LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Friday, May 28, 1993
The House met at 10 a.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Dora Mason, Clifford Flett, Micheal Harper and others requesting the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) to consider making a major priority, the establishment of a
solvent abuse treatment facility in northern
Mr. Speaker: I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Hickes). It complies with the privileges and the
practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS there is a very serious
solvent abuse problem in northern
WHEREAS according to the RCMP over
100 crimes in Thompson alone in 1992 were linked to solvent abuse; and
WHEREAS there are no facilities to
deal with solvent abuse victims in northern
WHEREAS for over three years, the
provincial government failed to proclaim the private member's anti‑sniff
bill passed by the Legislature and is now proposing to criminalize minors
buying solvents even though there are no treatment facilities in northern
WHEREAS for nine years, the 25
Chiefs who comprise the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, supported by medical
officials, police and the area Member of Parliament, have proposed a pilot
treatment project known as the Native Youth Medicine Lodge; and
WHEREAS successive federal Ministers
of Health have failed to respond to this issue with a commitment; and
WHEREAS the
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly
pray that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mrs. Carstairs). It complies with the privileges and the
practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned residents of
the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly
pray that the Legislative Assembly urge the government of
* * *
Mr. Speaker:
I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr.
Martindale). It complies with the
privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
* (1005)
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS there is a very serious
solvent abuse problem in northern
WHEREAS according to the RCMP over
100 crimes in Thompson alone in 1992 were linked to solvent abuse; and
WHEREAS there are no facilities to
deal with solvent abuse victims in northern
WHEREAS for over three years, the
provincial government failed to proclaim the private member's anti‑sniff
bill passed by the Legislature and is now proposing to criminalize minors
buying solvents even though there are no treatment facilities in northern
WHEREAS for nine years, the 25
Chiefs who comprise the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, supported by medical
officials, police and the area Member of Parliament, have proposed a pilot
treatment project known as the Native Youth Medicine Lodge; and
WHEREAS successive federal Ministers
of Health have failed to respond to this issue with a commitment; and
WHEREAS the
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly
pray that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis). It complies with the privileges and the
practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk:
The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS there is a very serious
solvent abuse problem in northern
WHEREAS according to the RCMP over
100 crimes in Thompson alone in 1992 were linked to solvent abuse; and
WHEREAS there are no facilities to
deal with solvent abuse victims in northern
WHEREAS for over three years, the
provincial government failed to proclaim the private member's anti‑sniff
bill passed by the Legislature and is now proposing to criminalize minors
buying solvents even though there are no treatment facilities in northern
WHEREAS for nine years, the 25
Chiefs who comprise the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, supported by medical
officials, police and the area Member of Parliament, have proposed a pilot
treatment project known as the Native Youth Medicine Lodge; and
WHEREAS successive federal Ministers
of Health have failed to respond to this issue with a commitment; and
WHEREAS the
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly
pray that the Legislative Assembly of
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker:
Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable
members to the gallery, where we have with us this morning from the
Also this morning, from the
On behalf of all honourable members,
I would like to welcome you here this morning.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Maple Leaf Fund
Approval Process
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, since 1989, we have been raising
the issue of the Immigrant Investor Fund with members opposite in terms of monitoring,
reviews, decision making, et cetera.
More specifically, in 1991, I wrote the Premier on March 25, 1991, and
asked him to review the Canadian Maple Leaf Fund. The Premier never responded to the letter,
never took our advice to investigate the Canadian Maple Leaf Fund, a fund
administered by members well known to members opposite, with Mr. Kozminski, et
cetera.
I subsequently asked the Premier
questions in this Legislature in his own Estimates, and I recall his answers to
us at that point, talking about the terrific program they have in
I would like to know, in terms of
the dates, when did the second issue get the approval of the provincial
government and the Premier, dealing with the Canadian Maple Leaf Fund. At what period of time in 1991 did it get
approval?
* (1010)
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I just want to ensure the member
opposite knows that all of the issues with respect to the Immigrant Investor
Fund in
The concerns of this audit are
primarily aimed at the fact that there was no security for investors in a
series of funds that were outlined here by Lakeview Investments,
primarily. When the member opposite was in
government, he and his colleague Mr. Mackling, the Minister of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs, specifically relaxed securities rules because they felt that
despite‑‑and here is what the news release said when they relaxed
those securities rules to deal with this:
Despite the increased risk resulting from this reduced review role,
exemption of these classes of transactions is expected to strengthen the
securities industry in the economy of Manitoba.
So they were acknowledging that they
were prepared to relax securities rules and increase the risk to investors,
because they thought that it was good to have more money brought in, Mr.
Speaker. This is the whole issue that we
are dealing with, and I might say that in all of these cases we were concerned,
so that we became the first government in
We pursued that because we felt that
the protection of those immigrant investors was a very, very serious
issue. We have arrived at the
conclusions that have been shared openly with the member opposite, and he still
does not understand what is the basis of this issue, and that is protection for
the investors, protection which the New Democrats were prepared to forgo in
their anxiety to try and bring foreign money into this province.
Maple Leaf Fund
Approval Process
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): It is hard to know where to start with the
Premier and his deceit here in this House.
The New Democratic Party did not approve Bob Kozminski's $30‑million
investment programs in this province. We
did not have his verbal agreement. We
did not have a system where there were no files maintained, allegedly, in the
department that he was responsible for.
The dates in the audit: August 30, 1988. Who was the Premier then when the province
approved it? Was it somebody else or was
it the Premier opposite, the Premier from Tuxedo? When was the federal acceptance approved? Was it some other Premier, or was it the
Premier opposite, the member for Tuxedo? The approval of the extension, when was that
approved? It was approved by the Premier
across the way, the member for Tuxedo, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to know, some $30
million of investment that was approved, was it the system that the Premier had
in place for Bob Kozminski and the Maple Leaf Fund to have verbal
agreements? Are we assured that there
were no files dealing with these investments, no files dealing with the
conflict of interest that was raised by Del Crewson, there was no approval made
by the provincial government?
Who approved the funds and who
approved the second issue of the funds, and what was the date?
* (1015)
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade
and Tourism): Mr.
Speaker, I too cannot help but convey my disgust and insult of the kinds of
accusations and suggestions and politicization coming from the Leader of the
Opposition, because he knows full well the kind of process that has been in
place in
It stops at the administrative level
because it is a program where there is no provincial money going into. It is a program where the funds come from
other parts of the world, and the review that is done is purely to determine
the economic benefits as a province.
The rest of the process, the final
approval process, goes to the federal government. He knows full well, and he is the one
practising deceit when he talks about political intervention and political
decisions, because they do not come to the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism; they do not go to the Premier; they do not go to the cabinet of
government, and he should know full well the process because he was there when
that process was put in place.
To have the kind of politicization
and single out one individual in one fund and try to make politics out of it,
Mr. Speaker, does a total disservice to the good that
We are the first province to grab
hold of this Immigrant Investor Program.
We are the first province to commission five audits of individual
funds. We are the first province to make
a series of recommendations to the federal government to improve the integrity
of the fund and to build the proper precautions and compliance mechanisms that
are required.
We are now seeing other provinces‑‑we
are seeing
Mr. Doer: We
have had these projects approved in 1988, 1989, 1990 under the Maple Leaf Fund,
a reissuance of approval in 1991 which is not in the report that was contracted
by the provincial government.
Mr. Crewson's report did not have
those dates. I have asked twice for the
answer to that question of the second issuance because this matter came up in
this Legislature in 1991, and we still proceeded to have millions of dollars
raised.
Who is responsible? The Premier has had two Ministers of
Industry, Trade and Tourism; he has been involved in these issues in terms of
the Immigrant Investor Fund, funds of $30 million.
Mr. Speaker, who is responsible for
the fact there was no provincial government approval for this Maple Leaf Bob
Kozminski approval? Who is responsible
for the fact that Del Crewson, a person well known again to the members
opposite, could not find any files on the approval of the Maple Leaf Fund?
Mr. Stefanson:
Mr. Speaker, again, the Leader of the Opposition is up to the kind of
politicization. He refers to Del
Crewson, who is a senior partner with the reputable accounting firm of Deloitte
and Touche, who I think are held in high regard by most Manitobans. They are one of the big six accounting firms
in our province.
They were brought in to do the
review because they have the kind of expertise that is required to do this kind
of audit. I know the Leader of the
Opposition has talked about the Provincial Auditor before. This is not a situation where there is a role
for the Provincial Auditor because there is no provincial government money, no
taxpayer money. It is a system of money
coming from immigrant investors.
So we have this firm doing the
audit. They have made a series of
recommendations that we have endorsed and we forwarded to the federal
government. They have made some
suggestions about improvements in terms of how we function, and we agree with
those. We are implementing, and we have
implemented that series of recommendations from them.
I can only remind the Leader of the
Opposition what the process is. When he
keeps pointing to politicization and he keeps pointing to one director out of
one fund in
He is the one that here in the
Chamber a week ago asked for the release of all five audits. We have done just that, Mr. Speaker. We have released all five audits so everybody
will know all of the information on these issues, and I am disgusted with his
kind of approach in‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
* (1020)
Immigrant Investor Fund
Responsibility
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism and the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) that we will be
reviewing the results of the audit and the tens of millions of dollars that
have been squandered, lost, siphoned off by friends of the Premier, friends of
the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism.
We will be investigating.
My question is to the First
Minister. This government is in power
since 1988, the time during which all of these‑‑let us put it
charitably‑‑questionable investments and activities took
place. My question is, who is
responsible?
Can the Minister of Industry, Trade
and Tourism or the First Minister explain why, if they were so concerned and
wrote in fact to the federal minister‑‑some two years ago the
minister suggests‑‑why the department did not ask the tough
questions about where the approval processes were, who was making the
approvals, where the investments were going?
Why were those questions not asked?
Who is responsible on the front bench on that side?
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade
and Tourism): Mr.
Speaker, I think I have to be repetitive again for the benefit of the member
for Flin Flon. We have outlined the
process on previous occasions. We
outlined the process back in December of 1992 and 1993, a process followed by
the
Let us not forget this is a federal
initiative brought in by a federal government in 1986, and a federal government
has the final approval process on project‑specific and on syndicated
funds, Mr. Speaker.
We have made a series of
recommendations in terms of the compliance and the ongoing review that is
required. The federal minister has
indicated it is not unique to
We have taken the action of doing
the audit. We have made recommendations,
and we have grabbed hold of this issue as a province.
Mr. Storie: I
would like to lay a challenge out to the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism: Will the minister lay before
this House any evidence whatsoever that he took steps as the minister
responsible to ensure that investors were not being ripped off and the economy
undermined by the shabby way this program was run since his letter in 1991? Will he show us one shred of evidence that he
really did try to do his job?
Mr. Stefanson:
We
can only hope and wish, on behalf of all Manitobans, that the member for Flin
Flon had done his job when he was part of the government when this program was
brought into place in the first place, and that he had worked with the federal
government in terms of recognizing the kinds of deficiencies that we would be
faced with today, but, no, he did not do his job.
He did nothing during that time
frame. There had been funds approved
during that time frame. If he wants, we
will go back and audit them as well to find out how they functioned during
funds that were approved in 1987.
The absolute hypocrisy of them today
is unbelievable. We have grabbed hold of
this issue. We now see other provinces
recognizing this concern. The
fundamental objective is to build integrity around this program so that
investors have confidence and we are getting the kinds of economic benefits in
Ramada Renaissance
Project
Report Release
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, this minister is going to have
to account for the fact that two years have gone by, millions of dollars have
been wasted and squandered and siphoned off, while this minister sat on his duff.
The question is: Can the minister explain why, after questions
have been raised for more than two years, after the federal government, and not
this government, acted in the first instance to freeze the trust account of the
Lakeview project‑‑can the minister explain why the minister held
the reports from February until the present time indicating that there were
serious problems and perhaps illegal activity going on in that project?
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade
and Tourism): Again,
I think the member for Flin Flon loses what little credibility he has when he
gives the credit of the freeze to the federal government. He knows full well that the freeze was put in
place at the request of this provincial government. He knows that. He has been told that in this House, and to
stand up and make that kind of a comment is absolutely, totally inaccurate.
The audit was completed on the
Lakeview Ramada Renaissance in February.
There was also a legal opinion that was a part of the process that took
much longer. There have also been
negotiations and discussions with the federal government to try and come to a
positive conclusion on this with North Portage Development Corporation, with R‑M
Trust, with the developers and so on.
We have made a recommendation to the
federal government on that project, and we think they should go to court and
get somebody appointed on behalf of the investors to resolve this issue. They have not accepted our recommendation at
this time; they have made an alternative recommendation. It is up to the federal government now to
proceed with what they think is the appropriate course of action.
* (1025)
Immigrant Investor Fund
Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, the actions of the government, both
federally and provincially, raise considerable concerns. We have been opposed to these funds from
their inception because they prey upon people's desire to get away from very
difficult political situations in their home country. We are selling visas is what we are
doing. We are not creating investment in
the province.
I would like to ask the Minister of
Industry and Trade a couple of quick questions about this. I want to commend him, frankly, for taking
action, because I do think at least he has now moved to try to control the most
flagrant of the abuses here.
I would like to ask him, who is he
trying to protect right now? It is
interesting that the federal minister, all of a sudden, introduced the change
in their guidelines two days ago. I note that the
I would just simply like to ask the
minister: Why has it taken them so long
to amend the
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade
and Tourism): Mr.
Speaker, firstly, it is interesting to note, and I was not here at the time, but
I am led to believe the previous critic for the Liberal Party at one point in
time was criticizing the government for not being aggressive in terms of
attracting immigrant investor dollars to our province.
We made a series of recommendations in
a report that I think the honourable member had seen back in December of 1992
to the federal government. Even though
the federal government is bringing in revised regulations effective July 15 of
this year, the majority of our recommendations are not at this particular point
being implemented. I do give them
credit. They are dealing with the issue
of penalties and fines and so on, which is a positive step, but again that is reactive. After the fact, we made specific
recommendations in terms of compliance; we made recommendations in terms of the
upfront review of the reasonableness of projects in terms of limits on
promoters' fees.
Those are all issues that we feel
absolutely should be dealt with at the federal level, because you should have a
program that is fair and equitable across this nation, so that all the
provinces are treated the same and all investors are treated the same when they
look at what province to invest in. At
this particular point in time, the federal government is not implementing those
recommendations, but we will continue to push them to do so. In the meantime, we are not going to be a
part of any immigrant investor program.
Government Action
Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, the problem is that it has taken
this government an inordinate length of time to act. It is true they have
acted. I have commended them for that,
but I would like to ask the minister‑‑what appears from the
exchanges between the federal and provincial governments is a co‑ordination
and damage control on the part of both.
I would like to know why it has
taken the minister so long. If you have been aware of the concerns, and the
minister has had these concerns for as long as the Premier (Mr. Filmon) states
he has, why has it taken them so long to act?
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade
and Tourism): Since
the recommendation came from the Deloitte report back in December, again as the
honourable member knows, we took immediate action and placed a moratorium on
any new immigrant investor programs in
We have very serious recommendations
that we think can do just that. We are
the first province to have taken action.
I encourage every member in this House to watch what other provinces are
doing. I encourage the Leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Doer) to talk to his friend in
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, the federal minister acted
several days ago. It would appear to a
person, just reading the documentation that has come out of both the
I would like to ask the minister,
why has he chosen to do that? Why is he
attempting to cover up for the federal government?
* (1030)
Mr. Stefanson:
I
am really confused by that question, because we are not attempting to cover up
for anybody. When we got the audit back
in December of 1992, we made that audit public with all of the
recommendations. We said we support
those recommendations. We circulated
that widely. We circulated that to my
counterparts in every province in
Again, there are specific
recommendations we are making as a result of that. Certainly we are trying to work with the
federal government to bring integrity and bring the proper precautions and
compliance in place. We will continue to
do that, because we feel they are the ones that are ultimately responsible for
the majority of the compliance mechanisms and review mechanisms. They are the
ones that issue the visas to immigrants coming to our country. They are the ones that have the act; they are
the ones who have the control over the whole issue.
We have made very serious
recommendations and we would hope that ultimately the federal government will
act on them. They are suggesting that
there are going to be regulations implemented on July 15. They are taking some actions, but, in our
opinion, they are not acting on all of the recommendations we have made, and
until they do that, we will not be a part of this program.
Water Flow Levels
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, the
My question is for the Minister of
Natural Resources, and I would hope that the government would be taking this
issue very seriously. How can this
minister have the City of
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the honourable
member, indeed all members of the House, that this is a very serious matter,
and certainly it is a matter that will be given the most serious examination by
the Clean Environment Commission in a forum and with a time that will enable
all the facts to be discerned.
But allow me to assure and
categorically deny that any arrangements have been arrived at to reduce the
flows of water on the Assiniboine coming into the city of
We are not for one moment, nor have
we ever suggested, any reduction to the inflows of waters on the
Ms. Cerilli:
Can the minister tell the House if in fact the flow in the
Mr. Enns: Categorically, I reject any suggestion that
that was the case. I will give the
honourable member some information. Minimum flows on the
I am hoping, quite frankly, Mr.
Speaker, that the Assiniboine River Advisory Board which will have members from
Ms. Cerilli:
Mr. Speaker, my final question is for the minister.
Why would he be claiming to make a
deal with the City of
Mr. Enns: Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate that in this politically correct world one always has to
be worried about the words one uses. I
retract the word "deal."
What I want to do is to arrive at an
understanding with the City of
Air
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the National
Transportation Agency announced their decision regarding the acquisition by American
Airlines of 25 percent of Canadian Airlines.
Air
Air
My question is for the Minister of
Highways and Transportation: What is
this Minister of Transportation going to do to protect the hundreds of
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and
Transportation): Mr.
Speaker, the member is correct. A very
important decision was made by the NTA yesterday in terms of the application
made by Canadian to affiliate with the American Airlines for, in their view,
the future stability of the company.
The decision that was handed down by
the NTA yesterday was only one step of the process that is taking place. At the present time, there is an issue with
Gemini that has to be resolved; that is the next step that will probably have
to be dealt with somewhere along the line.
Further to that, the member is also
correct when he says that federal legislation would have to be changed if there
was going to be any change in the maintenance base here in
I would expect, Mr. Speaker, that
when it comes to the point where the federal government would want to change
their legislation to cut back on the maintenance base in
Canadian-American
Airlines Merger
Impact on Airline
Industry
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): In addition to the Air Canada maintenance
base jobs, can the minister tell us what other impacts will the NTA decision
have on airline‑related jobs in
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and
Transportation): Mr.
Speaker, that is a very broad question.
The member is well aware and the members of the House are well aware
that
Based on the decision that has been
handed down by the NTA on the amalgamation, we are in the process, like the
federal minister is, in terms of viewing exactly what kind of impact it could
have, but there are still questions outstanding. In my view, at least, the situation is not a
fait accompli and there are various processes that will have to take place.
We have been trying to get together
with staff since yesterday and have been trying to establish exactly what
impact it would have.
I get very concerned when we have
rumours from Air
Mr. Reid: The minister's department did not take a
position on railway jobs either, and look what happened to those jobs.
NTA Hearings
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Why did the minister and his department not make
a presentation or take a position at the competition tribunal hearings and the
NTA hearings, to protect
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and
Transportation): Mr.
Speaker, the reason we did not choose one side or the other is because we
wanted to find out‑‑we had attendance all the time at these
hearings and at the meetings that took place.
We have maintained all the time that we are going to take the position
which is going to have the least effect on the jobs and the economy of
If we had chosen to come down on the
side of Air
Water Flow Levels
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of the
Minister of Natural Resources in response to the questions on the
If he has the courage, if he means
what he says and he wants to add credibility to his words, put it back up to
184 cubic feet per second minimum.
* (1040)
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural
Resources): I will try again, Mr.
Speaker. First of all, I would
categorically deny that anything was reduced or any action was taken. These figures are used‑‑and I am
not an engineer; there are some engineers in this House. When they have to do design specifications,
we have to know, for instance, when flood waters reach a certain level that we
design our flood protection works so that they could click in and work,
something like that. For the purposes of
design and design only, the figure of 100 has been used as a bench model, and
that has been in place for five, six, 10, 15 years, and the City of
This particular engineer, I might
say, who is quoted in today's paper, has known about it. My engineers, quite frankly, do not
understand‑‑as I said, I really do not want to get into speculating
as to why that is now being raised. The
184 figure is not a minimum flow figure.
That was a flow figure that was used in the 1990 model with respect to
what was happening on the
I have read into the record the wide
variation of the flows. I have simply indicated that they can be controlled,
particularly to a considerable extent with the engineering works in place at
the Shellmouth Dam. As to how they will
be worked, that will be determined by what is in the best interests of all
users.
Mr. Edwards: The design specifications that would be
relying on these are precisely the type of debate that is happening around this
project, which proposes a 26 cubic foot per second withdrawal from the
river. My question to the minister‑‑[interjection] Mr. Speaker, the proposal initially filed
talked about a 26 cubic feet per second maximum withdrawal from that river.
Now, my question for the minister‑‑he
says that 184, 100 do not mean a lot.
They are just figures, and he has some ability to control through the
Shellmouth down the river. What is, in
his view, the minimum water flow on the
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, as late as a week ago, officials
from my department asked precisely that question of the city engineering works
of the City of
That is my information that was
given to me as late as ten o'clock this morning from my department, that the
city steadfastly has refused to discuss with us, or to arrive at, or even to
suggest what would be an acceptable minimum flow along the
Mr. Edwards:
The minister speaks of consultation with the city, and, of course, that
is appropriate.
My question to the minister: What consultation is occurring between his
department and the Department of Environment, which has experts in this area
that deal with minimum level flows and their impact on flora and fauna in the
river? What discussions has his
department had with the Department of Environment to determine what the minimum
flow can and should be on this river?
Mr. Enns: Mr.
Speaker, I can assure the honourable member that, I think it is called the
scoping, the set of specifications, the requests that the clean environment department
in the first instance demanded, that proponents and other interested parties
had to provide in preparation for the Clean Environment Commission, are
extensive. They include flora and fauna,
they include fish life, they include concerns about riverbank erosion and they,
of course, include the very important concerns of current users, particularly
those communities that are using it for their potable water supply.
Home Care Services
Reduced Workweek
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, despite hundreds of beds being
closed, line‑ups in hospitals and many more people in the community
needing community service, the government now charges a user fee for home care
supplies and has completely got rid of the homemaker service.
Can the minister advise this House
whether the already stretched Home Care Services will be required to take their
10 days off in their work, and whether the budget will be reduced from last
year?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, if I closed my eyes, I could
almost hear my honourable friend reflecting on the
My honourable friend also has the
luxury from time to time of asking a question to which he knows the
answer. The Home Care budget is
increased this year again‑‑once more. The Home Care budget when we inherited
government in the defeated budget‑‑the budget defeated by Jim
Walding, the first time in the history of the
Mr. Speaker, since then we not only
raised it in the budget we have reintroduced, but it now approaches $68
million, a doubling of the budget since we have come in, to provide Home Care
Services to
Assistant Regional
Director
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, the minister, as usual, did not
answer the question. I will try another
one.
What improvement does he see in Home
Care Services this year since the Assistant Regional Director for Continuing
Care, Sue Mackenzie, is now being assigned to its $3.9 million American
consultant, to work with this consultant?
Is Sue Mackenzie going to be advising the consultant how Home Care
works, or is the American $3.9‑million consultant going to be advising
Sue Mackenzie how to do the Americanization of home care in the
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Again, my honourable friend has the answer to
the question, because for the first time ever that a contract, a consulting
contract has been negotiated, it was tabled on the day it was signed, an
unusual circumstance that has never happened before, certainly in direct
contrast to the circumstance that my honourable friend's party undertook whilst
in government, wherein we found out after the fact when we came into government
that they had hired American consultants, Mr. Speaker. But of course they did not tell anybody; they
did not table documents. We still do not
know details of American consultants hired by the NDP.
The answer is in the documents my
honourable friend has at his disposal.
School Division Boundary
Review
Cost Savings
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, on April 7 the Minister of
Finance stated on radio, and I quote:
With regard to the issue of boundary review, he said, I know the Minister
of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) sees that we have to get that process going as
quickly as we can. We know that there
are savings to be found.
Yesterday I asked the minister in
Estimates whether she had done any studies to determine possible per‑pupil
cost savings resulting from boundary reviews, and she said that she had no
information on that and that her department had done no studies on that.
Mr. Speaker, in light of the
Minister of Finance's (Mr. Manness) statements, can the minister tell us today
in this Legislature what information she has to verify the statements made by
the Minister of Finance that there are savings to be found as a result of the
review?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Mr. Speaker, I think the member should check
the Hansard from the Estimates yesterday to find out exactly what I said in
Estimates. He is not accurately
reflecting my comments again in this House.
However, I did say to him, my
colleague the Minister of Finance did make some statements. He might like to speak to the Minister of
Finance about the basis of those statements in those Estimates and that I will
be making an announcement on boundary reviews shortly.
* (1050)
Mr. Plohman:
The minister continues to evade answering questions in this House and in
Estimates. That is her pattern‑‑evade
the answers. That is her only challenge.
Consultations
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, why did the minister say
yesterday in Estimates that she is consulting with the partners in education in
preparation for the boundary review when the people from MAST have told me that
there had been no consultation with them in recent months on this issue?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Again the member tries to characterize answers
and questions that were not asked in that way.
I have told the member that I have, on a very regular basis‑‑and
perhaps he would like to check with the member organizations‑‑consulted
with MAST, with MTS, with the Parent Home and School Association and with the
school superintendents. We discuss a
number of issues on a regular basis. The
member seems to have a problem understanding that answer.
Mr. Speaker:
The time for Oral Questions has expired.
Order, please. I will recognize the honourable member for
St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) with committee changes, then the member for Point
Douglas (Mr. Hickes), and then I believe the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr.
McAlpine) wants to make a nonpolitical statement.
Committee Changes
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for
Motion agreed to.
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for
I move, seconded by the member for
I move, seconded by the member for
Motions agreed to.
Nonpolitical
Statements
Mr. Speaker:
Does the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek have leave to make a
nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the
members of this House that tomorrow is the official celebration of the 100th
anniversary of the founding of the Sons of Scotland Melrose Camp No. 126.
From the time of the Lord Selkirk
settlement to today, the Scottish identity has been an integral part of our
growth and prosperity of our province.
The contributions of our Scottish pioneers and their descendants are
evident all around us.
There are the street and community
names and even our official
For 100 years the members of the
Sons of Scotland have worked tirelessly to preserve and maintain the culture,
the tradition and the customs of
It is a task that has been
undertaken with great success and energy, Mr. Speaker, and they have been
active members of our community and have now earned the added distinction of
saying the Sons of Scotland Melrose Camp No. 126 reached its centennial.
I ask all members of the House to
join with me in congratulating the Sons of Scotland on a very bonnie 100th and
continuing success as they embark upon their second century in
* * *
Mr. Speaker:
Does the honourable member for
Mr. Brian Pallister (
All across our province and across
During
The importance of living actively
has recently come into focus with the Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada
officially identifying lack of exercise as the fourth major risk factor for heart
disease and stroke. I quote from their
report: A sedentary lifestyle now is
considered as potentially damaging as smoking, high blood pressure and high
cholesterol. It has long been known that
exercise is good for health, but it is only recently that science has proved
the benefits of low‑intensity exercise, such as walking, yard work,
housework and dancing in preventing heart disease.
Two days ago, I participated in the
official kickoff to
So starting today was Sneaker Day
right through to the conclusion of
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Mr. Speaker:
The honourable deputy government House leader, what are your intentions,
sir?
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House
Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would ask
if you could call for second reading Bill 36, The Highway Traffic Amendment
Act, and then I would ask if you could call for continuation of debate on
second reading Bills 16, 29, 22, and then the bills as they appear on the Order
Paper.
SECOND
Bill 36‑The
Highway Traffic Amendment Act
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and
Transportation): I
move, seconded by the Minister of Environment, that Bill 36, The Highway
Traffic Amendment Act (Loi modifiant le Code de la route), be now read a second
time and referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, what I am introducing in Bill 36
is a comprehensive vehicle inspection initiative. Before I start my comments, as I am wont to
do, I have copies for both critics here that I would like to table, which are
the spreadsheets.
These amendments to The Highway
Traffic Act establish the authority for a program of mandatory safety
inspections for all motor vehicles upon change of ownership. This includes passenger cars, light trucks,
motorcycles and motor homes.
Registration of new or used vehicles will not be permitted unless the
owner produces a safe vehicle inspection certificate.
This initiative will result in a
comprehensive vehicle safety inspection program for the
Incidentally, the mandatory
inspection program for commercial vehicles will be expanding, in accordance
with the National Safety Code and safety agreement, to include all vehicles
over 10,000 kgs in l994. When the
program is fully implemented in 1995, all vehicles that are 4,500 kgs will be
inspected.
Motor Dealers Safety Inspections‑‑legislation
is also currently in place requiring a motor dealer to issue certificates to
all purchasers indicating whether or not each motor vehicle they sell is safe
or unsafe. A vehicle declared unsafe by
a motor dealer may not be registered until the necessary repairs have been
made.
As you may know, the MPIC currently
operates a random inspection program for passenger cars and light trucks. This program has been inspecting
approximately 25,000 vehicles annually.
However, much of the equipment used to operate the program has become
unreliable. Suitable mobile equipment is
no longer manufactured, and the cost of acquiring and establishing permanent
inspection stations is prohibitive. It is
simply becoming too costly for the government to continue operating a vehicle
inspection program in this fashion. With
the existing number of vehicles serviced and repair facilities located
throughout the province, much more comprehensive and effective program of
safety inspections can be delivered with significantly less government
involvement.
The proposed program will require
all motor vehicles to be inspected and certified safe by an authorized private
sector inspection facility upon change of ownership. For the purpose of registration, an
inspection certificate will have a validity period of two years from the year
it is issued. This means that a vehicle
that has been inspected and certified safe would not have to be reinspected
during that two‑year period, even if it transfers to another owner. The owner of any motor vehicle service and
repair facility will be able to apply to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles for
authorization to safety inspect vehicles.
Basic criteria are being established for facility certification.
* (1100)
The Department of Highways will
initially certify and then monitor approved inspection facilities to complement
the traffic safety consumer protection thrust of this initiative. The necessary controls will be maintained to
revoke certification and impose other sanctions for noncompliance with the
standards and criteria set out by the department. A fine of up to $5,000 may be imposed on any
individual or facility which knowingly falsifies an inspection certificate for
the purpose of registering an unsafe vehicle.
A maximum fee which can be charged
by certified facilities for inspections will be prescribed in regulations. Also, vehicle owners will be free to have any
necessary repairs made by a facility other than the one which conducts the
inspection.
The implementation of the new
mandatory vehicle inspection program is set for January 1, 1995. I might add at this time that this
legislation was passed three times previously by various governments and never
proclaimed. In this particular case, we
now have a date. When this legislation
passes, it will be in effect as of January 1, 1995.
It will take approximately 15 months
for my department to establish the necessary administrative components and
controls for this program. There are
approximately 1,200 vehicle service and repair facilities eligible to become
certified inspection sites.
This will make MPIC's random
inspection program redundant, and this program will therefore be discontinued
when the legislation for mandatory vehicle inspections comes into force January
1995.
This legislation confirms the
province's commitment to safety and also complements other safety initiatives
which have been phased in over the past several years. This program will reduce the number of
mechanically defective vehicles on the road and contribute to making
It will give uniform treatment to
all vehicles sold, whether privately or through a motor dealer. It eliminates a serious loophole in the
registration system by preventing unsafe vehicles from being registered and
thereby operated in an unsafe condition.
This matter of mandatory vehicles
inspections is a long‑standing one which successive governments have
wrestled with. The government believes
that the proposed program is a well‑balanced solution which has taken
into account legitimate traffic safety, fiscal equity and consumer protection
concerns.
I hope that all members of the House
will join in supporting this bill.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I move, seconded by the member for Wolseley
(Ms. Friesen), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 16‑The Public
Schools Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker:
On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Education and
Training (Mrs. Vodrey), Bill 16, The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles publiques, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar).
Is there leave that that matter
remain standing? [agreed]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis (
I find this bill to be in that
category of very critical, serious bills that must be debated thoroughly and
must receive serious deliberations now and at committee stage, with the hope
that this government will come to its senses and restore some sense of
democracy in our society and restore some sense of common decency in our
society today.
This is one of those bills, one of
the number of bills that is before us by this government in this session that
is reprehensible, that is repugnant, that has to be changed. It is repugnant and reprehensible because it
is like other bills brought before us by this government, an attack on
democracy, and it is an attack on the future of this province.
Education, it has been stated by
everyone in this Chamber, is a top priority for government, for our
society. We have heard over and over
again, ad nauseam, the words of this government through its Speech from the
Throne, that education is the key to unlocking the door of opportunity. It is the means by which this province will
once again enjoy some semblance of economic security and economic future.
Mr. Speaker, the words and the
action do not fit. Like on so many
issues, there is an absolute discrepancy between the rhetoric of this
government and the decisions it is making.
On previous occasions, when we have been faced with serious bills like
this, I have drawn from an old saying that actually goes back to the year 1845,
a quotation from Benjamin Disraeli who said:
"A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy."
Those words fit more than ever and
apply more than ever to the present Conservative government of
Organized hypocrisy, when we are
dealing with on a constant basis nothing but fine words, fancy brochures, press
conferences with all the bells and whistles, but never a translation of those
words and recommendations into action.
Education is probably the most prime example of that kind of organized
hypocrisy.
It is a very serious matter that we
are dealing with, not just in terms of the specifics of the bill, but
everything that this bill represents, an attack on our democratic traditions in
this province, an attack on a long‑standing tradition in this province,
to try and move toward a more equal, co‑operative, compassionate
society. It is an attack on the young
people of this province. It is an attack
on the foundations of the future
I fail to see how a bill in one fell
swoop that takes away a long‑standing democratic tradition in this
province is shoring up the foundations of
Surely, foundations for any decent
society, any society that cares about every one of its members, are founded on
the principle of democracy, unless, of course, this government has another
whole idea about the future of
* (1110)
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the
Chair)
Madam Deputy Speaker, there is, in
fact, growing evidence to wonder whether or not the kind of hypocrisy we have
seen from this government, organized hypocrisy; the kind of broken promises
that we have been faced with on a day‑to‑day basis, if, in fact,
all of that is not some deliberate plan to contribute to growing cynicism and
skepticism in this society to enable this government in co‑operation with
its corporate friends to rule without the encumbrance of democracy, without the
hindrance of elected representatives.
I have said at the outset that‑‑if
I have not said it, it should be clear that we are vehemently opposed to this
legislation. We are opposed because, in
terms on the substantive issue of education and who makes decisions around education,
this government is throwing away all the traditions and putting us on a new
course of action that is worrisome, that is troublesome, that is dangerous.
Madam Deputy Speaker, our tradition of
elected representatives at all levels in this province making decisions and
standing and falling on the basis of their activity and decisions made during
their period of election, that long‑standing tradition has held us in
good stead and is our only hope for the future.
At the very time when there is a clear indication from groups
everywhere, from societies everywhere, that the key to salvaging some hope out
of the crisis that we are in, that the key to building a future at a time of
despair is in empowering people, ensuring that our democratic institutions are
well founded, strongly founded in our society, and so at precisely this time in
our history, when that recognition is so pervasive, we have a government in the
So the provision of Bill 16, which
caps the ability of school boards to raise funds to pay for education, the element
of this bill which takes away decision making on the part of duly elected
representatives, is an affront to everything we hold near and dear to us in
this province and in this country.
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources):
Judy, I am disappointed in you, calling me a
hypocrite . . . .
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Natural
Resources is taking great offence at the term "hypocrisy." Well, perhaps the Minister of Natural
Resources could explain to us how the words "education unlocks the door of
opportunity" can be found in this bill.
Perhaps the Minister of Natural Resources could explain where that
principle is embedded in this legislation or in any action of this government
when it comes to education.
Madam Deputy Speaker, he cannot, and
nobody on those Tory benches can try to tell us how those fine words are
translated into action. Nobody on that
side can explain to us how this bill enhances democracy in the
Madam Deputy Speaker, education is
the key to opportunity. There is no question.
We all agree on the words.
Education is our one hope in our society today for equalizing conditions
between people so that everyone, regardless of their background, their income,
their race, their colour, their creed, is able to contribute to society
according to his or her talents and abilities.
Surely that is one of the objectives‑‑I would say the most
overriding objective for anyone in government today. Surely our reason for being here is to try to
equalize conditions. Surely our objective in politics is to try to give voice
to the voiceless in our society, to give power to those who feel powerless, to
give hope to those who feel despair.
What else are we here for if that is
not our fundamental overriding objective?
So today is a day, Madam Deputy Speaker, this legislative session is a
period in our history when all of us have to hang our heads in shame at the
kind of callous and cruel actions being taken by the government of the day.
[interjection]
The Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard)
is getting a little excited, perhaps we should say, what, a little frenzied, a
little emotional, hysterical. So let me
just quote for the minister some words that I think he would take some interest
in and perhaps use as a basis for reconsidering this legislation before us and
being a voice of human decency and compassion in that bunch across the way.
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Are you the epitome of compassion, Judy? Is that what you are trying to say?
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Health has
asked if I am the epitome of compassion.
I make no such pretence that I alone feel compassion and concern. Every one of the members in the New
Democratic Party feels compassion and concern, and I dare say many in the
Conservative benches feel compassion and concern.
*
(1120)
So I am pleading with them today,
pleading with members across the way to search deep for that compassion and
concern that I know they must feel, and to show that compassion and concern by
withdrawing some of these repugnant pieces of legislation before us,
reconsidering some of their cruel, callous actions and start to think about
people who are falling victim to the autocratic, extreme and harsh decisions of
this government.
For the minister, I remind him that
many over the years throughout our history have talked about the importance of
education. The words in the Speech from
the Throne are actually borrowed from many who came before us and spoke about
the importance of education.
I quote again someone I have just
used in this House, Benjamin Disraeli who said in 1874: Upon the education of the people of this
country, the fate of this country depends.
That kind of statement is a reminder
of just how fundamental education is to our society and to our future. I also quote from Horace Mann who said in
1848: Education then, beyond all other
devices of human origin, is the great equalizer of the conditions of people,
the balance wheel of the social machinery.
Can anyone in this Chamber disagree
with those words? I doubt it. Then the question becomes, are the members of
the Conservative government prepared to put the commitment they must have for equalizing
conditions in our society into action?
Are they prepared to look at the policy field of education and
legislation pertaining to public schools and the financing of public schools
into that context? That is the question
I have today. Not unreasonable.
We are all concerned about the
future. We are all concerned about
economic activity in this province, so that we do not become a province, a
society where frustration, idleness and despair are rampant. Surely we all envisage a society and a future
for our province where people are putting their talents to use, are working,
are contributing, are paying taxes, are buying goods, are stimulating the
economy and feeling good about their contribution.
How does an attack on public education in this
province and an attack on democracy in
We know the outcome of that kind of
theme in our society. We know when those
feelings are rampant, as is increasingly the case in our society today because
of the lack of any kind of economic policy on the part of this government. We see the effects. I see it every day in my own community. How else does one explain the increasing
number of gangs in our schools? How do
we explain the increasing number of suicides among young people? How do we explain increasing violence in our
school yards, in our families and on our street corners? How do we explain young people today turning
to cults, to white supremacist gangs?
You could only explain those kinds
of worrisome developments by looking at the roots of the problem, the roots
being economic and social insecurity.
History has told us over and over again what happens when you have a
generation of young people who are not able to contribute what they feel they
have to contribute, who are not able to put their talents to use, who have no
concept of future‑‑no concept of future, no understanding of what
future is; never mind fear of the future, no concept of future.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, the
telling and worrisome signs of economic and social insecurity that we are
seeing today can only be multiplied many times over in the years to come if we
have taken away one of the last institutions in our society where we have any
hope of equalizing conditions and allowing people to contribute according to
their talents and abilities.
Every step of the way in the field
of education over the last number of months, this government has whittled away
at public education, whittled away at opportunities for our young people.
Whether we are looking at the Student Social Allowance Program, which helped
young people go back to school when they realized that without education there
was little hope of a job in providing for their families, whether we are
talking about CareerStart, which has played a major role in giving young people
some hope for the future, whether we are talking about the lack of access to
child psychologists and other specialists who address the special needs of
children when it is most important to do so, so that they have some hope of
overcoming the disabilities they face and are able to contribute to society on
a level playing field, whether we are talking about the 2 percent overall
cutback to public education, which is placing enormous strain on our public
education system, whether we are talking about the cut to our ACCESS programs
which have helped people who have been faced with systemic discrimination, our aboriginal
community, people of colour, women, people with disabilities, you put it all
together, and the result is just too much to take.
* (1130)
It is too hard. It makes it too hard to sit back and not show
some compassion and concern, because the damage that is occurring and will
occur, when you add up all those cutbacks, you add up that erosion of our
public education system, it is overwhelming.
It makes those of us in positions we are in worried about the future,
fearful about the future, and if we are worried and we are fearful, how do
those people who cannot complete their education because a Student Social
Allowance Program has been eliminated, how do those young people who cannot
take advantage of New Careers or ACCESS programs, how do those vulnerable
members of our society who have no hope of education and training and
employment feel? How do they feel?
Well, we know, Madam Deputy Speaker,
how they feel. We are getting the calls
on a day‑to‑day basis. I am
sure members of the Conservative government are getting those calls. How do they answer people who cry out for
help and show such despair that one is left wondering what that individual is
capable of doing to himself or others if he or she does not find some redress,
some solution, some help along the way.
I hope that maybe, if members
opposite get enough of those calls and hear enough cries for help, just maybe,
that on some of these critical issues we are dealing with, they will have
second thoughts. They will come back to
this Chamber and say, we were wrong.
Some of those cuts that we made in haste and under the pressure of
coming up with a budget were wrong.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if they do not
come to that realization and we allow legislation like Bill 16 to become law,
we put our society on a very dangerous footing.
Education is not only one
institution in our society where we have the hope of equalizing conditions so
that people can participate on the basis of their own abilities and merits and
talents. Education has always been considered
to be an institution for creating tolerance and understanding and respect
between people.
I want to go back to some people who
many years ago made statements about the importance of education for building trust
and tolerance and respect and understanding in our society because those words
are so poignant today, as we see our public education system unravelling and we
see people facing barriers to education and training and employment.
I am going to go to 1903 when Helen
Keller said: The highest result of
education is tolerance. I want to go to
Franklin D. Roosevelt, who said in 1932:
Knowledge, that is, education in its true sense, is our best protection
against unreasoning prejudice and panic‑making fear.
As I said, Madam Deputy Speaker,
those words, those statements are more poignant today than ever before as we
see all around us in our communities everywhere signs of intolerance, activity
based on hatred, growing examples of prejudice and dislike in our society
today. That, too, is apparent on a day‑to‑day
basis in our society today in every one of our communities. We are dealing with examples where racism and
hatred and discrimination are rearing their ugly heads, are surfacing in ways
that are making people live in fear and anxiety.
They are the antithesis of
everything that was important about Manitoba and about this country, the
opposite of that which drew people from other lands to this country‑‑a
land that promised respect for our cultural diversity; a land that promised
respect and tolerance between all peoples regardless of their race, their
colour, their creed, their religion.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if the members
opposite cannot understand what is wrong with Bill 16 on the basis of its attack
on democracy or on the basis of its potential to kill the future in this
society, then surely they can understand their actions. Their attack on the
public school system creates a breeding ground for hatred and intolerance and
discrimination. Surely the goal of
building a society that lives in harmony, where respect for one another is
paramount, is a goal of everyone in this Chamber, and surely any measure, any
piece of legislation, any program that detracts from that absolutely and
fundamentally important goal is wrong.
Surely, Madam Deputy Speaker, in
that context, this government can see the errors of its ways with Bill 16 and
many of the other pieces of legislation before us today which constitute an
attack on working people, on families, on young people and on the most
vulnerable members of our society today.
We will be anxiously awaiting the
public hearings on this bill because that provides the opportunity for this
government to hear the voices of those affected by Bill 16, to realize the
human consequences of this kind of legislation and to see the absolute
importance of making serious amendments to this legislation or pulling it
entirely.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this area of
education, the way in which this government is handling education policy is not
unlike what I have had to experience and see first‑hand and study very
closely in the health care field. There
is talk about reform, but when you scrape away the rhetoric and you scratch
below the surface, reform for this government, whether it is reform of
education or reform of health care, seems to amount to little more than
cutbacks and areas that are easy targets for this government in terms of
dealing with their major preoccupation, that of the provincial deficit.
On both issues, in both policy
fields, health and education, this government has been very clever at trying to
camouflage its true intentions. It has
used the jargon of the field very well. It has tried to leave the impression
that it is engaged in a reform process which, by definition, means making
something better, making something more efficient and more effective. So we have to ask the question: What in Bill 16 or in any of the other
cutbacks to the education field, where in all of that are they making the
system better? Are they improving the
quality of education or enhancing opportunities for our young people?
Madam Deputy Speaker, what this
government is doing by an agenda of education cutbacks disguised as education
reform, it is driving young people out of our province, and the statistics bear
that out.
Although this government, again
because it tries to brainwash and distort the facts‑‑very much
operate government like a cult‑‑does not really want the world to
see what is really happening in terms of out‑migration of youth and young
people in the province of Manitoba.
* (1140)
But all of that brainwashing and
programming cannot hide the fact that our best and brightest are leaving the
The out‑migration of young
people in this province is now higher in
Well, how then does this Premier and
this government explain that
The reality of the situation is that
young people in this province who are able to find alternatives to the lack of
opportunities here go elsewhere. They
are leaving the province in droves for education opportunities, for training
programs and for employment prospects.
They are doing so because their options here are becoming less and less.
So the best and the brightest are
leaving. The hope for a talented labour
force of the future to contribute to this economy is going. Those who remain live in idleness, fear and
frustration. That is the base for our
future that is worrisome, that is dangerous, and we will do everything in our
power to try to get the government to realize that investment in education now
will pay dividends in the future.
We will try our best to make this
government come to its senses to realize that our hope for the future rests
with our ability to provide opportunities now to our young people.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member's time has expired.
As previously agreed, this bill will
remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar).
Bill 29‑The Minors
Intoxicating Substances Control Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 29
(The Minors Intoxicating Substances Control Act; Loi sur le controle des
substances intoxicantes et les mineurs), standing in the name of the honourable
member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).
Is there leave to permit the bill to
remain standing? [agreed]
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill 29, The
Minors Intoxicating Substances Control Act, since I have had a great interest
in this social problem for many years. In fact, for the past 13 years, I have
been involved in various ways with trying to combat this problem.
I was part of the
Regrettably, that by‑law was
struck down in the courts as being unconstitutional. However, that was not the only purpose of the
Regrettably, we were unable to get
funding to set up a safe house, and the alternative was to establish a drop‑in
centre for children. That was how
I would like to talk a little bit
about some of the problems with sniffing and sniffers and some solutions and
then talk about this particular bill. I
think one of the major problems is the unscrupulous store owners and staff who
sell sniff products to minors and to adults, I believe, in many, many cases, knowingly
selling sniff products to minors and to adults.
In fact, as part of my research on
this bill, I decided to stop and talk to a couple of my constituents who are
known sniffers‑‑known to me anyway.
I was pleasantly surprised to find that one of them has stopped drinking
and stopped sniffing and seems to be turning her life around. I commended her for that.
I asked them: Where do you buy your sniff? They certainly knew which stores and
lumberyards sell sniff in the inner city of
Of course, the other concern that we
have is with the users, and I think users do not neatly fall into just one
category. I think there are many
different kinds of users. For example,
there are those people who experiment with different sniff products, and the
consequences for them are just as tragic as they are for those who are regular
users.
For example, a number of years ago a
young man died in the St. James area of
I think all members would agree that
we should all be concerned about all sniffers.
In fact, in the past there has been a lot of consensus on sniff
legislation which I will talk about later.
Then there are those individuals who
are chronic sniffers, and I believe they are sniffing to block something
painful in their lives. In doing some
research, I have an article from The Globe and Mail about sniffing in a
community in
* (1150)
One of the participants of the
healing circle said he believes a lot of family breakups are attributable to
the fact that, quote: They learn to
internalize everything and keep it hidden.
This community was trying to deal
with that by having a healing circle and getting people to talk about their
experiences, including many of the painful experiences that resulted when they
were residents of the residential school.
We know that this part of Canadian history has been very painful for
many, many aboriginal people, and that the way that many of them have dealt
with that is to internalize their problems and to turn to drinking and
sniffing. Now, fortunately, more healthy
ways of dealing with these painful experiences are starting to happen, this
being one example of where they were having a healing circle for former
residents of the residential school in
So I believe many children and
adults turn to sniff to block our painful experiences in their lives, of either
physical and sexual abuse or family breakdown, and I have actually observed
that in families in the neighbourhood in which I used to work and live and
represent in the Legislature.
I would like to commend the MLA for
Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) for having an informational meeting yesterday in
Room 255 to which he invited all MLAs.
Regrettably, the attendance was rather poor. As far as I know there were members there
only from the NDP caucus, and there were no members from the Conservative
caucus or the Liberal caucus attending that informational meeting. I think it would have been educational for
all members to attend and to see the video tape that we saw and to hear the
presentation. [interjection]
Well, one of the members opposite is
trying to correct me. I would be quite
happy to be corrected. If he would like
to put the constituency of the member from his caucus who was in attendance on
the record, I would be happy to correct the record and do that. All I hear is silence.
At this public meeting, one of the
participants talked about the social conditions in, particularly, northern
The video tape and some of the
discussion referred to the harmful effects of lead, which we know is toxic,
which many sniffers have inhaled. Now
there has been a change in this area, a very positive one, and that resulted
from lobbying of the federal government by health care professionals and many
others. The result was that lead in gasoline was banned, and we know that is
true for automobile fuels.
Now there is still a problem with
aviation fuel containing lead, and perhaps that is the next area that should be
worked on, or perhaps owners of aircraft should be required to have gas tank
caps which are locked so that people cannot siphon gas and sniff aviation fuel
that has lead in it, because we certainly know about the toxic effects of lead.
The remedy for this is very, very
expensive, because in the past, children have been flown from northern
Now at the public meeting which the
MLA for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) organized, many, many issues were identified
and many, many solutions were proposed.
Another problem which was identified was and is the inappropriate
institutionalization of people who are sniffing. Examples were given of people who were
confined to mental health facilities because they had a sniffing problem. You might ask: Well, why does that happen? There is a very good answer, and the answer
is that there are only a couple of places where people can go for
treatment. One is, I believe, the St.
Norbert Foundation, and the other is the treatment facility at the
There are not enough places to treat
sniffers, and there is no facility in northern
Point of Order
Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker,
the member for Burrows suggested that there were no Conservative colleagues at
the information meeting yesterday morning.
I would just like to correct the record, that the honourable member for
Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose), the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), the
honourable member for Morris (Mr. Manness) were there, and there were a number
of members from this side that were unable to attend that various function but
fully intended to attend that. I just
wanted to correct that for the record.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) does not have a
point of order. It is a dispute over the
facts.
* * *
Mr. Martindale: I would like to thank the member for Sturgeon
Creek for correcting the record which I invited his caucus to do, and I am very
pleased that they were there and that they were listening to the informational
seminar. So I am happy to have that
correction put on the record.
There was considerable discussion at
the seminar yesterday about the need for treatment facilities particularly in
northern Manitoba, and it was pointed out that there has been a long‑standing
request from MKO for a treatment facility in northern Manitoba which the
federal government appears to be unwilling to fund and the provincial
government apparently has turned down requests for funding as well.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
We are very disappointed that there
is not funding forthcoming for a treatment facility in northern
Another very important issue which
was raised was the need for recreation facilities which I would consider to be
a kind of prevention or even intervention.
In the past I know there have been programs like the recreation worker
training program, and I think there is a need for more training of individuals
in the area of recreation and more recreation programs as well because we know
that if children are involved in recreational activities that this is an
alternative to the streets, an alternative to sniffing.
In the past many people have spoken
about the need for education, and it has been suggested that what we really
need is the kind of public education and awareness that we have had around
issues like drinking and driving. Many,
many governments in
There has been a decline in the number
of people who are drinking and then driving and therefore a consequent decline
in the number of people who have been picked up and charged for violating laws
regarding drinking and driving, and the public is very well aware of these laws
and their consequences.
What we need is a public education
campaign on the effects of sniffing so that adults are aware of the dangers of
sniffing and that children are aware of the dangers. Therefore adults can take further steps to
protect children and show their care and concern for children so that they do
not sniff.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to address
some concerns that we have about this particular bill and also the background
to this bill which is quite interesting and extensive.
It really begins with the introduction
of a private member's bill by the MLA for
* (1200)
So here we have the Minister of
Justice and the government of the day praising our member for
" . . . in a matter like this
there is all kinds of room for agreement amongst right thinking and caring
Manitobans, which I trust that all Members of this House are."
We commend the Minister of Justice
for saying that on March 1, 1990. In
fact, I think this points out that
I think that is quite a different
response from what we have in
We here believe that we are our
brother's keeper, that we are responsible for our brothers and sisters in the
wider community, and that we do not just care about our own children and our
own problems, but we do care, as legislators, about other people's children and
other problems in our society. We work
on it collectively to try and bring forward a solution that is going to correct
the problem.
On March 8 and 13, Bill 91 was at
committee stage. Five presentations were
made. All were supportive, with the
exception of the Manitoba Medical Association.
On March 13, clause by clause, all proposed amendments are
approved. Upon adoption of the bill as
amended, the Minister of Justice states:
"I move that motion so that the Department of Health and its
Minister, of whom I have not had an opportunity to consult with in recent days,
. . . can do the work necessary to ensure that those who are in the business of
distributing these things on a legal basis are made aware of the new
rules."
"I do give the commitment to
the Honourable Member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis) and all
Honourable Members, that here again this is a matter of some importance to us
as a Government to bring some reasonable level of control with regard to
substance abuse."
On March 15, third and final reading‑‑on
December 11, 1990, the Minister of Health responds in the affirmative when
asked if he will proclaim the anti‑sniff bill. So the Minister of Health was on record as
being in favour of the anti‑sniff bill.
On December 11, in Estimates debate,
the Minister of Health states: "We
anticipate proclamation in January, and a committee is putting those varied
touches to the process of proclamation."
When asked if he could give us a
specific date in January when the bill might be proclaimed, the Minister of
Health stated: "Between the second
and the 31st."
So it seems that the Minister of
Health was prepared to go ahead on December 11, 1990. He was going to proclaim a bill which
received unanimous consent of all parties in the Manitoba Legislature.
In February 1991, staff for the
Minister of Health indicated that further study is required, that no date for
proclamation has been set. So all of a
sudden we have run into a roadblock, and we can only wonder what that roadblock
is. In fact, the MLA for
Then she said maybe it is because
the government has caved in to lobbying by merchants who do not want the hassle
of record‑keeping, but we do not know whether the merchants were lobbying
the Minister of Health. We have our
suspicions that obviously somebody got to him, but we do not know who. Or it may be that they are out of touch with
the issues because they do not see them on a day‑to‑day basis, she
says, and pointed out that Tories do not represent areas where solvent abuse is
prevalent. So maybe in spite of what they said in the House they really do not
care, because it does not affect many of their constituents. If that is true,
then we are very disappointed that that is the case, especially given the
positive comments that some of their members put on the record.
On May 1, 1991, the Minister of
Health stated that amendments may now be necessary to deal with technical
problems with enforcement. On March 3,
1992, the Minister of Health refuses to table legal opinions on enforcement. They referred to the fact that they had legal
opinion saying that the bill was unenforceable, but when asked to table it, did
the Minister of Health do it? No, he did
not. So we do not know whether he
actually had a legal opinion or not and if so what the legal opinion said, and
therefore we were not able to evaluate that and see whether this was a red
herring or just an excuse not to proclaim the bill.
We have been very critical. We lament their lack of action on proclaiming
Bill 91, which received all‑party consent. Of course the government might say, well,
that is then and this is now, and maybe the significant difference was that
that was a minority government and this is a majority government. They had to do some things with all‑party
co‑operation in order to stay in government or to not let the opposition
parties get some kind of advantage, but now that they are a majority they think
they can do whatever they want.
Certainly this bill is proof of
that, because there are things in here that the opposition parties do not agree
with and many, many people in the community do not agree with. In fact, when I was part of the
The solution from individuals and organizations
working in the inner city of
He goes on to say and I quote: It looks like we are going to have to prove
that it was purchased for the purpose of sniffing it, and if the seller says
that he thought it was not going to be purchased for that purpose, then he has
got an out.
So the police department have a
concern about the enforceability of this piece of legislation, because, of
course, the store owner is going to say he was not knowingly selling it for the
purpose of sniffing. So it may be very
difficult, the way this bill stands, to get a conviction in court.
Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have
left?
Mr. Speaker:
The honourable member has 15 minutes remaining.
Mr. Martindale: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The other major concern that we have and, at
the time that the anti‑sniff coalition was meeting, was shared by the
police is the clauses which criminalize, we believe, children, because it says
that it is a punishable offence for children to be involved in sniffing. We are disappointed that that is going to
happen. In fact, we think that the
effect of this is that many children are going to be taken to the Manitoba
Youth Centre. They are going to spend
days or weeks there, and this is going to be done at great expense.
* (1210)
In fact people have asked from the
community that we met with: What is the
cost of keeping children at the Manitoba Youth Centre? What is the per diem that the youth centre
gets per child? Surely that amounts to
large sums of money if many children are going to be taken there. They said to us, would not that money be
better spent on prevention and treatment, and we agreed. We think that is a point that is well
taken. Certainly there are many, many
disadvantages to incarcerating children or youths, and just one of them is the
expense.
The one other concern would be, when
a child enters the youth justice system, that they get labelled, that they
become involved in the system.
Therefore, it is much more likely that they are going to be reinvolved
and they are going to have a record in the youth justice system. We do not know what kind of dispositions the
judge is going to use under the Young Offenders Act, whether they are going to
come down hard on youths or whether they are going to be referred to Youth
Justice Committees and whether that is going to be a helpful route to go or
not. So a major concern of our caucus is
what happens when children and youths get involved in the youth justice system.
I believe our caucus is going to
support this bill, but I believe, also, that we will be bringing forward
amendments and that we will be asking for changes, particularly to the sections
that we believe criminalize children, because we think that it is unfair to do
that. It is the wrong way to go. This is not what people in the community want
to do, including the City of
I also have an article here from the
In fact, the original City of
There are many, many people who are
affected by this problem in the community, and there are many, many articles in
the Free Press and the Sun just for five months of this current year.
For example, on January 14, the
headline says: Streets claim
volunteer. Man, 25, stabbed to death in
sniff party argument.
As a result of this, people in the
community were interviewed, and Wayne Helgason, the executive‑director of
Ma Mawi Wi Chi Itata Centre, said that the death of Mr. Chartrand proved once
again the need for expanded treatment programs for sniffers. He pointed out that there were no programs in
On February 9, an article in the
Free Press is entitled: Solvents poison reserves. No facilities for northern addicts. The first
paragraph says: There are at least 2,200
solvent abusers, mostly children, on northern reserves, but not a single
treatment facility, a recent study by MKO concludes.
An article in The Winnipeg Sun of
April 24 is titled: The Hair‑Spray
Fix. Street people turn to new kind of
cocktail. A very interesting article by
Riva Harrison, and it quotes the MLA for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).
[interjection]
The member opposite says, a good
MLA, and as I said before, I commended him for having a public meeting,
inviting the public and inviting all MLAs to hear concerns from the community.
On May 1, 1993, an article in the
Free Press says: Chief coroner urges ban
on solvent abuse. This was the result of
the death of two men from Shamattawa.
Dr. Peter Markesteyn said, and I
quote: I think legislation that would
make it possible to lay a charge would assist in the control of this
abuse. He continued by saying, quote: But what can you do to a person you
arrest? Nothing.
So you have a concern expressed by
the chief coroner for
On Tuesday, May 4, in The Winnipeg
Sun, the headline says: Anti‑sniff bill fails, says Mountie. So once again we have a concern by the RCMP
about legislation, and he says, quote:
We need some legislation to prevent this kind of thing from
happening. He is referring to protecting
adults.
Finally, we have an article in May 4
in the Free Press: Sniff bill proposes $5,000 fines, jail. P.C. legislation too weak, NDP says. I am sure that you will be hearing more
comments from my colleagues, particularly the member for
Also, another article by Arlene
Billinkoff in the Free Press on May 9, 1993‑‑the title is, Break
for sniff merchants‑‑points out some of the weaknesses regarding
merchants in this piece of legislation.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, as I
said before, our caucus will be supporting this bill, but I believe we will
also be asking for amendments at the committee stage because this bill does
not, we believe, meet the needs of the community. It does not respond to the consensus that I
believe exists in the community‑‑[interjection]
Well, the point I made, and I will
repeat it again for the honourable members, is that we have always been opposed
to criminalizing children, and that is the main objection that we have to this
bill, that it is going to criminalize children. That does not solve the
problem.
We have always been opposed to
criminalizing children, and the member for
With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I
am finished. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker:
As previously agreed, this matter will remain standing in the name of the
honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).
Is it the will of the House to call
it 12:30? [agreed]
The hour being 12:30, this House is
now adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. Monday.