. We know the games that are
being played by the Liberal Party, and that is why they are the third party and
sinking like a stone.
I do not lack the
courage to meet with anybody, Mr. Speaker. I will have to examine my schedule.
APM Management Consultants
Contract Tabling Request
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
The minister has
publicly stated that he will make public the tender and produce the contract
entered into between the government and Connie Curran and/or APM associates.
Will the minister
undertake to table and make public not just the contract but the four or five
contracts that are negotiated and may already have been entered into between
the government, Connie Curran, St. Boniface Hospital and/or the other
institutions that our government is negotiating on behalf of?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated to my
honourable friend, yes, we are in discussions with that organization. When we conclude and receive approval, if in
fact we do, I will be pleased to make my honourable friend fully aware of the
contract, its importance if it is entered into, et cetera, and the full
rationale, should that process be concluded, to him for his information and for
Manitobans' interest.
As I speak to you, Mr.
Speaker, my honourable friend does not have accurate information, wherein he
speculates that a contract has been completed and signed. That is not accurate, Sir.
Expenses
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker,
can the minister then advise this House under whose auspices Connie Curran flew
in two months ago? Under whose auspices
is she flying in for tomorrow to speak to a conference? Who is paying for her expenses if she does
not have a contract between the minister and herself? Is she doing it of her own free will?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I realize my honourable friend
may not have a significant understanding of basic business principles. When any organization approaches any business,
any government and attempts to sell their services and the advantages of their
services, to do so they often come to those to whom they proposed their
services. That is the case in which APM,
Connie Curran has been in the province at her own and her business's expense.
Surely my honourable
friend would not expect the government of
My honourable friend
again is wrong in some of his allegations, Sir.
* (1350)
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, my final
supplementary to the same minister is:
Is the minister saying that no expenses and no monies, to this point in
time, have been paid to Connie Curran or are being intended to be paid to
Connie Curran with respect to all of the visits she has had up here, the six
consultants who flew up two weeks ago and some of the negotiations and the
projects that supposedly are already in the process of being undertaken?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker,
supposedly and allegedly and possibly and well who knows, for the member for
Kildonan.
Mr. Speaker, in terms
of the specifics of the question that my honourable friend has posed, is the
province paying for any of the expenses to negotiate a proposal‑‑no. Has the province paid Dr. Curran to come up
and meet with nurses and other organizations in health care in the past unrelated
to this contract‑‑yes.
I want to tell my
honourable friend, the reason for that is that the nurses of
In further discussions
with nurses, we also have provided support to have her in here for a daily
consulting basis a couple of times, but not, as my honourable friend alleges
and tries to do the public impression that we are paying a negotiating cost.
That is balderdash and false, Sir.
Oak Hammock Marsh
Wetland Development
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, this government does not seem to understand that the ends
do not justify the means with these cuts.
Mr. Speaker, I have an
article from the USA Today newspaper. It says that it is the first in daily
readership‑‑
Some Honourable
Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, this paper was sent
to us by concerned environmental organizations.
They are concerned about the poor reputation that this government is
forging for
I want to quote Monte
Hummel, who is in the article, of the World Wildlife Fund. They are concerned about the destruction of
prime waterfowl habitat near
That is a quote from
Monty Hummel. Of course, they are
referring to the way that this government manipulated the Clean Environment
Commission hearings.
My question is for the
Premier. Can the Premier explain his
answer to my question, when I raised this issue the other day, when he said the
people of this province want to have their wetlands developed, and how pouring
concrete and sewage from more than two‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker,
in conjunction with the project, 160 acres of wetland habitat were added to the
Oak Hammock Marsh in return for a dozen or so acres that were removed. That is the way in which wetland habitant is
added and developed in
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, I would like the
Premier to explain the cost of cutting the organizations like the Federal‑Provincial
Parks Council and the Ecological Council as opposed to the cost of paving
Highway 220, which goes into the marsh, and this as a direct subsidy to Ducks
Unlimited, and what that cost the taxpayer‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Filmon: I wish the New Democrats could
get their act together. Her Leader just
yesterday condemned us for reducing highway construction. Now she says that we are spending too much on
highway construction. Get your act
together. Come on.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, I hope
that the minister can understand that this is a highway in a wildlife
management area and a parking lot in the wetlands.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate. The honourable member, with her question.
Ms. Cerilli: I would ask the Premier: Are they or are they not going to spend more
money from the current budget coming up that will go to paving more area in Oak
Hammock Marsh?
Mr. Filmon: What the member opposite does not
understand, aside from her not understanding what a provincial road is, is that
this project went through a process that was set up under legislation passed by
the New Democratic Party in government, an environmental assessment, a review
process, with full public hearings and participation of experts on all sides,
the most thorough review of its kind that was ever conducted in this province.
Following that review,
and following the analysis of reams and reams of material, a decision was made
under the auspices of the act and the process that was laid out by the New
Democratic Party when they were in government.
All aspects of it met all the tests and all the requirements, and she fails
to understand that.
* (1355)
Pharmacare Double Benefits
Mr. Gulzar Cheema
(The Maples): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
This morning on CJOB,
Mr. Peter Warren pointed out that a multimillion‑dollar double‑dipping
scam is going on in our Pharmacare system, and that is in the community of Flin
Flon.
Can the Minister of
Health tell this House how long the department has known about this scam?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, this anomaly, or this difficulty
with people receiving in effect a double benefit from the Pharmacare program
has been, I think, fairly wide knowledge for some time. We have attempted over the last couple of
years‑‑and I realize that sounds like an interminable amount of
time to try to come to a solution which can protect the taxpayers of
Mr. Speaker, I have
some confidence that we are approaching within the next number of weeks that
solution, and it will be part of initiatives that will receive announcements in
due course.
Mr. Cheema: We were astonished to
learn that the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) was asking that the money
received by the Flin Flon resident be diverted to another fund. Rather than correcting the problem, he has
been reported as‑‑[interjection]
Mr. Speaker, it seems that‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, somebody is very
sensitive because they know they have not corrected the problem here.
Can the minister‑‑[interjection] Well, keep on laughing
for millions of dollars.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question, please.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, my
question is to the Minister of Health.
Can the Minister of
Health tell us, what are the special steps he has taken to correct this double‑dipping
problem?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, there is one option
which ultimately I may have to bring to the House, except I am hopeful that I
do not have to necessarily bring in legislation which would require co‑operation
from all members to pass. My preference
is to attempt to use the existing regulatory authority, and quite frankly, Sir,
that is where we have had substantial debate, over whether the initiative,
which is inappropriate, can be curtailed via regulation under the existing
legislation. That is my preference
because I think it achieves what everyone wants in terms of protection of the
taxpayer in this instance.
Pharmacard System Implementation
Mr. Gulzar Cheema
(The Maples): Mr. Speaker,
can the Minister of Health tell us whether now he will introduce the Pharmacare
card system, and also the health "smart card" system, to make sure
these problems do not occur in the future?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, yes, that is certainly initiative
that is again‑‑I will give my answer to my honourable friend. The announcement that was in this throne speech
to introduce this session introduced the concept of a health card. It is the hoped‑for intention that we
not narrow the introduction of that card only to the Pharmacare program, but
that that card have utilization or value across the health care system,
physicians' offices, optometrists' offices and others who routinely bill the
system.
I think there is some
desire on behalf of many care providers.
I recently met with the family division of physicians in which several
of the members of that family division of medical doctors asked if we would in
fact have the card wide enough to include their services, Sir.
* (1400)
Flin Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre Inc. Review
Mr. Jerry Storie
(Flin Flon): Mr.
Speaker, my question is the Minister of Family Services.
In a March 15
information release from the government of
Mr. Speaker, the
minister has reported in the press to have said that there was a review of the
circumstances in Flin Flon prior to this callous decision.
Can the minister now
tell this House who did the review? Will he table the results of that review
for members of the Legislature?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, what I have indicated is that we
have to look at these services on a regional basis, and when we look at the
Norman region, it has similar services to other regions of the province. I indicated in the Westman area of the
province that all of that area of the province relies on the shelter in
I would also mention
that one of the additional services in the Norman region is through the Victims'
Assistance Fund. They have provided the
RCMP with some funding to develop a victim assistance program in that area, and
a half‑time co‑ordinator has been hired with responsibilities to
access the shelter in The Pas or other services that may be required by
individuals in that area.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, this minister
intentionally misstated the facts when he suggested there was a review.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would tell the honourable member for Flin
Flon that "intentionally misstated" or "intentionally
misleading" does not quite fit in this Chamber. I would just simply ask the honourable member
for Flin Flon to withdraw that remark.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, I did
not realize "intentionally misstated" were unparliamentary
words. I did not say
"mislead," but I will withdraw the words.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the
honourable member for Flin Flon.
Funding Elimination Justification
Mr. Jerry Storie
(Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, the minister left the impression that the department had
done some sort of objective review of the circumstances in Flin Flon that
require a crisis centre. I have a letter
that I would like to table from Reverend Brian Bigelow, who is the chairperson
of the Flin Flon Crisis Centre, in which he says there was no review, no
consultation with the crisis centre staff or the board before this decision was
made.
Will the minister now
acknowledge that this was a politically motivated decision that is denying the
benefits that should be there to the women and children who are in abusive
situations in Flin Flon?
Hon. Harold
Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, what I have indicated is that
Family Dispute Services, the area of my department responsible for the shelter
system, has been involved with all of the services provided by shelters and
resource centres and safe homes and abuse committees throughout the
province. We have indicated, and I
indicated the other day, that we looked at this on a regional basis and that
the Norman region has services similar to other regions of the province.
Review Tabling Request
Mr. Jerry Storie
(Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker,
I call the minister's bluff.
Will the minister table
any information, any internal departmental review, any objective review of the
circumstances in Flin Flon that would warrant the withdrawal of services that
are critical to life and death situations when it comes to family abuse in the
Flin Flon area?
Hon. Harold
Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I have acknowledged, as the
member's Leader has acknowledged, that very difficult decisions have to be made
within this budget and that our Family Dispute Services have worked with all
areas of the province. I indicate to you
again that the Norman region has services similar to many other areas of the
province.
Grain Transportation Proposal
Method of Payment
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Can the minister tell
us today the results of that meeting? I want to ask him, has he made a
decision? Can he tell us what his
position is? Is he now supporting
retaining the payment the way it is or is he supporting the idea of paying the
producer?
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, yes, as we normally do every
three or four months, the ministers of Agriculture met.
That discussion
involved, as I say, the
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, the
issue of the method of payment is very serious for farmers.
Will the minister tell farmers
today what the proposal is that he is supporting? How does he propose that money will be
transferred to the farmers? Farmers are
being held in limbo. We have here a
government who is saying that‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, what is
really going on is that the costs at the farm gate are going up and up. I guess the member supports that. I do not support that. I want to keep the costs down. We are looking at the whole system, from farm
gate to consumer, how to reduce the costs so the farmer has an opportunity to
have a viable income from the overall grain industry, that is, a simple
question like that.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, since
this was a very sensitive issue amongst farmers last year when the public
meetings were being held and farmers were so divided on the issue, will the
minister take his position to farmers and again let them have a say? Will the minister lay very clearly on the
line what the consequences of these changes that he is proposing are going to
mean to farmers?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, the member should
speak to her counterparts in another province and find out that the discussions
have not led to any proposals yet. There
are a lot of issues on the table. There
are many dimensions. We have a changing
global marketplace. More and more grain
from
Maybe we should do some
other things to promote the production of commodities in
I can tell you, Mr.
Speaker, no proposal is ready to be taken to the farmers on any particular
angle. The whole issue is very complex.
I see a resolution
later this afternoon. I will be
interested to see if the members of the old‑think or the new‑think,
at five o'clock this afternoon‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Eye Examinations
Insured Services
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): Mr. Speaker, the eye is the light of the body. If the eye is good the body will be full of
light.
Effective January 1,
1993, the government, the Health Services Commission has restricted eye
examinations, every two‑year period, only one eye examination.
My question is directed
to the honourable Minister of Health.
Will the honourable Minister of Health consider the failing health of
senior citizens as one of the valid reasons that could justify ensuring
adequate eye examinations within the two‑year period?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the provisions and the
regulations around that change in routine eye examination provide for that
service.
Mr. Santos: Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question.
What procedures are in place
to monitor the effect of this restriction adequately so that no eye patient
with some concern not presently covered by the approved list of the commission
will be placed into unnecessary risk or hazard and fall into the cracks under
the regulations?
Mr. Orchard: First of all, Mr.
Speaker, my honourable friend has to understand that a number of other
provinces have provisions which are similar.
In other words, they provide as an insured service a routine eye
examination once every 24 months.
Our regulation in
general provides that provision of service but has established a number of
medical conditions for which Manitobans, whether they are newborns through to
seniors, for certain medical conditions, can receive more frequent eye
examinations based on medical need.
The last time I checked
the responsibility of government and Ministers of Health, it was to try and
provide insured services to meet medical need, and Sir, with this change we
have some confidence that we have done that in terms of the conditions which
are provided in the regulation to meet medical needs of eye examinations more
frequently than the routine eye examination of once every 24 months.
Mr. Santos: Mr. Speaker, if, under certain
situations, there are certain medical concerns not presently recognized by the
Health Services Commission as a valid medical reason, and if experience proved
that there was a real medical reason, would the honourable minister be open‑minded
to expand, at least, all exemptions?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the
process that we went through in terms of establishing the medical conditions
which have been included in the regulation.
I apologize, Sir, in
not being able to provide off the top of my head the medical conditions for
which we are providing additional coverage beyond the routine coverage of one
examination every 24 months, but glaucoma, cataracts and a number of conditions
are within those. I think that sort of
investigation has been reasonably undertaken by the ministry in co‑operation
with the professionals providing service.
* (1410)
Cost Savings
Mr. George Hickes
(Point Douglas): My question
is to the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae).
They have asked the Minister
of Justice to help them to prepare a list of how many dollars this program is
saving the
An Honourable Member:
He has been
rather busy recently.
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The St.
Theresa Point Youth Court, as I have said many times‑‑I am glad the
honourable member is noticing‑‑has been providing an extremely
valuable service not only to the people of the community but also to the people
of the province of Manitoba, because indeed their services save the taxpayers
of this province many dollars.
I am unable to quantify
that. I will endeavour to find out if
there is such information available, and if there is, to share it with the
honourable member.
Interestingly,
yesterday as a result of a suggestion made by Associate Chief Judge Giesbrecht,
the Birdtail Sioux Band had a healing circle with regard to a minor criminal
offence that had been alleged to have been committed. They went ahead and did that at Birdtail
Sioux. We are very interested in seeing
if that kind of process might be able to be used again in the future many
times.
Aboriginal Organizations Funding
Elimination Justification
Mr. George Hickes
(Point Douglas): Mr. Speaker,
that is very encouraging to hear the Justice minister talking about supporting
an aboriginal justice system, the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry recommendations,
yet was this minister consulted and did he support the cuts to the aboriginal
organizations that would have worked towards implementing the AJI Report?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): We have been asking a number of important aboriginal
groups here in
Not so long ago, the
Grand Chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs said, well, we are not going to
support the government because it wants to improve in its efforts to improve
justice services. I find that very hard
to understand, but we are going to go ahead anyway because the people in those
communities need better justice, and they are going to get it, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has
expired.
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS
Mr. Brian Pallister (
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for
Mr. Pallister: Mr. Speaker, I know all members
of the House will join with me in recognizing St. Patrick's Day. Today is a day of great significance for
those of Irish descent and for all of us. It is a day recognized and celebrated
and proof of the old saying, I think, that on St. Patrick's Day there are only
two kinds of people‑‑those who are Irish and those who wish they
were Irish.
Around the world, St.
Patrick's Day has come to mean all things Irish and is celebrated and observed
in groups and events such as parades, cultural celebrations or individually
through something as easy as the wearing of the green. I would like to extend best wishes to all
people in our province who celebrate St. Patrick's Day, Mr. Speaker.
I would also like to
take this opportunity to recognize the contributions of Irish‑Manitobans. They have long been a vital and dynamic part
of our province's social, economic and cultural identity. Like many families from many cultural
backgrounds, Irish immigrants often arrived in
Amid the global, social
and economic upheaval, we should pay tribute to those many communities such as
our Irish Manitoba neighbours who have helped to make possible in Manitoba a
quality of life in community that is rarely matched anywhere in the world. Today, on St. Patrick's Day, we ought to
reaffirm our appreciation of the accomplishments of the Irish and our pride and
our fortune in having Irish‑Manitobans as integral members of our
communities throughout our province.
I extend best wishes to
all Manitobans of Irish descent. May
they enjoy good health, fortune and prosperity for many, many years to
come. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Happy St. Patrick's Day.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Can I have leave to make a nonpolitical
statement?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable leader have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join
with the member for
You know, as I was a
child‑‑and I know the member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst) has
certainly been treated to this kind of lesson in doctrine and religion classes
when he was a little boy. We would be held
up the shamrock, and we would be shown that the shamrock was the way in which
St. Patrick defined the Trinity, that it proved there was one God represented
by the one stem, and a trinity of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy
Spirit.
The Irish heritage is
present here in
That led to a tradition
in which schools in
Mr. Speaker, the Irish
have, in fact, contributed not only in their religious upbringing, because of
course Irish are not just Catholic, they are Protestant as well, they have also
been known far and wide for the excellence of their singing voices and of
course a very special form of dancing in the Irish jig, which is not often the
one we frequently see that is danced but the one which certainly classical
dancers dance with great proficiency.
Mr. Speaker, the
shamrock that we have been given today, I pay tribute to the nursery for having
provided them to us in memory of this special occasion.
Let me give the
following Irish blessing and wish to those who are assembled here: May the wind always be at your back, and may
you wake up in heaven a moment before the devil knows you are dead.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for
* (1420)
Ms. Becky Barrett (
An Honourable Member:
Barrett?
Ms. Barrett: Doherty.
I would like to echo
both the Leader of the second opposition party and the member for Portage la
Prairie (Mr. Pallister) in their comments about the role that the Irish have
played in Canada and in the province of Manitoba, and in particular the way the
Irish community in the city of Winnipeg and throughout the province has been
able to overcome the divisions and the problems that face the Irish in their
own country and have managed to work together to make our province a much
stronger and more fun community.
As well, I would like
to place on the record, as the critic for the Status of Women, the fact that
the Irish just did a very progressive thing by electing the first woman Prime
Minister. I would suggest that is also a
very positive move that the Irish have made in their own country. Again, I congratulate the Irish on St.
Patrick's Day. Thank you.
Committee Changes
Mr. George Hickes
(Point Douglas): I move,
seconded by the member for
I move, seconded by the
member for
I move, seconded by the
member for
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Mr. Speaker,
I move, seconded by the member for
I move, seconded by the
member for
Mr. Speaker: Agreed? [agreed]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you call Bill 12, please?
DEBATE ON SECOND
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).
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to speak on this particular
bill. It is an interesting act that, as
was outlined by the minister in his introductory comments on December 14, deals
with an international convention adopted by The Hague Conference on Private
International Law in October 1984, and essentially recognizes the essential
characteristics of a trust in countries that are members of the conference and
whose legal systems do not recognize the concept of a trust.
I think it is
particularly appropriate that we acknowledge, in discussing this bill, the
importance of the changing face of our country, the growing representation in
our population of people from throughout the world, the fact that many new
immigrants to this country come from jurisdictions that are not under common
law, basically those outside of the British Commonwealth, and that it is important
for us to keep up with the attempts internationally to, in terms of
international law, provide greater consistency‑‑in this case, in
regard to the equivalent of trust.
I say
"equivalent" because not all jurisdictions have trusts. It allows for individuals that do emigrate to
this country, wherever they may come from, to be covered under this particular
convention through the
I note that we are not
the only province that has dealt with this issue or is in the process of
dealing with the issue.
Mr. Speaker, it is
interesting on this particular bill that the government has decided not to be
retroactive. One might ask the question,
in following through, the rationale for that.
I hope that the Justice minister, if he can tear himself away from his
other interests and activities at the current point in time, when we do complete
debating this bill, can perhaps outline why the decision was made not to
introduce a retroactive law. I ask that
as a question, not making any statement or policy one way or the other. I know he is a very busy individual right now
with other activities. Well, I suppose I
could mention it, but I think everybody in the House is quite aware of the
minister's federal ambitions, shall we say.
Mr. Speaker, I would
point out there is some inconsistency in this matter, because when we are
dealing with, for example, Sunday shopping, we have a bill that is, by
definition, going to be retroactive. I
asked the question because I think it is an important debate on principle that
we are dealing with in this House as to the degree to which we as legislators
can support in some cases retroactivity and in other cases not support
retroactivity.
In the case of Sunday
shopping, we have a bill that has been introduced that is sitting, waiting to
go to committee after second reading, that has already been implemented
throughout the province. The police of
this province are not enforcing the existing legislation, Mr. Speaker. They are ignoring what would be considered
violations of the existing legislation.
The government is under
no hurry to bring the bill in; it has gone through second reading. They have not scheduled a committee. I have a sinking suspicion here that they may
actually bring in the bill after the trial period is over. I do not know what leads me to think that,
Mr. Speaker. I get the feeling that this
may not only be retroactivity in the sense that we will have a bill that is
passed, not just retroactively implementing something that is in process. We may have to deal with a bill that will be
of historical interest only if it is passed, because it will validate what
already will have come and gone. What a
bizarre situation.
Mr. Speaker, I ask, in
terms of the retroactivity, too, because I think this is one of the problems
that the government runs into when it deals with retroactivities. What would happen if this Legislature was,
say, to reject a bill that was being brought in retroactively? Perhaps that is the reasoning on Bill 12.
What if, for example,
in terms of Sunday shopping, someone on the Conservative side, if a coalition
of people on all parties got together and said, no, we are against this trial
period? What would happen if the Legislature voted down the bill? Would the RCMP be retroactively prosecuting
people? Would the government be in the
position of asking everybody to return whatever they bought on a Sunday? Well, obviously not, but it shows the kind of
absurdity that one can run into when one deals with legislation that, as in
this case, when I am talking about the other bill, would be doubly retroactive,
not only retroactive in the sense of the trial period but the fact that the
trial period would be over. I note that,
Mr. Speaker. I think it is interesting,
in this case, that the government has chosen not to bring in retroactive
legislation.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay,
Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
I appreciate hearing
the views of the minister. Madam Deputy
Speaker, I know the minister outlined the fact that, as I said, five provinces
have dealt with this. Many countries
have ratified the convention, the
Madam Deputy Speaker, I
am very pleased that this government is paying heed to international
conventions. I think it is ironic
because this government does not always follow the international
community. We have seen the number of
times in which this government has violated international labour organization
conventions, has had the dubious distinction of ignoring the ILO on many
occasions, the standards set by governments from across the world, from the
right to the left with all different kinds of ideologies, all different types
of government.
* (1430)
This government will
turn around on such bills as Bill 70, and as they are currently doing now, will
just say, yes, we signed a collective agreement, but it does not mean
anything. We saw today in terms of
foster parents that when this government signs something, it does not mean
anything. We know that politically. We have already seen a number of the key
promises of the government in the election that were signed, Madam Deputy
Speaker, that did not mean anything.
Who can forget the infamous
commitment by the Premier for inflation rate increases in funding to education,
for keeping the deficit in line, for no major increases in Autopac, no
political interference in Crown corporations?
We have seen biodegradable campaign promises from this government, and
we have seen their word does not mean anything when it comes to labour
relations. I find it interesting again
that when it comes to international trusts there is no retroactivity, and they
are living up to international obligations.
But, when it comes to the labour law in this province, it is another
question. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I
look forward to receiving perhaps some answers from them.
I am reading the
background of this bill; I am satisfied‑‑the difficulty in
noncommon law jurisdictions because the concept of a trust is essentially a
common law concept. It is important to a
whole series of financial transactions.
It is important to the legal system.
It plays a very important role. I
do believe that it is important that we recognize the reality of
This, indeed, I think
is important in this particular case, Madam Deputy Speaker, because as the
minister pointed out it also is important for a common law trust. The jurisdiction of common law trusts allows
for them when they have international operations and connections to operate
properly. One has to recognize that in
I really think that
this kind of legislation is something that we should be extending. I think it is about time that this province
adopted as a matter of policy following international conventions. I mention the terms of labour legislation,
Madam Deputy Speaker, because the sad part is that we have one of the worst
reputations in terms of labour policies in the world. I tie in the connection because I think that
when one puts one's head in the sand in terms of international convention, one
makes a mistake.
I ask the question, is
there not clearly a tie‑in between the fact that we, in our labour
legislation, have one of the worst records with ILO, and we also have some of
the highest strike rates, highest lockout rates and some of the greatest
problems in terms of labour relations?
I take that one step
further, Madam Deputy Speaker. You know,
Conservatives like to talk about globalization.
Would it not make more sense, when we are talking about globalization,
not to start just with international trust acts, but to start with labour
legislation? Start by endorsing the
conventions of the International Labour Organization, all of them, and abiding
by that, recognizing the right of working people to collective bargaining and
recognizing the collective bargaining process, not, for reasons of short‑term
fiscal or political reasons, attempt, as this government has done, to not only
violate in a technical sense those international conventions, but to fly in the
absolute face, to be condemned by the ILO, to be reprimanded essentially, which
is the only persuasion one can have, which is moral suasion.
How can this government
talk about having compatibility with other jurisdictions when it reserves the
right on a periodic basis, in 1991 and 1993, when we see again the policies of
this government in terms of its civil servants and Crown corporations, when it
ignores international conventions?
We have seen fascist
regimes and communist regimes. We have
seen democratic governments. We have
seen governments of all stripes adopt many of those conventions, and we end up with
a bizarre situation where we have mostly conservative governments, but not
exclusively, particularly at the international level, ignoring them.
In fact, even federal
legislation under the Conservatives in terms of labour law legislation is more
consistent and more compatible with international conventions as established by
the International Labour Organization.
I ask that rhetorically
to the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae).
I look forward to his response, if any, in terms of when this bill
completes the second reading process because I think it is very fine indeed to
bring in this bill, and subject to committee hearings and hearing from members
of the public on this, obviously we do not have any tremendous difficulty with
the principle, although I know we do reserve judgment, depending on the
committee hearings, as we always do, based on public presentations to make our
final decision. I hope the government
will do the same.
As I said, Madam Deputy
Speaker, it is interesting when we have a bill that rejects retroactivity and
accepts international conventions, that we have selectivity on the part of this
government. They do it on one bill, and
when it comes to labour legislation, it is something completely different
again.
With those few
comments, I know that the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) has some comments
on this particular bill. I look forward
to his comments. We have a couple more
speakers, and at that time we will be prepared to take it to committee.
I would just say, Madam
Deputy Speaker, I hope the government House leader (Mr. Manness), would call
committees soon. We have a number of
bills that we have passed through. I
believe there are three bills currently which have been passed through
committee.
One of them,
coincidentally, is the Sunday shopping law.
I do not know why the government would not want to bring that bill in
now when we have committee time available, and I know we will schedule‑‑and
I will make the offer right now on behalf of our caucus‑‑we will
schedule any time, anywhere, that the minister wants the hearings on these bills. We can do it starting next week. Maybe the midterm. I do not know‑‑[interjection]
I am just reminded of
the fact on Tuesday of the midterm break, most of us will be out in
If we give names of
those going to
Anyway, Madam Deputy
Speaker, when we pass these bills, I do look to the minister seriously to
respond soon by getting these bills through to public hearing. We are doing our work as legislators dealing
with these bills. We expect that the
government will do its part by allowing members of the public to present on these
bills now, not at the tail end of the session when we normally deal with
bills. When we are passing these types
of bills, it is in good faith, and we expect the same good faith back from the
government. Thank you.
* (1440)
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): I rise to
speak on The International Trusts Act, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the bill
brought forward by the minister. The
member for Morris (Mr. Manness) asked whether we will be at the winter
fair. We will be at the winter fair in
response, and we would be happy to deal with the Sunday shopping issue on that
occasion if the government had the courage and the integrity to go out there
and to hear the public on that issue. We
have been waiting for a government response on this for some time.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I
rise to deal with the issue of The International Trusts Act, which, to my mind,
is an interesting piece of legislation.
The whole concept of trusts, as you probably are aware, arises out of a
reaction in the law of equity and a response to the rigidity of a common law in
dealing with certain situations of conveyance of property and providing for
distribution of assets and the like. The
common law was relatively rigid in this area and trusts were brought in as a
solution in order to facilitate transactions and to facilitate commerce and to
deal with some of the transactions that were required in not only a commercial
and thriving industrial evolving economy, but to deal with personal matters as
well.
We note in this act
that now the government and the minister is bringing in an act that would allow
Manitoba to adopt the convention as recognized by the private international law
conference in The Hague. I note from the
comments of the minister that five jurisdictions in the country have adopted
this legislation including the federal government and that the legislation is
now before us in order to bring
In fact, the minister
referenced in his statements in dealing in general with the bill that generally
these matters can be dealt with by international conflict laws which are
extremely complex and complicated and entail specific courses at law schools
and specific expertise in order to ascertain and work one's way through the
labyrinth of international law. This is
an attempt to bring, by convention and by legislation in our jurisdiction, the
appropriate law concerning trusts before
It is an interesting
concept, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I only speculate briefly with relation to
the generality of the bill, as is the requirement in dealing with this reading,
about the passage of money and property via trusts internationally. I note that the minister said in his statements
that we have a large immigrant population and that many of these newcomers hold
property or investments in their home countries, and in these jurisdictions
they do not have common‑law systems.
This convention will allow them, I assume‑‑if the provisions
of the trust entered into, I would presume, in the home territory match all of
our appropriate common‑law provisions as they apply to trust, then the
applicable trust law will apply in Manitoba.
As I read the
minister's comments, one of the speculative questions that came to mind was the
whole question of illegal transactions and those transactions dealing with
perhaps laundered money and matters of that kind. That is simply a question that arose in my
mind concerning the applicability of this law, although, as I recall from my
training concerning trusts, an illegal transaction is null and void as it
applies to trust law. Therefore that
kind of an occurrence could not occur, but it is an interesting point,
speculative point. Perhaps the minister
may address it in committee as to whether there is a transaction that is
considered legal in a jurisdiction, albeit illegal in our jurisdiction. If a trust was entered into that would pass
property, would it therefore be applicable under our provisions if this
convention was signed, Madam Deputy Speaker?
In my quick glance
through the provisions of the convention, I do not see any prohibition on this,
although again, I would expect, although I am not certain, that applicable
Canadian law would apply to nullify and make void the trust if in fact the
transaction itself was illegal under Canadian common law or under Canadian
jurisdiction, but I do not know that, Madam Deputy Speaker. [interjection]
As my able friend the
member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) indicated, the law of the forum would apply in
this particular instance. So it is an
interesting question, and I think we would still have to look through‑‑albeit
that we have signed a convention, we would still have to deal with
international conflict laws as they apply to that kind of a situation.
There is no doubt, and
it also makes for an interesting question as to the application of this law in
a retroactive situation, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I note that the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) made a fair amount of
reference and discussed the question of the retroactivity and its
nonapplicability under this particular statute.
What is of interest that those individuals who wish to take advantage of
the provisions of this, I would assume, soon‑to‑be‑passed law
would not have the opportunity to have it apply, although I would expect that
the pre‑existing laws that are already in existence as they apply to
conflict of laws would apply in this case and would take effect, but there is
in effect no retroactivity.
Madam Deputy Speaker,
the other question that occurred to me in my quick review of this legislation,
and one area that probably was addressed, is the whole question of not inter
vivos transactions, that is, not those passing between people in lifetimes, but
those transactions that pass from an individual to another individual upon
death. Those are generally thought of in
terms of trust situations set up as a result of wills, estates and other
transactions.
I have not had the
opportunity to review how this act would interact with The Wills Act and other
legislation in our jurisdiction as it applies to those kinds of transactions,
but I think it is more than an academic question to determine the effect of
wills and transactions of those kinds as they relate to trusts because
generally when a transaction occurs at that time a trust situation is set
up. It may be that all members of this
House are not specifically aware of that, but, in fact, trust situations occur
on many occasions.
While on the point of
the creation of trust situations‑‑
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Mr. Chomiak: The member for St. Johns makes a
very valid point about the question of the tax exemptions for the establishment
of children's trusts that allow for the raking in of millions and millions of
dollars and the benefits to those taxpayers to the tune of millions of dollars
that have been provided for in federal Liberal and Conservative platforms. She makes a good point. It would be interesting whether or not tax
plans in international jurisdictions now entered into by someone who will be
coming to
* (1450)
As indicated, I am
assuming, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the instrument as mentioned in the
legislation is one in writing and not one that is made without writing. I assume that is part of the applicability of
the legislation. I quickly, although we
do not do clause‑by‑clause in this particular part of the debates,
as I cast my eye generally upon the applicable articles as contained in The
Hague Convention that has been entered into, I do note that this legislation
applies only to trust entered into in writing, which I think is a safe and
appropriate provision to have in legislation of this kind that allows for that.
Another interesting point
that applies to the flow of capital and finances, Madam Deputy Speaker, vis‑a‑vis
trust, is the whole question of the Free Trade Agreement and the North American
Free Trade Agreement that has been brought in by the soon‑to‑be‑departed
Prime Minister. The whole question of
the Free Trade Agreement and the flow of assets and the establishment of trust
and the transfer of funds back and forth across the 49th Parallel and beyond is
an interesting, not strictly academic issue, but indeed is an interesting issue
of capital flows and how the capital could flow via trust provisions and trust
arrangements entered into.
Again, it would be an
interesting and valid pursuit of the question concerning the transfer and the
establishment of relationship business and otherwise between the jurisdictions
when this legislation is passed, which will allow for the acceptance in
Canadian law, for example, Madam Deputy Speaker, of trust entered into and the
flow of capital ensuing thereof in the United States or in Mexico for that
matter, and the requirement, in fact, that we must recognize in our law those
trust arrangements that are entered into.
As I pursue this issue,
Madam Deputy Speaker, with the encouragement of the honourable member for
I might add that while
I am not opposed to the business transactions being entered into between
Otherwise, other than
posing those questions concerning The International Trusts Act, as the member
for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) indicated, we are interested in this and many other
bills. Following debate, I expect that the matter will go to committee where
the minister will have the opportunity to deal with some of the questions that
have been posed by not only myself but by the member for Thompson and others
who have dealt with this bill.
Thank you, Madam Deputy
Speaker.
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Madam
Deputy Speaker, it gives me some pleasure to rise and speak on Bill 12, The
International Trusts Act. I anticipate
that I will be the only speaker from our caucus on this bill. Let me indicate, at the outset, that our
caucus is prepared to have this move to committee at the earliest
opportunity. I want to put a few
comments on the record.
I want to start by
saying that I have not had a chance to peruse the minister's comments, but I
have looked at the bill, and I want to put the minister on notice now, that
when we get to committee I would like to hear from him the consultation process
that I assume he went through to come up with this bill and, in particular,
would appreciate any information he could give me as to the approval or the
comments of the relevant associations and, in particular, the Bar
Association. I know that there is a
wills and trusts subsection of the Bar Association, and they often take a keen
interest in legislation in this area. I
assume that they have in this case as well, and I will look forward to hearing
their comments in that regard.
Madam Deputy Speaker,
one of the interesting things about this act is that it talks about the
international convention on the law applicable to trusts. In the last number of days in this House, we
have become embroiled in debates over what?‑‑a convention. What is a convention? Well, what it is [interjection] Yes, that is one definition of convention. The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns)
brings forward a convention, a grouping of people. That is one convention, and I understand that
there may or may not be a convention coming up for some of the members on the
other side this June in respect of their leadership. I serve notice now that I will not be
involved in that one. That is one
convention.
Another type of
convention is a pattern of conduct which is followed over a long enough period
of time and without significant exceptions that it gains the force of law. That is what a convention is. Members will remember that the last time a
convention was discussed on the national scale, a legal convention, was when
the former Prime Minister Mr. Trudeau wanted to bring back the Constitution Act,
1982. At that time, there was a dispute
as to what sanction he required from other provinces before he could that.
The Supreme Court said
that there were two types of laws in effect here. There was the written law, and there was the
law of convention, that is, past practice.
They said, according to the written law he did not require any consent
of any of the provinces, but they said according to convention, that is
according to the pattern of history which also gains the force of law, he did
require the approval of seven out of 10 of the provinces.
Now convention has
become an important topic in this House in the last number of days because the
government has proposed to breach what is a parliamentary convention in this
House on the issue of Estimates. This
bill affords us an opportunity to consider conventions. [interjection] Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, you have raised with me
that this is The International Trusts Act.
You will notice that in the definition section and throughout this bill
what is being talked about is conventions. It is indeed relevant to talk about
what is a convention and the different types of conventions.
So the parliamentary
convention which this House had respected for many, many years, many decades,
indeed centuries, throughout the parliamentary world had clearly gained the
force of law, the equivalent of law as much as you can have laws in the
parliamentary form. Of course, we
control our own destiny in this House, but to the extent that that practice had
gained the force of law or the equivalent thereof, I believe and our party
believes it is absolutely obvious that it would be irresponsible for us to
breach that convention at this point.
* (1500)
Madam Deputy Speaker,
having said that, the other aspect of this bill that is notable is that the
world has essentially, or a good chunk of the world has come together and come
up with a standard set of rules on the issue of international trusts. That is a good thing, putting together nations
on issues like this and many other issues facing the world, like the law of the
seas, the law of the air, the laws that we need as a world, not just a nation
but as a world to get together on. This
is a good practice.
I suggest that it is a
good step for the people of Manitoba to, through this act, be linking hands
with nations from all over the world to ensure that our citizens do not have
the opportunity to essentially avoid our laws in our country, in our
jurisdictions, by moving some money, setting up trust accounts, setting up corporate
accounts in other nations, thereby avoiding our laws. That is something which primarily of course
the wealthy have been able to do on all kinds of fronts throughout our
history. This act attempts to cast in
law in this jurisdiction a set of rules which is in place in other
jurisdictions thereby allowing us to stop citizens from escaping the rightful
application of our laws.
Madam Deputy Speaker,
when we talk about international movements and the move to an international set
of standards, I have said that is good, and it is good. What is not good in this government's past
record is their willingness to sacrifice our integrity as a province, as a
nation to international interests. These are two separate things.
This is not to be
confused with things like the Free Trade Agreement. That is certainly moving to the international
forum but at an enormous cost, indeed the cost of our sovereignty, our ability
to control our own destiny. That is not
good. Those are things that were spoken
on in this House yesterday afternoon on the resolution put forward by the
member for Concordia (Mr. Doer).
This legislation,
moving as it does to an international standard in the area of trusts, on first
reading, from my perspective, seems reasonable, seems like a positive move to
standardize international laws in the area of trusts. We do not want people to be able to escape
our tax laws. We do not want people to
be able to escape our various regulations in the area affecting trusts by
taking them offshore, by setting them up in other jurisdictions. We want a standard, and that is good.
I only hope that this
government and their colleagues in
Madam Deputy Speaker,
there is no area where there is more reason to standardize international
standards than in the area of environmental protection. The law of the sea, the law of the air, these
are the issues of the 21st Century. We
must solve the international competition in those areas. We can have all the laws we want governing
the fishermen of
We must move to some
international standards in the area of wildlife habitat protection,
environmental protection, because these things know no bounds. They do not stop at borders. We draw these borders on a map, but wildlife,
air and water, they do not respect those boundaries. That is the lesson of our current situation
in this world and increasingly will be the lesson of the future.
I think that while we
are provincial politicians we have our jurisdictional limitations, but surely
it is time for us to lead even though we just represent this little province on
the globe of
However, my view is that
if you want to be an internationalist in
That is my thesis
today, that you have to be a nationalist first in
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, would you call Bills 2,
3, 5 and 8, please?
Bill 2‑The Endangered Species Amendment Act
Madam Deputy
Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of 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 Brandon East (Mr. Leonard
Evans).
An Honourable
Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 3‑The Oil and Gas and Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker:
To resume debate
on second reading of 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.
Madam Deputy
Speaker: Stand? Is there leave to permit
the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Madam
Deputy Speaker, Bill 3 is a relatively lengthy bill, which I understand from
the minister's comments has come forward after some significant consultations
and deliberations within his department and throughout the industry in this
province.
I have read the
minister's comments. Let me say at the
outset, I do not intend to take issue with the minister's openness about his
ownership of shares in oil and gas interests in southwestern
I will be the first to
admit that I am not prepared today to go through the intimate intricacies of
this bill. This is not an area of
natural expertise for me. However, I
have read the minister's comments carefully, and we will have, I am sure, at
the committee hearings, experts available to go through this in some further
detail. I know it is almost ironic that
this bill comes forward at the time it does in the sense that the oil and gas
industry just is not doing that well in this province.
* (1510)
As the minister
indicates, there was a boom of sorts in the 1950s, when there was a discovery
of oil. There was another burst of
activity in the 1980s, and since then, there has not been a lot, due to a
number of factors, mostly regulatory control as well as, just simply,
international prices. There just is not
the interest, which is occurring worldwide, and certainly that is mirrored in
Madam Deputy Speaker,
as I have reviewed the provisions of this act, one thing which I think has to
be mentioned at the outset‑‑and I am going to be looking for some
detail further on in the committee hearings‑‑are the new environmental
provisions on the protection of the environment. Part of that is the rehabilitation fund,
which is going to be set up as a fund of last resort to rehabilitate sites
where exploration work has been done, drilling has been done, when the
developer cannot afford, has gone out of business, and there is no opportunity
to recover funds to do that rehabilitation work. That is a good thing, that we have a fund
which is paid for by some of the developers in the field, to provide that fund
of last resort for rehabilitation work.
Madam Deputy Speaker,
the other part of this bill which I think is positive, and perhaps in no small
part is responsible for its length, is that, as I understand it, the philosophy
of the department in drafting this bill was to take the regulatory regime, that
is, through regulations, Orders‑in‑Council, guidelines and other
legal and quasi‑legal provisions and pull them together in one act. That is good.
We do not want a
patchwork regulatory regime, where some things are in the act, others are in
the regulations, others are in Orders‑in‑Council, ministerial
guidelines, et cetera. It is too
difficult for those who do not have experience in the field to understand what
the law is.
We as legislators
should do everything possible to clarify the law and as much as possible to put
it together and make it understandable within a relatively short period of time
to those wanting to participate in this industry. That is a positive move, to have brought
these various legal instruments together in one act. I understand that has meant that there may
well be a‑‑it is a much bigger act than the former legislation;
but, to the extent that this is an inclusive piece of legislation, that is
appropriate.
Madam Deputy Speaker,
the minister indicated in his comments that times have changed. The people of this province are no longer
willing to tolerate, nor should they be, unregulated activities in oil and gas
or mining or any other activity, forestry.
The government has an obligation on behalf of the people to ensure that
these are done as much as possible in keeping with the principles of
sustainable development.
The unfortunate reality
of this government and its efforts on sustainable development is that this
government is largely responsible for turning that term almost into a term of
mockery, Madam Deputy Speaker. Most
people have heard it so often from the mouths of cabinet ministers opposite,
with so much meaninglessness attached to the rest of the sentence and what
actually happens, that they just treat it as a nothing statement. They have come to see it as a purely
political statement to be thrown into one speech as many times as possible in
the hopes of getting some votes.
Sustainable development
means nothing in the words of this government.
They use it. They send out nice‑looking
books and reports and this and that and all of these nicely laid‑out
things, sustainable development in every sentence, but have they done anything,
Madam Deputy Speaker? Have they actually
done anything to move this province towards an economy based on sustainable
development? The answer is patently
no. They have failed all the way down
the line to put some meaning to their words, to have the courage of their
convictions.
You know they talk
about it. They talk about it constantly.
When the going gets tough on wildlife management areas, the going gets tough
for the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), he cannot seem to get a
development through that he wants to get through, what does he do? He amends the act. He cannot live with his own act, so he amends
it. That is what this government does
when push comes to shove.
All kinds of
environmental issues‑‑I think of the report of the Clean
Environment Commission on the Abitibi‑Price extension into Manigotagan. I think of that report, and the first time in
my memory‑‑and I have read all the Clean Environment Commission
reports‑‑the Clean Environment Commission had ever really said no
to the government. They stood up, they
wrote a lengthy report, and it was quite a well‑known Conservative
supporter from Brandon, Randy Smith, who chaired the board. I think he might even have been involved with
the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) at one point or another. Anyway, he wrote a very good report on that
development. What happened? The government looked at it, was probably
shocked. Probably the minister fell off
his chair when he heard about that, because he, like me, is used to reading
these reports which, by and large with a few modifications, accept what the
government wants to do. This one did
not, Madam Deputy Speaker.
What was the message
from the government to the Clean Environment Commission? The message was, don't you dare do this
again. Don't you dare come to us telling
us that the plans we support cannot be done.
They slapped the Clean Environment Commission down within minutes of
hearing that news. What did they say? They said, oh, well, they wanted to couch
around it. They did not want to actually deny it. They said, well, we are going to have some
more public hearings on this. They
pretended that they were going to be creating some new public hearings, but in
fact it was the public hearings which had already been scheduled on other
issues. They could not deal with a
strong decision of their own board.
Well, Madam Deputy
Speaker, why do they have the board? Surely, they want that board to have
credibility in the eyes of the public.
Surely, they understand that this board listened to days and days of
expert testimony on those issues and came to a reasoned decision, and it was
their obligation to respect the decision of that board and not deal with it as
summarily as they did.
Madam Deputy Speaker,
this is just another example of how this government in the end really does not
know anything about sustainable development.
They talk about it and, as I say, they lace every speech and most
Speeches from the Throne with lots of talk about sustainable development. Maybe that is why the Minister of Natural
Resources (Mr. Enns) was one of the first signatories to the special places
convention wilderness federation. He
signed on, one of the first to sign on, happy to do that, but what
happened? Within one year, they were
saying biggest disappointment in the country,
In that publication of
the association, there was the minister signing on, one of the first in, but
very quickly that association learned this government, this minister, is not
committed to what they sign to. They
will sign almost anything that has the words sustainable development in
it. They love those words. Say it and we will sign, but they never
follow through, Madam Deputy Speaker.
They never follow through.
Now, on the issue of
the rehabilitation fund, this sort of reminds me of the amendments to The
Environment Act and The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Act
provincially which deal with the ability of the government to assess liability
to companies that pollute ground or air or water or whatever.
Of course, in their
rush to get something into place, this government put into place an absolutely
nonsensical provision. It said that the director in the Department of
Environment could assess liability to almost anyone‑‑past owner,
present owner, past handler of goods, present handler. There was no theoretical framework for the
assessment of liability. It was all left
in the hands of the director.
* (1520)
That just wreaked havoc
in the business community and the legal community as people were trying to
determine, well, where does exposure stop, where does it start? What protection do we need before we lend
money, before we get involved? What role
do subcontractors have who happen to be involved in these activities? All kinds of problems.
I notice in the Speech
from the Throne that the minister has committed in this session to coming
forward with a framework for assessment of liability in those cases.
I have seen the report,
which has been on his desk now, I believe, since October, if I am not mistaken,
of '92. I think Mr. Cantor was on that
committee, and Mr. Pannell and others‑‑[interjection] Pardon? Yes,
and they came forward with some criteria, and the minister has had that for a
number of months.
Maybe I will just use
this opportunity to serve notice to him that I am eagerly awaiting a decision
from the government on those issues and I think other members are too. I know that the business community, whom this
government is keen to please, are eagerly awaiting some guidance on liability
on these issues of cleanup for pollution spills in this province.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I
am pleased that this bill attempts to cover that area, as well as the area of
setting some environmental standards. I
have some concerns. I am not sure how
this bill is going to be impacted by, or impact with, The Surface Rights Act. Perhaps the minister would be prepared, at
the committee hearings, to talk in some detail about that.
I also want to ask the
minister, and I assume that he will be there with some people from his
department who have studied this in depth, perhaps he himself has, but I would
like to further understand some of the reasons for the changes in this act to
the mandate of the board, which is set up under this act. I am not clear on why it is that those
changes have been made, that is, the five‑member board which has the
power to make inquiries under this legislation.
I want to say to the
minister that in keeping with the mines and energy act which was dealt with in
the last session, I think it is positive that we are bringing together the
various types of legislation in this area‑‑regulations, Orders‑in‑Council‑‑pulling
them together in one act. I think that
is good.
To that extent, albeit
with the comments I have made today and reserving, obviously, the right to
question in detail as we go through this clause by clause at the committee, I
look forward to debating this on a detailed basis in the committee. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Bill 5‑The Northern Affairs Amendment Act
Madam Deputy
Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 5 (The Northern Affairs
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les affaires du Nord), standing in the
name of honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli).
An Honourable
Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed!
Bill 8‑The Insurance Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker:
To resume
debate on second reading of 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.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
* * *
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, would you call Bills 10,
11, 13, 14, 15 and 16, please?
Bill 10‑The Farm Lands Ownership Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on
second reading of 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.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
The minister, when he
spoke on this bill, said that these were just minor amendments that would make
the operations of government more effective and decrease the costs to citizens
in this province in implementing this bill.
As I looked at the
bill, I thought I would do some research and find out when the bill was
introduced and why it was introduced, the original bill, and in looking back,
this bill was introduced back in 1982, and I understand that there was some
very heated discussion at that time on farm land ownership.
Our party then, Mr.
Bill Uruski, indicated that they were very concerned about the preservation and
the strengthening of family farm operations.
That is something that we still continue to be very concerned about, the
operations of the family farm and the survival of the family farm, and those
family farms appear to be in very great difficulty, particularly now with the
financial pressures that the family farm is under.
At the time, when this
bill was being introduced, there was a great concern about absentee owners,
foreign ownership of land, and the research that was conducted at the time
indicated that there was a dramatic increase in the amount of land that was
being owned by foreigners. There was
very little regulation to control this transfer of land, and much of the prime
land was being transferred out to absentee owners and nonfarm corporations,
foreign speculators. This was
contributing to the inflation of land, but also it was hurting small farmers
with the rising cost of prices. It made
it more difficult for young farmers to get started.
Also, Madam Deputy
Speaker, we were very concerned and should be concerned that, with foreign
owners, a tremendous amount of revenue leaves the smaller communities, and
there is not nearly the concern for small communities when you have absentee
owners. It is just a very great drain on the communities when the people who
own the land do not actually live there.
The minister says that
these things are just going to clean up the legislation, make it more easy for
the operation of the department, and those parts of the bill do appear to make
sense.
Also, the cleaning up
of the personal relationship of families, spelling it out more clearly, will
also benefit people, families, who are holding joint family farm corporations,
so we have no difficulty with that section of the legislation, Madam Deputy
Speaker.
However, there is some
concern, I believe, with the change in the legislation which changes from two‑thirds
ownership to 50 percent. This, I
believe, is a problem. It is weakening
the original legislation. It is
weakening the intent of the original legislation which keeps the control of the
family farm corporation within the family farm.
With two‑thirds you can see that there is more control. If you weaken it and take it to only 51
percent, there is more opportunity for foreign investors and also for corporate
ownership of farms for various large companies that have the opportunity to buy
into family corporations, which is happening at this time. With the pressure that farmers are under,
they have to sometimes look for outside investors. With these leniencies we could see the
control of more farms falling into the hands of corporations if we do not have
the two‑thirds ownership of the shares by the owners of the farms.
* (1530)
With the regulations
that we have in place right now, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is room to deal
with those people who fall outside the regulations through the Farm Lands
Ownership Board. There are decent guidelines in place. The onus should be on those people who want
to become participants in this family farm corporation to prove that they have
a valid reason for taking up a larger portion of the farm, and the exemptions
can then be made through the Farm Lands Ownership Board.
However, from what we
see here, the Farm Lands Ownership Board has not been doing their work properly
and all applications have been approved.
In fact, when I called to check, they said on the average they have 275
to 300 applications, and there is 100 percent exemption, so the Farm Lands
Ownership Board is approving everybody.
The minister is saying that they should change the legislation because
everybody is being approved anyway. In
reality what I believe should be happening is maybe the Farm Lands Ownership
Board should be being more strict in approving these applications.
When we get to
committee, we will want to know what is happening. Why are all applications being approved? Is anybody being denied an application on
this ownership of land? This is very
much a weakening of the legislation, and the guidelines should be followed much
more closely than they are. Cases should
be approved on a case‑by‑case approval. There is no need to open up the legislation
and expand the ability for people to have the ownership of farmland.
Again, I go back to the
concerns that were raised way back in 1982.
People were concerned about their farmland; people wanted the land to
stay held by the family farm rather than outside foreign ownership, rather than
ownership by corporations. There were
many people at that time who raised those same issues. There were public
hearings and many presentations where people spoke out and asked for this kind
of legislation to be brought in to protect the farmland.
I have difficulty in
understanding why we would be moving in the direction of weakening the family
farm ownership from that particular farmer and allowing corporate investment into
the farms, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is
something that has to be given serious consideration and something that we
will, as I say, raise with the minister when we get to the committee on this.
There are other members who have concerns as well, and we will be looking at
it.
On the other sections
of the bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, when we talk about the annual report not
being tabled any more, we have no difficulty with that section of it. We think that is not a major problem as long
as a report is going to be included in the department's annual report. That would not be any problem.
The section that allows
for the fees to help recover costs of the board also does not seem to be a
major problem. People are having
services. There is no problem with that
section.
Madam Deputy Speaker,
the section of opening up the act and minimizing the amount of the shares that
have to be owned by the family farm or people who are related to that
particular family is a concern. Again,
we would think that if we are at all concerned about the rural community, about
having people live in the small communities, we would be offering supports in
those areas and trying to strengthen that community rather than opening up the
ability for corporations to take over the ownership of land.
It is interesting and
worrisome to know that the Farm Lands Ownership Board is not acting within its
guidelines and is being very lenient in allowing land to be transferred out or
not sticking very closely to the guidelines of keeping the land within the
confines of the family farm corporation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we have to be concerned about the number of people
this is affecting as the land becomes controlled by a smaller group of people,
falls into the hands of corporations, and we have many corporations.
We hear about that
every day, about who is controlling our farm economy right now. We have many people who are concerned with
the power of companies such as Cargill and McCain and those companies which have
the funds and the ability to take over not only the production of food but also
the processing of food and really removing any control of the farming
community, of the actual farmers who are in the business, and also siphoning an
awful lot of the revenue that will not be invested back into the community and
also not having the interest in the community that should be having some of the
benefits of the farming industry instead of having all of the revenue drained
out.
I would hope that the
minister, when we come to deal with this, would reconsider that change that he
is proposing to decrease it from one‑third of the issues of all classes
of shares to a majority, or 51 percent.
I hope he will reconsider that, because I believe that it will have a
negative impact on the farming community.
Madam Deputy Speaker,
there is legislation in place. With the
board acting properly, we could live within that legislation. There is no need to change the act each time
there is a change of government. I think
that we should be able to live within that and the government should be working
towards assuring that the Farm Lands Ownership Board implements and works
within those regulations and, when there is a need, give the necessary
exemptions. There is the ability to give
the exemptions, but there is no need to change that part of the act.
So I hope, Madam Deputy
Speaker, that we can deal with that when we come to committee. I know that there are other members on our
committee who want to deal with this.
When we are looking at the farming community here, we have to look at
all aspects of the farming community.
What is happening right now? We
are seeing a group of people in business who are suffering from low revenues,
low return for their product and, in fact, we were just about in the process of
having other services taken away from these people. That is going to increase their costs and
also make it more difficult for them to operate.
I am speaking about the
plans and the movement on this government to change the method of payment, to
have the Crow benefit which is presently paid to the railways to provide
services for the farmers so they can make a living, so they can produce food
for our country. We have a government
that is looking at changing that, Madam Deputy Speaker, to have it paid to the
farmers. Now this is going to have a
devastating impact on the farming community.
* (1540)
We hear about railway
lines that will be closed. We hear about
loss of services. We have farmers out
there very concerned. A majority of them
have said, although it would be a narrow majority, that they are very
concerned. They do not want the method
of payment changed because of the impacts that it is going to have on their
farm operations. We still see a
government who appears to be very supportive of what the federal government is
doing and moving along the lines of changing the method of payment but not
giving a clear message to the farmers about what their plan is. How are they going to change it? What method are they going to implement to
have this money transferred back to the farmers if this is what they are
proposing to do?
Although many farmers
do not agree with that, the government has to come forward and tell farmers
what this proposal is, because this will have a negative impact. This is going to have an impact on their
family operations. It is also going to
have an impact on seeing which farmers are going to be able to survive. It could mean a whole change to the
agriculture industry in
There are going to be
people who are put out of business, and there will be, I believe, larger farms
made with the difficulties farmers are facing, opportunities for foreign
investment, opportunities for corporate investment, but again I do not believe
that the legislation has to be changed.
There are guidelines within which we can work, and there is a system in
place that should work. We do not have
to change the regulations to allow leniency on the Farm Lands Ownership
Board. Instead, the Farm Lands Ownership
Board should operate within those guidelines and, when necessary, give the
exemptions that are necessary. That
ability is in there right now. The
exemptions can be made for those cases in which they are needed, and again, no
reason to change that particular part of the legislation, because it is
weakening legislation rather than strengthening. It gives more leeway.
Madam Deputy Speaker,
with that, I will close my comments. I
know there are other members of our caucus who want to add their comments,
because after all the farming industry is a very important industry to
Madam Deputy Speaker,
the most important people in the rural community, or I should say, one of the
most important groups of people is the farm people, and for our communities to
survive, we have to have many families there, many farm families there. We see that every time a farm closes down we
see a family leave the community. There
is an impact on the schools; there is an impact on the hospitals; there is an
impact on the business in the community.
So we have to look at ways of protecting and supporting those farmers
whom we have there right now. That is
vital to the survival of our rural community.
For the survival of
those farmers also, we have to have services in place, and one of the services
we have to think about is how these farmers are going to get their products to
market, and those types of things. We
have to have services for the families as well that live in those communities,
but we cannot provide health care and education properly if the number of our
farmers is going to decrease.
So, Madam Deputy
Speaker, I think we have to be looking very carefully at how we can protect
that land, how we can maintain the land from becoming concentrated in the hands
of very large operations, how we can keep the price of the land stable so that
young people can take up in the agricultural industry if that is what they
want, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We will not be passing
this bill to committee immediately. There are still other members who want to
add their comments to this and the impact that this is going to have in the
communities. So with that, Madam Deputy
Speaker, I will close my comments and look forward to in a short time having
this bill go to committee where we can have further discussion on it.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): I move,
seconded by the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), that debate be adjourned.
Madam Deputy
Speaker: The bill was previously stood in the name of the honourable member for
Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).
Bill 13‑The Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment
Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second
reading of 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.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 14‑The Personal Property Security and Consequential
Amendments Act
Madam Deputy
Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of 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.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 15‑The Boxing and Wrestling Commission Act
Madam Deputy Speaker:
To resume debate
on second reading of 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.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 16‑The Public Schools Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second
reading on 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.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
I believe that this
government's approach to fellow politicians, at whatever level it might be, has
not been one of a courteous government that wants to respect, to operate in a
fair fashion. Why is it that I say
that? Well, I had the opportunity to
meet with the Winnipeg School Division No. 1, an area which I happen to also
represent, and had the opportunity to speak to a number of the school trustees,
and they were not necessarily very kind to the government. [interjection] The Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme)
says that his were kind. No doubt you
will find some school trustees that will say the government is doing a fine
thing. You will see there are some
school trustees that will say the government is not doing a good job and so
forth. No doubt about that.
I think that could be
said about any government in any given time, but, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is
a government that has gone a bit further than deciding a policy which they have
responsibility for. This is a government
that has decided to take away from elected officials the opportunity to provide
for their constituency what they believe is important in terms of providing
that quality education.
* (1550)
Why is it that I say
that? Well, we know as legislators that
when we are elected to this Chamber, we have a responsibility. That responsibility,
depending on the party or if you are in opposition or if you are in government,
varies. If you are in the government
situation and there is a majority government, there is a good chance that you
will be making budgetary decisions that will have a better chance at
passing. This is something that, as
legislators, whether you are in government or you are in opposition, you have
an opportunity of giving input in hopes of having the chance at passing.
Madam Deputy Speaker,
the government cannot necessarily take that away from us, but they have chosen
to do that to the school trustees. That
is very, very unfortunate because what they have told the school trustees is
that they are limited in terms of the services they can provide. Yes.
That is what they have told the school boards across the province. On the one hand, just last year, we had the
municipal election where we saw, as I say, in excess of 350 school trustees
elected, given a mandate and now we have a government, a Tory majority government,
that, even though the school trustees were given a mandate, is taking a part of
that mandate away from them.
This is, again,
something that is unique, but it is not the first time that this government has
done something completely unique. They
do provide‑‑[interjection]
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) is right, I do not like. I do not like. I believe that most parliamentarians would
not support, and most Manitobans would not support what this government is
doing because whether the Minister of Finance likes it or not, the school
trustees were given a mandate. This
minister has decided, in his wisdom or lack thereof, that the school divisions
and the school trustees, which were duly elected, are not capable of providing
a budget that they feel reflects what the wishes of their constituents are. [interjection] Yes, we will see what the
convention says. If the Minister of Finance feels that a resolution that passes
out of the convention justifies what the government is doing, well, maybe that will
ease his conscience somewhat.
Madam Deputy Speaker,
the fact remains that this is not a government that went and talked to the
different school boards and sat down to try to find out where it is that they
are coming from and how they might be able to co‑operate.
Instead, they treated
all the school boards, all three school boards, in the same heavy‑fashioned
way in which they are treating, to some extent, the legislators or the MLAs
with respect to the precedents of the rules of this Chamber. They kind of just throw it out the window,
and they want to do whatever it is they feel needs to be done.
Madam Deputy Speaker,
what they have said‑‑and again you have to realize that these are
school trustees that were elected just last year, and those school trustees
have a responsibility of providing to the parents that elected them and to the
children that they represent a certain level or quality of education. Well,
that implies to me that the school trustees have to decide as to what services
that they have to put additional resources into in order to maintain what they
believe the constituents that they represent ask them to do, the level of
education, the quality of education, not necessarily what the government‑‑and
it is somewhat interesting, and I know I had an opportunity to make reference
to it before.
The government has
mandated school boards to provide certain services such as the transportation,
and that is through legislation, where we see increases, in particular, I know,
through Winnipeg School Division No. 1.
That is something that they do not have an option on. That is something that they have to, while on
the other hand the delivery of that education and the training and the
expertise or professional development, things in which the school boards are
responsible for, there they are put into a strait jacket.
Those are the issues in
which, in most part, I would argue, they have to go back to their constituents
in the next civic election and defend the actions that they had to take. In fairness to those school trustees, how can
they defend some of the decisions that they are going to have to make, knowing
full well that they have been limited, that they cannot do what they feel is
the right thing to do?
That might mean raising
the property tax at 4 percent in some area.
If the school trustees can justify an increase, whatever that increase
might be, then they should be allowed, because we have the legislation that
allows them to do that, to increase the property tax. It is not up to the Minister of Finance or
the Premier to say no or to release or to fire our school trustees. It is not
up to them. It is up to the constituents
that they represent.
When they make those
decisions and they go into the next municipal election, the constituents that
they represent have that opportunity so that if they do not like what the
school board is doing, they can turf them out if they so choose.
The government is not
even giving them the opportunity to provide what they feel is necessary in order
to have that level of education that they believe that they have been given the
mandate to provide. What upsets me most
is the fact that I can feel for the individuals that have been put into that
elected position. Now they see that has
been taken away from them.
* (1600)
Can you imagine if the
House of Commons had the constitutional ability to do the same thing within the
province? If they said, you cannot increase personal income tax more than 1
percent for the next 10 years, you cannot increase your sales tax, you cannot
increase your fuel and your tobacco taxes, what would the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness) be saying then?
Whether that is a part
of the Minister of Finance's agenda on increasing taxes or not is
irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact
that this Minister of Finance, if the federal government told him that he could
not do that, would be standing in this Chamber yelling and screaming, demanding
that his rights had been infringed upon as a legislator.
Do you know what, Madam
Deputy Speaker? I would support the
Minister of Finance doing just that, and I am somewhat disappointed that same
standard is not, in fact, being used for our school boards, because I must
admit, you know, Winnipeg School Division No. 1 and the school trustees do not
do things that I like either, and I do get my opportunity and I had the
opportunity to register my feelings in the last civic elections, and I
lost. My vote did not get to count that
time around in terms of the candidates I supported, but at least I had the
opportunity to express it.
There are a number of
things that I would like to see changed, but you know something, Madam Deputy
Speaker, the difference between myself and the Minister of Finance and the
Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) is, I am willing to operate within the
rules of this Chamber and within the rules of the constitution.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I
like to think that I have never been one to bow out of providing solutions,
some positive solutions that would make a difference in the
An Honourable Member:
Unbelievable.
Mr. Lamoureux: Not unbelievable, because this is
something that the Liberal Party has been providing throughout the last four
and a half years. We call it, Madam
Deputy Speaker, a responsible opposition, and if the government followed a
number of the ideas that the Liberal Party has put forward, and some have‑‑I
will give credit where it is deserved.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) adopted one of our principles which
our Leader introduced back in the '86 election.
We called it the Pharmacare card, a wonderful idea. They changed the name of it but the thought
is still there. It is the same card, and
the government, in fact, will save money by doing that.
The Minister of Health
will ensure, I am sure, that the health‑care card will come off and we
will in fact save some dollars, because I do not believe that the Minister of
Health would be talking about it unless he could save dollars. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that in
fact will occur, but whether it is the Department of Health or whatever other
department is out there, you will find that the Liberal Party has been
providing the ideas for change that will make a difference, a change that will
see the positive reforms.
Now because I am
talking on education, I am going to take the opportunity to talk about some of
the changes that I believe will make a difference. Even the Minister of Finance, the
Conservative Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), I believe, would support me on
one or two of these things. Actually I
would like to think that he himself might be somewhat frustrated in the sense
that the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) has been unsuccessful in really
accomplishing something that would not be that difficult if the political will
were there.
All we need to do,
Madam Deputy Speaker, is create the political will. If the government, in particular the Minister
of Education's will were there, we could see some very positive changes in the
Department of Education, educational reform, the type of reform that I would
suggest to you would probably allow this government to repeal this current bill
that they are proposing. What it would
do, I believe, is take money away from administration and put it back into the
classrooms.
As I represent
constituents in Winnipeg School Division No. 1, I live in the riding, and I get
a property tax bill just like everyone else.
I compare my property tax to other ridings throughout the city of
Madam Deputy Speaker, I
think there are a number of inequities that are scattered throughout the school
divisions, and again I am going to concentrate and I will allude to the rural
school divisions in education also, but I know the divisions more so in the
city of Winnipeg, so I am going to concentrate some of my remarks on those
school divisions. I believe that there
are many inequities in the city of
(Mr. Speaker in the
Chair)
An Honourable Member:
1,400, to be
exact.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, 1,400, less than
1,500. Some school divisions tender out
virtually everything; other school divisions do not. What about bulk buying? Think of the advantages of a
Well, this is something
I believe is a direction that the province of Manitoba‑‑if you want
to bring in legislation to address education in this forum or in this Chamber
dealing with the public education and trying to change the way in which we are
administering education, do not try to put it on in terms of limiting school
trustees and the responsibilities. Bring
it in in terms of changing the number of school divisions or making it that
much more equitable throughout the city of
I would argue, Mr.
Speaker, that by downsizing, in particular in the city of Winnipeg, to not more
than two it will allow us to refunnel the administration dollars, the dollars
that would be saved through other means into the classroom. Let us put more emphasis on the classroom in
teaching our children education.
An Honourable Member: It does not have to be
overnight.
Mr. Lamoureux: No, and it does not have to
happen overnight, but you have been in government for five years. Just last year the Minister of Education
(Mrs. Vodrey) said that it was going to be put on the back burner. That is not overnight, five years. [interjection] The Minister of Consumer
and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) says, be responsible on it. Well, when it came to reducing the number of
city councillors in the city of
If the government has
the will it can do it. Mr. Speaker, the
government does not have the will to address the whole issue of school
divisions. You know, I believe that, no
doubt, the government has to have some reason for why it is that they do not
want to address that particular issue, and I wait anxiously to hear why because
the Minister of Education has not been able to answer that question, why it is
that we need to have 10 school divisions in the city of Winnipeg.
The New Democrats will
tell us at least why they believe 10, if anything, is not enough, but at least
tell us why it is you have to put it on the back burner and not even deal with
the issue. They talked that there are so
many other issues that were out there.
They talked about the Francophone governance issue. They talked about
other reforms in the education. Well,
they are blowing it on all the other aspects that the minister said that she
was putting it off for. They are not
even doing a good job at that, education and reforming education.
* (1610)
We talk about the
curriculum, something that has to be addressed, what in fact is necessary in
our educational facilities. The
curriculum‑‑and I am not going to say only do we need to
concentrate on the Rs or the Cs. There
are other issues, issues like racism or multiculturalism, racism in particular,
issues such as domestic violence, those types of issues. How are they going to be incorporated into
our educational system?
Well, how is a good
question, and why is this Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) not dealing with
it? [interjection] No, she is not
dealing with it, to the member for St. Norbert.
She is not dealing with it, because we do not hear anything coming
out. We do not hear her talking about
these issues and what it is that she is doing.
At least I have not been able to hear her in the comments that I have
addressed with her or anything of that nature.
The issue I have heard
that she has dealt with was the whole issue of destreaming. Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced. In fact the arguments that I have been
receiving say that she is going in the wrong direction on the destreaming
issue. I would ask for the minister‑‑and
I know there are a number of constituents that I represent through the Sisler‑Rosser
association.
In fact, there is
another association that has just formed, and it is throughout the province of
Manitoba‑‑at least I believe they have both urban and rural
membership on it‑‑that is looking at the whole destreaming issue and
is saying to the government, before you implement this change that you at least
give us the information that you are basing this decision on before you go
ahead and you do it.
This is, Mr. Speaker,
not coming just from parents. This is
coming from professionals, everything from the high school principals to the
parents to other interest groups from individuals who know what it is that they
are talking about. The Minister of
Education has not given them or provided the pros and the cons and justified why
it is that she is moving in that direction.
One would like to think that the Minister of Education would approach
issues of that nature.
When it comes to reform
of education, Mr. Speaker, the government's heart has not been in it. They talk about it. They talk about reform. The closest they have come to reform has been
the bill that we have before us. That is
not reform, that is a clear indication on this government being a big bully and
not allowing the school trustees to fulfill their responsibilities. It
disappoints me that this is the only type of real legislation that we have seen
dealing with reform.
I guess, you know, they
can make reference to the governance issue.
Yes, they did act on the governance, but they somewhat made a mistake in
that in itself, it is better, there is no doubt about it, by allowing the
individual colleges to have a bit more independence through governance as
opposed to the Department of Education having to run them.
What they did was they
made it a bit more expensive by having three boards as opposed to one. Mr. Speaker, not only does it cost more, but
what is it that they are doing? Are they
saying, okay, you are going to be competing against each other? Where is this co‑ordinated approach?
When we talk about the
education and retraining, what you need to do, Mr. Speaker, is you have to have
a plan. This government does not have a
plan in many, many‑‑
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Nonsense.
Mr. Lamoureux: To the Minister of Finance, no,
it is not nonsense. You really and truly
do not have a plan. I have not seen a
plan. Just dealing with education, you
do not see a plan. Decisions are made in
an ad hoc way, and you see, as I say, three boards.
Would it not be nice to
have had a bill that would have seen one board established so we could have
seen better communication and co‑ordination coming out of the different
colleges? Would it not have made it that
much easier to ensure that our colleges are that much better equipped to take
on the challenges? [interjection]
Well, the Minister of Finance says, tell The Pas that.
I would ask the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), did he tell the school divisions what he was
doing with this bill? Did he consult or
did he indicate to other schools divisions that in fact this is what we are
going to do? Did he say, yes, we got
their permission and this is the reason why we do it? He is implying that if I went to The Pas and
The Pas said no, we do not want one board, then the government responded to
it. I should not say I, the government
responded to it because The Pas did not want one board. They want to see three boards is what he is
telling me.
So the school
divisions, Mr. Speaker, did not want this, yet they did it. So the Minister of Finance cannot say, well,
it is one college or two colleges or one community or another community that
did not want the school board or did not want the boards, independent, or the
three separate boards. In fact, had the
minister gone against the wishes if in fact The Pas was wanting it the other
way, they probably would have received less criticism than they are receiving
now with what they are doing with the school divisions.
I would suggest to you,
Mr. Speaker, the government needs to do a lot of soul searching and find out
what it is that they want to do, even though we are two‑and‑a‑half
years into this current mandate, that they are still not too late, that there
is more to governing the province of Manitoba than jumping on a pedestal and
saying, we have not increased personal income taxes. Can you imagine that? Twenty‑five years from now, the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) of this province and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) can
say, the proudest moment of our governance is the fact that in five years we
did not increase personal income tax. That is it.
Well, I, personally,
Mr. Speaker, believe that this is not any great plan or overall scheme. One would like to think that a government
would have something that it would like to be able to do to make the society
that we live in a bit better.
I would suggest to you
that if the government really wanted to contribute to the future generations of
the province of Manitoba, that what they should do is take what I believe is
the No. 1 issue facing Manitoba today and that is education, training and
retraining, that if this government does not want to address that issue, Mr.
Speaker, the province of Manitoba is not going to be able to compete in a
fashion that will be able to see us grow for the turn of the century. It might be nice to be able to say that we
have not increased personal income tax for five consecutive budgets while at
the same time not necessarily acknowledging all the offloading, as the member
for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) points out.
The consequence of government inaction on education, on real education
reform, is going to be with us for now and the turn of the century. That is really what I believe is the great
tragedy of this government's lack of action, that they are not dealing‑‑
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): From a full
deck.
Mr. Lamoureux: The member for Osborne says, from
a full deck, but I will not be quite that mean.
I will not say that.
* (1620)
Mr. Speaker, I do not
believe that this government has a plan in dealing with education because we
have only really seen their two pieces of legislation, one on the governance,
which they made a bit of a mess of, and now this one. What are they saying? We do not have a plan and we do not want any
of the school boards to have a plan.
Mr. Manness: Who said we did not have a plan?
Mr. Lamoureux: The Minister of Finance says that
they do have a plan. Well, you know, Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Finance has had some rough days lately. He has been feeling that the Liberal Party
has not been co‑operative, and I am hoping that between now and tomorrow
he will have ample opportunity to think about a plan on how he can at least
save some face, maybe bring in a Main Estimates so that we can get down to
business. Whether it is education or the
current session that we are in, there is no plan.
How many times have we
adjourned the House prior to six o'clock since we have been in? What type of agenda has the government put
before us? [interjection] The
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) says, let us go into Estimates. We have to have the Main Estimates. It is not like this is the first time it has
been asked. Every other Legislature in
We do need
democracy. We do need to follow the
principles and traditions of the Legislature.
The Minister of Agriculture is in government today; tomorrow he could be
in opposition; and he no doubt would be the person who would be standing up
where I am today if another government tried to do the same thing and be saying
the very same things. Do not be like the
New Democrats. I have always said you have four parties in this Chamber. You have the Conservatives, you have the
Liberals, you have the NDP in opposition, and you have the NDP in
government. Do not do that, Mr.
Speaker. It is not right.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I
digress somewhat, and I would like to try to get back to the issue at
hand. It is something which again, I
feel, that this government should rethink, that this is one of those bills that
I feel the government should reflect on. You will have some time to reflect on
it because I trust and I hope that there will be a number of people who want to
speak on this bill. Before we pass this
bill, there is an onus on all of us in this Chamber to realize the impact and
what it is that we are actually saying to, in particular, the school trustees
scattered throughout the province, all 350‑plus of them, which kind of
leads me into something else I want to talk about, but I will save that for
another minute.
All of us should be
aware of the fact that what the government is doing to the school trustees is
something that we would not accept if it was done to us from the federal
government. So if you believe that is
the case, then the question is how can you support what the government is
doing?
Another issue that I
wanted to talk about again, because it is an issue dealing with, again,
administration of the school divisions, the reason why I want to bring this up
is that hopefully we will see another bill from the Minister of Education (Mrs.
Vodrey) and, in that bill, it will deal with other concerns that are being
expressed right now.
Mr. Speaker, I would
ask how much time I have, because this one is going to take about 20 minutes to
explain. I only have two minutes. Is there any chance I might have 20 minutes? I will make a commitment to the government; I
will be easy on them and concentrate the next 20 minutes on the NDP. If I had leave, I would criticize the NDP in
the next 20 minutes. Well, so much for
trust.
Mr. Speaker, I would
like to take the opportunity to conclude by saying that we are very
disappointed in the government and the manner in which they have decided to
treat the school divisions in the
Thank you very much,
Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and speak on Bill 16 because it
is an education bill. I think everyone
in this House knows that education is an area in which I have a long and
abiding and somewhat consuming interest.
I find this bill
fascinating. I would like to go through
a little bit of the process by which this bill hit this floor and then to show
you the kind of tactic which I think has becoming epidemic in this particular
government.
You know the day that
the minister wanted to introduce the bill, it had not even been on the Order
Paper. She asked leave to introduce the
bill. It was not on the Order
Paper. One asks what kind of a plan does
this government have? Do they not know
when they want to bring down their bills?
* (1630)
We have been out of
session since December. They had a
number of months to prepare the bill.
They made the announcement several weeks before we came into the
Chamber. Yet they were not prepared to
put it on notice the day we came back, on March 1. They had to wait and put it
off for a few days. Then, having decided
they were now ready to introduce it, they wanted to introduce it without
notice.
They were not allowed
to do that. I should think that the NDP
were quite correct in not allowing them to do that. That is the way the rules of this House
function. The House leader, also the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), has to have an understanding that we have
rules, they have rules and the rules have to be abided by.
Lo and behold, we get
the introduction of the piece of legislation.
It is tabled in this Chamber. I
sat here that Monday all afternoon because I was convinced that the Minister of
Education (Mrs. Vodrey) would rise to speak on the bill. After all, Mr. Speaker, she wanted to
introduce the bill without notice, so one could hardly wait. One assumed, on the part of the minister,
that she wanted to rush to her feet at the earliest possible opportunity and
speak eloquently about this bill.
An Honourable
Member: She did not.
Mrs. Carstairs: No, she did not. She sat here.
I went over and I said to her, are you going to read Bill 16 into the
record today? Are you going to introduce
it for second reading? No, she was not
going to.
An Honourable Member:
Why would
she do that now?
Mrs. Carstairs: I cannot understand
that. I mean if it was so important to
her that she get it on the Order Paper without any notice, why was she not
prepared to speak to it? She was not, so
I could not speak to it on that occasion.
I had booked my time to speak to it because I knew how anxious, at least
I thought I knew how anxious, she was to deal with it, but I did not get the
chance to speak that time. I am
delighted that I do have the opportunity to speak to it today because this is a
very critical bill.
It is a critical bill
not just because of what it does, which I think is very, very negative, but for
what the implication is. What this government is saying is that we have a big
hammer and every time that we do not get everybody to stand in line in exactly
the way we want them to stand in line, we are going to use it. That is the issue of Bill 16.
I think the member for
I think that every
member of this Chamber, no matter what their political affiliation, would stand
in this House and say that is wrong. A
senior level of government cannot tell a junior level of government, who is
accountable to the electors who voted for them, that you cannot do that. Yet that is exactly what this government has
said to school trustees.
The school trustees of
this province were elected in November of 1992.
That is much shorter a period of mandate in terms of their having to go
to their electorate than this government has, because this government was
elected in September of 1990. So in 1992
in October, and I used November because that is the day they officially took
office, Mr. Speaker, they went out and they campaigned on October 28, and they
said we need your mandate. Our mandate is up as school trustees. We need your mandate. The citizens said to them we have concerns
about schools; we have concerns about taxation; we have concerns about quality,
and they elected trustees that they thought would reflect their concerns.
There are many school
trustees who have been elected from my school division that, quite frankly, I
do not support philosophically. I voted
for three of them. I have to say I only
won one, I lost two. That is democracy,
and I can live with that. But I
recognize that the trustees that were elected from my area, even without my X,
received the majority of the votes in my ward.
So they were duly elected from Winnipeg School Division No. 1, Ward No.
1, to represent the interests of the citizens of Ward 1.
One of their rights,
one of their authorities, is to set the budget for their school division. Included in setting the budget is built in
the necessity of having to increase taxes or decrease taxes, depending on what
your budget is. The budget set by the
members of the school trustees in the city of
Some Honourable
Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, the
school trustees throughout this province have been denied the opportunity to
set budgets that they think meet the needs of their students, and they have
been denied this opportunity because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)‑‑and
I do not believe this came from the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey)‑‑has
decreed that they will not increase their budgets by more than 2 percent.
At least, that is what
it looks like on the surface. But that
is not what is going to happen in this province. This piece of legislation does not say that
every school division can increase taxes but only to a limit of 2 percent. What this budget says is that the special
requirement cannot be increased by more than 2 percent. This actually means that some school
divisions have to have budgets lower this year than they had the previous year. That is the impact of placing it upon the
special requirement.
It also means that
another school division, and one announced today, is actually going to increase
its budget by 13 percent, and that is still within the guidelines established
by this government. So where is the fairness? Where is the equity, when they say that one
school division can increase by 13 percent and the other school division has to
decrease, has to go below zero percent and all because the Minister of Finance
decrees that he is going to take on powers and authority of school divisions
which were elected after him.
I find the whole
process of trying to make sense of this government very complex, and I have
come to one very simple conclusion, and that is they do not have a plan, they
do not know where they are going, they do not know what they want to do. They
cannot even get the Main Estimates prepared, or one assumes they cannot get the
Main Estimates prepared.
I am absolutely amazed
at ministers of this government, quite frankly, denying themselves the
opportunity to stand up for their own department in Treasury Board, because
their departments have already been settled on.
They have already been released, and they are still dealing, presumably,
with other departments.
Now, if that is not the
case, as my member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) thinks, and I must admit that I
somewhat agree with him, then the Main Estimates are prepared and they are
ready, and if the Main Estimates are ready and Treasury Board has done what
they have always done in the past, which is to give approval to the whole Estimates
before the Estimates are printed, they why cannot we have them?
Mr. Speaker, there is
no plan, and in education, the tragedy is that our children will be denied the
education they deserve unless there is a plan.
I think that there is no question that every government in this nation
is suffering from a financial crunch.
There is no question about that.
One does not have to look far at the deficit figures of provinces and
the federal government, the far worst one being the federal government, to
recognize that this nation is in financial difficulties, greater financial
difficulties than other countries like New Zealand that have gone through major
restructuring processes.
There are problems, but
I wonder why the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) thinks that he and he alone
is the only one who understands that.
Does he not think that school trustees will feel the same kinds of
pressures from their electors about increasing taxes as he will? Does he have no faith on the school
division's part that they will not try and do what he is trying to do, which is
to provide a level of service at the lowest possible cost that they can provide
it for? Does he think they are so
irresponsible to their own electors that they will not also try and run a
school system as inexpensively and as creatively as they possibly can? Why does he think that he has to use such
bully tactics to dictate to them what they already know their taxpayers are
saying‑‑we want some quality education, and we want to get it at
the best possible value.
* (1640)
The question is, why
does the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) think he has to dictate that to
them? Does he not believe that the
essence of democracy is accountability, and that means that the school trustees
are accountable to their electors, and that when they set their budgets, they
are not accountable to the Minister of Finance, not accountable to the Minister
of Education (Mrs. Vodrey), they are accountable to those who elected them to
perform the function‑‑[interjection! It would appear that the
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) would like to make a
speech. If she will, I think the Chamber
is more than willing to listen to her when I have completed mine.
Mr. Speaker, one of the
grave difficulties that is facing school divisions throughout this province is
that 80‑percent‑plus of the costs of running a school division is
staffing. Most of the school trustees
were very cautious this year in the signing of their contracts with their
employees, because they recognized that 80 percent of their costs are in fact
in staffing.
Here was the Minister
of Finance (Mr. Manness), who went out and signed contracts with the civil
servants, nobody had a gun to his head, he went out and signed contracts with
the civil servants at 2 percent. Looked
reasonable. That is what he thought was
reasonable. That is what he negotiated. That was what was signed. That is what he signed‑‑2
percent.
Winnipeg School
Division No. 1 went out and signed contracts with their teachers for 1.4
percent. It seems to me that the
trustees of Winnipeg School Division No. 1 were even more tough, more hard‑nosed
in their negotiating skills than the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). They clearly showed that they could work with
their teachers, that they could get their teachers to settle for a figure which
is below inflation, that they could negotiate that contract in good faith with
their teachers, because they could work co‑operatively with them.
The Minister of Finance
cannot do that. He has to come in .6
percent higher, but school trustees did it.
Then, having signed this negotiated contract, having gone through some
tough bargaining to do so, they then lose their authority to make budgetary
decisions based on that, because the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), through
the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey), comes along and says no, thou shalt
not increase taxes by more than 2 percent.
In this school
division, they do not get that authority because of the special requirement
provision, and so then along comes the school division and says, how do we meet
our salary? How do we meet our negotiated obligation, signed, sealed and
delivered, to our teachers?
They do not have an
answer for that one. The province does not
have an answer for how the school division is to meet that negotiated
settlement which was lower than the negotiated settlement of the Finance
minister and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) with MGEA. They are going to bully their way through it
anyway and say, this is the way that it is going to be done.
One has to also examine
when one examines this particular figure the programs which are mandated by the
Department of Education, not the school division, but by the Department of
Education, which the school trustees cannot change. They do not have the authority to change
it. Only the Minister of Education (Mrs.
Vodrey) has that authority.
One of those particular
mandated programs is the whole area of transportation, and that is a critical
issue for Winnipeg School Division No. 1, because in order‑‑the
program which is critical for many school divisions and rural divisions as well
as urban divisions is the increasing cost of transportation. In Winnipeg School Division No. 1's budget
the cost of transportation, a mandated program by the Department of Education,
increased 7.56 percent. You do not have
any choice‑‑7.56 percent.
When I took a look at
the Instructional Resource line I saw that it had decreased by 1.3
percent. Now as an educator, as someone
who had children within the public and the private school system‑‑I
admit that‑‑I kind of have to shake my head and say, there has to
be something wrong here. There has to be
something desperately wrong about a school, an education structure taking the
kids to the classroom going up and the resources instructing them once they get
there going down. I cannot explain
that. I cannot justify in my own mind
that I am spending more money getting the kid to the front door of the school
and less money teaching that same child once they arrive within that school
building. There is something drastically
wrong with an education system that has those kinds of priorities.
The No. 1 priority in
my mind as an educator is making sure that I provide the highest level of
education possible. One could say, all
right, let us put that blame on the trustees that do not have their priorities
quite correct, except that program is mandated by the Department of Education. The transportation budget is mandated. The way in which they deliver transportation
is mandated. The increase in
expenditures is mandated. Unfortunately, a lot of the costs are picked up too.
That leads me to
another dilemma, because I look at the other line of the increasing budget of
school divisions, and where do I see it?
I see it in the education of special needs children. In Winnipeg School Division No. 1, my
division, the division in which I live, I know that the
* (1650)
I want to know how the
school divisions are supposed to act in a responsible fashion to their
electorate with those kinds of constraints, and I would suggest to you, Mr.
Speaker, they cannot do it. Not if they
are going to provide the kind of education program which the Minister of Education
(Mrs. Vodrey) tells them they must deliver.
But that, again, is not
the only problem that is facing the school divisions. One has to wonder about a minister, Mr.
Speaker, who cannot send information out to the school divisions about how they
can cut dollars, how they can change programs, how they can reorganize and
reform their school divisions, but she can send the following letters.
Well, she sent out one
letter, but actually it was the deputy minister, sent out a letter to all the
employees of the Department of Education.
Now this was a very critical, important letter. They have such serious matters in the
Department of Education that they were able to send out a letter from John
Carlyle, the Deputy Minister of Education, that told all of the Department of
Education staff that they should no longer use "cc" at the bottom of
their letters, and they should not use "cc" at the bottom of the
letters because now everybody used computers or electronic typewriters and
therefore there were no more carbon copies, so a simple "c" would be
sufficient at the bottom of the letter.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this
is really a critical education decision.
We have time in the Department of Education to write letters about the
use of "cc" versus "c," but we cannot provide them with
information about mandated programs and about how they can bring about costs.
But do not let it stop
there, because not only had the deputy minister got out this really exciting,
critical issue in education strategy, but a week later the minister herself
followed it up with an even more exciting letter, in this particular case, the
Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) sent out a letter saying that she preferred
the staff to use two "l's" in the spelling of the word
"enrollment" instead of one "l." Now again, we are dealing with an extraordinary
critical issue in education. My
dictionary says clearly that both can be used, but not according to the
Minister of Education. She does not like
to have her correspondence with only one "l" for
"enrollment"; she likes to have two "l's" in "enrollment."
Well, Mr. Speaker, she
is certainly at liberty to send out letters anytime she wants to, but I must
admit to a certain sense of failure with the Department of Education that feels
that kind of correspondence is more important than addressing the very serious
issues facing education in the
So what kind of
education plan do we have? Mr. Speaker,
we have had only two pieces of legislation with regard to schools since this
government took office in 1990. One had
to deal with the so‑called governance issue and the other with the so‑called
2 percent solution. The 2 percent
solution was supposed to ensure, one hopes in their own minds, not in mine but
in their own minds, that somehow or other the taxpayers of
The other issue, the
issue of governance‑‑[interjection! Mr. Speaker, apparently the
member for Russell (Mr. Derkach) would also like to speak, and I will look
forward to hearing his comments on this bill, particularly as I would like to
address some comments upon his administration of the Department of Education.
We brought into place
in the last bill that we introduced governance for community colleges. Well, I had welcomed the opportunity for a
governing model for the community colleges, a governance model I had hoped
would bring the community colleges closer together, would allow them to, quite
frankly, develop in new and innovative ways, because I think even the former
Minister of Education would recognize, although perhaps he would not, but I
think maybe he would, that the Department of Education itself has a very heavy
burden of responsibility, and the community colleges did not get the time and
attention that they probably should have gotten within the model, which meant
that all decisions were literally made by the Department of Education. So the movement towards a governance model
was to in fact give them more authority and more jurisdiction, and that was an
interesting concept.
Unfortunately, what
they did was they then, instead of going to a governance model which would
provide for equality of representation on a single board of the three community
colleges, said, no, we have to have three boards. So instead of making the bureaucracy more
efficient, making the bureaucracy more responsive to the needs of the community
colleges, we have now established a community college system where you are
going to have three boards that are going to be in competition with one
another, which are going to end up having the duplication and, in some cases,
triplication of programs which could be more easily handled with one governance
body for all three community colleges.
On the one hand, we
have the former Minister of Education finding ways to spend more money on the
so‑called bureaucracy, so much on the concept of‑‑[interjection!
Well, now, I find that fascinating because out of my bad hearing ear, I can
hear the former Minister of Education talking about local autonomy.
What a concept. What an issue. Local autonomy. [interjection! Yes, I sure
have. Do you know what local autonomy
means? Local autonomy means that the
people who are elected or appointed to do a function must be held
accountable. That is what local autonomy
is all about. That is what the minister
says he believes in. Well, then I have
to say that with the greatest respect I expect the former Minister of Education
to stand in his place and vote against Bill 16, because what Bill 16 does is to
take away local autonomy from the school divisions. That is exactly what it does. It takes the right of the school divisions to
set their own taxation level, that they in being responsible to their taxpayers
will set the rate of taxes as they feel fit in that they were duly elected by
those same taxpayers in the fall of 1992.
That is what autonomy
is all about. That is what the
honourable Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), the former Minister of
Education, says that he firmly believes in. Well, I am delighted he firmly
believes in that principle. In light of
his firm dedication to that principle, I will be equally delighted when he
votes with the opposition parties in opposition to Bill 16, because that in
fact is what he has done.
If you are interested
in the concept of genuine financial reform of the school divisions, then there
is indeed a simple way to do it. That
simple way to do it is to start reorganizing school division boundaries. We fought an election campaign in 1990. Shortly after we in the Liberal Party
announced that we were strong believers in the reorganization of school
division boundaries, the Premier (Mr. Filmon), for a moment not in his canoe, made
the big announcement that he, too, believed in the reorganization of school
division boundaries, and that one of the first actions that his government
would take would be to begin the process of the reorganization of school
division boundaries.
An Honourable
Member: He said that. I heard him say
that.
Mrs. Carstairs: He did say that. I have the press releases. I have all of the press coverage of that
particular event. I was so pleased with
it because I thought finally‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House,
the honourable member for
Mrs. Carstairs: Unlimited.
Mr. Speaker: Oh, she is on unlimited
time. That is right.
* (1700)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., time for
Private Members' Business.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 8‑Retention of Crow Benefit
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for
Ms. Wowchuk: I move, seconded by the member
for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans), that
WHEREAS the federal
government has engaged a consultant to find ways to eliminate the historic Crow
benefit; and
WHEREAS this consultant
has recommended turning the responsibility for the Crow benefit over to the
provinces, with each province choosing its preferred method of payment; and
WHEREAS this move would
create a patchwork of policies regulating grain transportation in western
WHEREAS the consultant
has also recommended eliminating distance related rates and substituting a cost‑based
system; and
WHEREAS the adoption of
a cost‑based system would place farmers on branchlines in an unfair
position regarding shipping their grain to export markets; and
WHEREAS the consultant
has further recommended lifting the protection for branchlines which were
protected from abandonment until the year 2000; and
WHEREAS this will
result in immediate massive abandonment of branchlines, throwing greater costs
onto producers, municipalities and the provinces; and
WHEREAS the Minister of
Grains and Oilseeds is allowing other countries at GATT negotiations to equate
the historic Crow benefit with the European Community's Restitution Program and
the American Export Enhancement Program; and
WHEREAS the federal
minister is using a potential GATT agreement as an excuse to get rid of the
Crow benefit.
THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba oppose, in the strongest
possible terms, the recommendations of the consultant which include moving a
cost‑based grain transportation rate system; lifting of protection on
branchlines; and a patchwork of rate subsidy policies across western Canada;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
that this Assembly call on the federal Minister of Grains and Oilseeds to stand
up for Canada's interests regarding the Crow benefit at the GATT negotiations;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
that this Assembly urge the Minister of Agriculture to consider aggressively
lobbying in favour of retaining the present method of payment.
Motion presented.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, since we
have returned to the House, I have raised the issue of the Crow benefit with
the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) several times to no avail. We have not gotten an answer from the
Minister of Agriculture on what his government's position is on this. It is a very important issue for farmers, and
I would hope he would take this resolution to heart and lobby very hard to
retain the payment to the railways, to retain the Crow benefit as it is.
About three years ago,
the federal government launched the national agrifood policy review. One of the things that they were discussing
was the handling of the transportation of the grain. They wanted that review. After a series of meetings‑‑137
meetings were held to consult with the industry and producers on the proposal
of changing the transportation system.
Although the meetings were biased in the opinion of many farmers and the
questions were very slanted, farmers voted and sent a message, quite a clear
message, that they were opposed to the change. They wanted the method of the
payment to remain as it is. The majority
of people wanted the method of payment to remain as it is.
The federal government
continues to pursue this, and we hear nothing from the provincial
government. The federal government is
proposing turning the payments over to the province. That will just create chaos, a patchwork
program. What we need for transportation
is a strong national program, just as we do with all agriculture programs. If we are to have a viable agriculture
industry, we need strong programs, programs that are consistent throughout the
provinces.
A good example of
inconsistent programs is what we had with GRIP, different programs in each
province; the same program, different ways of implementing, different
coverages. That has caused
problems. We are going to have the same
thing if we have the transportation subsidies put into the hands of the provincial
government. We will not have fairness.
Mr. Speaker, the most
important issue facing rural communities, facing Manitobans today, is the low
farm income, farm debt. The federal and
provincial governments should be focusing on these things. They should not be focusing on how they can
take away services from farmers.
The transportation
proposal will be of little benefit to those farm families and future
generations who will lose the permanent transportation benefits guaranteed to
them by law. If the federal government
proposal proceeds, costs of transportation will increase and will create a farm
income problem that is worse than today.
We are going to see additional costs picked up by the farmers.
All the changes being
proposed by the federal government‑‑if these changes go through we
will not see rural
We have to look at who
is going to pick this up. If the costs
were to be transferred from the federal government and the railways‑‑from
the federal government and onto the producers, we are going to lose railway
service and we are going to see the province, municipalities having to pick up
additional costs. With the way we have seen this government offload their road
responsibilities onto the municipalities, you know that there is going to be a
shift and more costs being picked up by farmers‑‑shifted onto a
smaller tax base. The whole road system
is going to take a tremendous amount of pressure if we see a shift onto the
road system and abandonment of railways.
In 1984 the government
made a commitment to pay a share of the grain transportation rate forever. This is $720 million that is presently being
paid to the railways in order to keep a system of transportation to get the
grain to the seaports at a reasonable cost.
The current method is the only method which supports distant‑related
rates, ensures that railways invest in a grain transportation system and places
priority on moving grain and precludes excessive profits taken by the railway.
A change will result in
much higher costs. Now we hear many
people say that if we have a change in the method of payment, we are going to
see diversification of the rural economy.
We heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) speak many times of
this global economy that we are living in and that we have to change to
that. Studies have concluded that the
payment of the Crow benefit directly to the farmers will do little to diversify
the economy.
If the Crow benefit is
eliminated what we will have is the net income of farmers drop, and the offset
in the livestock industry versus the grain industry will not nearly compensate
the loss of the transportation industry.
With the low grain prices that we have today, if the cattle industry was
going to increase that much, it would be increasing as it is.
There are markets for
the grain that we grow, and we have to retain that. However, what we have to have from this
government and this minister is some position.
Farmers have said they do not want a change in the method of
payment. They want it to stay the same
as it is. We hear all kinds of rumours
about what is going to happen. It could
go through NISA and different ways of paying this money.
* (1710)
We have to know what
this government is doing. We believe
that the payment should stay the same, that we have to retain the
transportation system that is there. We
have said that many times, but we are not hearing a message from this
government.
I urge the Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) to come out and support retaining the system, but if
he is not going to support it, then tell farmers what he is proposing. Is the plan to pay the money to the
producers? Then how is that going to
happen? He said earlier today that there
is no proposal. If they are moving on a
fast track to get this done before the federal government dissolves or ends
their session, then it is on a fast track and there has to be a plan in place.
I believe, Mr. Speaker,
that if there is this plan in place, that the minister should go to the public
and once more put his plan to them and let them have a say. We should not be giving this away before we
know what the benefits are. We hear
about GATT, that we have to put our transportation assistance on the table
because of GATT. On the other hand, we
hear that the GATT negotiations are failing.
Nothing is happening there.
So why are we so
prepared to give things away that we do not have to? The same thing applies to the marketing
boards. Why are we prepared to give
these away, say that they have to be negotiated? Let us look at what we have here, and if
there is going to be change, tell the farmers what the benefit is to them.
The majority of
I think that it is very
important that farmers have a chance to have an input. We hear that there is a possibility of this
package being pushed through by the federal government, enabling legislation,
and then there will be regulations brought in on how it is going to be handled. In fairness to the farmers, I think it would
be fair that when we have this package that I get the impression that the
minister is supporting, that the farmers have a chance to have input into it.
Again, we hear many
times and I have heard the minister saying we have to change with the global
economy. I do not know why he keeps
taking that line when I think what we have to look at is what is it that we
have here, and why are we so prepared to give it up, to just put something on
the table when studies tell us that these changes are not going to be that
great a benefit.
As I say, Mr. Speaker,
we have to look at what this is going to do to the rural communities. I think that we will see a whole change in
the dynamics of rural
Earlier, I also
mentioned to the minister about what has happened in the
I have listened, and I
wonder whether the minister has any facts to substantiate that, whether he has
looked at the results of the changes that have taken place in the States, where
farmers have been the losers from the deregulation. That is exactly what is going to happen here.
[interjection! The minister says that we stood up for the
It appears that it is
not the small farmer that matters to this minister. The small farmer is at the bottom of the pole
and really not important. It is the
corporate sector that is really important.
Again, we urge the minister to look seriously at this resolution and
take very serious consideration on what the implications of making the change
to the transportation assistance payment is going to mean. This is a historical benefit that has been
put in place for the farming community, for the grain industry.
The minister should
look very carefully at what this will do to weaken the grain industry and
listen to what farmers are saying and take a strong stand as he should have
after the public meetings that were held last time. When the farmers said they were opposed to
this, he should have taken a strong stand, and he has not taken that stand
yet. I urge him to tell us what he is
supporting, what the proposals are. Let
us know and let farmers know about what is going on and after he listens to the
farmers take a strong stand and fight for a support that has been there for a
long time and that the farmers are asking him to support.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member for
Mr. Speaker, I would
like to remind‑‑[interjection! Yeah, he pulls up to the table every
day. He does not know where it came
from. I would like to remind the member
for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) that the Crow benefit came in in 1887, and the
Crow benefit was set up to promote the economic development of western Canada.
Now, economic
development in western
But, Mr. Speaker, I
want to remind that member that we would not have farms in rural
We also export over 20
livestock commodities. [interjection! That member is not the least bit
interested in agriculture. He is always
on a political agenda. He is not
interested in what makes the economy of this province tick, what pays the bills
for the social programs that he thinks are so important. How does he expect to pay for them if we do
not have a healthy economic sector in this province?
* (1720)
But let us carry
on. Back in 1887, this whole process
started. Agriculture has evolved
tremendously, and to their credit, they have responded to what consumers wanted
in this country, in the world. We have
continued to produce it very efficiently, very competitively with other people
in the world, and the economic system works.
Let us face it. There is no other
system.
I mean, I was in
You know, there is only
one government in the world, he told me.
This is a person of about your age.
He told me there is only one government in the world. I am sure you would not have a clue what it
is‑‑international marketplace‑‑only one government in
the world, and everybody else tinkering around the edges. Ultimately, that is
where value is set. Everybody who is
buying always buys the lowest price and the highest quality. If you do not use those principles, you do
not survive. A whole country of 250
million people learned it the very, very hard way. Throughout the world, the
whole principle that you can manage and make everything work good by government
is a total joke.
That member stands up
here and says we have to manage everything because it is the same today as it
was in 1887. That is what she is
saying. She went through all her
discussion‑‑she did not say that we should retain the benefit for
the support of farmers. She did not say
we should retain it to support rural
In fact,
I would like
to remind the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) in case he cannot think this
through, I think Roy Romanow has been the Premier of Saskatchewan now for about
two years. He is an NDPer, and he is the
one who brought in the policy I just talked about. If he does not believe me, watch carefully
what happens tomorrow in
An Honourable
Member: In
Mr. Findlay: The legacy of the NDP. I mean, it is bizarre. We have an industry that has evolved in spite
of these distortions, and the money that was used in western
If we are exporting
wheat all over the world, so somebody else can have the value‑added job
of processing it, I do not think that is good.
We have many
communities now that are searching. They
have set up economic development committees to try to find things they can do
in their community to create jobs. Well,
the best thing they could do is to use the commodities they produce on the land
around their towns and process it.
Process it into flour, or durum into pasta‑‑that is the
word, thank you‑‑or livestock products, process them.
But the member stands
up and says, let us spend the money, give the money to the railroads so that we
can haul the raw product out of here, and to heck with developing rural
The money is shrinking
because when the NDP was in power in this province they allowed the federal
government‑‑I am sorry, under a Liberal government‑‑to
bring in the WGT Act in 1983 which set in motion the destruction of the value‑‑
An Honourable Member:
You should
be sorry for saying that.
Mr. Findlay: I have to tell the truth. Ever since then farmers pay the first 6
percent of inflation, so that is eroding the value of that benefit. It was capped at 31.5 million tonnes so that
farmers had to pay all the cost over that.
Before that the Crow benefit paid for all the transportation, it paid
for all the inflation.
That NDP government sat
over here in 1983 and allowed that to happen.
Ever since then the buying power, the Crow benefit has been depreciating
very, very rapidly.
That member, he was out
there campaigning, fundraising for the NDP while they were in here destroying
agriculture of rural
Another fact I would
like the member to be very carefully aware of.
You know, we sit a long way from salt water here. The cost at the farm gate for transportation
has doubled since 1983, and many farmers are responding by trying to find better
markets. We have gone from 14 percent of
our agriculture commodities going into the
Technically, I will
remind the member that if it goes south in the truck or south in the train it
does not attract a dollar of support under the Crow benefit. Now the member is really saying that
I would ask the member
to very carefully talk to farmers and look at where we are in terms of agriculture,
what we produce, where we are exporting and how we should be making sure that
all farmers are treated relatively equally in terms of the use of public money
to promote production in this province for local consumption or for export.
Mr. Speaker, in the
process of trying to determine what is best for Manitoba‑‑that is
really the critical question‑‑I set up a ministry's advisory
council almost five years ago. Representatives were Manitoba Pool, UGG, Union
of Manitoba Municipalities,
I asked the member‑‑she
says it will keep transportation costs down if we pay it to the railroads. Well, I would like her to explain to me how
that is true. When the railroads are
transporting potash or sulphur or coal, is the money paid from the government
to the railroads? No, it is paid by the
people who are having the commodity transported. Have prices gone out of line? No, they have not.
The problem is, that
member does not trust
An Honourable
Member: Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Mr. Findlay: The member for Kildonan (Mr.
Chomiak) is getting rather agitated over there.
After I move an amendment, I would like him to stand up and talk.
Mr. Speaker, how much
more time do I have left, please? Four
minutes.
This is a very
sensitive issue. It is a very delicate
issue. I know that it has been NDP
policy for a long time to object to any change.
I have to tell the
member for
I want her to look at
how we can most effectively use that money to be sure we do not hurt farmers in
terms of trying to access markets. Maybe
the present process will be the best way in the future, but please let us look
at it, look at the changes in the industry, look at what
Mr. Speaker, I would
like to move, seconded by the member for
THAT Resolution 8 be
amended by deleting all words following the first "WHEREAS" and
replacing them with the following:
WHEREAS the Crow
benefit was established in 1887 to promote the economic development of western
WHEREAS the Western
Grain Transportation Act (WGTA), which was passed in 1983, was in response to
the losses experienced by the railways and their resulting lack of investment
in grain cars or track improvements; and
WHEREAS the
international trade environment has changed dramatically over the last few
years; and
WHEREAS producers have
seen transportation and handling costs rise over the years; and
WHEREAS the reduction
of the overall costs of the transporting and handling grain from the farm to
port is an important factor in maintaining and enhancing the competitiveness of
Canadian farmers; and
WHEREAS diversification
and value‑added activities would reduce our dependence on world grain
markets and create employment opportunities in the
WHEREAS it is incumbent
upon all levels of government to ensure tax dollars are delivered in the most
beneficial and effective way possible; and
WHEREAS interested
stakeholders have been consulted by the federal government throughout its
agricultural policy review
THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba encourage the federal
government to adopt a grain transportation policy which will ensure that the
farmers and rural communities in
Thank you very much.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable minister's
amendment is in order.
* (1730)
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Oui, M. le
Presidente.
Mr. Speaker, it gives me
pleasure to rise on this resolution here that was put forth by the NDP.
I am always a little
bit leery when I see a resolution from the NDP because, when they go out in the
community, you see them fearmongering.
That is my problem with them.
The Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) a few minutes ago here discussed the party that did
that before the Conservatives. I will not mention any names. I am more or less in agreement with what he
says, because we are here to work for the farmers of
I think we all have an
interest, because the farmers of
An Honourable
Member: He is just an old horse trader.
Mr. Gaudry: No, he is not a horse
trader. He is a fine man. [interjection] The member for Riel (Mr. Ducharme)
just said that he is going to be a senator.
I wish him well. I am sure he
would be a good senator. He has been a
good member in the Legislature.
Mr. Speaker, I look at
the resolution, I have to be careful here what I will say, but as I say, I will
speak on behalf of the
(Mr. Marcel
Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
Mr. Acting Speaker, let
us be serious, as I say, the resolution has been presented by the NDP. They have concerns and they have expressed
them in some of the WHEREASes they have put out here in this resolution and in
their THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. It is
the same thing, but the minister has amended the resolution. Of course, we expected that because I put out
a resolution for seniors the other day and the Minister responsible for Seniors
(Mr. Ducharme) amended the resolution.
What I do not like when
they amend a resolution is the fact they congratulate the government then. The government cannot be always
congratulated. I think I do a fair job
of congratulating them. I think I have a
good relationship with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay). He has offered his information at all times,
and I feel very comfortable talking to his staff.
As I say, a resolution
like this that is in the interest of the
Mr. Acting Speaker, I
know time is short and there are other members in the Legislature who would
like to put comments on this resolution.
I know it will never pass because of the fact that it will go to the
bottom of the Order Paper. Sometimes you
would like to see some of these resolutions adopted.
An Honourable
Member: Maybe there will be a vote on this one.
Mr. Gaudry: Do you want me to put a vote
through so that maybe we can‑‑[interjection]
Okay, but I would like to give a chance to other members of the Legislature to
put their comments on this in regard to helping the farmers. There are many concerns out in farming
communities‑‑transportation and other things. The farmers want to retain the benefit, and
we want to do the same thing for the farmers as a whole and for the country of
Mr. Acting Speaker, in
concluding, I would like to say that I would like to see some of these
resolutions sometimes pass to the benefit of Manitobans. Therefore, I will conclude and let somebody
else make comments. I know there are a
few because it will be the last time we will speak on this because it will not
pass. I know that.
Thank you very much,
Mr. Acting Speaker.
The Acting Speaker
(Mr. Laurendeau): Is the
House ready for the question?
Mr. Jack Penner
(Emerson): Mr. Acting
Speaker, at times such as this when we can debate an issue that is as important
as the transportation of grains out of our province into export position, one
should I suppose always accept, and I certainly accept this challenge to
address and put on the record some of my thoughts on the Crow benefit and the
whole transportation system in general.
* (1740)
I find this whole issue
interesting and challenging, because it is something that has been with us ever
since we opened up western
Secondly, it was
important for the security of the nation as a whole that we open up western
Ten years after the
railways were built, we should have ended the Crow rate. If we had done that and if we would have
stood fast as politicians, and it was really political decisions that prevented
the transfer of the processing sector and manufacturing into western
We allowed and
encouraged the establishment of cheaper and cheaper rates by government
supports into eastern Canada to support the growing livestock industry in
eastern Canada, whether it was in Quebec or Ontario and even further east
because we established a rate that was called the at‑an‑east rate,
and we put some $40 million annually to ensure that we could ship feed grain
from the Thunder Bay port all the way to the East Coast, again, to support the
livestock industry in those eastern provinces.
We had feed boards
established. We had eastern freight
rates established and assistance programs established. We had the at‑an‑east program
established. We had the Crow benefit
established, and we had the feed grain subsidies established. The reason it was
done, Mr. Acting Speaker, the reason all these programs were put in place was
not to the benefit of the western livestock producer or the western grain producer. It was done under the auspices of very often
getting rid of surpluses which periodically were generated, but largely because
we never concentrated on moving any of that grain south.
Our whole mentality was
east‑west. We built export
terminals in
So here we are today,
again, as we historically have done, as the socialists under the CCF,
initially, way back‑‑I mean, Tommy Douglas, and who was the person
who stablished the CCF? I mean the CCF
largely came to prominence in western
I think the time and
history have come when we must recognize that we have a tremendous market just
to the south of us, whether it is the American market or even a bit farther
south, the Mexican market, and even if we want to travel a bit farther south than
that, and that is the Latin American market and the South American market, all
within the American continents.
We sit here and we fear
the competition, yet our producers will tell you, our farmers will tell you,
that they are probably the most productive in the world, probably the best in
the world, and they want to‑‑those producers want to open the
borders and compete with their southern neighbours. Our producers have said time and time again,
when I was involved in the agricultural organization, open the borders, give us
a level playing field, and we will compete.
They said it in
We must come to some
agreement in the world to do away with these support programs, to do away with,
if you want to call it the Crow benefit, call it the Crow benefit, but move
into a productive, competitive marketplace.
It will not come easy.
Should the Crow benefit
remain in the interim? Well, let us look
at it. Three years ago, four years ago,
we were shipping grain off our farm. We
were paying 10 cents a bushel, and just do these calculations, from my farm to
the elevator. We were paying 21 cents a
bushel elevation and transportation from the elevator to
Now, if I hired
somebody to haul my grain roughly that same distance to
* (1750)
CSP Foods, which is now
Canamera Foods, tried to negotiate with our railways a government‑supported
rate, by the way, to ship oil and meal to
I ask you: Where does this $750 million go? Is it to the benefit of the farm community,
or is it simply a total waste? Are we paying the railways $750 million, for
what? To be noncompetitive, to put in
place a transportation system that simply is not adequate anymore?
That is the issue we
are dealing with, and that is the issue that all governments must address, Mr.
Acting Speaker. That is why governments
traditionally in this province, in
I say to the member for
Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) that unless we come to terms with reality, whether it
be in transportation or whether it be in medicare, whether it be in education
or any other issues, or whether it simply is government delivering services to
people, we must face the fact that we must become competitive or we will not be
in business. We will not have generated
enough revenue to pay the taxes to support the system.
So, therefore, I
propose to you that the resolution or that the amendment that the minister has
put before you is a realistic amendment, reflecting the realities of the
day. This is not old‑think; this
is new‑think. This is a new
generation of agricultural people dealing in a competitive manner in the
marketplace, and therefore, Mr. Acting Speaker, I propose to you that we should
support the amendment to this resolution.
We must negotiate, debate and discuss on how to add some real economics
to our transportation system, and whether you call it the Crow benefit or
whether you call it something entirely different, we must force those railways
to be competitive.
I say to the honourable
member for
I would suggest that
she listen to the real farmers in her valley, as well as the rest of rural
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Acting
Speaker, I will leave enough time for the House to entertain the question if
they would like, but I do want to say a couple of things, because in a Chamber
where at times, a good portion of the time, the debate produces considerably
more heat than information, I have enjoyed this.
I have thoroughly
enjoyed what I have sat and listened to.
I listened carefully to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), the
member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) and
the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), frankly, and I want to say this is a
complex‑‑I mean, anybody who has grown up in western Canada has
heard about the Crow rate, whether they understand what it is or not, and if
you function politically, you have had the spectre of this thing hanging over
you. So I found the presentations to be
both informative and enlightening.
I do want to say that I
am quite prepared to support the amendment to this resolution, because I think
the Minister of Agriculture made some very, very important points about the
economic development of this part of the country.
But I do want to sound
two cautionary notes. He referenced
international markets when he spoke, and I hear the talk of markets coming out
of the government a lot, as you tend to hear from certain segments of the
community, as though somehow a market is all‑powerful and that it exists
somehow separate from human experience.
Now, it is true that a
free and open market is the best mechanism, as the minister himself suggested,
for setting the lowest price for the highest quality good, and also the
allocation and distribution of goods are pretty efficiently handled by
markets. That is a fact, but it is wrong
to think of markets as being separate from human control or interventions.
Markets are the creation of people.
People in some form or another create them and regulate them. So what we are talking about is not the
absence of the involvement of governments, it is the kind of involvement by
governments and the degree of involvement.
I think what we have
learned over these last few decades is that government is getting more
involved. Governments simply have not
acquired the skill or the understanding or the knowledge to intervene
intelligently. For my friends on my
right, although I suspect on my left in other ways, I would like to deal with
one issue that they keep raising in this House, and it is the question of regulation. They speak about this‑‑it seems
as if it is either no regulation or complete regulation and, obviously, that is
nonsensical. The truth lies somewhere on
a continuation between those two things.
The thing that we have
not learned it seems‑‑I think both the members from the governing side
who spoke pointed out very clearly some of the flaws in our attempts to
intervene in these markets, where they were helpful in the beginning. They were very helpful in meeting a public
good, which was the establishment of railways and eventually the establishment
of branchlines. That created a
discernible public good, but we did not step back from it. We did not step back from it quickly enough.
So I think as the House
has appeared to want an opportunity to vote on this, I will sit down in time to
allow it to come to a vote, but I do want to return to this question of what a
market really is and how we intervene and ask the government to step back from
the sense that you cannot intervene, because I think that is somewhat
misguided.
Thank you.
Ms. Wowchuk: I hear the member for Osborne
indicating that he is willing to allow us to go to a vote, but I would like to
make a few comments about the amendment that the minister has made and also a
few comments to the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner).
Mr. Acting Speaker, I
guess the one thing that the member said, that all of this province is in grave
financial problems, he seems to want to blame all of these problems on this
method of payment and other government supports. He has to admit that many of the problems
that this government is facing right now with its deficits are things that they
have done, the policies of this government.
They are the ones who have created this great deficit that we have in
this province, and he is trying to imply that it is because of the
transportation assistance that that is why we have a problem with a
deficit. This government is not
addressing many of the concerns.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I
am disappointed that the government would choose to amend a resolution to such
an extent when we had put forward a concern that we had. Just looking at some of the comments that the
minister made I believe about the livestock industry that the livestock
industry is going to grow so tremendously in this province if we change‑‑we
had processing here in
He talks about value‑added
jobs. Why was there not the support for
the beef production, for the livestock industry from this government? There was a program in place, a feed
assistance program. This government
cancelled it. But the whole processing
industry could have been retained here in this province, and we should have a process.
I do not know where the
minister gets off saying that we do not believe in diversification. I think we do have to have the value‑added
jobs in rural
The Acting Speaker
(Mr. Laurendeau): Order,
please. The hour being 6 p.m., the
member for
The hour now being 6
p.m., this House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until tomorrow
(Thursday) at 1:30 p.m.