LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday, May 18, 1993
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Gertrude Flett, Susan Head, Elaine Richard and others requesting the Family
Services minister (Mr. Gilleshammer) to consider restoring funding for the
friendship centres in
* * *
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
* * *
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Saada Mohammed, Steven Verbaly, Askalu Nedele and others requesting the
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) consider restoring funding of
the Student Social Allowances Program.
Mr. Speaker: I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Lathlin). 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
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend
upon the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed
out the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental
Program has been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely
cost‑effective and critical for many families in isolated communities;
and
WHEREAS the provincial government
did not consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing
plans to eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this
service; and
WHEREAS preventative health care is
an essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly
pray that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Clif Evans). 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
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend
upon the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed
out the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental
Program has been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely
cost‑effective and critical for many families in isolated communities;
and
WHEREAS the provincial government
did not consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing
plans to eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this
service; and
WHEREAS preventative health care is
an essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly
pray that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Maloway). 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
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend
upon the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed
out the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental
Program has been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely
cost‑effective and critical for many families in isolated communities;
and
WHEREAS the provincial government
did not consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing
plans to eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this
service; and
WHEREAS preventative health care is
an essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly
pray that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
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: 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
* (1335)
PRESENTING REPORTS BY
STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees):
Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has
adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to
sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable
member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
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 afternoon from the
On behalf of all honourable members,
I would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Status
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in the 1991 Speech from the Throne,
the government stated the
Unfortunately, yesterday we received
confirmation that in spite of the fact that private interests were willing to
put some $600,000 into this investment, an investment that is competing with
locations in
Mr. Speaker, it is crucial for
I would like to ask the government,
in light of the denial of the funds from the Western Diversification Program,
what is the status of the proposal and the priority of the government as
articulated in the Speech from the Throne in '91?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, as the news service report
indicates, we understand that the Department of Western Diversification has
rejected the request for $60,000 in funding.
We as a government, of course, are
very, very supportive of continuing to work with the community of Churchill to
find any and all avenues in which we can provide economic activity, whether it
be through our
We do have an offer on the table, I
believe, from the REDI program that was put forward making our commitment. I have personally had discussions with
representatives of the private sector funding, including Mr. Richardson.
So we are totally supportive of
this. We are disappointed in the
response of Western Diversification and, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that we
will attempt to carry this further to convince the federal department that this
is indeed a very worthwhile project.
REDI Program Funding
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the government signed an Order‑in‑Council
to participate in a joint feasibility study on the environmental components of
this project. This Order‑in‑Council
was signed in '92. It expired March 31,
1993.
The contingency on the Order‑in‑Council
was for the community itself to raise the equivalent of the $75,000 the
government had pledged. They, in fact,
raised and pledged over a hundred thousand dollars for this environmental
process which is a part of the feasibility, the other feasibility study, of
course, being the $1.2‑million proposal with Western Diversification.
I would like to ask the Premier, in
light of the fact the money has not flowed from the provincial government after
being committed in the Order‑in‑Council, what is the status of
those funds for that environmental review process which has had a partnership
with the community through their own fundraising activity?
* (1340)
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural
Development): Mr. Speaker, I can indicate to the Leader of
the Opposition that the approval for the money from the REDI program is in
place and, indeed, it was at the request of the applicant that the money be
held until such time that there was some confirmation of the Western
Diversification funds.
As a government, we are prepared to
flow this money and support the project because it is, in our view, a very
worthwhile project.
REDI Program Funding
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on April 22, 1993, the Premier
committed his government again to flowing money under the REDI program for
economic development activities and includes proposals up to a million dollars
for projects that will make good sense for the
I would like to ask the Premier, in
light of the fact the Western Diversification Program has said no, the
community of Churchill has said yes and the private sector has said yes, will
the provincial government say yes and get this project going, this feasibility
study going and finally get this project going in northern
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Rural
Development (Mr. Derkach) has indicated, the provincial government has already
said yes.
VLT Revenues
Employment Creation
Programs
Ms. Becky Barrett (
In December of 1991, Premier Filmon
said his government would work co‑operatively with all levels of
government, and I quote, on any programs designed to eradicate poverty with
respect to the children of our province.
Is the Minister responsible for
Lotteries now prepared to use some of the VLT funds raised in the city of
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister charged with
the administration of The
We also announced through the budget
process that 65 percent of video lottery revenues will go directly toward
deficit reduction for all Manitobans, so we can leave more money in the pockets
of Manitobans to determine how they are going to spend that money themselves,
rather than having government take that money in taxes.
Mr. Speaker, we will continue to
work with the City of
Ms. Barrett: I
cannot believe that it is too early to start planning for something that is
going to start rolling in in September.
That is exactly what this government has done throughout its time in
office. It has not planned.
VLT Revenues
Employment Creation
Programs
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family
Services): Mr. Speaker, the member is aware that we
annually look at our rates and have adjusted those annually for recipients
throughout the province. We have also
brought in many other enhancements we have had the opportunity to discuss
through the Estimates process, and we will work with all municipal councils as
we have them adjust to the new levels of assistance.
I can assure the member that there
are many issues in social allowances that my colleagues and I will be looking
at.
* (1345)
VLT Revenues
Economic Development
Projects
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister charged with
the administration of The
That will mean that there is a good
possibility that many social assistance recipients will be hired through a
process of increased economic activity.
Western Diversification
Funding
Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the Premier's
response to the Leader of the Opposition's (Mr. Doer) question about the
Churchill proposal.
I am wondering if the Premier, given
that he has had the discussions he has had with people about this project, can
explain why Western Diversification felt and I quote: " . . . there is a very low probability
of the study leading to a commercially viable development of the spaceport . .
. ."
Why did they write it off prior to
doing the study?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite will just
wait until he has a chance to be out on the hustings seeking a federal seat, he
can ask that question of the federal government. He clearly knows that this is‑‑[interjection]
No, I did not suggest that he would be elected.
I said when he is on the hustings, he can ask the question.
It is a federal department that has
made that quote. He should be asking
them, Mr. Speaker. I want to know
whether or not he has already phoned Western Economic Diversification to ask
that question.
Mr. Alcock:
Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the Premier's advice and he is correct. He is not the minister responsible for
Western Economic Diversification.
However, he did profess knowledge about this project in his answer to
the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer).
I would like to ask him a second
question. I have here a letter from the
lawyer who says that WED's negative decision was plainly politically motivated
and centrally based. I am wondering if
the Premier can add to those comments.
Is this something that he believes?
Mr. Filmon: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot add to those
comments.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, one does not need to spend a lot
of time talking to businesses in this province to have them tell you they feel
that
Has the Premier protested this
decision to the federal government?
Mr. Filmon: Mr.
Speaker, given that the decision was just communicated as of the news media
today, as I said in response‑‑[interjection] It was communicated as
of the news reports today. That is what
I said. [interjection] The same way as you did.
You did not ask the question on May 5.
You did not ask the question on May 11.
You asked the question when it was in the media.
Mr. Speaker, as I said in response
to the first question from the Leader of the Opposition, I intend to pursue
this with Western Economic Diversification.
Osborne House
Management Review
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, very serious concerns have been
raised regarding the management at Osborne House. In fact, it is more than just concerns. These are shocking revelations which the
Minister of Family Services, the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), the
opposition critics and the media have received.
The problems have to do with a very
serious style of management operations which affects the running of Osborne
House and staff turnover, and also very serious charges regarding the way that
women who are there to receive shelter after leaving abusive relationships are
treated.
Since the Minister of Family
Services was aware of this a year ago, I would like to ask the minister, what
has he done as a result of being made aware of these allegations a year ago?
* (1350)
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family
Services): There are two issues here. One is an issue of staff management
relations, and I am pleased to let the member and the House know that the YM‑YWCA
has hired an external agency, the Manitoba Institute of
On the service side, we had
preliminary meetings yesterday to discuss service at the shelter, and as of
today, we have a program specialist who is working with the shelter to look at
these service issues.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not tell us what
he had done since he knew of these revelations a year ago. It took the minister a year. Now, finally, the YM‑YWCA is acting.
Can the minister tell us if this
review will be made public and if the recommendations will be made public, so
we can ascertain whether or not the minister is going to implement the
recommendations resulting from a review?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The member misunderstands the relationship. The
review is being done under the auspices of the board to deal with staff who
work for the board at Osborne House. They
have hired an external agency to conduct this, and we will be receiving that
information when that review is finished.
I believe they have put some time lines on that, so the review will be
completed in the next six weeks or so.
We are working on the service side
with the agency and have put into place a program specialist, and we are also
working on a service and funding agreement to assure that services are being
provided within the shelter.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the Minister of Family
Services: Why would he agree to a review
commissioned by the YM‑YWCA when three internal reviews have been done in
the last eight years, none of which have resulted in correction of these
problems? The problems have continued.
Why will this minister not authorize
an independent review with recommendations made public to this minister and to
the Legislature?
Mr. Gilleshammer: There are a number of changes that have taken
place.
The member has received information
from some staff and former staff of Osborne House, and I am satisfied at this
time that the board is acting responsibly to put into place an external review
to develop a plan for the resolution of these issues. I am prepared to allow the board to work with
their staff to bring that resolution about.
Property Tax Credit
Impact on Seniors
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I have a question for the Minister of
Finance.
This last budget was not a fair
budget. A disproportion of the burden
has been placed on the shoulders of the poor, the disadvantaged and the senior
citizens of
My question to the minister is: Exactly how many seniors will be affected by this
move and, precisely, can the minister tell the House, what is the estimated
total increase in the property tax burden that will be transferred to the
shoulders of senior citizens?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, when I brought the budget down,
or before I brought the budget down, I said that every Manitoban would be
impacted.
With respect to the $75, we always
said that the ability‑to‑pay principle was a very important
one. We said the government's ability to
pay was obviously important, and we had to reduce some of the support we had
provided under the property tax credit line, but, furthermore, we said
individuals' ability to pay was also very important.
That is why we restructured the tax
credit program, because we had basically the richest in the country. As we have said before, seniors with incomes
under $23,800 will receive a portion of the $175 and, indeed, those under
$15,000 will secure the entire $175 benefit they have grown accustomed to.
So, Mr. Speaker, we have not
diverged in any way from the path we said we would be bringing, and that was
practising fairness with respect to all Manitobans.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Well, I was talking about the property tax
credit, Mr. Speaker.
School Tax Assistance
Program
Impact on Seniors
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Another unfair move was the cut in
Pensioner's School Tax Assistance. That
again, was very unfair.
So my question is: What is the estimated total amount of the
reduced provincial credit expenditures resulting from the cut in benefits
available under the Pensioner's School Tax Assistance Program, and, again, how
many senior citizens will likely lose their school tax benefits?
* (1355)
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Well, again, Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that
question specifically because we know the global saving provided. The impact was roughly around $40 million
across all of the property tax credit changes.
But, again, Mr. Speaker, I do not
think the member for Brandon East would want us to go into all the tax forms
and try and determine what level of income seniors have specifically, so as to
be able to provide him with the specific number count he would like me to
provide.
But I can tell him that the impact
globally in all tax credit changes is around $40 million, and I tell him, I
know full well that seniors will not mind as much, as long as they see good
government decisions on the spending side leading to the types of comments that
came forward yesterday from the Dominion Bond Rating Service.
Mr. Speaker, I know full well that
seniors in this province fully understand the state of circumstances of the
province and are prepared to support this government, as long as they see a
balanced approach on the spending side.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, the senior citizens of this
province are afraid of the health cuts that are going on by this government.
Municipal Tax Bills
Information Pamphlet
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, my last question to the
minister: Why did this minister fail to
mention the tax credit reductions or eliminations in the information pamphlet
that is going out with the municipal tax bills?
This omission has caused a lot of
confusion and consternation among property taxpayers who are now receiving their
municipal tax bills. Why was the
minister not forthcoming with this information?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): I happen to have the pamphlet, and it spells
out very clearly and precisely the support that is available by way of tax credits
in the 1993 year.
Mr. Speaker, it says, and I
quote: Who is eligible? The
Mr. Speaker, it is clearly spelled
out. Anybody can read it. As far as the new process whereby, now,
seniors are going to have to go through the tax form, we have had to do that
because of the new income definition which now treats every dollar earned‑‑every
dollar earned‑‑equally, regardless of the source. [interjection]
The member asks did I sign it. Certainly, I have attached my name to
it. I have read it and I indeed endorsed
it, Mr. Speaker, before it went out.
HIV Infections
Blood Transfusions
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons
subcommittee on blood and HIV has reviewed the issue of HIV‑contaminated
blood and blood transfusions which were performed during the‑‑[interjection]
Mr. Speaker, my question is, as a
result of the tainted blood, over 1,000 Canadians contracted the HIV
virus. The report emphasized the
possibility that there are still some HIV‑infected people who contracted
HIV disease during this time.
Can the Premier tell this House when
the Department of Health will have a proactive approach to trace all those
people who have the possibility of having contracted HIV disease during that
period of time?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as
notice on behalf of the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard).
Mr. Cheema:
Mr. Speaker, can the Premier tell this House if during the next
ministers' conference of provincial and federal governments, the government
will support the proactive approach of having one unified system for blood
transfusions throughout the country to make sure that the safety and
effectiveness of blood transfusions are maintained as recommended by the
Canadian Hemophilia Society?
Mr. Filmon:
Mr.
Speaker, I will take that as well on behalf of the Minister of Health.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, can the Premier tell us if the
government of
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as
notice on behalf of the Minister of Health as well.
Terry Stratton
Lobby Efforts
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Premier admitted
that Tory fundraiser Arni Thorsteinson was appointed to the Hydro Board to
replace Terry Stratton who had been appointed to the Senate.
On Wednesday, May 12, the Minister
of Finance‑‑and my question is to the Minister of Finance‑‑confirmed
that he gave in to lobbying at the last minute by the Central Air Carriers
Association of
I would like to ask the
minister: Can he confirm that Senator
Stratton participated in this lobbying?
* (1400)
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): The member makes two assertions, both which
are patently false.
First of all, it was not a last‑minute
given. I had been in conversation with
the air transport people, Mr. Speaker, for at least the best part of a year
trying to find out whether or not there was a process of providing some relief
that would make them more competitive with jurisdictions to either side of
The second question dealt with Mr.
Stratton. I can indicate fully that Mr.
Stratton was not in any way part of that lobby effort. As a matter of fact, I did not even know Mr.
Stratton was actively involved with any aspect of the aeronautical industry.
Air West
Ownership
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, the minister just said he was not
aware that Mr. Stratton was involved in the air industry.
I would like to ask the
minister: Can he confirm that Senator
Stratton owns Air West, a charter aircraft which directly benefited by the
reduction in the 7 percent sales tax?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that because
that is new knowledge to me. I was not
aware of it.
Government of
Public Access
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a letter
from Mr. Thorsteinson requesting money, input and ideas from me as a member of
the business community.
My final question is to the
minister, Mr. Speaker. The question is
this: Who gets access and who gets
listened to more by this government, Tory bagmen like Terry Stratton and Arni
Thorsteinson or the mothers and children of this province who now have to pay
PST on baby bottles and baby supplies?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, every single Manitoban is important
to this government. Every single
Manitoban has a voice that is heard by this government.
I know that New Democrats pick their
friends and choose only their class of people whom they want to listen to. I know that their union bosses are the ones
who come into cabinet and tell them what to do and how to do it. This government listens to every single
Manitoban equally.
The Green Plan
Red/Assiniboine Rivers
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, the federal government's Green
Plan says there is also concern about water quality in the Red River and
It then goes on to talk about a
proposed joint study between the provinces of
My question is for the Minister of
Environment. Given that this Green Plan
has been proposed for quite some time, why have we not heard about plans for
this study happening before major projects like the
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, there has been discussion in this
area ever since 1988 and earlier. It is
a problem of a number of decades in terms of the water quantity and quality
that we have in our prairie rivers.
The fact that there have been
ongoing discussions for a number of years about bringing Green Plan money to
the province to deal with what is one of our most important resources should
not come as any surprise to the member.
Federal Environmental
Review
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, the idea is that you do studies
and research and plan before‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. This is not a time
for debate. The honourable member for
Radisson, with your question, please.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, given that the federal
Environment Act and the Green Plan mandate federal involvement in an assessment
of this kind of water diversion project, what rationale does the minister have
for screening out this project from a federal assessment?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled by the member
suggesting that I would have either the authority or any desire to screen out
federal involvement. That is a federal
responsibility. They have a responsibility
to make the decision on whether or not there will be federal involvement in any
aspects of this review.
Mr. Speaker, it has been stated a
number of times in this Chamber that we are proceeding with our review. We have kept close contact with the federal
authorities. It is ultimately their
decision whether or not they want to be part of the review, whether or not they
wish to do their own review or whether or not they may choose to screen it out.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the minister should
be making that information‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. This is not a time
for debate. The honourable member for
Radisson, with your question, please.
Ms. Cerilli:
Mr.
Speaker, this is a serious matter.
I would ask the minister to be
accountable and tell the people of
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, the member insists on implying
that I have the decision‑making authority as to whether or not federal
authority is in or out.
Point of Order
Ms. Cerilli: My
point of order to clarify the question is, what‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
member does not have a point of order.
That is a dispute over the‑‑[interjection] Order,
please. That is a clarification.
* * *
Mr. Cummings: Well, if she finds her lack of understanding
of the process embarrassing, then she does not have to like the answer, but the
answer is, this jurisdiction does not make the decision as to whether or not
the federal authorities are in.
Misericordia
Alternative Action Group
Recommendations
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, the Misericordia alternative
action group has recommended an extensive series of community‑based
alternatives in mental health prior to the closing of the psychiatric beds at
Misericordia. Throughout the mental
health field, there is uncertainty over the resources being placed in the
mental health field, and they may not be in place prior to the closing of the
beds.
Will the minister assure this House
that he will consider the recommendations of the Misericordia alternative
action group and other groups which include such things as co‑ordinated
crisis services, community support and housing prior to the closing of the beds
at
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as
notice on behalf of the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard).
Misericordia
Alternative Action Group
Recommendations
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the Minister
of Family Services: Can the minister
advise this House whether he has put in place recommendations of the Reid
inquest, the Russick inquest and groups like the Misericordia alternative
action committee that call for a cross‑departmental approach to mental
health?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family
Services): Mr. Speaker, we put in a number of processes following
the Reid report. I would be pleased to
indicate those to the member today.
One of the concerns identified in
the Reid report was the lack of co‑ordination between the agencies in the
city of
We centralized the Child and Family
Services agencies two years ago to be sure that this co‑ordination and
communication was in place. We
implemented a standard on the reporting of firearms and other weapons,
requiring Child and Family Services agencies to document and report actual or
potential use of weapons in case situations and to inform the police where
there are reasonable grounds to believe there is a threat to the safety of any
family members.
We are also in the process of
implementing a Child and Family Services Information System which is a province‑wide
computerized information system designed to track the progress of children and
families throughout
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, the minister has answered in
general.
I would like to ask the minister in
my final supplementary: Does he support the recommendations, together with the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) and
other ministers, of the Misericordia alternative action group and other groups
calling for an overall co‑ordinated approach?
The minister has only dealt with
some segments. He has not talked about
economic support, housing, et cetera.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I would take that question as a matter of
notice.
* (1410)
Osborne House
Management Review
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister
of Family Services.
The minister has known about the
difficulties at Osborne House for almost a year. He said earlier in this Question Period that
he had a planning meeting yesterday.
Can he tell us what he has done for
the other 364 days?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family
Services): Mr. Speaker, I reject the member's assertion that
there have been representations made to the minister over the last year. We have had a couple of complaints that have
come to the department.
The question of the staff‑management
situation with the shelter is being handled by an external agency that has been
hired by the board. I am comfortable
that they have put in place a process that will lead to the resolution of the
issues between the staff and management.
Program Specialist
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in response to a ministerial
question from the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), the First Minister (Mr.
Filmon), as is his wont, yelled across the House‑‑does not trust
the YM‑YWCA.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if
the Minister of Family Services does trust the management of YM‑YW. If he does, why did he make the decision to
put a program specialist into the Osborne House situation?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family
Services): Mr. Speaker, our department deals with many
community‑based boards, not only in the city of Winnipeg but across the
province of Manitoba, that do tremendous work in managing the various agencies
that provide service to clients who are part of this department.
The board has put into place a
process to deal with the issues between staff and management. We are concerned on the service side because
issues have been raised on service. That
service is in place and is continuing.
We have had preliminary discussions with the management of the
shelter. As a result of those
discussions, we are having a program specialist work with the management and
staff of the shelter to ensure that service in fact is in place.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, the function of Osborne House is
to provide service. Obviously, the minister
has decided there are sufficient difficulties at Osborne House that it is
necessary to put a program specialist into place to resolve those difficulties
before the consultant makes the report.
Why did the minister decide
yesterday that this program specialist was necessary when he has had
information about this for some time now?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, the staff from our department are
not intended to replace the staff. In meetings
with the management and staff, there are issues that need to be resolved, and
if the department can be of assistance, we are doing so with the staff from
that area of our department.
VIA Rail
Bayline Service
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, transportation issues are of
major importance in northern
There is ongoing concern about the
future of the bayline that affects communities such as Ilford, Pikwitonei and
Thicket Portage that have no other links whatsoever. That was particularly compounded by the
federal budget in which the response from VIA Rail has been that they will not
be able to provide existing service with those particular cuts.
I would like to ask the Minister of
Highways and Transportation if he has received any assurances of long‑term
service on the bayline from the federal government arising out of the cuts that
took place to VIA Rail following the federal budget.
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and
Transportation): Mr.
Speaker, no, I do not have those assurances.
We are trying to negotiate and talk with the VIA people. We have correspondence with them.
My staff is working with them, but I
cannot give that assurance at the present time, though I am trying to get that
assurance.
Shipment Guarantees
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, one of the other concerns is in
terms of the bayline and the
I would like to ask the minister if
he has received any assurance in terms of any shipments out of the
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and
Transportation): Mr.
Speaker, I do not have that assurance either.
I do not think I have enough time to
explain exactly the process that we are in right now which I outlined under my
Estimates in terms of what I think is‑‑I am hopeful of what will
happen with the Arctic Bridge concept that we have developed with the Russians,
with the committee that has been struck and the consultants who have been
hired.
I am hoping there is going to be
some positive information coming forward relatively soon in terms of what the
future holds in terms of grain movement through the Port of Churchill.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of concern
up north. I do hope there are going to
be some assurances.
VIA Rail
Bayline Service
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): My final question is to the Minister of
Highways.
I would like to ask the minister if
there are any contingency plans, given the fact that many of the communities
along the bayline do not have any other access, have no all‑weather road
access, have only winter‑road access.
Is there any contingency plan in
place? Are there are any moves to
further reduce the bayline service that would provide alternate all‑weather
road access to those communities?
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and
Transportation): Mr.
Speaker, the road considerations are not one of the options that we are looking
at at the present time.
We are still holding the federal
government and VIA Rail responsible for the commitments they made, that they
would provide services to isolated communities in the North. It is on that premise and principle that we are
working with them.
Transcona‑Springfield
School Division
Transportation
Privatization
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, as a result of the recent
provincial government's budget, the Transcona‑Springfield School Division
had their funding cut back by some 3 percent.
Since that time, the school division
has had to apply for noncharitable status so that they can receive monies from
members of the community to allow them to continue their operations. Since that
time, the school division, as well, has moved toward privatization of their
student population in the community, Mr. Speaker.
My question for the Minister of
Education is: What plans does this
Minister of Education have to protect the students who are being transported
within the school division, now that the school division is looking at
privatizing that service?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Mr. Speaker, again, we
have discussed the funding which has been made available to schools in this
province, and I would remind the member that $777.7 million is still a very
large commitment of funds.
With the funds which flow from the
school funding formula to school divisions, boards will be making
decisions. They will be making
decisions, and I believe that they will attempt to make the best decisions representing
their community areas.
Mr. Reid: My
supplementary is to the Minister of Education.
Can the minister indicate whether or
not the school division has the authority to privatize this service and whether
or not the school division actually indeed owns those buses, or is it the
Department of Education that owns that equipment?
Mrs. Vodrey: I
will have to get back to the member regarding the information for his
particular school division in terms of ownership of the buses.
Mr. Speaker:
The time for Oral Questions has expired.
Nonpolitical
Statements
Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, do I have leave to make a
nonpolitical statement?
Mr. Speaker:
Does the honourable member for Gimli have leave to make a nonpolitical
statement? [agreed]
Mr. Helwer: Mr. Speaker, it is with extreme pleasure that
I rise today to ask all members of this House to congratulate the town of
This announcement was made today and
will result in as many as 500 athletes from over 80 countries coming to Gimli
for this world‑class event which is tentatively scheduled to run from
August 28 to September 5, 1994.
Mr. Speaker, in the world of sailing
this is a major announcement and is something Manitobans and specifically the
people of Gimli should be very proud of.
Some facts for the House‑‑this is the first ever world
championship in an Olympic event to be held in
Gimli will be hosting the largest
Olympic windsurfing event in history.
This is the first ever combined Olympic and windsurfing world
championship.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt the
Gimli area is one of the premier areas for boating.
The town of
Gimli has more than enough space to
house and feed the hundreds of athletes and team officials who will be attending
this event. Race organizers have over 27
years of race management and expertise and over 21 major national‑international
events under their belts.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it is safe to
say Gimli is second to none as a race venue.
The world became aware of just how good Gimli is for sailing when it was
used as a major sailing venue during the 1967 Pan Am Games. Now, through the 1994 World Boardsailing
Championships, Gimli will once again be showcased to the rest of the sailing
world, which will only further enhance this area as a prime sailing spot. As well, with hundreds of athletes, team
officials and spectators converging on Gimli, the local economy will certainly
benefit.
Today, there is no doubt the bid was
successful because of the tremendous community effort shown by all partners in
this bid. Today, I invite all members in
this House to join with me in celebrating and congratulating the town of
* * *
Mr. Speaker:
Does the honourable Minister of Agriculture have leave to make a
nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to be able
to make a nonpolitical statement today to congratulate the Kiwanis Club of
Winnipeg for the annual sponsorship of the 4‑H leadership public speaking
contest.
Mr. Speaker, I had the occasion to
hear those young people at noon hour.
The Kiwanis Club has sponsored this since 1947, exceptional young
leaders out of rural
The three finalists today of the 11
people who came to
The winner, Mr. Speaker, was Lauren
McNabb from Minnedosa. I would like to
congratulate her. I would also like to
congratulate one of the judges, the Leader of the Second Opposition (Mrs.
Carstairs).
* (1420)
Mr. Speaker:
Does the honourable member for Crescentwood have leave to make a
nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to join with
the Minister of Agriculture in congratulating the young people who participated
in the public speaking competition and also in saying thank you to the Kiwanis
Club who have always been very good sponsors of the 4‑H and youth
program.
Mr. Speaker, I think all of us know
of individuals who have gone through the 4‑H and youth program, I am sure
many who are in this House today, a former Premier of the province of Manitoba
who was involved in the 4‑H and youth program. It is certainly an excellent program to
develop leadership skills, public speaking skills, a sense of community and a
sense of teamwork.
I am only sorry that I was not able
to be at the events today to hear these public speakers, but I again wish them
well on behalf of my caucus. I am sure
that they will go on to bigger and better things. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker:
Does the honourable member for
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I have been involved with 4‑H
clubs for many, many years, and our children went through the program. I recognize the importance of this club. I would hope that we would continue to have
this club flourish in
I had the opportunity this year to
attend several achievement nights, and saw the tremendous work, the skills that
young people learned through this job, through this club. I give my highest respects to those leaders
who give of their time so willingly to help these young people.
Also, I attended a public speaking
event as well, and was very impressed with the skills that these young people
have learned through the leadership of the club again, and it does nothing but
enhance their ability to take on their role as they become adults in this
province and take on leadership roles.
Congratulations to the Kiwanis Club
and my best wishes to all young people who have the opportunity to take
advantage of joining 4‑H clubs.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of
Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the
House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted
to Her Majesty.
Motion presented.
MATTERS OF GRIEVANCE
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): In fact, I am pleased to be able to speak today,
Mr. Speaker, under the one time in the session that I am guaranteed to be able
to speak when I rise on my grievance.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that is
ironic because only last night I was not able, after a number of attempts, to
receive recognition in participating in a major debate in the Department of
Agriculture. [interjection] Well, I hear howls from across the way, but members
opposite should understand that one of the most fundamental rights of a member
of this Legislature is the right to speak out on behalf of his or her
constituents, and I plan on doing that today.
What is happening, Mr. Speaker, with
this government, is that it is increasingly showing signs of arrogance, and I
think what happened last night is indicative of that. In Estimates, where we have a limited number
of hours set aside for consideration of departments, we saw the spectacle
yesterday of a government filibuster on a motion, which is a traditional motion
to reduce the minister's salary, where the government spoke for three hours
solid, where members in the opposition, such as myself, were unable to
participate in the debate. That is not
only not the tradition of this House, it is not parliamentary, it is not
democratic, and it is not acceptable to the opposition in this Chamber.
Mr. Speaker, this government has to
understand that our parliamentary system is based on respect, not just of the
will of the majority, the temporary majority that governs in this House, but
also the other members, the members of the opposition, the other members of
this House.
It is interesting because I look
back at‑‑[interjection] Well, it is interesting the Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) talks about 4‑H. I wonder how many of those participants in
the competition he was talking about would have agreed with the government that
refuses to allow members of the opposition to participate in debate. I wonder how many of those 4‑H
individuals would understand‑‑in fact, I know they would understand
the concern of members of this House.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to say
that there will be specific opportunity to deal with this matter when the
Committee of Supply again resumes in terms of points of order, indeed, of
potential other procedures that may be used.
I want to say that I consider it unfortunate
that the only way in which I can speak without having to run into that tyranny
of the majority is in grievance. Once a
session, Mr. Speaker, it is the time when I can stand in my seat, and I can
speak.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that
members opposite take it so lightly.
Perhaps some members who served in opposition would recall some of the
concerns that were expressed by members of the opposition in those days in
terms of the operation of committees and recognition of speakers and objectivity
of chairs of committees and of speakers.
They were concerns that were raised then.
I took the opportunity to look back
at some of the concerns that were raised by such former members as Sterling
Lyon and Brian Ransom and indeed, some of the same sitting members, Mr.
Speaker. I looked back at some of the
previous debates in this House and concerns that were expressed, and indeed I
will be raising some of those matters as precedent when I have the opportunity
to deal with this matter in a more substantive form.
But I want to say to members
opposite, to members of the government, that they should be very careful in
terms of what they are doing because this House operates on the basis of rules,
yes, but it also operates on the basis of co‑operation.
I would say co‑operation
begins by recognizing the traditions of this House in terms of allowing members
of the opposition to speak, in this case, on a motion that we introduced
ourselves. And we will deal in terms of the procedural matters that were dealt
with whether or not we have a decision on that particular matter.
I think common courtesy would have
shown yesterday that even if members of the opposite had been, to my mind, in
error, recognized that they were showing the courtesy of allowing members of the
opposition to speak at that particular point in time. This House operates as much on common
courtesy and co‑operation as it does on the rules, and that is my
concern.
We have a government that is
increasingly ignoring our rules and ignoring any sense of co‑operation,
and I think that is unfair and it is unfortunate.
I sometimes wonder, Mr. Speaker, the
degree to which this government will go.
I found it rather interesting in Question Period today when the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) of this province, in response to a question about the continuing
clear evidence of blatant patronage on behalf of this government, a blatant
unfairness that it deals with its political friends one way and it deals with
other Manitobans another way, talks about the NDP, when it is a government,
appointing its class of people.
What did the Premier mean by its
class of people? You know, we have
already seen his federal counterpart now, or presumed federal counterpart‑to‑be
Kim Campbell, whom he supports, talking about people that disagree with the
Conservatives, big enemies of
I mean, what class of people? What is it, lower class, working class,
middle class? Perhaps in the ivory tower
view of Tuxedo, perhaps in the Premier's view, we are all beneath the class of
the Conservatives but I reject that.
I found the comments of the Premier
today to be indicative of the kind of elitism that we see in Kim Campbell, the
kind of elitism that is rampant in the Tory party, and it is unacceptable.
The NDP speaks for all people in
this province, and that kind of comment from the Premier is indicative of the
restricted, narrow‑minded, elitist view of the Conservative Party. And I say‑‑[interjection]
* (1430)
Mr. Speaker, members opposite say,
speak for yourself. I am saying what the
Premier said. If you want to speak you
should speak to the Premier. He was the
one who made those comments in this House.
You know, it just amazes me that
this government does not understand what is happening out there. The First Minister (Mr. Filmon) today made
those comments. Then we had the spectacle
of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) talk about the provincial budget and
how everybody was having to sacrifice and pay their share.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I mean, where has
this Minister of Finance been since he announced the budget? Has he gone into the diners and the coffee
shops to see who is paying that expansion of the sales tax as he calls it? Well, if he had, he would have found out that
the people on limited means, average Manitobans are paying those increases. Go to
Now, we see the First Minister
talking today in response to the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans)
about seniors. Is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) not aware of what he is
doing? I mean, does he have to pick up a
newspaper and read it on the front page before he understands that he is
penalizing the seniors of this province, particularly those in‑‑not
even modest accommodation, we are talking about people living in very, very
modest houses in poor areas, in rural communities in houses that are not worth
a heck of a lot to begin with. Why? Because many of those seniors are of modest
means.
This Minister of Finance goes and
says to the people in Tuxedo, you have to take a reduction of $75 on your
property tax credit. Well, whoop‑de‑do,
Mr. Speaker, $75 is going to really hurt people in Tuxedo living in $150,000,
$200,000, $250,000 houses. That is going
to be real tough, you know. I mean, they
are going to have to cut back pretty severely.
I am just trying to think what might happen. There might be some terrible things. It might mean one less meal at
Transpose that with a government
that turns around to people who are paying limited taxes to begin with, Mr.
Speaker, because the house they live in is of limited value, and the land they
are living on is of limited value.
Seniors who spent their entire life working strictly to survive, to pay
the bills. It is interesting, you know,
I remember the Premier was saying that you do not know what the income of the
people in those houses is going to be that are going to pay that extra
$250. Well, you know, I do not know who
the Premier has been talking to, but I have not heard of a lot of millionaires
living in these houses. Millionaires usually like to live in quarter‑of‑a‑million‑dollar
houses. They do not like to live in
houses worth $10,000 or $15,000 or $20,000 in areas of modest means, in rural
communities with depressed property values.
There is usually a relationship between big houses and big property tax
bills and income.
Mr. Speaker, fine, the Premier can
say, well, it is not income‑related, and we can deal with that. There are ways within the property tax credit
of dealing with income‑related, but this government is now saying to the
seniors, the many seniors, you have to pay $250, $260, $270 more. So the person in Tuxedo loses the $75 and
does not get to go to
An Honourable Member: Only those that can afford to pay.
Mr. Ashton:
Only those that can afford to pay.
Well, Tory Ministers of Finance here who try and talk socialist lines
here. Some socialist the Minister of Finance is when people in Tuxedo are faced
with a $75 increase in their property taxes and people living in those small
houses, in those modest houses, are going to be paying $250. That is not ability to pay. That is just straight Tory unfairness, and
the Minister of Finance knows that‑‑ability to pay. Well, we will judge that by the fairness of
Manitobans. We will ask them who should
have been hit with the $250 increase, and I guarantee you if the Minister of
Finance takes the time to get out of this building and talk to some of those
seniors that are going to be impacted by this, some of the people faced with
the $250 increase, he will find out what they think about it.
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line with this
government, as I said, we see the elitism and we see the arrogance. It is not just in the way they are dealing
with matters before this House, it is in their actions as well.
What I find incredible, what I find
particularly incredible is even when we get into specific debates on bills, we
find again that even then the government cannot get it right. I take Sunday shopping. We had the incredible spectacle of the
minister responsible for the bill trying to suggest that somehow the opposition
is responsible for the bill not being before a committee.
Well, I wish someone would turn the
oxygen on on the other side because I think the Minister of Northern Affairs
(Mr. Downey) is hallucinating here. I do
not know where he has been since December.
We passed the Sunday shopping trial period into committee through second
reading in December. Is this January? Is
this February? Is it March? Is it April?
Even with the weather being like it is, I mean it may seem like it is
February or March, but it is May. It is
May the 18th. [interjection] Well, the Minister of Finance says we have already
gone through summer and it is winter again.
I mean, it may seem that long, but it has been a substantive period of
five months.
Mr. Speaker, I suppose someone might
say, well, perhaps the government was just too busy. Perhaps other matters dominated in the
session, but we did not sit the latter part of December and into January and
February. We did not sit in that period
of time. So did they call the bill to
have public hearings? I mean, I know we
would like to have hearings across rural and northern
I must say I was disappointed but
not surprised, the government did not want to go out. The bottom line, and the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness) should know this, is they had plenty of time to go to committee,
whether it be in this building or anywhere else, and they did not. Now, the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) has the nerve to go out and say to the media that,
well, it is really the opposition that is going to decide when this bill goes
to committee.
There are various words that could
be used to describe that, most of which are unparliamentary. Let me just say that the government opposite
has lost leave of its senses. It is a
stranger to the truth. It has not been
telling the truth on that issue and it is indicative of the kind of attitude we
are seeing increasingly from this government.
Well, Mr. Speaker, are these just
isolated incidents? Have there been
other incidents? We are seeing
increasingly in this House when Manitobans disagree with the government, what
does the government do? I remember a
time when Sterling Lyon‑‑and here I go again, saying this, but it
is true‑‑there was someone that if you disagreed with him, you had
a protest, he would not send out somebody else on his behalf or send a letter
saying, we do not have anybody available to go, I am too busy, like the current
Premier (Mr. Filmon) has done repeatedly. [interjection]
Well, the Minister of Northern Affairs
(Mr. Downey) says, the good old days.
One great thing about Tories is every time they get in government they
are worse than the one before. This
government has had the dubious distinction of making Sterling Lyon look like a
martyr, but I am not talking about specifically that. I am talking about the fact‑‑and
I was president of the student union at the time when 20 percent in tuition for
fee increases took place, and when cuts took place to funding. [interjection]
No, I did not carry a coffin. That was a
year after. We had 4,500 students and
staff and faculty on the front steps of the Legislature.
What happened, Mr. Speaker? The Leader of the Opposition came out, well,
actually the Liberal member, Lloyd Axworthy came out and spoke, followed by Ed
Schreyer who was then‑Leader of the Opposition, and then finally, guess
who came out? Was there somebody coming
out reading a regret letter? Did someone
come out and say, we are sorry, the Premier is hiding in his office; he cannot
come out.
We stood there and we went, Rufus,
Rufus‑‑that was his middle name and we thought we could get his
attention‑‑and guess what? We got his attention. He came out; he spoke to the 4,500 people
there and invited us up to his office afterwards, and we presented a petition
with 15,000 people. In the end we had a
follow‑up meeting even with the Conservative caucus at the time. When I
say we, it was collectively in terms of students, faculty and staff.
* (1440)
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern
Affairs): That is when we decided we did not want you
at a caucus meeting.
Mr. Ashton:
Well,
believe you me‑‑the Northern Affairs minister said about deciding
that he did not want me in their caucus‑‑I mean, I have never voted
Tory, never will in my life, Mr. Speaker.
I made up that decision a long time
before then, but they certainly helped out, because, believe you me, in the
back of my mind I always used to think that when Tories got in, they would do
things like this, cut back on education, cut back in terms of working people
and cut back in terms of northerners.
You know what happened, Mr.
Speaker? I saw it up close, that is
exactly what they did. That was then and
this is now. The more things change, the
more they stay the same, but with a few significant differences. This government now is doing the same sorts
of things that Sterling Lyon did, cutting back in education, impacting on
students. In this case, they are cutting
student aid, something that Sterling Lyon never did.
We are seeing it in other
areas. We are seeing it particularly
with‑‑I remember a Minister of Northern Affairs who said at the
time that welfare was cheaper than job creation. Well, that is still the
philosophy of this government. They
would much rather see the welfare rolls go up, as we have seen today, than have
people put to work. They will not even
work with the City of
Mr. Downey:
Are you advocating we do away with welfare?
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Northern Affairs
says, are we advocating doing away with welfare? I told him, I am not a Tory nor have I ever
been. If that is his philosophy, let him
state it. But the bottom line is, what I
am advocating is people are able and willing to be able to work. It is absolutely criminal that in the
I talk to people every day in my
constituency when I make my rounds and talk to my constituents, as I do on a
regular basis. People are saying to me:
I am on welfare right now; I have never been on welfare before in my
life; I do not want to be on welfare; I am not eligible for UI because my UI
has run out, and I want to get work.
I have talked to people in many
remote communities who work as long as they can in the year for two, three,
four or five months.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Start a business.
Mr. Ashton: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance
says start a business. With what?
Mr. Manness:
With what?
Mr. Ashton:
With what? I mean, if you are on
welfare, try going to the bank to get a loan.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
Mr. Manness:
Energy.
Mr. Ashton:
Start a business with energy.
Mr. Manness: With the sweat of your brow.
Mr. Ashton: With the sweat of our brow‑‑well, I
do not know which planet the Minister of Finance is from, Mr. Acting Speaker,
but I am talking about communities. I
will take him into Thicket Portage, Ilford or Pikwitonei, communities that at
least the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) has visited, I know
certainly in the case of Pikwitonei.
Mr. Downey:
I
have been in them all.
Mr. Ashton:
Been in them all, fair enough.
These are communities with three‑day‑a‑week rail
service, with no tax base. There are
people who do have businesses, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Those were boom communities 50 years
ago, they were boom communities 25 years ago.
People have been working the last 25 years on commercial fishing. You cannot get much more into small business
than that. But they are suffering. Transportation prices are down. The transportation subsidy was decreased.
There are problems with the Freshwater Fish Marketing board that the Minister
of Finance (Mr. Manness) is perhaps not aware of, but the Minister of Northern
Affairs (Mr. Downey) is certainly aware of, if he has been in any of those
communities and talked to commercial fishermen.
Mr. Acting Speaker, it is not a lack
of effort, it is not a lack of background in the workforce. There are many people in those
communities. There are seniors, there
are elders in those communities that worked 30 years on the railroad, but their
kids cannot work on the railroad because there are not the jobs anymore. They have been cut back. The maintenance crews are down to two and
three people in those communities. There
used to be 100, 150 people based out of Pikwitonei.
I had the opportunity to talk to an
elder just recently. He remembers the
day when that was one of the boom towns in northern
Mr. Acting Speaker, the bottom line
is those communities, when they have had the chance, have worked and worked
hard to build the communities, and worked hard to build a lifestyle for their
communities. But what is happening now,
the Minister of Finance says start a business.
As I said, with what? This is
what the government does not understand.
These people in the communities do
not have the financial resources to do it.
The banks will not lend anyway in most of the communities‑‑that
is a common complaint. The bottom line
is they are having a tougher time because of this Minister of Finance and this
Premier. You have cut back the
Children's Dental Program; you have cut back in terms of youth programs in
those communities, the only programs that were providing jobs; you are cutting
back in terms of student social assistance; you are cutting back in terms of
the bursary program.
This clobbers communities such as
the ones I am talking about, Mr. Acting Speaker. You know, I do not know in the community
where the Minister of Finance lives, if everyone could just say, well, I am
going to start up a small business and go to the bank and do it. I very much doubt it because I am sure even
in his own community, he knows there are many people who would not be able to
do that.
But, you know, Mr. Acting Speaker,
what I find particularly insulting about the comment is many of the people in
the remote communities in particular, as I have said, have been trappers, have
been fishermen, have made their own living and continue to do so, continue to
hunt and trap and fish.
Mr. Downey:
The environmentalists put the trappers out of business.
Mr. Ashton: Well, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr.
Downey) says the environmentalists put the trappers out of business. Indeed,
the Green Peace with its distorted and completely unfair and sensationalistic
campaigns in
But the point I am making to the
Minister of Northern Affairs is perhaps he should explain to the Minister of
Finance, given the chance, people in those communities have set up small
businesses, the ultimate small business‑‑living off the land, the
ultimate small business‑‑selling the furs that you catch or trap,
selling the fish that you get, and increasingly they are being hit in those
particular communities.
Mr. Manness: Not by my taxes.
Mr. Ashton: Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, the Minister of
Finance says not by my taxes. I can give
him a list of Tory initiatives that have hit northern communities. We can start with the $50 user fee for
northern patient transportation, we can go on to the child dental program that
provided the only dental care many of those children have ever received and ever
will receive, because most of the people never have had and never will have
insurance. When you are a trapper, you do not have dental insurance. You are not like other people in other
occupations.
I know the Minister of Finance
representing a community with many primary producers, many farmers, who do not
have insurance either, should understand that.
So those are two things that have been hit right off the bat. They have cut back in terms of income
security. The student social assistance
program and also the payments going to people in the communities. They have cut back currently in terms of job
creation programs in those communities.
They have eliminated any ability in
many communities to provide summer jobs because of the requirement of matching
funds, something that was available in terms of the CareerStart. They have cut back in terms of the Community
Places Program that had provided some significant opportunities in terms of
building facilities in those communities.
What have they not cut back? They are even cutting back in terms of
education funding into those communities in terms of frontier schools.
I mean, these are communities, Mr.
Acting Speaker, that have limited resources to begin with, and the Minister of
Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) knows that, and they are being continuously
hit. So the Minister of Finance says
they have not been affected by any of his taxes. I mean, who does he think are paying the
increased provincial sales tax on baby supplies and meals under six bucks?
It is people who have limited means
to begin with in many communities and in my own communities. If he wants to come to Thompson and he wants
to come with me to any of the restaurants in Thompson and come in and see who
is paying that amount, it is not the people who go and pay the $10‑$12
dinners and the $15 dinners and the $20 dinners, most people cannot afford that
on a regular basis. The people who are
getting penalized by his taxes are the people on limited and modest incomes, so
I point out this, because increasingly the fact is that this government is
elitist and it is out of touch.
* (1450)
It is interesting because there is a
relationship between all of these factors.
I talk about the federal Conservatives, and I find it interesting. When times are tough for Tories, we get
people like the minister for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae), who suggested that the
Manitoba party, the Manitoba Conservative party, Progressive Conservative
party, whatever the heck it is called now, Manitoba PC party or a Tory by any
other name, suggested, change the name.
I remember that.
What is the member for Brandon West
doing now? He is running for the federal
Conservative party. Does that surprise
anyone in this House? Here is an MLA
that wanted to change the name of the provincial party‑‑those
rotten federal Conservatives, he said, that rotten Brian Mulroney, that rotten
bunch of cabinet ministers, they have done such terrible things for
What is he doing now? He is running for the federal Conservatives
and what are they standing for? Every
single one of the policies that was adopted by the federal Conservative party
is being maintained by what‑‑by Kim Campbell and John Charest. It is the same bunch. They are rearranging the deck chairs on the
Titanic, Mr. Acting Speaker.
By the looks of it, I think Kim
Campbell is throwing some of the deck chairs overboard. I think at the rate she is going, she is
going to jump overboard herself with some of her most recent comments.
We are seeing now Kim Campbell make
statements about the Catholic church that have not been heard in this country
since the turn of the century, the turn of the century‑‑[interjection]
I do not know if the member for
How do you take that out of
context? She is an Anglican, and if he
wants to get the copy of the exact statement that was made. I cannot even repeat some of the things she
said in the House about people that are not members of political parties. She
made some very disparaging comments about people who are not members of
political parties. You have someone who,
just last week, said that people who do not agree with the Conservatives on the
deficit are enemies of Canada‑‑enemies of Canada.
Well, you know, I am just wondering
who is going to be left, Mr. Acting Speaker.
She is taking on the 80 percent of people who do not agree with Tory
government policies, she is taking on Catholics, she is taking on people that
are not members of political parties.
Well, I ask the question, who is left once you eliminate all of those people?
What it is, it is the Tory party of
the 1890s. It is the Orangemen, it is
the elitist version of the Conservative party and I do not even believe, in
fact I know, that many members in this House who are Conservatives do not
subscribe to that view of this province or this country, but this is Kim
Campbell. How many of them are going to
vote for Kim Campbell?
This is a question I ask, because is
no one going to take a stand and disassociate themselves from these elitist
comments? Is no one going to say that it is not acceptable in the 1990s to talk
as if we are in the 1890s with the Orange Lodge and anti‑Catholic
statements?
This is not
You know, I represent people in my
constituency and when I come to this House I represent everyone, whether they
vote for me or not, that is part of the democratic process. One of the nice things about the community in
Thompson, and I think anyone who has been in Thompson will know that, including
the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), we have our disagreements at
election time. We probably put up more
election signs per capita than anybody else does in the province and believe
you me, neighbours argue with neighbours and friends argue with friends and
members of family argue with members of family about politics. More often than not in between the elections,
we have our disagreements but we have a lot in common as well.
The 11 or 12 years‑‑[interjection]
What I am saying, Mr. Acting Speaker, is that when you come to this House, what
you do is you talk in terms of representing the interests of all Manitobans,
not talking about the NDP and its class of people. I have raised this with the Minister of
Northern Affairs who said that the problem with northerners is they do not know
how to vote right. I mean that was
probably a more neutral version. At
least in that case, the Minister of
We know‑‑we just saw the
last budget‑‑we saw the 10 out of the 11 friendship centres just
happened to be located in NDP ridings, the 11th was in Portage, and I know the
member for Portage has analyzed how the people serviced by the friendship
centre vote. I know he has made various
comments, but I do not want to get into his comments in terms of that, because
it is on record in terms of that.
Are we really at the stage, Mr.
Acting Speaker, when we determine the politics of this province by the NDP and
its class of people? What does that
mean? Does the Minister of Highways (Mr.
Driedger) know what that means? Perhaps
the Minister of Highways and Transportation was not in the House yesterday.
If the Minister of Highways and
Transportation was in opposition now‑‑and he will be in opposition
again soon enough‑‑he would have been howling. He would have been the first one on his feet,
when this government, on a motion introduced by the opposition, filibustered
and refused even as a common courtesy to allow myself or other members of the
opposition to speak even when it was pointed out, Mr. Acting Speaker, that
three government members had been recognized in a row, each speaking the full
amount of time, not one single opposition member.
I have a message to the Minister of
Finance and this relates specifically to what happened last night, what has
happened on matters such as the Sunday shopping bill, and more generally the
kind of attitudes that we are seeing brought forward in this House, Mr. Acting
Speaker.
This government is going to have to
learn the lessons about the functioning of this House. It is going to have to recognize that it
cannot be arrogant, that co‑operation and consultation go a heck of a lot
further than confrontation. They are
going to have to‑‑[interjection] Well, the reality. They are reality and if this government
insists on the kind of activities we have seen, the kind of arrogant
statements, the kind of tactics we have seen in this House whereby they are
denying, they are filibustering in Estimates and actually denying opposition
members the right to speak in the normal rotation, the normal custom of this
House, that is fine.
They can do that all they want, Mr.
Acting Speaker, but they should not come to us and ask for co‑operation
on other matters. You cannot have it both ways, as members of this House like
to throw back and forth to each other, particularly on the rules.
If the government House leader wants
to talk about co‑operation in this House, he had better practise what he
is preaching. Co‑operation starts
with respect for the rights of opposition members to speak in this House.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the government
House leader could have stood in his place and said perhaps an error had been
made and by courtesy, as could have any of the members that were recognized,
could have said that perhaps the other member should be recognized. That has been done on many occasions.
I have risen on occasion, Mr. Acting
Speaker, whereby in error a Speaker has recognized myself and not a Liberal
member or not a Conservative member that should normally be recognized in the
normal rotation, and I have sat down. I
have given up my right to speak on that occasion, spoke at a later time. I have shown that courtesy.
Let us not forget that yesterday
what we saw was not just once. We saw it
happen twice. I did not get up on the
first time because everyone, Mr. Acting Speaker, can make mistakes, but when
one clearly indicates one's wish to speak, which I had done‑‑when I
rose afterwards to indicate that. When
we were in Estimates even, whereby the member for
I say that indicates a lot about
this House. We will deal with it in
terms of the decisions of the Chair when we get into the committee. We will deal with that. We have grave concerns about the decisions
that were made and have been made on matters of this kind. It also impacts in terms of the operation of
this House as well, Mr. Acting Speaker.
It is a question not just of chairing and decisions that are made by a
Chair. It also reflects on decisions
made by this government.
It is interesting. I mean, I was looking at some of the
precedents in this particular case. I
went back to 1982, to Points of Order raised then by Sterling Lyon. Mr. Acting Speaker, by the way, if you look
at the index, that was the 1982‑1983‑1984 session. Some of the members of this House will
remember it well. I remember some of the
key issues in that session. It is going
to be interesting to see, as we proceed through this session, and with the
attitude of this government and with some of the issues that are being debated,
whether history is going to repeat itself 10 years later‑‑December
1982.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I really do not
understand what the government intends to achieve by its actions in this
House. They can filibuster. The Premier was in Education Estimates
yesterday. The Premier has to go to
Education Estimates to ask questions to the Minister of Education (Mrs.
Vodrey)? The Premier could not ask them
in cabinet?
An Honourable Member: He has a right to know.
Mr. Ashton: Indeed, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.
Enns) said, he has a right to know. It
is too bad he does not know, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Actually, the only thing that may be
positive out of this, he may find out just what a mess there is in the
education system right now by asking questions of the Minister of
Education. What a spectacle. We now have the Leader of the party, the
Premier, asking his own minister questions in the public forum that we have in
terms of Estimates. Mr. Acting Speaker,
indeed how embarrassing.
* (1500)
Mr. Acting Speaker, I must admit,
when I was a government member and a backbencher, as has been the Minister of
Highways and Transportation, I must admit that I did ask a few questions to the
minister, similar to the member for
Puffball questions are standard, Mr.
Acting Speaker. That is the term that is
often‑‑softball. Actually, I
pointed out the T‑ball season started up.
The backbenchers on the government side have to T it up, and then the
minister or the Premier gets up there and knocks it out of the park. It quite an entertaining process.
Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, now we
have the Premier of this province asking puffball questions, asking softball
questions to his Minister of Education.
An Honourable Member: Was she answering? Was she giving him the right answer?
Mr. Ashton: I
do not think she was giving answers.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Premier is
practising for the inevitability that if he sticks around beyond the next election,
he is going to be back being Leader of the Opposition. He is going to need some training on asking
questions, because that is the way they are headed politically.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I want to
conclude my remarks today by saying that the arrogance and the elitism that we
are seeing in this House, the insensitivity to the opposition is something we
deal with as opposition members. [interjection] Well, in terms of threats,
there is no threat in explaining the reality to the minister. If they expect a filibuster in Estimates, we
will make up the time that they are trying to take away from members of the
opposition in concurrence. We will make
it up on grievances. We will make it up
in whatever way we can. This opposition
is not going to be bullied by this Conservative government.
It goes beyond that, because when we
speak we do not just speak on our own personal behalf. When we speak, we speak on behalf of our
constituents. I am going to speak out on
behalf of my constituents who, for the information of the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness), are being hit by his taxes.
I am going to speak out against the inherent elitism that we are seeing
from Tories federally and provincially, indicated even in Question Period
today. We are going to speak out against
Premiers that talk about NDP and its class of people, against potential future
leaders of the party federally who talk about people based on their religious
persuasion or in terms of not agreeing with their politics, that they are
enemies of
That kind of conduct is suitable for
the 1890s. This is the 1990s, Manitobans
expect better, and we will be speaking out against this kind of elitism that we
are seeing on a daily basis from this government, whether it be in terms of the
way they deal with this House, deal with members of the opposition, or deal
with members of the public. Thank you,
Mr. Speaker.
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a grievance
regarding the proposed Assiniboine diversion and the government's inability to
stand up for the environment of
The more I learn about this project,
the more I am convinced that an environment review would find that this project
is not good sense in environmental terms.
It is also not good sense in economic terms for the long‑term
development of rural agriculture in the province, and, certainly, there are a
number of questions that could be asked about the politics that are being
played with respect to this diversion.
It was interesting and annoying
today in the House in Question Period when we again asked for some kind of
explanation about why there would be no federal environment review on this
project, why the government of Manitoba has rushed ahead with only two months
warning and lead time to set dates already for June for the Manitoba Clean
Environment Commission process.
We know that they are rushing ahead
to try and get this development up and going before the federal election,
before there can be any organized court action.
This is a tactic that has been used over and over again in
It is interesting that with this
project again there is no talk of sustainability. They know very well that this is not
environmentally sustainable and is not a sustainable approach to agriculture
and rural development.
They know very well. That is why the sustainable rhetoric has been
dropped even from the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) comments on the budget, from all
the Premier's speeches, all the talk when we first began this government's
mandate for this term when they talked on and on about sustainability.
Well, it is interesting, Mr.
Speaker, that we do not hear that anymore, and it is because they know from
projects like this that it is simply rhetoric.
It has been simply an attempt to shroud themselves in the current jargon
that they think is going to make them popular through the media and through
nondetailed scrutiny by the public.
This project, I would suggest, is
putting this government in the deepest hole that they could be digging for
themselves. They have opposition again
from members in their own caucus. There
is opposition throughout southern rural
I think that some of the opposition
is coming, not from serious environmental concerns, but only because this has
become a battle over water. We are going
to see more and more of these kinds of battles over water into the future, and this
is only the beginning.
One of the important reasons for the
grievance today is that this government, in collusion with the federal
government, is not living up to the federal environment legislation. The federal legislation is very clear when it
says that there are certain criteria that trigger a federal environment review.
This project fulfills all of those
criteria under the federal environment act.
This project has some $62 million or more of federal money from the PFRA
going to it, and that is one reason why there should be a federal environment
review.
When we asked the Minister of
Environment (Mr. Cummings) what rationale they have for not complying with that
legislation, they try and play this game of making it look like we do not
understand what we are talking about.
But it is very clear, and you do not have to have very much analysis to
understand that the federal act says that there should be a review when there
is federal money. This project has money
through the Department of Agriculture.
Note as well that this government is
claiming that this project is not going to benefit food companies and
irrigators, and yet we look at where the money is coming from, from the federal
government, it is coming from the Department of Agriculture. Well, why is it coming from the Department of
Agriculture if, as the government says, this project has nothing to do with
agriculture? It is not going to benefit
farmers irrigating potatoes in southern
Now, those are legitimate questions
that we would expect an answer to, but we never get any clear answers from this
government on this project. They are
simply going to try and use all of their monetary power, all of their
legislative and jurisdictional power to force the project through before we can
have the proper assessment.
Now, there have been threats of
taking this project to court, and I know that there are some national
environment groups that are going to be looking at that. But the reason that they have a case is
because the federal act is so clear in saying that this project should have a
federal environment review.
* (1510)
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the
Chair)
Another reason for that is that it
is on a navigable river. And it is amazing, when you look at the demands that
have been placed on this river, the
Mr. Manness: I
get my water from the
Ms. Cerilli: The Minister of Finance says that he gets his
water out of the
One of the things that we are asking
for‑‑and I do not know if this government understands this‑‑the
concept of a basin‑wide review, because this project is going to affect
wells in the area. It is going to affect
the wetlands surrounding the
This government does not seem to
understand the idea that you have to look at all of the impacts on the river as
well as this proposal to take off more water from the river. They will say, oh, it is only 20 cubic feet
per second and the river can handle it.
This government should also know and consider that already the allocation
of the water from the
The other reason that is a clear indication
of why there should be a federal review on this project is that it affects
directly aboriginal lands which border the river. The quality and the value of those lands are
going to be affected by this project. It
is interesting, you know, that Long Plain Reserve is now not upstream from the
diversion itself‑‑and I will get to that point in a minute‑‑but
that there are communities that are going to be affected from decreased flow on
the
One of the reasons that there is so
much concern about this project is the government goes ahead and puts out
policy booklets about developing water policy, but then they go and construct
projects like this which go against it.
One of the policies in documents such as highlights of the provincial
government initiatives on water strategy policy application document would say
that there should not be transfer of water between basins and there should not
be transfer of water to one area at the detriment of another area. That is what one of the serious concerns
about this project is. This government
will go ahead and will continue to maintain or try to maintain that the water
from this project is simply going to the parched area in the Carman‑Winkler
area. They have used bogus population
projections to try and justify this.
What the problem is, and they will
not come clean on this and admit what is happening, is that the water‑‑[interjection]
Even if it is, even if we give them the benefit of the doubt and the treated
water being pumped now from Portage la Prairie to the southern area of
Manitoba, even if it is going to be used for human consumption and potable
water for that area, then all they are allowing to happen is for the irrigators
in that area to continue to deplete the aquifer for irrigation purposes. So, in effect, we still are having water
transferred from one region of the province to the other region of the
province, not for potable use, but to benefit the private irrigators.
I have letters from McCain Foods and
from farmers in the area commending the government on this project and talking
about how important it is to develop irrigation in this area. We know that what is happening is the potato
industry is trying to consolidate its operations as close as possible to the
border and to the markets in the
It is a problem when we have these
kind of strategies going ahead irrespective of would‑be water policy that
is being stalled from this government, and there is no attempt to conserve water
and to deal with the poor infrastructure in that southern Manitoba area before
we put millions of dollars into these type of water‑transfer schemes.
We talked before, Madam Deputy
Speaker, about the similarity of the Pembina task force proposal for the
Assiniboine diversion with the
When we continue to ask from this
government that they be accountable, that they be clear and up‑front with
people of Manitoba, and if they are deciding to not follow the law, if they and
the federal Minister for Agriculture, Mr. Mayer, are going to go ahead and
ignore the federal environment act and not have the proper environment review
on this project, that they at least have some accountability and realize their
responsibility for some explanation which would only comply with the
requirements under the environment act for why it is that this project is being
screened out.
I think that we are going to have
again another project just like with the office building at Oak Hammock Marsh
where after the fact there are court challenges. I would suggest that there are at least three
very strong cases for why this project would not hold up in court, and we could
see that happening once this project is on the way.
We are asking that they be up‑front
now and at least have some explanation for why this project is being screened
out of the federal assessment. That is,
I would think, a reasonable request. If
you are going to make decisions to not follow the requirements for the federal
environment review, at least have some public explanation.
An Honourable Member: The feds make that decision.
Ms. Cerilli:
We understand that it is the federal government making that
decision. That raises another point, but
there should be some explanation, and there should be some explanation in
It is interesting, the Minister of
Transportation (Mr. Driedger) raises the issue that this was a federal
decision, but whose decision was it? It
is a decision made by the PFRA under the Minister of Agriculture who is giving
the $62 million or so for this project.
So here we have the proponent or
funder of the proponent for the project also making the decision to screen out
the project from the federal environment review process. If that is not the biggest conflict that
there could be on such a development, then I do not know what else could
happen, to have the same minister funding the project that is responsible for
saying yea or nay to a federal environment review. If that is not ridiculous, I do not know what
is. It just goes to show what a whitewash
the Conservatives can make of any kind of attempt to have some environmental
safeguards for development.
* (1520)
There are a number of other
irregularities with this project that have already occurred. One of the irregularities that is another
good reason why this project would stand up in court to a very legitimate
challenge‑‑and again this could happen, hopefully it will not
happen once the project is already developed, but this court challenge likely
will happen once the provincial assessment is begun‑‑and that is
the way, the irregularity is the way that the proponent, the Pembina Valley
Water Co‑op, in the middle of the environmental assessment, has changed
the project. I have with me the two Environmental Impact Statements for the
Now, the first statement as anyone
could see is, I would say, almost two inches thick. It goes into great detail about the various
habitats surrounding‑‑[interjection] Well, to some detail, I would
say it does not go into great detail because a lot of the research for the
habitats is not available because the research is not being conducted because
of lack of funding, but it talks about the existing water supplies. It talks about existing water demand. It talks about these bogus population
projections.
It has charts that show the various
communities and their populations and their water use. It was released December 1992, and that is
not that long ago. It would give
someone, if they got this then, the chance to review it and start to prepare
some kind of response in preparation for an Environmental Impact Statement.
It is interesting what happened with
this, is even though this report which is‑‑how many pages, many
pages, I am looking to see. [interjection] No, I am doing all right [interjection]
I would say this report is over 400 pages, Madam Deputy Speaker, including all
the appendices. It goes into some detail
in describing this project. Then we had,
February 1993, an addendum which radically and dramatically changed the project
to having the diversion from the
This addendum, Madam Deputy Speaker,
is merely 21 pages long. With an
addendum that so dramatically changes the project to be so minimal and that we
are expected to simply allow this to happen, we have asked if there is any kind
of legal consideration that it is not acceptable or legal to, in the middle of
an environmental assessment, so dramatically change a project and not have any
more background information.
The area being affected by the
diversion has changed. The project has
been changed radically, and we would expect that it should go back to the
beginning of the environmental assessment process and that there would be a new
report that would give the same kind of detail and the same kind of overview of
the new project, and that there would again be a chance for people to have the
same amount of time to review that report and prepare for the assessment, but
that is not what this government has chosen to do.
They have simply allowed the project
to be changed in the middle of the assessment process, and they have set
hearings in June. I have raised concerns
about the fact that there is only less than two months available for people to
prepare for when the hearings were called.
There is also the concern that has been raised about how some of the
area farmers are concerned about the timing of these hearings as well.
With respect to the hearings and not
having the federal process, there is also the problem, not only that there will
be no time for the kind of preparation that we would like to see, but there
will not be any financial support for interveners. With the kind of data that
needs to be collected when you are talking about this kind of water transfer,
we want to make sure that we are going to have professionals who have the
opportunity to spend a large amount of their attention preparing for the
hearings.
I am concerned that that is not
going to happen, and I think that that is one of the reasons why we are not
having the federal review. It is
because, if there was a federal review, then there would be intervener funding,
there would be full‑time research done to prepare. I think that that would give a far closer
scrutiny and far better information to show the kind of effect that this is
going to have on the
The other thing that is interesting
about these projects and some of the irregularities about them is the way that
we have members opposite on the government's side who insist on throwing their
support publicly behind these projects before they have had the proper
environmental assessment. The Minister
of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) is particularly noted for this. He has done it over and over again with a
number of other projects where he gives his support.
I do not know if these are projects
that are benefiting colleagues that he has or what have you, but again the
Minister of Natural Resources has done this on the Assiniboine diversion and
has even gone so far since then as we have seen on other projects, where he has
had to publicly make statements retracting that support and trying to backtrack
and say that he is not publicly supporting and endorsing the project before it
has had the proper assessment.
Particularly, coming from a Minister
of Natural Resources this is of great concern.
It just shows the kind of attitude that this government has towards
these assessments. They do not think
that there should be a legitimate time period so that people can closely look
at the environmental effects. They simply
see these environmental impact assessments as something that now has to be
dealt with, and I think that phrase has been used before by members opposite,
so that they can go ahead and do what they would really like to do anyway. I know that there has to be some agreement
between the provincial and federal governments for their not to have the proper
federal review.
* (1530)
The other thing that comes to mind
with respect to this project, and it could be another good reason for there to
be so much opposition for it, similar to the Charleswood Bridge, similar to
other things that this government supports spending money on in this time of,
as they claim when it is convenient for them, economic problems, is the choice
for them to support and subsidize these kinds of megaprojects and the kind of
money that goes to support them, which is going to industry, at a time when
that money should be going to provide the services that government is meant to
provide, such as education and health care and support for people in the
community who are disadvantaged.
When people say, well, we all have
to tighten our belts and we do not have any money, I will point to projects
like this, where governments spend millions of dollars handing it over to
private individuals and corporations so that they can maximize their productivity
and maximize their efforts, and that takes money away from education
opportunities, health care, services for seniors, young people, child care and
all those things that one thinks that government really is meant to do.
That just goes to show the bias,
again, that this government has. I think
a lot of them simply do see government as an opportunity to take tax dollars
and divert them into industry, into often industry that is going to benefit
their colleagues. I do not think it is
any accident that the beneficiaries of this particular initiative are in
Conservative constituencies. It would be
interesting as well if we could do the checking and see what kind of support
McCain Foods and Kroeker Farms gives to the Conservative party during election
time and otherwise. It would not
surprise me at all if there is that kind of relationship that has developed,
and that is why we see the kind of urgent speed in setting the environment
hearings quickly before the federal election.
I think that, no matter how much
cash the government is securing by this project, they are losing support. They are losing support from this
project. They are losing support in
areas where I would say they traditionally have had strong support.
I think that it is environment
issues generally which are going to start having people realize, and this is
one of the first, this kind of choice that is being made here. These are the kinds of projects that are
going to start swaying support away from the Conservatives as we see happening
now, because the economic side of this project is not benefiting a lot of the
rural people in rural areas.
This is the kind of project that
just benefits the corporate, elite, powerful individuals that run the
corporations like McCain Foods. It is
tying individual producers into these irrigation schemes which are very
expensive, and it uses market forces by tying these producers into corporations
by requiring that they have irrigation for their crops.
It uses the market forces to do
this, and then it becomes very difficult for these operators to be able to no
longer farm in that manner. What ends up
happening is all of these communities will end up being held hostage to these
industries which tie them into very expensive irrigation‑‑[interjection]
The Minister of Natural Resources is
talking about how there is no pollution in
It is interesting to me that the
government is so rigid in its approach to this style of farming that they do
not look even at other styles. They do
not even look at other styles of irrigation.
I have heard that there is a different kind of irrigation, drip
irrigation, that would use less water because the irrigation does not just
spray the water into the air, where more of it is just evaporated and where
there would be water more closely and directly put into the soil.
All of these are considerations that
I hope will come forward during the assessment.
I think, if we start to look more holistically through our environmental
assessments, we will see that, even if this project is going to be used at this
time for drinking water in the southern
It is interesting at the same time
that this is going on that more irrigation permits are being given out in this
area, that $2.8 million is being spent on another reservoir scheme to trap
water for irrigation.
I would think that the government
has a very narrow and limited view of what kind of diversification could happen
in rural
One of the things that I also think
is important to talk about with respect to the Assiniboine diversion is the
City of
It is interesting that now we have
the provincial government admitting that they are remiss in not setting some
hearings for this important project in Winnipeg when there has been, I think it
is, unanimous passing of a resolution by the city by our councillors, our duly
elected council, to raise concerns about the developments. Some of the councillors outright oppose this
project for some of the reasons I have explained, but the resolution asked for
the proper federal review or at least a joint federal‑provincial review.
* (1540)
It is interesting that this
government could so easily ignore the concerns that have been raised by the
City of
It is not just the project itself,
which I have said before, but it is the way that they are handling it, the way
that they will simply disregard the concerns of the City of
It is interesting, the member for
Brandon West (Mr. McCrae), I wonder if he is in support of this project. There are other members across the way where
their constituencies are on the
Madam Deputy Speaker, how much time
do I have left? Two minutes? I will just wrap up then. I thought I was nearing the end.
I think it is clear that there are a
number of concerns, legitimate concerns, that have been raised with respect to
this project. The largest one is that
they are not complying with federal legislation, and I think that there has
been some agreement between the federal level and provincial level through the
federal minister for Agriculture who, as I said, is both the funder of this
project as well as the ministry that is deciding not to have a review. I think that there is an agreement that has
been made with some of the members in the House at this very minute to simply
try and fast track the project. I think
that this government is going to pay for that decision with the support that
they are losing because of their shortsighted attitude to economic development
and rural development.
I think that they are making a big
mistake on this one. I think that,
unlike some of the other decisions they are making where they say they are
making tough decisions and that we can see that they are only cutting programs
that affect people who are not in the privileged class, as the Premier was
alluding to today, that this project is affecting people who have in the past
supported them and raises environmental concerns that are being raised by
people in the areas that they traditionally have represented.
I think for those reasons that they
are making a big mistake. I hope that
they would come to their senses and have the proper federal environment review
or joint review so that the proper research can be done. I do not have much hope that they are going
to do that. Unfortunately, there
probably will be a court case on this.
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member's time has expired.
Point of Order
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): I rise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of
order simply because I need to ask you whether you think it is in the best
interest of this House to have somebody‑‑or in order‑‑stand
up in this House for a matter of 40 minutes to speak in utter ignorance about
something she knows nothing about.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Madam Deputy Speaker, clearly that is not a
point of order. If you review the record
of the remarks of the member for
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) did not have a point of
order. It is a dispute over the facts.
Mr. Penner: I
would like to remind the honourable member for Flin Flon, Madam Deputy Speaker,
that there is no member for
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Emerson did not have
a point of order, but he did indeed want the record set straight.
* * *
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Madam Deputy Speaker, I too would like to make
some comments‑‑
An Honourable Member: Is this a grievance?
Mr. Clif Evans: Yes, it is a grievance. [interjection] Well,
it may very well be.
This is the part where I am going to
start. I, along with many people in this
House, am new, and when we were elected and when we ran, we were running for
the people in our constituency, for the people of
We were not running to become
personal. We were not running to come in
here, into this House, and deal with personalities and deal with years
previous, and what has been done and that has been done.
We are dealing, Madam Deputy
Speaker, now. From 1990, that is the
time that I am dealing, from 1990 as the elected representative of the
Interlake. And, also included, the year
that I had the privilege of being the mayor of Riverton. That is what I am dealing with. That is what I have been trying to deal with
since I have been in this House, since September of 1990. And since September
of 1990, I have heard, not only directed at myself but at other members in this
House, comments that would in fact, if these comments were made outside of this
Chamber, be a time for a lawsuit.
Now, I am talking about
everyone. The Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) is querying my comment. The
Minister of Finance should perhaps just listen to what I have to say. Again, I am not here, and I do not think many
members are here‑‑I do not think the newly elected member for
Portage la Prairie, whom I have known for many years, is here to ridicule or to
contradict or to make any comments about personalities of any kind. That is what I have heard here, and it
bothers me.
It bothers me to the limit, because
I would like to know that we here are elected to work for the people of
Everyone has a problem of one sort
or another, and we have to deal with it here.
I would like to think that, as 56 or 57 members of this House, we would
deal with these problems collectively.
Maybe, and I will say so myself, perhaps I came here being a little
naive about the whole process, and I find it very difficult and very hard at
times to deal with issues in my constituency and in my critic areas throughout
the province when people say to me: Why
are you people not working together? Why
are you working against each other? Why
are you as opposition contradicting everything the government is doing and why
is the government doing what they are supposed to or not supposed to be doing?
[interjection]
Well, the member for Gimli (Mr.
Helwer) makes jest of the fact of going golfing on June 7‑‑[interjection] Okay, I will be looking forward to that.
* (1550)
What my point is, I think most of
the members of the House get along outside of this Chamber and inside, most,
but I find it very, very difficult at times to hear some of the comments in
this Chamber at one member or another, whether it be our side, whether it be
government side, whether it be Liberal side.
I find that very hard to believe.
Again, perhaps call me naive; call me whatever you want. Just do not call me late for dinner, that is
all.
I say that we have a job to do. We all have a job to do here, and it seems
that at times personalities conflict with the job that we have to do. Also, what I find very difficult is the
process, to understand. Being new at
this and in trying to understand and talk to some of our senior members, I find
it difficult. I feel I have a job to do,
a responsibility to do for my constituents, and if I am given a critic area, I
have that job to do, too, that representing all the people in the province.
I find at times that the system that
we have here takes away from us as elected officials to represent the people
like we should. I find it
difficult. At first, I found it very, very
difficult to be able to go across to the government side to a specific minister
and request assistance with some issue that I have in my constituency. I found that very difficult to do because I
was under the impression that that was not the right thing to do, but not so‑‑not
so.
I found it very easy, with some of
the ministers, to go and discuss an issue in my constituency that arose, but
what I find also very difficult is the way the present government has treated
the people in this province with certain issues, certain funding, certain
classes.
For an example, it is hard to go to
my constituency and sit down with people and discuss the recent dental program
cut. "Can you not go to the
minister?" is the question. Can you
not go to the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), and can you not go and tell him
to bring the program back? [interjection]
I am sure the minister reiterates what I say, yes.
That is why I say, the perception of
people out there is that we are the cure‑all for all. All you have to do is just knock on the
minister's door, the government's door, and it will be done‑‑not
so. Each government has its agenda. Each government follows its agenda, and each
government puts on certain people an extra burden that they have to continue
with on and on and on.
When you are starting to put a
burden on the people who cannot afford, on the people who need the most, the
children, the seniors, the disabled, the handicapped, what do we get? No response.
The dental health program again, Madam Deputy Speaker, I come back to
that. I have got letters, petitions,
people calling, meetings about a vital part of the services that have been
provided to this province for the many, many years‑‑17 years. You know, we here on this side can say, well,
the NDP brought that in. Well, that is
fine. Perhaps at the time the government
in place decided that this program was the program that would benefit the young
kids in our province for the future.
That is fine.
The problem is today, 1993, this
program has been cut, cut to a skeleton staff of four. We are down to a skeleton for these 60,000‑70,000
children that we are dealing with. What
I hear from the parents and from the children and from the school trustees and
from the principals and the dental health nurses is that not today, maybe not
today, is it going to affect, but down the road it is not only going to affect
the children, but it is going to affect the government that is in place. So we have to look at a longer range
forecast. We have to look at things 15‑20
years down the road. Let us not talk
about or think about what is behind us.
Let us talk about the future. Let
us not so much talk about what is happening today. Let us talk about the future, and I think
perhaps we have here in this Assembly, under this government, we have the
blinders on for the future. That, Madam
Deputy Speaker, not only disappoints me as to what this process is all about,
but I know it disappoints many, many thousands of people outside of this
building.
Madam Deputy Speaker, when it comes
to rural Manitobans, I have had the pleasure of living in rural
We are not a separate class that, as
mentioned again today in the House‑‑talking about classes, talking
about how we voted. Madam Deputy Speaker, that was the first time, the first
comment that I thought in this House was absolutely ludicrous, because it does
not matter after election day, it does not matter who you are, what you
are. You are a person, you are a
Manitoban, whether it be rural, whether it be urban, but you are a person, a
citizen of this province and now we find out, I find out, naive member for
Interlake, that people do not receive things in this province because they do
not know how to vote. Well, I find that
very difficult to believe.
An Honourable Member: Watch it, Clif.
Mr. Clif Evans: The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns)
says, watch it, Clif. You know this is
the‑‑
An Honourable Member: I only think highly of you, Clif.
Mr. Clif Evans: I am certainly glad someone thinks highly of
me, as I think highly of most members in this House. [interjection] I just want
to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I appreciate the comments from the Minister
of Environment (Mr. Cummings), but I just want to get back to the rural people.
In the last two and a half years, I
have gone out and I have seen the people, not only in my constituency but in
others, suffering, needing services, needing roads, needing infrastructure,
needing jobs. Well, I will tell you, there
are no jobs out there.
An Honourable Member: What about that elevator at Fisher
Branch? It looks as if there are a few
jobs there. Where are you on that one?
Mr. Clif Evans: The Minister of Environment makes comment
about the Fisher Branch pool elevator project.
Well, there, Madam Deputy Speaker, right now, what I hear is what I just
made comment about earlier because as far as I am concerned, and I talked to
the government and I talked to the Minister of Environment‑‑now, I
went to the Minister of Environment with this and we are working on this. So if we are working on this, I think that
the Minister of Environment should not be making these comments. I really do not. Because where does he stand on it? Where does
he stand on other environmental issues? [interjection]
* (1600)
No, the Minister of Environment
wants to make comments. Just what I said
earlier about the fact of working together and you want to make comments like
that, that is fine, but where do you stand on it? [interjection] That is right,
and that is where it should be left, between the minister and myself. We should be dealing with this together.
An Honourable Member: Where do you stand, Clif?
Mr. Clif Evans: I do not think the Minister of Natural
Resources (Mr. Enns) should question me.
I should question you on where do you stand on it. Where do you stand on it, Mr. Minister? Let us talk about rural issues.
An Honourable Member: That was an unfair shot.
Mr. Clif Evans: Well, it was also an unfair shot to me. Now, I say, the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) and the other ministers, you know when we talk, they talk about
jobs. They are talking about the pool
jobs. They are talking about this job.
Now, let us get to jobs. Let us get to
natural gas.
An Honourable Member: Why are we going from jobs to natural gas?
Mr. Clif Evans: Well, natural gas in the Interlake will
create jobs, will it not? You know,
sitting back‑‑and the member for Gimli brought it up in a
resolution, and we spoke on it. I would
like to see co‑operation from this government, co‑operation from
the ministers responsible to provide the proper study to be able to hear the
people in the Interlake and in
The member for
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): I will stop building that bridge for you
there. You know that bridge that you
have been wanting to have built for the last couple years? Your government did
not build it; I am building it for you.
Mr. Clif Evans: Madam Deputy Speaker, if I may, again the
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), the senior official, waiting for the
phone to ring, is chirping over here. I
want to just put on record that the minister not only in this House but by
personal conversation, I thanked the minister for going ahead with that. It is on record in Hansard. I am not afraid to do that. I am not afraid to say that, but I would
appreciate a little bit more co‑operation from the other side when it
comes to a lot of other issues that are for rural
An Honourable Member: They are all over the place.
Mr. Clif Evans: All over the place. The good main roads are all over the
place? Which one? What about the roads that since have needed
maintenance and have needed work? Why
since 1988 and 1990 have projects gone off the Highway department's agenda? Why?
Mr. Manness: You are never thankful.
Mr. Clif Evans: Well, never thankful. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) says
never thankful. Again, I am talking
about today. [interjection] No, and you are sitting over there just taking this
all in and smirking. That is terrific.
An Honourable Member: At least he is here.
Mr. Clif Evans: That is regardless of the point of who is here
and who is not here. The fact of the
matter is that we need to do something in this province when it comes to the
people who cannot afford to be able to have the luxuries that some of us here
and others in this province can. Now,
the Minister of Finance will say again, oh, yes, spending, spending.
[interjection] He has said it many times to this Assembly. Why cut, cut, cut? Why cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut?
An Honourable Member: No money.
Mr. Clif Evans: No money, broke.
An Honourable Member: Six billion reasons.
Mr. Clif Evans: Right, six billion reasons where somebody owes
the government $6 million, and that is $6 billion and whatever‑‑[interjection]
Well, okay. We all owe. We should in fact if we can, if able,
pay. I have no problem with that, none
whatsoever, as long as something is done.
Let us not just concentrate on the previous deficit and this and
that. Let us concentrate on trying to
get the 50 or 50,000‑plus people to work again. Let us concentrate on that. Let us work on a basis of trying to get
10,000 people back to work‑‑5,000 to 10,000 people a year, let us
try that. Will that not generate
revenue?
I am saying, the spin‑off from
the incomes totally will create revenues.
You should know that. It moves
around within the communities, does it not, and some of it comes back.
Mr. Manness: But not $30,000.
Mr. Clif Evans: Not $30,000.
Well, then the Minister of Finance, everything he makes on his farm,
does he throw it all back? Do I‑‑you
are saying, if you are going to make money you want it all back?
Mr. Manness: I
am saying, I am borrowing that $30,000.
Mr. Clif Evans: Borrowing?
Mr. Manness: If
I am going to get five back.
Mr. Clif Evans: I do not think that the Minister of Finance
has to go out borrowing money to create some employment in this province. I do not think he has to. With the minister present‑‑
Mr. Manness:
Where am I going to get it?
Mr. Clif Evans: I would say he should probably look very
seriously at finding it somewhere. You
are not finding it by cutting all these programs and that are you?
Mr. Manness: Where do I get the money?
Mr. Clif Evans: That is up to you and your government.
Mr. Manness: Oh, that is up to the government.
Mr. Clif Evans: That is right. Now, I am saying that what I am looking for
is co‑operation, okay, co‑operation amongst the government and the
people. I say that there are honourable
members opposite and ministers who are co‑operative, but I think on a
whole that the problem is for all Manitobans, not just for those few.
Mr. Brian Pallister (
Mr. Clif Evans: Well, again, the member for
Mr. Pallister:
Too
close to the core of the issue.
Mr. Clif Evans: No, it is not too close.
Mr. Pallister:
There is co‑operation there.
Mr. Clif Evans: There is, amongst the hoteliers, that is
right. There is. That is right, with the
hotel association and with the government there is co‑operation. I will admit that, and I think that co‑operation
comes from any government and has been with any government. So there is not a problem. But, do you know what we have here now? We have a situation where because of the
government of the day not listening to people, not listening to people, what do
we have now in the education system? I
find it very difficult to look at the fact that my kids, who are both still
young, will in fact, or may in fact, if that may be a broader question, not
have the education availability that I had or the Minister of Environment (Mr.
Cummings) had with certain aspects of the education system. [interjection] The
Minister of Environment says he went to a one‑room country school, and so
did my parents.
* (1610)
An Honourable Member: I am not talking about your parents. I am talking about my generation.
Mr. Clif Evans: Your generation, well, that is what was
available in your area. Are we going to
go back to that? What are we going to do
with our young kids after school? What
are we going to do with our young kids in the sporting end of it within the
high schools and the junior highs and the elementary? Because of the system and
because of what has been implemented by this government, we have teachers who
are fighting the system. They are fighting the system because they have their
feelings and government has their feelings.
Who is suffering? The kids are
suffering.
My kids are suffering, could be suffering
even more. As far as schooling goes, I
am always, and have been, concerned in the last many years about the schooling
in rural
An Honourable Member: You know what my school division told me? It
now pays them to keep their smaller schools open because of the changes that
the minister made to improve the ability to serve rural
Mr. Clif Evans: That may very well be. There are still many small schools in rural
Well, the economy, I still say,
Madam Deputy Speaker, that all I am saying here is that there has to be
something collectively that we can accomplish.
I say that we should, to a point, a very large point, quit politicizing
the system. That is my argument. There is no way that if I had the
opportunity, I would not prioritize a problem in this province regardless of
political colour. That will be on
record. I will say that I would
prioritize, look at the need for an area, the need for different groups, the
need for different areas for roads, the need for different areas for education. That is my point. That is mine.
That is what I believe in. That
is the way I do my business, and it is the way in my life, is priorities. What is needed more? What is more important?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would just
like to close and say again that we on this side of the House and myself in
particular are not happy with the way this government has treated most of the
people in
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I had not originally planned to participate
in this grievance, issuing a grievance, but having heard some of the comments
from the other side, I have been inspired to add a few words, to take this once‑in‑a‑session
opportunity to express my grievance about some of the actions of this
particular government.
I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, we
are now seeing the true colours of this government, the true‑blue colours
of this government because I can tell you, after 23‑plus years in this
Legislature, I have come to the conclusion now, after how many years, about
five years of this government, that it has become more right wing and more
small "c" conservative than the Sterling Lyon government during which
I sat in the opposition and which I witnessed as well.
The Sterling Lyon government and
Sterling Lyon perhaps scared a few people with some of his dramatic comments,
but the fact is that it is this government that is putting the knife to many
major programs that Sterling Lyon would not have dared touch. They are shafting
a lot of good programs; they are cutting back in social services; they are
cutting back in health care; they are ruining the economy in such a way that it
makes Sterling Lyon look like a bit of a radical, making Sterling Lyon look
like a bit of a progressive. Sterling
Lyon would not kill the children's dental care program as this government is
doing, and Sterling Lyon would not cut back on the Human Resource Opportunity
Centres as this government is doing.
Sterling Lyon would not engage in
changing the laws to permit Sunday shopping which will, in turn, shaft a lot of
small businesses in this province. So I
am reminded, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we have got a government that really
believes in cutting, in reducing expenditures and eliminating programs, and
they take great delight in it.
They are true to their philosophy,
and they are entitled to their philosophical position. They are entitled to their policy position,
but let us not kid anyone anymore. The
fact is, this government, this Premier, these cabinet ministers, that caucus
believes the less government the better.
They want to essentially downsize government. They want to essentially eliminate programs. They want to eliminate many good social
programs that we have had and have taken for granted in this province for many
years.
In doing so, they seem to get great
delight and great pleasure in this. Some
kind of an odd pleasure, it seems to me, Madam Deputy Speaker. On the other hand, they really and truly
believe in eliminating government programs where they can. I have come to the conclusion that this
government has become more right wing than the Sterling Lyon government ever
was. We can go right across this.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Let me go back. I am getting ahead of myself. I think, Mr. Speaker, that there are a number
of areas where this government, in its cutbacks, in its reduction of programs,
is particularly hurting rural
I think the whole Sunday shopping
issue is really antirural
I can tell you that in the city of
*
(1620)
I also note, Mr. Speaker, that I for
one, and many church groups as well, feel very offended that this government
has virtually gone ahead and instructed the police force not to prosecute
retailers for opening with more than four employees on a Sunday even though the
legislation has not been passed.
That is an affront to legislative
democracy. It absolutely is an affront
to legislative democracy. The law has
not been put in place, yet the police force has been instructed to carry on as
though the law is in place. But I am
sorry, the law is not in place, and I think this is a major challenge, a major
undermining of legislative democracy.
I think for that reason alone, we
should be opposing the Sunday shopping efforts of this government, but I go
back to the impact of it. The impact of
it is essentially on the small business person and essentially in rural
So I say, Mr. Speaker, we can make a
list of where this government is hurting rural Manitoba, and I can start the
list with Sunday shopping because Sunday shopping legislation is a hit at the
rural small retailers we have in this province.
Another example of where this
government is hitting rural
The fact is there are going to be
thousands of families and thousands and thousands of children who will simply
not get dental care once this program comes to an end this summer. They will not get it, either because the
people are too poor or because they are too far from dental services. I am talking about northern and rural
You know, Mr. Speaker, I was a
member of a government that brought this in, the Schreyer government. We brought this in and we extended it. We covered the entire province. When the Sterling Lyon government came in in
1977, they looked at the program but they did not kill it. They did not wipe it out like this government
is doing. What they did do is turn over
some of the program to private dentists in some school divisions in some
towns. So there was a bit of a saw‑off,
but nevertheless the program carried on.
Some parts were directly in school using dental nurses, dental
technicians, and other parts of the program were delivered by dentists in these
various towns, such as Selkirk.
Unfortunately, it was never extended
to the city of
I think there is one exception and
that is some private schools. I know
there is one private school, at least in
But it is an excellent program. It is saving money. It is saving the
I am sure the members opposite who
come from rural
The fact is this one program alone
was relatively cheap in comparison to the total spending of health care in the
An Honourable Member: $1.5 billion.
Mr. Leonard Evans: That is a lot of cheese sandwiches‑‑$1.5
billion. This dental program for
children was only $3 million or $4 million.
So we are talking about a relatively small amount of money, and yet a
lot of good was coming out of it. It was
delivered, I believe, cost‑effectively by the dental technicians and the
dental nurses in this province.
At any rate, that program is
gone. There is another program that this
government seems to want to push ahead, and I know the Minister of Natural
Resources' ears will perk up when I mention this, and that is the
Now, I do not know that much about
this
The City of
Nevertheless, the City of Brandon
just recently discussed the Assiniboine diversion and said that, until they got
more information and were satisfied that there was some assurance of the water
supply that the Assiniboine River provides‑‑the drinking water to
the city of Brandon and water for other purposes, of course‑‑but
until they get that assurance, the City of Brandon is officially opposed. They will be making representation. They would also wish that the hearings would
be held in the city of
An Honourable Member: Oh, we can arrange that, too.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Well, that would be great, because now we
understand they are to be held in the city of
Then there is another area where I
think that particularly one part of rural
The fact is that in the city of
* (1630)
If you live in
There is information‑‑I
know the Minister of Health hangs his hat on the fact that mammography
screening does not necessarily reduce the rate of death from breast
cancer. He refers to this Canadian study
that was done about a year ago on this matter.
So the results allow him to say, well, we are not going to have province‑wide
screening for breast cancer. Certainly,
I am not going to proceed to give the
The
Mr. Speaker, there is now
information and the statement by the American Cancer Society that recognizes
that there was this Canadian study of women under 50 which concluded that
mammography testing did not necessarily reduce the risk of breast cancer.
Nevertheless, they say since some breast tumors are found and cured in younger
women, the American Cancer Society stands by its guidelines for women aged 40
to 49, especially the risks of the test are negligible. In other words, the American Cancer Society
stands by its recommendation in the
There is no question, for women over
50, it is a lifesaving process. It has
been estimated that if every woman over the age of 50 got an annual mammogram,
deaths from breast cancer would be cut by a third. This is according to estimates made by the
National Cancer Institute in the
So it goes without saying, Mr.
Speaker, that if we could have adequate testing available in the Brandon area,
we could help many, many women in that area perhaps to be saved from breast
cancer or at least find it at an early enough time that we will eliminate the
risk or certainly reduce the risk of death from that dreaded disease.
The fact is that for a 45‑year‑old,
the odds are one in 93 of contracting breast cancer. For a 50‑year‑old woman, the odds
go up to one in 50. If you are 55, it
goes up to one in 33. Of course, it gets
higher with older age. The fact is, Mr.
Speaker, I am talking about women of all ages, and Westman does have an aging
population. It has a high percentage of
women who are in the higher age categories.
I think it is just vital that we have
a proper mammography testing service available there, but we do not have
it. The government just refuses and the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) just refuses this matter, and I say, again, it
is another example of this government discriminating against rural
I would use another example of
discrimination, Mr. Speaker, and that is when it comes to jobs. You talk about decentralization of the civil
service, decentralization of government jobs.
Well, this has become a meaningless exercise, because we can go down the
list and see this government eliminating jobs around rural
In
Now, with community development of
health care, the putting of people into the community, the fact is the
patients, the clientele, will be spread throughout the province, but on
balance, I can tell you there will be a net loss in the city of Brandon of over
200 jobs. So that, in one fell swoop,
wipes out any jobs that have come to the city through decentralization.
I have expressed concerns in the
past in this House, in the community and through the media about the future of
patients and the future of staff, but there is no question about it, there is
going to be a major job loss in the process.
Governments around
I am willing to predict that if any
past experience with other jurisdictions is any example of what to expect, we
are going to find the same problems arising here, that the resources will not
be put in place.
Mr. Speaker, I talk about
decentralization being made a farce of in the city of
There are actually more than 16
people. There are 16 full‑time
positions from its housekeeping and dietary departments. It has already laid off licensed practical
nurses. It has cut people from its nursing education program. It has cut other positions and so on, but now
it is cutting 16 full‑time positions from its housekeeping and dietary
departments as a cost‑saving measure.
It really means 20 permanent and 10 term employees being affected. The move is expected to save between $300,000
and $400,000 annually, and as the executive director of the hospital says, it
is a fair chunk of change. The fact is
the process has just been announced. The
process will be completed by August 15.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the fact is the
hospital is under tremendous pressure by this government and by the Minister of
Health, as are the other hospitals in this province, to cut costs. I do not know where it is all going to
end. I simply do not know where it is
all going to end, but the fact is whatever the merits of the government's move
in reducing expenditures in hospitals, the fact is we are losing jobs in the
process. So I say, again, this simply
adds to the amount of unemployment in the community. It takes away from any decentralization
efforts of the government.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, although
decentralization of government jobs is an admirable objective which I support,
I only wish it was more effective and it was not counteracted by these other
cutbacks. I want to mention, though,
with all these cutbacks, they are having a very negative impact on the
population of rural
The Minister of Finance can glow
over cost savings as he refers to them, and members opposite may be satisfied
with their government cuts in different programs and thinking, well, all is
going to be well anyway. The fact is
jobs have been reduced around rural
Even with the proposed 10‑day
plan that this government is implementing through Bill 22, there is a going to
be a major reduction in purchasing power which will be felt throughout the
province. I will just mention in my own
Westman area, for members opposite and on this side too who may be interested,
there are over 7,300 public sector employees who are affected, excluding police
and fire, people in the public sector, whether in the civil service, whether
they are in the hospitals, the education system or wherever they are, and they
are affected by provincial government spending.
So we estimate there are over 7,300
in the Westman area and this reduced payroll, this 10‑day planned
reduction, will cut spending on payroll there by $8.3 million. That is in the Westman area alone, a $8.3
million cut and, of course, you can see figures‑‑there are
estimates that I have in front of me here for other areas, as well.
* (1640)
In the
But when you consider that there is
a multiplier effect from this, as well, Mr. Speaker, you would say in the
Westman area, it is not $8.3 million.
With the multiplier, you can multiply that at least by two‑‑some
people will say even three times‑‑so you are looking at maybe a $16
million‑plus reduction in spending in that area in the few months
ahead. That is going to translate
ultimately into job losses. We estimate
that it could result in job losses of well over 800 because of this reduction
in purchasing power.
So what is happening, Mr. Speaker,
with the policies of this government is that we are seeing rural depopulation
carry on, and I hope in the not‑too‑distant future to bring in some
figures here showing the extent of rural depopulation, because although the
total Manitoba population is inching up in spite of the outward flow on
interprovincial migration, that is only because of the city of Winnipeg.
If it was not for the city of
Although the government said it was
going to try to offset this with the decentralization program, and I do not
take anything away from that, the fact is you have more than counteracted that
with all these cuts you are making.
Look, 45 nursing jobs‑‑those are essentially in rural
The other point I wanted to make,
and I wish I had more time because I wanted to talk about the direct impact of
the budget. [interjection]
So, Mr. Speaker, there is no
question that the policies of this government have hurt rural
I use as a case in point the
friendship centres, where, yes, they get some federal funding, but the
province's funding provided money to allow a particular youth program to be
carried on, using two full‑time employees, and they worked with difficult
kids. By difficult, I mean children who
came from broken homes, children who had maybe single‑parent families,
disadvantaged kids, who according to the friendship centre people, might get
into trouble, and that it would be a good idea to have programs for them to
keep them off the street, so to speak, recreational programs, cultural programs
and educational programs.
They were doing an excellent
job. Now this government has eliminated
that program, just snuffed it out, and I can say, Mr. Speaker, unless somebody
else comes along and does something, we are going to probably see an increase
in juvenile delinquency, and we may be paying more than the dollars the
government thought it was going to save by eliminating the friendship centres'
budget. So that certainly is a case of
false economy.
Another example in the riding is
foster parents. They demonstrated in
front of the Minister of Justice's (Mr. McCrae) office. They invited me to come to this
demonstration, and they were very saddened by the fact that the government had
eliminated the budget of the Family Services office in this organization in
this province and that they were doing other things to really interfere and
downgrade the quality of foster parenting here.
These people were very, very upset,
and they do not understand why the government would take such an attitude, but
the fact is it happened, and you have a lot of unhappy foster parents in the
So, Mr. Speaker, I say the programs
that this government has been embarking on, particularly in the last year or
two, has confirmed my view that it has shifted to the right of Sterling Lyon's
administration. There is no question
about that. At least Sterling Lyon did
not kill the Children's Dental Program.
You know, Sterling Lyon, when he was
premier‑‑I recall they did shave the budget of what used to be
called work activity projects, and now they are called the human resources
centres like the West Brandon in
This government is eliminating the
one in Dauphin, and they eliminated the one in Selkirk last year. So I say you are far more extreme in your
cutbacks than Sterling Lyon, far more extreme than Sterling Lyon in terms of
the dental program, and I doubt if Sterling Lyon would have brought in the
Sunday shopping legislation which, as I said, definitely hurts rural
Mr. Speaker, we have had a budget
from the Minister of Finance. I guess it
is his sixth budget, and in spite of all the huffing and puffing and all the
trite statements made about concern for the economy and how this government is
going to get the economy moving again, how they are going to create jobs and so
on, the fact is it has been a total failure.
We have fewer people working today than we had when this government was
sworn into office in the spring, early summer of 1988. That is total employment I am talking about.
Yes, we were hurt by the
recession. There is no question about
it, but the fact is I have statistics to show, and these are from Stats Canada,
that the employment decline in
I say it has to reflect on this
government's economic policies.
Essentially, this is what the government is facing, a failure of its
economic policies because in spite of the reductions in expenditures by this
government, in spite of holding the line on programs and so on to the point
that we are the lowest spending per capita of any provincial government. I think we have been for the last two
years. This government is not a big‑time
spender. We are the lowest of the 10
provinces for the past couple of years according to the latest information I
read. I think it was out of a Royal Bank
economic report. At any rate, we have
got the lowest spending.
* (1650)
This all‑time high deficit
that this government has is not the result of big‑time spending; it is
the result of lack of revenue that is coming into the provincial coffers. The reason this government is not getting the
revenue is that there is not‑‑
Mr. Downey:
You
would tax more. That says you would tax
more. You would put higher taxes on the revenue. That is exactly what you would do.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Well, you know what, talk about taxes. This minister or this Deputy Premier (Mr.
Downey) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
said, when we are in government, we are going to do something effective in the
way of tax reduction. We are going to
eliminate the payroll tax. You have not
eliminated the payroll tax.
Mr. Downey:
We have gone a long way.
Mr. Leonard Evans: You have not gone a long way in eliminating
it. Mr. Speaker, I have before me the
figures from the budget, and how much does the payroll tax bring in? Anybody want to give me an estimate?
Mr. Downey:
$190 million.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, $190,800,000. Right on.
They are supposed to be eliminating it.
They said they have done a lot of it.
That is a lot of money. [interjection] Yes, you cut it back from $194
million to $190 million.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, this
government‑‑this Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), this Premier (Mr.
Filmon) and this Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)‑‑has let the
people down, has not fulfilled its promises.
Do you know what? We can read
Hansard back to them from a few years ago when they were in opposition, that it
was going to be totally eliminated, absolutely eliminated, and here we have the
thing still in existence.
The reason they are not getting the
revenue is not the tax system; it is the lack of economic activity. The fact is that we do not have as many
people working. The fact is that people
do not have the money to spend, or they are afraid of spending it, so you do
not get the retail sales tax revenues that you should be. You can look at the statements here. It is very clear. The revenue projections are flat; we can look
at them line by line. There has been no‑‑in fact, between the
budget and the forecast for '92‑93, there has actually been a drop.
I see my light going. Can I be told how many minutes I have, Mr.
Speaker? One minute. Okay, I only have a minute, but I would like
to have gone on.
The fact is, this is the bottom
line: the failure of the economic
policies of this government, which, in turn, has meant lack of economic
opportunity and lack of economic activity, which means, in turn, that we do not
have the revenues, that we have these extraordinarily large deficits. We have more debt today per capita than we
have ever had in the history of this province, thanks to this particular
government. So this government is
failing in terms of treatment of rural
With those few words, Mr. Speaker, I
conclude my remarks. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Is
it the will of the House to call it five o'clock? Five o'clock.
An Honourable Member: Six o'clock.
Mr. Speaker:
Six o'clock? Is it the will of
the House to call it six o'clock?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker:
No. Okay.
An Honourable Member: Five o'clock.
Mr. Speaker:
They have called it five o'clock.
An Honourable Member: You have a motion before you.
Mr. Speaker: I
asked the House whether it is the will of the House to call it five o'clock?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: At
that time they indicated yes. Then a
member asked me if we should call it six o'clock. So then I asked, is it the will of the House
to call it six? That was denied.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): I realize it may be confusing to go back and
forth, but we had indicated that we were not willing to call it five or six
o'clock.
* (1700)
Mr. Speaker:
Okay. We will try it again
then. Is it the will of the House to
call it five o'clock?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker:
No. Okay.
The question before the House, it
was moved by the honourable government House leader (Mr. Manness), seconded by
the honourable Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Mr. Speaker do now
leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of
the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty
with the honourable member for
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
AGRICULTURE
Madam Chairperson (Louise Dacquay): Order, please.
Will the Committee of Supply please come to order.
This section of the Committee of
Supply is dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Agriculture.
The first item of priority to be
dealt with in the Committee of Supply is the motion of yesterday evening that
was requested after 10 p.m. in this section of the Committee of Supply.
Pursuant to Rule 65.(9)(b), the vote was deferred until today. According to
Rule 65.(10), the vote is to be the first item of business at this meeting of
the Committee of Supply.
Call in the members.
* * *
Madam Chairperson: Order, please.
Yesterday evening in the section of the Committee of Supply meeting in the
Chamber, the Chairperson's ruling on a point of order was challenged. The ruling was sustained on a voice vote of
which a formal vote was requested. As it
was past 10 p.m., the vote was deferred until today.
The question before the committee
is, shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?
All those in favour of the ruling, please rise.
A COUNTED
VOTE was taken, the result being as
follows: Yeas 26, Nays 21.
Madam Chairperson: The ruling of the Chair has been sustained.
The hour being after 5 p.m., time for private members' hour. Committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The hour being 5
p.m., it is time for private members' hour.
Is it the will of the House to call
at six o'clock? It is agreed? [agreed]
The hour being 6 p.m., this House
now stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).