LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday, May 25, 1993
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): It is my duty to inform the House of the
unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker and, therefore, in accordance with the statutes,
I would ask the Deputy Speaker to take the Chair.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the
Chair)
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Madam Deputy Speaker: I have reviewed the petition (Mr.
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
Madam Deputy Speaker: I have reviewed the petition (Mr. Clif
Evans). It complies with the rules and
practices of the House (by leave). 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
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 225‑The
Health Reform Accountability Act
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for
Motion presented.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a great pleasure
and honour to stand in this House and discuss The Health Reform Accountability
Act, something that I am sure all members of this House will join us in the New
Democratic Party in supporting. It is
something long overdue in this jurisdiction, concerning the so‑called health
reform of this government.
The bill itself will contain four
major components. Firstly, it will
require the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) to table quarterly reports in the
Legislature that outline the major components of the government's attempt at
health care reform and its status, Madam Deputy Speaker. This would include the number of beds closed,
alternatives in place, et cetera.
Secondly, Madam Deputy Speaker,
within 30 days of proclamation of the bill, the minister would have to hold
public meetings to allow for a public input into the health reform
process. The first four of these eight
meetings would be held in
Thirdly, once annually, Madam Deputy
Speaker, each health care institution would be required to hold public meetings
to discuss their reform and the process that is occurring in the public.
Fourthly, the Ombudsman's office or
another third party would be given the responsibility to inquire into an act as
an advocate and to deal with matters on a third party basis of health care
reform when many individuals feel wronged or aggrieved by actions of this
government or by the Ministry of Health.
They would have a forum and a body to appeal to in respect of this
decision.
Those are the major four components
of The Health Reform Accountability Act, Madam Deputy Speaker, something I
think would be welcomed by all Manitobans as an opportunity to provide both
input and a dialogue with respect to health reform. Thank you.
Motion agreed to.
* (1335)
Introduction of Guests
Madam Deputy Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw
all honourable members' attention to the public gallery, where we have with us
this afternoon, sixty‑five Grade 5 students from
Additionally with us this afternoon,
we have twenty Grade 5 students from
On behalf of all honourable members,
I welcome you this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Provincial Parks
Policing
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in 1988 a
survey of all park users indicated that approximately 8.7 percent of people
utilizing the parks felt that rowdiness was a significant problem dealing with
our provincial parks.
This weekend, there have been a
number of incidents reported publicly and privately to, I am sure, all members
of this Legislature, dealing with the provincial parks.
Madam Deputy Speaker, one weekend
does not a park policy make, but given the fact that on Friday the minister
indicated that they were using, quote, smarter means to control the situation
in our provincial parks, can the Premier outline to us the reasons for this
major increase in rowdiness in our provincial parks and the strategy to deal
with it?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I will take that question as notice on behalf
of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Doer: I
am a little disappointed to see that this is such a low priority for the
Premier, because it was the Premier as the head of Treasury Board that cut the
staffing by 62 positions in the 1991‑92 budget.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Filmon:
Madam Deputy Speaker, I did not say that it was a low priority with this
government. In fact, if the Leader of
the Opposition wants that question answered, he should ask it of the Minister
of Natural Resources, not the Premier.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On the same point of order, our rules are
fairly clear that opposition members may ask questions to anyone they may
request. It is the government that
decides who answers.
If the Premier decides not to answer
and to take questions as notice, that is his prerogative, but the bottom line,
according to our rules, is that members may ask questions as they see fit and
the government may decide.
I would suggest in that regard that
perhaps the Minister of Natural Resources may wish to answer the question.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable First Minister did not have a
point of order. It was a dispute over
the facts.
* (1340)
Provincial Parks
Staffing
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the head of government
across the way, Madam Deputy Speaker, that made the decision when head of
Treasury Board to cut staffing in the Department of Natural Resources by some
21 percent, the lowest priority in government, obviously, with the decisions
that they made. The second lowest
priority was the community colleges in the same year, in terms of government
spending.
The minister has now indicated that
the lack of staffing may have to be augmented by the utilization of RCMP
officers, in terms of provincial parks.
People in
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources):
Madam Deputy Speaker, with respect to the
staffing question that the Leader of the Opposition raises, let me assure the
honourable member that the substantial portion of the staffing cuts that he
alludes to, which in fact took place, were going back to the practice that had
been there previously and worked well for many years, that is, staggered work
hours for our Parks employees.
There are no riots, no rowdyism in our
parks in the months of November, December, January and February, so that
represents the standard. There was no
reduction in personnel within our Parks system.
In fact, this particular weekend, because of past experience, my
department added staff to these locations in all instances. [interjection]
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I tend
to agree with the honourable Leader of the Opposition that one rowdy weekend
should not make policy, but there is a problem, and we have tried different
things in the past. We have had kind of
a voluntary restriction on the use of alcohol back in the early '80s. It did not work particularly well. It is difficult to enforce.
Certainly what happened this past
weekend is of concern to all of us, and senior officials within the Department
of Natural Resources are meeting this afternoon to assess the whole situation
and to make some further recommendations to me as minister.
Policing
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): In 1988, the last public survey of park users
dealing with the, quote, rowdiness problem, had a number of significant
perceptions from the people who were surveyed.
Twenty percent felt that stricter enforcement was necessary in the
provincial parks. Thirty‑two
percent, the highest number, felt that more patrols were necessary. Madam Deputy Speaker, 5.9 percent felt that a
ban on alcohol on some weekends would be desirable and 5.4 percent said a ban
on alcohol on all weekends would be desirable, and then there were other
recommendations to the government.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the people we
have talked to in the Parks feel they are understaffed, and they cannot provide
the enforcement levels that are necessary for those provincial parks, contrary
to the government's statement today.
I would like to ask the
minister: What will the strategy be for
dealing with rowdiness in the provincial parks, and will he consider the
opinion of the public, the utilizing public of the provincial parks in
* (1345)
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Deputy Speaker, I can only assure the
honourable Leader of the Opposition that all issues will be examined. I am told, although somewhere along the line
I skipped that generation, that at another time,
I might say that the federal
government's response was to impose a total ban on liquor in the
We do have the opportunity, within
the Department of Natural Resources, just as we do when faced with emergency
forest fire situations, to move staff around.
We have history that indicates particular weekends being the heaviest
call on our park and campground facilities.
I will ask the department to facilitate to the extent possible the added
supervision that obviously we would like to bring to bear on this situation.
Health Care System
Reform
Rural
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Deputy Speaker, under the minister's
direction, hundreds of hospital beds in
Now, apparently, the minister has
announced that, contrary to what is stated in his plan, health reform in rural
Can the minister confirm and outline
what the plan is for his so‑called health reform in rural
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, again, with regret, I
have to point out a factual inaccuracy in my honourable friend's preamble. My honourable friend indicates that I have
said reform of the rural health care system will be delayed 12 to 24
months. That was a report emanating from‑‑we
are not exactly sure‑‑western
Madam Deputy Speaker, my honourable
friend, as I said, is factually in error and, again, has relied on his most
common research vehicle, the rumour mill, to pose questions in this House.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Deputy Speaker, can the minister confirm
that his schedule is on schedule with respect to his Health Action Plan? Is he continuing to close the 200 beds in
rural
Mr. Orchard:
Madam
Deputy Speaker, with as much regret as I can muster, my honourable friend is
factually inaccurate again in his preamble.
My honourable friend has stated that we were going to close 200 beds in
rural
It will be a refocus of the use of
up to 200 beds, some of which will be used for repatriation of patients from
We, unlike the NDP, are trying to
build services in rural
Psychiatric Bed Closures
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure patients in
lineups will be happy to know they are being repatriated rather than waiting in
line.
My final supplementary to the
minister is: Will the minister assure
this House, since beds at St. Boniface were supposed to be closed last week,
psychiatric beds, that no more beds will be closed until the community services
are put in place prior to the closing of the beds?
* (1350)
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, my honourable friend has
finally asked a question without inaccurate preamble.
Let me indicate to my honourable
friend that the St. Boniface acute psychiatric beds were retired from service
Friday, May 21. Some 24 were retired from service. Here are the community‑‑[interjection]
Madam Deputy Speaker, maybe my honourable friends the New Democrats have all
the answers, but I doubt they do.
The community alternatives which
have been implemented include the six additional Salvation Army Crisis
Stabilization beds which have been in place for the past month. Eleven members of the Mobile Crisis Team have
been recruited, trained and began work Monday last. That is now a crisis stabilization team that
is now operating longer hours, more days, with more people in service. The new Mobile Crisis phone numbers are in
place, and they are 946‑9109 and 946‑9113. Intensive Case Management group: Members are in place to handle cases
resulting from the St. Boniface closures.
The Sara Riel Crisis Stabilization Unit: The building has been
identified and is now in the process of reserving for in‑service. Madam Deputy Speaker, these are community‑based
services that are in place prior to the closure of those St. Boniface beds.
That is why I say from time to time,
my honourable friend gives me an opportunity to put facts on the record, not
the rumour‑mill rhetoric that my honourable friend always brings to this
House, inaccurately, I might add, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Health Care System
Reform
Public Consultations
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second
Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, the
Today in my mail I received a letter
from another individual‑‑I am prepared to table this letter‑‑in
which he asserts that his mother died due to the provincial government's
underfunding of our health care system.
This is happening more and more frequently, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I
think that it is time that the government did what we have been begging them to
do since the health reform package was presented.
When will this government finally
begin to debate and to discuss in an open and public process, the means by
which they are engaging in health care reform?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, my honourable friend
refers to an article that appeared in the
Madam Deputy Speaker, even the
recently tabled Fraser Institute report said there has been a greater
improvement in terms of management and length of the waiting list and access to
open‑heart surgery and heart surgical procedures in
Those are some of the positive
results that are happening. Much work has to be done in terms of making our
health care system work effectively and appropriately to serve the health care
needs of Manitobans.
Madam Deputy Speaker, with regret, I
have to reject my honourable friend's use of this particular circumstance to
try and in some way illustrate that the process of change is not working,
because in this circumstance I do not believe the accusation of fault was an
appropriate one.
Mrs. Carstairs: Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister simply
does not get it. The reality is that it
does not matter what he is doing, the public does not believe him. They do not believe that the reform process
is taking place like he tells them it is taking place. The time has come for him to be much more
open with the public so that we do not get letters like the one I just tabled
indicating that an individual honestly believes that his mother died because
there have been cutbacks. If those
cutbacks do not exist, then the minister has a responsibility to explain that.
When is he going to start to explain
his own health reform policy?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam Deputy Speaker, I explain our health care reform policy in this
House almost every Question Period without fail. I explain it at invitations to speak to
varying groups both inside the
Madam Deputy Speaker, the reason for
the confusion is some of the language my honourable friend, from time to time,
may use inadvertently. How do you call a
38 percent increase in funding to health care, from $1.2 billion in 1988 when
we came into government defeating a budget‑‑which we subsequently
increased the budget of Health‑‑and now it ranges $1.86 billion, a
38 percent increase, all areas of the ministry increased and increased
substantially. How does my honourable
friend square that with cutback?
That is the problem that Health
ministers across the length and breadth of
* (1355)
Mrs. Carstairs: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Liberal Party has
supported the health reform package since the minister announced it. There is no question about that, but we have
asked him to please explain things to the people, and challenging the way we
ask our questions is not explaining to the people of this province that their
health care system is not in jeopardy, and they believe, rightly or wrongly,
that it is.
Will the Minister of Health explain
this simple statement by Jack Litvack:
"Lines outside operating rooms haven't grown much . . ."
What does he mean by
"much"?
Mr. Orchard:
Madam
Deputy Speaker, I would leave that explanation to the individual who made the
statement.
Madam Deputy Speaker, surely my
honourable friend must believe that something worked appropriately when the
waiting lists and length of time to access service in, for instance, cardiac
surgery, has improved over the last three years, not gone down, as my
honourable friend would have us believe.
I appreciate the support of the
Liberal Party in attempting to support reform of the health care system,
because clearly and unequivocally, Ministers of Health, whether they are New
Democrats in
It is only with significant change
that we can preserve and protect medicare as Canadians want us to do. Now, that means not just me explaining what
we are doing, because I do that every opportunity I get. From time to time, it would require the
integrity of both opposition parties to explain what they would do, give us the
good ideas, but we never hear that.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Beauchesne, Citation
417, is very clear, Madam Deputy Speaker: "Answers to questions should be
as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke
debate."
I would suggest to you that the
minister has broken all three of those provisions or rules. I would like to ask you to call him to order,
Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable minister had concluded his
remarks.
Aboriginal Justice
Inquiry Report
Government Action Plan
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): My questions are directed to the First
Minister (Mr. Filmon).
Madam Deputy Speaker, when the AJI
report was completed almost two years ago, and delivered to this government,
Manitobans rightfully had high expectations that the government would live up
to their promises of action on the report.
Instead, what we have seen since has
been a series of excuses and minor adjustments, mostly adjustments that would
have occurred anyway, whether the AJI happened or not. The government, through its ministry, told us
one day in this House that it was working on this issue harder than anything
else it was working on.
I would like to know, Madam Deputy
Speaker, when this Premier and his government will be releasing, finally, the
action plan on the AJI, as far as implementation plans go.
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Deputy Speaker, that is a question which
more properly should be responded to by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae),
but I can tell the member opposite that a good deal of work and effort has been
put into implementing as many of the recommendations of the Aboriginal Justice
Inquiry as could be done, and many of the initiatives have been undertaken.
Many of the recommendations have
been followed. A commitment of over a
million dollars has been made for the second year in a row to the
implementation phase and work is progressing.
I will take the remainder of that
question as notice so that a complete update can be given by the Minister of
Justice when he returns to the House.
* (1400)
Aboriginal Policing
Services Negotiations
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Deputy Speaker, this government has
shown their support to the AJI all right when they have cut the Assembly of
Manitoba Chiefs of their funding.
Why has this government not agreed
to negotiate with the federal government and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs to
increase on‑reserve policing by way of those federal‑provincial AMC
agreements?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Deputy Speaker, again, we are one of the
leading provinces in the nation with respect to aboriginal policing and justice
initiatives in a variety of ways.
I will take the remainder of that
question as notice again on behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), so
he can give a more full and complete response as to all of the things that are
underway with respect to that issue.
Aboriginal Justice
Inquiry Report Analysis
Tabling Request
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Deputy Speaker, my final question is
again to the First Minister.
Is the Premier and his government
finally ready to table in the House the government study and analysis of all of
those 306 AJI recommendations, so that Manitobans can see for themselves what
it is that has stopped this government from acting on the report?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Deputy Speaker, this government has been
implementing many of the recommendations and many of the initiatives contained
within the AJI. This government has
committed each of the last two years more than a million dollars toward that
implementation phase.
This government has been meeting
with people throughout the community and with the aboriginal community. I have participated in some of the meetings,
so has the Minister of Native Affairs and Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) in our
government, as well as the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), as well as many
others of our ministers.
The process is ongoing, and I would
just say that this information will be brought back by the Minister of Justice
to the satisfaction, I am sure, of the member for The Pas.
Grow Bond Program
Status Report
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Madam Deputy Speaker, when it comes to
economic initiatives, whether it is the Industrial Opportunities Program or
negotiations with groups like Repap or Ontario Hydro, this government has been
a disappointing failure, I think, for most Manitobans.
Three years ago, when the government
announced the formation of the Grow Bonds concept and approximately a year
later, some two years ago, when the government introduced Grow Bonds
legislation, we were promised in a glowing press release that the Grow Bonds
corporations would be creating hundreds of jobs in
Madam Deputy Speaker, my question to
the acting Minister of Rural Development is:
Can the minister indicate how many Grow Bonds corporations are currently
operating and how much of the $10 million has currently been assigned as part
of the guarantee under that program?
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Energy and
Mines): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will take that
question as notice, unless the member wants to repeat the question for the
member.
Mr. Storie: Madam Deputy Speaker, you can imagine my
relief at seeing someone who may actually be able to answer a question.
Madam Deputy Speaker, my question to
the Minister of Rural Development is:
Why, after two years, is the Grow Bonds corporation being roundly
criticized and condemned amongst economic development groups across the province? Can he tell this House how much of the $10
million that was committed as part of the guarantee has been committed under
the program and how many Grow Bonds corporations that represents?
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural
Development): Madam Deputy Speaker, I can indicate to my
honourable friend that over the last year we have had a number of initiatives
that have been undertaken under the Grow Bonds program. Indeed, we have to date four proposals which
have come before us and have been approved for sale of Grow Bonds, and that is
over the course of a year.
It is a new program to this province
and the four projects I think would‑‑I cannot give the exact number
of dollars that would be generated by the projects, but, Madam Deputy Speaker,
I know that we have about four different proposals that are being worked on
right now that show very good promise.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we have to
assure the members of the House that it is communities that come together to
form bond corporations and projects come forward from communities, not from
government. It is the Grow Bonds
corporation staff that are out there working with communities to ensure that
projects do come forward. Indeed the
money is there. In all four projects we
have shown that the investment is ready as long as we have the projects coming
forward.
Failure Rate
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Madam Deputy Speaker, back in 1991 the Deputy
Premier (Mr. Downey) was promising us that there would be dozens of projects approved
under the Grow Bonds corporation. Two years later, the minister says‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
Does the honourable member have a question?
Mr. Storie: Madam Deputy Speaker, my question is to the
Minister of Rural Development.
Can the minister explain why 50
percent of the projects that have thus far been approved have failed, that
projects approved for Selkirk and projects approved for
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural
Development): Madam Deputy Speaker, as a matter of fact, the
Grow Bonds proposal that the member refers to is one and the same. He is talking about the Sunnex project, which
is not dead for that matter. Indeed the
Grow Bonds corporation that was formed in
Review
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Madam Deputy Speaker, given the fiasco that
the Sunnex Grow Bond proposal has turned into‑‑and the minister has
suggested there may be a review, in fact, of the program and the management of
the program‑‑will the minister now agree to have a review of the
program and the difficulties the program is having in creating the kinds of
economic opportunities that rural Manitobans had hoped for? Will he review this program?
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural
Development): Madam Deputy Speaker, the Grow Bonds Program
itself is one that is working. We want
to ensure when we do a review of the proposals that come before us that each
and every proposal is going to be one that is going to be viable and is going
to have economic benefit for the province.
That is why we have addressed the
entire issue of Grow Bonds in a very careful way. The member talks about the Sunnex proposal, and
the proposal itself is not one we have rejected. It is one we approved, but it
is up to the Grow Bonds corporation within a community to decide whether or not
they will go ahead with the proposal.
In the
Provincial Parks
Policing
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): My question is to the Minister of Natural
Resources.
In the minister's own words today,
quote: Every year, we have partying,
drunks and the odd assault.
On May 7, the minister issued a
press release indicating that whether you enjoy camping for a weekend or just a
day trip for relaxation,
My question to the minister: If he knew that this type of hooliganism, as
he says, occurred in our parks every year, why was he unable to better control
the situation which resulted in assaults and sexual assaults around the
province, at least 20 beatings putting at least two individuals in hospitals
with knife wounds?
Why was this minister not able to
better control the situation, and was it as a result of the cutbacks in his own
department?
* (1410)
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources):
Madam Deputy Speaker, some 60,000 to 70,000
youngsters enjoyed themselves in our parks and acted responsibly. I regret, as I am sure do many of their
fellow campers, that a relatively small number chose to act irresponsibly, but
I ask that honourable members appreciate the problem that this poses for the
officials, you know, the parks.
In effect, you are putting
communities of 40,000 or 50,000 people in one place, and I suspect you get the
same averaging out of people who choose to abuse that opportunity.
I want to assure the member for St.
James, as I assured the Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer), that it
is precisely because we have had, regrettably, a history of some difficulty in
the past that we in fact beefed up our complement in these locations during
this particular weekend.
Liquor Control Act
Amendments
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): I hope the minister has filed his registration
form to vote, Madam Deputy Speaker. [interjection] It is in the mail. He is calling me the leader already.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister
talks as if‑‑and I do not mean that he intended any of this‑‑there
is a certain amount of acceptable violence in our parks. He says, you get 40,000 or 50,000 people
together, it is going to happen. Well,
it should not happen. We know it happens
every year.
My question for the minister, Madam
Deputy Speaker: Did he meet with his
colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) in anticipation of the problems
of this weekend, to look at amendments to The Liquor Control Act that could be
brought in to control this situation, to better give his officers, his
increasingly shrinking number of officers, a better opportunity to stop this
type of hooliganism, a lot of which has to do with alcohol abuse?
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources):
Madam Deputy Speaker, to refute the last question
first, the number of natural resources officers has increased in the last 18
months. Firstly, a special SWAT team, as
I have dubbed it, has been put in to help reduce the illegal poaching, and we
are currently in the process of filling an additional five positions of natural
resources officers.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there are a
number of issues that the Parks Branch will examine. Friday night, as per example, when the
occupancy rate of these same facilities was at 80 percent rather than the
maximum, we had a relatively quiet night.
When we were to full 100 percent occupancy, we had difficulty. Now whether or not that had anything to do
with it, we will take a look at it.
As for the initial aside, I have to
answer to the honourable member, that I have given my firm and unswerving
support to his opponent in the Liberal leadership campaign. I believe that Kevin Lamoureux would make a
great leader of the Liberal Party. Once I commit myself, I commit myself, Madam
Deputy Speaker.
Provincial Park Lands
Act
Amendments
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): The honourable minister's change of heart
hurts me greatly, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is a big loss.
My final question for the
minister: When is this minister going to
table the long‑awaited new parks act which he has threatened to table
since last fall? When is he going to
table that legislation? Will that
legislation include better controls on this type of hooliganism and put more
power and better penalties into the hands of his officers with respect to these
problems?
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources):
The member raises a very important issue. Yes, indeed, it is my hope that I will be
able to present for first reading, the new Park Lands Act. I was hoping to do it today, but I may do it tomorrow.
To the specific question, whereas
under the present regime, that kind of authority is more by tradition or by
ministerial policy, there will be very specific clauses enabling the Parks
Branch and the appropriate minister to respond to situations that trouble us
all today.
Consumers' Association
of
Government Funding
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Deputy Speaker, this government listens
only to their friends and each week that is becoming more clear to us.
Students on social allowance,
daycares, the Manitoba League of the Physically Handicapped, foster families,
and aboriginal organizations have all seen their funding eliminated. One lobby group, however, the lobby group
supporting this government, the Consumers' Association of Manitoba, on Friday,
last Friday, got a grant of over $35,000.
My question to the Premier is
this: Why does this lobby group rate
higher than foster families, students, handicapped organizations and aboriginal
groups to this Premier?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Deputy Speaker, the Consumers'
Association of
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Filmon:
Madam Deputy Speaker, the members opposite do not want to hear the
answer, so I will sit down.
Arni Thorsteinson
Provincial Audit‑Terms
of Reference
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Deputy Speaker, my supplementary to the
same minister, and perhaps I will now ask him:
Will the Premier table today the terms of reference of the request that
he is making to the Provincial Auditor, to investigate the delays of this
government in seizing the rental payments of the Tory fundraiser?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy Speaker, I sent a letter of
request to the Provincial Auditor‑‑I believe it was Friday morning‑‑and
giving broad terms of reference to the Provincial Auditor, to look in any
matter that she so chooses with respect to this issue.
Mr. Maloway:
Madam Deputy Speaker, well, my question was: Would he release the terms of reference? Will he show us a copy of the letter? Since the fundraiser collected over a million
dollars in rental payments during this period, will he ask the Auditor to
investigate why Arni Thorsteinson was allowed to take the rental payments when
he was not making the mortgage payments?
Mr. Manness: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would ask the member
to accept my word that I have sent a letter requesting and allowing the
Provincial Auditor to look at all elements and aspects.
If the members wish me to table that
letter, I will do so tomorrow.
* (1420)
Winkler Area Farms
Irrigation
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): One of the concerns with the Assiniboine
diversion project, is that the water from the Assiniboine is being diverted to
the Winkler area, to allow expanded irrigation, that it will indeed allow
expanded irrigation because the potable water will be used for municipal use,
which will allow the existing aquifer to be used for depleting the water for
irrigation.
My question is for the Minister of
Environment. With the new irrigation
licence issued for the regional farms in that area, what is the expected
increase of the aquifer water for irrigation?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Madam Deputy Speaker, let me first of all
address the preamble.
I hope the member is mistaken in her
statement that water being proposed to be dealt with in this request can
somehow be diverted for irrigation, because the proposal, as I understand it,
is for treated water. As a farmer
myself, I think that would be a very impractical approach.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The time allocated for Question Period has
expired.
Nonpolitical
Statement
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member for
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I think it is very important that we
recognize this committee that goes about the community very quietly doing its
work, not looking for any great publicity of what it is doing but doing some
very important work. As I said, four of
the original members are still in the community. Only one was able to attend that meeting, and
that was Staff Sergeant Dominato.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the committee
came into existence in February of 1983.
They were organized to serve, and by May that same year, they had their
first constitution. The committee
provides an opportunity for concerned citizens to participate with offenders in
the criminal justice system. They are
aware of local problems and are aware of local resources to come up with a
solution.
Over the years, there have been many
young people who have committed some of the less serious offences and have been
able to participate in alternate measures.
This gives an opportunity to young people to participate, to accept the
responsibility of their illegal actions and to make up for their wrongdoing.
One of the functions of the Youth
Justice Committee is to mediate between the victims and offenders and assist in
making arrangements for offenders to make compensation to victims, either by
cash or personal service.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there are many
other activities going on in the
Madam Deputy Speaker, there are many
people in the community who have given of themselves unselfishly. I congratulate them on their work. In the words of one of the members, they
said, perhaps through all of this work and the peer groups, we will not need
youth justice committees in the future.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), that Madam Deputy 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 St.
Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the Department of Education and
Training; and the honourable member for
* (1430)
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Good afternoon. Will the Committee of Supply
please come to order.
This afternoon, this section of the
Committee of Supply, meeting in Room 255, will resume consideration of the
Estimates of Education and Training.
When the committee last sat it had been considering item 1.(c)(1) on
page 34 of the Estimates book.
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): I wanted to give notice to the minister that
in order that we will not have to perhaps wait once we get to the support for
public schools that we will be wanting the breakdown of all of the funding for
each of the school divisions, the increase or decrease that was announced by
the minister in mid‑February and the impact of decisions taken as a
result of Bill 16 which of course has not passed the Legislature but which has
governed the practice and conduct of the school divisions to a great extent, I
believe, this spring in budget decisions.
To the extent that the minister has
that information at the time we get to that line in the Estimates, I just
wanted the minister to be aware that we will be wanting that breakdown for each
of the school divisions.
The Minister of Northern Affairs
(Mr. Downey) seems to believe that there is a limit to the preamble in the
committee and that is a departure from traditional practice and perhaps
something that the minister should be aware of before he starts determining
when he thinks questions should be asked, because it simply delays matters and
slows down the process rather than speeds it up.
I wanted to, just before I get onto
another major item, ask the minister whether it is her policy, I guess, since
we are dealing with Planning and Policy Development, whether it is her
intention to speak to the student rally tomorrow?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have had some
opportunity to discuss the intention of the student rally with the organizers
and to talk with them about what they hope to achieve, and they have asked that
I will be available to be present and I have told them that I will.
Mr. Plohman: I
want to ask the minister a few questions about the issue of Francophone
governance. Yes, it is an important
matter. The Bill 34 which the minister
introduced, I think last Wednesday last week the minister moved second reading
and spoke on the bill, and I wanted to ask a few questions about the bill and
the policy behind the bill prior to our moving forward in this particular area.
The minister has taken the position
with regard to French language governance that she should have a dual system of
French language first instruction in the province, and I wonder whether the
minister could explain the rationale behind that.
It is an implementation of the
Supreme Court decision which is necessary to do as we all understand it, and we
understand that there might be significant costs involved.
Unfortunately, when the minister was
unable to be present on Friday‑‑and I just mention this for her
edification because she was not there to hear the questions‑‑I did
ask about the potential transference of grant money from existing school
divisions to the Francophone division and school board. I want to explore that a bit with the
minister here today. In addition to
that, there is the issue of how the instruction will be offered, and it has
cost implications as well.
I wonder if the minister could give
us some background on arriving at this aspect of her policy. There are many aspects to this, and it is
obviously a very large policy issue, but it does involve some particular policy
decisions that the minister would have had to have made.
So I want to ask the minister on that
basis why she has proceeded with the proposal that would see duplicate French
language instruction in schools insofar as programming is concerned.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order.
It will just be one minute, please.
Order, please. I would like to advise the committee that the
line of questioning the honourable member is bringing forward does not really
fall under line 1.(c)(1) which is Planning and Policy Development. It does fall under legislation which is
before the House at this time.
I would ask the honourable member to
either rephrase the question, but it will be up to the minister whether she
cares to respond to the questions put by the member.
Point of Order
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern
Affairs): Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
I fully agree with your comments that this matter is legislation that is before
the House.
There is a book of Estimates which
you are dealing with, a specific line which does not include what is now being
questioned on, and I think your ruling is correct.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I thank the honourable minister for his
comments.
* * *
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I realize that it is
up to the minister at any time to determine whether she wants to answer the
question or not. That is not a newfound
right that the Chairperson has identified here.
In all cases, the minister can either decide to answer, to give another
answer which quite often happens, to talk about the topic of discussion or
perhaps not to answer at all. This happens
frequently.
* (1440)
What I am asking about is the policy
of the minister with regard to this aspect.
We can put the bill aside. I
asked the minister her policy and her rationale for her policy.
Obviously, she has had to determine
this policy with consultation with her officials in the bureau and also the
senior officials in the department and arrive at a position, so we have a
question dealing with the minister's policy as it applies to‑‑and
perhaps identified in the booklet that was distributed by the minister.
Of course, that is within the
purview of this committee, something that should be discussed contrary to what
the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) has stated in his remarks. He is obviously not aware of the extent of
the issue, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.
Quite aside from the legislation
that is before them, we have a book called:
Francophone Schools Governance.
The minister has put that out to the public. One of the policies that the minister has
identified is a provision that would allow for French language first
instruction, both within the Francophone division and within existing divisions‑‑in
other words, a parallel French language first instruction. I ask the minister if indeed that is her
policy and what her rationale is for that parallel policy.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the issue of the
creation of the Francophone school division is before the House in
legislation. It will be fully discussed
and debated as it progresses through second reading and on to committee.
Its background is likely very well
known to the member. The issue of
Francophone governance and the right of the Francophone minority, in this case,
for governance of their own schools flows from a section of the Charter of
Rights. In addition, it flows also from
a Supreme Court decision. So the right
flows, one, from a legislative document, or a document which we refer to as
legislators, and then, in addition, it also refers to law within the court, a
judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada.
In complying with the Mahe ruling
and reflecting upon what has been required in the Charter of Rights, on behalf
of Section 23 people, Manitoba has decided on a form to ensure that the
Francophone minority, in this case, will have governance over their schools.
The court did not tell
We certainly look to respect the
ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada.
We also recognize the Section 23 portion of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. As a result of that,
Further to that, we can discuss
during the debate of the legislation, but I believe that provides the
background to the member in terms of where the direction to create such a
school board flows from.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we do have the unique
opportunity to discuss all aspects of policy of this minister at this
particular time in her Estimates and happens, coincidentally, to occur just when
the bill is before the House.
The two issues and happenings are
independent, of course, but happen to be occurring at the same time and provide
us with a unique opportunity to discuss aspects of a policy that is reflected
in a bill. That policy, of course, had
to be developed by the minister, so I think it is quite appropriate to explore
that as far as necessary at this particular time.
The minister has given some
background on why she has proceeded with legislation. However, in discussions with her policy
staff, she has obviously had to make a number of policy decisions. I just want to ask the minister whether she
has consulted extensively in arriving at this, at her position, and with whom?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will remind the member that when the decision
of the Mahe case was handed down,
That committee was a representative
committee. It did look at the issues,
and it did provide government with a great deal of information in terms of
issues to look at in setting up the model of Francophone governance in
Mr. Plohman:
Following that committee, has the minister acted on those recommendations,
or have there been additional policy areas that have been developed since the
Gallant report?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member, I am sure, has had an opportunity to
look at the Gallant report and to also look at the bill and to see a great deal
of what was recommended by the Gallant report reflected in the bill.
In addition, we also had another
case which was before the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision was handed down in
December. We also were able to look at
what that decision stated and to then determine how
Mr. Plohman:
Could the minister provide the committee with the total number of
students potentially served by a Francophone school board in
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we believe the number will be in the range of
4,000 to 6,000 students.
Mr. Plohman: I
thank the minister for that. Is the
minister saying then that the 7,101 students identified in the Gallant report
is not the figure that is being used?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the figure I gave the member is an estimated
figure, and that was what he asked for. In terms of a more detailed figure, we
might get to that when we are discussing the bill in more detail, or perhaps
when we are at the section of my department which deals more specifically with
the education of Francophones and French immersion and other assistance in
terms of French language services.
However, we will only know the exact
number of students who wish to be educated, whose families wish them to be
educated in the Francophone division, when those parents have in fact indicated
that they wish to enroll their child or children within the Francophone system. So that number, in terms of its total
accuracy, will not be known until the implementation committee has had its
opportunity to complete its work.
* (1450)
Mr. Plohman:
Is the minister saying that the implementation committee is on schedule
at the present time, and what is the date that she expects that to be in?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The implementation committee has had, I believe it is, two meetings to
this date. The implementation committee
now has to do the work with the communities within
With the legislation passed, we will
then be able to conduct the elections for the regional committees. Following that, the regional committees will
then be able to name their member to the board of trustees. We know that whole system of regional
committees and trustees will have a great deal of work to do over the next
year, so we certainly look for this to be done within the time frame that has
been set out, which will allow us to proceed with those elections within the
fall of '93.
Mr. Plohman:
So then the minister is expecting the Monnin Committee to report its
findings prior to the fall. I notice the
minister talks about October 1, '93, as the implementation committee identifies
which francais programs to be transferred to the Francophone school
division. Is there any additional information
or preinformation that will be brought forward in report prior to October 1?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The implementation committee will be in touch certainly with myself as
minister as issues arise, if there are issues.
We also expect to receive information from that committee about how the
process of registration is proceeding, and so we look for ongoing information
from the committee. But the committee
does have a large job to do, and we expect that they will be able to proceed
with that job as quickly as possible.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, would the minister think that prior to the end
of June, she would have a clarification on the number of students initially
that would be transferred? Would she have that kind of definitive information,
or would that not be till the fall?
Mrs. Vodrey:
If the member is looking for the exact number of young people who would
be registered in the Francophone division by the end of June of this year, I
think it would be very difficult to provide him with that exact number.
We certainly look to have a fairly
good estimation, and we hope that by the end of June to have a good idea, but
we will have to see how the committee is able to do its work, how quickly the
committee is able to do its work.
We have certainly put forward a time
frame, and I believe they will be starting with some of the areas which have
been identified, and they may be able to very quickly have a sense of the
numbers of young people within some school communities who will register fairly
quickly.
Then it may be as it moves on to
other communities, the numbers may not occur as quickly, though again, we do
look‑‑and I have set this timetable forward from the very beginning‑‑for
the election of the regional committees and the trustees in the fall of '93.
Mr. Plohman:
So the figure of 4,000 to 6,000 is an estimate of what the minister
anticipates being registered initially, or is this something over a longer
period of time?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is an estimated figure. We will have to wait until the committee has
done its work and has worked within the community and has provided the
information that Manitobans will need to know regarding the operation of the
Francophone governance system, the system of representation.
I point to the direct and indirect
election that will take place within the Francophone governance system which I
know Manitobans will find important, and they will have to make sure that all
of that is well understood.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, will the criteria for sufficient numbers be the
prevailing one insofar as which communities in the province would be initially
included in the Francophone school division, and what would the sufficient
numbers be?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member's question is somewhat difficult to
interpret.
What we have said is that there are
certain areas within Manitoba where the community itself has said that those
areas are very likely to wish to become a part of the Francophone system, and
so the Monnin Committee will be then working with those communities first of
all, and we expect to have the numbers within those communities fairly
soon. Then there are other parts of
The Monnin Committee will then be
able to go into those other communities with that information and also the information
contained within the booklet which describes very clearly what the goals of the
Francophone governance system are.
We understand from the community
members and also from groups which we have been working with over the past
year, 18 months, that this will really be a very important feature in terms of
Manitobans understanding the Francophone governance system.
Mr. Plohman:
The minister has included in her policy book on Francophone school
governance a map of the province, called Area of the Francophone School
Division. Can the minister tell the
committee what the purpose of that map is?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The map is to indicate primarily where a large portion of the
Francophone community is at the moment existing within Manitoba, and also, as the
member would know, in the creation of a new school division, we needed to look
at what the area of the school division may potentially be, where those people,
those families, may come from.
All of this, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
is information which I believe we will be able to debate very fully in the
process of bringing forward the legislation, where the member may have
questions on this and where I will be pleased to provide him with very full and
complete answers.
Mr. Plohman:
Well, the minister is talking about second reading, and the last time I
asked her a question on a bill, she refused to accept the question, so we
cannot really have that. Of course, we
have had second reading occur already, and the minister gave her speech at that
time.
There is another opportunity to
discuss this under French language governance in the Estimates. That is true.
There is also the general Planning and Policy Development area of the department,
which covers all the areas of policy, including French language governance as
well as English language governance. So
I think the Chairperson can feel quite at ease to allow the discussion on this
area to go forward.
The minister has said that this map
is here to show some of the extent of where the students for this division
could come from. Is it not a fact, Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, to the minister, that students could come from anywhere in
the
* (1500)
Mrs. Vodrey:
It is true that students may attend the Francophone division from other
parts of the province other than in the shaded areas on the map. The shaded areas on the map are there to
indicate, again, where there are known to be larger numbers of the Francophone
community, parents who would be eligible to send their children to the
Francophone division, to give some form to what the geography of the
Francophone school division might look like.
Mr. Plohman:
So there is no particular meaning to the shaded areas, other than to
give some indication‑‑it is not what the minister envisages as the
scope of the Francophone division.
Mrs. Vodrey:
The member is really moving away from issues of policy. He is moving into detail now of how the area
of the Francophone school division was determined. He is also moving into areas of looking at
how Manitobans who live outside of the area of the school division may, in
fact, be included within the school division or may choose to send their
children into that school division while their geographical area may not be a
part of the shaded area.
He has certainly moved away from
policy questions. He has certainly moved
into a very detailed discussion of the development of the bill.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I would like to remind honourable members
that we are moving toward line 3, which is the Bureau de l'education
francaise. I would ask the committee, if
we are going to move into that line, possibly to consider passing a number of
the lines ahead of it to get down to that point.
Mr. Plohman:
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, for your helpful suggestion. However, it may be some time before we get to
that line in the Estimates. We may have
a substantial number of issues to raise as we go along to that process.
This is a very timely issue at the
present time, one of policy the minister has actively worked on over the last
while. I am sure she has spent a lot of time with her senior staff arriving at
final positions on this that could be brought forward, and I might add that in
the presentation of this policy booklet, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, is included,
as a matter of policy, a map. It is the
minister's policy, undoubtedly, that a map be included, because that is why it
is in here.
The question I am asking is one of policy
regarding the map. Is it the minister's policy that the Francophone division be
limited to the shaded areas on this map?
If not, why has the map been included at all?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think the presence of the map is a visual way
in which to describe the information which is currently in the bill.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister says this visually describes what
is in the bill. The bill does not
provide any of this information. We are
dealing with a piece of policy here, a policy booklet by this minister. She will give effect to policy through the
bill, but the geographic area is not described in any way, shape or form in the
bill.
I ask the minister to just provide
us with some information as to why the map was provided and if it is her policy
that the provisions of policy on Francophone governance apply only to the
shaded areas.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, let me answer again so the member perhaps this
time will understand.
There is an area that is noted on
the map, and that notes where larger numbers of Section 23 eligible
Francophones would be currently living, areas where there are francais schools
operating and where we know, by census figures, where the concentration or the
larger numbers of Francophone Manitobans who hold these Section 23 rights as
parents on behalf of their children are currently living.
However, I have said from the
beginning, and this government has said from the beginning, Manitobans will
have the opportunity, if Manitobans live outside of that shaded area and wish
to have their child educated by the Francophone division, that in fact will be
possible.
Mr. Plohman: I
thank the minister for that clarification, and can she answer the other obvious
question: Why has she included the map
if indeed it is possible to have areas throughout the province included in the
Francophone school division?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, the process of looking at the whole issue
of Francophone governance was a very complicated one, and also, there were a
number of legal requirements to be satisfied and a number of requirements to
make sure that we were complying with the results of the Supreme Court
decision.
I would say that further discussion
regarding some of the details that he is asking about would best be covered
when we are able to discuss the bill at the committee stage or in the process
of debate.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is not the bill that I am discussing. It is the minister's policy with regard to
the map that she has included in her policy booklet, and I am asking why the
minister arrived at the policy decision to include a map.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, the answer is the same. There is a very complicated process which we
have undergone in terms of complying with the Supreme Court decision and also
the legal requirements to create a new school division.
When we are in the process of
actually discussing the bill and the details of the legislation, then that
would be an appropriate time for us to discuss some of the detail which he is
asking for at this time.
Mr. Plohman: I
will ask the minister, is it not a fact that the legal requirements apply to
all of
Mrs. Vodrey:
The issue of where numbers warrant, as he knows, we have looked at in
the process of the bill. We certainly
will be looking to accommodate Manitobans who indicate that they wish to have
their child enrolled in the Francophone school division, making sure that those
parents who do indicate that they would like their child enrolled actually do
hold rights as Section 23 parents or in fact meet the other requirements which
have been set out within the legislation.
* (1510)
Mr. Plohman: As
the minister envisages it, is the Francophone school division not limited to
what is designated on the map? I believe
the minister has said no, it is not, from what I understood her to say.
On that basis, why was a map which
therefore has no significance as to the limitations of the Francophone school
division included in the minister's policy book?
Mrs. Vodrey: I
can go back to saying that the map indicates areas in which there are
concentrations of Section 23 rights‑holders and areas in which it reflects
that there are certain numbers of Manitobans who may wish to take part within
the Francophone school division. But, as
I have explained to the member before, that where there is a parent who does
meet the qualifications that have been set out as Section 23 rights‑holder,
or meets the other qualifications which are noted, that person may wish to have
their child educated within the Francophone governance system.
Mr. Plohman:
Just to understand why the minister bothered with the map when the
rights apply to Manitobans throughout the province, can I ask whether this map
is to delineate all municipalities where the number of potential students
exceeds 50? Is that what this map does?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Plohman: It
would have been nice for the minister to tell us that earlier. It might have saved some time on discussion
on this issue, simply to say that the potential students exceed 50.
Now can the minister indicate why
that number was chosen? Is that an
arbitrary number based on certain facts?
Is it determined that if there were 50 perhaps that would be enough to
make it viable to have a class of students?
What is the rationale there?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this number is one which is identifiable through
the most recent census, but also this does take into account areas in which we
know that there are francais schools operating and areas that have been
identified to have numbers of families which would be eligible to become a part
of the Francophone school division.
Again, they are areas in which there are schools currently operating.
Mr. Plohman:
Just to clarify from the minister, are there any other municipalities
not shaded in on the map where there is a potential of 50 students or more?
Mrs. Vodrey: I
am informed that this shaded area does include the areas in which there are
francais schools operating. However, the bill‑‑and I hesitate to
get into a detailed discussion of the bill at this time, during the Estimates
of the Department of Education‑‑does provide for the Francophone
school division then, as trustees and members of regional committees, to look
at extending the actual territory of the Francophone school division when it is
requested or when there is a requirement to do so.
So there is a provision which is
available and a way in which the board may then wish to begin to accommodate
other eligible Manitobans. However, I
have said from the beginning, and it has been government's policy from the
beginning, that where there is a family who holds the rights of parents and
wishes to have their children educated within the Francophone school division,
that would then be made possible.
Mr. Plohman:
Yes, then just to clarify, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the map is irrelevant
to the extent that the division, the Francophone division, is not limited to
municipalities where there are 50 or more potential students?
* (1520)
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the map, we believe, was an important way to
look at where the concentrations and the largest numbers of eligible Section 23
Francophone families would be residing, in areas which would then be
considered, potentially, to wish to indicate their right to join the
Francophone school division. But, as I
have said before, where an individual wishes to take part in that program and
is a child of an eligible family, that provision will be made for that child
then to attend a program within the Francophone school division.
Secondly, I have also said that
where there are areas within the province‑‑this is provided by the
bill‑‑who wish to become included by the Francophone school
division, within the Francophone school division, that provision is there for
the Francophone board‑‑a mechanism for the Francophone board‑‑to
then consider this and to look at it.
So there are two issues which I have
been attempting to clarify during the course of the discussion this afternoon.
Mr. Plohman:
Is it the minister's belief that there are no municipalities other than
those that are listed, that are shaded on the map, where there are 50 potential
students or more?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is correct.
Mr. Plohman:
Just another aspect of this discussion dealing with the minister's
policy, and that goes back to what I asked earlier at the outset of this
discussion.
Can the minister indicate why she
has taken a position or established a policy that the new Francophone school
division being implemented as a result of the Supreme Court decision would not
be the exclusive provider of French language first programming?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The question before the court was the management rights of the
Francophones over their school division.
The court decision did grant exclusive rights of management over the Francophone
school division.
Therefore, in the system which we
have put forward, we have provided for a Francophone governance model in which
there are exclusive rights, in which the board will operate with exclusive
rights of the Francophones and entitled individuals to operate the school
division. We have not chosen a model
which is representational or which is a ratio model. We have, in fact, chosen a model which will
give the exclusive rights of governance within the Francophone school division
to the eligible Manitobans.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister's stated policy here today to the
committee seems somewhat different than her policy in the briefing material
that she has provided to members, and that is that there would be powers to
continue to offer francais programming to existing school divisions, even
though those existing school divisions have turned over a major part of this
programming to the Francophone division.
So we would indeed have parallel programming going on in these divisions
potentially.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Again, the issue is one of exclusive jurisdiction over the Francophone
board which we have allowed, but the court did not go so far as to say that
this board had monopoly rights over francais education within the province.
Because the court did not go so far
as to discuss monopoly rights, we have set up a system of governance in which
there is exclusive jurisdiction over the Francophone board, but where
Manitobans wish to remain within their own school divisions, then they continue
to have the right to do so as we understand the court decision.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. I would like to remind honourable members
that we are dealing with 1.(c)(1) Planning and Policy Development.
We are now starting to deal directly
with the legislation, as the honourable member has quoted exactly from the
briefing list provided to him by the minister according to the
legislation. So I would ask that we get
back to Planning and Policy Development at this time.
Mr. Plohman:
Well, the minister has indicated in her policy paper that, in fact, existing
school divisions would be empowered to continue to offer francais programs even
in school divisions where the Francophone school division has jurisdiction.
I have never stated in my questions
that all of the
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in all the discussions which we have held and
spoken about in terms of our model to implement Francophone governance, we have
also respected individuals within this province, and we have also respected the
fact that some individuals and some communities may wish to remain within their
current school divisions.
We will not know until the Monnin
Committee has, in fact, finished its work which, if any, of those communities
may wish to remain within their home school divisions, but we have respected
the right of Manitobans where they wish to remain within their home school
divisions and have allowed programs to continue within their school divisions
if that is what the community wishes.
However, we have through our
legislation come forward with a model for Francophone school governance which
does put the governance of the Francophone board under the exclusive management
of the Francophone community.
So we have certainly been very
active in meeting the requirements in terms of forming the Francophone school
division and also in providing the exclusive management rights, but also
accepting the fact that some Manitobans may wish to remain within their current
school divisions, and we have respected the rights of those Manitobans to
indicate that this may be the choice they would like to make.
Mr. Plohman:
Just for clarification, the jurisdiction of the Francophone school
division would not prevent immersion programs, for example, from existing in
existing school divisions. Is that
correct?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, that is correct because French Immersion programs do
not speak to French first language education.
* (1530)
Mr. Plohman:
Then why would the minister opt for an expensive option of having
parallel French first language programming in both the school divisions
existing at the present time and the new Francophone school division? Why would she not have had a clear‑cut
decision that parents would have to make here?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, because, as we have said from the beginning,
Manitobans may wish to make a choice about remaining within their own school
division and programs as they currently exist within their own community. That has been discussed from the announcement
of this particular model for Francophone governance.
The Supreme Court chose not to
comment on the particular model and also, as I said, came short of and did not,
in fact, discuss the issue of the monopoly rights of the Francophone community.
So we have put forward a model which
allows for the exclusive management of the Francophone school division by the
Francophone community. We have also
allowed for Manitobans to indicate if they wish to become a part of that
Francophone school board or if they wish to maintain the programming within
their current division.
I quote from Chief Justice Dickson,
in terms of his remarks, in saying that the government should have the widest
possible discretion in selecting the institutional means by which Section 23
obligations are to be met, and the court should be loath to interfere and
impose what would be necessarily Procrustean standards unless this discretion
is not exercised at all or is exercised in such a way as to deny a
constitutional right.
Mr. Plohman:
Did the minister consider the costs of the various options she had?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, as the member knows, children are currently being
educated within a school division and within a school system, and the funds
provided do flow, one, through the education funding formula and, secondly,
through funds provided by taxation.
When children move into the
Francophone system, that system will be funded, No. 1, by the education funding
formula and, secondly, by taxation, by those funds which will then follow the
child into the Francophone governance model.
Mr. Plohman:
Is it the minister's understanding that her choice of a parallel
programming model will cost more than having programming provided by one
jurisdiction, rather than parallel.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, the total costs will become known when we have the
details of the registration. Again, I
will remind the member that he is getting into some very detailed discussion of
legislation which is before the House, and he is asking for information that
generally would be covered within debate and within questioning around the
issue of the legislation.
Mr. Plohman:
The only other option to discuss any of these items, of course, when we
get into specific enactment of these policies, will be when we deal with clause‑by‑clause
discussion of the bill. There is no
opportunity for the opposition to raise questions with the minister or to
discuss it in the House, at least in terms of a two‑way discussion. We have what is on the record by the
minister, and that is probably all we are going to see until the clause‑by‑clause
discussion. So we are talking what could
be a period of weeks or months even before further discussion can go on.
I think it is important from a
policy point of view that the minister is prepared to answer the policy basis
for her legislation. That is what I am
asking about: the principles and policy
behind that legislation. I said that a
number of times‑‑and no reflection on the Chair, I must say, but I
have to say that the Chair has brought to my attention that I should be asking
in a different line.
The minister has attempted to
procrastinate on this issue on numerous occasions during this questioning. I am simply asking a matter of principle and
policy here whether the minister understood when she chose the option, the
policy option, of allowing for parallel programming in areas where parents had
opted for the new Francophone division, that that would cost more than if she
had gone with exclusive jurisdiction for that Francophone division in those
areas where they had opted for the Francophone division.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, again, as I have explained to the member, there is a
basic cost of educating the pupil in one division or the other. I have explained how that funding flows,
whether it flows to an existing division or whether it flows to the new
Francophone division. He then has moved
from that issue into asking questions about specifics, and as I have said to
him, we have to wait until we find out exactly how many pupils will be moving
into the Francophone division, their age, their grade, their particular
needs. Then we will also have to look at
the operating costs of buildings and so on.
We will need to look at the salary of instructors and so on.
There is a great deal of work which
will be done over the next while, one by the Monnin Committee, and then
secondly by the new Francophone board, before students are transferred. We expect students to be in the schools for
September '94.
So, again, there are a number of
details which the member would like to have specific numbers for, and which are
very dependent upon some of the decisions which will be made in the next while
by the community. But I think that it is
important to look at the answer as I have given it to him so far, and that is
that funding is provided per pupil and that funding will flow through the
funding formula.
Also, as he knows, there is a
formula which allows for the money which is collected by taxation to also flow
with that student into the Francophone division. So there are students who are currently being
funded in one division. Those students
will now be funded in the Francophone division.
Mr. Plohman:
If the minister wants to characterize my questions as specific, then she
should realize that I could be asking questions of precisely how much money per
pupil will be transferred from the provincial grants, how many will be
transferred as a result of property tax levy, and how large the cost savings
would be precisely by having a single program offered as opposed to a parallel
program in terms of dollars. Those are specific questions. I am not asking those specific questions.
I am asking about the policies and
principles behind the decisions of the minister. The minister has chosen a policy option that
results in parallel programming potentially in many school divisions for French
language first instruction being that offered by the Francophone division and
that offered by the existing division. I
have to ask the minister, as I said, whether she is aware that offering
parallel programming such as that costs more than having individual programs,
regardless of what grants are transferred.
There is only so much money
there. The minister would be the first to
tell us that to justify her cuts this year in education generally. So, if she is not indicating that she is
manufacturing more money, we have to explore that whole area with the minister,
because there may very well be‑‑there are, as a fact, additional
costs associated with implementing the Supreme Court decision.
* (1540)
The federal government has
recognized that to a certain extent.
Even with the small amount they have announced to all the provinces over
a six‑year period, they have recognized that. So we know there are going
to be additional costs, and at some point we have to quantify what we are
talking about here and how the decisions of this government are going to impact
on existing school divisions and on existing programming. Pretty important issue, and we have to find
out from the minister how much she has thought this through in terms of this
impact.
I am asking the minister on the
issue of parallel programming whether she realizes that has a greater cost to
it than allocating the exclusive jurisdiction of French language first
programming to the Francophone division where parents have made the decision
that they would like to become part of the Francophone division.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in putting forward this model, we did respect
the right of Manitobans to make choices and that was a very important issue of
respect, but I think now Manitobans, as they work with the Monnin Committee,
will now determine where they will be registering their children. It will not be, until we have the information
regarding where children will be registered, what parents' intention is in
terms of their registration for us to really be able to provide him with the
details of any places where there may be a parallel system or where some families
choose simply to have things remain as they are, or, in other cases, where some
families and school communities choose to become a part of the Francophone‑governed
model totally.
There is a process in place. As I have explained, the process is started,
and the process was put forward to assist Manitobans in terms of information,
but behind the piece of legislation that we have introduced, I have explained
to the member, is the right of choice.
Mr. Plohman:
So the minister would acknowledge that there are significant costs
associated with offering a specific program and that there is a significant
potential savings if that program does not have to be offered by a particular
school division?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, no, I did not say that.
Mr. Plohman:
Well, let us go back over it again.
The minister has said that the matter of choice was her guiding
principle, and I respect that decision if that is the minister's decision in
terms of having students or parents being able to choose whether they want to
become part of the Francophone division or whether they want to have francais
programs offered through the existing school divisions. That is the principle that the minister has
chosen as the overriding principle.
What I simply wanted to have the
minister deal with here in terms of her response and her policy is whether she
recognizes an additional cost when there is parallel programming. The minister seemed to indicate that she did
recognize there could be additional costs.
She did not know how much yet, she did not know where this might happen,
until the committee had made its report; but, in fact, she acknowledged, I
guess, grudgingly, that this could exist in some cases. There could be parallel programming, and
there would be a cost associated with same.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I know that this is really a lot of new
information for the member, and so let me just remind him again that the right
of overnance is conferred upon the individual.
The individual, then, is the one who will determine what they wish to
have happen on behalf of their child.
As the court decision says, the
rights provided by Section 23, it must be remembered, are granted to minority
language parents individually. Their
entitlement is not subject to the will of the minority group to which they
belong, be that of a majority of that group, but only to where numbers warrant
condition.
So our government, in putting
forward its plan for Francophone governance, did respect the right of the
individual and the right of that individual then to make a choice. We have to now look at communities, look at
individuals within communities, and, as they work with the Monnin Committee, to
determine what their interest is in terms of registering, or if they would like
to remain within their community and within their school division as they
currently are, that they wish not to make a change.
We will have to look at, then,
whether or not that indicates that there would be, as the member has called it,
a parallel system or not. We have to let
the Monnin Committee do its work. When we receive more information from the
Monnin Committee, then we will be able to give him that greater detail. I think, again it is important, that he
respect the process that is currently in place for Manitobans and that
Manitobans will listen to the information, will understand what the bill
provides, will understand the system of governance within Manitoba, and then
they will indicate their interest in terms of registering their child.
It will be an indication of wishing
to register their child, or, in some cases, some Manitobans may wish to remain
within their local school division.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 1.(c)(1).
Mr. Plohman: I
want to respect the process, certainly, but I just want the minister to give
clearer answers.
Will the minister acknowledge, then,
that she intends to provide for parallel programming in her policy?
Mrs. Vodrey:
There is only one system of Francophone governance, and that is the
model that we have put forward. However,
we do understand that some Manitobans may wish to remain within their current
school division. We will have to see
what the community's wishes are, and if, in fact, from that community, there
are families who wish to be part of the governance model.
The member is really asking us to
anticipate and to hypothesize on issues which really have to take place with
the work of the Monnin Committee.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister seems to indicate there is only one
system of Francophone governance. Well, there will be only one system in this
province depending on which one is legislated, but that does not mean that
there is only one model that the minister could implement. There are a number of different models. One would have the Francophone school
division having exclusive jurisdiction once parents have decided in a
particular area over a French language first programming; another might see a
parallel programming which the minister seems to have adopted in her policy at
this particular time.
I am simply wanting to get from the
minister whether she will acknowledge that there are significant costs
associated with offering a specific program in a school division and that those
costs will have to be borne by someone.
The minister may have some responsibility there.
* (1550)
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we come back then to the point that children are
currently being educated within a school division. They are currently being educated with funds
that flow on their behalf from the ed funding formula and also by funds which
flow from taxation.
Those children will then either
continue to be educated within their current school division providing for a
program, or those children will then be educated within the governance model. There is only one system of governance. The funds that flow on behalf of that child
will flow either to the current school division if that is where the child
wishes to remain or will go with that child into the new governance model, into
the Francophone school division.
So we are not looking at a whole lot
of children whom we did not know about before.
These children are currently being educated within a division. It is, as I have said in my remarks in the
House, an administrative matter, and children will then be educated within the
Francophone model if that is what parents choose, and the funds will then flow
to that model.
The member seems to have a view that
somehow there will be more children involved, and we are not speaking about
more children. We are speaking about
children who are being educated in one division who may wish to then move to
the Francophone governance model or whose families may wish them to remain
within their current system.
Mr. Plohman:
But the minister has said that she will require both programming, the
same francais programming to be offered in both school divisions at the same
times with half the numbers potentially, if it is divided in half, or maybe one‑third
in one school division and two‑thirds in the other, or whatever ratio
happens to work out.
Does the minister not acknowledge
additional costs when you are offering the same programming in both school
divisions?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, because it is still the same number of students.
Somehow the member has a view that
everything would remain the same if students were not attending within an
existing school division, for instance.
What we are saying is that the funding, on behalf of those children,
would flow into the Francophone governance model.
Mr. Plohman:
The minister has to acknowledge that there are administrative
costs. There are general costs
associated with offering a program. If
the program does not have to be offered, there are significant cost savings for
school divisions. If it has to be
offered, there are significant additional costs.
Will the minister acknowledge that?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, the member is trying to speak about
something that we have to let the Monnin Committee do its work on.
We have to look at the number of
students that families say they wish to register within the new Francophone
governance model. We will have to look
at students in areas where families do not wish that to occur. We will have to look at the number of students
to be transferred, the age and the grade of students to be transferred.
So there are a number of factors
which are still in the process and in process with the Monnin Committee.
Mr. Plohman:
So the minister is acknowledging that students will be transferred, and
along with their transfer will be their funding, funding that is allocated on a
per‑pupil basis, both at the local level as well as by the Department of
Education.
With the students being transferred,
the school divisions are going to lose that funding with those students, but
they are still going to be required, if some numbers remain behind, to offer
that program in their school divisions.
They will not be able to save money in being able to discontinue that
program. They will have to maintain that program. So they are still going to have costs
associated, only they are going to have a serious problem of declining
enrollment.
Surely the minister knows how
declining enrollment affects programming in schools. So maybe that is the way to make it easy for
the minister to understand what I am getting at here.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, the member asks a number of questions‑‑if
students, when students, what if students, and, again, these are all
hypothetical questions because we have not yet seen that the work of the Monnin
Committee has been completed.
Divisions will then be able to look
at within their school division when parents have indicated their wish to
register or to remain within their local school division, and then the
divisions will then look at how they will accommodate. They will be able to look at the
numbers. They will be able to look at
all of the issues which we have been discussing.
So, again, the member is asking
questions which at this point are not possible to give detailed answers to
because the Monnin Committee is continuing its work but, again, I would remind
the member that it has been very important to this government to allow for
Manitobans the choice, to indicate if they wish to join the Francophone
governance model or if the wish to remain in a program operated by their home
school division. Perhaps that may be the
area that the member would like to be talking about.
Mr. Plohman: The
minister acknowledges that she intends to allow francais programming to
continue in existing school divisions, as well as the Francophone
division. The minister knows that it is
extremely unlikely that, as a result of the Monnin commission's work, there
will be no cases where some parents want to remain to have francais instruction
continue in existing school divisions, while others want to go to the
Francophone division.
I mean that is a pretty obvious
outcome of these deliberations. We are
not talking about great hypothetical situations here. We are talking that which is almost a
certainty of how this will fall out in terms of the decisions. That is why I wanted explore with the
minister.
I think it is important that parents
know what the options are and what the reasoning behind the minister's
decisions is on this. The acknowledgment
that there are additional costs to the model that the minister is putting
forward is a significant acknowledgment in this particular instance.
I think it is incumbent upon us to
ask the minister‑‑and it is something that parents should know
about, school divisions should know about‑‑whether the minister
intends to provide transitional funding to existing school divisions to offset
the additional cost that they will have as a result of loss of students‑‑with
them, all of the grant money locally as well as from the province.
* (1600)
Mrs. Vodrey:
Again, the reasons that the member speaks about, that I have given him
during the course of the afternoon, are reasons of choice, and we believe that
the rights conferred are rights conferred upon individuals to make a
determination.
In terms of the costs, we need to
look at the work of the Monnin Committee.
Then we would have an idea from their work about whether or not some
areas and some individuals wish to remain in a program within their own school
division, or if they wish to move into the Francophone model. In terms of making sure that school divisions
are well aware of the impact, we have a representative committee, and this has
been the way that we have operated in terms of an implementation committee from
the time of the announcement.
We have said, from the time of the
announcement, there should be representatives of the Francophone groups on the
implementation committee, and there should also be a representative of the
Manitoba Association of School Trustees, where existing divisions then would be
able to fully understand the process, and also what is happening in terms of
the movement toward the Francophone school division.
In terms of the three questions that
we have continually gone around for the afternoon, again, issue of choice. We need to have the Monnin Committee do its
work. The Monnin Committee does consist
of representatives of people who will represent the Francophone community and
the movement toward the Francophone school division. It also represents people who are
representative of existing‑‑Manitoba Association of School
Trustees, for instance. So the issues
will be able to be worked out in the process.
Mr. Plohman:
The minister has to acknowledge that, while we are talking about using
her numbers, 4,000 to 6,000 students estimated to be involved, it could be many
more. I noticed the minister, in her
introduction of Bill 34, said that there are 11,000 whose mother tongue is not
French but whose parents have rights under the Charter, so the potential
numbers are much greater.
Even if we acknowledge the 4,000 to
6,000 that we are talking about at this particular time, the minister's
numbers, we are talking from $16 million to $24 million in provincial grants
being transferred in addition to the money lost from local levies to school
divisions. That is a lot of money. We are talking, you know, $20 million to $30
million. It could be greater. Surely the
minister does not think school divisions can just absorb the loss of this and
still offer the same services which will be the case in many school divisions
if they have to offer parallel programming, even with fewer students.
So the writing is on the wall for a
tremendous loss in revenue and a significant impact on school divisions faced
with pretty difficult times at the present time. So that is why I asked the minister the
question‑‑and surely she should be thinking about that‑‑about
the issue of compensation or a transitional funding to ease the impact of this
transition. That is why I asked the
minister if she has any plans in this regard.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Again, I take the member back to saying that it is students who will be
moving from one division to another, and therefore students who are at the
moment being served by one school division will then be served by the
Francophone school division.
We have also discussed this
afternoon how the funding will flow on behalf of students from an existing
school division to the Francophone school division, but then, of course, there
will be a change of students. We are not
talking about a whole lot of new students, we are talking about students who
are currently in a school system in
It will be funding through the ed
finance model, and it will also be funding which will flow from taxation. There is a formula identified to allow for the
transfer of those taxation funds into the Francophone school division.
Mr. Plohman: I
guess it is quite understandable why the minister does not understand the
questions I am asking about increased costs associated with parallel
administrations and parallel programming, because she has continued to promote
the private school funding at a much higher degree than the public school
system over the last number of years without regard to how that impacts on
existing school divisions in terms of lost students, in terms of grant money,
in terms of money associated with offering programming in a parallel way
because of the additional costs of administration and programming that I have
mentioned.
So I guess the minister is not
prepared at this time to admit that there are additional costs associated with
parallel programming. It is a simple
concept for the minister, but she is unwilling to accept that particular
argument.
(Mrs. Shirley Render, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
I can say to her though that she
will not be able to keep her head in the sand forever on this. It is just a question that we are asking out
of concern about all the children in this province, all schools in this
province.
We believe that the federal
government along with the province have a responsibility to implement the
Supreme Court decision, not the local school divisions having to carry the
burden of implementing the Supreme Court decision. That responsibility lies with this minister
and with the federal government.
Clearly the minister is not going to
get away with offloading this onto the local divisions by ignoring the factors
associated with declining student numbers and how that impacts on programming
in those schools.
The minister has had representation
from school divisions since she has been minister, and certainly the previous
minister had, about how declining enrollment was impacting on their ability to
administer the school division and offer quality programming. Many times there had to be special funding
offered because of declining enrollments.
We are looking at declining enrollments here, in effect. So the minister should recognize that, and
not continue to deny that reality.
That is why we are going to continue
to ask the minister for clear answers on this issue. It is not sufficient. We may move on to other areas in this
department, but we are not doing so with any satisfaction till the minister has
dealt with the issues raised in any way satisfactorily. She will have to continue to contend with
them until she does have satisfactory plans to deal with these important
issues.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mrs. Render): Line 1.(c)(1)‑‑pass; 1.(c)(2)‑‑pass.
We will now be looking at line 1.(d)
Human Resource Services (1) Salaries $329,200‑‑
* (1610)
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): I have a couple of questions in this area on a
number of different issues. One is in
relation to the clinicians who were employed with the Department of Education
and now a number of them have been asked to seek employment either elsewhere or
through school divisions. There seems to
have been some confusion as to what the rights were of these particular
employees and what their severance packages would be, et cetera.
I am wondering if the minister has
information on that today, if she could clarify what information was given to
these staff persons. First of all, does
she have documentation indicating that they were going to be laid off or that
their employment would be terminated?
What were the details of that?
Mrs. Vodrey: For
the clinicians, they were entitled to the severance package, but for clinicians
who have been re‑employed by school divisions, they were not entitled to
the enhanced severance package.
Ms. Gray: Can the
minister explain why that decision was made, or the rationale behind it?
Mrs. Vodrey:
This was an interpretation of the civil service, and the interpretation
is that where people leave the employment of government, but become re‑employed
by a body which directly receives grants from government, then they would not
be entitled to the enhanced severance package.
In the case of school divisions, we
as government do provide direct grants through our ed funding formula to school
divisions. So it was the interpretation
of the civil service that for clinicians who became re‑employed by school
divisions again, they would be entitled to a severance package, not to the
enhanced severance package because of their employment by a body which received
direct funding from government.
Ms. Gray: If a
clinician then was hired by, let us say, an institution such as a hospital,
what type of package would they receive?
What would the interpretation be?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Well, I am informed again, this being a civil service interpretation,
that for clinicians who have more than 10 years of service, and who go to work,
not in a school division, but perhaps in a hospital, as the member suggests,
they would then be entitled to the regular severance and the enhanced
severance.
Ms. Gray: Can the
minister explain then for my clarification, what the difference would be
between a hospital that receives also direct funding from a government and a
school division which receives direct funding?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, well, again I am informed that these
individuals are school clinicians, that is in fact how they are certified to do
their work as a school clinician.
Therefore when they become employed by school divisions they are still
employed within an area for which my department and this government provides
direct funding, my department in particular.
Where people wish to apply their skills, not specifically as school
clinicians but as people who have a type of training which might be useful
within a hospital setting, they have in fact and I am led to understand this,
then they are not operating as school clinicians within that job description.
Ms. Gray: Can the
minister tell us where does the certification come from as school clinicians?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The certification comes through the Department of Education and
Training.
Ms. Gray: Can the
minister tell us, when she says this is an interpretation of the civil service,
who within the civil service? Was it the
actual board of commissioners or was it the bureaucrats?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, it was an interpretation of the senior
officials of the civil service.
Ms. Gray: I
understand that some of the clinicians did write and ask for clarification of
this particular issue. Can the minister
tell us, have those staff received any further word back in writing from the
department clarifying this position in regard to severance packages?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Yes, I am informed that the individuals have received many letters in
writing from the department.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister
tell us, have these letters outlined that in essence the difference is that
because they are certified as school clinicians that is why there would not be
the enhanced severance?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The information that the individuals received related to government
policy as I have described it in terms of the employment, and employment again
as a school psychologist, and when that person becomes re‑employed by a
school division.
Ms. Gray: What is
the effective layoff date for these clinicians?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, the effective layoff date is June 30.
* (1620)
Ms. Gray: Can the
minister tell us, does she have figures as to how many of these clinicians have
been rehired by school divisions?
Mrs. Vodrey:
This has been described as the concern and, I suppose, the business of
the clinicians themselves, and they have decided not to specifically inform us
of where their employment is.
Ms. Gray: Madam
Acting Deputy Chairperson, if the effective layoff date or termination is June
30, if then a clinician is hired by a school division effective July 2, does
that constitute a break in service?
Would they then be eligible for the enhanced severance?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, I understand that, yes, that would
constitute a break in service, but in order to collect the severance the
employees would then have to sign a letter placing them in the permanent layoff
category and allowing them eligibility to be rehired by government over a
period of one year.
Ms. Gray: Can the
minister tell us then, she has indicated that in regard to the clinicians,
there is not an indication from them as to if they have been rehired
though. Can she tell us from the school
division point of view‑‑she had indicated earlier I think in remarks
in Estimates that she was not aware of any school divisions who were not going
to use clinician services‑‑does she have more details on those
particular specifics in regard to school divisions, how many clinicians they
would use and what number of personnel that might involve?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, the finalizations of employment have
not occurred yet, but we have not had an indication from any divisions to this
point that they will be reducing their clinician services.
Ms. Gray: If these
clinicians for whatever reason choose to be on a permanent layoff list, in
other words, if they do not have other employment, will school divisions then
have access to those lists? Will school
divisions be required to use those lists, or is there any obligation on the
school divisions at all?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The potential for the hiring of clinicians is 59.5 positions. School divisions can, however, choose to hire
whomever they wish to fill those positions.
I am also informed that, again, the employment that clinicians choose is
certainly up to them as individuals.
They will be able to decide where they wish to be employed. However, I am told that some have in fact turned
down some re‑employment with government.
Ms. Gray:
Basically what she is saying then is that school divisions have no
obligation to hire these particular clinicians if in fact they happen to be
looking for a clinician, so that the layoff list that these clinicians may be
on really has no effect or has no influence on a school division. Is that correct?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, school divisions are, as I said, able
to hire whomever they choose, and so the layoff list does not specifically
affect school divisions.
Ms. Gray: Perhaps
the minister can clarify for myself then what I would think is a bit of a
contradiction, because then for clinicians who are laid off and are told that
if they want enhanced severance, it would only be when they were not rehired by
a school division, and that is because of the fact that government gives direct
funding to school divisions. So we are
making an interpretation about someone's benefits based on school divisions and
their funding, yet on the other hand, school divisions have absolutely no
requirement to even utilize government layoff lists to hire these staff
back. To me they are not parallel
relationships, and that is why I do not understand the interpretation of the
civil service.
Mrs. Vodrey:
In terms of the enhanced severance, the member may know this, but people
would be entitled to that enhanced severance only if they had been in the
employ of government for 10 years or over, so that it is not a matter that
would affect all clinicians. In fact, it
has only affected, my understanding is, six clinicians who have been employed
for that time period of over 10 years and might have been eligible for the
enhanced severance.
Clinicians will in fact go on a re‑employment
list within government over those who wish to work specifically as school
psychologists and to apply their training specifically as school psychologists
and, as they are certified as school psychologists, would then obviously
indicate that they wish to be hired by a school division and make application
in that area. They may then determine
that their work as a school psychologist may be what they wish to do. In terms of the enhanced severance in that
particular condition, it would only apply to people with a certain level of
service anyway. Otherwise, people may
wish to take those particular skills but not act as a school psychologist and
in fact go on a re‑employment list in government.
Ms. Gray: Madam
Acting Deputy Chair, that still does not explain to me what I see as a bit of a
contradiction, but can the minister tell us, does she have a written interpretation,
or does her Human Resources Branch have a written interpretation from The Civil
Service Act in regard to this interpretation that she could share with the
committee?
* (1630)
Mrs. Vodrey: I
have instructed our Human Resources area and director to ask for a written
ruling. We have not received a specific
written ruling back from the Civil Service Commission.
Ms. Gray: If there
has not been a written ruling back, what exactly is Human Resources writing to
these particular commissions in regard to the reason and the basis for a
decision?
Mrs. Vodrey: I
am informed that we have received verbal statements several times from the
Civil Service Commission to our Human Resources director. Also the clinicians who had placed their
inquiry have written to the civil service and have been advised to check with
our Human Resources department.
Ms. Gray: Just to
clarify, have those particular clinicians received in writing the
interpretation from Human Resources?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am informed that they have received
that information in writing from our Human Resources services. As well, in writing they have also received
an outline of the benefits which they are eligible to have.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister's
staff in Human Resources, just for my own education so I can look it up, tell
the committee what section of The Civil Service Act is this interpretation
regarding the fact that school divisions are funded directly by government,
therefore, a change in employment from government to a school division is not
seen to be eligible for enhanced severance if you are over 10 years? Can she just indicate, in The Civil Service
Act, what section that is so I can review that at some point on my own?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am informed that it is not in the
act. Instead it is in the government
employees' master agreement, Section 22 which refers to layoffs and Section 23
which refers to severance pay.
Ms. Gray: Just
switching track slightly, but in the area of Human Resources, can the minister
tell us, in regard to the affirmative action program, how the goals of
affirmative action are achieved in the Department of Education?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam
Acting Deputy Chairperson, there are a couple of ways that we are looking at
issues of affirmative action. First of all, on our staffing authorization there
is a section which deals with affirmative action. We then have a series of affirmative action
guidelines for recruitment and selection which apply to all formal interviews.
Affirmative action as a selection
criteria, according to the guidelines, shall be weighted with the same value as
all essential criteria. Usually the
value is 10. All affirmative action
candidates shall be awarded a rating of no less than three, adequate on a scale
of zero to five. Therefore, a minimum
point award would be no less than 30.
* (1640)
Some underrepresented areas could be
rated as high as five for a total of 50 points.
We do have further information regarding representation of affirmative
action groups‑‑females, natives, disabled individuals, physical
minorities‑‑as well as information on representation of women in
senior management positions.
Ms. Gray: The information
the minister just referred to, does she have that in a table form that she
could share or explain to us?
Mrs. Vodrey: I
do not have any problem tabling in terms of the Education and Training
affirmative action numbers. I do not
have any problem tabling that. Also, I
am prepared to table, not only to make copies, representation of women in
senior management positions for the member.
Ms. Gray: Can the
minister tell us what does the Department of Education consider senior
management positions‑‑a definition?
Mrs. Vodrey:
In terms of the information, could we table it tomorrow in terms of
providing the copies and the information of the total numbers? I believe the member also asked, who would be
considered senior management positions?
We have considered those director and up.
Ms. Gray: It would
be useful if we could at least table the information for this evening at eight
o'clock, because we would like to ask questions on that and be able to probably
move off that section before tomorrow.
Mrs. Vodrey:
We will certainly have that available for the evening session tonight.
Ms. Gray: The
minister indicated senior management positions were considered at a director
level and up. Could she just quickly
tell us how many director positions are there within the Department of
Education? How many classifications
above that? I am assuming most of them
are assistant deputy minister. Then, within
that, those number of positions, how many of those positions would be
represented by the four target groups of affirmative action?
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey:
We do not have the specific information for the total numbers with us,
but we are certainly able to get that, in terms of total numbers of directors
and the total numbers across the department that the member has asked for.
Ms. Gray: I do not
recall, is there a person within the Department of Education who is responsible
for affirmative action in Human Resources, or does the deputy minister sit on
an overall committee or how does that work?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in terms of the affirmative action committee, it
is chaired by a member of our department whose name is Louise Ulrich. When our colleges left the direct employ of
the Department of Education and Training, we did have to restructure that
committee. I am informed that our
committee members are now in place. We
have not had the committee members named by the union. However, I am also informed that when
informed of this and requested to name the members, the union will be naming
the members very shortly.
Ms. Gray: Can the
minister tell us, and I should know this for the structure, how many assistant
deputy minister positions are there in the Department of Education?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there are four ADM positions in the Department
of Education and Training. One of those
positions is filled on a permanent basis by a woman, and the other is filled in
an acting status by a woman. The other
two are filled by men.
Ms. Gray: Can the
minister tell us, the assistant deputy minister position, when Mr. Ed Buller
was in the job‑‑and I know the minister had a bit of an opportunity
to answer a question in the House that was asked before Christmas, but just to
refresh our memories, perhaps the minister could tell us the reasons why Mr.
Buller was relieved from his duties as assistant deputy minister.
Mrs. Vodrey: I
think it is very difficult to discuss the personnel matters of a specific
individual, as well, at this time. I can
say, as I said at the time, that we were looking for, in the Department of
Education, fresh ideas. We were looking
to move ahead. However, the details of
that personnel matter would be, I think, I would have to consider the
appropriateness of the discussion here in committee.
Ms. Gray: Is that
particular ADM position currently filled on an acting basis, and is there a
move to fill it on a permanent basis?
Mrs. Vodrey:
That position is being filled on an acting basis at the moment, and
there has not been a specific action at this point to fill it on a permanent
basis.
Ms. Gray: Can the
minister tell us: Is there a plan to
fill that on a permanent basis or, in the scheme of things, is that a staffing
decision?
Mrs. Vodrey: I
can say, first of all, the individual who is filling that position in an acting
role is currently here at the table, and I would like to say that the
discussion certainly is not to be reflected on her specific performance. I can tell the member that, in terms of our
staffing in the Department of Education, we are having a detailed look at our
staffing now.
Ms. Gray: Is the
minister suggesting that the position might not be filled because you are
looking at restructuring? Is that what
she is‑‑or am I reading into things?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Yes, the member would be reading into it in terms of that answer. No, we are not looking at restructuring in
terms of that position.
Ms. Gray: My
question would be: Do you plan to open
this position up as a civil service bulletin at least internally within the
civil service? Are there plans to do
that? Again, with no reflection on the
individual who is in the position now, my question would be: Would it be opened up to give people an
opportunity to apply for that particular position?
* (1650)
Mrs. Vodrey: As
I have said, we are looking at our staffing.
We have a number of staffing actions which are underway and others which
are contemplated, and we will be making decisions about that staffing in the
near future.
Ms. Gray: With the
acting positions‑‑I cannot remember if it was one or two at the ADM
level‑‑when people are put into an acting position, what is the
policy in the department or what has been the past practice in regards to how
someone is chosen for an acting position?
Again, this has nothing to do with individuals who are currently in
positions. It is just a question in
regards to policy and opportunities for people to move into acting positions.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chair, in most cases we would be looking at a competition for
an acting status. In terms of looking
for an individual to fill a position on an acting status, we really look at
things such as quality, issues of demonstrated leadership. We look at the ability to work as part of a
team as well as offer that leadership.
We look for initiative. We look
for the person's ability in terms of responsibility and also problem‑solving
skills.
Ms. Gray: Can the
minister tell us, in vacant positions in the Department of Education over the
last year, does she have a breakdown of the number of waivers of competition
that there have been?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Without the details it is hard to make an absolute categorical
statement, but I am certainly informed that to our knowledge there has not been
one position filled by waiver.
Ms. Gray: That
would be throughout the whole department?
There have been no positions filled by waiver for a whole variety of
reasons?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, I am informed that to our knowledge
throughout the department competitions have not been filled by a waiver. Where there may have been some exceptions, it
may have occurred within the community colleges when they were directly tied to
government. I am informed that in some
cases, in an instructor's position, there may have been a need and an urgency
to hire an instructor who was known to be available to then take that position.
Ms. Gray: Can the
minister tell us, with the board governance now of the community colleges,
their human resources, the work that must be done in human resources, is that done
at all through the Department of Education's Human Resources Branch or how is
that managed?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, their human resources is done by the colleges
completely.
Ms. Gray: Can the
minister tell us, is this one group of people or does each college look after
that themselves?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, again, each college does have its own director
of human resources at each college and those directors of human resources, I am
informed, have the final say. I will say
also that there was some staffing authority provided to the community colleges
before board governance as a lead‑up to the governance process. However, they do now have sole authority,
though I am informed that we are still assisting in some areas of labour
relations.
Ms. Gray: In the
community colleges and their governance, was there any thought given to any
type of centralization of the human resources branches or sections of those
community colleges for perhaps more efficiency and more co‑ordination?
Mrs. Vodrey:
We did look extensively, as the colleges moved to governance, at the
authorities required by the colleges. We
also looked at where the colleges might need flexibility but also where we
would look for the colleges to operate as efficiently as possible.
We do have central purchasing and
procurement for the colleges. We also
have one general ledger for management for the colleges to operate under. However, we have understood from the colleges
that personnel is a very important matter and also seen as a management right
for the colleges. In fact, each of the
colleges has their own human resources director.
Ms. Gray: Can the
minister tell us, was there any other analysis, other than listening to the
colleges in regard to what they thought was best, as to maybe some creative
ways of looking at, as one example, the human resource management of the
colleges in the province?
Mrs. Vodrey:
We certainly were interested in the issue of co‑ordination, so
when the colleges moved to governance, we formed the Colleges Advisory
Board. That Colleges Advisory Board will
have representatives. The CEOs from each
of the colleges, the board chairs from each of the colleges, the deputy
minister will also sit on that Colleges Advisory Board so that there will be an
opportunity for the sharing of particular concerns and also issues which the
colleges would like to bring forward.
In the area of personnel, we have
allowed human resource directors. We
also have tried to plan for the co‑ordination among the colleges by this
Colleges Advisory Board.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The time is now 5 p.m. and time for private
members' hour. I am interrupting the
proceedings of the committee.
The Committee of Supply will resume
consideration at 8 p.m. Thank you.
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
Madam Chairperson (Louise Dacquay): Order, please.
Will the Committee of Supply please come to order.
This section of the Committee of
Supply will be dealing with the Estimates of Executive Council. Does the honourable First Minister (Mr.
Filmon) have an opening statement?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Chairperson, as is customary, I have
some brief introductory comments to make.
The changes in this year's Estimates
for Executive Council are quite straightforward and are readily apparent from
the figures in the Estimates book. The
overall appropriation at $2,976,700 is some $193,300 or 6.1 percent lower than
the Adjusted Vote for last year. In
fact, this year's Executive Council Estimates total is the lowest print figure
for the department since our government has been in office.
The staff year complement in the
department is now 44, which is 15 fewer than the total complement of 59 when we
took office in the spring of 1988. That
represents a 25 percent reduction.
The principal change in Executive
Council this year has been the transfer of responsibility for the French
Language Services Secretariat to the Minister responsible for the Civil Service
Commission (Mr. Praznik). Both the 1992‑93
and 1993‑94 totals reflect the transfer:
$118,800 in salary dollars and two staff years.
In making the transfer announcement,
I emphasized it will facilitate an even closer working relationship between the
officials whose job it is to co‑ordinate the implementation of the government's
French Language Services policy and the officials in the Civil Service
Commission who have overall responsibility for staff development and personnel
administration.
As I said at the time, much of the
policy development work has been done, and effective implementation is now the
central focus for the secretariat. That
is why this transfer of functions was timely and logical and why it has been
received quite positively, I believe, in the Francophone community.
In preparing for this year's debate
on Executive Council Estimates, I reviewed last year's discussion in
Hansard. I could not help but be struck
by how much has happened in just a little over a year.
The last time our Estimates were up,
at the end of March 1992, was just a few days before First Ministers were
scheduled to meet on the economy, and only a few days before last year's
Estimates started, the formal multilateral process that became known as the
Canada round got underway in Ottawa.
In retrospect, it is possible to see
some interesting ironies in the debate that took place here in the House at
that time. For example, in talking about the upcoming First Ministers'
Conference on the economy, I pointed out that Manitoba had proposed three major
initiatives to encourage recovery and help build confidence across the
country: firstly, a tax freeze;
secondly, an agreement to control government spending and deficits; and
thirdly, efforts to use capital works expenditures to encourage employment and
build up Canada's productive assets.
* (1430)
That was a year ago, and back then
we were one of the lone voices making those suggestions. That is not true anymore. Unfortunately, the
March 1992 First Ministers' Conference on the economy did not lead to any hard
agreements, and unfortunately, as well, there has not been another economic
conference with the Prime Minister and the Premiers since that time.
Now, though, there are some
promising signs. The federal government
appears ready to exercise some positive leadership and virtually all governments
have now endorsed the importance of far greater co‑ordination of
budgetary policies in
More than a year ago and earlier, we
were calling for a national strategy to reduce the deficit and public
debt. Now such a strategy is being
demanded by virtually every province and every political leader.
In the past, some accused our
government of partisanship in making those kinds of suggestions. Now we hear talk of partisanship far less
often and for good reason. Every government
in
I believe it is essential that a new
Prime Minister call the First Ministers together, as soon as possible after
taking office, to review the progress which the Finance ministers are able to
make and to set some firm deadlines for decisions once the federal election is
over with.
Deficits and the debt, along with
the economy and the need for stepped‑up co‑operation among the
western provinces, were to have been front and centre at the Western Premiers'
Conference in
Since our government took office
more than five years ago, we have been strong supporters of closer working
relations among the western provinces, and we can point to some solid
accomplishments including the western trade barrier reduction agreement, the
first of its kind and a model for the rest of the country.
Although the members of the official
opposition may not have been totally comfortable in their relations with the
other western provinces when they were on this side of the House, I know that
they supported improved western co‑operation as well.
What is interesting to me is that
the Liberal Party, or at least the federal wing of that party, has now tried to
jump on the same bandwagon.
Unfortunately, some of them seem to have jumped too far.
Firstly, no one needs to lecture the
western provinces on the merits of co‑operation, but in some cases, the
federal Liberals seem to be going far beyond advocating greater co‑operation.
They seem to be talking with hardly any qualifications about substantial
integration, perhaps total integration.
Put bluntly, that could mean muffling the voices of the smaller
provinces by effectively wiping them off the map. That may not be what they intend, but exactly
what they do mean is far from clear.
It is hard to reconcile their
current position with their apparent support a year ago, at least from some of
them, for a Triple‑E Senate whose basic objective was to give each
province an equal and effective voice democratically elected.
I am happy to say that on this side
of the House, our support for those principles has not wavered one bit. I want it to be clear, though, that although
I have major questions about the advisability of anything approaching total
western or prairie integration, I am 100 percent in favour of targeting specific
areas where savings can be realized and economic benefits can be gained from a
co‑ordinated western approach.
The possibilities include reducing
duplication and overlap and partial integration or rationalization of some
services. Each of the western provinces has a different combination of
strengths, and each of us can assist the other and ourselves by specializing in
the things we do best. Clearly, partial
integration could mean economies of scale and real savings in some areas. It is well worth pursuing and we will do so.
Total integration, on the other
hand, could mean some very high costs to
Just as we are working to improve
our relations with the other western provinces, we are also taking a similar
approach in our international relations.
Members should be aware, if they are
not already, that in early June the U.S. Department of Transportation will be
holding a major policy round table in
Here in
Manitoba has some critical
priorities which must be addressed:
firstly, the awarding of the main contract for the Laboratory Centre for
Disease Control, getting it built and getting it operational; secondly, finding
an acceptable formula for a new development agreement for the city of Winnipeg
to replace the expired Core Agreement; thirdly, reinforcing Manitoba's position
as Canada's international leader in sustainable development by locating the
national state of the environment reporting centre here in our province;
fourthly, securing the future of the Port of Churchill both by assuring that it
has enough tonnage to show a profit and by pursuing aggressively all the
opportunities Churchill has to offer as we are doing through our Arctic Bridge
initiative.
As we all know, Churchill has its
detractors, in the federal system and elsewhere, who, using highly debatable
arguments about efficiency, continue to advocate the closure of the port and
the rail line. Those individuals and
organizations fail to recognize the strategic importance of our inland northern
seaport and its vast potential for transporting the produce of the entire
Let me be as clear as I can be. The federal government has a responsibility
to do all it can to keep Churchill viable.
It must live up to that responsibility, and we intend to see that it
does.
There are other commitments which
must be met as well along with other priorities and opportunities for co‑operation
which we will pursue with the federal government.
To his credit, the federal Minister
of Agriculture, who is now the lead federal minister for
To be fair as well, there are very
real limits on what is realistically possible and deliverable by the federal
government during a time of major restraint and during a time of leadership
change at the federal level, but the basic message from our government to
This is a time for shared commitment
and for shared purpose in
The federal government has a
responsibility, in its policies, to make sure
Finally, before we begin detailed
consideration of the Estimates, I want to express my appreciation to the entire
staff of Executive Council for their hard work and dedication in the past
year. Their numbers may be small, but
the value of their work to the government and to the people of
Thank you.
* (1440)
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Chairperson, I just want to say a few
things as we start the Premier's Estimates again this year and thank him for
the statement that he articulated in this House.
Madam Chairperson, there are a
number of statements that have been made and there are some positions that have
been excluded from the Premier's statement.
Let me go through them just very briefly to start with.
First of all, the Premier, of
course, is the head of government and we will be dealing with all issues in
government dealing with the priorities of the people of Manitoba‑‑the
economy, our health care system, our environment, education and training,
aboriginal people, et cetera. Of course,
as the head of government, as the person who chairs cabinet and articulates the
policies of the existing government, we will be exploring many of these issues,
I would expect, in the Premier's Estimates.
I would note too that the Premier,
who is responsible for Federal‑Provincial Relations and is also chair of
the Economic Development Committee of Cabinet with a separate secretariat,
actually has a couple of other bodies that report to him.
As Minister responsible for Federal‑Provincial
Relations, he has the
Secondly, the Premier has the
economic committee, the economic secretariat that he chairs, that he is the
head of, he has the authority for. The
spending item is in another department, but the Premier is the boss in terms of
that operation by the Order‑in‑Council that has been signed.
Therefore, when we look at those two other bodies, there is not a total
comparison between previous years on the Premier's spending and the spending of
Executive Council.
We would note the change in the
French Language Secretariat from the Premier's office to the Civil Service
Commission and the reconciliation as appropriate in the Estimates process. We will be asking the Premier, obviously,
questions later on of why and what was the rational for changing that
particular function in government and why did it go to the Civil Service
Commission and not some other entity in government itself.
We will be raising questions of
fairness. The Premier ended his
statement by saying that the province must‑‑its expectation from
The Premier has mentioned the three
major initiatives that they had placed before the previous federal‑provincial
meetings dealing with the economy: a tax
freeze, a co‑ordinated approach to government spending, and capital
works.
You will excuse us, Madam
Chairperson of the committee, if we pause a little bit on these so‑called
three initiatives. The Premier may not
believe that a reduction in property tax credits is a tax increase, but most
people receiving their tax bills will believe this year that a reduction in the
property tax credits and in the manner in which it was implemented is in fact a
tax increase.
I noted that when the
Now we may argue about this later
on, what the Premier's promise was. I
noted in his debate in the 1990 election, he was quite vociferous in his
criticism of the Liberal Leader during that debate on taxes, and I just want to
say that we do not believe that the Premier followed through on what his
commitment was in 1990 and what his commitment was at those First Ministers'
meetings. I mean, the bottom line is we
did not have a tax raise in the last budget, and that is fairly
straightforward. In fact, the Minister
of Finance (Mr. Manness) has stated as such with his calculation of the $114
million in the budget itself.
In the area of government spending,
you will excuse us as well if we get a little curious about this point of the
government. At the same time the
government was saying that we are going to freeze government spending, the
deficit went up‑‑according to the member for Rossmere‑‑to
$862 million. It was a doubling of the
deficit between the last fiscal year and this fiscal year.
The Auditor is going to report it
somewhere in the range of $762 million to $862 million. So while we were sitting in this Chamber
talking about the priorities of the provincial government for the First Ministers'
meeting, the government knew, and the Premier knew, that the amount of money we
were spending per month was the highest on record. It was doubling the deficit over one year,
and so you will excuse us if we find that there is a little difficult reconciliation
between the statement the Premier made in this House and what the Auditor will
eventually produce in terms of the bottom line of the provincial government.
Point No. 3, a co‑ordination
of capital works, I thought that was a good idea, certainly one which we had
proposed in December of 1990. We had
proposed nationally to follow through on the proposals made by municipalities
and provincial governments and some people in federal government, particularly
in opposition, to have an attempt to rebuild the infrastructure of this
country, rebuild the environmental structures of this country, and we applauded
the Premier in that proposal.
It is unfortunate that the
application of that proposal was very disappointing to
I do not know whether we are making
a mistake in spending the amount of money we are in the Federal‑Provincial
office. We should not be relying more on
our direct political relationship with
It is great to leave a fundraising
dinner for the Prime Minister, but the bottom line is the Premier's
disappointment was the same kind of disappointment we expressed when the
Mazankowski statement was tabled in
All the cutbacks were in the mini‑statement. I mean, that was the budget. The one that was tabled a couple of months
ago was‑‑well, we have all made statements about it. We do not have to repeat it; it is not
germane to our discussions. But I was
quite surprised that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) was embracing the
Mazankowski statement of December, and it took the Premier to raise the fact
that the whole kinds of ideas that were contained in the Premier's statements
and the First Minister's statements had not been contained.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we believe,
therefore, that we should evaluate the Premier and the government on the basis
of results, bottom‑line results, not on the basis of statements of
ministerial meetings. The government has
mentioned that it wants more co‑operation on the budgetary policies and
co‑operation with the budgetary policies of
The Premier indicates some optimism
towards the May 30 and 31 meeting. Given
that is two weeks before the federal leader is elected, or the federal Prime
Minister is elected, I hope it will have positive results. I suspect we are in a bit of a state of
suspension while we are awaiting the election of a new Prime Minister and
ultimately a mandate that he or she will seek which will obviously be shortly
after, given the fact we are in the fifth year and counting of the existing
mandate of the existing federal government which was re‑elected in
November of 1988.
* (1450)
Madam Chairperson, the Premier has
raised the issue of western co‑operation, and it is an issue we want to raise
with him. I think that this is a very
important issue. I guess the slogans are
easy on this issue, because we all believe in western co‑operation. I would like to start at a very basic level
of western co‑operation, and that is, have an agreement between all
western provinces that we are not going to be in a bidding war for corporations
that will be located in each other's province, as a fundamental starting point
for western co‑operation.
We have a spectacle of Pocklington
locating and relocating his plant in
Of course, I recognize that the
Saskatchewan Conservative government put lots of money into another operation
in
There are other examples at clothing
plants and other operations that I am sure the Premier is aware of, where we
see constantly the whole issue of one province bidding against another
province. I noted some optimism of co‑operation
on the Piper aircraft proposal. I am
hoping some change in government in
I have discussed this issue before
with colleagues of mine in our party, Premier Romanow and Premier
Harcourt. I know they feel the same way
as I do about this. We cannot compete if
we are just stacking up the money on the table.
I would like to see some agreement in western
I know this government has had to
bid with
Madam Chairperson, we are pleased
that the government is proceeding with a conference dealing with north‑south
co‑operation on trade and transportation.
I am pleased to see that
We have lost a lot of jobs in the
trucking industry. We have lost a
tremendous amount of jobs. If
On the airlines, I wrote to the
Premier last year proposing that Manitoba be the new head with this proposed
merger of Canadian Airlines and Air Canada, that if we are going to need a new
holding company, Manitoba was the logical place and Winnipeg was the logical
place, with United being involved in Air Canada out of Chicago, with the whole
operation of Calgary and Vancouver for Canadian and, of course, Air Canada out
of Montreal. That merger apparently is
not on today, yet the report is not in on the federal transportation
bureau. It is expected this week, and I
believe we will await that, but I think the airline industry is equally important
and I would note that in terms of the Premier's comments today.
On the railway side, Madam
Chairperson, I asked the Premier a question, I applauded him for getting some
jobs in Canadian Pacific. We are still
very concerned about the head office jobs in western
There is an opportunity now for
Canadian Pacific to cancel some of the running trade changes in jobs because
the locomotive overhaul base, as I understand it, cannot handle traffic through
Moose Jaw. There is an opportunity for
us there, and we asked that question hoping that we could pick up that
initiative and stop another erosion of 300 or 400 high‑paying jobs in the
We also think it is essential for
the province to proceed to protect the airport.
I think we want legislative protection of the airport. We do not want to delegate it to the City of
I know as Minister of Urban Affairs
we stopped a zoning change in
We noted, in terms of dealing with
the federal government, that the Premier has stated that they are looking at
renewing Development Winnipeg, a new Core Area Agreement. I had the pleasure of renegotiating that last
Core Area Agreement as a rookie minister.
I know the kind of decisions we had to make working with federal
Minister Epp and former Mayor Norrie on trying to get an agreement on the new
Forks proposal to put public money from the Core Area Agreement into a public
acquisition of that 50 acres to augment the 20 acres that had been negotiated
between the former Liberal government and the former NDP government on the ARC
programs.
I think those 50 acres of land are
well received. We also negotiated‑‑I
know my instructions from cabinet was to try to get greater access to the
riverbank and river area beyond the ARC program that was negotiated, and we
also were able to negotiate a $5 million expenditure into river access
programs. I think those are fairly well
received by the public in terms of the agreement we reached in May of 1986 and
signed in early October of 1986. I think
that those things continue to be very positive.
I notice from Tourism announcements
that The Forks is considered to be a very, very positive development. The Forks was really well known, not just for
those capital developments like The Forks, which are very popular, but also for
the housing, the infill housing, for the training and development of people.
*
(1500)
I just met last week with some banks
who still talk about the success of the Core Area training agreement to getting
aboriginal people trained as tellers for banks.
You can only go two blocks down the street to a local bank and you will
see a couple of aboriginal tellers that were trained under the Core Area
Agreement and are now providing meaningful employment through training that was
arrived at between the private sector and the Core Area Agreement that expired
a year and a half ago.
I have not agreed with the
government strategy of how to deal with this core area. I thought it was foolish for them to extend
the Core Area Agreement because, I think, when you have an agreement like this,
you have to bring it to a culminating point.
If you let things fizzle away, or just fritter away, your chances of
renegotiating some of the key components in it‑‑you obviously must
change each time when you reach agreements, but I thought their strategy was
not a wise one. I hope I am proven to be
wrong, but we have lost two important years in the Core Area Agreement under
Federal‑Provincial Relations.
The Premier has mentioned the
Sustainable Development Centre and the hope that this will be the international
centre for that project. I hope he is
successful in that, and he has our full co‑operation with that
proposal. I think
We are pleased to see that the
Premier is proceeding with the
We were very disappointed to see a
week ago that the federal government had not agreed to the private proposal,
the rocket proposal for Churchill, the spaceport. Last week, the federal government changed the
rules in midstream. We will be asking
the Premier about that. It has now gone
from a two‑to‑one ratio to a three‑to‑one ratio for
private and public support.
Obviously, the
Madam Chairperson, there are a
couple of very important omissions from the Premier's statement today: the whole issue of trade and NAFTA, which of
course comes under the bailiwick of the Premier with his economic committee and
under the auspices of Federal‑Provincial Relations. This week, the federal Conservative
government is proceeding on the fast track with NAFTA. At the same time, the
Surely the electoral concern of the
federal Conservative Party should not be a higher priority for the federal
House of Commons than what the substance of the agreement will be ultimately
and what they are going to pass in the House of Commons. It is absolutely ridiculous. I have never seen such a process where we are
going to pass something that is not even the last part of the agreement.
I would like to see Conservatives
who are opposed to NAFTA and the present NAFTA call publicly on the federal
government and the Prime Minister to halt this ratification. I would like to see the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness) go into that meeting on May 30 and 31 and say, this is absurd, we
are going to pass a major trade agreement which we know will have a detrimental
effect on Manitoba, and call on the federal government to not ratify an agreement
that is not even in place.
I note that the Premier did not
mention the NAFTA agreement in his statement.
I think that it is a very, very important issue. We have raised questions, and we have had
some disagreements with his minister on the six conditions of his statement
that he released in this House in December but, surely, we should be all in
agreement. You should not ratify
something that is in the process of being renegotiated. You would not buy a house that way. You would not operate in your private life
that way, and I think it is quite concerning for us.
Another issue that we thought was
excluded from the Premier's statement is the position on‑‑he
mentioned the western co‑operation and some of the problems with it. I would like to see an analysis of the Canada
West Foundation report on the jobs that will be saved and how many jobs that
will be in Manitoba, because we know from the Stettler experience with the
lotteries, the last time we had a co‑operation between the three
provinces, co‑operation meant that the jobs went to Stettler and we had
less jobs in Manitoba. If that is co‑operation,
I think we should be careful about it.
I would also like to see an analysis
that is being done, and I will be asking the Premier later on so I can put his
staff on alert, on the impact of this
I think we have to deal with this
issue of western co‑operation with real numbers, real impact and with
some real fairness as the bottom line.
As I say, maybe we should just eliminate some of the easy things first
instead of co‑operating. I have never seen any numbers from Lloyd
Axworthy. I have read it. I have read the reports. He talks about telecommunications. We know even in
We cannot afford to lose jobs right
now. Rationalization and co‑operation,
yes, but maybe we should be saving taxpayers money on the subsidy‑to‑corporations
side rather than on a race to the bottom but, needless to say, we need real
numbers in this issue.
I also find a lack of an analysis from
the Premier's statements on population and changing demographics on the
aboriginal people. I believe that the
population changes and the contraction of population will have an impact on
obviously our equalization, obviously on our economic activity, and the
demographic changes for aboriginal people are very important as well. The Premier did not mention the whole area of
access, that he was renegotiating access programs and education and training in
his education and training strategies.
In fact, we note that the opposite is happening. We note cutbacks in New Careers. We note cutbacks in ACCESS programs
themselves. The Premier, two years ago,
said this was a high priority to renegotiate, and we see absolutely no evidence
of this at all. In fact, we see the
opposite with their own provincial government spending on people who need the
greatest opportunity I believe in terms of where they are starting from in our
These are some of the points, Madam
Chairperson, that we will want to raise, as well as specific questions dealing
with the Estimates themselves. We will
want to go through these very carefully and ask a number of detailed questions
to the Premier and his staff. I thank
the Premier for his statement here this afternoon.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second
Opposition): Madam Chairperson, I have very few things
that I want to talk about today, and I want to focus them on decisions which
are primarily budgetary in nature but for which this Premier as the Premier
must take responsibility.
The Leader of the Opposition made
mention of the fact that the Premier has often said that he has not increased
taxes and that there were no new taxes in this particular budget. I think it is clear to all Manitobans that is
just not true, that whether it has been change to the property tax, whether it
has been change to the provincial sales tax, all of those have had significant
implications.
* (1510)
Unfortunately, every time this First
Minister chooses to allow his Finance minister to increase a tax, it is always
done in a way which is more advantageous to those of upper incomes than it is
to those of lower incomes. One can only
assume that this is a Conservative strategy which believes in the trickle‑down
theory, that if you leave more and more money in the hands of those who are
wealthy and more fortunate economically in our society, that they will use that
money to stimulate the economy and that will get people back to work.
It does not work, and it has been
proven time after time after time that Reagan economics and Mulroney economics,
which are based on the trickle‑down theory, simply do not work. Those who have more money keep that
money. If anything, they invest it in
long‑term investments that continue to turn around. They are the very people who will go out and
buy Builder Bonds at 6 percent because, quite frankly, it is the best
opportunity on the market at the present moment in terms of any kind of a bond
or any kind of long‑term GIC or other security. They save their money. They do not use their money to stimulate the
economy, so trickle‑down economics and the theory that you leave money
with the wealthy does not pan out.
When you look at cuts that the
government has made, it has been unfortunately exactly the same attitude, that
the cuts are made to people who can least afford those very cuts, so you do
not, for example, charge those with upper incomes more for child care despite
the fact that they are still not paying the full cost of child care and never
have paid the full cost of child care because of the subsidies that go directly
to the child care centres. You hit the
woman or the man who is a single parent of two, who at $16,200 is now asked to
pay an additional $650 in child care for that child. They cannot pay it, and so what you are
really saying to far too many of them is go on welfare, quit your job, take
your children out of the child care centre and live on welfare which I think is
a very major step backward.
The cuts to student social
allowances, same type of thing. Those who were on social allowance of a student
variety were those very people who had chosen within the social allowance
system to do something that would help them to develop and encourage their own
long‑term goals, to hopefully receive the training necessary to get back
in the workforce. I mean, every study,
every statistical analysis that is done shows very clearly that those without
high school education, by the year 2000, will find it almost impossible to find
employment.
Those who were on student social
allowance were upgrading their skills because they did not have that high
school education, and they were attempting to obtain that high school
education. Unfortunately, we have
already seen indications that most of them will turn to the social assistance
system again. So they have saved no
money. You have just moved the social
assistance bill from student social allowances to social assistance. The tragedy is that what you have done is to
discourage those very people who were trying to get on with their lives.
If one looks at cuts to foster
families, if one looks at cuts to the Manitoba Foster Family Association, if
one looks at cuts to the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty Association, if one looks
to the cuts to the Indian‑Metis friendship centres, if one looks at the
gamut of groups and organizations that found their funding either eliminated,
which was the case of all of those except the foster families themselves, and
you look at the organizations that were left with funding, you are struck by
the fact that it was always the ones who were most vulnerable who found their
funding cut. Those who had other sources of revenue, those who had an ability
to stand on their own, they seemed to continue to get government funding even
though some of it was cut by 3.8 percent, which seemed to be a reasonable
target across most government departments, but the ones that were eliminated
entirely were among the most vulnerable people in the entire community.
Obviously that is the philosophy
that pervades the government, but it is a philosophy that I simply do not
understand and do not relate to that it is true, that there have been other
budgets in other parts of the country that have made significant changes. Many of them have made changes in a way that
the most vulnerable were protected at the bottom, but we have not done
that. Every change that we have done has
hurt the most vulnerable to the greatest degree.
So the sad part about the whole
Estimates process is that we will spend the next three or four or five hours,
depending on how much the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) wants to spend,
but we will not learn very much, and we will not change very much, because the
philosophy is prevalent. I will, quite
frankly, have very little to say in this process because I just simply do not
believe it is worth anybody's time.
Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
Madam Chairperson: I would remind the members of the committee
that debate on item 1.(b) on page 12 of the Estimates manual, the Minister's
Salary, will be deferred until all other items in the Estimates have been
passed.
At this time, I would invite the
honourable First Minister's staff to enter the Chamber.
Mr. Filmon: I
do not like to have any empty time, so I will fill in by saying that I find it
interesting that the Leader of the Opposition presumes to be more intelligent
and more knowledgeable than the bond rating agencies and the financial experts
in the financial community who have looked at the budgets across the country.
He made a, what I think, rather rash
and very unsupportable statement when he said that we were preaching deficit
control last year, and at the same time, while we were overspending and
creating this larger deficit in Manitoba, the highest deficit on record, we
were preaching deficit control.
I want him to reflect and look at
the figures that are within the Estimates of Expenditure and the budgetary
comparisons, and he will know why agencies such as the Dominion Bond Rating
Service called us one of the two most fiscally responsible governments in
Canada, and this is over a period of five years, not just this past year, and
why the Investment Dealers' Association of Canada again reflected very
favourably on the work that we have done in controlling our deficits and why,
as well, the BCNI, Business Council for National Issues, brought across a dog
and pony show, you might say, in which they compared where we were in terms of
deficit and debt as a proportion of gross domestic product when we took office
and where we are today and how favourable those comparisons really are.
The reason is that all he has to do
is take a look at page 11 of the Manitoba Budget Address and find there, that
out of a budget of program expenditures of $4.905 billion, as was projected at
the time of last year's budget, the amount of overspending by this government
was $4 million‑‑$4 million out of $4.905 billion of program
expenditures. So one one‑thousandth
of the budget was an overage of spending.
* (1520)
He knows, although he may find it
useful politically to go on public forums and misrepresent the difference
between what was projected in the budget as it was presented last March, March
of 1992 in the Legislature, versus what was actual, that virtually none of it,
all but $4 million, was as a result of adjustments to revenue that were made in
figures from Ottawa.
The first major adjustment was
That was unprecedented. It never happened in the history of this
country, and it was imposed upon us totally, totally unexpectedly and totally
against, obviously, our will and in a way in which nobody in this provincial
government could be blamed for that particular decision.
So no credible observer, whether
they be Business Council for National Issues, whether they be Investment
Dealers' Association of Canada, whether they be bond rating agencies, nobody
has said that this government and its actions caused that deficit to be larger
than projected.
The fact of the matter is that is
why it is there, and everybody understands that, understands it far better than
the Leader of the Opposition, and his petty partisan politics will not work when
it comes to try to convince anybody in the finance community, any banker, any
bond rating agency, any investment broker, or anybody who knows anything about
business, as to whether or not this government and its actions have caused
that.
That is why we are labelled as one
of the two most fiscally responsible administrations in Canada and that is why
there is absolutely no truth whatsoever to his assertions that this
government's actions in some way caused it to have the highest deficit on
record.
The reality is that they were things
totally outside of the ability of this government to react to and to adjust for
and that is why we had the deficit that we had.
What is important and why everybody else as well with any credibility in
the financial community has said that this government is to be lauded is that
we took what was a structural deficit after you adjust for the use of the
Fiscal Stabilization Fund of $762 million and reduced it in one fell swoop to
$367 million, more than a 50 percent reduction in the structural deficit.
That too gave great credibility,
because the members of the finance community know and understand that we are
committed to keeping the deficit well under control as we have always said that
we would.
I will just also address his
comments with respect to the bidding wars.
We included that in a proposal to the western Premiers last year where
we said we wanted to expand the agreement on removal of interprovincial trade
barriers to also address what we call the destructive competition for
investment using taxpayers' dollars to try and fight for the establishment of
businesses in our province.
I might say that we have steadfastly
avoided that kind of destructive competition.
Where we were being drawn into it, as we were in the Purolator case, a
case in which the government of New Brunswick essentially went out and bought
those jobs by offering an amount that I think was something like $7 million for
a number of about 400 jobs, we would only go to the extent that our existing
programs do allow and would not get into that kind of bidding war; we
rightfully, I think, walked away from the table, saying to Purolator, sorry, we
are not prepared to get into that game.
He mentioned the others. We have not put a nickel into Unitel's establishment
here, which will create 400 jobs. We
have not put a nickel into Canada Post's establishment here, which will create
over a 100 new jobs. We have not put a
nickel into Canadian Pacific's establishment here, which I believe is forecast
to be something in the range of 210 jobs.
Those are ones in which we have made the case about the competitive
advantages of
So we know and understand completely
what the negative impacts are of going out and trying to convince people to
locate by virtue of putting a lot of money on the table to get the business to
relocate to
We are not going to be so pure as to
suggest that there are not relocation costs from time to time, that there are
not training costs from time to time and other legitimate things that come
under the Manitoba Industrial Opportunities Program that was set up under a New
Democratic administration and continues to be utilized by our administration
primarily utilizing repayable loans and other vehicles to ensure that we
maintain and enhance job opportunities here, but the tack that is taken by far
too many, regrettably, provinces in Canada of simply going out and upping the
ante to convince private corporations to locate here we do not believe is an
appropriate one.
Mr. Doer: Before I
ask a few questions, I never alleged that the problem was on the spending side‑‑
Mr. Filmon:
You did.
Mr. Doer: There
are two sides to a deficit. I talked
about the record‑high deficit when the government was talking about
controlling the deficit levels at the First Ministers' meeting.
Mr. Filmon:
You answered that. You said while
we were creating the highest deficit on record, implying that it was spending
that we were in the midst of creating.
Mr. Doer: The
problem with this government has been the economic performance under the
Premier. Last place, in 1991, is
continuing to trickle through the
If I said anything in my comments
that twigged the Premier to think it was on the spending side, I will say that
I believe it has always been on the revenue side, and I want to make that
clear. The last place performance in
1991 was one of the reasons why we declined so radically, as we saw the effects
of the economic policies trickling into the
Our revenues were down on personal
income tax, he is right. Why is personal after‑tax income gone from
eighth place in 1989‑‑it was a positive number‑‑ninth
place to 1990? When the federal
government released the after‑tax disposable income of families in 1991,
which were the last figures released, why was
I do not disagree with the
Premier. It is all on the revenue
side. Why is our population basically
stagnant? Two thousand to 3,000 people
more per year, when we used to have 8,000 to 9,000 per year in the 1980s. Why are people not moving to this
province? We have had the baby boom's
baby boom in the last couple of years and it still has only resulted in a
couple of extra thousand people per year.
Our out‑migration numbers, we
can go back and have that debate about how many years have happened, but the
magnitude of that is a serious problem.
Now some people say, well, that is great. If we have less people here, it is a better
place to live. That is one theory. I will take them to
Because equalization, yes, there was
a change in the calculation, but there was also a major flattening out of
Some of those items were below 1988
levels when he came into office, Madam Chairperson. Some of the areas like land transfer taxes, I
look back on new building starts in the 1987 year. New housing starts were 6,000, now we may get
to 2,000 this year. You go through all the factors and, yes, there is a
national recession, but why are we in last place in so many areas? Why are we in ninth place in so many
areas? Why are we in eighth place in so
many areas, only behind
Why are all these operations that
the Premier says, the so‑called independent operations, almost every one
of them‑‑I think the last time I looked, five out of six of the
forecasting agencies, after we were in last place in 1991, after we were below
the national average in 1992, why are we projected to be below the national
average in '93 and then again in '94? I
think only the Conference Board‑‑I will have to go back, but most
of them have us below the national average again, even the investment dealers
that the Premier quotes. So if being
below the national average is the goal, then the Premier is achieving it, but
if being at or above the national average is the goal of any government, which
I think it should be, then the government is not succeeding.
* (1530)
Of course, we are dealing with the
effects of that in the revenue items.
Whether it is sales tax, land transfer tax, corporate tax, which used to
be over $200 million and is now just barely around $100 million, equalization
which is also impacted by population, whether it is all these factors,
ironically, out of the so‑called private sector, we are down and down
more than, I would suggest, other provinces.
The Premier talks about the five‑year
performance. He and I could argue all
day long about '88‑89, and we are not going today because we have a lot
of other issues to deal with, but suffice it to say that the $900 million that
Romanow inherited in Saskatchewan after the Tories left office was quite a
different situation than Manitoba. Today
the Premier is showing a higher deficit than
Now I am not saying
I think
I want to ask some questions now,
and the Premier and I can rebut these issues, I guess, at Question Period. I am sure he is pulling out all kinds of
articles and quotes to make the statement.
I just want to say that I understand it was on the revenue side that the
deficit resulted in 862 last year.
The whole issue of federal‑provincial
relations is an area I want to start with.
How does the
Mr. Filmon: I
think that the member opposite, firstly, indicated something incorrectly. If he will go back and read any discussions
that we have had in the past and also the news release that was issued and all
of the information we put out when we set up the office, we did not say that it
was a federal‑provincial relations office. We did say that it was there to ensure that
They may be aware of this, that the
invitation to tender is in the paper today.
We were alerted to the fact by the
Mr. Doer:
Notwithstanding the competence of the people chosen‑‑I think
the individual running the office is very
Mr. Filmon: I
think the Leader of the Opposition should know that
We are doing it on a very, very low‑key
basis and on that basis we think that it can continue to be justified. It does provide a valuable source of being able
to track. I mentioned the example that
we were tipped off by the
Mr. Doer: Does the
Premier have any cost benefits of the procurement policy before and after the
This is business people talking to
us. I do not know whether it is accurate
or not. They feel that the bulk of the
procurement still goes to eastern
Mr. Filmon:
Madam Chairperson, we do not have five years of experience. It opened in the fall of '89. We perhaps have three and a half years of
experience.
* (1540)
I think it can be said that we have
not had any CF‑18s since we have had a presence in
Mr. Doer: I look
forward to those numbers.
The second question on federal‑provincial
relations has to do with the Core Area Agreement or the, I believe the Premier
used the term, development of
When I asked the Premier the
question the Friday before the Monday budget of Finance Minister Mazankowski,
the Premier indicated there were, quote, positive developments going on in the
negotiations. The last agreement of
course expired on April 1, 1991, or 24 months beyond that. We have extended the coverage where we are
just phasing out some of the spending decisions that of course were always
calculated to flow a couple of years later.
Can the Premier indicate the status
of those negotiations?
Mr. Filmon:
Madam Chairperson, the lead minister for that negotiation is of course
the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst). I can say the status is that negotiations are
ongoing. It appears as though it is a priority issue that the new lead minister
for
We were in a position, sometime ago,
to consummate an agreement with no new federal money in it. We did not think that was in
Mr. Doer: Are we
talking in the magnitude of the last agreement, $100 million cost shared three
ways? Is this the kind of magnitude we
are talking about?
Mr. Filmon:
We have been talking about a minimum of $75 million, with provision for
ancillary side agreements that might add to it.
I might say‑‑and this is
not a shot or a political statement‑‑the federal government argues
that in the renewal of the Core Area Initiative‑‑the member
opposite talks about how he was involved in negotiating of Core II. Of course, our predecessor Conservative
administration was there in the negotiation of Core I. The arguments that are put forward are that
in neither of those agreements was there new money, so to speak. It was always a reprofiling of existing
program money that had been previously committed. The federal government has argued that we
ought to be happy with that being done for the third Core agreement. We do not agree with that. That is what our position has been.
Mr. Doer: I think
that is always a problem when you are dealing with the federal government. We were particularly concerned that they were
double charging on training in other areas that they were responsible for. We were fairly confident on the projects like
The Forks that even they could not figure out a way to recalculate it a second
time on the waterfront proposals, et cetera, but, particularly in the
supplementary agreements, we always watched them. We were more concerned about their
supplementary agreements.
A couple of times, of course, I
think Mr. Duguay confirmed to us that the federal government had run out of
money in the summer of '87 under the old Western Diversification program. They had allocated it all before the last
federal election and some of that was not flowing to
We also had certain commitments we
made to the City of
With the City of
That last Core Area Agreement has
got some recognition from the public in terms of some of the capital
developments, the Exchange development, some infill housing, The Forks and the
river walkway program, but there are also priorities of the human kind, the
education and training.
I noted the former Minister of Urban
Affairs when he was a councillor I think received an award in
Will the priority be for the new
project to have an equal part of human priority such as education and training
with capital redevelopment?
Mr. Filmon: I
just want to say that probably the best example of double counting in the era
of the member opposite when they were negotiating an agreement was the Canada‑Manitoba
transportation agreement, in which almost the entire money was probably double
counted, most of which went to the airport, but these are things that
happen. That was in the New Democratic
era and we are trying to avoid that.
With response to his legitimate
question, there will be some elements of human resource development, we hope,
within a new or renewed Core Agreement.
Having said that, it is really up to the negotiated final package as to
what the proportion is vis‑a‑vis capital, vis‑a‑vis
human resource development.
Mr. Doer: Can the
Premier indicate the boundaries that the province is utilizing as their own boundaries
for negotiation of the‑‑is it a core agreement? Are there boundaries in this? The Premier used the term
Mr. Filmon:
We do not have a geographic area outlined. We have looked at it in terms of addressing
particular issues, some of which know no particular boundary, but we have
talked about the possibility of doing some work on the
I just pause at this point as I look
down at my staff to say that I know that both Leaders do know who the staff
members are, but I will just, for the sake of the record, introduce the Clerk
of the Executive Council, Mr. Don Leitch; the Deputy Minister of
Intergovernmental Relations, Mr. Jim Eldridge; the Principal Secretary,
Jonathan Scarth; and our Finance and Administration Officer, Karen Popp. I am sure that you know them from previous
meetings.
Mr. Doer: I even
had an opportunity to go to a celebration for one individual.
* (1550)
I mean, we talk about the aboriginal
issue, and there is a concentration in the UR II area of the city of
I am very worried because there have
been proposals before that have been cancelled, like the Winnipeg Education
Centre and other proposals that have been added, such as some business development
grants The business development grant
was great. It was a wonderful project,
but it was not as important, I would think, as the Winnipeg Education Centre
that was cancelled by the government, and that was just dealing with the last
agreement. Is there going to be some focus on the inner city and the inner‑city
challenges that we collectively have?
Mr. Filmon: I
think the member opposite is probably trying to avoid taking a direct political
sort of an approach on this, but we all remember, in the last Core Area
renewal, how Osborne Village was added because Mr. Axworthy represented it and
it was his baby, and how Provencher and that area of St. Boniface was added
because it was my old colleague from City Hall, Bob Bockstael's, area. I mean, we know how these things are
politicized. If he is trying to
anticipate how he might criticize us for politicizing this, I cannot help him,
because we are not looking at it in terms of political dimensions. We recognize that some areas might‑‑if
you were to take
I tend to think that if you are
looking at some things that involve, for instance, urban aboriginal strategy,
it would be more difficult to set boundaries around where that strategy would
apply.
Just in response to his question
about the Winnipeg Education Centre proposal, the main concern that our
administration had on it was that the primary investment was going to be in a
new building as opposed to creating a centre for that facility. The work of the Winnipeg Education Centre was
not necessarily going to be markedly improved by simply spending millions of
dollars on a new building in the core area, when there were much more
economical alternatives that would have allowed them to carry on their
programming in a very positive and effective way without just simply throwing
the money at a new building. That was
ultimately the conclusion that was derived by a number of analyses that were
looked at.
Mr. Doer: The
urban aboriginal strategy‑‑is there one, and is it part of the
negotiations that are going on with the
Mr. Filmon:
Part and parcel of a renewed Urban Development Agreement for Winnipeg
would be addressing what, I think, are pretty readily identifiable issues with
respect to urban aboriginal population; one being the tremendous increase as
aboriginals migrate off reserves to the city of Winnipeg. The increasing numbers are substantial.
I recall from a discussion in a
meeting not long ago that the figure was stated that one in four people
entering the workforce in
Mr. Doer: Does the
Premier have a 1993 strategy on urban aboriginal people? I know the description of the problem, the
demographic changes and the migration of some members of the aboriginal
community from remote communities to urban centres, et cetera. I know those descriptions are there.
I know that we have read a paper, I
think, it cost us about a quarter million dollars in '88 or '89, kind of
general‑‑I do not want to get the Premier to comment about the cost
benefit of that paper because I think it is not a very substantive
document. Do they have an updated 1993
urban aboriginal strategy that goes beyond just a description of the problem
but ways of addressing what will be a major, and is right now a major,
challenge in our province?
Mr. Filmon: I
suppose that people within the community, within the business community‑‑the
member opposite talked about, for instance, the banks and how they had trained
a number of people for entry level positions with the banks, who were
aboriginal in their heritage, under the Core Area Agreement.
I have met with recently our lead
bankers in Manitoba, from the Bank of Montreal, Royal Bank and CIBC, all of
whom have developed a strategy for increasing the number of aboriginal people
working in their banks and going up through the ranks through their various
training programs and developing their skills and abilities so that they can be
promoted and contribute substantially to the banks. They, here in
I met them and complimented them and
told them I thought that this was very appropriate. The whole area of training, education,
adjustment programming, all of those things, I think, are recognized as where
the money needs to be invested in urban aboriginal strategy, but in terms of
putting it in writing, I cannot say I have anything of that nature.
That does not mean to say that there
is not a sense that people are working on the right direction of creating role
models for our young aboriginal people.
Those role models are people who are obviously showing success in a
variety of fields, some of them professional, some of them artistic, some of
them semiprofessional and managerial jobs, and those things are happening. We believe that it is a process that we would
like to see accelerated, and the only way we are going to have it accelerated
is if we had some specific targeted money through something like an Urban
Development Agreement.
Mr. Doer: Yes, the
banks do have a strategy, and they are to be complimented on the urban
aboriginal training period. They took
the experience of the Core Area Agreement.
It was very successful. They
carried it on. They are continuing to
carry it on through community colleges, and hiring and the work of Charles
Coffey, previously, and now continued on by the banks subsequent to that is, I
think, very commendable.
* (1600)
But my question is more
fundamental. I understand what the banks
are doing and their strategy, and I think it is laudable. The question is: When the Premier sits down with his cabinet
in 1993 to look at the various population changes, the population challenges,
to look at the economic realities of those things, does he have a strategy
involved, or is it all, you know, the banks are doing this, we may do that, we
may have another agreement? Is there a
strategy developed beyond the general paper that cost us about a quarter
million dollars in 1988‑89 that the Premier is utilizing, and could he
table it if he has one?
Mr. Filmon: I
have said that there is not something informal written for him that can be
tabled. On the other hand, there is an
understanding that we have identified areas of endeavour that work.
One is a working with and
encouraging our major corporations.
Winnipeg 2000 is doing that. The
figure that I quoted about one in four comes out of Winnipeg 2000's analysis.
Many of the people involved, Kerry Hawkins, formerly Charlie Coffey, now
Denniece Leahey of the Royal Bank, are community leaders and leaders within
their sectors of the economy in bringing aboriginal people into their
employment systems and also in training them for future growth and development.
So it is not just a matter of saying
this is not enough. It is the best thing
we have got going. What we have to do is
encourage the things that are working well, try and add to them, increase their
effectiveness and, at the same time, recognize that underpinning all of this
has to be the commitment on our part to continue to identify opportunities for
training, for increasing their skills, ensuring that we are in some way helping
them in their adjustment as they come into the urban area perhaps lacking the
skills not only to compete but to cope with the changed environment that they
face. All of those kinds of things are
what government has to be alert to in providing.
We continue to fund the aboriginal
women's organization, the Indigenous Women's Collective. We continue to fund the Urban Aboriginal
Council, I believe it is called, so that they can be working in the community
and identifying opportunities.
In the final analysis there is going
to have to be, through something like the renewal of an Urban Development
Agreement, an allocation of resources to take us beyond what we can do at the
present time. That is why we see it as
an appropriate, major element of that agreement. Certain things were done in the other
agreements like the Chinatown redevelopment, like The Forks redevelopment, like
the
We believe that, in this case, if
there is going to be a capital focus, that
Mr. Doer: ACCESS‑‑a
couple of years ago when the federal government withdrew from ACCESS, the provincial
government, the Premier, when I asked him questions, talked about what a
serious mistake this was, how outrageous this was, the federal Conservatives to
withdraw from this program because of the cost benefit of these particular
programs and, of course, the success from these particular programs.
The Premier, in mentioning the areas
that they are negotiating with the federal government, did not include ACCESS.
Has the Premier discussed ACCESS with the Prime Minister when he met with the
Prime Minister in December of '92‑‑two questions here‑‑and
has he discussed this issue with the minister responsible for Manitoba, after
the resignation of Jake Epp in January '93, Charlie Mayer, in light of his
comments about the new positive relationship with the federal Conservatives?
Mr. Filmon:
We certainly did talk with the federal government at the time when they
withdrew their funding. We made the plea
to them that this was a continuing responsibility of the federal government in
this area and that investments in education and training and ensuring that
there were role models in all fields of endeavour‑‑medicine, law,
engineering, particularly in nontraditional areas like that, of course, our
commitment to nursing for aboriginal and northern residents and so on, bachelor
of nursing program. We made the case as
strongly as we possibly could. The
federal government did not respond in any positive way.
Now I think we are into a phase in
which we are trying to evaluate the effectiveness of it, because I think there
are some arguments that are being put forward‑‑I can use from
memory, and we are into an area in which, to be honest with you, if you want to
talk detail, you should be talking with the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey)
but, from the figures that I saw, there were concerns about the amount of money
that was put in.
For instance, for engineering
students and the number of graduates that turned out at the end or at least six
years later, we were dealing with a situation in which after five or six years,
there had not yet been an engineering graduate despite a very substantial
amount of money put in. I think that
amount of money may well have been in the millions, not just hundreds of
thousands of dollars, for not one graduate.
So if we are going to make the case
in terms of cost‑effectiveness, then we have to have a base that is a
statistical base that we can use to try and convince the federal government of
the value of the investment. At this
point, we absorbed what we could of the pulling out of the federal government,
and we have not been able to carry the load by ourselves. So we are faced with trying to target perhaps
a little better, to try and see where the dollars spent are paying better
results and, suffice it to say, that we know that there is a need for such
funding. It is a question of how much
can be justified and in what areas will it pay the best dividends.
Of the two who were just about to
graduate in engineering, neither of them were from
* (1610)
Mr. Doer: Yes, I
understand that the program for medical doctors, talking to people, doctors in
the North and doctors at the
I did hear of some greater
difficulty with engineers, and the Premier did note that, but do we have
similar data in terms of the success for people, because I think it is
important for the priorities that the Premier takes as Minister responsible for
Federal‑Provincial Relations negotiating these priorities.
He is the one who sits in the room
with the former Prime Minister, or the existing Prime Minister‑‑the
farewell tour is not completely over with, a Freudian slip‑‑and
will be sitting in the room with perhaps an interim Prime Minister or perhaps a
longer‑term Prime Minister‑‑the people will decide, which is
fine‑‑but will be sitting in the room with that person as Premier
of the province.
Is there other data that the Premier
is utilizing in terms of the successes of ACCESS, particularly in terms of the
role models we talked about and what that means for the dignity and the
economic pride of a community and of a people?
Mr. Filmon:
All I can say is that the broad overall problem that we want to try and
debate with the federal government and gain their support and understanding on
is the continual offloading onto the provinces of the responsibilities for
aboriginal people.
Whether it is in social services to
aboriginals living off the reserve or whether it is something like ACCESS which
is a program that is entirely targeted to aboriginal peoples to create of them
professional graduates and role models for the communities in the North, I
think that the greater debate that I want to get into is that of the federal
responsibility.
You know, we went through this last
year we were talking in constitutional terms.
That is why we were talking about self‑government in that whole
context that it is primarily‑‑well, at the moment the federal
government has the primary responsibility, and until anything changes, that
remains the case.
And here we are being asked to take
on some pretty big‑dollar items just bang, overnight, $17 million, $18
million worth of services to aboriginals living off reserve was transferred to
our budget in one stroke of the pen.
These things here add up in smaller numbers, but they are a million
here, a million there, and we just keep adding to the toll. That is the area in which I continue to make
the case with the federal government.
Unless we get them to the table
accepting responsibility that where we are dealing with aboriginal peoples they
should continue to bear a significant responsibility, we are not going to get
anywhere.
With respect to the stats on what is
happening in nursing, what is happening in medicine, what is happening in law
or social work or whatever, I would recommend that the member opposite go into
the Estimates of the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) which are going on
concurrently with us, and I would imagine that she has some pretty decent level
of statistics on it because I know that I obtained the statistics on
engineering because I was particularly interested from my own relations with
the Faculty of Engineering.
Mr. Doer: Yes, I
would agree with the Premier about the responsibility of the federal
government, and that is why we are raising it under federal‑provincial
relations because we concur with him that the federal government has walked
away from areas of their responsibility, has walked away from
We noted that the Premier did not
mention it as a priority for his negotiations with the new minister responsible
for
So we raise this issue with the
similar goal of the Premier. We agree with him that the federal government is
walking away from a number of their responsibilities, leaving it with
provinces, and then provinces must deal with it as they may, and ACCESS
programs are one of those and we believe that his discussions with the new
Prime Minister‑‑I am assuming we cannot budge the old Prime
Minister‑‑either this will be on the list, and this will be on the
list from the Premier.
So I would encourage him to‑‑[interjection]
Okay, sorry.
Mr. Filmon:
Can I just respond to that? When
we talked about the issue of ACCESS earlier, I did not say that it was on the
list for the Prime Minister. What was on
the list though was offloading of aboriginal program responsibility, in general
terms. I am almost certain that I used
as examples the services to aboriginals living off reserve and ACCESS as
examples of just the continuing erosion.
There is no question that that
remains because we have that list of more than a dozen items that we left with
the previous Prime Minister‑‑and in fairness, three or four of
those have already been stroked off.
Perhaps with this calling of tenders on the LCDC another one will be
stroked off. We are making progress and
we will certainly push that one.
I know that I have a stronger
position on that when I raise it in a global context because as hard as it is
on
I just in leaving‑‑a
little more information on the record before we go into what may be the next
question of the member opposite‑‑say that these are some of the
things that we have done with respect to initiatives in the field of education
and training for aboriginal people. It
is just a summary list. One is the
native education policy which is being developed in consultation with our
aboriginal community.
We are encouraging parent‑community
participation through workshops that focus on parents as partners in
educational decision‑making and community empowerment. We have a draft policy circulated for review
and revision this fall which is the draft native education policy.
The K to 12 curriculum guides are
being revised for the Cree, Ojibway and Dakota.
Native perspectives are being integrated into Core curricula. Aboriginal career awareness days are now
being provided, which is a new initiative.
A native student resource centre was opened at
Community‑based adult literacy
programs are being provided now for aboriginal people, and our government is
providing $3.5 million to school divisions to address the English language development
needs of native students this year. Our
department co‑sponsored the Thompson‑based native language
instruction certificate program in which there were 22 graduates in 1991, for
instance.
Our government is providing support
for Children of the Earth aboriginal high school which operated under the joint
governance of the Winnipeg School Division and the urban aboriginal advisory
council.
These are all initiatives that
admittedly more can and will be done but are an indication of some of the current
issues that are addressing that particular focus.
Mr. Doer: Well,
that leads me to my next question. Why
is the government cutting back on the enrollment of opportunities and their own
funding for New Careers which is primarily for aboriginal people?
Mr. Filmon: I
have to say, Madam Chairperson‑‑and I know that the members
opposite would like me to get into a whole range of discussions‑‑I
do not have the detail at my command on that, and I would encourage that
question be asked of the minister responsible.
Mr. Doer: It is
well known that in the 1978 period Sterling Lyon and Sid Spivak intervened when
there was a proposal to cut New Careers because of the benefit of it. There was a lot of confidence that the
Premier would intervene when the Department of Education was proposing to cut
it in this year's budget. He did not
intervene.
I was wondering why the government
allowed this cut to take place. As I
say, successive governments, successive Premiers from different political
stripes had rejected proposals from the Department of Education when they were
made. A lot of people were counting on
the Premier to say no to the cuts and were very disappointed.
* (1620)
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in the
Chair)
Mr. Filmon: I
do not think that question has been asked of the Minister of Education (Mrs.
Vodrey), and I know that the figures that have been bandied about were not
accurate as to the level of cuts. There
was a change of responsibility for programming, and the figure that was bandied
about of $1.6 million was totally inaccurate as I recall from the briefing
notes I have seen, but I do not have that information in front of me so I
cannot really address the question.
Mr. Doer: Well, we
cannot get the answer in the Department of Education Estimates either. Believe me, we have tried. We cannot get it at Question Period, and we
have been told by staff that it has been cut by the province, not just the
federal government. We have been told
that there is a net reduction in the ability of enrollees to enter, and we have
actually been told that there is less support by the existing Minister of
Education on this program than the former Minister of Education on New Careers. We do not know whether that is true or not,
but‑‑[interjection] Well, I say that in all sincerity, and that the
people were counting on the Premier to stop what people felt to be a very,
very, very unfair cut in this last set of Estimates.
What is the exact number, because we
cannot find out in the Department of Education and ultimately these cuts have
to go to the cabinet table and the Premier chairs cabinet?
Mr. Filmon: I
am sorry, Mr. Acting Chairperson, but we did not go on a line‑by‑line
basis through cabinet, so it did not come to the cabinet table in that form.
Mr. Doer: Can the
Premier tell us in what form it did come to the cabinet table? Why did the government accept the cut when it
has to be inconsistent with any policy dealing with Education and Training,
with any policy dealing with aboriginal role models that we talked about? Why are the banks proceeding in one direction
and why are we proceeding in the opposite?
Mr. Filmon:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, we are not proceeding in the opposite direction. The government, as I said, continues to
provide a myriad of educational opportunities for aboriginal students which
results then in these people with that quality and calibre and status of
education being good candidates to go into the banks' training program. So the two work together.
Mr. Doer: In past
Estimates processes the New Careers program, as we understand it, was not
offered up. Departments are asked to
come up with proposals, and ministers approve those proposals. In past Estimates processes this New Careers
program was not offered up. This year it
was.
Can the government tell us why they
accepted it this year in the cabinet, whatever format they accepted it on? I just think it is absolutely opposite to
what people believe the Premier would accept, quite frankly, and what people
believe is fair for aboriginal people in this whole area of education and
training.
Mr. Filmon:
Mr. Acting Chairperson, I repeat, cabinet did not deal with it. We did not deal in any way with the line‑by‑line
approval. That is the responsibility of
Treasury Board.
The member opposite held me
responsible for every decision of Treasury Board in previous years. I have not been there throughout this budget
cycle. I cannot tell him what was offered
up and what was not offered up. I was
not there.
The only way in which the results of
the Treasury Board review would come to cabinet would be through approval of
the minutes, globally, of the entire Estimates process. That is the only way in which it would come.
Mr. Doer: I was
just going to say‑‑but the Premier said it. The minutes from Treasury Board go to
cabinet. The Premier's staff briefs the
Premier obviously on the implications of the Treasury Board decisions.
Was there any analysis done of what
impact this would have for the Premier ultimately in the budget for purposes of
the aboriginal strategy that the government has in terms of the statements the
Premier has made about providing role models, providing dignity, providing
success? It seems to me this is in the
exact opposite direction, whether it is 1.6 or something less.
I know there is some controversy
about the Stevenson program‑‑or the aircraft program. I just want to know, where does the buck stop
here? Was it just the Minister of
Education? Was it the Treasury Board?
Certainly it goes to cabinet for approval. The minutes are approved. Why did it take place?
Mr. Filmon:
Firstly, the member opposite knows‑‑and I do not want to go
into a repetition of comments that have been made many times in this
House. That is every department had to
participate in the process of meeting deficit reduction targets. The member opposite pounds me over the head
about a 762 or 862 number and takes great glee in saying that we are much too
high and we are setting record deficits.
When we move to reduce those record deficits, he hits me again.
You cannot have it both ways. With all due respect, that is the luxury of
the irresponsibility of being in opposition.
You do not have to decide that anything needs to be reduced. You do not have to decide that anything needs
to be reduced from the vantage point of the Leader of the Opposition. We as a government have to decide whether or
not we are going to take the unacceptably record high, as he puts it, deficit
level and reduce it and reduce it dramatically and get it on a path towards a
balanced budget or whether we are not.
We made the decision well before he ever attacked us that we would.
Implicit in that is that every
department has to do with less resources, because you cannot take Health,
Education and Family Services, that collectively are two‑thirds of the
budget, and not touch them and achieve any targets. The Department of Education, the Department
of Health, the Department of Family Services put up as options a spending
reduction, options that would perhaps not have been considered in any previous
budgetary cycle, because this is the first time in the history of the province
that year over year we have actually reduced the program spending.
I might say that I read last week
that was the first time in the history of the province that year over year we
have actually reduced the program spending.
I might say that I read last week
that that was the first time in the history of the
(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)
I know that they are going to have
massive reductions in health care because, even though they are showing some
minor reductions today in health and in education and in social services, they
have a figure of $2 billion that is not allocated yet and most of it is going
to have to be allocated to the big spending areas for that so‑called
social contract reduction. So the real
reduction in spending in those departments is going to be considerably higher
as you allocate that $2 billion to each of those departments. They are going to be faced with seeing
numbers that are awesome in terms of their reduction in health and education,
family services or social service safety net.
That is what we are faced with. The decisions were made based on the priority
recommendations put forward by each of those departments and, believe me, none
of them were ones that I would choose to make.
That is exactly what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) said. We would not choose to make those reductions
to programs that have existed in some case for a decade or more, but the
alternative was to leave the deficit at an unacceptably high level, and we will
not do that. So that is why we are where
we are.
Mr. Doer: The
government did have to make choices and did have options. Can the Premier table today any financial
analysis of how New Careers fits into the federal‑provincial training
agreement they signed where unemployed people would be the No. 1 priority for
training dollars versus corporate training would not be the No. 1 training with
the $3.5‑million proposal that went up to $5 million under training in
terms of corporate grants. The Premier
says we are wrong in asking the question.
We are wrong, you know, in terms of the data.
We look at their own federal‑provincial
training agreement, which I am sure the Premier reviewed as Minister
responsible for Federal‑Provincial Relations. It clearly states unemployment should be the
No. 1 priority for training. It clearly
states that corporate training should be way down the list. Then we look in the Department of Education
and what they are saying is, the priority for their own retraining strategy
with the federal government seems to be the opposite of the tough choices they
made in the department‑‑$1.5‑increase million over here for
corporate training and a reduction‑‑the Premier says it is not
1.6, I would like to know what the
number is‑‑over there in terms of New Careers. Do we have any studies or anything to go on
except just instinct in the Chamber?
* (1630)
Mr. Filmon:
First and foremost, you know, the cost effectiveness of making a minor
contribution towards training investment in the private sector where we ay get
tens of thousands of people trained for a matter of $5 million versus a program
in which for $5 million we may be training a few hundred people at great, great
expense, obviously there is a huge difference there. We talked earlier about how much it has cost
so far to perhaps get two graduates in engineering, and the figure is in the
millions. So that is what you are talking about in terms of cost effectiveness.
Surely he is not suggesting that we
ought not to participate in the private sector training programs that see tens
of thousands of people trained for a matter of $5 million. There has to be room for both. I do not have the figures that he is talking
about. I do not have the responsibility
for that training agreement. That is
totally the responsibility of the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs.
Vodrey), and I just have to say to him that he will have to ask that question
of her. She is in her Estimates right
now.
Mr. Doer: I guess
we have to start with the issue of what is the goal of training. Is it to get people off dependency in the
long run, or is it to provide orientation sessions, many of which were
conducted by the private sector group itself?
We will just agree to disagree. I think the government is spending its money
in the wrong place. I believe that the
government should be spending its money on reducing dependency, on getting
people employed and getting people into long‑term careers. That is where our Education and Training
dollars should go, not going to companies that are responsible to some degree
for orientation and training themselves.
Most of us get trained on the job,
even MLAs get trained on the job. I
believe that we just have to agree to disagree.
We cannot get any numbers from the minister. We have not been able to yet. I do not know whether they have achieved any
success in getting numbers from the Minister of Education across the way on
this program. But we have tried it for
about 15 hours now, and we have not moved off line 2 in the Education
Estimates, and we are not getting anywhere.
I am going to move on. The Premier talked about the issue of the
changing population, the changing demographics.
How did the cutback to friendship centres fit with their federal‑provincial
strategy in dealing with the tremendous increase in aboriginal people in many
of our urban centres and the tremendous increase in population?
Mr. Filmon:
Well, I mean, it is an indication that, firstly, the primary
responsibility for the aboriginal people is in the federal jurisdiction. Where the federal government is obviously
offloading on us other responsibilities, we are saying that they ought to be
primarily responsible for a number of areas that we have been funding in the
past. You may use the Indian‑Metis
friendship centres as one of those examples; you may use the grant to the
Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs as another example.
When we are accepting offloading of
$17‑20 million in a variety of other areas, we are going to have to be
very circumspect in deciding where we spend our tax money. If it is in areas in which there is a primary
federal responsibility, we are going to say, okay, it is your responsibility,
you take that responsibility and you fund that responsibility because you are
transferring other things over to us.
Mr. Doer: Did you
negotiate this with the federal government or try to arrive at some
agreement? It seems to me that the
victims of this are the people themselves, the
Mr. Filmon:
Those discussions, if any, would be between the Minister responsible for
Family Services and his counterpart in
Mr. Doer: The
Premier mentioned "if any."
Were there any discussions prior to the decision being approved by the
Premier?
Mr. Filmon: I
repeat, the Premier did not approve that decision other than in the global
approval of the budgetary amounts that were allocated to the departments. Any individual line situation was not
something that was a matter of coming to the Premier's office or the cabinet
table. He would have to ask the minister
responsible for Family Services.
Mr. Doer: The
Premier is the Minister of Federal‑Provincial Relations. The Premier mentioned that this was a program
that they felt was more adequately funded by the federal government, and that
was one of the rationales, which is a different rationale than we heard earlier
that this was just an "advocacy body."
It seems to us that anybody in the
Federal‑Provincial Relations branch, whether it is the Ottawa office or
the Manitoba office‑‑did anybody discuss this with the federal
government before the things were just changed, because we have heard from
people who feel this is a front line service with a growing demographic change,
and more people, less resources? Was
there any discussion with anybody prior to the decision being made, or is it
just internal to the provincial government?
Mr. Filmon:
Madam Chairperson, there was not any one answer as to why all the various
reductions took place in grants. Some of
the answers were that if they were primarily an advocacy group or solely an
advocacy group, they were reduced.
Others were that if they happened to be in an area in which there was an
overlap of jurisdiction, where it was more appropriate that the federal
government do it or the civic government do it, there could be that element to
it.
In the area of, as I recall‑‑and
again, this is not in my Estimates area.
It is not in my area of expertise.
The member, if he really wants to have answers on this, should be
talking to the minister responsible for Family Services. In no case was this the lion's share of any
budget, the provincial allocation. There were a number of other sources of
revenue, of which the federal government was always a pretty major source of
revenue. So there continues to be funding for all of these Indian‑Metis
friendship centres.
It is a question of how they
allocate that funding and where they choose to make their cuts if they are
facing reduced funding. Then one would
see whether or not these areas that they are reducing are areas of lower
priority. One would assume that they
will make their reductions in terms of their operations based on what is the
lowest priority being the first thing that they reduce.
* (1640)
Mr. Doer: I want
to ask the question on the off‑reserve funding, the $15 million to $20
million. Can the Minister responsible
for Federal‑Provincial Relations indicate the status of that amount of
money and the status of negotiations in that area?
Mr. Filmon:
Madam Chairperson, we continue to push the federal government. We raise it as an issue every time there is
an analysis of federal‑provincial disagreements, disputes, irritants
between
Mr. Doer: Is there
any greater sensitivity for potentially new Prime Ministers who may be elected
in the next three weeks to this issue?
Is there any possibility that this is going to be a change in the status
of this issue with the change in the head of government?
Mr. Filmon:
Also add to it and say there is an extra $4 million for Child and Family
Services that was offloaded from the federal government to our province. So that makes a total of 21. In addition to that there was the offloading
with respect to ACCESS and other areas that will accumulate.
But is there a possibility of them
going back on it? That is a very
difficult one to say. I think in this
whole area of constitutional discussions in which we try and identify who has
got the major responsibility and try and ensure that those who have the
constitutional responsibility live up to that constitutional responsibility, it
will have to be one in which there is very, very strong pressure from all provincial
governments towards the federal government to try and make them move. I do not believe that
We hope that there may be something
that evolves from the federal government's aboriginal royal commission report
that might serve to strengthen our case.
It is going to take something as strong as that to help us in making the
case.
Mr. Doer: One of
the issues that the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) has talked about as a
federal issue has been the‑‑and I raise this with the Premier then
because it was moved over to federal‑provincial relations‑‑whole
treatment centre proposed by the MKO for northern Manitoba to deal with solvent
abuse, and clearly the Minister of Health has indicated in this Chamber that in
his opinion it was not a provincial health issue, it was a federal matter.
Has this issue been raised by the
Premier with the federal government, and can he advise us on the status of that
proposal?
Mr. Filmon:
Madam Chair, it has not been raised by me.
Mr. Doer: Has the
Minister of Health raised this with the Premier as a matter for the federal‑provincial
negotiations? Has this been raised as a
priority by the Minister of Health internally and now a priority for the
provincial government in dealing with federal‑provincial relations?
We have had questions in the House
for years. The Premier has raised the
issue. Has it been raised in the House
of Commons or not? I think this is an
issue for all of us.
On the one hand we have to deal with
economic dignity, social dignity in the communities. On the other hand, how is our best approach
to deal with abuse and programs of that nature, and I just asked what is the
status of it internally with the provincial government?
Mr. Filmon:
Since it is a matter that we believe very clearly is outside of the
jurisdiction of the provincial government, there is no internal status on
it. It is a matter between MKO, the
northern bands and the federal government, and I believe that they have made
their proposal directly to the federal government.
Mr. Doer: Given we
are dealing with citizens who are both located directly in aboriginal
communities affected by the federal government and dealing with people off
reserve that are dealing with the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey),
has the government considered this proposal at all?
The federal government will surely
rely on some advice from the provincial government on behalf of its
citizens. Is the provincial government
going to support this proposal? Is it
going to support it in a modified way? Can
the Premier (Mr. Filmon) add some oomph to this‑‑I guess you cannot
translate that in Hansard‑‑but add some strength to this proposal
for the people of northern
Mr. Filmon:
The proposal has never been before the provincial government. It went straight from the northern bands to
the federal government. It has not been
on our cabinet table to deal with.
We could go on looking at every
possible thing that happens in this province and put it at my doorstep and say
the Premier ought to be the one who goes and takes us on and becomes the
champion and take that issue, and that issue, and that issue. If we do that, I
obviously will not have time to do all the things I am expected to do as
Premier and Minister of Federal‑Provincial Relations, and Chairman of the
Executive Council, and Chairman of the Economic Development Board and so on.
We can go on and deal with all of
those issues, and you want to pick them out of everybody's portfolio and say,
this is my key issue in that area, and I want you to take it out of the
Minister of Health's hands, and I want you to take it out of the Minister of
Family Services' hands, and take this issue out of Education. But I do think
that we are getting a little far afield.
I am quite happy to sit here and talk all day, but we are really not
talking about things that come under this Premier's direct responsibility.
I am really unable to give the kind
of answers that the member is looking for because they simply are not under my
jurisdiction. [interjection]
Mr. Doer: Well, I
will see if I can accommodate the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.
Enns). I tried to do it in my late
question, but I could not get the Premier up on it. I did get him up on a point of order, I must
say.
I will review the answer the Minister
of Health (Mr. Orchard) gave in this Chamber when he described it as a, quote,
federal issue. They are our citizens,
and it is a huge, huge problem. We have, of course, introduced ourselves
private members' legislation way back in 1989, dealing with a little bit of the
issue. Certainly, the treatment centre
is dealing with part of the problem.
I am not going to raise every matter
in every portfolio with the Premier. I
will raise some of the ones that I think are important under federal
relations. This is this province and its
people.
Its citizens are very directly
impacted by the federal government, and this Premier is responsible for federal‑provincial
relations. That is why we pay the
Premier's staff the big money that we pay them and why they have had such a
long and illustrious career, because they have done a good job on behalf of
I am raising them for the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) not to say, not my job; I am raising it for the Premier to say, I
will make it a priority.
So I am not going to raise 150
issues, but I will raise some of them today.
I will leave the list, the MKO proposal.
I think a treatment centre for people involved with solvent abuse‑‑I
do not want to see Davis Inlets in
* (1650)
I say to the Premier, I would ask
him to reconsider his opinion. He
sometimes tells me I am off base and he sometimes tells me I am on base, but he
rarely tells me that it is not his job.
I would ask him to look at this.
I think it is his job. I think
under federal‑provincial relations, I would ask him to pursue this. If he has not looked at it from the Minister
of Health (Mr. Orchard), who was aware of the proposal, the Minister of Health
gave an answer in the House‑‑I will check back in Hansard, I will
write the Premier on it directly. I
think it will help to get his support if he believes it is a good program. If he does not believe it is a good program,
I believe it helps to find out why and to potentially revise it or deal with
some of the issues in it.
I want to move from there to the
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry. I know the Premier had questions in the Chamber
today on that, and I just want to deal with the federal‑provincial
relations part of it. I do not want to
deal with all 300 recommendations, but the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry is also
being dealt with by the federal government, and as I understand it, there are
federal‑provincial negotiations going on.
Which minister is responsible, the
lead minister for the AJI? When the
government had the joint press conference with the Minister of Northern and
Native Affairs, (Mr. Downey) the Deputy Premier; and the Minister of Justice
(Mr. McCrae), the government at that point announced that the Minister of
Native Affairs would chair a cabinet committee to look at the implementation of
the AJI. Today the Premier answered in
the House that the Minister of Justice was the lead minister. Who is the lead minister on this matter?
Mr. Filmon:
The lead minister throughout the AJI was the Minister of Justice. There was no question about it. Yes, there is a committee that is being
chaired by the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Downey) with respect
to certain elements of the implementation of that. He is responsible for all other aboriginal
issues and so he obviously has an interface.
There is, in addition to that, of
course, a responsibility which we have acknowledged that from time to time the Minister
of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) is involved, from time to time the
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) is involved with some of the
recommendations of the AJI, but the co‑ordinating, the lead
responsibility is still in the hands of the Minister of Justice, and he has
reported from time to time in this House about progress being made.
There was a Youth Court Initiative
that was announced that flows from the AJI recommendations. There were a number of things he has done
that flowed from the responsibilities or from the recommendations. We have, for two straight years, I believe,
allocated a million dollars for some of these programming areas for
implementation and much of it has been spent in these areas of implementing and
responding to AJI recommendations.
Mr. Doer: Many of
the recommendations of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry are germane to the
provincial government. In dealing with
their committee and their minister, can the Premier advise us of the status of
negotiations dealing with some of the recommendations dealing with the federal
government and the federal Department of Justice? Are they being actively discussed in the
federal government? Have they been
discussed between the Premier and the Prime Minister at his November meeting or
December meeting with the Prime Minister?
Will it be discussed with the new Prime Minister, who is‑‑both
of the leadership candidates, as I understand it, are planning to abolish the
Indian Affairs Department.
Where are these
recommendations? The Premier has met
with the former Minister of Justice, now Defence Minister. Where are these recommendations with the
provincial government and the federal government?
Mr. Filmon:
My understanding is that they are actively being discussed between the
federal and provincial Justice departments.
Mr. Doer: Can the
Premier indicate when we can expect a result of these discussions between the
provincial and federal government in terms of the recommendations affecting the
federal jurisdiction, and when will there be a tabling of the status of the
recommendations between the committee that is chaired by the minister and the
lead minister, the Justice minister and the recommendations being dealt with by
the federal government?
Mr. Filmon: I
can say firstly that I cannot give the member any indication as to when the
federal government might initiate any responses. I can say to him that there will not be any
all‑encompassing response to the report, because it is an ongoing thing.
There have been accelerated discussions
of co‑management of resources in the field of natural resources, for
instance. There is the Sagkeeng‑Sturgeon
Memorandum of Understanding. There is
the Split Lake First Nation settlement agreement. There are the discussions underway with
In the area of family services,
there is the Task Force on First Nations Child and Family services that will
examine the provision of Child and Family Services by First Nations agencies,
identify strengths and weaknesses of the current system and develop a plan of
action to improve the quality and management, governance of service to First Nations
children and families. That comes out of the AJI report.
There is the Service Appeal Panel,
the establishment of a panel which will receive and investigate complaints and
concerns regarding case mismanagement, process or the perceived conflict of
interest affecting the best interests of an aboriginal child.
There is the Quality Assurance
Program, the enhancement of the department's Quality Assurance Program that
will enable the increased monitoring and support of aboriginal Child and Family
Services agencies. There is the study of
Metis children on welfare jointly by the Manitoba Metis Federation and the
Department of Family Services undertaking a study to find out how many Metis
children are being cared for in the child welfare system so that enough culturally
appropriate services can be provided.
Under Northern and Native Affairs,
there is the ongoing tripartite process for Metis self‑government
issues. There is the northern fly‑in
sports camp funding; the pilot project for recreation directors in the north;
the Treaty Land Entitlement discussions underway between communities, the
province, the federal government.
There is the settlement of I believe
it is two Northern Flood Agreement band financial settlements and the prospect
of another two coming forth in the next year or so, so good progress being made
on that, a major, major concern of the AJI.
In the area of justice, some of the
areas that have been funded that come out of‑‑[interjection] Yes,
here we have the St. Theresa Point Youth Court, a $100,000 commitment there;
the Human Justice Training Program for Winnipeg, a $50,000 commitment; the
aboriginal court model consultation, $30,000 commitment; Hollow Water sexual
abuse project, $60,000 commitment.
In the courts area, Legal Aid has
been authorized to grant interim certificate over the phone in cases dealing
with aboriginals. They developed, in
conjunction with the Aboriginal Advisory group, a proposal for changing the
operation of circuit courts on a pilot project basis. The justice of the peace program is being
reviewed with a view to appointing native justices of the peace. That comes out of the AJI report as well.
In the corrections area, for
instance, elder services are available at all seven provincial correctional
institutions. There is an elders council that meets quarterly and consists of
elders from five institutions and the co‑ordinators of chaplaincy
services and inmate programs.
In the area of cross‑cultural
training, a native awareness training program has been revised and updated by
two officers of aboriginal ancestry. The
program is part of a basic training program for all recruits. Correctional officers who have not taken the
course in the past five years will be enrolled with a view to their completing
the course within the next two years.
Native advisory committees have
already been formed at Brandon and Dauphin.
We are attempting to create them for all other institutions. The Dakota Ojibway probation services agreement
has been extended for another year. The
community service orders fine option fee has been adjusted to reduce the
financial strain on organizations providing the supervision.
In the area of prosecutions, we have
implemented all the recommendations that are within provincial responsibility,
arising from the Harper and Osborne reports, including amendments to The
Fatality Inquiries Act and Law Enforcement Review Act, the review of provincial
policies regarding granting of immunity and retaining of independent counsel.
We have reviewed with the RCMP and
In the area of Women's Directorate,
there has been a development of the aboriginal women's policy in partnership
with the aboriginal women's community.
* (1700)
All of these come out of
recommendations from the AJI in all of these different areas of
government. So it is in fact an all‑encompassing
kind of thing as it was expected to be, and that is the kind of progress report
I can give, but each and every year, there will be more initiatives that come
forward.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., time for private
members' hour. Committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
PRIVATE MEMBERS'
BUSINESS
DEBATE ON SECOND
READINGS‑PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 200‑The Child
and Family Services Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill
200 (The Child and Family Services Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
services a l'enfant et a la famille), standing in the name of the honourable
member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans), who has one minute remaining, and
standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 202‑The
Residential Tenancies Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill
202 (The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la location
a usage d'habitation), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 203‑The
Health Care Records Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill
203 (The Health Care Records Act; Loi sur les dossiers medicaux), standing in
the name of the honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 205‑The
Ombudsman Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill
205 (The Ombudsman Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'ombudsman),
standing in the name of the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 208‑The
Workers Compensation Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill
208 (The Workers Compensation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
accidents du travail), standing in the name of the honourable member for Niakwa
(Mr. Reimer).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
SECOND READINGS‑PUBLIC
BILLS
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready to proceed with second
reading of public bills? Bill 209?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Bill 211?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Bill 212?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Bill 214?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Bill 216?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 26‑Aboriginal
Justice Inquiry
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for
WHEREAS the Aboriginal Justice
Inquiry found that the justice system has failed
WHEREAS the AJI report released on
August 29, 1991, is the most comprehensive study of the justice system ever
done in this country; and
WHEREAS the AJI report made 306 recommendations
and only a tiny fraction of them have been acted upon by the provincial
government; and
WHEREAS the provincial government
has refused to release their studies and analyses of the recommendations; and
WHEREAS the provincial government
has also refused to release an action plan for implementing the recommendations
of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request the provincial government to release
all studies and analyses of each of the recommendations of the AJI report; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this
Assembly request that the provincial government consider immediately commencing
work with aboriginal organizations to implement the recommendations of the
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this
Assembly request that the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) release publicly an
action plan for the government on implementing the recommendations of the AJI.
Motion presented.
Mr. Lathlin:
Madam Deputy Speaker, the resolution which we have just put forth today
deals with an issue that is crucially important to the future well‑being
of aboriginal people, and I think that it should also be just as important to
this government here today. The issue,
of course, is one of justice, justice for First Nations and Metis peoples.
Manitobans have spoken strongly of
the necessity of rectifying the generations of injustice suffered by aboriginal
peoples. Madam Deputy Speaker, almost
two years ago the government of
Few governments have enjoyed such an
unequivocal direction from their constituents.
The people of
Two years later, I find myself
bitterly disappointed and outraged at a government so contemptuous of the
public. This is a government committed
to doing as little as possible. For the
benefit of the members here today, I want to review what has happened with the
report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry.
It is a shameful story, not only because the government has failed to
act, but because of the tactics that they have used to dodge their
responsibility. When called upon to see
that justice is done for aboriginal people, this government's response has been
to mount an attack on the institutions and leaders that give a voice to those
suffering injustice, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Is this what Manitobans wanted? The answer, of course, is no, that is not
what Manitobans wanted.
The story begins a full six months
after the release of the Report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, with the
government's first response to the report.
I say, Madam Deputy Speaker, first response. I might as well also say that was the last
response in terms of what has happened since then. The response was a policy position on
implementation which could not be acceptable to aboriginal people. It was a policy that the government has
firmly adhered to ever since, a cynical strategy to ensure inaction on the most
comprehensive study of the justice system and aboriginal peoples ever done in
this country.
* (1710)
Aboriginal leaders were united in
their outrage, but as months went by and dust started to collect on the
inquiry's report, leaders of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the Manitoba
Metis Federation repeatedly sought some compromise, some way to meaningfully
participate in the implementation process. The inquiry was simply too
invaluable. It could not be allowed just
to die.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there were
meetings with the Premier and cabinet, proposals, rejections, further
compromises were made, some further rejections were made. Aboriginal leaders know that involving their
people in the reform of the justice system is not a simple or cost‑free
undertaking. They need resources if
their participation is to be meaningful, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The government's response was: First, fanning the fires of the residual
racism by portraying aboriginal leaders as simply being greedy and
irresponsible; secondly, yanking the funding and thus silencing the voice of
dissent‑‑some $325,000 was slashed from the Assembly of Manitoba
Chiefs' budget; thirdly, finally, to just let the issue quietly disappear.
I am told that this government's
smug complacency on the AJI is now so entrenched that they have not even
responded to a February 23 urgent request to meet jointly with the Assembly of
Manitoba Chiefs, the Manitoba Metis Federation and the Indigenous Women's
Collective. These are the leaders of the
aboriginal peoples which our Premier has acknowledged that they have the
inherent right to govern themselves. We,
on this side, are appalled and, quite frankly, embarrassed by the government's
inability and unwillingness to act on the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry. I for one am not content to sit in this
Assembly and allow this kind of injustice to go on and on, Madam Deputy
Speaker. The report of the Aboriginal
Justice Inquiry is a great resource for
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, we must
not let this opportunity slip through our fingers. It is too important for us to do that. As members of the Legislature, we must uphold
the honour of this House and respect the government institutions that are there
at the First Nations and the Metis people's level.
Thank you for listening to me.
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern Affairs,
responsible for Native Affairs): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to respond to the resolution
presented by the member for The Pas, representing the New Democratic Party.
I may say at the outset, I noted the
questions in Question Period today from the member and also the comments made
by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) during the debate of the Premier's
department, the Executive Council. I
guess the question that the Leader of the Opposition had to the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) as to whose responsibility it was, that being the AJI or the response
to the AJI, I think it clearly is noted by the fact the resolution is directed
at the Attorney General's office that there is an understanding by the New
Democratic Party that it is the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) who has been
handling the detailed response as it relates to the activities of the AJI and
the recommendations.
Just a little bit of history, and I
will say at the outset, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like notification some
four to five minutes prior to the conclusion of my remarks so that I can in
fact amend the resolution put forward by the member for The Pas, and I would
like ample time make sure that is done.
I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, at
the outset, we should be clear as to the work that the AJI was challenged with,
and that of course their report was to detail the tragic circumstances of the
deaths of Helen Betty Osborne and J.J. Harper.
The fact that they did find mistakes, and there were difficulties within
the justice system in both cases, the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) assures
us by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Winnipeg City Police Department
that they have reviewed their practices and changes have been made in line with
the commission's recommendations. I say
that at the outset.
Changes have also been undertaken in
the Crown's office to implement many of the recommendations made by the
commissioners. Let me say as well that the commission went far broader in the
work that they carried out, far more time and detail in a lot broader range of
recommendation. Something that, quite
frankly, I say at the outset, they were not requested to do, but took on more
work as they saw fit.
So let us remember the objective was
to deal with the handling of the tragic situation of the Helen Betty Osborne
case and the J.J. Harper incident and they are both very unfortunate
situations. That is what the job of the
AJI was commissioned to do; however, they went far and beyond that.
The resolution put forward by the
member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) today addresses the AJI and the government's
response to it. I must strongly object
to this resolution on a number of grounds.
First, the resolution states: WHEREAS the AJI report made 306 recommendations
and only a tiny fraction of them have been acted upon by the provincial
government.
In fact, the AJI report contained
335 recommendations: 293 in Volume 1,
and 42 in Volume 2. Only 107
recommendations fell within the provincial responsibility. Over a half are outside of our pure
provincial responsibility, a large number are within the mandate of
Again, one could talk for a while on
the constitutional change that was rejected, which I think would have shown
progress. Again, we, this House,
supported the change, but again rejected by the people of
Second, the resolution states: WHEREAS the provincial government has refused
to release their studies and analyses of the recommendations.
Let me speak to that, Madam Deputy
Speaker. Our government has indicated
that recommendations and the report would be discussed in the proposed AJI
working groups. The working groups
represent a forum in which aboriginal concerns, recommendations and advice can
be communicated directly to the government.
It is also a forum in which the impact of reform stemming from the AJI
can be gauged by the people most affected by the initiative‑‑aboriginal
Manitobans.
Thirdly, Resolution 26 states: WHEREAS the provincial government has also
refused to release an action plan for implementing the recommendations of the
Aboriginal Justice report.
After reviewing the 293
recommendations contained in this report, myself as the Minister of Northern
and Native Affairs, the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), announced the
government's response to the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry on January 28. Working
groups, central to the government's strategy for change, was the establishment
of four working groups in the area of Northern and Native affairs, Natural
Resources, Family Services, and Justice.
Due to the large number of
recommendations for change to the justice system, we also announced the
formation of three subcommittees on police, courts and corrections which will
report to the main justice working group.
These groups consisting of both government and aboriginal
representatives have the mandates to review, evaluate and prioritize all
recommendations accepted by government; study areas where viable and proven
models are known to exist and build upon them; and recommend specific pilot
projects in untested areas.
* (1720)
Leaders of the Indigenous Women's
Collective, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, the Manitoba Metis Federation and
the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg were invited to identify their
representatives to participate in the working groups. The government of
The aboriginal leaders in
We agreed that aboriginal and
government personnel would co‑chair the working groups and
subcommittees. Furthermore, the
government offered to pay per diems to aboriginal officials attending working
groups meeting on behalf of the agencies.
I will summarize the working groups'
comments, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I would submit that the proposed
working groups, their mandate and agreement to the aboriginal government co‑chairs
and the agreement to fund the participation of aboriginal officials represents
an action plan that was not only made public over a year ago but which is
sufficiently detailed to ensure clear understanding by all Manitobans.
A fourth part of the resolution
states, be it further resolved that the provincial government consider
immediately commencing work with aboriginal organizations to implement the
recommendations of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government
has been carrying out consultations and work in numerous areas and directly or
indirectly addressing recommendations contained in the AJI. This work was begun well before the AJI was
submitted and continues to this day.
The work and the consultations
include a response to an initiative brought forward by the Aboriginal Court
Worker Advisory Committee, which consists of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs,
the Manitoba Metis Federation, the Indigenous Women's Collective, the
Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg and the Manitoba Association of Friendship
Centres.
Manitoba Justice began extensive
consultations in December with provincial aboriginal leaders, tribal councils,
Metis locals, community members, elders and senators to introduce, receive and
feed back the aboriginal court model.
This initiative was begun prior to the report of the Aboriginal Justice
Inquiry. If implemented, the court model
will greatly enhance services to aboriginal members.
The entire initiative is based on
local involvement in the resolution of cases that normally would be subject to
hearings conducted by a circuit court.
It is our hope that through the appointment of local magistrates and
other justice officials and their activities it will be adjudicated and
resolved in the language of the participants.
Disposition will reflect the culture and community standards and hearings
will be better understood by participants and the communities.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is our
intention to augment the court model with the appointment of magistrates in
numerous aboriginal communities throughout all regions of the province.
I will proceed to move rather
quickly so that I may conclude with the amendment to the resolution.
As well, of course, there has been
additional work with the DOTA police, a police cadet program within the
aboriginal community, corrections, new and enhanced correctional services
including elder services. Many of these
the Premier commented on earlier in the Estimates process which he was in.
The province has also established a
million‑dollar fund for the second year to support new and innovative
aboriginal justice projects, the St. Theresa Point Youth Court program, a
hundred thousand dollars over two years; Hollow Water community holistic circle
healing, some $60,000 bridge financing for a three‑year pilot project;
Island Lake family violence program for some $18,000; aboriginal spouse abuse
intervention training; cross cultural awareness; northern distance bail
hearings; Southeast tribal council workshop on family violence. These represent many areas in which the
government has participated.
In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker,
the government of
Madam Deputy Speaker, while I am
disappointed that the invited aboriginal groups have not accepted our offer,
this has not stopped the government from working and consulting with aboriginal
communities and their local regional leaders to improve justice services. The government of
I, therefore, Madam Deputy Speaker,
would like to move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst), that
Resolution 26 be amended by deleting all the words following the first WHEREAS
and replacing them with the following:
The Aboriginal Justice Inquiry found
that the justice system has failed
WHEREAS the provincial government
issued its response to the report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry on January
28, 1992, with the proposed initiatives in the areas of policing, courts,
corrections and other justice services, as well as Family Services, Natural
Resources and Northern and Native Affairs; and
WHEREAS the provincial government
announced the creation of four working groups to deal with the recommendations
of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry;
WHEREAS the provincial government met
with and invited officials from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, the Manitoba
Metis Federation, the Indigenous Women's Collective and the Aboriginal Council
of Winnipeg to participate on the working groups to 1) advise to the review,
evaluate and prioritize all the recommendations accepted by the government; 2)
study areas where viable and proven models are known to exist and build upon
them; and, 3) recommend specific pilot projects;
WHEREAS the provincial government
has worked and consulted with the individual aboriginal communities and leaders
to improve police, court and correctional services.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this
Assembly encourage the provincial government to continue its consultation and
work with aboriginal communities to improve the administration of justice for
all Manitobans.
Motion presented.
Mr. Downey:
Madam
Deputy Speaker, I believe, as well, in concluding my remarks on this debate,
that it is extremely important that we continue to work as has been led by this
Premier (Mr. Filmon) and this government the opportunity for educational, for
preventative mechanisms to be put in place so that our aboriginal people, young
people particularly, do not find themselves having to fall into the justice and
the corrections system to get on with their way of lives, that there are other
ways. I think it is up to us
collectively to work to give those individuals the kind of support and strength
that they need.
I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker,
for this opportunity to speak on this matter.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I have reviewed the amendment, and it
complies with the rules and practices of the House.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second
Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak on this
resolution, and I wish I was speaking on the original resolution rather than on
the amendment, because I think the original resolution expresses the
frustration of our aboriginal people to the lack of response of this government
to the AJI. What we have experienced in
the
What we have experienced is a group
of people, our first peoples, who tragically and unfortunately, and as
identified so clearly by the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, represent a
disproportionate number of people in the penal institutions of our society and
particularly in this province. When we
examine, as did the AJI report, why there has been what can only be defined as
systemic discrimination against our aboriginal people, we know that many
factors are at play here. Some of the
factors are, quite frankly, a lack of understanding on the part of many
aboriginal peoples of how the justice system even works, and that is why there
was a call for making the justice system more responsive to their understanding
of what basic and essential justice was all about, because basic and essential
justice was not being received by aboriginal peoples.
* (1730)
I was somewhat amused at the final
comments by the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Downey) in his
amendment which, like every other amendment which the government seeks to
introduce on a private members' resolution, attempts to congratulate the
government. He said, we have to look at
some of the more root, fundamental causes so that we can enter a prevention
mode. This is exactly the government
that has cut programs which would enhance the educational opportunities of
aboriginal people in the
So if the Minister of Northern and
Native Affairs is really sincere about encouraging the kind of educational
opportunities necessary so aboriginal peoples would understand the justice
system as it now exists, then he had better talk to the Minister of Education
(Mrs. Vodrey) because she does not seem to understand that. If he believes that there has been genuine
consultation with aboriginal peoples, then I would ask him to ask the
aboriginal people why they do not feel there has been that genuine forum of
consultation. I would ask, if he really
and sincerely believes that young aboriginal people have to be taught how to
work within the community that exists, why did he and his government choose to
completely, not partially, not by a small percentage, but totally and
completely, eliminate all funding to Indian and Metis friendship centres in the
province of Manitoba in one quick stroke of the pen in the last budget.
What we know exists in the province
of Manitoba and which the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Downey)
knows exists in the province of Manitoba is a situation in which far too many
aboriginal people, beginning with young people and moving through all age
areas, find themselves in the penal institutions of this province. They find themselves in violation of the law,
that their sentencing frequently reflects far higher terms of service in penal
institutions than the same sentence given to white men and women. That we know is fact.
It was clearly depicted within the
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry report, and it still very much exists that there is
blatant discrimination against aboriginal people. The government has done nothing to change
that. There has been no changing in the
sentencing processes that exist in the province and, tragically, we are no
closer to an aboriginal justice system in the
The minister says, and in the one
area that he is correct, that much of the change requires participation of not
only the provincial government but also the federal government. But I have not been able to identify a single
instance in which the provincial government has gone to the federal government
and said this is a particular model we would like to try on an experimental
basis in the
We know that you cannot change an
entire justice system overnight. Nobody
is asking that. Even the aboriginal
community is not asking that, but they are asking, and in fact they asked in
such eloquent terms in this report, for an opportunity to try some things in
new and innovative ways and to see if we cannot make them work. We do not even seem to be able to come up
with a reasonable policy in the area of natural resources and a recognition of
hunting, fishing and trapping rights which were recognized under the treaties
and which have been blatantly ignored by the Province of Manitoba and other
provinces across the country, and for which there has to be a change in
attitude and policy so that those recognitions of those rights are truly and
legitimately recognized through the province of Manitoba. But that is not
happening.
What kinds of changes are we seeing
so that an aboriginal young person who finds himself or herself before the
courts for the first time is given some help to relate to that court in an
appropriate fashion? Many young people,
not just aboriginal young people, but many young people are frightened of the
court system. They do not understand
it. They are easily intimidated. Well, if they are easily intimidated when
they have grown and been raised in a white culture, can you imagine how
intimidated they must be in a nonwhite culture.
I remember frequently saying to my
students, if you are stopped by the police you are polite, you are excessively
polite. You give them your name, you
give them your address, you give them your telephone number, and you shut
up. You do not tell them any other
things because as soon as you do, you lose your rights. You are always polite and you give them the
basic information they require, but you do not give them any more information
until you have legal counsel.
How does an aboriginal child feel
when they are taken into a system for which they have no background, no
understanding, and what are we doing about that?
I would suggest to you that we are
doing nothing, Madam Deputy Speaker. We
are doing nothing to ensure that their rights are adequately protected and, as
a result, they often give up those rights before anyone has had the opportunity
to teach them that their rights are as valid and as correct as the rights of
anybody else.
I read just over this weekend that
the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) is finally reviewing some words expressed
by a judge in the province of Manitoba, and thank goodness for that, but we
have been calling for training of our justices, not only on women's issues but
on aboriginal issues, and that training is not taking place.
We have not seen that kind of cross‑cultural
training. We cannot even get that kind
of cross‑cultural training within the Legislature for members of this
Chamber, let alone to have it take place across the body politic.
So here we are with a report which
cost us a great deal of money, bound and full of wonderful recommendations,
that sits on a shelf gathering dust and nobody does anything.
The member for The Pas (Mr.
Lathlin), who is himself a member of the aboriginal community and who was once
a chief and who understands full well the impact of much of this directly in a
way that I could never understand it, stands up in this House and says, this
work is not being done, my people are not being served, and the government's
reaction to that is to amend his resolution.
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, it
simply is not good enough. It is not
good enough when we know that our aboriginal people still are the most
discriminated people in the
They do not have, for the most part,
opportunities to have dignity, because they cannot get employed. There are no job opportunities for them in
most reserve communities in the
They are discriminated against in
the courts. They are even discriminated
against in health care service, because how else can one explain that they
still have the highest mortality rate, that they live shorter times on this
earth than the rest of us live?
They are discriminated in terms of
education, because how else does one explain that they have the highest dropout
rate of any group within our society?
We talk about a 23 or 27 percent dropout rate and we cannot get the Minister
of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) to tell us which figure she happens to think it is.
We talk about a dropout rate among
aboriginal communities of 35 and 40 percent.
That is the kind of discrimination that exists out here.
When commissioners Hamilton and
Sinclair prepared this report, they did not talk just about the justice system,
although that was their primary purpose.
What they did was that they recognized that the justice system is merely
a reflection of the entire society and how we respond to people in terms of the
justice that they get is a reflection of the way society treats those people in
general. The way in which the
* (1740)
Has this government done
anything? Yes, there are a few pilot
projects, very few. There have been a
few new services available in some of the provincial penal institutions that
can make some of the residents there feel a bit more as if the system was
culturally sensitive, but very small, very minor, insignificant changes.
The minister points to the fact that
he thought that the constitutional proposals last summer would dramatically
change that. There is only one problem
with that. The aboriginal people
themselves indicated that it was woefully inadequate, that it did not recognize
their needs, and far more damaging, seemed to be stepping all over their
treaties, the treaties that they believe recognize the fiduciary relationship
with the federal government. Yet they
are being asked, and they were being asked, in my opinion, back in October of
1992, to buy a pig in a poke, and they were not prepared to do that.
They asked for time; they were
denied time. They asked for opinions;
they were denied opinions. So why should
it surprise anybody that the aboriginal people rejected it, because they said
it did not serve them well?
We cannot expect our aboriginal
people, quite frankly, to trust very much that is provided to them by white
society. They want to be involved at the
moment that a new system is in its evolutionary period. Many of them are even‑‑and I am
sure that the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) would agree‑‑fearful
of self‑government, fearful because they do not know what it means to
them. They do not know if it will mean a
better way of life for them.
I believe it will, but only the
aboriginal people themselves can ultimately decide whether it is in their best
interests, not me, not a member of the white culture can make that decision for
them. Only aboriginal people can make
that decision as to whether they want to trade one system, which is obviously
not working, for another system which they also may think does not work to
their advantage. At least they feel they
have now some protection. So while I
would have been delighted to have supported the member for The Pas' (Mr.
Lathlin) resolution today, I cannot accept the minister's self patting on the
back of this government because it has failed miserably to answer the
requirements of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry.
Mr. Lathlin: Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak further
on the resolution, particularly to the amendments that were put forth by the
Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Downey).
I want to advise the minister. He seems to have great difficulty with the
way the inquiry was conducted, especially the scope of the inquiry, Madam
Deputy Speaker. I would just like to
remind the minister‑‑[interjection] Yes, he did. Yes, he did.
I would like to remind the minister
that it was an act of this Legislature that finally got the inquiry going some
time ago now. I would just like to read
to the minister, for the record, Bill 28, An Act to Establish and Validate the
Public Inquiry into the Administration of Justice and Aboriginal People, and
the scope of inquiry says: "The
commissioners shall investigate, report and make recommendations to the
Minister of Justice on the relationship between the administration of justice
and Aboriginal peoples of Manitoba, guided by but not limited to the terms of
reference set out in the Schedule."
I would like to, if I could, table this document, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The other thing that I wanted to say
was the response by the minister to the resolution and the way that he has
amended the resolution, virtually rendering it, in my view, useless, because
what the amendments in fact do‑‑Madam Deputy Speaker, they are self‑congratulatory. The minister is trying to congratulate the
government, for having done what?‑‑in terms of implementing the
recommendations.
The minister talks about these
projects that his government has been involved in. Yes, there are some projects that are going
on right now, being funded by the provincial government, but I would also say
that those projects that are being operated by various First Nations
communities came to happen as a result of much pressure and lobbying on the
part of those groups.
I remember particularly the
Point of Order
Mr. Downey: Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologize for
interrupting the member's comments. I
wonder if he would submit to a question.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Native
Affairs have leave to pose a question to the honourable member for The
Pas? No?
No.
* * *
Mr. Lathlin: Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not want to stay on
that area too long. I just want to say
about the protests that are going on right now, I wonder what would have
happened if there had not been that support from the communities, lobbying and pressure
put on the government by those various groups.
I wonder what would have happened if the pressure and lobbying had not
been there by those groups.
The court model that the minister
talks about is not an aboriginal court, but it is a proposal for reform of the
existing circuit court system that is there now. It has merit, and there is community
interest. However, there are concerns
that are being put forth by the aboriginal community. That has to do with the involvement that the
aboriginal community, the First Nations had on the original development of the
concept through the Aboriginal Court Worker Advisory Committee. The aboriginal groups have been more or less
shut out since the Justice ministry took it on as a pet project.
The government has undertaken direct
consultation with some communities and is now dealing with the court model
through an internal committee of
* (1750)
So the minister can go on and on, I
guess, and congratulate himself on the tinkering that has been done on the part
of the government on the justice system as it relates to aboriginal people here
in Manitoba, but the fact of the matter is, Madam Deputy Speaker, the situation
is still the same today as it was when we started to request for an inquiry
into the two specific cases that the minister referred to earlier, the Osborne
and the J.J. Harper cases. The situation,
I am afraid, has not changed. The government may say all it wants to this
Chamber here and to the people that they are doing as much as they can, but in
our estimation, very little has been done, and that does not make it right.
The minister also talks about the
internal working group. The internal working group has not been able to work
with the aboriginal representatives here in
So what I am saying is, I am not
supporting the amendment. The amendment really, as I said before, renders the original
thrust of the resolution as being virtually ineffective. According to what I
have seen here thus far as to how resolutions are dealt with, Madam Deputy
Speaker, I am not surprised really at the kinds of amendments that the minister
has put forth this afternoon, because those amendments clearly reflect the
attitude of the government and its members as far as aboriginal people are
concerned.
So, again, I would like to thank you
once again for listening to me, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
That is too bad, Madam Deputy
Speaker, because the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry is a remarkable piece of
work. It took years to put
together. Over 1,000 people were
interviewed, two extremely competent and capable jurists in this province were
the chief investigators for this document, and these recommendations, whether
there are 293 of them or 400 of them or whatever the actual number of these
recommendations are, are a marvelous guide to action.
Instead of action, this government
has done what they have done with every other major piece of work that has been
done at their instigation and before that.
They have ignored it, they have said that it is not perfect, it needs
more work, it needs working groups, it needs more study, it needs everything
but actual action on the resolutions.
We should not, Madam Deputy Speaker,
have been surprised at what has not happened over the last year and a half
actually if you look back at what the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) said on
January 28 when he announced the government's response to the AJI.
Actually it was August 29, 1991,
when he released it to the public that the Minister of Justice said, and this
was not in his comments releasing it but on the radio station the next morning,
that the AJI was simply the report of two men.
Right there we see the revisionist history beginning its work. This was not just a report of two men, and
everyone in this Chamber and everyone who participated in the work of the
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry knows that it is accurate, knows that it is far more
than the work of two men.
For the Minister of Justice to begin
the analysis, if you will, of this report by saying it was only the report of two
men shows the disdain with which this government deals with issues that deal
with the aboriginal community.
Not only that, he stated again just
two weeks after he had received the report, governments are not going to accept
everything in this report and that the final report goes beyond its mandate,
yet again. The Minister of Native and
Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) in his discussion this afternoon has made that
same comment, and we have put on record, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the scope
of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry allowed for expansion beyond the Helen Betty
Osborne and J.J. Harper instances, and this government is deliberately
misinterpreting the scope of the AJI and trying to trivialize it. So from the very beginning, we have seen the
stonewalling that this government has undertaken in regard to the Aboriginal
Justice Inquiry.
A year after the inquiry had been
announced, the Minister of Native and Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) said, and I
quote: In those areas that are within
our jurisdiction, we will proceed to implement aggressively as both resources
and human capabilities allow us to do so.
This is not going to be a doorstop in someone's office.
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to
differ with the Minister of Native and Northern Affairs. It is a doorstop. It is a thousand pages of a thousand
interviews, years of work, $3 million, and it is a doorstop. This government is doing nothing to implement
this report. Again, the Minister of
Native and Northern Affairs said at the year anniversary of the AJI report, and
I quote: We will be judged by time as it
goes on.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government
will be judged. Again quoting the
minister: But once again, one year after
receiving such a substantive document, it is a little much to expect miracles
to take place.
No one in this Chamber, no one who
had any input in the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry expected miracles. What they did expect was some action, some
legitimate, concrete action that said to the community, we believe that the aboriginal
community has been done a huge disservice by the nonaboriginal community for
hundreds of years and we are bound and determined to begin to make restitution.
This government has done not only
nothing to make restitution, Madam Deputy Speaker, it has caused the aboriginal
community untold grief in its five‑plus years in power, untold
grief. One can only use the words of the
Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Downey) when he said in this
House, they voted wrong. They will not
vote wrong again, you can guarantee that.
I would like to conclude my remarks,
Madam Deputy Speaker, with the end of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry in its
conclusion and I quote: "To fail to
take every step needed to redress this lingering injustice will continue to
bring tragedy and suffering to Aboriginal people, and to blacken our country's
name throughout the world. By acting
now, governments can give positive expression to the public support and good
will we have encountered from Manitobans during the past three years."
Madam Deputy Speaker, I only wish
that the government had acted now in a positive manner, but the government has
acted by not acting, by stonewalling, by trivializing the recommendations in
this report by saying it is somebody else's business, they have put an‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hour being 6 p.m., I am interrupting the
proceedings. When this matter is again
before the House, the honourable member for
I am leaving the Chair with the
understanding that the House will reconvene at 8 p.m. in Committee of Supply.