LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
OF
Wednesday, June 9,
1993
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley):
Monsieur le president, j'aimerais presenter la petition de Lorraine
Rondeau, Estelle Comte, Allan Charbonneau et d'autres personnes demandant au
ministre de la Sante de considerer a restaurer le Programme dentaire des
enfants au niveau dont il beneficiait avant le budget.
(Translation)
Mr.
Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Lorraine Rondeau, Estelle Comte,
Allan Charbonneau and others requesting the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) to
consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it was prior to
the budget.
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Kevin L. Thompson, Laird
Simpson, Tammy Vandenberghe and others requesting the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it was
prior to the 1993‑94 budget.
Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Lucinda Carels, Val
Norrie, Leslie E. King and others requesting the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it was
prior to the 1993‑94 budget.
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
A. Smirl, Doreen Geirnaert, Monique B. Martel and others requesting the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental
Program to the level it was prior to the 1993‑94 budget.
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Rosanne Labossiere, Brenda
Fiddler, Roselynn Poiron and others requesting the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it was
prior to the 1993‑94 budget.
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member (Mrs. Carstairs). It complies
with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules
(by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant):
The petition of the undersigned residents of the
WHEREAS the
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
PRESENTING REPORTS BY
STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of
Committees): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has
considered certain resolutions, directs me to report progress and asks leave to
sit again.
I move,
seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the
report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Mr. Jack Reimer (Chairperson of the
Standing Committee on Economic Development): Mr. Speaker,
I beg to present the Fourth Report of the Committee on Economic Development.
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant):
Your Standing Committee on Economic Development presents the following
as its Fourth Report.
Your committee met on Tuesday, June 8,
1993, at 10 a.m., in Room 255 of the
Your committee has considered the Annual
Report of Moose Lake Loggers Ltd. for the year ended March 31, 1992, and has
adopted the same as presented.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. Reimer:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member of St. Vital
(Mrs. Render), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
* (1335)
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. James Downey (Minister of
Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Supplementary
Information for the Department of Energy and Mines, as well as the
Supplementary Information for Manitoba Department of Northern Affairs.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the second
Quarterly Financial Report of the
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
afternoon from the Landmark Collegiate thirty Grade 5 students under the
direction of Mr. Russ Dirks. This school
is located in the constituency of the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr.
Sveinson).
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Children's Dental
Health Program
Cost-effectiveness
Study
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, last evening, I attended a
community meeting in Arborg dealing with the Children's Dental Program. Trustees, students, parents, dental nurses,
dental staff were at the meeting to bring their perspectives on the changes in
the budget introduced by the government.
Mr. Speaker, there were, of course, strong
statements about the quality of dental care for children in rural northern
There were also some questions and some
concerns about costs. Many people
produced information that said it will cost a lot more money to take 300 people
in a remote community out for dental care, children, than it would to have two
dental staff go into a community.
I would like to ask the Premier (Mr.
Filmon), has he received a cost‑effectiveness study on the changes that
his government made to the Children's Dental Program in the budget his
government introduced last month?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, I attended a similar meeting in
Minnedosa some, I guess, five or six weeks ago.
Clearly, the curtailment of the treatment portion of the program is not
a decision that anyone on this side of the House took with any kind of
pleasure. It was a difficult
decision. It was a decision that has been
proffered as an option for a number of years, including when my honourable
friends were government.
We did not accept it in past years, but
this year with the continuing financial pressure on the department, we did
elect to remove the treatment portion and funding for the treatment portion of
the Children's Dental Health Program.
I have said to my honourable friend that
this decision is not a reversible decision in terms of reinstatement of any
portion of the treatment program, but that we intend to maintain the very
valuable educational and prevention component of the program, which has been
exceptionally effective in promoting proper dental health amongst children and
in maintaining and creating very good dental health for children in Manitoba.
* (1340)
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows and we all
know you cannot put into pigeon boxes the treatment program and the prevention
program because it is a holistic program for the quality of children's teeth in
remote and rural communities. Good treatment is good prevention and good
prevention is good treatment.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a
letter signed by Dr. Peter Cooney, president of the Canadian Society of Public
Health Dentists, wherein he states that the government cost estimates of $11
million over the next three fiscal years as a saving to taxpayers is incorrect.
He goes on to state that the cost will
actually be $22 million in actual costs to
The Premier (Mr. Filmon) has been copied
on this letter. Has the Premier reviewed
this? Has the Premier asked the Minister
of Health for that cost analysis, as alleged by Dr. Peter Cooney? Can the Premier
indicate today, are we actually going to be spending more money as the doctor
has indicated rather than saving money on the one line in the budget of the
Department of Health?
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Speaker, Dr. Cooney contacted my office about 10 or 15 minutes ago to
offer to myself and to the ministry that study my honourable friend is
referring to. I would be most anxious to
receive it and to analyze it.
Mr. Speaker, there is an interesting blend
of taxpayer commitment here. Clearly,
the taxpayers will not be funding $3 million per year of treatment
program. That cost clearly will be
transferred where treatment is needed to the families of those children, but
those are not the taxpayers in general in
It does mean, Sir, that parents in
Mr. Doer: Well, the minister knows there has been
absolutely no communication, no strategy, no action in the education field to
deal with the allegations the minister makes in this Chamber on that issue.
Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between
remote communities, their costs, which will not be borne by the Department of
Health but actually will be borne by the Department of Family Services. There is a difference between rural children
who do not always have available the fluoride treatment programs and other
programs. They do not have the same
ratio of dentists to citizens. There are
differences between
Mr. Speaker, the government was offered
this study on May 8, 1993. The Premier
(Mr. Filmon) was offered this study in a letter that was written and copied to
him on May 8. I heard about it last
night, and I asked for the study immediately, as I would expect any member of
this Legislature to do.
Last night, the member for Gimli (Mr.
Helwer) was at the same meeting and he said, and I quote: I hope I can convince our minister to
reconsider his decision on the Children's Dental Program.
I would ask the Premier today: Will he take the same stand as his member for
Gimli and tell the Minister of Health to reconsider and reinstitute the
Children's Dental Program, which is the most cost‑effective preventative
program in all of
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend is partially correct in part of his
preamble and his statement. The
children's dental treatment program may well have been one of the most cost‑effective
because it was one of the sole remaining ones in
Now, I point out to my honourable friend,
no one on this side of the House enjoyed having to make those kinds of
difficult decisions. Those are never easy
decisions and that, Sir, is why provinces across the length and breadth of this
country are trying to negotiate, for instance, social contracts in
My honourable friend the Leader of the
Opposition here recommends to Premier Bob Rae in
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
* (1345)
Children's Dental
Health Program
School Division
Involvement
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Education (Mrs. Vodrey).
The Minister of Health has suggested that
school divisions could take over the preventative programs formerly provided
through the Children's Dental Health Program.
Given the terms of the contract between
the province and the school divisions which requires a six‑month notice
period, can the Minister of Education tell the House today what notice has been
given to school boards and divisions that her government is eliminating the
Children's Dental Program and that the school divisions may be required to take
over this provincial program?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend is mixing
apples and oranges. My honourable friend
is talking about a six‑month period of notice for reinstatement of the
treatment side of the program.
The prevention program, Sir, has been part
of classrooms in the
Now, my honourable friend is wrong in
terms of his notice requirement. That is
a treatment program reinstatement facilitation that had to be in place for the
children's dental treatment program‑‑treatment program, Sir, not
prevention and education.
Mr. Clif Evans:
Mr. Speaker, I wonder out loud how five people can take care of 63,000
kids.
My question is to the Minister of
Education. We already know the Minister
of Health has no studies to recommend the elimination of the program. What action has the Minister of Education
taken to review the potential costs to the school divisions if this program is
offloaded, as the Minister of Health is suggesting?
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Speaker, I might provide my honourable friend with a copy of a
letter, although I believe the critic for Health probably has it, if he would
share it with him.
It was a letter sent to my office from a
superintendent of one of the school divisions as a result of the Minnedosa meeting,
wherein the superintendent wanted to seek advice as to whether school divisions‑‑if
there was the will of parents to maintain the program within the school system,
to maintain it as a parent‑pay‑for‑the‑program
initiative. It is the school divisions
which are asking whether that is a possibility.
Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend talks
about offload. There is no offload of
the treatment program to the school divisions. That has not been contemplated,
is not contemplated.
However, I indicated in Minnedosa, as I
have indicated subsequent to receipt of the letter from that superintendent,
that we would consider any options the school divisions wanted to undertake in
discussion with government.
Fluoride Treatment
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, this minister talks about the
prevention program being kept in place.
Can he tell this House today why a school
division has already given notice, just this past week or so, that fluoride
treatment to elementary children in that school will be totally eliminated as
soon as supplies have expired?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, I would be appreciative of
knowing which school has provided that kind of advice.
Economic Growth
Western Economic
Co-operation
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the
Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.
Now that the very brief fanfare
surrounding the release of the government's so‑called Framework for
Economic Growth yesterday has completely subsided, I trust that the Premier
understands why it was not quite the public relations boon he thought it would
be.
It included, in fact, a lot of high‑blown
principles which were certainly well put out.
However, there was no real framework, no real initiatives, no real
timetable, and, as a result, offered no real hope to the people of this
province for economic growth.
I have suggested a number of specific
programs and directions for the government.
I would like to ask the Premier, specifically with respect to western
economic co‑operation, which is a definable, real approach to take in
this province and in this country, when is the Premier going to give his
Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) a specific mandate and
a specific timetable to work on a co‑operation agreement with the western
provinces in this country, given that the most recent estimate is that there is
a $5‑billion potential western economic dividend to be had?
* (1350)
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, as usual, the member for St. James totally misses the
point.
Yesterday, we had approximately 75 of the
leaders of the community of
It is the shallow thinking of the member
for St. James that only gives that kind of one‑liner for him. He is joining the club of the member for
Concordia (Mr. Doer), where he is looking for the cheap political trick. I say to him that he will gain just as much
from it as does the member for Concordia with his eight‑second clips for
TV. That may be his retention length,
but it is not that of the people of
I say that he only need look at today's
news media and see that Winnipeg 2000 is putting out a study with respect to
the telecommunications opportunity for
We were meeting at lunch today with people
who are in another one of those sectors, who have a proposal that would bring
thousands of jobs to
Those are the kinds of things we want to
see happen in Manitoba‑‑leaders in the community, economic and business
leaders in the community, making commitments to implement this Framework for
Economic Growth.
That is what we are interested in, and
that is what I say will happen as a result of the release of this report.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I missed the
point, and I think the point is, after five years, there really is nothing to
implement. There is nothing here that
this government has not said before and that the people of this province do not
already know.
What they are looking for is some real
timetable, some real initiatives. That
is what they are looking for, and after five years, that is what they have not
gotten.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my question for the
Premier is‑‑and he did not address it. I am not taking cheap political shots. Rather, I am putting forward ideas that I am
asking him to look at and do. Those are
definable and those are real, and I am asking him, when is his government going
to take western economic co‑operation as a means of reducing government
costs and increasing wealth in our province?
When is he going to take it
seriously? When is he going to give his
minister a timetable, an agenda and a mandate to talk to the other provinces
and move in this direction?
Mr. Filmon:
Mr. Speaker, at every meeting that I have attended of the western
Premiers since I took office in 1988, that has been one of the major topics on
the table for discussion. At every
meeting, we have sought new, better and different ways of ensuring that we
continue that co‑operation.
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite says no
progress is being made. There are 7,000
more people employed in this province today than were employed in August of
last year. Even looking at this article,
it denotes 700 jobs in the telecommunications field that have been announced
within the last three months for
I could go on and read for him initiatives
such as Black & Veatch's state‑of‑the‑art centre of
engineering excellence, such as Monsanto's investment in a dry Glyphosate plant
for Morden, such as the quadrupling of the size of the Ayerst plant in
People in the industrial sector and people
in the business sector know that the progress we are making is a result of the
initiatives we have been taking.
* (1355)
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the real people out there know
that if we had remained at the same job levels we had in 1988, the same
percentage we had in 1988, there would be 8,925 more full‑time jobs in
this province. They know that. The people out there know that.
My question for the Premier: He says there have been benefits gained. There was a 1989 procurement agreement that
had more exemptions than inclusions.
When is this Premier going to sit down with his fellow Premiers and
start saying it is time we dealt with each other first, before we make it
easier to trade with
When is he going to sit down with the
other Premiers and say,
Mr. Filmon:
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this province has been the most
steadfast, most committed province in the entire country with respect to
removal of interprovincial trade barriers‑‑absolutely.
Mr. Speaker, what do we have? We have other provinces like
Mr. Speaker, I believe that is the wrong
way to go. This government has been
absolutely consistent and steadfast in its commitment to remove interprovincial
trade barriers, more so than any other province in the country.
Economic Growth
Provincial Comparisons
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East):
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask the Premier a question about this
report, Framework for Economic Growth, because this document is filled with
platitudes, meaningless generalities and, even worse, unsubstantiated
claims. It contains the same old right‑wing
rhetoric that we have been fed for the last five years. On page 19 of this report it states:
Mr. Speaker, that is a total fabrication. Some would even say it is a crock.
Mr. Speaker, since 1988, our research has
shown that the
Some Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for Brandon East was just going to put his question.
Mr. Leonard Evans:
Mr. Speaker, our research has shown that the
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Question, please.
Mr. Leonard Evans:
My question for the First Minister is: Exactly where is your data to
back up your claim that we have done relatively better than the rest of the country? You cannot prove that.
* (1400)
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, we now have a clear picture of the New Democrats' approach
to looking at growth‑‑(interjection)
You do not rule the House here. You do not
even rule your own caucus, so just keep your opinions to yourself.
Mr. Speaker, New Democrats found out very
quickly that they could artificially inflate GDP numbers by simply spending
government money, borrowing money and spending it. For every 3 percent of additional spending,
they could increase GDP growth by 1 percent in this province, and year after
year after year, they increased their spending by 6 and 9 percent so they could
add 2 and 3 percent to the GDP growth of this province.
What did it leave us with? Debt, Mr. Speaker, debt on which we pay $560
million of interest every year, debt that costs us $560 million that we cannot
spend on health care, that we cannot spend on social services, that we cannot
spend on education.
I am not going to resign the people of
this province to more debt. They are not
going to be given more debt as a result of the NDP wanting to just simply
inflate GDP numbers. That is not the way
to look at it.
What we have in this province is
individual private‑sector people like the telecommunications centre
making investments, long‑term investments, creating job opportunities‑‑people
like Monsanto, people like Ayerst, people like Black & Veatch making long‑term
investments creating job opportunities.
That is what we are working on, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Leonard Evans:
The Premier did not answer the question.
He does not have any data to back this up so it is just a crock. There
is no data.
Employment Creation
Strategy
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East):
My question, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: How can this government expect to achieve
more employment in
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, every single bit of information in this document is based
on fact, information that is readily available.
The problem is this member does not
understand what is happening to the economy.
He cannot read. International
Herald Tribune from last month‑‑a story about what is happening in
Europe as they go through restructuring; countries like
Mr. Speaker, the members opposite want to
put their heads in the sand, want to say it does not matter what is happening
in the world's economy. All we have to
do is spend more money on short‑term, make‑work jobs, and we can
fight everything that is going on. That
is absolute nonsense.
Manufacturing Industry
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East):
Mr. Speaker, the people of
Mr. Speaker, how does this government, how
does this Premier expect to get a significant increase in manufacturing jobs in
this province when the data show consistent decline for some time now, and
especially now that we have the Free Trade Agreement?
We have been losing manufacturing industries
out of the province, so there has been a significant shift out of the
province. We have become even more of a
periphery in terms of manufacturing activity in
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has put his question.
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, there is more integrity in this document than in any of the
fraudulent statistics that are put out by the member opposite in all of his
kinds of phony analyses that he puts out to his constituents.
This is real integrity, not like the phony
statistics from that phony economist over there.
Point of Order
Mr. Leonard Evans:
Mr. Speaker, I stand on a point of‑‑if the Premier would sit
down because I am on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for Brandon East indeed has risen on a point of
order, and we will hear what the point of order is.
Mr. Leonard Evans:
Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the Premier referred to a
fraudulent document. He imputed motives
to me that somehow or other I was putting out fraudulent information. This information is based on Statistics
Canada data, and I invite the minister to study it or get his staff to study
it.
I want the First Minister to withdraw that
remark. He is imputing motives to
me. That is my point of order, which I
think is very valid.
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable
member for Brandon East, he indeed referenced "fraudulent."
Fraudulent, indeed, I will remind the honourable member for Brandon East, does
show up under parliamentary language.
As much as we do not like it, it does show
up as parliamentary. Indeed, the one
that is unparliamentary happens to be fraudulent character, which I believe the
honourable First Minister did not use.
Therefore the honourable member for
Brandon East did not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The honourable First Minister, to answer the
question.
Mr. Filmon:
Mr. Speaker, that point of order was as phony as his statistics are.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
I have already ruled on the point of order.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House
Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, our rules are very clear,
that when a point of order is raised and the Speaker has ruled, that is the end
of the matter.
The Premier was out of order making
reference to that, and I ask you to not only ask him to withdraw that comment,
but perhaps also to answer the question raised by the member for Brandon East.
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable
member for Brandon East, I had already previously just told the honourable
First Minister that I had ruled on the point of order, and that matter has been
settled.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The honourable First Minister, if he wants to
finish his answer.
Mr. Filmon:
Mr. Speaker, I accept totally your judgment and I agree with it. (interjection) No, I always agree with
the Speaker. I am consistent.
Mr. Speaker, the point the member for
Brandon East fails to understand is the entire world is going through a
restructuring, a massive restructuring that is, in fact, destroying jobs in
many major sectors of the economy.
Instead of standing up and railing away, saying this should not happen,
even though decisions are being made throughout the world consistently that
affect people everywhere, including Canada, what we have to do is choose the
path in which we can get the new economy jobs.
That is the path that is put forward here
in this framework. That is what Winnipeg 2000 has recognized when they talk about
telecommunications. That is what the
aerospace industry, that is what the health care industry, that is what the
food processing industry, that is what the tourism industry has recognized,
that these are the areas of opportunity for new jobs‑‑high‑tech,
value‑added, new‑age jobs for
Instead of railing away against what is
happening, get involved. Be
positive. Encourage people to invest and
be a part of this new growth in
Personal Care Homes
Fee Schedule
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):
Mr. Speaker, within 60 days, there will be some new growth in fees at
nursing homes in the
Many nursing home officials are concerned
that they will be responsible for determining who pays and how much those
people pay.
What system will the minister be putting
in place to determine who is eligible and how much they will be paying?
* (1410)
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, as I explained to my honourable
friend previously when he posed this question, in developing some of the
budgetary initiatives in the Ministry of Health and other ministries, we took
the opportunity to undertake some collaboration with provinces to the east and
to the west.
The reason we chose the $46 maximum rate,
if there was the ability to pay that rate by the individual, was that it made
us consistent with
Mr. Speaker, the formula of the higher
rate of payment or an increased rate of payment is very sensitive to the income
of the individual resident. It is
sensitive to a second feature in that we have indicated we will not have
charges based on income of an individual which might compromise the ability of
a spouse to live independently of the personal care home system.
Now, Mr. Speaker, those guidelines are
being finalized, and communication, I expect, will be underway with our
personal care homes in terms of explaining the guidelines and the assessment of
the new rates, if applicable, by ability to pay.
Mr. Chomiak:
Mr. Speaker, well, I understand now what is happening in other
provinces, but I still do not know what is happening in
Will the means test, the incomes test, be
introduced by this minister? Will it be
administered by the nursing homes themselves?
Will they have to go and administer it themselves, which was my initial
question, or will the department be administering the means test or the incomes
test for those people who are inside nursing homes?
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Speaker, it has been the intention, and it has been communicated to
all of our personal care home managers, that the determination of whether the
resident has the ability to pay an additional sliding‑scale contribution
towards their stay in a personal care home will be administered by the
administration.
It will increase in steps, I believe five‑
or 10‑cent‑per‑day steps, from the current $26.50 to a
maximum of $46, which will, I repeat, Sir, follow two criteria‑‑reflect
the ability to pay for that additional charge and not compromise the
opportunity for independent living of a spouse outside of a personal care home.
Mr. Chomiak:
Will these administrators of the nursing homes, who the minister has now
admitted will be responsible for determining how much will be paid by these
people on the means test, will these administrators who have had their budgets
cut back, will they be required to review and can they legally do people's
income tax in order to be able to determine the income levels? How will this be
determined, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to my honourable friend, that process is in
the course of being developed and will be communicated with the personal care
homes in the very near future.
Hemophiliacs
HIV Compensation
Package
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Last year, the federal government gave up
its responsibility to compensate all those patients who received HIV through
tainted blood. It was almost
irresponsible, immoral and on the brink of criminal, Mr. Speaker. Similar incidents which happened in
The question is, Mr. Speaker, those people
who have HIV are still a part of our province.
Somebody has to bear the responsibility.
We can lose one of them on a daily basis.
We are asking the minister again: In view of the statements made by
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday when my
honourable friend posed the question and some 10 days ago when my honourable
friend posed the question, we have the item placed on the agenda of the
September Health ministers meeting.
I had discussions with the New Brunswick
Minister of Health this afternoon, because it was alleged in one of the
newspaper articles that
Mr. Speaker, let me indicate to my
honourable friend why. My honourable
friend indicated the federal government assumed a role in compensation some
three or four years ago in isolation from the provinces, with no provinces at
the table even aware that discussions were going on.
One of the instructions that the federal
government gave to the Canadian Hemophilia Society in concluding an offer of assistance
was that should they require more, they should go to the provinces who were not
even at the table, and, furthermore, that to receive the federal compensation,
those individuals had to sign their rights away from future compensation by the
federal government.
Even that process, Sir, has been
questioned by a recent parliamentary committee.
Would my honourable friend not want the federal government, as well as
the provincial and territorial governments, at the table this September to
develop an initiative which has a national‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Cheema:
Mr. Speaker, we are not denying those facts. The federal government gave up the
responsibility. One of the views was
that probably some of those patients may not survive by that time. It is almost immoral.
We are asking the government, on
compassionate grounds, to have a compensation package, because the government
is going to meet on the 22nd of June, so that will at least give some hope to
these patients and their families.
Mr. Speaker, there are horror
stories. I am sure the minister and the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) will really boost their confidence and do a moral
obligation, which is our moral responsibility in this House.
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend does not have the corner on the market
for compassion. I feel for those people,
as every member in this House feels for those members.
Mr. Speaker, two of the decisions were
made in the midst of an election campaign.
Does that demonstrate compassion?
Mr. Cheema:
No.
Mr. Orchard:
My honourable friend says no.
Well, I thank him for that answer.
I cannot answer that directly.
Sir, what I am saying to my honourable
friend is that in
That is why there is a role, we have
always said, for the federal government to be at the table. They should be at the table. Even their own parliamentary committee said
they should, and we are having that happen in September.
Mr. Cheema:
Mr. Speaker, we are not blaming this government. We are simply asking them to do what is
right.
In the interim period, can these patients
get some kind of assurance from the minister, and can the minister tell us what
kind of policy statements he is going to direct his officials to take to the
June 22 meeting?
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Speaker, not a dissimilar statement to what I have given to the
House right now, not a dissimilar statement to what the New Brunswick Minister
of Health will send to that June meeting in anticipation of the September
meeting.
If there is a need and a cry for
consistency, it is on this issue, Sir, because that is a very important issue
in which the federal government cannot be allowed to, behind closed doors, without
any discussion with the provinces, offload their responsibility onto
provinces. I think that is a very
offensive principle of nationalism in this country.
I have said that from the day the program
was announced, and, consistently, we have attempted, Sir, to try to make
provincial approaches consistent and to provide each province with support and
assistance to those individuals who are so afflicted.
Student Social
Allowances Program
Current Students‑Completion
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows):
Mr. Speaker, when this government eliminated the Student Social
Allowances Program, they made one of the stupidest decisions of their entire
budget of this Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). To take students out of school, put them on
social assistance and deny them their chances of getting better employment or
even employment at all was dumb, dumb, dumb.
Since this Minister of Family Services has
refused to reinstate the program, will he at least respond positively to the
request from the City of
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister
of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, we have indicated that this was
one of the many difficult decisions that government had to make within this
budget process.
I would remind the member that this was a
program that existed in no other province in this country. We did not take this decision lightly. We have indicated this program is going to be
terminated at the end of June.
We have been involved in discussions with
the municipal tier of government over regulations and have indicated that
perhaps within their sphere of interest, they may be able to assist those
people.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
Committee Changes
Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli):
I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the
composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as
follows: the member for Assiniboia (Mrs.
McIntosh) for the member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst); the member for Turtle
Mountain (Mr. Rose) for the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine); the
member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister) for the member for River East
(Mrs. Mitchelson); and the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) for the member for
Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): I move, seconded by the member for
Motion agreed to.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government
House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you call second reading of
Bills 39 and 40, and then follow that with debate on second readings, adjourned
debate Bills 11, 15, 22, 14.
SECOND
Bill 39‑The
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of
Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 39, The Provincial Court Amendment Act (Loi
modifiant la Loi sur la Cour provinciale), be now read a second time and be
referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. McCrae:
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this legislation is to ensure the
independence and impartiality of
The Manitoba Provincial Court Act was
amended in 1989, to establish a clearly defined process for the appointment of
judges to the provincial court. However,
these amendments did not deal with part‑time judges. Since that time in 1991, the Supreme Court
decision on the constitutionality of part‑time judges in
* (1420)
Based on that ruling, Mr. Speaker, we are
introducing amendments that provide legislative safeguards by setting clear
guidelines and limitations which will ensure the impartiality and independence
of part‑time judges in
Some of the features of this legislation
include strict guidelines regarding the appointment of part‑time
judges. The appointments must be based
on a demonstrated need of the court. Future part‑time judges must be
recruited from judges who have previously been appointed under The Provincial
Court Act. Furthermore, the appointments will be nonrenewable and must not
exceed a five‑year term.
In order to ensure impartiality, a part‑time
judge is prohibited from practising law in the
Mr. Speaker, before I finish on part‑time
judges, I think that I should just pay brief tribute to those people in
I suggest there ought to be no difficulty on
the part of honourable members with this bill, and I would be asking them for
their support. Thank you.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Motion agreed to.
Bill 40‑The
Legal Aid Services Society of
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of
Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 40, The Legal Aid Services Society of Manitoba
Amendment and Crown Attorneys Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la
Societe d'aide juridique du Manitoba et la Loi sur les procureurs de la
Couronne), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this
House.
Motion presented.
Mr. McCrae:
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this legislation is to enable people who are
not lawyers to provide prosecution or defence services in communities
designated by the Lieutenant‑Governor.
Under the existing Legal Aid Services
Society of Manitoba Act and The Crown Attorneys Act, these services can only be
provided by lawyers. However, there are
cases where it would be beneficial to have the active participation of local
communities. For example, our government
recognizes that aboriginal people have a better understanding of their
communities and aboriginal values.
Through extensive consultation with
aboriginal communities, we are developing innovative approaches to enable
aboriginal people to play a more active role in the justice system.
We are proposing this amendment to set up
a legal framework for nonlawyers to be employed for defence and prosecutorial
functions. The new legislation specifies
that nonlawyers may provide services under the Legal Aid Services act if they
are under the general direction and supervision of a solicitor. Nonlawyers may
also act as prosecutors when they are under the direction and supervision of a
Crown attorney. The legislation
restricts a lawyer who has been disbarred, suspended or struck off the rolls
from being employed under either act.
This legislation was prepared following
consultation with Legal Aid
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Motion agreed to.
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 11‑The
Regional Waste Management Authorities, The Municipal Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), Bill 11, The Regional Waste
Management Authorities, The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments
Act; Loi concernant les offices regionaux de gestion des dechets, modifiant la
Loi sur les municipalites et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres
lois, standing in the name of the honourable member for the Interlake.
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few
comments on Bill 11. This bill is giving
the opportunity for municipalities and local governments to attack, I guess,
the problem and work towards resolving the problem of waste management and
waste disposal sites.
I have had the opportunity to deal with
this matter, Mr. Speaker, as mayor of Riverton, 1989 to 1990. Waste management and disposal sites were a constant
conversation within council amongst councillors and amongst the people of the
community, and along with other jurisdictions as to how to address the
situation we presently have with waste disposal sites.
* (1430)
With the implementation of the section
under The Environment Act proclaimed in 1991, Mr. Speaker, I think the
situation has indeed gotten to a point where municipalities are really put in a
position which they are unable to deal with as individuals.
In speaking with municipalities and
councils in my area in the past three months, I have brought Bill 11 to their
attention and requested that, in fact, we have some input.
Mr. Speaker, the problem that the
municipalities and councils have indicated to me is the fact that even though
the government is moving in one direction to be able to provide an outlet and
provide a chance for local governments to combine in dealing with the problem,
their concern is the fact that the costs could be, in fact, a burden upon the
municipalities.
Presently, to deal with waste disposal
sites and waste management situations, the local government jurisdiction may in
fact, through their tax levy, deal with the costs and with the maintenance and
the issues at hand in dealing with waste disposal sites.
Mr. Speaker, we know there is a problem
out there. Again, I can mention that I
know the problem first‑hand.
Having to deal with it has been a tremendous problem. We have looked to the government for
assistance on this. We have requested
that government step in, perhaps provide information, provide some
guidance. To date, I think that some
municipalities are satisfied with the response from government but others are
not.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, will in fact
provide the door, the opportunity for two or three or however many
municipalities feel that that would be worth combining as an organization, as a
separate organization to deal with a regional area as far as waste
management. We know that perhaps dealing
with it collectively as a group of two or three municipalities where access to
sites would be more available and having all the municipalities deal with one
site instead of three or four or five, as some municipalities in fact do have‑‑some
municipalities in my own constituency have three to four sites in their own
jurisdiction. Again, it is creating a
problem and has created a problem for many years‑‑the control, the
fact that the maintaining of it, what goes into these sites, what goes out of
these sites.
So I look at this bill as an opportunity,
as a door for municipalities to get together, organize themselves and deal with
a problem that has, for certain municipalities, over the past many years,
created not only a financial but an environmental problem for their jurisdictions.
I have a problem with dealing with my
councils, the problem of the initial costs to do all of regionalizing and
combining. The minister and the government have indicated that now they are
giving the option to combine their resources and to develop regional waste
sites, and the Department of Environment has recommended, has urged this bill,
too. The bill would, in fact, give the
municipalities just another outlet to be able to deal with a problem that we
have had to deal with for many years.
Within my own constituency, Mr. Speaker,
the Interlake Development Corporation, a very strong regional development group
with councillors and reeves and mayors from different municipalities, has
undertaken, through funding from within the municipalities that are involved
with the IDC, a regional waste management study that they have requested a
consultant to put together for them and giving them an idea and all the
municipalities within the Interlake Development Corporation branch an
opportunity to co‑ordinate their specific and individual problems,
combine them and discuss them, having an option to be able to deal with an
issue that again is very front and centre and a problem that most
municipalities have.
Mr. Speaker, I know that in speaking with
members from MAUM and UMM, they have given me no indication, nor have they
given us in caucus or on this side of the House any indication, that they have
a tremendous concern about this act. The
fact that they have encouraged this government to propose such an act tells me
that perhaps the government is, at this point in time, dealing up front and
attempting to deal with an issue that municipalities have tried to get the
government to deal with directly or indirectly, giving them an opportunity to
deal with an issue, giving them an opportunity to combine themselves into one
regional group, one regional corporation.
It is providing them an opportunity, if funding is needed, to somehow
deal with it as a whole so that access to any funding that may be required
would be combined amongst themselves and shared, whether it be equally or on a
population or per capita or per quota, for developing a disposal site.
Again, I get back to‑‑and I
hate to keep referring back to the costs.
The costs, in fact, could be for some‑‑and I realize, Mr.
Speaker, that this bill gives them the opportunity that they can get together
and they can look at and they can discuss whether they want to combine. I know it gives them the opportunity that
they have not had before to deal with this matter in that way, but again, we
have to look at the costs, and we have to look at the have‑not
municipalities who are in financial difficulty, where how much that costs to
combine and organize and be part of a regional waste study group and disposal
site corporation, they would not be able to.
They would not be able to combine, using
examples where there may be two or three villages within one municipality, and
the municipality having the greater population and a better tax base on its
side would be able to enter into such an agreement and in fact be able to go to
a financial institution and decide whether or not they can and/or will be able
to receive funding, obtain the funding and how.
They will have to now‑‑and I would think that how it would
be dealt with is that, will the municipality or municipalities that have formed
into a corporation have collectively or individually assets or capital that
would be required to be able to get funding so that (a) they may be able to go
ahead with the study, or (b) go ahead with the site?
When we talk about sites, Mr. Speaker, of
course, it is another problem that has been brought forth to my attention. Once
a regional group has formed and has decided that, yes, it will work together
and, yes, it will work together as the funding‑‑that is where the
site will be, the site locale for their disposal site. You know and we know, in fact, that no one
wants a disposal site in their own backyard.
Nobody wants to see the garbage, the materials that are being put in our
disposal sites right in their backyard.
I think that is indeed where a problem will occur between the regional
groups and the site planning.
Now, the act does give the municipalities
direction so that the Municipal Board would intervene or assist with the whole
process if need be. But now you are
dealing with areas that (a) are going to have to provide environmental
guidelines, and (b) adhere to the guidelines that are being administered
through the Department of Environment, plus you are going to have to deal with
people, people who are going to say and are going to argue with and are going
to go before these municipal corporations, these municipal boards or councils,
in arguing their case.
* (1440)
We may, even though the process may or may
not take even longer than what it should, it could be delayed by petitions, it
could be delayed by groups who are opposed to a certain site area. The board, the municipal regional corporation
that will be formed, will have to deal with these people. We may get that imbalance and distinction of
for and against a specific site.
I mean, regardless of the fact that the
bill enables municipalities to join and deal with the issue, they are still
dealing with the same problem that we are going to be now, that we are now
dealing with, that we are having with the sites and having with where they are
going to be.
Mr. Speaker, we know that now we have
sites that are near water tables, near rivers and lakes. I think that through the assistance of the
government that the regional corporations will be able to develop and work
towards finding an area that is going to service the municipalities that are
involved, that are going to service the people in the communities. It also has to deal with the fact, again, as
to where it is going to be. Who is it
negatively affecting?
Mr. Speaker, the bill also addresses
concerns raised by municipalities with regard to the imposition of user fees
for waste management services.
Presently, user fees and/or maintenance costs are undertaken through local
tax levies. Now, I am not positive where
the opportunity for two or three municipalities combining and giving them the
authority to be able to charge for the site, for services, if that is going to
also create a problem.
People feel that now their sites are taken
care of through their taxes and will feel that they have a right to go and
dispose items that they have without any kind of further taxation or further
fees. So that is going to create a
problem for the regional group itself, that they, too, are going to say, how
can we offset the costs besides using user fees for it or increasing the taxes?
Mr. Speaker, I would think that
municipalities and the local jurisdictions, having this opportunity to deal
with some of these issues, will deal with it in a more co‑ordinated and a
more responsible way. I think that
perhaps the municipalities will have the opportunity then to go in directions
of recyclable items, different sites for safety and environment issues.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to see just what
the municipalities are planning and who is planning to combine, if they so see
fit, financially or otherwise. It has
given them the opportunity to do that, but hopefully this opportunity will not
also create a little negative pressure on certain smaller municipalities and
jurisdictions as to the cost burden that the taxpayers and the people in the
communities would have to undertake further to get this regional corporation on
its feet.
So I would like to see municipalities at
the committee. I would like to hear what
their feelings are about Bill 11 and whether they have further negative
responses to the bill. I think that
perhaps the biggest negative aspect of this bill that I have heard is basically
the lack of any financial assistance to kick start this opportunity for
regional waste disposal observation.
An Honourable Member:
Put a little life in that.
Mr. Clif Evans:
It is a little tough putting life into a disposal site.
Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to
meet with and discuss the issue with the minister's staff. I have brought certain points to the
attention of the minister's staff, and of course the minister's staff was very
co‑operative in some of the points that I had brought forth to them and
had in fact made certain changes with respect to my concerns.
I brought those concerns forth feeling
that it would be the same situation as if I was still within a jurisdiction of
a local municipality and having this bill brought forth. I am sure that municipalities have concerns
as well as I did, but it seems like the minister and staff have made the
changes.
I see nothing that will deter the future
of waste management sites, and I see nothing that will prevent, except for the
financial burden and the financial possibility, the cost for the have‑not
municipalities of whether they can enter into such an agreement with other
municipalities.
So I would feel that perhaps the minister
and the department, specifically, keep a tight rein on that to make sure or somehow
assist or somehow be there for assistance for those municipalities and those
jurisdictions that cannot deal financially with the issues, so that there is
some sort of an outlet for them that they can obtain assistance so that they
can perhaps get into an organization on some sort of a basis even if it is a
payback period of time.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that option does not
have to be used, but I think that the option should be there so that
municipalities will have that opportunity to deal with the issue on the
financial end of it, and I would like to see this issue of waste disposal sites
and regional management be undertaken with full force with the municipalities.
I look forward to seeing results. I look forward to seeing who in fact will
combine. I will in fact look to see the
type of problems, if any, that the groups will have in accessing sites, and I
will be very interested to see how this bill and its results from the
organizations will in fact occur and incur on the people of the different constituencies
that the sites will be in. I am sure
that the local governments will in fact deal with the issue and also deal with
the government through the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) and the
Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings).
Mr. Speaker, I close my few comments and
look forward to committee. Hopefully
there will be comments made forth by different municipalities, and if so, I
would hope that this government would in fact make any amendments or changes
that municipalities and/or the department feels should be made, and that the
Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) deal with them straight up and give
everybody the opportunity to say their piece and also indicate their support or
nonsupport to Bill 11. I look forward to committee, and those are my comments.
* (1450)
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Motion agreed to.
Bill 15‑The
Boxing and Wrestling Commission Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), Bill 15, The Boxing
and Wrestling Commission Act; Loi sur la Commission de la boxe et de la lutte,
standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake.
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Well, Mr. Speaker, this bill‑‑I do
not know.
I would like to make a few comments on
Bill 15. Mr. Speaker, The Boxing and
Wrestling Commission Act has in fact been brought forth. It is the first time that changes such as this
have in fact been brought up and brought to change over many years‑‑many
years since the last time that The Boxing and Wrestling Commission Act has been
changed. The changes are quite
substantial.
In my discussions with the minister and my
discussions with his staff on Bill 15, again, I brought forth quite a few
concerns with Bill 15, and the minister was made aware of these concerns‑‑
An Honourable Member:
You are quite concerned.
Mr. Clif Evans:
Yes, very. And I would like to
say, Mr. Speaker, as far as Bill 15 goes, I agree that a change had to be
brought forth. I certainly agree with
the fact that a change to the act was indeed necessary. Over the past few years, the boxing and the
wrestling entertainment or participation as a sport has needed some adjustment,
some changes to the way things are being run here in this province by the
Boxing and Wrestling Commission.
Mr. Speaker, in speaking with staff, I
have indicated that I was rather concerned and upset about some of the facts
that the Boxing and Wrestling Commission, the board members would indeed have
certain powers that the act provides them.
The concerns were the fact that any one of the board could deal with an
issue either on his or her own and also go to a certain function and demand that
changes be made, demand the fact perhaps they want to see records, they want to
do what they feel is necessary to attack the problem.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that that
was something that I would like to see.
I think that we would like to see a different body answerable to the
Boxing and Wrestling Commission that can deal with this.
In the act it says that they are
inspectors. I feel that not just anybody
who is not familiar with the boxing and/or wrestling sport has the authority to
go and make decisions at a certain function or dealing with a certain promoter
or dealing with a certain licensee. So I
would like, during committee, to see changes in certain aspects of this act,
and I think that in speaking with the minister, we will hopefully deal with
those issues.
Now, there may be a certain amount of
satisfaction with this bill, but I would like to just make mention that there
are also certain people in this province who are very unhappy with Bill 15 and
the previous bill and have requested that certain changes be put in. I see, in going through Bill 15, that a lot
of the changes that have been requested have been made. I am sure that the bill will enable tighter control
of the goings on within boxing and wrestling, not only within the commission
itself, but as far as within the aspect of the entertainment and the aspect of
the sport.
I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to see the fact
that not just anybody can just go and put on a show of some kind or put on a
promotion of some kind without dealing with the proper licensing, the proper
documentation, so that there may in fact be problems with that, but I think
that within the act and the commission, the minister has to appreciate that
certain levels of the boxing or the wrestling sport are entertainment. There are people out there who want to have
the opportunity to not go through the large fanfare of big fees and big permit
fees. They want to deal with it on a
local smaller version than what we have now as far as wrestling in comparison
to WWF and with regard to boxing.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
I hope that this bill will provide an
opportunity for the sport itself, for both wrestling and boxing to grow and to
grow to a point where in fact the people will be satisfied with the
entertainment, the promoters will be satisfied with the attendance, and the
participants will be satisfied with the regulations and with the conditions
that they are working under, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Another issue that was brought to my
attention was the fee that a promoter would have to pay the Boxing and
Wrestling Commission. Presently it deals
with a range. Promoters are concerned
that the costs to promote an event with the fees that they have to pay would
take too much of their gross take and take too much of the expenses that they
have to incur to put on such events and promote them.
Again, during committee I think that will
be brought to the attention of the minister.
I think that it should be looked at, and I think the fee scale should be
perhaps dealt with at committee to deal with an issue that the people who have
come to committee will bring forward to the minister in committee.
With respect again, Madam Deputy Speaker,
I just want to go back to the powers of inspectors as I mentioned before. Now it says that an inspector may, at any
reasonable time, enter any premises and make any inspection that is reasonably
required for the purpose of enforcing this act or the regulations. The explanation is now that an inspector has
the power to enter premises and to examine and review records. Well, that is what I feel that I have a
problem with, and that problem was brought forth to the minister.
* (1500)
I hope that, again, he will during committee
look at making changes so that we are a little more controlled as to who is
going to do these inspections and who is going to be an inspector. Now I feel that if the Boxing and Wrestling
Commission feel that there is any problem with any event or with any promoter
that basically they should not‑‑either one of the commissioners
should have the right or someone who they appoint to be an inspector, whoever
it may be, has the right to just walk in on an event or in a person's home
without justification and without authority.
I feel that authority coming from the
commission itself is not justification and authority enough. I feel it has to be a lot stronger. If you are going to be dealing with personal
records, you are going to be dealing with an event that perhaps the commission
feels there is a problem with, we do not send a baker in to check a farmer's
yard to see whether the cows are all fine and dandy. So that aspect, I hope, we are going to deal
with in committee. I know that there
will be people who will be at committee to discuss and repute this act. I would like to hear, and we will hear during
committee, and I offer the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) his attendance to
hear the debate on this Bill 15.
So Madam Deputy Speaker, further comments
could be made. I think it best be
brought forth to committee and let us deal with it in committee. Let us hear the people that have a problem
with the Boxing and Wrestling Commission as it has been or as it was or is
going to be and what powers that they are given.
One aspect that I see in this, Madam
Deputy Speaker, is the fact that if there are any problems between promoters,
between people who participate in the events, between people who want to put on
the events in their properties and such, that there is an opportunity now to
appeal and be heard which there was not, in effect, in the old bill. That opportunity was not there.
In fact, a promoter or anybody
participating who wants to appeal a decision by the Boxing and Wrestling
Commission will have that opportunity, whether it be to the commission first
and further on taken into a court system.
I think that that opportunity and the implementation of that within the
act is a positive step. We know not
whether a commissioner makes a decision on a certain promoter where truly in
fact if it is one on one, whether it be stamped in gold, the promoter would
like the opportunity to be able to bring his case forward or anyone
participating bring his or her case forward to an impartial body.
The fact is that I was not pleased with
the act where it says that only one of the board members of the commission
would be able to hear an appeal and might be able to hear the appeal on a phone
conversation. I also felt, on the one
hand you are putting in something that is required and on the other hand you
are again giving authority to make important decisions to people who I feel
should be not involved in the decision but perhaps should be involved in the
process as far as stating their case and as far as the promoter or the person
responsible his case.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I look forward
to committee. I look forward to hearing
what the people have to say out there and, hopefully, the minister will be open
in providing the proper details and answers to questions. If in fact there are changes that as he has
indicated to me they may be looking at making at my request, I hope the
minister is open to also hear changes that perhaps people at the committee will
be making in their presentations. I look
forward to seeing the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) at the committee.
Hopefully, we can deal with this in due
course and let us get The Boxing and Wrestling Commission Act to a point that
would be suitable and satisfactory to all people involved and also for the people
in
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (
I find it somewhat ironic that we are even
dealing with an act called The Boxing and Wrestling Commission Act. I think it is appropriate to talk about just
what the so‑called sports are all about.
We have a society in which we say we want
to encourage people to be nonviolent, and we yet have a commission act which is
dealing with a sport called boxing, which its only purpose is to act in a
violent manner, one person to another person, granted, within some controls
known as sporting controls. But the
purpose of boxing is for one individual to, quite frankly, punch another
individual which has to be considered an act of violence.
The second sport that we are having as
part and parcel of this particular act is wrestling which, I think, for most of
us is a complete shell game. I mean, it
is a sham from beginning to end.
Everybody puts on wonderful acting performances about whether they have
been hurt, injured and damaged, and then they are immediately up to lambaste
the other one again in a very violent way.
So here we are as legislators in the land
wanting to have a commission put into place for two sports which quite frankly
are by their very nature violent. It is
an interesting irony, Madam Deputy Speaker.
If I had anything to do with it, and I now
speak entirely from a personal perspective and not on behalf of the caucus, I
would ban both sports. But I am not
speaking for the whole caucus, some of them have differing opinions. I understand some of them do, in fact, go to
boxing matches and do go to wrestling matches.
I can assure you, I go to neither. I watch neither on television. I have nothing to do with either sport. However, having said that, I think that, if
these two sports, which I find an offence, are going to function in our
society, they have to be regulated. The
purpose of this act is to in fact regulate them.
But, again, I have to point to a certain
irony, because when you look through the act, you read things about the terms
of the members, and the members and their remuneration, and the chairperson and
their staff, and their ability to have meetings on phone, and their ability to
investigate a member and their records, and their reports to the ministers and
their terms and conditions, et cetera.
But the things that I am most concerned
about with respect to this sport, if it is in fact going to exist in our
society, are the kinds of controls that we put in place to ensure minimal amount
of damage. Yet, all of those things are
governed, not within the subject of this act, but by regulations.
I think that is an unfortunate fact. It is not new, it is not new to this
government, it is not even new to the previous government. It has been the way in which the commission
has functioned since commissions of this nature began. But it is a sad reflection, I think, on the
society in which we live, that we cannot be up‑front about the need to
put in physical protection for those that participate in such a sport within
the act itself.
We all know of individuals, particularly
in the sport of boxing, who have been permanently damaged through this sport,
some of whom have died either in the ring or shortly after being taken from the
ring. It is an extraordinarily dangerous
sport. It is not the only sport that is fraught with danger. Many sports which‑‑
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural
Resources): Next to farming, it is a cakewalk.
* (1510)
Mrs. Carstairs:
Well, the Minister of Natural Resources says, next to farming, it is a
cakewalk, and unfortunately it is true, because farming is one of those
activities among the most dangerous in this province.
It is more dangerous, quite frankly, to be
a farmer than it is to be a policeman or to be a fireman or a firewoman or a
policewoman. It is more dangerous to be
a farmer. I am in complete concurrence
with the Minister of Natural Resources that if we could do something to do
something about that, he would have my complete support.
But the reality is that this particular
sport or these particular sports that we have before us must be controlled as
much as is possible.
I have been through the act, and I think
that most of the recommendations that are made in this act are positive
ones. I look forward to hearing
representation by those directly involved in these two sports before the
committee, and barring any unforeseen representations that they make which
would indicate that they had difficulties with this act, which I am sure the
minister himself would be prepared to make adjustments to, then the Liberal
Party will be supporting the enactment of this as quickly as possible.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Is the House ready for the question?
The question before the House is second reading of Bill 15. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt he
motion?
Some Honourable Members:
Agreed.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 22‑‑The
Public Sector Reduced Work Week and Compensation Management Act
Madam Deputy Speaker:
To resume debate on second reading of Bill 22, on the proposed motion of
the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) who has eight minutes remaining,
standing in the name of the honourable member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) who has
32 minutes remaining, and standing in the name of the honourable member for
Transcona (Mr. Reid).
Is there leave to permit the bill to
remain standing?
Some Honourable Members:
Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Leave has been granted.
Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway):
Bill 22 is The Public Sector Reduced Work Week and Compensation
Management Act. One undesirable effect
of Bill 22 in the field of public sector employer‑employee relationships
is that it will override any existing negotiated collective agreement that
might have been already negotiated between public employees and the public
employer.
That collective agreement may contain a
clause like a no‑layoff clause or some other no‑reduction‑of‑working‑hours
clauses in that collective agreement.
Nevertheless, the government, in exercising political authority under
Bill 22, will exercise its prerogative right to set aside whatever agreement
had already been negotiated.
When the government negotiates as a public
employer, it is in fact performing two different kinds of roles. The government is a party to a collective
contract, a collective agreement, as the employer. The collective agreement defines the terms
and conditions of employment in that particular area of the public sector.
Yet the government, therefore, by agreeing
to this collective negotiated contract, had already bound itself as a party,
let us say, to a no‑layoff clause included in that collective contract.
But then the government turns around and, acting as the sobering authority of
the province, exercises its political ultimate authority and sets aside the
very clause included in the collective agreement which it itself had
negotiated. Therefore, the government is
breaking its own agreement, its own promise in a sense, by passing Bill 22.
When the government breaks its own
commitment in a negotiated contract, the government is in fact acting in a very
unfair and immoral manner. By
governmental action it confirms the now prevailing belief among the members of
the general public that governmental words cannot be trusted. In fact, government will be breaking its
commitment under the collective agreement. Governmental action, by passing this
Bill 22, speaks louder than government words.
If people can no longer rely on
governmental commitment in any collective agreement, how do we expect the
people to have any more faith or a higher level of confidence in what the
government promises to do for them? The
government, therefore, is not merely a party to the collective contract. As an employer, it has entered into a
negotiated contract. In that negotiated
contract, it agreed that there will be no layoffs or no reduced hours of
working hours‑‑inside the contract.
At the same time, it has a role as an
employer to see to it that this contract is fully complied with, yet, by
passing Bill 22, the government itself will be setting aside what it had agreed
to. If people can no longer believe what
government committed itself to do, how else can we expect the people's level of
trust in public affairs, in politicians, in public, how can we expect them to
have a higher level of trust in their own political leaders?
Those who hope to lead our province to any
level of greatness must be shown as models who are fearless in principle, firm
in purposes and yet faithful in promises that they must keep. By passing Bill 22, they will themselves set
aside what they have negotiated to have agreed to as employer and therefore
violate their own promises.
In general, anything that we give away, we
cannot keep. However, with respect to promises, it is like love. You can give this thing away and, at the same
time, keep it‑‑(interjection)
The general rule is that whatever you give away, whatever you promise, you
cannot keep‑‑okay?‑‑but, if you give away love, you can
still keep love‑‑the same thing with promises.
An Honourable Member:
How am I going to explain that to my wife? I tell her I love her, and then I have given
it away.
Mr. Santos:
The member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) may, for example, brag to his friend
that he always has the last word with his wife, but then, when we look at the
situation closely and ask what this last word may be, it may turn out to be the
words "yes dear."
The same thing with the collective
negotiated agreement‑‑the collective negotiated agreement is
supposed to have established a mutually agreed to set of conditions of work in
the public sector. The government, as
employer, is already bound by its negotiated contract, yet because it is the
government, by resorting into its political authority, it can now pass a bill
which legitimately breaks that very commitment that it itself had negotiated
into.
If governmental promises can no longer be
kept because the government itself turns around and sets aside its negotiated
contract, then the government is showing itself as a model of a promise
breaker. A broken promise is like a
broken mirror. A broken mirror cannot be
mended even by the best glue that is available and, if the government has shown
examples of breach of promises, then the people themselves will no longer
believe political promises that are made by people in government.
* (1520)
One other effect of this Bill 22 is that
it destroyed the hard‑fought collective bargaining rights of public
sector employees by the mere exercise of sovereign political authority on the
part of the provincial government. This
is not a good example for people who are losing faith and who are being
skeptical of governmental promises and governmental action.
Thank you.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I rise today to add my comments to Bill 22,
The Public Sector Reduced Work Week and Compensation Management Act.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a bill, I
believe, that in effect imposes a 3.8 percent tax increase upon the citizens of
An Honourable Member:
You know, this is a contribution.
Mr. Reid: Well, it could be considered a contribution, as
the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) has said from time to time. Maybe this is
one of the things that was dreamed up in one of their focus groups. I am not really sure.
The intent of governments, Madam Deputy
Speaker, and it has always been my impression that governments had this role to
play at least, is that they have a role ensuring that there is fairness in our
society.
Now, with this piece of legislation, I do
not see in any way where this is fair by its implementation, and I will attempt
to point out through my comments here today where it is unfair and how it is
going to impact upon, in particular, people that live in my community that are
employed in the public sector and/or various provincial government Crown
agencies.
The government likes to use the word
"fairness," and I think they use it just to throw it out there,
hoping that the people will hang their hats on this and will think that this
government is fair. You have to show
that you are fair by your actions. The various public sector unions this
government has singled out by their actions, as they did in Bill 70 where they
had a wage freeze upon them a little over a year ago‑‑and of course
at that time the cost of living ate away at their disposable income during that
time, something which they have not been able to make up in the interim. Of course, their bills continue to escalate,
but their salaries to offset those costs continue to go down.
The government uses the word
fairness. This legislation is not fair,
as was Bill 70 not fair, to the people that this is being imposed upon. The government says that those who are
employed in the public sector are taking advantage of the taxpayers of the
province, and in fact they use the words, wallowing up to the public trough, as
we have often heard even through different media sources in this province.
Public sector people, people that are
employed in the public sector, provide essential services for us in this
province, services that we have come to rely on, whether they be in Child and
Family Services, in the justice or law systems, in the health care system, in
our
They said they want to be fair. Well, if you want to be fair, one of the best
ways to do it is to keep your word. To
keep your word means that if you have negotiated a contract in good faith by
both parties participating in the process and you have affixed your signature
to those documents, those are legal, binding documents, and your word should be
kept until those documents, those agreements expire.
This government has chosen not to do it
once again as they did during the Bill 70 that they had in this House a little
over a year ago, and they are doing it again.
Most likely, over the course of the next year, looking at this
legislation, they will continue to impose their will in attacking public sector
workers in this province.
This government has indicated by their
actions that they are totally untrustworthy and unreliable when it comes to
keeping their word‑‑(interjection)
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of
Agriculture): It must be the other brother . . . today.
Mr. Reid: Now the Minister of Agriculture says the other
brother. He likes to resort to public
attacks when he knows that someone is maybe scoring some points on him. It is quite obvious that is the case
here. If you cannot take the heat, get
out of the kitchen. Maybe it would be a
good idea to test the waters, call some of those by‑elections and we will
see whether or not people trust your word anymore, and whether they trust your
actions in government here.
Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of
Government Services): Boy, what a joke.
Mr. Reid: It is funny the Minister of Government
Services says that this is a joke. I can
tell the Minister of Government Services that this is not a joke, Madam Deputy
Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Ducharme:
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I did not refer to the
legislation as a joke, I referred to the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) as a
joke.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
The honourable Minister of Government Services does not have a point of
order, it is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Reid: The Minister of Government Services' position,
his office that he holds, he has to rise on a personal attack of myself. He cannot take the heat, Madam Deputy
Speaker. That is the only defences that
he has is a personal attack.
An Honourable Member:
. . . pretty sensitive over there. Everybody that talks to you is a
personal attack.
Mr. Reid: No, he makes fun of myself when I stand here
to rise in defence of my constituents.
When I make comments about the Minister of Government Services (Mr.
Ducharme) and he says that this is a joke, this is not a joke when it comes to
the livelihood and the quality of life.
The people of my community have to rely upon those incomes to support
themselves and their families.
The Minister of Government Services has
said it is a joke. I can tell him that I
will take his words back to those people in my community and tell them that he
thinks they are a joke, and they do not count in the system, and that his
government thinks that they do not count.
That he also said, Madam Deputy Speaker that he thinks‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Ducharme:
I reconfirm that I did not say that the legislation was a joke. My father always advised me, if you fight
with a fool, you start to look like a fool, so I do not fight with fools.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
Minister of Government Services does not have a point of order.
Point of Order
Madam Deputy Speaker:
The honourable member for Kildonan, on the same point of order?
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):
No, Madam Deputy Speaker, a new point of order. I did not hear the Minister of Government
Services state he had a point of order.
He simply stood up and interjected.
I am wondering if the Deputy Speaker will direct the member to make
clear that a point of order be raised.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
member for Kildonan does not have a point of order. The honourable Minister of Government
Services did not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Reid: It is very obvious that the Minister of
Government Services (Mr. Ducharme) is very sensitive when it comes to this
legislation. I am sure he has had ample
opportunity to take this back to cabinet and have them withdraw this piece of
legislation. That would have been the
best action he could have taken with respect to this Bill 22 and the impact it
is going to have on the people of this province, Madam Deputy Speaker.
He may think that this is a joke, but it
is not a joke. I have had people from my
community call me on this. They want to
talk specifically about the impact upon them personally that this legislation
will have. The Minister of Government
Services thinks because people raise these concerns that they are all a
joke. Well, I advise him and I tell him
right now that they are not kidding when they raise these matters. They are not fooling. They are very serious, because this is going
to have a very detrimental and negative impact upon their quality of life and
that of their families, something that it is very obvious that the Minister of
Government Services fails to recognize.
By this legislation, it says that the
government will empower all employers, including Crown corporations, hospitals,
personal care homes, Child and Family Services agencies, municipalities, school
boards, universities, colleges, Crown agencies, including the St. Amant Centre,
and public sector employees will fall under this legislation.
These employees will have to sustain loss
of pay for up to 15 days in both financial years, the current one that we are
in and the successive one, the one in '94‑95. Now this is going to have an impact upon them
because the cost of living is going to eat away. As small as some members opposite might think
that it is right now, it is still going to continue to erode the disposable
income that these people have.
So they are not only going to lose this
pay, which is the equivalent of a 3.8 percent tax on them, but they are going
to have to eat the cost‑of‑living increases as well. So it is well beyond the nearly 4 percent
that is involved here. It will be in
range of nearly 6 percent to 7 percent a year.
That is what it is going to cost them. (interjection) Take a look at Statistics Canada, if the Minister of
Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) does not believe me. Take a look at the figures that they publish,
what the cost of living is going to be for this year and what it is going to
cost these people.
It says that this act will prevail over
and overrule all binding contracts. So
it takes away any fairness that was negotiated.
Any agreement, any willingness by the parties involved to come to an agreement
in good faith, this act overrules it.
The government likes to talk that this is
a holiday for the public sector employees, as if you just take a long weekend
and go off to the lake and go fishing, as if everyone can afford to do
that. What about the people that are
making $20,000, $25,000 a year and have a family to support on that? They do not view this as a holiday where they
can go fishing. God knows they have a hard
enough time finding any money to take a holiday once a year to stay at home and
continue to pay the bills. Now they have
to incur the extra days of lost pay for them.
It is a penalty on the public sector employees.
* (1530)
It says in the legislation here that the
employees will be required to take a leave of pay each of two consecutive 12‑month
periods. So it is not just the one year
that they are being impacted by this legislation, which was bad enough under
Bill 70, but they are being hit again over a two‑year period this time.
What is your next act going to be? Are you going to impose it over a three‑year
period? Every time we see legislation
come forward from this government where you think that the public sector
employees that are overpaid and overcompensated for the services you perform,
you hit them with a pay freeze or a pay rollback.
Why can you not negotiate something in
good faith with these people? Why can
you not sit down at the table and say, listen, we have a problem here with our
finances, we have a $862 million deficit in this province. You want to negotiate something in good faith
so that everybody can work together to get out of this problem, but I do not
see that taking place here.
It says in the legislation, Madam Deputy
Speaker, that the government is going to give, by this legislation, the ability
for employers to act on a unilateral basis.
Now I do not understand why employers should have the ability to act on
a unilateral basis. Why can we not do
something by co‑operation? Is
there something wrong with the word co‑operation? Maybe it does not exist in the vocabulary of
members opposite. Maybe it is something
that they have removed. Maybe it is
something they have never thought of or tried.
Why do you not try it for a change?
What is wrong with taking a program‑‑if
you have problems with your deficit and you have to have a system that says you
want to have some cost containment or cost control, why can you not have a
program that fixes a floor level? Those
members of our society who are working in the public sector, not all of them
are paid the $50,000 or $60,000 or $100,000 like the members opposite obviously
think. Those people who are paid maybe
under $30,000, maybe there should be a sliding scale in there. Have you considered using a sliding scale
that would kick in at anything above that point? It is obvious that they have not thought of
that.
The people who are on those salary levels
are having to pay the same bills that every one of us in this House have to
pay. They have the same utility expenses and the same costs to run their homes
as we do, yet on their salaries, they are being rolled back by those same
amounts that the people at the higher levels are making. That to me does not seem fair. That does not strike the balance of the sense
of fairness.
An Honourable Member:
They do not know the meaning of the word.
Mr. Reid: It is removed from their vocabulary.
The employer will have the opportunity to
determine the number of days of leave without pay that each employee must take,
up to the maximum of 15 per year. When
employees must take the days or portions of the days of leave without pay
within the 12‑month period, the employer determines that. The employer also determines the manner and
the frequency of the deductions from the employee's wage, in connection with
the days or portions of days of leave without pay and any other matter that the
employer considers relevant.
Why is it that the employer is the only
one who is making the decisions in this process? What about the people who occupy these
jobs? They have families to
support. Why can they not be part of the
decision‑making process? Why are
they being excluded by this legislation from being part of that process? In this legislation, I do not see anything in
here that gives an appeal mechanism.
There is nothing in this legislation that gives an appeal mechanism
where employees are unjustly treated.
There is nothing in the legislation.
Whom do you appeal to?
So maybe fairness is not the objective
here. It is obvious then, if you are not
going to consider an appeal mechanism, that fairness is not the objective. Otherwise, if you wanted to be fair, you
would have had something built in there so that if employees were unjustly
dealt with as a result of this legislation, they would have had some place to
go. That is not in this
legislation. Why not? Maybe that is something you should take back
and look at an amendment if you are intent on moving forward with this
legislation. Put some kind of an appeal
mechanism in there. (interjection) I
am sure they will.
If you want to call the by‑elections,
for the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns)‑‑please, call the
by‑elections, and we will let the members of the public in those
constituencies determine whether or not the course of action that you are
following now is the right course. If
not, they will let you know very clearly whether or not you are on the right
course.
By this legislation, Madam Deputy Speaker,
there is another section here that causes me concern as well. This is an area that I would hope that the
members opposite would be interested in securing or protecting in some
manner. This is where there are
employees in the province who do not fall under a bargaining agent or a union
for that type of protection. In this
legislation, the employer can go to these people, whether they be middle
management or employees not covered by a bargaining agent, and give verbal
directions to the employees and tell them that they are going to have to take
certain days off without pay. There is nothing in this legislation that says
that those employees have to be informed in writing. In other words, you would have some kind of
an understanding, long term, of what days are going to be leave without pay
that is going to be imposed upon them for the long term.
In other words, it says here: No further notice is required by the employer
to the employee that is not covered by a bargaining agent. So what is to prevent an employer from going
along and changing those days that were verbally given by instruction to their
employees? There is nothing in this
legislation that says employees have to be notified in writing. Maybe that is
another amendment that the government should consider if they are intent on
pursuing this legislation. Give some
protection to those employees not covered by bargaining agent status.
The next section in here is the limitation
on school boards. The school board implements a reduced workweek, discretionary
obviously for the school boards. I know
in my own Transcona‑Springfield School Division No. 12‑‑and I
know the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) is probably aware of this‑‑I
believe they have imposed six days leave without pay for the teachers in that
division, just like that.
What about the other divisions in the
province that have a surplus in their bank account? The Minister of Agriculture knows this,
because he went to the same meetings I did in discussion with the
trustees. Those divisions that have a
surplus in the bank do not have to impose those unpaid days off for those
teachers. They can draw on the surplus,
have the teachers continue to provide the training programs, the education
programs for our young people in those divisions. If their surplus is high enough, they might
not even have to worry about this next year.
Transcona‑Springfield School
Division does not have that luxury. They
have had to impose six days leave without pay on their teachers this year. If the program continues next year, it may be
higher next year for those teachers.
That is another bridge we are going to have to cross. Maybe they are going to go the maximum 15
days next year. What is that going to
do? How is that going to impact upon the
quality of education in the communities that we represent?
I was fortunate yesterday to attend a
citizenship forum in my community at Murdoch Mackay Collegiate high
school. We had 18 new citizens being
sworn into
In part of that ceremony and that activity
we had the good fortune to be entertained for a short period of time by the
school band. The band was very well
rehearsed, very professional, very polished in their performance. I thought to myself, as I was sitting there
listening to them playing their tunes, playing O Canada! and God Save the Queen
after, as the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) I know likes to take
part in from time to time, as he does in this House, I often wondered, what is
going to happen to those band activities should those teachers decide to
withdraw their services voluntarily from extracurricular activities, like some
have said.
Now, that is their choice. It is an extracurricular activity. It is viewed as an extracurricular activity
on the part of teachers who have very willingly over the years, even from the
time when I was in school, participated in programs such as that to expand upon
the education we are given, not just in the curriculum that is mandated by the province
but the extras.
Now, those programs are going to most
likely have to be made up by the families who can obviously ill afford it,
because I do not come from a very well‑to‑do community in a
sense. It is a very modest‑income
community. That program could be in
jeopardy from what I am hearing in the community now.
I hope the Minister of Agriculture will
take back to his colleagues in cabinet the impact on the quality of life it is
going to have upon the children in the communities that he represents, which is
the same area because it is covered by the same school division trustees. The programs are going to be impacted by the
decision that his cabinet and his government are making.
* (1540)
Teachers, who continue to polish their
skills and hone their skills to provide the best quality of education in the
most effective and efficient manner possible, these professional development
days are going to be eroded. Now the
teachers have to choose. Are they going
to continue to do these programs on their own, take time away from their own
families, at expense to their families obviously, or are they going to pull
back away from these and just rely on the education and the experience and the
training that they have developed at this point?
We are not sure, as my colleague says, if
Bob Kozminski has to take more time or maybe he loses some days off without
pay. It is highly unlikely that would be the case.
Most of the teachers that I have had the
good fortune and the experience in talking to, for my children that attend the
schools in my community of Transcona, the teachers are very, very professional
in the way that they deal with and interact with the parents of the
community. These teachers are there at
the parent‑teacher meetings and the conferences and the special meetings
that you have to have if there are problems that develop within the school and
your children are involved. The teachers
willingly attend these meetings and they show their good faith.
What is happening to them now? Now they are losing those professional
development days, those days that allowed them to go out and hone those skills
that they were putting to use. It might
not be so critical at this point for the teachers that are currently employed
and have had the good fortune to go through these programs over the course of
the years that they have been teachers, but what about the new teachers coming
along after them? What happens to them?
They will not have the same opportunities
obviously to attend these professional development days. How do they develop and acquire these skills
then? Where do they go for this type of
training?
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural
Resources): How do engineers do it? How do doctors do it? How do lawyers do it? How do the farmers do
it? How do veterinarians do it?
Mr. Reid: So what the Minister of Natural Resources says
is that they should take leave of absence then from their jobs and go back to
school.
Mr. Enns:
Right. Why should it be at public
expense?
Mr. Reid: And if you have families that are involved and
you have a family to support‑‑(interjection)
In other words, from what the Minister of Natural Resources says, put your
family considerations aside, quit your job, or go on a leave of absence from
your job, and go back to school and put in jeopardy the income that your family
has so that you can go back and upgrade and gain those skills.
What supports the family in the
meantime? What is wrong with an
educational program as you are working?
An Honourable Member:
Just tell us where the money is coming from. Come on, tell us where the money is coming
from. You have got all these smart
ideas, where is the money coming from?
Mr. Reid: Well, if the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay)
and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) were that concerned, what they
would do is they would call an election today and let us take those seats over
there. Then we will tell you what we are
going to do, and then we will show you how to run good government in this
province.
An Honourable Member:
We are still paying your debts you guys left behind.
Mr. Reid: The Minister of Agriculture talks about
debt. Let him not for a moment think‑‑when
the government changed in 1988, there was a $57 million or $58 million surplus
left in the bank account in this province.
Since that time, this government has run up over $2 billion in deficit
and debt in this province, at a cost of at least $160 million a year in
interest that they have incurred by their debt.
Do not tell us about debt in this province when you have had deficit and
debt problems ever since you took government.
Moving back to the legislation, Madam
Deputy Speaker, not so that I could be sidetracked for long by the rantings of
the members opposite, I have concerns about how Child and Family Services are
going to operate with this legislation.
It is my understanding that these employees as well will be impacted by
this legislation and will be required to take the time off and are currently,
from my understanding, I am told by the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett),
taking the time off as a result of this legislation.
What happens to the families who are in
the process of breaking up as I have a few in my community right now who have called
me on a regular basis over the course of the last year? What happens when those
children have to be apprehended, and it happens to occur on a Friday as has
happened just in this month for one particular family in my community? Who do they call? Who is going to be on in‑service
to protect those children? Where are those children going to go? Are they going to go to a hotel or a
motel? Who is going to look after them
when they are in the hotel or motel and at what expense? Are we saving any money by this? What type of programs or services are we
providing to protect these children?
I do not understand the rationale of this
legislation impacting upon essential agencies such as Child and Family
Services, because these children are the most vulnerable children coming from
these families. A lot of them are in
abusive situations. That is why these
families are disintegrating. Now, these children,
do they have to wait until Monday or do they have to be provided the protection
and the services from Child and Family Services? Do they have to wait for that skeleton staff
that might be available from Child and Family to come and apprehend them and
protect them? What services are there to
help them?
I do not hear any answers coming from
members opposite. I am not sure that
they have thought this through. I hope
to God that nothing unfortunate befalls any of these children, because it will
be on your heads for making these decisions that have put these children at
risk. I hope you realize the seriousness
and the consequences that can happen as a result of this decision.
In the legislation, there is a section
here that says leave is not to be considered as layoff. So leave without pay is not to be considered
layoff in the sense of loss of service.
At least that is my interpretation of the clause here. It is my understanding, as well, that the
purpose of this was so you could not collect unemployment insurance so you
would lose up to 15 days pay and you could not collect unemployment insurance
for those days.
What impact is this going to have upon the
long‑service employees of this province, those that by their long service
are eligible by current contracts if the holiday provision is still in
effect. For those employees who after
say 15 days or 12 days of service would be entitled to one day's vacation, do
these employees then lose that one day's vacation for those lost days? (interjection) Now the member for St.
Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) does not understand the consequences of this
obviously. These are all of the factors.
Now the point is, if it is not part of the
debating process here to point out the deficiencies of a legislation, including
the impact that this legislation is going to have on families‑‑I am
now talking for the benefit of the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), who
obviously has not read this legislation and is obviously not willing to enter
the debate on this. We would be very
interested to hear his comments about this legislation.
The impact that it is going to have upon
the long‑service employees in the public sector: They are not only going to lose up to 15 days
pay per year for the next two years, is there a likelihood that they will also
lose more pay as a result of lost vacation days that they would have been
entitled to?
* (1550)
Pretty simple, pretty straightforward‑‑I
am sure even the member for St. Norbert can understand this. I remember the days back, I believe it was,
into the late 1970s that the Trudeau government at that time imposed upon the
workers of
The cost for all of those employees in
this country who had to meet that government legislation was frozen at the 6
and 5, but the cost continued to escalate into double‑digit figures for
those years. I remember it clearly.
Mr. Enns:
And David Lewis and the New Democratic Party supported that policy . . .
.
Mr. Reid: The member for Lakeside obviously has a long
memory and a long history when it comes to these programs, and I yield to his‑‑it
was not a minority government at that time, for his information, and our leader
at that time, Mr. Lewis, did not support those programs. He did not support those programs, Madam
Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Enns:
David Lewis kept Trudeau around to do it.
Mr. Reid: Let the record not show, Madam Deputy Speaker,
that the Minister of Natural Resources, the member for
Not only did we have our contracts
negotiated in good faith rolled back to the point to meet the government's
legislation the same way that is happening here in this province now, but the
employees had the cost‑of‑living increase on top of that, which was
double‑digit figures at that time.
Governments like to freeze the wages of
their employees, as this government is demonstrating here and as the Trudeau
government demonstrated in years gone by, but why do you not try taking a look
at containing the costs at the same time?
Are you going back to your suppliers for this government saying, listen,
we have got to roll back our employees by imposing this nearly 4 percent tax on
them to contain our costs, to keep our costs of government operation down? Are you doing the same to your suppliers?
Mr. Ducharme:
In some cases, yes.
Mr. Reid: Why not all of the cases? You are doing it to all of your employees. (interjection) Oh, you have got to renegotiate.
Well, why do you not impose things? You
had a contract that was negotiated in good faith for your employees. Why should contracts with your suppliers be
any different than your employees? Where
is your logic there?
I do not understand the logic, how you can
have a contract negotiated in good faith with your employees and you have a
contract you have broken by this legislation, and now, with your suppliers, you
say you have a contract that you are not going to break because you cannot do it. Why can you not do something like that? Obviously the Minister of Government Services
(Mr. Ducharme) is way out of touch with this.
I know that the members opposite are not
too interested. I know the member for
St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) will have the opportunity to add his comments
after my time here has expired, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In this legislation it goes on to impose
its will upon the medical community of this province. Now, from my understanding of the
legislation, it is going to limit the medical services that doctors' offices
and doctors themselves will provide to the community, and that where doctors
have exceeded the cap or the amount the government has imposed that the
differences will be deducted back from the doctors.
Now the doctors, I imagine, keep fairly
good records through their accounting procedures during the operation of their
offices, or at least I hope they do, but there is nothing in this legislation
that says that where the doctors have overbilled Manitoba Health Services and
the government is going to collect back these amounts that are overpaid, the
time frame is not specified in here for recovery of those overpayments.
Does this mean it is going to go on for a
month before they have to pay it, going to stretch out to six months? Will it be a year or two years or will it be
indefinite giving doctors the opportunity to repay? I know most doctors out there are very
responsible people, and they do not want to impose any extra cost burden upon
the province.
It will be interesting to see when this
bill moves to committee whether or not the government is going to explain
whether or not there is going to be a time frame that is going to be attached
for the recovery of those fees from the doctors, for any of them that might be
exceeding the cap that this government has put on.
Now, in the final section of this
legislation the government has said that members of the Legislative Assembly
will be reducing their amount of the indemnity payable to each member by 3.8
percent. Now there has been some debate
that has been taking place on this for a period of time here, and it also says
that the constituency access allowance will be reduced by a similar amount.
Now for each of us this creates a bit of a
problem in that it will curtail, at least for members on this side, the
opportunities for us to provide services to our constituents. Because there are
varying amounts of rent that each of us pay in the operation of our office, it
will somewhat crimp the operations of those offices to our constituencies.
In that sense I can assure members of my
community that I represent that I will continue to provide, despite the cutback
in fees or monies that are available to the operation of that office, that we
will continue to operate that constituency office on the basis that we have in
the past, and we will continue to provide the services‑‑
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert):
Do what I did. I went for a rent
reduction, and I got it. I got the rent
reduction. I said, listen, I want a rent
reduction.
Mr. Reid: I hope that when the member for St. Norbert
went to Mr. Kozminski he did indeed get a rent reduction for his property and
that Mr. Kozminski was very willing to co‑operate with him knowing the
precarious financial position that this government finds itself in, obviously
through its own fiscal mismanagement.
Mr. Laurendeau:
I do not rent from Kozminski. You
are close though.
Mr. Reid: I just assume, Madam Deputy Speaker, that
because the member opposite was bringing in used vehicle inspection legislation
last year that it had something to do with the members of the Motor Dealers
Association that Mr. Kozminski happened to be the president at that time, so I
just assume that he was renting property from Mr. Kozminski.
I can assure you my constituents will
continue to receive the level of service they have come to expect in the
community. We will provide at every
opportunity to assist them with the concerns that they bring to our office
despite the government's cutback of funding necessary to operate those
operations.
The teachers themselves have said that
they consider this legislation to be a lockout, and it will erode the programs
that the people in our communities have come to be used to.
Also, Madam Deputy Speaker, in my last few
moments, I know I have a very short time left on this bill. This legislation is going to have an impact
upon the single parents of my community. Parents who now have their children
enrolled in daycare programs have to make a choice now because their incomes
are being cut, daycare spaces for them are no longer available in the
community. The Minister of Family
Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) has refused, as this correspondence states, to
respond to my constituents' concerns for several months after having received
or been sent several letters from my constituents.
The people of my community are being
seriously impacted by the decisions of this government, as they impose their
will through Bill 22 on the people in the province, this nearly 4 percent tax
increase, despite what this government likes to term it.
With those few comments, I thank you for
the opportunity to add my comments to those other members wishing to speak on
Bill 22.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
* (1600)
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas):
I am pleased to be able to speak on Bill 22, because the whole principle
of this bill is that it is straightly imposed by one party. Before I even get into discussing the bill, I
would like to make it clear that I oppose this whole bill except for the clause
where we as MLAs have agreed to reduce our salaries and our constituency
allowance.
The reason I agree to that is because it
was negotiated by all three parties. It
was not imposed by one party on other parties.
All three parties sat down and agreed to it and brought it back to us as
members, and we caucused it. We all
agreed to it‑‑(interjection)
An Honourable Member:
That is right. Straighten Daryl
out on that issue.
Mr. Hickes:
I am not straightening anybody out.
I am just making my own views known here.
The other problem, the rest of the bill,
what I have a real problem with is that it is a direction given by a government
that has not been negotiated with the public sector.
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker: Would the honourable member for St. Norbert
(Mr. Laurendeau) like an opportunity to put his remarks on the record?
Mr. Laurendeau:
I guess I left my seat, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: We will give the honourable member an
opportunity. The honourable member for Point Douglas does have the floor at
this point in time.
* * *
Mr. Hickes:
What I was saying was that this whole legislation was imposed by a
government without any consultation with the parties that it is going to
affect.
I have spent almost all my life in
northern
That is the problem that I really have
with this bill here, because it is going to have an impact on all employees of
Crown corporations. It is going to have
an impact on provincial governments. It
is going to have an impact on hospitals.
It is going to have an impact on personal care homes. Also, a great impact is going to be felt by
the employees of Child and Family Services.
I received a call only last week from a
social worker who was working for the Province of Manitoba, and what this
individual was telling me was that they were going to a meeting the following
week and in that discussion they were going to look at a caseload of over 300. That is what they are trying to service, 300
individuals for one social worker. To
begin with, that is an impossible task.
I said, how many do you have now? He said, I have 280, and that is in a five‑day
workweek. How could you do any justice
at all to the people that you are supposed to be working with? The individuals that you are supposed to be
helping to hopefully overcome some of the barriers in their life and hopefully
to become taxpaying citizens, and hopefully to take care of our children of
That is going to be reduced to four
days. It is already an impossible task
under a five‑day system, and now it is going to be reduced to four. Also, when you look at providing alternative
services‑‑I have heard some members say that the work will be done
by other people. In order to work with
families or children, you have to build a trust relationship between the worker
and the families or not very much will get accomplished. So I really think that
government should really look at this very seriously, and look at the impact
that it is having on the citizens and especially the children of
Also, when you look at the impact it is
going to have, it is going to affect municipalities. It will affect school boards that were
elected by citizens of this province, just as the government was elected by
citizens of the province, and just as the Member of Parliament was elected, the
representatives of
Also, when you look at the impact it is
going to have, it will have a big impact on our education system, our
universities, our colleges, our schools.
We have seen students come to the
I do not know if all members understand
that a lot of these teachers have been given added responsibilities because of
these cutbacks. Some have been given
additional classes, and larger classes, more students, so that time they had
for extracurricular activities, whether sports or band or music, what have you,
that time now is being taken up by the extra responsibilities that they have
had to take on.
So, when you say on top of that, the extra
responsibilities on top of that, to continue volunteering your time to sports
and bands, it does have a direct impact on students. Because some of the students are fortunate
enough to excel in either music or in a sporting event, some of them get
scholarships. Some of those students,
that is the only, only way that they would continue on into their chosen
education careers, either through universities or colleges. Some of them do get scholarships that do pay
their tuition, some pay room and board.
Without the valuable services of the
teachers and their coaching abilities and supports and friendships they develop
with students and encouragement they give to the students, some of these
students that are fortunate enough to have the ability for scholarships, that
will reduce that sort of opportunity for these students.
Also, when you look at the government
actions, the government has taken into consideration that any publicly funded
agency, organization, Crown corporation is fair game. A lot of these individuals and corporations,
like Manitoba Hydro for instance, are on work schedules already. They are nine days in and so many days out
and nine days in and so many days out.
How is that going to impact?
We have been asking, when you refer to
essential services, what are you saying?
What is considered essential services? What is considered nonessential
services? Is it a straight cut right
across the board? That has never been
explained to us and we have tried to get that information. We have never gotten an answer.
It is scary when you look at, if you cut
back services at personal care homes, for example, where a lot of the
individuals are very elderly and they need the companionship and support
services that the care workers give.
When you look at a new relationship that would have to be built, if
there are new workers having to be brought in, experienced people would be
replaced by some individuals that would not have the amount of experience that
some of the workers have.
Personal care homes, what happens to
them? What happens to home
caregivers? Are they still going to be
meeting the needs of the community? Some
of the individuals are very fortunate and they really enjoy being in their own
home. A lot of them have lived in their
own home since‑‑some of them I know personally in my constituency
have lived in that same house since they came to
If that program, the assistance to the
individuals in those homes, the Home Care Program, is going to be reduced, we
should know about it. Also the family
should know about it, because that way maybe the families could do something to
assist some of their elders and their grandparents and some of their mothers
and fathers.
When you look at an increase or a decrease
in earning potential and you say that it is a fair impact on citizens across
Manitoba, I really, really do not think the government thought out the difference
between an individual earning a salary of $70,000 and a single parent that is
fortunate enough today to be working for the government or a Crown corporation
or a hospital or personal care home who is earning $18,000 to $20,000, the
impact, the difference that it has on those two levels of salaries.
When you say that it is 10 days pay or
without pay for 10 days, that is a full two‑week salary. There are not too many families I know or
friends I know that that would not have a negative impact if they lost one
complete pay cheque out of every year. A
lot of individuals budget from pay day to pay day. They budget to meet their basic family needs,
budget to meet their rent or their mortgages and all of a sudden now you lost a
whole pay cheque.
* (1610)
Where do you make that up? How can you make that up? Even with that extra day that is imposed off,
it is almost impossible for someone to try and make that up or try and get a part‑time
job somewhere to make that up. There are
no jobs out there right now. The economy
is really hard. A lot of times those
part‑time jobs are $5‑an‑hour jobs, so when anyone says that
it is level right across
You see the reduction of a whole pay
cheque and then almost in the same breath you see a single parent who has lost
one whole pay cheque in the year and then you see that same single parent who
now has an increase in household costs because of some of the taxes that were
imposed by the government in the last budget. Even single mothers who have a
little baby at home, you cannot tell me that their costs have not gone up
because of the increase. Just look at
the baby products and baby stuff that has been taxed, school supplies that have
been taxed.
An Honourable Member:
Children's clothing.
Mr. Hickes:
Children's clothing over a hundred dollars has been taxed, so it goes on
and on. When you take from one side and
then you are taking from the other side, what are you doing? Who are you really hurting?
If you look at this rollback or cutback or
whatever you want to call it, 2 percent decrease in salaries, who is it having
the most negative impact on? It is
having the most negative impact on middle‑class people and low‑income
civil servants. That is who it is having
the hardest hit on. It is no different
on middle class and lower‑income civil servants than the GST that was
brought about. That is who it hurt the
most.
If you have a healthy income or you have
dollars in the bank, you can always make do.
You can always hire someone to do something if you have the funds. If you do not have the funds, where do you
turn to? You have nowhere to turn.
When I hear the government talking about,
we have brought in six budgets in five years, we have never raised the
taxes. That is what they say over and
over but if you look at what the increases cost families, that is not a fair
statement. It has been snuck in the
backdoor. It has been snuck in through
the back way. When you have a single
family of four earning $20,000, they are already living below the poverty
line. That is below the poverty
line. It does not matter if the federal
Conservative government wants to lower the poverty line to make the stats look
better, you still do not have enough earnings to put the meals on the table, to
clothe your kids, to pay your rent, without having to make some sort of
sacrifice.
When you look at lowering the poverty
line, what is the purpose of it? The
poor people are still going to be poor.
The hungry are still going to be hungry.
The homeless are still going to be homeless. So what have you accomplished? All you have accomplished is making the
numbers look better, and I do not feel that it is very fair to do that.
When you look at collective bargaining
agreements, just like I mentioned earlier, collective bargaining agreements are
no different than a handshake agreement in
An Honourable Member:
Did you see the legislation that Bob Rae tabled today?
Mr. Hickes:
No, I have not.
I am very concerned about
Well, we have been without a critic since
November. I do not know why the
government will not call the by‑election because, whether it is a
Conservative member or Liberal member or New Democratic member, those
constituents should have the opportunity to have an MLA. They should have an MLA represent them in
this House so that at least their voices can be heard.
When I was travelling in northern
One of the questions that was asked for
the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) was what happens to the resource
officers that we have in northern
So when you look at services that are
being cut, I wish the government would table in the House for the members to
pass on to their constituents or people that do call and want to know what will
be cut and what will not be cut because, like I mentioned earlier, in the
northern communities, for the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), he
knows exactly what I am talking about because he knows that those isolated
communities do not have lawyers, do not have contracts. He knows that.
An Honourable Member:
Has he ever been up there?
Mr. Hickes:
Oh, he has been up there a few times.
They know of him, you know. By
reputation they know him. They had very
high hopes for him.
I will tell you a little story. When I was first elected, I did not really
know the minister, and I still do not, but I have grown to have some respect
for him. When I first got elected, I got
calls from my friends and associates that I had from the North congratulating
me. We got discussing about who the new
minister was. Everybody, a lot of people
knew him, and there were very high hopes, very high expectations, really high‑‑
An Honourable Member:
And now there is high praise.
Mr. Hickes:
No.
An Honourable Member:
Have you seen his ring, George?
* (1620)
Mr. Hickes:
Yes, I have seen his ring.
Right now the question that is being asked
is, where is the minister when you have the cuts and negative impacts on
aboriginal people? Is he not standing up
for us? I said, I do not know what
happens in cabinet. In the context of
that was the cuts to the aboriginal organizations in the last budget. That is a serious concern in northern
They had really, really, high, high, high
hopes. They thought a lot of good things
were going to happen in northern
One very, very important conversation I
had, and I hope the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) is listening to
this, because it was passed to me that a lot of the teens and the children in
those remote northern communities are wondering what they are going to do this
summer to try and earn some badly needed dollars to continue with their
education wishes.
They talked about the northern careers
programs and various programs that used to be delivered in these remote
communities. That was the only opportunity a lot of these northern children
had. I hope the minister is listening
and will take it back to his cabinet colleagues, because that was the youth of
the North that were talking.
They were saying we need employment
opportunities for the summer. They said,
we used to be able to work in recreation.
We used to work in cleaning up our communities. We used to work in swim programs. We used to be able to work with the bands and
with the mayors and councillors. That is
where we were supervised. We were able
to help our community. We were able to
get a few dollars to buy some badly needed clothes, to save some money for our
school supplies and stuff because our parents did not have those kinds of
funds. They said this summer we have no
hope for that because those programs have been cut.
I hope the minister will reconsider that,
take it to his cabinet colleagues, because that was brought up more than once.
It was brought up by students over and over again. They are very concerned about it, because
they see their school year ending soon and they have nowhere to go.
That was a very interesting trip I
had. I learned a lot. I was sort of saddened to hear the sort of disappointment,
I guess what you would refer‑‑you would say disappointment that the
northern people were expressing‑‑(interjection)
Well, you talk about disappointment in the
North, I will give you a good example. I
was up in Churchill when they announced that spaceport. They had half the community at the complex.
Half the community was at the complex.
They announced that they were going ahead with the spaceport that we
have been discussing for how long now.
The government had gone up and given a promise to at least help them
with their feasibility study of $70,000 and were hoping to get $600,000 to
offset their private investor funding investment. They were so disappointed they even made a
statement that it was no thanks to this government or the federal government
that we are going ahead with the spaceport, so now we have to work extra hard
to try and get the private investors' dollars to come forward.
Well, where is the commitment to northern
people? Where is the commitment, when
you see this Bill 22 is going to have a further negative impact on all
Manitobans? There are a lot of people
who live in northern
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of
Finance): Do you not wish that your team had managed
better, 14 of the last 18 years?
Mr. Hickes:
Well, I do not know, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance raised a very
good question. He said, has your party
managed better? Well, all I can say to
the minister is that I do not think our party in government has ever brought a
deficit of $862 million.
To my recollection, I believe, I think
this is the highest that has ever been accumulated in
Do you imagine how many programs, how many
services, how many Manitobans that this government could have helped with that
$862 million? Could you imagine
that? You could have had almost every
northern Manitoban working. It boggles
my mind to try and think of that, because it would be such a rejuvenation for
the north, and what a shot in the arm it would be.
Northern
An Honourable Member:
What is the unemployment level there?
Mr. Hickes:
Very, very high unemployment. You
have to give people hope, you have to give people some assistance. When I say, well, how did your government
do? I guess compared to $862 million, it
did not too bad, I guess.
I was not part of NDP when they were
government, but all I can do is go on numbers, because I was not part of the
government, I was only elected in 1990.
But comparing those numbers, well, I do not know.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): You are ashamed of Howard Pawley. We know that, George.
Mr. Hickes:
The member for Pembina stated that I am ashamed of Howard Pawley. I can tell the member that I was in northern
An Honourable Member:
Well, we know all about that, George.
Mr. Hickes:
Well, sure, I worked there and I am proud of that. When I run into
people who are now still working and still fulfilling their careers‑‑(interjection) Go into the northern
communities, see who is running the housing programs, have a look. See who has their journeyman tickets and that
are running these programs for the aboriginal people. You can knock the program all you want.
You go and see who the individuals are
that are working in those communities that are fixing the roads. You go and see who they are. That is the career that I have had in the
past. I feel no shame for it, because I
run into people over and over that we worked with. Even in Sterling Lyon years, I run into
people who had graduated from New Careers programs, in the Sterling Lyon years,
who have graduated and are still working in their careers, who are aboriginal
people who would never have had a chance otherwise. They would have been still spinning their
wheels somewhere.
So when you talk about responsibilities of
governments, I think the responsibility of government is for all
Manitobans. I wish the government would
look at the impact it is having on the working poor and the poor people. Like I said, even the federal government if
they lower the poverty rate, it is still not going to impact. It is not going to make anyone feel better
that is trying to go to school or trying to go to work on an empty stomach, or
people that have no homes, that is not going to have an impact. All it is going to do is look better on a
piece of paper, and what good is that?
You look at the impact of this rollback of
services on school boards. I mentioned
earlier in one of my other speeches about the impact. I still would like to see the federal government
impose something on the provincial government and say, whether you agree, you
do it. I would like to see what the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) would tell his Conservative cousins. It will not be thank you, yes sir, thank you,
I will do it. I am sure of that, because
I am sure he will stand up for the people that represented him, and he will
stand up for his government. (interjection)
Well, I know one thing, a lot of the corporate tax loopholes and all of the
entertainment tax and stuff like that‑‑(interjection) I read somewhere in a paper that you would save $1
billion‑‑I do not know whose writing, if it was Frances Russell or
who‑‑but if you cut out the free lunches of the corporations you
would save $1 billion. Do you know how
many families you could feed for $1 billion?
A lot of families.
When you talk about imposing the rollback
or cutback, whatever you want to call it of 2 percent, right across the board,
I am against the rollback. I have made
it very clear here, the only part and portion that I agree with is the MLAs'
salaries and the MLA constituency allowance.
I made that very clear before I even spoke. I made it very clear.
An Honourable Member:
So you disagree with the NDP in
Mr. Hickes:
I am speaking on behalf of Manitobans.
When you talk about imposing and telling
people that this is what you have to do‑‑if the government would
look at the City of
* (1630)
So when you talk about rollback or
cutbacks, what you are saying is that you have no respect at all for the
bargaining and the collective agreements process. What future and what trust will those workers
have if the government has no respect at all for that?
Also, the other thing is that when you
look at individuals' days and hours that were cut from five days to four, like
my colleague the MLA for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) was saying, what impact is this
going to have on children across
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Also, what are they going to do? Through this bill, are you going to be giving
people a day off and then calling people in or calling people in on
overtime? That has never been
explained. I do not think you would save
any money if you started doing that. If you bring somebody in on overtime, it
is either time and a half, double time, whatever have you. So I do not know how this will have a
positive impact on citizens.
When you talk about the government saying‑‑like,
I have mentioned other hidden back‑door taxes. When you say one thing to elected
representatives who were elected by citizens of Manitoba, such as a school
board, and you say, you can only increase property taxes by 2 percent, then,
shortly after, the government comes in and raises property taxes by $75 right
across the board, where is the fairness in that? There is no fairness in that.
When you compare it to a home in Tuxedo,
you might be getting 1.5 percent, maybe 2 percent property tax increase, but if
you compare it to some of the homes in the constituency of Point Douglas, some
of them are increasing‑‑their property tax increase has been 7
percent, 8 percent. That is not very
fair.
Also, there was nothing looked at when you
imposed that 2 percent right across the board.
A single person earning maybe $15,000 government salary or Crown
corporation salary that is trying to raise four children, five children as a
single parent, what kind of an impact is that going to have on that individual?
I am sure that they could afford, of all things, to give away one full pay
cheque out of every year. I am sure that
they are having a tough enough time as it is to make ends meet for the whole
year. Sure, if you rolled back someone
making $50,000, $60,000, $70,000, they will have a much easier time of it than
hitting some poor single person trying to raise a family that is barely making
ends meet.
Even if you look at a single person, a
single parent raising four children, earning $20,000 a year, did the government
even know, did the government even realize, or did the government even care that
that individual is still living below the poverty line already without being
hit that additional 2 percent? The
government is hitting people that are still living below the poverty line. You are adding to the burden. Where is the justice in that? (interjection) Lowering the poverty line
is not going to do a darn bit of good. (interjection)
Well, even raising it, you can raise the number all you want, it is still the
same number of people that are going to be having not enough to eat. It is
going to be the people who do not have a home. (interjection)
Well, you can draw the line where‑‑if
you do not have programs in place to help the people that need the help the
most, if you take those programs away from the people that need the help the
most, what are you accomplishing? (interjection)
Well, the government should ensure fairness for anybody, whether they are
capable, right across
So when we see a cut that is impacting
harder on the people that have the least, that is why you get people that do
react the way they do, because they see it as being unfair, as hitting the
hardest, the most negative impact on the people that can least afford it.
So when you talk about fairness, the
government should have looked at fairness, but it came about, I believe,
without much thought to it. I believe
that things could be negotiated, things could be worked out and, at the end,
common sense always prevails, in most cases anyway. But just to go forcefully ahead and impose
one's will on another I think is wrong, because the affected parties should
have a say on what is going to happen to individuals and what kind of an impact
it is going to have on one's life.
That is one of the things. There is only a small, other issue that I do
not know if it has been addressed or not, but a lot of the civil servants,
there are individuals that become civil servants or are fortunate enough to
work at Crown corporations or for the government, a lot of them look at working
for the government and then eventually retiring on a decent pension.
Well, if you look at the cutback of 2
percent, you will see a negative impact on people's pensions because, as far as
I understand it, the pensions are allocated according to a person's income and
contributions towards it. So if your
income and your contributions are lowered, then your contribution to your
pensions are going to decrease.
So I do not know if that has been
mentioned or thought out, but maybe the government would explain that, send a
letter to the civil servants and explain that, yes, your pension will be
affected at the end.
When you look at any kind of an impact on
people, you should sit down with the individuals that it is going to affect and
negotiate something that is reasonable, that is trying to be reasonable for the
individuals.
I see my time has run out, so I would like
to thank you for the opportunity to put a few things on the record.
House Business
Mr. Speaker: Prior to recognizing the honourable member for
Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) on Bill 22, I will recognize the honourable Government
House leader at this time I believe with the sitting hours for tomorrow.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House
Leader): Mr. Speaker, I have two items.
Firstly, House Business‑‑I
would like to announce that the sitting hours for tomorrow, after discussion
with the other parties, will be somewhat similar to last week. We will start at ten o'clock in the morning
and we will, though, extend the day a little bit longer than last week. I think we are prepared to go to 4:30
p.m. So I would like the consent of the
House to sit those hours tomorrow.
* (1640)
Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to change the sitting
hours tomorrow so that the House would start at 10 a.m. and that we would
finish at 4:30 p.m.?
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House
Leader): Mr. Speaker, there is consent. I just have the qualification that there
should be some ability of the committees to adjourn for at least half an hour
for lunch for both the committee members and staff. I would suggest that we perhaps leave that up
to the discretion of the committees, but I would like that understood prior to
that.
Mr. Speaker: The committees would have the power to recess
for a lunch break if they so wished, but right now is there unanimous consent
of the House to sit from 10 a.m. tomorrow to 4:30 p.m. tomorrow? (agreed)
Concurrence in Reports
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, at this time‑‑and I
had discussed this with the opposition House leader‑‑I am wondering
whether or not there is agreement that I might introduce a motion or have leave
to introduce a motion, seconded by the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr.
Downey), that the First Report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and
Elections respecting The Freedom of Information Act review received by the
House on June 1, 1993, be concurred in.
I guess I do not need leave to bring this
motion, but I ask that it be concurred in.
His Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor, having been advised of the
motion, recommends it to the House.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave to allow the honourable
Minister of Finance to introduce a report on the Standing Committee on
Privileges and Elections? (agreed)
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker: His Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor,
having been advised of the contents of this motion, recommends it to the
House. The honourable minister has also
tabled said message. Is that agreed? (agreed)
* * *
Mr. Chomiak:
I‑‑
An Honourable Member:
When Orchard is gone, then he wants to speak.
Mr. Chomiak:
I believe the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) has the capability to
read Hansard, and I anticipate he will do so.
Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, I rise to deal
with this rather important bill, and I rise having probably done more homework
and more preparation for this than the government did and probably talked to
more people than the government did prior to bringing in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I was very impressed by the
comments of the members for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) and Transcona (Mr. Reid)
prior to that, very impressive comments, very heartfelt comments and very
representative comments of the public of Manitoba and by someone who has
actually been out there, who has had an opportunity, an occasion, particularly
the member for Point Douglas, who talked about his experience in the North and
rural Manitoba.
I only hope that members opposite listened
to those words closely and will take the opportunity of reviewing them in
Hansard, because I think he made some very valid points, particularly when he
talked about the attitude of the government opposite in terms of a wholesale,
across‑the‑board imposition of a rollback or freeze. It is reminiscent of the great French poet who
said that the rich are equally capable of sleeping under the bridges of
Mr. Speaker, this government has a serious
attitude problem, and I will get into that in some detail. They also have a terrible management
problem. We are now six budgets into the
Tory regime. We are not one budget into
the Tory regime. We are not two
budgets. We are six budgets into the
Tory regime. What is the response from
members opposite and their explanation and their defence for the introduction
of this bill? Blame the previous
government.
Mr. Speaker, that might wash in budget
one. That might wash in budget two or
year three or year four, but six years down the road, the response and the
defence position is blame the previous government.
Can this government blame the previous
government for the largest debt in provincial history, $862 million, the
largest debt in provincial history, and their attitude is to blame the
provincial government?
Some Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
Mr. Chomiak:
The other attitude, Mr. Speaker‑‑(interjection)
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
At this point in time the honourable member for Kildonan has the floor.
Point of Order
Mr. Ashton:
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if you could ask the member
for
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised, I have already
indicated to the members that the honourable member for Kildonan does have the
floor, but if some honourable member would like the opportunity to put some
remarks on the floor, I think the House would grant them that opportunity.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Right now, the honourable member for Kildonan.
Mr. Chomiak:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is ironic that when I was talking about
the issue of an attitude problem for members opposite that a furor should
suddenly occur with respect to my arguments.
That more than anything perhaps makes my argument.
When one suggests alternatives, when one
suggests criticism of the government that has basic bunker and siege mentality
these days, response‑‑and that is a classic response of a
government that is in trouble, that any suggestion or any criticism or in fact
any positive suggestion is viewed as criticism.
They go into their bunker mentality and they trot out their defensive
measures.
I could just see the memo from Barb Biggar
on this debate or any other debate.
Point No. 1, Mr. Speaker, it is blame the previous government. I think it is fairly clear after six years
that it is fallacious to try to even attempt to blame.
Point No. 2, Mr. Speaker, defence measure
No. 2 is to point to the other provinces, point to
You know what, Mr. Speaker? Point No. 3, which is worse, it is blame the
teachers, blame the nurses, blame the doctors, blame the public servants; it is
their fault. That is the government's
attitude. That is point No. 3 defensive
measure. I have heard it from members
opposite all through speeches yelling out and charting out blame, blame, blame
the teachers, blame the civil‑‑
An Honourable Member:
Do they blame themselves?
Mr. Chomiak:
That is the key act of responsible government, is you take
responsibility for your actions.
Sometimes you are right; sometimes you are wrong. Mr. Speaker, you take some responsibility for
your actions.
I have listened, Mr. Speaker. I sat in committee of Education. When I heard the Premier (Mr. Filmon) voice
up his‑‑he was in there to defend his Minister of Education (Mrs.
Vodrey) and in fact answered a number of questions that the Minister of
Education did not want to or was unable to respond to. It was blame the teachers. I heard it yelled out here today.
It is an attitude problem, Mr.
Speaker. It also is indicative of a
government that has a siege mentality that is somewhat in trouble.
The fourth defensive measure is to just
impose legislation and listen to nobody, which gets me to the basis of Bill 22.
Mr. Speaker, I probably talked to more
people about this bill before I introduced it.
I probably talked to more constituents on this bill than the government
did. There was no consultation. There was no negotiation. That is what is abhorrent, and that is why we
oppose this bill. That is why I oppose
this bill, with the exception, as raised by the member for Point Douglas (Mr.
Hickes) as well, because we want to set an example to our constituents, I will
support the reduction in my salary and I would do no less. I think it is appropriate that we set proper
examples, and I could do no less when I look at some of the things that are happening
in my constituency.
* (1650)
But there is no‑‑that is what
is abhorrent about this legislation, and members prior to me‑‑I
think very eloquently the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) pointed out some of
the defects in the bill, and I am not going to get into those specifics,
because I think it was well laid out‑‑but the attitude problem that
I return to that there was no attempt to negotiate, no attempt to consult. It was simply imposed.
It is consistent with a series of other
measures by the government. It is
consistent with what they did in Child and Family Services in terms of the
centralization. It is consistent with
what they did in this budget to the Children's Dental Program where they did
not consult, Mr. Speaker.
Now, the only people that they are
consulting‑‑well, they are now forced to consult and their own
backbenchers are forced to say, we will try to reinstate the program now that
we have heard what a program it is.
It is consistent with their user fees that
they have introduced on home care supplies.
Was anyone talked to from the associations? Was anyone talked to about flexibility in
terms of the home care supplies? No, so
this siege mentality results in noncommunication, and I sincerely believe it;
this mentality that now pervades this government has resulted in a bill of this
kind.
Members opposite frequently chant across
the way, what would you do, what is your alternative? The dilemma and part of the dilemma is that
for six years this government has been running the affairs of this province. Most Manitobans, I think, for the minority
years, gave benefit and said that, you know, the Filmon government in a
minority situation was not a bad government.
That was reflected on the doorstep, but it
is also reflected on the doorstep now that there has been a perceptible change
in this government and now they are on their real agenda. It is perceived by Manitobans, Mr. Speaker,
that this government is on its real agenda and its real agenda is fundamentally
a neoconservative sort of Ronald Reagan kind of attitude.
I know the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) applauds that kind of attitude because it is consistent‑‑and
I have read his old speeches‑‑with everything that he has said for
the past 12 or 13 years.
If blame has to be cast anywhere, members
opposite should take a look at their federal counterparts. They ought to take a look at the‑‑and
perhaps they can reflect this weekend when they go off to the national
convention because this perception in
Members opposite support the government's
lack of transfer payments to the province.
Now they use it as an excuse when they tell hospitals to cut their
budgets, and they tell school boards to cut their budgets, but where has the Minister
of Finance or the Premier (Mr. Filmon) taken a stand on the cutbacks in
transfer payments? Where have they taken
a public stance? And where are they now,
Mr. Speaker, in terms of their support for the Tory leaderships who are talking
about imposing user fees, et cetera. It
is the same people; it is the same agenda.
But I digressed slightly.
The part of the major problem created in
this country is the lack of equality and the lack of redistribution of income
in this country, partially as a result of the unilateral cutback in transfers from
the federal government to the provinces, and nary a word from members opposite.
One of the reasons we are in this
financial mess is because of the lack of cutbacks. Members opposite will not admit that. They
will not admit it because they support it.
In fact, they welcome it. The
reason I know that is because they have done the same thing to third levels of
government. They have done the same
thing to school divisions and the likewise.
They have offloaded. They have
cut back payments and then they have sort of said, it is not our
responsibility.
If one has to attach blame, one has to
attach blame on (1) the federal government, and (2) on mismanagement, terrible
mismanagement of the economy by this government. Six years into their mandate, Mr. Speaker,
six years of Filmon government has seen the largest deficit in the provincial
history and at the same time we are mired, we are absolutely mired, last place
in economic statistics right across the board.
The response of members opposite and
response of the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
generally is to‑‑and I guess I understand that from a psychological
standpoint‑‑blame, and try to deflect the blame off of themselves
and onto those individuals and those people whom I enumerated earlier.
Mr. Speaker, in 1950, about half of all
the income tax was paid by businesses and about half was paid by
individuals. Today less than 10 percent
of all income tax is paid by businesses and over 90 percent is paid by
individuals. The taxing regime of this
government, the offloading of this government, the unfairness of taxing of this
government has further exasperated those differences in Manitoba as well as has
been horribly done by so‑called tax reform in Ottawa, not just the tax loopholes
but the whole‑scale rejigging of the tax system by the Mulroney
Conservatives to make, in the words that I said earlier, the rich can equally
sleep under their bridges as the poor, which is their entire attitude.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is an admission of
their failure to negotiate. This
government has a terrible record on negotiation, be it on Repap, be it on the
Hydro developments, be it on their own‑‑and I am surprised because
this government supposedly has the business sense and supposedly was elected on
the ability to negotiate and to somehow come to some kinds of conclusions. They hopelessly have failed in almost every
single area of negotiation and this bill is an admission of that failure. Was there even an attempt to negotiate? No, there was the unilateral imposition of a
bill of this kind that crossed the board with no sensitivity to particular
issues, imposes cutbacks and freezes.
I want to talk about some of the
specifics, Mr. Speaker. Members opposite somehow have the impression public
school teacher bashing is a pastime of members opposite. I say that with all sincerity, because I
suppose their polling would show that public school teachers are not popular in
the public's mind and they decided they will now become one of the straw people
whom members opposite will attack.
They have no comprehension, I think, of
what goes on in a classroom, of the complexity‑‑(interjection) Now the member says that
it is not true. That certainly is my
impression, because hearing what the Premier (Mr. Filmon) said and hearing the
comments during debate, that is clearly my impression from the government. The government does not have an understanding‑‑and
the member for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer) probably does.
The government generally does not have an
understanding of what goes on in the classroom today, the complexities and the
difficulties of being a teacher. The
amount of time that is involved in preparation, the amount of time that is
involved with extracurricular activities, et cetera, has completely been
missed, Mr. Speaker, and the consequence when teachers say, well, we are going
to stop extracurricular activities, the government somehow, and members
opposite, and they said it during the course of these speeches, say, where is
the dedication of the teachers, et cetera.
Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of
dedication of the teachers. It is a
question of fairness. It is a question
of recognizing what these people go through.
There are people in the justice system, parole officers and the like
who, in their spare time, prepare programs to try to help people, to try to
decrease the waiting lists for those involved in violent crimes, to provide
programs for wife‑abuse people, et cetera.
A lot of these people, and I talked with
the spouse of one of these people the other day, she said: He comes home, my husband comes home and on
his own hours, he prepares for programs that assist people who are involved in
violent crimes and abuse. He does that
on his own time. Now he is going to be
asked, on his own time as well, to take a cutback in salary and to lose working
time. The overall, comprehensive way
that this bill has been introduced is part of that.
It applies to home care, Mr. Speaker. I am advised that the home care resource co‑ordinators,
as a result of this bill, are not being replaced in terms of their time. The result of that is that patients are being
backed up at acute care facilities and are not being released from hospital and
are being forced to stay in hospitals and are not being put into their own
homes in order to receive home care, as a result of Bill 22 or the anticipation
of Bill 22. The consequence is, the
government is incurring greater cost by keeping patients in acute care beds
rather than having them in home care, so they are defeating their own purpose
of their bill.
That crosses the board, Mr. Speaker, be it
the justice system or the education system or the social services system. It happens over and over and over again right
across the board. That is part of the problem with this sledgehammer approach,
this inability to negotiate, notwithstanding, and I do not even want to get
into my philosophical difficulties with collective agreements that have been
negotiated by individuals freely that have been entered into, contractual
arrangements.
We are not talking about a crisis. The only crisis is that created by the
government's mismanagement, because they have effectively being saying for six
years the same thing. They have been
saying for six years, we are in trouble, we are in trouble, we are in trouble,
and slowly they have been whittling away at the civil service, they have been
cutting back programs and creating a crisis situation, and‑‑
* (1700)
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
I am interrupting the honourable member for private members'
business. When this matter is again
before the House, the honourable member for Kildonan will have 22 minutes
remaining. As previously agreed this
matter will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for The Pas
(Mr. Lathlin).
Is it the will of the House to call it six
o'clock?
Some Honourable Members:
No.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Okay.
PRIVATE MEMBERS'
BUSINESS
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 32‑International
Year of the World's Indigenous People
Mr. Jack Reimer (Niakwa):
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer), that
WHEREAS the United Nations has declared
1993 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme,
"Indigenous People: a new
partnership"; and
WHEREAS the United Nation's primary
objective for this proclamation is to strengthen international co‑operation
to solve problems faced by indigenous communities on issues such as human
rights, the environment, development, education and health; and
WHEREAS the official opening ceremony for
this International Year will take place on December 10, 1992, which is also
International Human Rights Day; and
WHEREAS in co‑operation with the
proclamation of International Year of the World's Indigenous People, we in
Manitoba would like to recognize the aboriginal people who were the founders of
our great land.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba encourage all Manitobans to join with the
members of the Legislative Assembly to commemorate International Year of the
World's Indigenous People.
Motion presented.
Mr. Reimer:
Mr. Speaker, indeed it is a pleasure for me to introduce this
resolution, as mentioned in the resolution, to recognize the aboriginal people
who were the founders of our great land.
I must begin by commenting, just the day
before, coming into the Legislature, there was a demonstration out on the front
steps of our Legislature by a group of indigenous people from Manitoba
here. To confess, I am not too sure what
the protest was for, but I did stop, and I did listen to the individual for a
moment. The reason that it is striking, in a sense, is the fact that what we
had was the ability and the opportunity for an individual to come forth and to
express his concerns regarding what he felt was important for his people and
himself in regard to a certain issue.
The fact that the individual could come forth in this community, in this
environment and within our country and with our government to express himself
and to have the opportunity to try to bring focus to his certain situation, in
a sense, gives us the freedom of being in a great country such as Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we are blessed with a sense
that we have a government, not only here in Manitoba but in Canada, that has
the ability for people to come forth and to express themselves. They can express themselves by public
meeting, by public presentation and by lobbying or by coming to their MLA or to
their elected officials and to try to make change, because change is something
that we have to recognize. Indeed, in
all the presentations and the various educational programs that are being
brought forth regarding indigenous people, they are looking for government and
they are looking within themselves to make change.
The one thing that this individual said on
the steps that sort of stuck in my mind was the fact that he does have a
weapon, and he says his weapon that he will use and the weapon that he will
bring forth is his ability to vote, his ability to make things happen. He has that right to vote. He has that right to make a change.
This, Mr. Speaker, I think, is a very
profound statement in the sense that there is a process, there is the ability,
for people to make a change. They can
come forth. They can vote in, they can vote
out, they can make laws, they can amend laws, they can change laws, because
they have that powerful weapon of the vote.
It is one of the most powerful things we cherish here in our province
and in our country, and this is what a lot of the people are realizing is a
vehicle for change. The fact that there
is more and more awareness of this by the indigenous people‑‑because
the indigenous people, when we talk about the indigenous people, we are not
only talking about this resolution in the sense of Manitoba primarily, which we
should in a sense because this is our province and we should be concerned about
it, which we naturally are, but the International Year of the Indigenous People
applies to well over 300 million indigenous people living in over 70 countries.
(Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
These are countries right from the Arctic
to the Amazon and
There is more and more coming forth by
concerns that the rest of the world or the people that should be taken account
to are becoming aware that the indigenous people are asking for this type of
resolve of some of the problems or some of the situations that are perceived.
Here in
There is an awareness and there is a focus
on trying to come to resolve. There is
the negotiating of treaties, agreements with the First Nations on the gaming
and the taxation on reserves, which we have been exposed to in the last while
through some of the articles in the papers and through communications regarding
the gaming on reserves.
We are also addressing concerns such as
Child and Family Services and the overall concern regarding the federal‑provincial
jurisdiction and the financial responsibility.
The responsibility and the accountability is always something that has
to be brought into account with any type of negotiations in the addressing of
entitlements and claims.
There are also outstanding claims relating
to the Manitoba Hydro projects in northern
There is an ongoing involvement and an ongoing
commitment to try to bring these things to a resolve and to try to come to an
understanding and a direction of acceptance on all parties to these various
claims.
The negotiations that have come forth have
resulted in settlements to the
A comprehensive settlement was achieved
with the Split Lake Cree First Nation with the various departments here in this
government. The negotiations have
commenced with the Nelson House First Nation with the objective of finalizing a
comprehensive settlement some time in the very, very near future, I understand,
Mr. Acting Speaker.
There is an ongoing dialogue; there is an
ongoing commitment; there is an ongoing involvement with the departments that
are variously affected with the land entitlements and the native aboriginal
groups here in
* (1710)
It is this type of commitment, Mr. Acting
Speaker, that makes for a constructive relationship and a constructive
settlement, because a settlement needs a negotiation factor, and in a
negotiation, there has to be the realization of expectations. The expectations
are not only for the government's availability to settle, but the recipient's
availability to comprehend the extent of how and what is expected and the
amount of entitlement that is perceived.
In negotiation, there is always the
expectation of getting exactly and everything that everybody wants, but there
is a reality within negotiations of coming to an agreement so that there is an
understanding, there is an acceptance, and at times, these negotiations do take
time. Sometimes, I guess, there is the
frustration when time is involved with any type of banter of positions, but at
the same time, there is a realization that a negotiated settlement is the best
way to come about, and negotiations have to continue, trying to come to a
resolve.
In 1990, the Manitoba government signed an
agreement with The Pas Indian Band to establish the first Indian gaming
commission in Canada, which was a very significant comeabout regarding the
government's commitment.
The negotiation approach has been
successful also with other First Nations in the sense that there are now 19
First Nations operating under the authority of our gaming commission. The fact there is a willingness by the First
Nations to take responsibility is in a sense directed towards some of the
philosophy of self‑government, of coming to the realization that the
first self‑government has the responsibility of commitment and of
accountability. So accountability is
part of any type of negotiations, Mr. Acting Speaker.
The agreements were entered into with the
Indian bands to provide provincial tax exemption for Status Indians purchasing
gas and diesel fuel at service stations on the reserve. I understand there are currently 24
agreements signed involving 31 stations on reserves.
The provincial exemption on tobacco tax,
which is a unique concept, has been implemented, which involves the province
operating as a tax collector for the tobacco purchases on reserve, and the province
refunds to the band a prearranged percentage of the tax attributed to purchases
made by the Status Indians on the reserve.
So there is an amount of rebate and involvement here because of the
negotiation factors as mentioned previously.
Also the First Nations Child and Family
Services Task Force was established to address immediate service and
operational issues, as well as long‑term structural change aimed at
improving service delivery, quality and management.
There is a process of incorporation of
local government being implemented in Northern Affairs communities, most of
which have a majority of aboriginal residents, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Mr. Acting Speaker, there are numerous
other initiatives that have taken place by this government. A lot of them have all come about because of
the factor of trying to come to a resolve, and this is an ongoing process. The resolve is trying to come along the same
way as an understanding, an understanding between the expectations, the
understanding of accountability, and the expectations of trying to be of a
nature that the targets and the amount of people involved with the decision
making is ongoing.
So, Mr. Acting Speaker, I would hope that
all members in the House would pass this resolution. I believe that as it applies to the
aboriginal indigenous peoples here, that it is of worthiness, and I would hope
that all members would, indeed, support it.
Thank you very much, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas):
I am pleased to be able to rise to speak to this resolution, because I
was pretty surprised this winter when I was in Little Black River, when I was
meeting with the chief and council and some of my old hockey friends
there. I looked on the wall, and I saw
this beautiful thing on the wall. It was
in a frame, and then I went closer to read it, and here it was exactly what we
are dealing with today. I was not aware
that it was passed already. I do not
know why we are even talking about it now.
So I was surprised to see that.
I looked at it and it was beautifully
framed. This was prior to the
budget. Now that we have heard the budget
and the impact this budget has on aboriginal people, I know why that resolution
was framed. I think it was the member
who was framed by his members, because in order to bring this resolution
forward, after all the negative impacts that aboriginal people are feeling
across Manitoba‑‑I have a hard time understanding how the
government could bring this forward.
If they were doing positive things in the
North, I would gladly support this. I
would agree with it, but coming from a government that I believed supported
aboriginal self‑government‑‑that was one of the inherent
rights in our
When you look at the cuts that resulted
from this government in the last budget, that is not supporting aboriginal
wishes and aboriginal dreams of aboriginal self‑government. I cannot blame the member. He brought forward this resolution with good
intentions and good thoughts. I do not
know how much impact he had on the budget, but I would assume as a backbencher,
it would be very little.
What I am very surprised at is that the
Minister of Native Affairs (Mr. Downey) did not stand up to his cabinet
colleagues and say, yes, I support aboriginal self‑government, and the
only way aboriginal people will eventually have self‑government is
through education.
That is understood by all aboriginal
people. Yesterday, there was a caravan
at the steps here that is going to
The only thing that is missing from the
provincial government is the poster contest, but the cutbacks are there.
I have just come back from northern
The co‑op right now in
* (1720)
So where is the subsidy for that? (interjection) Well, the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) says, subsidy. The
Minister of Finance knows full well that if you are a farmer, there are subsidy
programs in case the prices go down to make sure that the industry of farming
continues on.
Well, the fishing industry, especially the
fishermen in remote northern communities who have no other option of employment,
why can that same subsidy not be there to help the individuals if the prices go
down? That is fairness. There is nothing wrong with that.
So I am very surprised to hear the Finance
minister say subsidy in sort of a negative tone, because I am sure that farmers
and individuals who make their living through farming must access those
subsidies once in a while, or maybe all the time, I do not know, but that is
the kind of negative impact that these cutbacks have had.
The friendship centres right across
So when you look at the programs for
aboriginal peoples, let us look at fairness here. When you talk about aboriginal community
leaders who are saying something‑‑the member who represents
thousands and thousands of non‑Status people taking a caravan across
I will just quote a few of the
things. It says the same government
which lectures and criticizes aboriginal leaders about accountability and
responsible governance has no hesitation in making crass, cynical decisions in
favour of their political friends. This
hypocritical double standard must cease.
Later on it goes: Chief Fontaine noted that while taxpayers
subsidize Tory business people dabbling in real estate, the federal Department
of Indian Affairs reports that on reserve, First Nations endure housing conditions
in which overcrowding is 16 times the Canadian rate. Fifty percent of the houses are unsuitable
for human habitation; 31 percent lack running water; 31 percent lack sewage
systems.
Chief Fontaine also stated: The federal government acknowledges a housing
backlog on reserves of 12,000 units. So
when you have aboriginal leaders that are making these kinds of statements, the
government has to realize that we are living in 1993, not in the 1800s when
bureaucrats or governments could go in and hand a piece of paper to aboriginal
leaders and say, well, everything is going to be fine, and everything is going
to be okay.
You are now dealing with a lot of very
educated aboriginal leaders that see through this piece of paper without the
proper backing being behind this.
Also, when we talk about cutbacks that
have impacted on aboriginal people, who will be impacted the most by the
student social assistance programs? It
is mostly aboriginal people.
So how are they going to get educated when
there are no jobs for continuing on?
Look at our ACCESS programs; they have been cut by 11.2 percent. ACCESS programs deal with and educate
aboriginal people, like I said earlier, hopefully to administer aboriginal self‑government.
When you look at that, when you see the
elected representatives by the aboriginal people, like the Assembly of Manitoba
Chiefs, when their total funding is cut off in hopes of silencing the voices of
the people that were elected by the people, and MKO‑‑
An Honourable Member:
You lose with your own people on that one, George.
Mr. Hickes:
I do not think so. The Assembly
of Manitoba Chiefs, the
The MKO is also made up of northern
chiefs. They are the voice of the people
that have elected them. (interjection)
Well, it is just like the government.
The government is the voice of the people of
An Honourable Member:
That is called democracy, is it not?
Mr. Hickes:
That is exactly what it is called‑‑democracy. So when you talk about the support of gaming,
the government is missing the whole point.
The government is missing the whole point on the issue of gaming.
It is not the communities that are asking
for agreements throughout
When I say that, for example, are you
going to go into an agreement with Shamattawa?
Are they going to raise millions of dollars to overcome a lot of their
problems? They do not have those
resources within their own community.
What they are talking about is a gaming agreement that will be structured
under‑‑whether it is the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, however it
will be structured. But the money will
flow to all the communities, whether they have a bingo hall or whether they
have a casino in each of their communities.
An Honourable Member:
Do you support centralizing all of the money?
Mr. Hickes:
Well, there is a model in
An Honourable Member:
Who ripped up their agreements when Phil asked them to, George?
Mr. Hickes:
Well, because the whole gaming issue wants to be under one umbrella,
like Shamattawa,
An Honourable Member:
You are on the wrong ticket, George.
Mr. Hickes:
Well, I will live with that because I have talked to the aboriginal
leaders. I have talked to the aboriginal
communities, so when you talk‑‑go to Shamattawa, go to
Go into those remote communities and ask
them, and they will tell you the same thing, exactly what I am telling
you. That is what the people are saying
out there. If you talk to them about
structuring‑‑so when you talk about those kinds of negotiations‑‑and
then when you talk about antisniff, you know, a solvent abuse centre in
northern
All the people are not going to be from
reserves, or if they are, why can we not‑‑
An Honourable Member:
Is Oscar working on this one?
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Mr. Hickes:
Exactly. Ask him, he will tell
you the same thing. He will tell you exactly the same. Oscar has been in touch with the people, not
only just a few of the leaders who maybe disagree with it. We are talking about the people on reserves. I have stated this publicly many times.
So when you talk about this resolution, it
has a lot of good points to it. Mr.
Speaker, I would just like to make a positive amendment that I am sure the
government will be very pleased to support.
I move, seconded by the member for
THAT all the words after the first WHEREAS
be deleted and the following words be added:
WHEREAS this government has neglected to
support aboriginal people and organizations in this province, and in fact
instituted massive cutbacks in programs which enabled aboriginal people to get
training and job opportunities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
chosen to eliminate funding to aboriginal organizations, friendship centres,
and native communications incorporated counter to the principle of the
International Year of the World's Indigenous People; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
abandoned the principles and recommendations of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry;
and
WHEREAS the provincial government should
be acting to advance the cause of aboriginal people in this province in this
United Nations Year of Indigenous People.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this
Legislature recommend that the provincial government to consider seriously
negotiating with aboriginal organizations and to consider restoring funding to
the friendship centres and aboriginal organizations in this province; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this
Legislature request the provincial government to consider restoring the over $1
million funding cuts to the Access Programs in the 1993‑94 budget; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba call upon the provincial government to
consider committing itself to seeing a solvent abuse centre started this year
in northern Manitoba; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba call upon the provincial government in
consultation with the aboriginal organizations to consider implementing the
major recommendations of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry as its commitment to
the International Year of the Indigenous People.
* (1730)
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member's amendment is in order.
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson):
Mr. Speaker, I was sitting listening very closely to what the honourable
member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) was saying about the indigenous people and the Year
of Indigenous People. It was also very
interesting the comments that the honourable member for Point Douglas was
making in his comments in rebuttal to what the honourable member for Niakwa had
said.
I think it is extremely important to recognize
the indigenous people, not only of this country, but of all the nations of the
world. I think that is what the original
resolution that the honourable member for Niakwa put forward does, recognizing
the indigenous people, recognizing their contribution and recognizing that the
world had set aside a year to recognize those efforts that those indigenous
people had made.
I find it rather interesting that the
honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), in his amendment, has
basically waived all that aside, saying that government should be acting to
advance the cause of the aboriginal people in this province in this United
Nations Year of Indigenous People.
I think all of us on this side of the
House have watched with interest, Mr. Speaker, the previous government's record
over a 15‑year period of time in their inactions and waiting for actions
by them in recognition of the contribution of our native people. When I look at
their record and when I look at the record of the Pawley administration and,
yes, even the Schreyer administration, I have to wonder how a member from that
side of the House can stand up with straight face and honestly put forward an
amendment such as this.
I would say to you that our Minister of
Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Downey), our Minister of Natural Resources
(Mr. Enns) and, indeed, this government have by far outacted and demonstrated
our willingness to advance the cause of native people. Not only have we said very openly that we
would be willing to discuss self‑government, not only have we very openly
negotiated the Northern Flood Agreement, not only have we come to terms with
many of the native communities in this province on flooding and agreements that
have been signed, we are still continuing to negotiate and discuss the needs of
those people and land claim settlements.
For 15 years, Mr. Speaker, the opposition
sat in government, had a golden opportunity, because they had members of the
aboriginal communities as members of their caucus, had a golden opportunity to
listen to firsthand representation by members of their own community to their
own caucus, to their own government. Yet
what did they do?
I say to you, the NDP party's record is
nothing short of being deplorable when it comes to acting, not‑‑(interjection) Oh, I have listened to
the verbiage. I have listened to the
debates. I have listened to the cases
put forward by the honourable members opposite, yet it is plain talk, and that
is all it is. That is all it has been
because they did have a 15‑year period of time when they had ample
opportunity to act very positively on some of the things that our ministers
have not only acted upon but have in fact resolved.
Are there other things that can be
done? Yes, there are, many, as has been
recognized in this House many times over, but it has taken the Filmon
administration to approach in a very real manner as a team the addressing of
the needs of those communities. When one
has had the opportunity to travel in many other countries of the world, such as
I have had, visiting Africa, visiting Australia, visiting South America and
visiting on all those occasions communities of their aboriginal people, you
have to recognize the contributions that those peoples have made in their own
countries, in their own rightful manner and in their world.
You have to recognize the contribution
they have made internationally. We
recognize this year, the year of the aboriginal people, the contribution that
our aboriginal communities have made not only provincially, nationally, but
also internationally, because we have had and we have today some very
influential people, some very articulate people representing the views of the
aboriginal community.
We, as a government on this side of the
House, recognize and appreciate that. I
wonder sometimes when you look at action taken versus comments made, how real
their rhetoric really is on the opposite side of the House because they did
really have an opportunity.
* (1740)
Where can we make some major
advancements? Where, as a nation, should
we start? Let us say today was Day
One. Where are the real advances that
can be made? First of all, recognizing
that there have been significant advances made in education of the aboriginal
community, if we look at education as we see it, not as they see it, when we
look at it in our terms, we say there have been major advances made.
When you listen to their community, when
you listen to what they say and what they propose, I would suggest to you, Mr.
Speaker, that we have come only a very short distance in meeting their needs,
because their languages are important to them, their culture is important to
them.
Having recognized how closely they were
associated with nature prior to the so‑called white man coming to this
country, recognizing how close they lived to nature, how dependent they were on
the land to provide a living for them, how closely tied they were to wildlife,
the land and the waters, one must recognize that the changes they have made
over the last 100 years, the last century, have been major, major.
Not only did we encourage them to move
into communities that they might not have chosen to move to, had they had their
will and their way, but we encouraged them by incentives that probably are not
today appreciated.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it behooves
all of us in this House, no matter which party we are from, no matter which
side of the House we sit on, to recognize that there must be major changes made
to bring them fully into today's society.
Whether it is in
However, how that is done is a matter of
negotiation, consideration and co‑operation. When we are able to come to agreements with
the aboriginal community on what their true needs are, when we come to
agreements on how they want to evolve into the so‑called modern‑day
society, whether it is in this country or other countries, once they
demonstrate clearly, by action and agreement, then I think we, as governments
and other parties as governments, will have the opportunity to take some very
real, real action and initiate programs and actions that will accommodate
them. I think all of us in society are
prepared to put our arms around each other and go forward as true Canadians, not
the segregated, segmented Canadians that some would want us to be, but true
Canadians, no matter what colour, what creed or what race we are from, because
that is what I believe that the Good Lord really wanted all of us to be. Never did He intend us to recognize each
other by our skin colours, to recognize each other by our ability, but to
recognize each other truly for what we are, and
that is human beings.
So, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate much, the
resolution that the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) put forward and
find it hard to understand the amendments that have been put forward by the
opposition. I would ask the honourable
members opposite to join with us in recognition of the humanity and the human
needs of the indigenous people across the world.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
I, too, like many, like all individuals
inside this Chamber, believe that there are a number of things and barriers
that are put up in front of the indigenous people of the world and would like
to see them in fact addressed.
Resolutions‑‑we are in, at least in part, the discussion of
talking about how we can make private members' hour that much better, so that
when we get resolutions of this nature, which, I believe, the intent is very
good, and we want very much so for individuals to feel that this Chamber is
doing something that is very productive.
If a resolution of this nature gives a
sense of good feeling to people outside of this Chamber, whether it is in a
frame or wherever it might be, I think that that is a positive thing.
Hopefully, what we will see in the form of rule changes is resolutions of this
nature being able to be passed so that in fact they can take a proper place and
make people feel that much better about who they are and that this particular
Chamber does care. It does not matter
what political party you belong to.
No doubt, Mr. Speaker, it does not matter
which government in office throughout the country is there, you can find things
in which government has done, which they would say is to the benefit of the
aboriginal people, just like you can find things that are not necessarily in
the betterment of our aboriginal people, whether it is the embetterment such as
the Northern Flood Agreement that this government has entered into, or some of
the things in which this particular government has not done, things such as the
cut to ACCESS program and so forth.
But the bottom line for me is the fact
that there are many different problems that are out there facing our aboriginal
people, things such as stereotyping and racism, substance abuse and economic
opportunities, the whole concept of aboriginal self‑government or native
self‑government.
I have had the opportunity to talk to a
number of individuals, particularly natives, in particular on one reserve, and
other aboriginal people throughout the province to talk about the concept of
self‑government. I firmly believe
that there is a lot of good will that is out there. It is just a question of whether or not
politicians of the day from all three political parties are prepared to stop
giving the platitudes to our aboriginal people and to start sitting down and
talking about what it is that self‑government means, and what does it
entail.
We have seen other provincial
jurisdictions enter into or try to better define self‑government in the
role that plays in society as a whole, in
I have found, in the discussions that I
have had, that it comes out of a feeling of helplessness, out of a feeling of
betrayal from former governments that they want so very much to get a better
sense of direction, a better sense of opportunities in all of the different fields,
whether it is political, social or economic.
Because they have felt that frustration through negotiations of all
different governments of all political parties, or all different levels of
government, I should say, of all different political parties, that at least, in
part, they are at a stage in which they believe that there has to be a self‑government
model that holds them equal to a provincial power or, in many cases, some would
argue as a country within themselves.
* (1750)
We saw that in terms of the
Earlier, the member for Point Douglas (Mr.
Hickes) was talking about the issue of gambling. In the discussions that I have had with
aboriginal people, it is not necessarily the issue of gambling as much as who
has the right, the authority to establish gambling, whether it is a casino, whether
it is VLTs, on reserves. That is really,
from what I understand, the issue.
This is the issue in which I believe the
aboriginal people do have a right to know and to fight for, and hopefully this
is the issue first and foremost that will be dealt with in the future, and in particular
in the province of Manitoba, trying to come up with a better definition of
aboriginal self‑government, and I believe that the lead has to come from
the aboriginal people. There are things that we in this Chamber can do to
foster better dialogue.
I was here when the Minister of Justice
(Mr. McCrae) was talking about the chiefs in the
We can all recall what happened in the
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson):
Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on this resolution and fully endorse the
amendment. I find it unfortunate with
the original motion that, perhaps, members opposite, particularly the member
from Emerson (Mr. Penner) did not read the amendment carefully, because it did
not delete the first three WHEREASes.
But what it did is it took the irony of the fact that in this year, the
year of the indigenous people, we have a government member, and I realize that
this was introduced prior to this year, who has brought in a resolution during
a year in which we have a government that is doing everything possible to
ignore the spirit and the intent of the year of indigenous people.
Mr. Speaker, the intent of the year of
indigenous people is to recognize the contributions of indigenous people and to
work towards greater enhancement of their role in society. What has this government done in 1993 for the
year of the indigenous people? It has
cut all provincial funding to the friendship centres. Is that in keeping with the spirit?
It has cut funding for New Careers, a
program that has been involved with training for aboriginal people. Is that in keeping with the spirit of this
year?
It has cut the funding for ACCESS. Is that in keeping with the spirit of this
year?
In fact, just a few hours ago, a number of
us went to the Winnipeg Education Centre, including the member from Point
Douglas (Mr. Hickes), to move this resolution.
We talked directly about what many of the students, many of whom are aboriginal,
feel at that particular centre about what this government is doing.
Mr. Speaker, I could run through a whole
series of things this government has done in this year and in other years that
are hurting aboriginal people. It has
cut back in terms of job creation in northern
Mr. Speaker, this government has cut back
in terms of assistance for the fishing industry, the freight assistance. Is that in keeping with the commitment to
indigenous people?
This government's failure to implement
many of the recommendations of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry because this
government, in particular the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), as the member
for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) pointed out, has a difficulty in dealing with the
fact that aboriginal people, through their elected officials, through the
chiefs and the councils have expressed concerns to this government. This Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) does
not like those concerns, Mr. Speaker. Is
that in keeping with the spirit of this year?
I mean, I can run through many, many
examples of the fact that this government does not understand and does not
particularly care about issues of concern to aboriginal people.
Mr. Speaker, I remember the words of the
Minister of Native Affairs, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) who
talked in this House about people not voting right. I remember many of the statements made by the
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) when it has come to aboriginal issues.
I see around the member that introduced
this resolution, I am sure in good faith, many examples of not only people that
do not understand but just do not care.
I would invite the member to come up perhaps with myself, join the
member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), a number of us who have been travelling
in the North on a regular basis.
I commend the member for Point Douglas,
whose roots are in the North, for continuing his contact, and perhaps come into
some of those communities where those nicely framed documents have been put up
in good faith by people in those communities and perhaps take the time to come
with us and visit the people and look at the housing conditions they live in.
I am going into Thicket Portage this
Friday. Perhaps the member would like to
come with me on the train and come visit some of the people and look at the
conditions they have to live in or listen to the people that are going to be
clobbered by some of the things that are happening in terms of the fishing
industry, or people who have already been hurt economically by what is
happening, or talk to the young people who do not have any jobs this summer or
talk to the leadership in that community who are concerned about it. That is in Thicket Portage.
I can take the member into
Pikwitonei. He can also talk to people
about what the reality is of living in a community or take him into Nelson
House, where this past Saturday 19 graduates from high school are now in the position
of having to look for work in the North where there is very little employment.
Mr. Speaker, I could take him into
What we need out of this member is for him
to be lobbying his government ministers to be doing not only a lot more for
aboriginal people but not to be cutting back in areas of particular concern to
aboriginal people.
Mr. Speaker, that would be the real
commitment to the year of the indigenous people. That would be some real substance. We can get into the comparisons of what we
did when we were in government, the training and education initiatives, the
employment initiatives but let us talk about the reality of 1993.
The reality, in the year of the indigenous
people, is that there are many indigenous people in this province who, when
they hear a resolution such as the one brought forth by the member, must be
asking where were members of the government when he discussed this in his
caucus in bringing this in.
I will be sitting down and I hope we can
have a vote. They will be asking where
the other members of his caucus stand on the need to have fairness for
indigenous people, for aboriginal people.
With that, I would ask that we would have
a vote so we could determine the will of this Chamber about some substance on
this particular issue.
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert):
Mr. Speaker, let us not leave on the record the rhetoric of the member
for Thompson. He is an expert at laying
blame, but he was a member of the government prior to 1988. The government, prior to 1988, did absolutely
nothing for the North.
It is since this government took power
that this minister, the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs, has taken
action to see that the‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for
St. Norbert will have 14 minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., the House now
adjourns and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Thursday).