LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
OF
Friday, May 14, 1993
The House met at 10 a.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Kari Kennedy, Kim La Rocque,
Sheryl Robertson and others requesting the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard)
consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it was prior to
the 1993‑94 budget.
* * *
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Errol Wilson, Walter
Spence, Brenda Thomas and others requesting the Family Services minister (Mr.
Gilleshammer) to consider restoring funding for the friendship centres in
* * *
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
* * *
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Katie Wipf, Jack Wipf, Ann Wipf and others requesting the Minister of Health
(Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it
was prior to the 1993‑94 budget.
Mr. Speaker:
I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Ms.
Wowchuk). It complies with the
privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant):
The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS the Canadian Wheat Board has
played a vital role in the orderly marketing of Canadian wheat, barley and
other grain products since its inception in 1935; and
WHEREAS the federal Minister of
Agriculture is considering removing barley from the jurisdiction of the Wheat
Board; and
WHEREAS this is another step towards
dismantling the board; and
WHEREAS, as in the case with the removal
of oats from the Wheat Board in 1989, there has been no consultation with the
board of directors of the Wheat Board, with the 11‑member advisory
committee to the board or the producers themselves; and
WHEREAS the federal minister has said that
there will be no plebiscite of farmers before the announcement is made.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker:
I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Hickes). It complies with the privileges and the
practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk:
The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS the United Nations has declared
1993 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme,
"Indigenous People: a new
partnership"; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and
WHEREAS the elimination of all funding to
friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as the services
and programs provided, such as: assistance
to the elderly, the homeless, youth programming, the socially disadvantaged,
families in crisis, education, recreation and cultural programming, housing
relocation, fine options, counselling, court assistance, advocacy;
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker:
I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mrs.
Carstairs). It complies with the
privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk:
The petition of the undersigned residents of the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly urge the government of
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 34‑The
Public Schools Amendment (Francophone Schools Governance) Act
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education
and Training): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the First
Minister (Mr. Filmon), that Bill 34, The Public Schools Amendment (Francophone
Schools Governance) Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles publiques (gestion
des ecoles francaises), be introduced and that the same be now received and
read a first time.
His Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor,
having been advised of the contents of this bill, recommends it to the House,
and I would like to table the message.
Motion agreed to.
* (1005)
Introduction of Guests
Mr.
Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
morning from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this morning.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
New Careers Program
Funding Reduction–Cost
Benefit
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier
(Mr. Filmon).
Those programs have been ACCESS and New
Careers, among other programs. The New
Careers program was a program that was almost sacrificed by the Sterling Lyon
task force on the economy. It was a vice‑president
of Great‑West Life who recommended we get rid of it, and even Sterling
Lyon said no to getting rid of the New Careers program or reducing the New
Careers program because he understood‑‑even Sterling Lyon
understood‑‑that it had an 85 percent retention rate over two‑year
training programs, which was one of the most successful programs, and a 95
percent job success rate.
The government has cut $1.7 million out of
this program. Two years ago we used to
have 360 people in that program. This
year we are down to 210.
What is the cost benefit for our
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of
Education and Training): The amount that the member has
spoken about is not entirely correct. It does not relate entirely to the New
Careers program. When we get to that
budget line within the Estimates, I think he will see that a good portion of
that reduction, over $800,000 of it, relates to another vocational school
program within this province.
Training Period
Reduction
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister and the
Premier for a cost‑benefit, results of the cutback that she has
made. It has gone down $1.7
million. The clients have gone down from
'90‑91, from 360 down to 210 in her own Estimates book.
We have also been informed that there may
be a reduction in the time period allocated for trainees. I would like to ask the Premier, will there
be a reduction in the training period, which has been two years for New Careers
trainees?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education
and Training): As I have answered in this House before, we
have had to look at a number of reductions across government and this was a
very difficult process for all ministries and for government as a whole. However, we were able to maintain a commitment
to our New Careers program, and we also maintain a commitment to its community‑based
style.
Funding Reinstatement
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the
Opposition): There were tough decisions made. The Tories raised the amount of money ready
for corporate orientation programs, which were traditionally paid by the
companies; they raised it in this year's budget by about $1.5 million. They took the amount of money for‑‑they
went from $3.5 million to over $5 million in this budget. They took the money for aboriginal people,
for underemployed people, for people in poverty, in New Careers training
programs, the people who are the most vulnerable, that have had a high, 95
percent success ratio, and reduced that by almost the same amount of money, in
fact, a little bit more, coincidentally, in this program.
We understand that the Minister of
Education whimsically wrote a note to her staff, saying that she did not think
there was any success in the New Careers program. On that whimsical statement alone, corporate
orientation was improved by $1.5 million, and aboriginal training and New
Careers were reduced.
Will the Premier (Mr. Filmon) now do what
Sterling Lyon did and intervene in the callous decisions of his government and
reinstate the funding for New Careers program in the
* (1010)
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of
Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, as I said, this
government has had to make a number of difficult decisions. We have looked very carefully at the Advanced
Education and Skills Training portion of our department. We are now reorganizing that department; we
have moved into our department programs which were previously in the Department
of Family Services, which also look at community‑based training. We also have literacy programs which also are
community‑based training. We have
maintained a commitment to the style of programming that New Careers offered;
we have also maintained a budget line for New Careers.
Let me remind the Leader of the Opposition
that he said in 1989, cabinet ministers on a daily basis have to say no to
people, have to say no again to people, and I respect that. It is the job that goes with the territory.
ACCESS Programs
Exclusions
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley):
Mr. Speaker, when the government in its Estimates cut 16 percent from
the ACCESS programs, what this may mean is that at the Winnipeg Education
Centre, for example, only those who have external funds, or who can find the
fees in other ways, will be able to enter the program.
I want to ask the minister: Is it her intention to change this particular
program so that it will exclude non‑Status Indians and immigrant people
and the inner‑city poor, the people for whom it was in part originally
designed?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of
Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, we have had to look
at, again, a number of budget decisions also in the ACCESS area. But, as I have explained to the member
before, the ACCESS program funding did flow partly through the federal
government, and they have changed the way in which they are funding their
students in the program.
We have maintained a commitment to ACCESS
programs. We assisted students last year
to make sure that they would be able to finish their programs. We are now working with the institutions to
look at how we can perhaps reduce the administrative costs of the ACCESS
programs to provide the greatest amount of support to students in the student
support area.
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Speaker, the minister has not answered my question.
Is it her intention to exclude from this
program people who are not funded through external sources?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, again, as I have said to the
member, the ACCESS programming and the funding which flows from this government
does cover two parts of support: one is
support to students, and another is support to the administrative
structure. So we are now looking to work
with the institutions so that we can provide the greatest amount of support to
students within the ACCESS program and maintain an intake.
Students' External
Funding
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley):
Mr. Speaker, will there be students taken into the ACCESS program this
year who have any funding other than band funding?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of
Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, we are looking at
the intakes into the ACCESS program at this time; we are looking also at the
programs that those students are applying for.
When we have all that information, I will be able to let the honourable
member know.
ACCESS Programs
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education has been speaking this morning
about the ACCESS program at the Winnipeg Education Centre and speaks about the
fact that there are ongoing discussions with her department.
Can the minister tell this House today,
because we do have students who are waiting to see if they can get into this
program, when can these students and when can the Winnipeg Education Centre
expect an answer from her department as to the status of that program?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of
Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, we are working as
quickly as possible with the institutions, and we will be letting the
institutions know as quickly as possible.
We understand the importance for students.
Ms. Gray:
Mr. Speaker, the intake part of the program was to begin on May 3, so we
are already behind schedule.
Could the minister be a little bit more
specific? Can she tell us when we can
expect an answer and when we can let students know about that particular
program?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, again, I have said to the member,
we will be letting the students know as quickly as possible. We are attempting to work with the
institutions. We want to make sure that
we have the greatest amount of money available to assist students into the
program. That is why we are looking for
administrative cost savings.
* (1015)
Alternative Funding
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood):
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the
Can the minister tell this House
today: Is her department prepared to
look at any type of funding for this particular program or is that definitely
not an option?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of
Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, the member has been
speaking about ACCESS programs and now she speaks about another program. Perhaps we will be able to discuss in detail
her concerns during the Estimates process.
Government Departments
Service Co-ordination
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister
of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to a
question taken as notice from the member for
Questions were raised regarding the Reid
report and I would like to indicate, if one takes the time to comprehend the
recommendations of Judge Norton, one would find that in fact he was addressing
the co‑ordination of information between Child and Family Services and
other social agencies and police authorities, not co‑ordination of
services and information between departments of this government.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I would
indicate that we have taken a number of steps with the Reid report. We have centralized the Child and Family
Services in
I would like to respond to the second part
of the question, and I would like to table some documents today to show that
there are some protocols between departments of government. The first document is the Manitoba Guidelines
on Identifying and Reporting a Child in Need of Protection. The second document is a protocol entitled
Transition Planning Process, which outlines the process for developing individual
transition plans. The third document is
a Referral Process to the Interdepartmental Crisis Resource Committee, and the
fourth document is a Provincial Advisory Committee on Child Abuse.
I will table those documents now, Mr.
Speaker.
Flin Flon/Creighton
Crisis Centre
Government Support
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):
Mr. Speaker, the cuts that this government have imposed on Manitobans
across the province have targeted those people who can least afford it, who
need the support most, and that includes the Flin Flon Crisis Centre.
Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday I met with the
chairperson of the Flin Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre board. He indicated that the board had met on
Tuesday evening of this week and had come to a decision to reopen the crisis
centre to operate as best they can to provide services to the women, children
and abused families in crisis and in abusive situations in Flin Flon and
region.
My question to the Minister of Family
Services is: Will he now instruct his
department to work with the Flin Flon/Creighton Crisis Centre board to ensure
that the normal guidelines which shelters and crisis centres follow are in
place as quickly as possible in Flin Flon?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister
of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I indicated a number of weeks
ago that our staff are prepared to meet with the board of the crisis
centre. A meeting had been set up a
couple of weeks ago and was postponed because the audit that the centre was
doing was not completed. We have had a
request from the crisis centre board to have staff meet with them, and we will
do that as soon as we can find a mutually agreeable time.
Mr. Storie:
Mr. Speaker, the minister is trying to pretend that this meeting was to
do something other than wind down the services.
My question to the Minister of Family
Services is: Is the minister now
conceding that the services are required and his department is now prepared to
work with the people of Flin Flon, the city of
Mr. Gilleshammer:
No, Mr. Speaker. What I have
indicated and what I indicated a number of weeks ago is that staff from the
department are prepared to meet with the board of the Flin Flon Crisis Centre.
The member attempts to portray this as a
community without services. I have
indicated in the past that services are provided through the Northern Women's
Resource Centre, that we have a 24‑hour crisis line, and we have the RCMP
and volunteers who are prepared to transport people to The Pas shelter.
* (1020)
Mr. Storie:
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) told representatives of
Flin Flon city council this decision was political. What I want today is a political decision on
the part of the Minister of Family Services to reopen the centre, to fund the
centre.
My question is: Will the Department of Family Services be
providing per diems for women and children who use the centre after it is
reopened? Will the department be
providing per diems?
Mr. Gilleshammer:
Mr. Speaker, I reject the preamble of the member for Flin Flon as being
factually incorrect. What I have
indicated is that staff from the department have been prepared and are prepared
to meet with the centre board in Flin Flon.
Business Practices Act
Amendments
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood):
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs.
Tower Funding, a company which charges
advance fees of between $120 and $295 to find lenders for people with poor
credit ratings, has been operating in this city for the last few months.
I would like to ask the minister: Will she agree to restore the unconscionable
act section that this government removed from The Business Practices Act?
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I should indicate, and the member
knows this full well, that the wording of the BPA‑‑his
interpretation and my interpretation of the wording in the BPA differ
slightly. I am backed in my support of
that wording by the Manitoba Society of Seniors, the Better Business Bureau,
the Retail Council of
I think that perhaps we have an act that
fits the needs of those who have identified what they want to see in the act,
and I am very pleased that we are able to do investigations under that act as
we are at the moment.
Tower Funding
Investigation
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood):
Mr. Speaker, the proof is in the pudding. Only nine charges have been laid under that
act.
Mr. Speaker, to the minister: Yesterday she said the police would do her
job, but the police have said they may not be able to do it, because it is a
borderline case.
My question to the minister is that she
has sat on this case for over a month.
Why has she sat on this case for over a month while consumers in this
province are getting bilked?
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs): First of all, Mr. Speaker, we have not sat on
this case for over a month. Our first
complaint came to us some three weeks ago; we took immediate action and have
been acting since that time.
The member's preamble is just as
inaccurate today as it was yesterday when he said the police did not even know
about it, and I do not even want today to comment on some of the preamble.
What I will say in terms of the BPA is
that he is talking about the number of cases that have come to court. We have made it very, very clear since the
beginning that one of the prime things we were hoping with the BPA is that we
would be able to have hammers available that would enable us to settle some of
these things without having to go to court.
I should indicate we are working on a
daily basis with the BPA. Eighty percent
of the things that come to our attention are successfully resolved through
mediation, and we feel that we are having great success with it, and that
success is confirmed by those who have had experience in working on that act
with us, including the police.
Mr. Maloway:
That answer is no more credible than it was yesterday, Mr. Speaker.
Business Practices Act
Minister's Awareness
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood):
My final supplementary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs
is: Has she read the act and does she
understand Sections 2(1), 2(3), 2(2) and Section 15?
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I helped
write the act, so I have read it.
I would like to indicate that the act was
drafted with the assistance of the Marketplace Advisory Group Committee
composed of components of society from all walks of life.
I would also like to indicate that perhaps
the member should read the act, because yesterday he referred to Section 15
when he should have been referring to Section 16.
* (1025)
Health Care System
Reform
Communication Strategy
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Today is the first anniversary of the
minister's Health Action Plan. We have
supported, encouraged and backed the minister for the last year.
On page 3 of this action plan, it calls
for participation of Manitobans and their families, but instead of involving
Manitobans in this decision‑making process, there has been a fear created
in the minds of the public.
Since the action plan was introduced one
year ago re health reform, we have produced two Health Reform Monitors and I
will table those two health monitors.
My question is for the Minister of
Health: This is a major plan. Can the minister now tell this House when he
will introduce his own health monitor report to make sure that the public is
not put under unnecessary fear because of some of the people who are narrow‑minded
who are spreading the false news about the health care reform in this province?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, when I woke up this morning, I
knew there was something special about this day, but I had forgotten that it
was the year anniversary of the introduction of the Health Action Plan.
Seriously, I very much appreciate the
objective manner in which my honourable friend has approached health care
reform in the
Now, Mr. Speaker, what we have attempted
to do as much as possible is to very much involve professionals in the public
of
I will have to admit to my honourable
friend that one of the difficulties, one of the flaws in the whole process of
change, is the ability to provide information on process of change to the
public at large. Mr. Speaker, we are
attempting to resolve that.
Mr. Cheema:
Mr. Speaker, it is a major plan, and the people of
Can the minister now make a promise in
this House that he will release the plan within a few weeks time, so that every
stakeholder will know what is exactly going on?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I take my honourable friend's
suggestion seriously, but here is the dilemma.
I will be very direct with my honourable friends. Part of the communication strategy that we
have considered is in terms of an update that would be available for fairly
general mailing. I know that from my
honourable friends‑‑not my honourable friends in the second
opposition party‑‑I fully can hear the cries of despair from the
New Democrats that we are propagandizing the process of health care reform, et
cetera.
Being very conscious to that kind of
criticism, we are attempting, Sir, to put out informational brochures in terms
of the status of the changes that are happening to take away some of the
inappropriate statements made from time to time, particularly by the member for
Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), where he has misinformed the people of
* (1030)
Mr. Cheema:
Mr. Speaker, to make the minister's point, will the minister now commit
to have this independent monitor to make sure that some misinformation which is
already being provided by some narrow interest groups is not given out?‑‑because
1.1 million people are concerned more about health care than the political partisanship
that we are playing in this House.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I hope we can develop mechanisms
to offset that.
One of my honourable friend's legitimate
concerns was in terms of a mechanism of reviewing the process to make sure that
we did not miss legitimate operational difficulties in terms of the
change. To date, I think the reliance on
experts on health care delivery in
I have been able to, as much as possible, rely
on some of those leaders who have been taking on the initiatives of change to
inform and to sort of take some of the wrong information, if that is the right
phraseology, out of the change process. However, we are contemplating a wider
communication process on health care reform, which, I hope, will resolve some
of the other problems attached to the process of change.
Home Care Supply
Program
User Fees
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):
Mr. Speaker, I am certain the minister is aware of a concern raised whereby
ostomy supplies are not available to people who depend on them and require
them. I understand the specific matter
raised at the minister's office and the Premier's Office yesterday may have
been resolved.
My question to the minister is: Will he put in place a system at the Home
Care Supply program so this does not reoccur, so that people who depend on
these supplies will not be in a situation where they have to phone the
Premier's Office to get some action?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Yes.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear that
affirmative answer from the minister for a change.
Future Status
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):
My second question to the minister is:
Will he give assurances to this House that that program, the Home Care
Supply program, will continue, and that it is not on the chopping block?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Yes.
Health Care System
Reform
Communication Strategy
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):
Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary to the minister: Will he give assurances to this House that
his communication strategy and press conference, which is one‑way
communication from the minister to the public, will change, and that when he
has this massive communication strategy that he is contemplating, will he
listen to what the people of
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, I was really starting to think my
honourable friend was trying to help the process to change, but that last
comment of his was terribly offensive.
The people in my ministry are people in
Mr. Speaker, I want to reinforce to my
honourable friend that the changes that we are making in the health care system
are changes which are not out of step with our neighbouring provinces to the
east and to the west. Yes, they are
difficult decisions. Yes, from time to time they will require contributions
from consumers of the services that they were not making before. But, Sir, that unfortunately is the reality
of governing in any province in
I want to remind my honourable friend the
New Democrat, when we left government in 1981, the interest bill annually was
less than $90 million. After Howard
Pawley and his spending practices, it was‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
Education System
Clinician Funding
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education likes
to use terms like process, reform, concern, partners, continuum‑‑ad
nauseam and ad infinitum. The only thing
that is a continuum with this minister is her answers in this House.
She has done this with education
reform. She has done this with ACCESS
program, bursaries, whenever she is questioned in this House, but since the
minister in one enlightened moment during Estimates actually divulged that
there was going to be a cut in funding for special needs kids as a result of
the layoff of clinicians, I want to ask the minister today, in the light of
this legislative Chamber, whether she will now come straight with the people of
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of
Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, again, the clinician
services are moving from the employment of government to the direct employment
of school divisions. Their employment is
being provided for, the cost is being provided for through our funding formula
where we have now allowed for a grant for the hiring of clinicians. As I explained to the honourable member
during the Estimates process, that grant was actually increased with our new
funding formula. Therefore, we fully
expect that the services will be in place for special needs children.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, as I explained
during the Estimates process, the school divisions are now hiring under the
funding formula. We expect that there
will be nine additional clinician positions available.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Speaker, she was given an opportunity, and I ask this minister how
she can explain her statement, in light of what she said today, that there will
be savings to government? Will the minister admit that the savings and the
provision of maintenance of service will come only as a result of the
offloading onto school divisions, in the additional cost to school divisions,
not from this minister's grants?
Mrs. Vodrey: As I explained to the member, we have not
reached all of the budget lines that deal with this through the school funding
formula, but as I explained to the member, certain funding is available through
the funding formula for clinicians. Then we also provide in our supplementary
area of our school funding formula where there are additional expenses and
needs.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Speaker, she is back to her revolving answers again. I want to ask this minister: Will she now come clean with this House, come
clean with the people of
Mrs. Vodrey: As I explained to the member when we discussed
this for the first time in Estimates and as we will be discussing it further, I
know, when we look in detail at the funding to public schools, there is funding
within the funding formula, but in addition, where necessary, there is also
funding through the supplementary funding category of our school funding
formula.
New Careers Program
Funding Reduction
Impact
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson):
Mr. Speaker, the New Careers program has been one of the most successful
programs provided by government in training in the last two decades. It has been described as a model for
I just want to ask a very straightforward
question to the minister again, because earlier in Question Period she did not
answer very straightforward questions.
What is going to be the impact of the cuts
that are taking place in New Careers and in particular the move to one‑year
training programs instead of the very successful model of two years? What is going to be the impact of the cuts?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of
Education and Training): Part of the success of the New
Careers program is that it does have a community‑based source, and
communities are able to identify some needs.
They also provide some opportunity for people while they are studying to
actually work in this area. It is a model
that I have explained to the member.
This government has a commitment to, not
only through our New Careers programming, but I have explained other programs
which also manage with this same model of community‑based commitment. We
now have, and I can use the word again, a spectrum of programs now within the
Advanced Education and Skills Training section of the Department of Education.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, we now have a spectrum of
programs.
I want to ask her to explain to the people
of northern
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, as the member will know when he has an
opportunity to look across our Estimates process for all departments, all
departments have had to look at reductions.
We have looked at reductions in addition across the Department of
Education. However, we have maintained
funds for the New Careers program. In
addition to that, we have now integrated it within the Advanced Education and
Skills Training division of my department, where we are able to look at all of
the programs available for Manitobans.
Mr. Ashton: I will try one more time, Mr. Speaker, because
the fact is New Careers has been cut. I
want to ask the minister, and she can perhaps explain why private school
funding has not been cut and corporate training has not been cut, but I want to
ask one very simple question.
What is going to be the impact of the cuts
to the New Careers program on the students, on the people in northern
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, I reject the member's preamble, and
we will certainly have an opportunity to discuss the accusations he made in his
preamble. He will see how very wrong he
is during the Estimates process, and I will be glad to talk about the details.
In addition, as I have said to the member,
we do have a commitment to the North if he is asking specifically about
northern programs and opportunities for northern Manitobans. I discussed those at length yesterday in the
Estimates process, as well, a number of opportunities and access points for
northern Manitobans into programs of skill training, New Careers, being one
program of skills training, and there are others within the Department of
Education and Training.
* (1040)
Repap Manitoba Inc.
Renegotiations
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Since this government is not interested in
economic development in the
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of
Finance): I thank the member for the question. That is happening at this time. Again, it is one of several issues that are
being renegotiated, and I should indicate that the government is attempting to
free up some additional quota outside of the renegotiating area, Mr. Speaker,
as a short‑term interim measure.
We have not been successful to this point in time, but discussions will
continue, and indeed I will be meeting with senior people from Repap next week.
Forestry Industry‑Swan
River
Meeting Request
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, I feel no guilt with respect to meeting
the community of
Repap Manitoba Inc.
Renegotiations
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Why is area wood not being freed up to
give to the local cutters when Repap is not using the wood? There is a surplus of wood, but you will not
renegotiate the cut area so they can address the interest of other people and
have some additional jobs in the area.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, let us bear in mind that if it
were not for Repap taking so much of the wood fibre that they were, there
probably would not be 50 or 60 jobs in the Swan River area right now. I, again, feel no pangs of guilt with respect
to what the government has entered into with respect to Repap, but as I
indicated, as soon as there is information that is hopefully favourable‑‑again
under contract, this is a cutting area that has been provided to Repap, and to
the extent that we can free up any additional cutting areas for local needs, we
will do so.
Simplot Plant
Future Status
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry.
On May 6, 1991, the minister said he was
having very serious discussions on the future of Simplot, and I am quoting from
Hansard: "Our department is in
contact virtually almost daily. I get updates every few days. We are in very serious discussions with them
on the future of their plant and what is happening in
Mr. Speaker, what I would like to know is,
in view of the announcement that the plant is not going to proceed with the
major renovation, can the minister advise whether he and his department are
continuing to work with Simplot?
Specifically, have they applied for any financial assistance for a
scaled‑down renovation of the plant?
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes. We are in ongoing contact with Simplot. They are looking at a scaled‑down
expansion of their facility. We are
discussing aspects of potential provincial government involvement with them on
those projects, and we will continue to do so.
The good news, Mr. Speaker, is that even
though the new facility opened in Saskatchewan‑‑and I am sure the
honourable member for Brandon East reads his local paper in
We are in ongoing discussion with them in
terms of a scaled‑down expansion of their facility.
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East):
I am glad to hear that news. I hope it does have a long‑term
future in the city of
Manufacturing Industry
Employment Decline
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East):
Mr. Speaker, I have a general question to ask to the Minister of
Industry, specifically responsible for manufacturing.
Can this minister explain why
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, as usual, the member for Brandon East is very
selective in terms of the statistics he brings to this floor, as usual, always
with a negative slant, never anything positive about all of the positive signs
we see in
I want to remind him, during what is
defined as the recession period in
I would hope that he would finally realize
it is not something unique to
Mr. Speaker:
Time for Oral Questions has expired.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government
House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you call Bill 22. I will give further instruction after that
bill has been adjourned.
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 22‑The
Public Sector Reduced Work Week and Compensation Management Act
Mr. Speaker:
On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness), Bill 22, The Public Sector Reduced Work Week and Compensation
Management Act; Loi sur la reduction de la semaine de travail et la gestion des
salaires dans le secteur public, standing in the name of the honourable member
for Wellington, who has 38 minutes remaining on that bill.
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington):
Mr. Speaker, when I began my remarks on Bill 22 several days ago, I was
speaking about fairness and how the government in its throne speech and in its
answers to questions in Question Period has talked extensively about how the
tough decisions that it has made in every area of government in the province of
Manitoba have been based on the principle of fairness, that every Manitoban
will feel the pain of the decisions that have been made by this government, and
that is only fair. Those are the
comments and the statements that have been made in one way or another by
virtually every member of the government bench specifically dealing with the
budget and the economic situation facing
Mr. Speaker, one of the basic premises of
Bill 22 is blatantly unfair. As a matter
of fact, the whole intent of Bill 22 is not to share the pain, is not to see
that all Manitobans participate in the tough decisions that are being made
across this country, but that certain few Manitobans have more than their fair
share of pain.
This is all the more galling, Mr. Speaker,
in light of the fact that there are other Manitobans, particularly large profit‑making
corporations and very wealthy Manitobans who are not sharing equally in the
pain of this government's decisions.
We do have in Bill 22 the recognition or
the statement‑‑although it is not clearly stated, it underlies
everything that is in Bill 22 and everything that is being said by the
government, all the cuts that are being made to social service agencies, to
groups that speak out on behalf of those who have no other voice, the cuts that
are being made to women and children in this province, the cuts that are being
made to people who require health care needs in this province, the cuts that
are being made to services in all areas of service in the northern part of this
province, the cuts that are being made to services that deal specifically with
people who live in the poorer parts of the cities and rural communities in this
province.
* (1050)
All of these cuts are supposedly in the
light of fairness. Mr. Speaker. They are
blatantly unfair, and they are seen nowhere more clearly than in the impact of
Bill 22.
Let there be no mistake about it. The effect of Bill 22 will be a tax increase,
a tax increase on one segment of our society, and that is the people who work
in the public service for the people of
It is a tax and job layoffs, job
reductions, benefit reductions that impact on the public service. Mr. Speaker, not only is it unfair because it
does not spread the pain equally, it is unfair because it attacks the people
who provide some of the most basic important services for the people of
Who are these public servants that are
being talked about that are being targeted by this draconian, completely
unfair, totally out‑of‑line piece of legislation? These are the public servants who provide the
services that Manitobans need. Now, why
do we have a public service, Mr. Speaker?
We have a public service so that, ideally, the basic services, the basic
needs of all Manitobans will be met. You
go through the Estimates books in every single department of this government,
and you see the work that public servants are doing. You see the work that civil servants are
doing, and you see that in the vast majority of cases those jobs are jobs that
are designed to level the playing field in our province.
The jobs in the public service were
instituted and have been maintained because we as a society have seen that
provision of social services, equality of access to good health and good
education, and the right to bargain collectively are part of the social
contract, the social fabric of our province.
Public services are designed and have grown out of a recognition that
not everyone in a society has equal access or equal ability to make the income
necessary to provide for their basic needs.
As part of the social contract that we have in Manitoba and throughout
the western democracies, agreed to over the centuries, is the recognition that
it is up to society as a whole to provide those services where individuals are
unable to or cannot provide for them themselves. That is the background and the basic reason
for public servants.
Public servants are not, as this
government and its cousins in
Mr. Speaker, according to some estimates,
on some indicators, Canada‑‑and the government likes to say this‑‑is
the best country in the world to live in.
Well, it is overall, but when you factor in the services and the
provision of programming for women, minorities and our aboriginal people, our
ranking goes from first to eighth‑‑not a very good record. However, the services that are provided for
women, children, families, aboriginal peoples, people who have come newly to
our country, people who are in social and economic and emotional stress, those
services are largely provided in Canada and Manitoba by people in the public
service.
So really this bill is a slap in the face
of those dedicated people who provide those services, and who provide those
services largely at wage and benefit packages that are below what they could
get, in many cases, in the private sector.
Another myth that is perpetuated by this
government and its Conservative cousins in
Mr. Speaker, the ministers on the
government side of this House know that is not true. They work every day, as do all members of the
House, with civil servants who do not just push paper, who do not just sit in
their ivory towers and collect a big fat salary for doing nothing, who are not
pigs at the public trough. The people
who work for the civil service in this country and in this province are
dedicated individuals, in this province particularly, many of whom work
directly for the government and the members of the Legislative Assembly are
paid very little.
One of the major implications of Bill 22,
one of the most unfair elements in Bill 22 is the fact that the reduction in
workweek, the reduction in benefits, the reduction in pay is across the
board. It does not matter if you are at
the lowest end of the pay scale making $18,000, $19,000 or $20,000 a year, you
get the same 10 days off. That is what
the government likes to call it, 10 days off.
You get the same 10‑day cut in your benefit package. You get the same 10‑day cut in your
salary package. You get the same 10 days
without pay that the top deputy minister in the
That is a flat tax. That is a flat cut. It is probably the most unfair kind of tax
that can be levelled on anyone. This
government is choosing to level that most unfair kind of tax on the people that
do its bidding. Bill 22 cuts the heart
out of the civil service, which is designed to do the work and provide the
programs that the government says are essential. The government says these programs are
essential through the Estimates books, through the program and financial
elements of the government.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
They are saying, on the one hand, these
programs are essential; we buy into the social contract. On the other hand, they are painting the
public servants who provide these services as people who make too much money,
who do too little work, and are saying, we are going to cut them back. They are not doing it fairly.
* (1100)
Madam Deputy Speaker, why is the
government putting a bill like Bill 22 in place, which obliquely and openly
says such negative things about the public service? I think it goes back to the fact that I
think, in many ways, this government and certainly the government of
As we have seen indications in the federal
government's decisions to deregulate, to privatize, to give enormous grants to
the private sector, at the same time they are cutting the services to the
public sector. We see the same thing
happening in the
They are providing enormous grants to
those private, profit‑making corporations and cutting back the programs
that provide access and educational opportunities, educational upgrading, job
training to the people who need that assistance most. As we have seen in the House today, as we see
in the Department of Education's expenditures, very clearly the government does
not feel that there is a need for a healthy, responsive, responsible public
service. Everything they do and they say
only exaggerates that feeling.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the civil service,
the public servants are only one part of the public service component. The people who go through hiring through the
Civil Service Commission, the people who are the employees of the government
who are hired to do the government's bidding, that is one part of the equation.
The other part of the equation is the government, and by that I mean the 57
members of the Legislative Assembly in
The two parts of that equation are in deep
trouble in this province and this country as well. I think that Bill 22 is a sign of that. Why is that the case? Why are not only civil servants, public
servants, but politicians in such disrepute in the country today as shown in
the callous way that public servants are being handled in Bill 22?
Earlier this week, Madam Deputy Speaker, I
spoke to a high school class in Morden and was talking about sharing with those
students some information about the party that I represent and the philosophies
and principles that we espouse. One of
the questions that I was asked at the end of my remarks was which Prime Minister
do you think has been the most influential in the history of Canada?
As a fairly new Canadian, my historical
background in Canadian history is less full than others might be, but I said
first I thought perhaps Lester Pearson because he was the one who I, as an
American growing up in the '50s, had heard of, had known about, with the St.
Lawrence Seaway and the Nobel Peace prize, et cetera. Then I said, no, I am going to change that
answer. I am going to say that right now
today in the country of
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows):
You better tell us why.
Ms. Barrett:
My honourable colleague the member for Burrows suggests that I explain
my answer. I will explain why I think
that is important and that is particularly important in light of Bill 22 that
we are discussing today.
I say that Brian Mulroney is going to be
the most influential Prime Minister in the history of Canada for a number of
reasons, but as it relates specifically to Bill 22, what Brian Mulroney has
done, Brian Mulroney and his cabinet members, such as Michael Wilson, Harvie
Andre, Marcel Masse, Benoit Bouchard, Kim Campbell, Jean Charest, et cetera, et
cetera, have done is they have almost single‑handedly themselves led to
the diminution of respect for the public service and particularly for the
people in the public service who are politicians. We are all tarred with the same brush. People in
The things that man and his government
have done to this country are incalculable in their impact‑‑virtually
all negative impact, I might add. But
the importance of that for me, the importance I place on Brian Mulroney in this
context, the reason for that in context of Bill 22, is that it means that
because the public service as a whole, which is made up of the public servants
and the political people who give them their direction, because that public
service as a whole is in such disrepute throughout the country, that allows
Bill 22 to be introduced.
It enables the public mood to be such that
the government feels they can get away with it because people in
For a civil service and a public service
to work properly there has to be a sense of trust between the public servants
who are doing the bidding of the government of the day and the government
itself, their employers, in the largest context.
Bill 22 destroys that basic trust which
must be there. Bill 22 says that, in
effect, collective bargaining processes that were undertaken in good faith mean
nothing, that dialogue and negotiation mean nothing.
Other provinces have had the same kinds of
financial difficulties that
The negotiation, if you can call it that,
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is being undertaken in the context of Bill 22 is
after the fact. It is not a negotiation
in the context of free collective bargaining, and the government is never going
to accept that definition, but I am prepared to stand by that.
The government of
As the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) has
said in public on several occasions, you did not vote right. The people who are affected by these cutbacks
are the people who do not have any other options. If services provided by the Department of
Family Services are not‑‑[interjection]
Madam Deputy Speaker, if the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) has such wonderful
things to say on this bill, let him put them on record now. If he does not, let him listen to what I have
to say.
The people who are affected most severely
by the cutbacks, as I stated earlier, are the people who do not have
alternatives. They are the people who cannot afford to go to private
counselling services. They are the
people who cannot afford to hire private lawyers. They are the people who need the services
that we as a community that believes in a social contract must provide. What this bill does is, it cuts the heart out
of that social contract. It shows
something very damaging, very petty and very mean‑spirited about this
government.
* (1110)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would really like
to talk a little bit about who the people are that are being cut back by Bill
22, what services are being cut back, just to put on record the fact that it is
not high‑paid public servants who are being adversely affected by this
bill.
As a matter of fact, as I have stated, because
it is a flat percentage reduction, the higher pay you have, the less impact it
is going to have on you. This is exactly
the same kind of tax that the government imposed when it began the
harmonization process of the PST with the GST.
It did not increase the sales tax across the board, which would have
meant that, if you bought a luxury car or if you bought a fur coat or if you
took advantage of an accountant who could help you with your taxes so you could
take advantage of all the Tory‑initiated tax loopholes, you would pay an
extra percent or so on that service or those goods.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
No, no, Mr. Acting Speaker, the
government, in Bill 22 and in its decision to begin the harmonization process
with the PST and the GST, chose to have the largest impact of those changes on
the people who could least afford it.
This same principle applies in Bill 22, and I am going to talk a bit
about the impact that it is having on the people who are providing the service
and then, time permitting, the services that will be affected.
Mr. Acting Speaker, one need only go to
the parts of the Estimates of Expenditure of the Province of Manitoba for '93‑94
that deal with Family Services, the third largest department in the government,
to see, in black and white, the people who will be affected by Bill 22.
By definition, the services that are
provided in Family Services are those that are provided to people who have
either no internal or family or financial or social resources to deal with the
problems that are facing them and are people who need services that society
says we have an obligation to provide. Even this government has said in most
cases, although it is making some major changes in the Education department, we
still have a responsibility to provide at least something for people who are
unable, for a variety of reasons, to provide for themselves.
Mr. Acting Speaker, one of the largest
components of the Department of Family Services is the Income Security
division, and one of the reasons that it is actually one of the few growth
industries in the
In Income Security, Mr. Acting Speaker,
the statement of objectives in Income Security is that the Income Maintenance
Programs, of which social assistance is the major component: "Provide
financial assistance to persons in need to ensure that no Manitoban lacks the
basic necessities essential to health and well‑being; provide for cost‑sharing
and regulation of municipal social assistance; and provide additional financial
assistance to disabled social allowances recipients to help meet the costs associated
with disability."
They also have another area called
Regional Operations, and this is part of the department that deals with
services outside the major cities, a recognition that the province of Manitoba
does not have its population spread evenly but has a certain degree of
difficulty with geographical components and the fact that two‑thirds of
the people live in the metropolitan Winnipeg area.
Under Regional Operations, the Department
of Family Services provides: " . .
. field resources to manage and deliver a comprehensive range of social
services throughout
Because Income Security itself, the social
assistance, is a mandated statutory requirement, one could say: Well, why is this seen as a cutback? What are the implications of Bill 22 on the
provision of these services when they are mandated? Mr. Acting Speaker, the fact that you must
provide funding for and assistance to anyone who is eligible for Income
Security and social assistance is very different than the quality of services
that are provided to those people.
People in income security in the City of
They have had no additional human
resources put in place, virtually none, but they have had up to five additional
programs given to them to implement. So,
in effect, the people who are providing and delivering one of the most basic
services that we as a society can give to the other people in our society, that
assurance of basic income so that their basic needs can be met‑‑the
people who are charged with that enormously important job are being cut back by
Bill 22 at the same time that they have been asked to implement a number of new
programs.
What is the impact going to be on the
people who are providing those services?
Well, when you keep piling responsibilities on people without resources
necessary to fulfill those responsibilities, we all know what happens. It is called burnout. It is called enormously increased levels of
stress on an individual attempting to provide those services in what, by the
way, is one of the stressful parts of government; it is enormously negative.
Those individuals are at the end of their
rope anyway, because of the cuts and the changes that have taken place. Now they are being asked to do more with less‑‑even
more. They are being asked not only to
provide more programs with fewer human resources, but they are being told that
they will not have the number of days necessary to provide those services, but,
by goodness, those services had better be provided.
Mr. Acting Speaker, sure the basic income
services will be provided, because they are obligated to provide those services
by law. When you talk about quality, it
is gone, it will be gone, not that in Income Security offices the quality of
working conditions or the quality of service provided, through no fault of the
staff, I might add, has been all that high to begin with. It is a very, very
difficult job to perform. When you have
been cut and cut and cut, it is even more difficult.
* (1120)
The impact on the people who are providing
that service is going to be very negative.
They are not going to be able to‑‑it is a triage
effect. Any counselling that might have
been done in the past with a client who came in, any kind of social
interaction, any kind of how are you, how are the kids, what is going on in
your life, those sorts of nice elements of dialogue between people, there is no
luxury left for that to happen.
People are going to be seen more and more
as numbers. They are going to be seen
more and more as cases. They are going
to be seen more and more as problems, because the staff just do not have the time
or the opportunity or the resources to deal with them as individuals and
people. That is going to happen, and
that is going to have a negative impact on the people who are coming for those
services, as it has had a negative impact on the people who are providing those
services.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
Why is that important? Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is important
because it is only through the human contact that you can find out what is
going on in people's lives, that you can perhaps do some prevention. If a client comes in and there is no time to
ask how she is or how her children are, there is no time to perhaps get some
information about a crisis that is happening in her life and maybe be able to
do something about alleviating that crisis before it becomes blown so big that
then another statutory program such as the Justice system has to intervene or
the Child and Family Services system.
That is an example, Madam Deputy Speaker,
of the impact of Bill 22 on service provision in the
Bill 22 is not even a bill in
isolation. It is another in a continuum
of activities that have been undertaken by this government to deal with the
perceived problems facing the province.
We have discussed in many venues and in debate on many bills, those
kinds of things.
One other area I would like to briefly
touch on is in the Department of Justice.
The Department of Justice, in many ways like the Department of Family
Services, provides mandated services, services that the government has no
choice but to provide. In public
prosecutions in the criminal justice system, in those kinds of areas, the
government must provide basic services.
That again goes back to part of the social
contract that not only do we provide people with the basic necessities such as
food, shelter, clothing and up until recently basic educational facilities and
programs, but we are also obligated to take on the role as government of
ensuring that people have, to the best of our abilities, a safe community
within which to live. And that is the
role of the justice system.
Now, there are many public servants who
work in the justice system, and they, like the people who work in Family
Services, are being told, the roles you provide, the people you work for, the
people you work with are not valuable to us.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I see that my time
is coming to a close, and I would just like to end by saying this government
talks about fairness, this government talks about equality of sharing of the
pain, of needing to deal with problems that were by and large a result of
Conservative financial and monetary and fiscal and social programming changes.
The province talks about it, but it does
not act on it. The people of
An Honourable Member: We do care.
Ms. Barrett:
You do not care about all of the people of the
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing in the name of the
honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid)? [agreed]
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government
House Leader): Madam Deputy speaker, would you call for
second reading Bill 32.
SECOND
Bill 32‑The
Social Allowances Amendment Act
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister
of Family Services): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 32, The Social Allowances
Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aide sociale), be now read a second
time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Gilleshammer:
Madam Deputy Speaker, the purpose of this legislation is to amend the
section of The Social Allowances Act that gives categorical eligibility to
students. The Social Allowances Act
specifies the categories of persons eligible for provincial social allowance.
The Social Allowances Program is intended
as a last resort. It provides financial assistance for basic necessities such
as food, clothing and shelter to the most vulnerable of Manitobans, sole‑support
parents, disabled persons, the elderly and persons in crisis shelters. Persons in need who do not fall into one of
these categories may be assisted by a municipality.
Currently, the act also provides
categorical eligibility for students who have insufficient resources to support
themselves during their studies. These
are primarily single students, 18 to 24 years of age, who are enrolled in
secondary school programs. This legislation will delete the student category
from The Social Allowances Act. Special
provisions associated with the student category will also be repealed. The effective date of these amendments is
July 1, 1993, to allow students presently enrolled in the program to finish
their current year of study.
* (1130)
The elimination of the student category
will affect those whose sole eligibility was based on their student
status. In future, they will be asked to
explore alternative options for self‑support when developing their
educational plans. These options may
include part‑time employment while attending school or periods of full‑time
employment to support periods of full‑time school. In some cases, assistance may be available
from family members. Those who continue
to require social assistance may qualify for municipal assistance programs.
Sole‑support parents and disabled
parents who are taking educational programs may continue to receive assistance
from the Social Allowances Program while they complete their studies.
For years,
With these brief remarks, I present this
bill for second reading.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (St. Johns):
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is with a great deal
of sadness that I begin the debate on Bill 32 and put on record some of the
concerns of the New Democratic Party caucus with respect to this most
unfortunate decision by the Manitoba Conservative provincial government.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this government has
taken a number of various serious steps in the last number of months, has
eliminated and cut back a number of programs that have been vital to families
in this province, to our young people in Manitoba, to the vulnerable people of
our society. It has been very difficult
to keep on top of that string of very negative destructive decisions by this
government. It is very hard to single
out what among that list of destructive actions is most serious because all, in
fact, are very serious, very hurtful, very destructive for the future of this
province.
I believe, if there is one action that
stands out on its own and symbolizes the callous disregard for the young people
and the young families of this province, it is the elimination of the Student
Social Allowances Program. Time and time
again this government has talked about building the future of the province. It
has spoken about education as the key to opportunity for Manitobans in this
province. It has urged Manitobans to
train themselves, to educate themselves to contribute to this province, but
behind that rhetoric we have seen nothing but an attack by this government on
the very people willing and able to contribute to the future health and well‑being
of our society.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it has been said
that the measure of any society is in the degree of equality and opportunity it
provides for its most vulnerable members.
It has been said that the measure of any government is in the degree of
economic and social security it provides to even its most humble members. The question has been raised from across the
way: Who made that quote? I have paraphrased the words of Tommy
Douglas, whom members will know spoke out for years and years on behalf of all
citizens in this country and particularly on behalf of the powerless, the most
vulnerable, the weakest members in our community. I believe he enunciated for all of us a path,
a direction for our responsibility, for our role as legislators here in the
Manitoba Legislative Assembly.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the decision by this
government to eliminate the Student Social Allowances Program is the antithesis
of responsible government. It is the
antithesis of our primary responsibility as legislators to provide for even the
most humble members in our midst. This
government has used as its primary excuse for eliminating the Student Social
Allowances Program that Manitoba had been the only province in this country to
provide such a program. That is surely
the weakest excuse of all.
Since when does it become appropriate,
since when has it been acceptable to eliminate something on the basis of the
good it did, to eliminate something that led the way in this country in terms
of equalizing the conditions for people in our society in terms of creating the
opportunities for all individuals to use their talents to make a difference in
our society.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it used to be that
we prided ourselves here in
Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are left,
because of this government, to hang our heads in shame, to have to explain to the
world that we have let those programs go by the by, that we have abdicated our
responsibility and commitment to our citizens, that the opportunities for
contributing are no longer there. It is
probably one of the saddest days, certainly in this Legislature and, in recent
times, in the
How do we explain to young people who have
come to full recognition of the importance of education and training to better
themselves and to better the whole community that one program, one innovative
decision to make that a reality, is gone?
How do we explain to young people who have recognized that it was wrong
in their youth to leave school and try to make it without education and
training and now, prepared to correct the error of their ways, to get that
grounding, to get that basic education in order to be able to access good
employment opportunities, care for their families and add to the economic well‑being
of our society as a whole?
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Student Social
Allowances Program not only made a difference in people's lives in giving them
tools to use their talents and contribute, to give them hope, faith and trust
in the future, but it also made absolute economic sense. It was a cost‑effective
program. It meant spending a little money
now by our government of the day to incur huge savings in the future. The program proved to be that effective. The statistics are there. The research is in; the analysis was
done. The program did make a difference
for the province from an economic point of view.
This program allowed young people, young
families to be able to get basic education and get a job and make a
difference. It kept those people from
long‑term social assistance. It
stopped the cycle of welfare and poverty.
It gave to
And now, Madam Deputy Speaker, with one
stroke of a pen in a two‑line bill, this government has taken it all away
and left hundreds of students enrolled in education opportunities because of
the student allowance program high and dry.
It has left them without a means to carry
on that education, and worse, it has taken hope away from a much broader group
of people and young persons in our society.
It has been one more stroke of the pen on top of many other decisions by
this government that leave a whole generation without a lot of hope, without a
lot of belief that there will be brighter days in the future.
* (1140)
We are dealing with a new phenomenon in
I wonder if members of the Conservative
government have any appreciation of what that means and what that will mean for
us down the road. If our hope for the
future has no concept of future, where does that despair, where does that fear,
where does that isolation, where does that disillusionment, where does that
idleness‑‑where does it lead us, Madam Deputy Speaker?
How can we have hundreds of thousands of
young people living with frustration and fear and not pay some horrible
consequence in the future? How can we
have so many unemployed in this province?
And the numbers are increasing daily.
How can we have so many unemployed, underemployed or discouraged young
people in this province and not pay some horrible price down the road?
Is there any correlation between those
unemployment statistics, the elimination of programs like the Student
Allowances Program that made a difference, the increasing number of individuals
on assistance? Is there any correlation
with all of that and the growing incidence in our society today of suicides
among young people, of increasing gangs in our schools and in our communities,
in increasing numbers of people turning to escape, whether it be through drugs
or solvents or even cults, or may I add even white supremacist groups, people
with hatred towards others in our society?
Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a
correlation. There is a trend, and it is
worrisome indeed. Not only has this
government contributed to those very worrisome trends in our midst, but it has
also done something even more serious.
It has, in fact, taken on the strategies of cults. It has tried, in the process, to pacify
people, to calm people through brainwashing tactics, through misinformation,
through untruths.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have noticed a
most interesting development in this Chamber just in the last few months. This government has been very busy trying to
rewrite history, reshape the facts and, in effect, is trying very hard to
program us to believe something that really is not true.
Let me give a couple of examples, Madam
Deputy Speaker. When we raise, in this
Chamber, the extraordinary increase in the number of users of food banks and
people who have to turn to food banks for their daily nutritional meal, what is
the response of this government? The
response from this government and particularly the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of this
province is to suggest: Well, food banks
are just here; it is just a matter of our life; they are here to stay; they are
part of the system; they are part of normalcy.
That is a prime example of brainwashing or an attempt to brainwash
Manitobans by this government.
When we raise questions, Madam Deputy
Speaker, about rising unemployment and increasing numbers of discouraged
workers, the response from this government and from other Conservative
governments in this country has been that a certain level of unemployment is
acceptable, is the norm. We cannot
expect in this day and age that everyone who is willing and able to work will
find work, another attempt at programming Manitobans, at brainwashing
Manitobans.
When we raised questions about the Student
Social Allowances Program and talked about the harm this would create in the
lives of young people and families in our community, the Minister of Family
Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) had the gall to suggest, had the audacity to state
that these young people could just go back home. That is a type of programming and
brainwashing that will not work. It does
not hold water. It is an absolute
misrepresentation of the facts.
It is an absolute distortion of reality
and it cannot be tolerated, because what the government and what the Minister
of Family Services did not say was that the Student Social Allowances Program
is a means‑tested program. People
eligible for this program did not have the financial means, financial
alternatives to get that education.
Madam Deputy Speaker, people who receive
Student Social Allowances have no other options. They are there applying for this program and
getting into the program because they do not have families to return to,
because they do not have family situations where they should return to, because
they do not have alternative financial resources, because they do not have any
other option in terms of going back to school and getting that basic education
except through the Student Social Allowances Program. For the Minister of Family Services to
suggest these people can go back home is not only a total misrepresentation of
his own program and how it works, it is also the most irresponsible suggestion
I have yet heard coming out of anyone in this government.
* (1150)
The minister knows full well that many of
these young persons are in the predicament they are in because of their family
situations to begin with, because either the family did not have the economic
means and the financial resources to help fund their children so they could go
to school or because of the violence and domestic abuse and problems within the
family unit itself, and for the minister to suggest for one minute, to imply
for one second, that these young people go back to abusive family situations,
to go back into a violent household is to me a criminal suggestion. It is absolutely irresponsible and a
contradiction of every word in all the rhetoric this government has ever
muttered about child abuse, about family violence, about domestic problems.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the brainwashing did
not stop there. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) also contributed to this kind of
attempt to program individuals and make them believe something that was not the
case. The Premier was confronted by
Shirley Neufeld, whom I have mentioned in this House on a number of occasions.
Shirley Neufeld was a recipient of the Student Social Allowances Program, so is
her husband‑‑or I should say, so was her husband. They are a young
married couple with a two‑year‑old daughter. Both those individuals
will be left in the cold by this government's stroke of a pen.
That family unit will change. Their goals and aspirations to improve
themselves and make a decent life for their daughter have gone like the
wind. And what was the Premier's
response to Shirley Neufeld when she asked him, what is she supposed to do? The
Premier's response, Madam Deputy Speaker, was that one of the two parents, one
of the two students able to go to school because of the Student Social
Allowances Program, would have to do something else, would have to stay at
home, would have to stop going to school.
Maybe this is part of a master plan
because we have heard mutterings from other ministers across the way,
mutterings that imply that perhaps women really should return to the household,
to the home, really should go back to their rightful place in our society of
caring for children in the home and looking after the household.
I think we know that enough has been said
from members across the way to tell us this government is living in the
dinosaur age, has no idea of the family unit today, has no idea of the
aspirations of women in our society.
For this government to turn to the Neufeld
family with two young people, both under the age of 25, both of whom have
decided to get it right, to go back to school‑‑to follow the words
of this government that said, go back to school and the path to opportunity is
open wide‑‑who believed in this government, only to find the whole
dream taken away from them, to have the path, that opportunity closed, to be
denied any possibility of improving themselves and providing for their family
and contributing to our society.
What will happen to that family unit? One of them has to make that choice. Shirley or her husband will have to decide
who is going to give up their aspirations, their dreams. One of them is going to have to find a job
without basic education, and we know what that means. That means underemployment. That means low‑paid, stressful working
conditions. It means that if one of them
wants to carry on with education and their dreams and aspirations, one of them
has to go on social assistance through the city because, Madam Deputy Speaker,
they will not be eligible for provincial assistance.
In order to carry on with their education,
they have to do it on a part‑time basis.
They cannot take any more than a couple of courses at a time because
they have to prove that they are looking for work. So one's dreams and aspirations are cut off
completely; the other one, whoever it may be‑‑and if they can swing
it in terms of taking the couple of courses that would be permitted, living on
city assistance and trying to find arrangements for care for their young
daughter, if they can juggle all of that‑‑is going to be left
drawing out their dream, lengthening the process to get the education to the
point where they get in an age category where their dreams even with that basic
education may not be possible.
* (1200)
It is a Catch 22. It is an impossible situation. Never mind just the juggling of all those
demands and interests, what does it do to that family unit? They are two young people both of whom have
decided that they should go back to school, both of whom have abilities and both
of whom, despite the demands of being parents and juggling child care
arrangements and going to school and making ends meet, both of whom are left
making a most difficult choice. Who is
going to make that choice, and what is it going to mean for the family? Will the family survive? Will that family unit still be around in the
next few years? Does this government not
understand the kind of pressure it is placing already on young people and
families under stress trying their very best to do good, to do what this
government said, get an education and make a difference?
So not only does this government make a
decision that puts at risk the family, but it also denies entirely what it said
it wanted to accomplish; that was, young people should get an education, get
trained and make a difference. We are
only left to believe that this government would rather have young people on
social assistance without avenues left to get the education to eventually break
the welfare cycle. It can only mean this
government is prepared to put at risk families in our community today.
The Neufelds, I want the members opposite
to know, not only realized that education was necessary and took seriously the
words of this government, but they also gave it their everything. Despite all the pressures of juggling all of
their responsibilities, they studied hard and they both have top grades. That is not an unusual situation in terms of
that program.
As a rule, all young people who are
recipients of the Student Social Allowances Program work hard, because not only
do they want to get good grades because they have made that decision to get an
education, but also, Madam Deputy Speaker‑‑and this comes back to
the point I raised earlier about the brainwashing attempts by the minister and
this government. The program requires
good grades. The program requires 100
percent attendance. The program requires
commitment. The program requires
output. The program requires results.
The Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) knows‑‑although he will not say it at this point, now
that they have made this fatal decision‑‑that a student in this
program cannot stay in the program if they have a poor attendance record or if
they have poor grades. So here we have a
program that has excelled like no other program around us. It has done exactly what it set out to do.
First of all, it says: You cannot enter the program unless you have
no other financial economic resources to turn to for getting that education;
you cannot enter that program if you have a family to go back to that will
support you. You have to, Madam Deputy
Speaker, in order to get into this program, be in absolute need with no other
alternatives. Here we have a program
that is targeted, is very specific to a group in society that is committed to
getting an education but has no other option for getting that education.
It is, by all analysts in the field‑‑social
policy analysts, economic analysts, public administration analysts, theorists,
text books, professors, academic institutions‑‑this is an example
of a program that works and should be supported because it is targeted and it
does exactly what it set out to do, because, as I have just said, which is the
second important point of the Student Social Allowances Program, the students
must show commitment. They cannot slack
off. They cannot get this money and then
walk away from it. It is not a freebie. They have to work hard. They have to give it everything they have in
order to stay in the program.
So the output, the result of this program,
Madam Deputy Speaker, is hundreds of young people with a basic education, with
the tools to be able to get into training programs or to get a job, which then
makes them employed persons in this province who pay income tax, who contribute
back, both in terms of dollars, income tax dollars, and in terms of purchasing
power and stimulating the economy and in terms of carrying out a worthwhile and
necessary function in our society today.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Instead, Mr. Speaker, this government has
chosen to say to those hundreds of students:
Tough luck. Too bad if you
reconsidered your previous decision not to stick with high school. Too bad if you have come to realize how
fruitless it is to carry on in a meaningful way without a basic education. Too bad if you have some dreams and goals and
aspirations. Too bad if you do not want
to be on social assistance. Too bad if
you really want to contribute to society and help contribute and pay for
programs that other people in needy situations need. Too bad if you want to be full,
participating, contributing members in our society. Too bad.
You are on your own, and if you fall through the cracks, so be it.
And that is what they will do, Mr.
Speaker. They will fall through the cracks
because they do not have any other means to get that education; they do not
have any other sensible, reasonable option to finish their high school, get
into training or get into a job.
So what do they have left then? They fall through the cracks. They get into a vicious cycle of
poverty. They get trapped on
welfare. They cannot provide for their
children. They cannot make ends meet, so they cannot provide the basic sustenance
for family members. They cannot provide
for themselves.
Is there any other outcome but
frustration, hopelessness, despair, fear, alienation, isolation? No, there is not. And where does that take us? Where do you go when you are in the pit of
despair, when you are at the end of the rope, when you see no hope and you have
no concept of future? Where does it
go? What does it mean?
It means turning to activities, options
that only add to social costs in our society, that only add to pain and grief
for themselves and for others. Yes, it
means‑‑and surely the members opposite can understand it‑‑turning
to solvents for escape; yes, it means turning to prostitution because it may
mean the only way to make a living; yes, it means turning to cults; yes, it
means turning to gangs.
I hold, we hold this government
responsible for those despicable, deplorable trends and events in our society
today, and they must bear that responsibility and look back on this period with
sadness and with regret.
I hope that it is not too late to convince
this government to change its mind and to put back in place a program that has
made a difference, not only for those individuals which this government may not
care about, but for our economy and our society as a whole.
We are stronger for the Student Social
Allowances Program, and I beg and implore this government to change its mind
for the good of our young people and for the health of our future to come.
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to
speak. This is a bill to eliminate the
Student Social Allowances Program, and I am pleased to speak to this bill even
though for a minute there I thought I was going to be talking about Sunday
shopping. There is a relationship.
I spoke yesterday as well about this
government's lack of attention given to the dire straits that young people are
facing in our economy. This is another
opportunity to talk about the cuts in education, the cuts in job creation for
young people, but this program in particular that is being eliminated through
this bill, I think, shows most clearly the shortsightedness of a Conservative
government and their attitude to public services in the role of government.
From the years that I was working in youth
services, I worked with a number of people who benefited from this type of
program and worked with people who often came from families where they did not
want to have the same kind of lifestyle as an adult that they grew up with as a
young person. They looked for ways to
free themselves from the poverty cycle and get off living on welfare. Those are the students who would have
benefited from this kind of program, often students who had grown up in a
family that was on welfare and they would have a chance to go to school, finish
their education and to then have access hopefully to a job.
* (1210)
It just does not make sense that while we
have a government that has over the last couple of years put more than a
hundred million additional dollars into welfare that we would not be moving in
the opposite direction and have some requirement for those individuals who are
benefiting from an income paid for from the public purse that they would have
some requirement to further their education.
This is something that occurs in other countries and when you ask most
people, it only makes sense to them.
There seems to be an attitude out there, this attitude that we cannot
pay for some people to go to school because it is going to somehow be unfair to
those people who are not being paid to go to school.
That is the attitude, I think, that is
present with this bill. It does not
appreciate the reality of poverty. It
does not appreciate that it is not a choice that some people would have to rely
on social allowance to pay for education.
To have this kind of a bill coming from a government who at the same
time is making education even less accessible by allowing costs to increase, by
cutting bursary programs, by cutting other ACCESS programs, it just does not
make sense that they are also eliminating this kind of opportunity.
I think there are a lot of people who are
starting to feel quite hopeless and a lot of them are starting to think what is
the point in getting an education, there are no jobs anyway. That is the
message also from this kind of a bill.
Why not just go on welfare? That
is compounded in the economy that we have when we have the minimum wage
maintained at such a low rate so that in some cases welfare has more of an
income than working. That is very serious.
A lot of people are really questioning why
it is that wages are still so low. We
must realize, and people must realize, that having a low minimum wage and
keeping wages down, the attitude that people have when there is high
unemployment, that you are lucky to have a job, and people being afraid to make
too many demands on an employer‑‑all these things have an effect on
keeping wages down. This fear that
people have of not having work, in turn, does benefit employers and industry.
Social allowance has not kept up with the
increase in taxes that we are faced to pay; even if you are on welfare, you are
paying the GST and the provincial sales tax harmonization now. People are
starting to really feel, I think, that they just cannot keep up.
As I go and talk to young people‑‑I
was at a school again this week‑‑there are a lot of them that still
want to hold on to the idea that they are ambitious and they want to work hard
in school and better themselves and get out there. They have a lot of hope for the good work
that they could do in their career. I
hate to see that we create and encourage this attitude that disregards the
reality of poverty, which continues to blame individuals who are unemployed or
on social allowance for the situation we are in, because that is living in a
false reality. To think that there is a job out there right now for all those
people who are on social allowance, unemployed, on workers compensation or UI
just is not true.
To continue to pass legislation like this,
which also blames people, trying to tell them that there are jobs out there,
part‑time jobs that they could have if they so choose to pay their own
way through education, is lying, because the economy is failing and those jobs
are not out there. We have a
responsibility as a civilized society to try and provide some alternatives and
programming and hope for people, and to not continue to give them this line
that, if they only chose, they could be employed and could have a job that we
would all like to have to provide for ourselves.
This kind of program that this bill
eliminates encouraged people to aspire, encouraged people to try to develop
skills and their education. To eliminate
that kind of a program, I think, only encourages hopelessness and encourages
people to despair.
As the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis)
was saying when I entered the Chamber, it encourages the kind of desperation
that comes from poverty when people are forced to make choices that they
possibly would not otherwise make in turning to substance abuse, selling their
bodies, and young people I worked with in the school system‑‑I knew
young people who found themselves in those kinds of situations and chose that
kind of life and how difficult it was after that for them to get out of this
situation and how programs like this that allowed them an alternative were so
important. It is not recognizing that so
many of the young people who find themselves in those kinds of situations often
come from families where they could not rely on parents to support them and
care for them.
* (1220)
This government is good at denial, good at
denying the reality of people who come from those kinds of misfortunate
backgrounds and who rely on a caring society to provide some kind of
alternative. That is what this Student
Social Allowances Program did. We often
hear story after story of a young person who left school, had a rough time, and
then came back and through this program got another chance, got another chance
at completing their education so that they could get on a path of a positive
lifestyle.
It is sad when we hear the government use
rhetoric like, this is a difficult choice.
I would suggest that this government has not even begun to look at the
difficult choices yet. We still see them
continuing to create more and more of an elitist and classist society with the
kind of economic policy and social policy that they practise. We see an emphasis more and more on the
profit motive and more and more of turning over our economy and society to the
highs and lows in the marketplace. We
have seen the effect that has had on the increase in poverty in our province,
which is now not only record high of child poverty, but of poverty for adults
as well.
As I look to the future of what could
happen if the North American Free Trade Agreement came in and of how programs
such as this one would even be more difficult to implement, and I look at the
future for young people even now who are in school and are trying to maintain
some optimism toward the future, and as I learn more about what our country
could become with the extension of NAFTA, realizing that it has nothing to do
with trade anymore, it has to do with linking our economies north and south so
that more and more the marketplace has control over our lives and over the
setting of social policy where we try to create a more caring society.
It is interesting when I talk to
university students about the elimination of the Student Social Allowances
Program, and the logic that this government has used to try and defend this cut
where they have said that this was a program unique to Manitoba and how that was
a reason for them to cut the program, one of the students said to me, that is
the lowest form of logic that there is.
That goes to show that in their obsession with the bottom line this
government has not fairly dealt with people.
They have chosen to deal the harshest blow to people who have the least
ability to stand up and fight back, who have the least voice.
The people, who the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness) says support the plan, are the people who are privileged, have
monetary power, status, lead positions, powerful positions, who, I would say,
have no compassion and no forward‑looking vision of the kind of society
or community that we can create.
We raised recently a report in the House
that could provide some hope that there are solutions and there is hope. There are jobs that could be created by
turning towards sustainable energy and water conservation policies. It is interesting that the minister of Hydro
admitted that he had not seen that report.
It seems like they are not looking really for opportunities to create
employment.
We could have programs where these same
students on social allowance could get training in colleges and then from there
go on to create these new industries to make our community more healthy and
more sustainable, but this government is choosing to continue to follow an old‑style,
out‑dated approach to economic policy and social policy.
It just does not make sense that at the
same time that they are pouring more and more money into welfare, to pour $100
million more dollars into welfare, and at the same time eliminate this program
that allows some of those welfare recipients to continue school, just does not
make sense.
We have tried to get some explanation of
that from the members opposite, and all that they can do is give us this
rhetoric about difficult choices and how this is somehow going to help us
balance the budget and rid ourselves of the deficit.
What will be interesting to see, as time
goes on, how many of these students, these some 1,200 or so students that have
benefited from this program each year, will continue to be on welfare.
Now I would say that some of them may find
employment because I think that a number of the young people on this program
tend to be young people who have a high standard for themselves. They have a desire to improve their life and
improve themselves, and some of them may have to settle for some kind of low‑skilled
job.
But I think that the other thing that will
happen, particularly these students will not forget what the government has
done, and this will help them in developing analysis of what kind of economics
this government chooses to practise, the kind of economics based on
exploitation, exploitation of workers, where they would rather see people on
welfare than going to school, where they would rather see people on welfare
than in job creation programs
There were a number of programs similar to
this one that took money from social allowance and put it into training
programs for young people, specifically single parents, particularly young
people who are disabled, to train them in finishing their high school education
and then having them placed in a workplace to get, in some cases, their first
work experience. These are the programs
that this government could be and should be expanding if they so choose.
This government continues to have only one
solution to economic problems and that is to cut government programs that
support our most disadvantaged members of our community and, at the same time,
handing over larger and larger pots of money to the captains of industry and
taking us further and further down this path of being held hostage to market
forces and the powerful industries which are less and less Canadian‑owned.
It is unfortunate that this government is
not seeing the error and the way that this has not worked over the years. We have been waiting a long time for the
great trickle‑down to occur. All
that we ever do is we have to give up more of our services whenever there is a
Conservative government in power, and we never see the surge of industry that
is going to come to the province. We
never see the huge increase in industrial development that is promised when we
take these regressive measures when we have corporate taxes reduced. We never see the huge surge of increase of
capital investment. All we ever see, Mr.
Speaker, is a decrease in government revenues, which then are given over to the
individual taxpayer to pay in greater and greater proportion of the general revenue
to government.
It is interesting, when talking to young
people about these kind of cuts to education programs, when you explain the
disparity in where government revenue now comes from and how more of it used to
come from industry and now it is given over to the individual taxpayer.
Mr. Speaker, I will look forward to
continuing in this vein‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. When this matter
is again before the House, the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli)
will have 19 minutes remaining.
The hour being 12:30, the House now adjourns
and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. Monday.