LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday,
July 6, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
MATTER OF
PRIVILEGE
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second
Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would
rise on a Matter of Privilege.
Mr. Speaker, in accordance to our rules,
it is imperative that when a Matter of Privilege or a violation of privileges
has occurred, one has to bring it to the attention of this Chamber at the first
opportunity. This is in fact the first
opportunity that I have in bringing the attention of this particular issue to
the Chamber.
Last night, Mr. Speaker, in the Committee
of Supply, in one of the committee rooms outside of the Chamber, we saw a
deviation from the rule book, which I believe is very undemocratic and very
unfortunate for all members of this Chamber.
What occurred was‑‑Rule 64.1(9)(c) provides that "the
estimates of a department shall not be introduced after 10:00 o'clock
p.m."
We know from the past, when the government
House leader has stood up and asked for leave, unanimous consent to allow for
other departments to in fact be introduced and got that unanimous consent from
within the Chamber, not within the committee, Mr. Speaker, the government House
leader himself knows full well that what occurred last night was in fact a
violation of a very important rule.
I want to comment in terms of what
actually took place. Yesterday, I, myself, had done some consulting with the
Clerk's Office just for a clarification of a rule. I felt that it was important that we are
assured and know in terms of what the proper procedures are of this
Chamber. The rule book is very clear if
you read Rule 64.1(9)(c), very clear.
After ten o'clock, you cannot introduce any other departments.
Mr. Speaker, what had happened was there
was Civil Service and Housing inside the Chamber. It was after ten o'clock, and once those
departments had gone past ten o'clock, the government in the committee room
took advantage of a situation in which one of the opposition parties was not in
attendance, and received unanimous consent to bring in another department.
This is something that should be
protecting all opposition parties. Mr.
Speaker, you yourself, if you walk outside of this Chamber after we break into
Committee of Supply, quite often you will see the minister and the Chairperson
sitting in the Chair. If the Chairperson asks, is there unanimous consent that
all the departments in this committee room be passed, and because there are no
opposition parties‑‑and that happens‑‑then the
government can do that. No, they cannot
do that. The rules say they cannot do
that.
The Minister of Housing (Mr. Ernst)
yesterday, inside the Chamber, was standing up giving his opening remarks as
the Minister of Housing, and there was no opposition member in here. Had the
Minister of Housing and the Chairperson said, is there unanimous consent to
allow the Department of Housing and two or three other departments, because
there was no opposition member in here, you are saying, and you might be
arguing that the government had the ability to do that.
* (1335)
Well, Mr. Speaker, that should not be
allowed to occur, because the moment that we say what happened last night in
committee room, we are setting a very dangerous precedent. We are allowing a government of a majority to
be able to shaft every right, every member's rights inside this Chamber.
I was very disappointed when I raised it
as a point of order. I was disappointed‑‑because
the concern is, if the right has been violated, the committee continued on in
debating Industry and Trade. Hours went
off the clock because of Industry and Trade.
I would argue, Mr. Speaker, that Industry and Trade should never have
been allowed to come in. The rule book
itself says that.
The government House leader might try to
justify this by saying, well, the rules do not necessarily take into account
every possible scenario. Mr. Speaker,
the rules do protect the minorities inside this Chamber. It is important and imperative as legislators
that we follow the rules.
If you do not want to follow the rules, at
least have the tenacity to get the unanimous consent of the Chamber. Do not try to hide around a rock and to
change the rules because you, as a government House leader, might be frustrated
because you are not getting things the way you feel you should be getting them.
Mr. Speaker, we, too, want to see co‑operation. We do want to see the business of this
Chamber proceeding, but we are not going to put into jeopardy the rules of this
Chamber that we need to rely on in order for this parliamentary process to
work.
Mr. Speaker, I really and truly believe
that the committee should not be meeting again until this matter has been
clarified. How can we allow Industry,
Trade and Tourism to continue to burn off the hours‑‑
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Where were you?
Mr. Lamoureux: Where people were is irrelevant, to the
Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. What is
relevant is that you have a committee that violated a very serious rule.
Mr. Speaker, you are the only one who can
defend the rights of the opposition parties, and, in fact, not only the
opposition parties but every member inside this Chamber. I ask with all sincerity that you do not
allow‑‑or you get an opinion immediately before the committee
continues. I do believe that the two
hours or however much time should be taken off the clock, for example, because
that committee did not have the mandate to sit last night. They could have had the committee rise.
I, too, want to get into Industry, Trade
and Tourism. Jobs are very important to
the Liberal Party. We have been
commenting on the economy since this session has been going, but nothing
prevented the committee from rising and then we could have gone on. Let us not bend the rules and twist the rules
of this Chamber in infringing upon the rights of members of this Chamber.
It is completely unacceptable, and I would
ask, Mr. Speaker, that you review quickly in terms of what actually occurred
last night, and come back with the ruling so that what we will see is that the
rights of each member are in fact protected.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to move,
seconded by the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), that this House refer the
events which occurred during the meeting of the standing Committee of Supply,
July 5, 1993, which were contrary to Rule 64.1(9)(c), to the Standing Committee
on Privileges and Elections.
* (1340)
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker,
certainly the government and I take this issue very seriously, although at
times I am kind of bemused at the goings‑on of the Liberal Party. You have a situation where the government
House leader is trying to exert some type of leadership, because obviously
there is a leadership void now within that party.
That was played out in spades last night
at approximately 10:10 when big smiles were provided by certain members,
critics of the Liberal Party, once they had achieved the ten o'clock‑plus
time, because, of course, their desire was to frustrate the responsible review
of the Estimates as called by the rules of our House.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Liberal
Party (Mr. Edwards), of course, wants to go back to pizza and beer, as is the
Liberal tradition whenever there is a long sitting. They have a long‑standing course of
action, of course, whenever we sit late to follow that approach.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, again, the member
gives his version of what happened last night.
I, too, have read very seriously the rule. I asked for leave of the House yesterday to
consider new departments, and yet there are times, from time to time, when sets
of circumstances present themselves which the rules do not contemplate.
Mr. Speaker, I say last night was one of
them. We had a situation where a
department did not finish. The reason
for this rule, "the estimates of a department shall not be introduced
after 10:00 o'clock p.m.," is to safeguard the fact that a department
cannot be run through in a very short period of time with the absence of a
particular critic and/or a particular party.
Now, Mr. Speaker, last night most of the
members of this Legislature wanted to do work.
They wanted to do the people's work.
They did not want to rise at 10 after 10, like the Liberal Party wanted
to. They wanted to continue the
examination of certain departments of government.
Mr. Speaker, when the Chair of the
committee, presented with this unprecedented set of circumstances, asked the committee
for direction, those in attendance unanimously supported the moving into and
the review of a new department, not to complete it, but to consider.
Now, Mr. Speaker, realizing that there
were some uncertainties with respect to the approach that was being taken, I
personally went and told the critic‑‑I am led to believe the
Industry, Trade and Tourism critic‑‑that indeed was what was
happening and that we were considering the department, and that is indeed of
the Liberal Party. So when the member says
that we did not let them know, he is not speaking the truth. The reality is he is not speaking the
truth. I personally delivered that
information to the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), so the third party did know
that there was a consideration. So I say
to him that it is important that he provides the truth.
Mr. Speaker, I indicate to the individual
now, and the members of the House as, indeed, the Chairperson ruled, the
Chairperson ruled to the largest extent possible as under Rule 64, I believe it
is, that the rules of the House for the most part should apply to committee
when these sets of unforeseen circumstances come forward. Indeed, that is what happened‑‑the
rules of the House. Unanimous consent
was sought in the committee and was provided by the members there in attendance
and indeed we now have considered another department.
* (1345)
Mr. Speaker, let me make one final
point. The member says, well, there may
have been a problem and therefore he would like to play the whole third period
over again, because maybe the referee erred or maybe there was not any rule and
until we get a rule, let us play the game over again‑‑typical
Liberal. I remember the former member
for
So, Mr. Speaker, I say to the member, he
has a point. This is a rule that should
probably be revisited, given that there is not a rule that takes into account
these sets of circumstances. Whatever the House wishes to do on this area, but
I say as far as the events last night, certainly from the government's point of
view, no rule was broken, because the rules did not contemplate this set of events
that occurred last night.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, there
are a number of issues raised in the matter of privilege. I first of all want to deal with the
procedure.
Our rules, Beauchesne is very clear in
terms of a matter of privilege. It is
not something that is enforced by the Speaker. Your role is to determine
strictly whether there is a prima facie case.
So I disagree with the Liberal House leader in that regard, although the
enforcement of the rules of the House is within the very clearly understood
parameters of a matter of privilege. To
the extent to which the Liberals are raising this matter as a breach of the
rules of the House, I would suggest that there is a prima facie case.
I want to deal with a couple of other
issues though, Mr. Speaker, that I think are quite relevant. Let us recognize that this problem arose in
this case because the Liberals had no members in the committee. Beauchesne Citation 289, under the heading of
Attendance of Members states, Standing Order 15 states that "every Member
is bound to attend the service of the House unless leave of absence has been
given him or her by the House."
Now, Mr. Speaker, in practice both in the
House of Commons and in this House, it has been accepted in practice. Beauchesne states that: "The duties of Members have become
extremely varied and Members must travel frequently." That rule has not been enforced.
I would point out that the difficulty that
arose last night in the view of the Liberal Party would not have happened if
the Liberals had had a member in that committee. There would have not been a difficulty in
terms of the unanimous consent.
I want to deal with another question, Mr.
Speaker, that is also relevant because what you are essentially dealing with in
this particular case is the question as to whether we are bound by the rules as
they appear‑‑and the Liberal House leader (Mr. Lamoureux) is quite
correct in terms of the rule that states that departments should not be called
after ten o'clock‑‑or whether the fact that committees do have
control over their own sitting and do in many ways have the powers, subject to
a number of limitations, of the House.
I point out that Beauchesne's Citation 18
deals with the unanimous consent within the House, Mr. Speaker, and I want to
state very clearly, the question here is whether this also applies into
Committee of Supply. Beauchesne's
Citation 18, Section (1) says:
"Within the ambit of its own rules, the House itself may proceed as
it chooses; it is a common practice for the House to ignore its own rules by
unanimous consent. Thus, bills may be
passed through all their stages in one day, or the House may decide to alter
its normal order of business or its adjournment hour as it sees fit."
I would also point out that Beauchesne's
Citation 19 states very clearly that:
"Whenever the House proceeds by way of unanimous consent, that
procedure does not constitute a precedent."
So, Mr. Speaker, let there be no doubt
that what happened last night did not set a precedent, regardless of the
House's ruling. (interjection) Well, if the Liberal Leader (Mr. Edwards) wishes
to read Beauchesne, the point is that regardless of what happened yesterday,
whether it was in order or not, Beauchesne is very clear that it does not set a
precedent.
I think there are a number of questions
that have arisen out of what happened yesterday. I would point out that unanimous consent was
reached in a committee not to pass the Civil Service Commission. At that point in time it was not passed until
the end of the committee hearing to make sure that there was ample opportunity
for all members to be there.
* (1350)
I point out that the department, Mr.
Speaker, did not complete its considerations.
There may be some question that arises as to whether it was in order to
pass motions. It may or may not have
been in order to have debated, by leave, essentially, the matters of I, T and
T, but I think there is some question as to whether any motions that were
passed yesterday were in order.
I think there also are some questions in
terms of the time allocation, but I do think that this is not the NHL. We do not have instant replays, and we cannot
wind the clock back quite the same.
I would suggest that the Liberal motion,
while I do not agree with all the arguments put forward by the Liberal House
leader (Mr. Lamoureux), would perhaps be of assistance here in the sense that
this is something that should be referred to the Rules Committee.
I point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Rules
Committee has not met, I think, for something like nine or 10 years, and I
would suggest that we might want to consider it. I know there have been discussions between
all parties, perhaps dealing with the many ambiguities that occur in our rules,
and I think this is indicative of it, where you have a rule, you have clear
precedence in terms of unanimous consent.
The real question here is whether the committee had the ability, through
unanimous consent, to do what it did.
Mr. Speaker, the correct thing I would
suggest to you is to deal with it as a prima facie case of privilege which I
believe it is, to put the motion to the House and the House will deal with the
motion. I think the appropriate way
would be for the House to send this to the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank all honourable members
for the advice on this matter. Indeed, a
matter of privilege is a very serious matter.
I will take this opportunity to advise the
House that I am going to take this matter under advisement. I will be perusing Hansard as to what was
said today on this matter of privilege, and I will return to the House with a
ruling on said issue.
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present
the petition of Deborah Nytepchuk, Joann Shields, Marie Killbery 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. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Richard Tytgat, Dan Desautels, Phillys Barnes 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 (Mr. Storie). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the
undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS there is a very serious solvent
abuse problem in northern
WHEREAS according to the RCMP over 100 crimes
in Thompson alone in 1992 were linked to solvent abuse; and
WHEREAS there are no facilities to deal
with solvent abuse victims in northern
WHEREAS for over three years, the
provincial government failed to proclaim the private member's anti‑sniff
bill passed by the Legislature and is now proposing to criminalize minors
buying solvents even though there are no treatment facilities in northern
WHEREAS for nine years, the 25 Chiefs who
comprise the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, supported by medical officials,
police and the area Member of Parliament, have proposed a pilot treatment
project known as the Native Youth Medicine Lodge; and
WHEREAS successive federal Ministers of
Health have failed to respond to this issue with a commitment; and
WHEREAS the
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Plohman). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out
the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Santos). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out
the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* (1355)
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Clif Evans). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out
the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
PRESENTING
REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): Mr.
Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to
report the same and asks leave to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member
for 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 Sixth
Report of the Committee on Economic Development.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Economic
Development presents the following as its Sixth Report.
Your committee met on Thursday, June 17,
at 7 p.m.; Friday, June 18, 1993, at 1 p.m.; Tuesday, June 22, 1993, at 9 a.m.;
Thursday, June 24, 1993, at 7 p.m.; Friday, June 25, 1993, at 1 p.m.; Monday,
June 28, 1993, at 9 a.m.; Tuesday, June 29, 1993, at 9 a.m. and 7 p.m.;
Wednesday, June 30, 1993, at 4 p.m. in Room 255; and Monday, July 5, 1993, at 9
a.m. in Room 254 of the
At the June 17, 1993, 7 p.m. meeting, your
committee elected Mr. Penner as chairperson.
At the June 18, 1993, 1 p.m. meeting, your committee elected Mr. Reimer
as Chairperson.
Your committee adopted at its June 17,
1993, 7 p.m. meeting, the following motions:
MOTION:
THAT as a result of the large number of
Manitobans wishing to make public representation to this standing committee
considering Bill 22, and given that all presenters should be given a fair
allocation of time, at a reasonable hour of the day,
THAT all presenters be allocated a maximum of
15 minutes for their presentations, including the time required to ask and
answer all questions put by members of the committee.
MOTION:
THAT the motion before us be amended to allow
presenters not a maximum of 15 minutes, but 20 minutes for presentations and
questions on Bill 22.
MOTION:
THAT this committee not sit past midnight at
any future sitting in regard to Bill 22, and that out‑of‑town
presenters be accommodated first, wherever possible at the beginning of
committee hearings.
Your committee adopted at its June 29,
1993, 7 p.m. meeting, the following motion:
MOTION:
From this point forward for the consideration
of Bill 22, no person who has indicated their desire to present to this
committee, shall have their name, their organization's name, or a combination
of the above, called more than twice.
Your committee heard representation on the
bill as follows:
Bill 22‑The Public
Sector Reduced Work Week and Compensation Management Act;Loi sur la reduction
de la semaine de travail et la gestion des salaires dans le secteur public
Len
Howell ‑ Private CitizenKathy Ducharme ‑ Private CitizenNancy Riche
‑ Canadian Labour CongressBrian Arden ‑ Thompson Teachers'
AssociationEnid Leskiw and John Chalaturnyk ‑ Retired
Teachers'Association of ManitobaEvan Casselman ‑
Written
Submissions:
Ester Fyk ‑ Private CitizenDale Yeo ‑
Private CitizenHazel Anderson ‑ Private CitizenJack Boyko ‑ Private
CitizenAlvin Funk (Chairperson) ‑ Intermountain Teachers'Association
Professional Development CommitteeBoris Bugera ‑ Private CitizenTeachers ‑
Goose
Your committee has considered:
Bill 22‑‑The
Public Sector Reduced Work Week and Compensation Management Act; Loi sur la
reduction de la semaine de travail et la gestion des salaires dans le secteur
public
and has agreed to report
the same with the following amendment:
MOTION:
THAT section 16 be renumbered as subsection
16(1) and that the following be added as subsection 16(2):
Arbitration proceedings void 16(2) On the coming into force of this act, no
arbitration proceedings relating to compensation for medical practitioners for
the 1993‑94 year may be commenced or continued, and any such proceedings,
including any decision by a board of arbitration, are void and of no effect.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), that the report of the
committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
TABLING OF
REPORTS
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report of The Surface Rights Board
for the 1992‑93 year.
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the loge to my right, where we have with us
this afternoon Mr. Bob Banman, the former member for La Verendrye.
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon, sir.
Also with us this afternoon, seated in the
Speaker's Gallery, we have Mr. Guy Brown, the MLA for Cumberland Centre from
Nova
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
We also have seven adult student visitors
from The Original Women's Network. They
are under the direction of Ms. Doreen Emms and Rhonda McOrister. This training centre is conducted in the
constituency of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
* (1400)
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Home Care
Program Homemaking Services
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a letter
from the head of geriatric medicine at St. Boniface General Hospital in which
he says: " . . . many patients are
independent in self‑care but need some help with domestic care in order
to achieve independence in the community.
This, presumably, is the very objective of our current health care
policies. Removing these community
supports will just keep people in institutional care longer and is the very
negation of all that we are working for."
Dr. Powell goes on to say that this
government's changes to Home Care mean giving a greater sense of gloom that
"Health Care Deform" has actually disintegrated into a money‑saving
operation.
Mr. Speaker, given that very serious
letter, I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon) today if he can assure
this House and the people of
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister
of Health): Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the intent of
the program, and that continues to be the intent of the program.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I find it quite
interesting that, again, the member for
I find it quite interesting that my
honourable friend the member for
Mr. Speaker, the NDP in 1985 saw the need
to invest in more intensive service delivery in home care, and that where
possible seniors would be referred to outside, paid‑for housecleaning,
meal preparation and laundry where they had the ability to arrange that.
That policy has been in place since 1986
under the NDP. It works exceptionally
well. It has allowed the NDP and this
government to continue to purchase more needed services to maintain the
independent living all of us so desire for our senior citizens under the
auspices and the assistance of the Home Care Program.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Again, for the record, the minister should
know, and I hope the Premier knows, that back in 1985, the government supported
a community‑sponsored initiative.
It did not make a single change to Home Care, did not cut anyone off
Home Care services.
Let me ask the Premier, since again the
Minister of Health is so evasive about what changes they are making, what is
the real story? According to Dr. Powell,
a meeting took place on June 23 where case co‑ordinators were informed
there would be no homemaking service for clients from September henceforth.
Is the homemaking service being cut
completely, or will home support services only be provided to clients who have
medical care requirements?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, exactly the same assessment criteria
will be made today as was made in 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, where this is a
single service for the individual, and the individual has the ability to
arrange for those services. Be it from
Support Services to Seniors or other providers, the individual will be referred
to alternate services and will purchase those services, just as the policy
understood and committed to do in 1985 that my honourable friend does not want
to acknowledge was part of her cabinet decision‑making process in 1985.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend, I
look forward to seeing the geriatrician's letter because while we are on the
topic, one might consider the comments of Dr. Stuart Hampton, geriatric medical
consultant, and his quote is: I think it
is obviously sending a message out that people have to be more self‑reliant
and utilize other resources in the community.
I would hope that it could strengthen other aspects of Home Care which
are the nursing, the bathing and the personal care kinds of things that Home
Care really does very well indeed.
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the policy we
are following. That was the policy that my honourable friends the New Democrats
put in place in 1985, followed diligently, with many seniors having to purchase
housecleaning, meal preparation and laundry, 1986, 1987, as a result of the
policy they put in place.
The only thing that has changed is New
Democrats are now in opposition.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Well, Mr. Speaker, what has changed is that thousands
of people have been cut off of Home Care by this minister.
Let me ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon) again,
since we are getting no clear answers from the Minister of Health about the
fact that this is such an inexpensive, preventative part of the Home Care
Program. I want to ask the Premier if he
will look into the basis for which Home Care was established to begin with and
consider the words of one of the founders of that program, Jeanette Block, who
states that the homemaking component is an essential part of Home Care. It is an inexpensive component and it is
preventative.
How does this Premier justify cutting or
eliminating a most cost‑effective, preventative aspect of our health care
program?
Mr. Orchard: Well, Mr. Speaker, you know, my honourable
friend keeps asking for more information on the Home Care Program, which I
provided in a great amount of detail, although my honourable friend was not
present for that discussion of the Estimates, but I provided a substantial
amount of detail as to exactly what we expected the shifts in care to be in the
Home Care Program this year over previous years.
Mr. Speaker, that is why the program has
grown from $34 million when we first came to government to $68 million today.
That is why we purchase continually more volumes, more hours of nursing
services, more volumes of VON services, and that continues this year.
My honourable friend the New Democrat‑‑and
I will provide her with information as soon as I can put it together in my
office, but in 1986, there were literally thousands of Manitobans, seniors, who
had to buy housecleaning services, laundry services and meal preparation
because of the policy my honourable friends the New Democrats put in place in
1985.
Mr. Speaker, it allowed the program to
deliver medical care, which is what Dr. Hampton is referring to, which is
exactly where we have reinvested those dollars, back into more sophisticated,
more needed care, to maintain independent living for a longer period of time in
a senior's own home.
* (1410)
Home Care
Program
Homemaking
Services
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, if the minister had provided that
information, why does the good doctor's letter therefore state that no
information was provided, and why were caregivers not provided with it?
But my question to the minister, Mr.
Speaker, is: Why does the Manitoba
League of the Physically Handicapped have to have a special meeting today to
find out whether their members are going to be cut off from the minister's
program? Why is he not telling us who is
being affected and how many thousands are being cut off? Will he simply state that information?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Well, Mr. Speaker, while my honourable friend
is wanting complete information, first of all, my honourable friend might
reconsider the phrase he has used that 1,500 home support workers will be laid
off. That is inaccurate, and that was a
statement of my honourable friend in Question Period.
Mr. Speaker, I have told all who have
asked that that is not an accurate statement by the New Democrat. There will be reduced hours which I explained
in the Estimates process, as it was the year before, as it has been every year
that Support Services to Seniors has been put in place by the New Democrats.
Secondly, I want to indicate to my
honourable friend that there will be a number of Manitobans on reassessment as
of September 3‑‑not immediately as my honourable friend the New
Democratic critic has alleged‑‑who will have Home Care services,
which involve, singly, housecleaning, laundry, meal preparation, referred to
paid‑for suppliers, as has been done since 1986. That process will take
place from now until September 3.
It is not today, as my honourable friend
the New Democrat has alleged in some of his statements inside and outside the
House.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to this
minister.
Can the minister advise me whether or not
individuals who are living independently, disabled individuals who are living
independently, in focus and cluster housing, supported by Ten Ten Sinclair,
whether or not their home care will be cut off?‑‑because Ten Ten
phoned me this morning to ask whether or not that is the case from this
minister who is supposedly so forthcoming and has provided all this information
and has changed the policy dramatically since 1985.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend said I have
changed the policy dramatically since 1985.
At least my honourable friend is now recognizing that in 1985, Support
Services to Seniors was introduced by the government of the day which happened
to be Howard Pawley, which happened to be New Democrat, which happened to bring
in the process where housecleaning services, meal preparation and laundry would
be paid for by those individuals assessed by Continuing Care as needing that
service, and the individuals would pay for that service since 1985. Finally, my honourable friend has
acknowledged that new program.
Now, Mr. Speaker, discussions with Continuing
Care, Ten Ten Sinclair and all user groups are in process now, and those very
questions will be answered in collaboration with those organizations. But let me tell my honourable friend that we
value the support that Ten Ten Sinclair provides to independent living, to the
ability for disabled Manitobans to enjoy a very, very more complete lifestyle
through the provision of services that are available through Ten Ten Sinclair,
and that will continue.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, can the minister at least outline
for us, if this program is so valuable in keeping people independent in the
community, why he has cut $3 million from this budget, why thousands of people
are going to be cut off this program, why all of the caregivers, the doctors,
the service providers, nurses who are writing us, did not know the program was
being cut, why he is doing this and why he is changing the program that has
been the most effective and recognized in
Mr. Orchard: Why, Sir, might I rhetorically ask, has my
honourable friend already forgotten what he stated, that in 1985, that was the
intention of the New Democrats in government, to allow, where the services can
be supported by Support Services to Seniors, for seniors to purchase housecleaning,
meal preparation and laundry? Now, that
is what we are continuing to do. We have
since 1988 and we did in this budget.
Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend asks
why. Why did we remove those $3 million
estimated services? To reinvest them
into nursing services which is expected to be up by 11 percent this year over
last, to reinvest them into home support work which is expected to increase by
8 or 9 percent, all of which I shared in full detail with my honourable friend
in the Estimates process, outlining the increased number of people to be
served, the increased number of hours of service provision by nursing, by home
support workers, by therapy, all of which is an increase in service.
I will provide my honourable friend the
page number in Hansard so he can refer to that and refresh his memory of week‑old
information.
Property
Classifications
Large Lots‑Rural
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Urban Affairs.
In February of 1992, when we were
discussing in this House the Headingley secession bill, the minister
stated: Many had criticized the
government's decision to allow Headingley to secede on the grounds that it
signalled the beginning of the end of Unicity and that that was a wrong
perception.
He went on to say: Given the very special circumstance of
Headingley, I would suggest to the members that there is no legitimate basis
for concluding that allowing Headingley to secede means other communities will
be permitted to withdraw one by one over time.
I can assure you this is not the government's intention, nor will that
happen.
Now, Mr. Speaker, since that time, we have
now learned that the minister has indulged in threats, which can only lead to a
further escalating of the division between St. Germain, Vermette and the City
of
Mr. Speaker, my question for the
minister: Based on the statement
yesterday from the deputy mayor that they proposed that the province create a
separate classification for large‑lot properties in 1989, did the
province, in fact, get that request from the city in 1989 to create that
separate classification? If so, why did
they turn it down?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed, the City of
They wanted an R‑4 classification
for large‑lot residential property to apply, not just to
So I suggested at the time to the City of
There was no point in attempting to
maneuver a new classification and apply it province‑wide to create a
whole new set of problems elsewhere in our province, Mr. Speaker, rather than
trying to deal with a
Mr. Edwards: That is absolutely ridiculous. We have an act called The City of Winnipeg Act. This is the Minister of Urban Affairs. There is one urban centre under his
jurisdiction. It is
Mr. Speaker, he could have dealt with this
problem in
My question for the minister: Why is he refusing to do what would solve
this problem according to the city, according to the people who live in the
outlying regions who are frustrated with their taxation situation? Why is he passing the buck? Why does he not solve the problem, instead of
being a problem creator by making this type of threat, which can only make this
situation worse?
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, the member for St. James (Mr.
Edwards) suggests I should read The City of Winnipeg Act. The member for St. James ought to read what
legislation there is in this province, because all assessment, classification
included, is included in The Assessment Act that applies province‑wide,
not just to the city of
What has happened, of course, Mr. Speaker,
is since that time, as well, we are addressing the situation of problems
associated with differences in residential categories, the fact that rental
accommodation is different from a condominium accommodation that is different
from an ownership, rental or occupied in a single‑family residence
situation.
What we are doing over a period of time is
trying to meld those together so that all residential properties pay a single
rate of portioning.
The problem, as I said earlier, Mr.
Speaker, and I understand his naivety, the member for St. James, that he does
not understand how municipal government works and so on, but the fact of the
matter is it is a taxation problem, not an assessment one. It is a
Mr. Edwards: This minister is abrogating his
responsibility. He knows full well that
The Municipal Assessment Act exempts certain sections and defers to The City of
Winnipeg Act. The City of
Is he saying that this reason, which I
believe is a false reason, is the only reason he can come up with, that he will
not act to solve this problem for the people of this city?
* (1420)
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Second
Opposition Party had bothered to follow this issue at all, he would have known
that two years ago, I wrote to the City of
I offered to the City of
It would have, and still would, resolve
the problem with respect to
Mr. Speaker, the City of
Pharmacare
Reimbursement
Delays
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): Mr. Speaker, since variety is the spice of
life, I am going to deliver this quotation in a different way.
To every thing there is a season, and a
time to every purpose under Heaven, a time to get and a time to lose and a time
to have and a time to cast away.
Mr. Speaker, there is a time to file a
Pharmacare refund claim, and there is a time to expect the reimbursement
cheque. We know one claimant who sent his claim, registered mail, by the
beginning of April, and when he checked, they had no record of it. We also have another claimant who delivered
his claim by hand, and when he called to find out, the clerk there blamed the
Post Office and said it is now taking about eight weeks. When we phoned Pharmacare, 786‑7141, we
were told there were two to three weeks additional backlog.
Mr. Speaker, to the honourable Minister of
Health: Given this government's callous
and unforgiving treatment of seniors with respect to deadlines in filing
Pharmacare claims, how does this minister justify this double standard of
unreasonable delay to seniors who are now waiting for their reimbursement?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the song‑making of my
honourable friend leaves me speechless, but not willing yet to recommend him to
a record company.
Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend persists
in indicating that seniors are the ones who failed to file before April
30. I want to tell my honourable friend
that when he says that, he does a disservice to seniors. Very few seniors missed the deadline of April
30.
My honourable friend mentioned two
specific circumstances, one of them registered mail and the other one a hand‑delivered
application dropped off presumably at the Pharmacare office. Mr. Speaker, I would very much appreciate my
honourable friend sharing both of those circumstances with me so I can
investigate them, because something would seem to be amiss, particularly with a
registered mail delivery if it was on time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to my
honourable friend that with the April 30 deadline, a vast majority of our
claims are filed in that last week or so period of time. We bring on additional staff for a short
period of time to expedite claims, but, yes, there is an additional two‑
to three‑week lag time in getting refund cheques out because of the
substantial increase in claims at the end of the year.
Mr. Santos: Mr. Speaker, in view of the government's
workweek and wage reduction policy whereby certain employees who want to work
on Fridays cannot, what steps will this minister take in order not to force seniors
to suffer this kind of unreasonable delay?
Mr. Orchard: Well, Mr. Speaker, the one thing we did as of
1988, one of the very first things I did when we came into government on May 9 was
to authorize additional staff to clear up a backlog which the previous
administration‑‑my honourable friend was not part of it at that
time‑‑had allowed to build up, so there were three‑ and four‑month
delays as of 1988.
Mr. Speaker, at this time of the year,
yes, we have a longer period of time for refund, but we have for the last six
filing years brought on substantial additional part‑time staff to
expedite the refunds. Many of them are
received in the month of April, and probably two‑thirds of our claims go
out in a short period of time.
We have consistently brought forward
additional staff ever since I first walked into the office on May 9, 1988, to
expedite that refund to all Manitobans, Sir.
Emergency
Telephone System
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, the events of last week have
been quite disastrous for a lot of communities. Unfortunately, they could have
been more disastrous in terms of personal welfare in many communities in
northern
Apart from the difficulties experienced in
My question is to the Minister responsible
for MTS, the acting minister, or perhaps the Minister responsible for the
Emergency Measures Organization.
Why is there no alternative communications
network, microwave network, some other network available to northern
communities so they will never again be isolated the way they have been as a
result of the incidents in the last week, so that in the event of an emergency,
for example, the medical air flight evacuation plane can get into a community
to rescue someone?
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister of Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, I will take down some information for the Minister responsible for
Telephones.
However, I would like to instruct the
member for Flin Flon that there was a temporary system set up very, very
shortly after the main tower went down and after the main cable, as I explained
yesterday, was severed. What they have
been doing is monitoring the calls and making sure the emergency calls were
handled.
Under my leadership, we are now doing a
mobile study that will try to connect the highways and all emergency measures
throughout the province. I wish the
member, when he was in cabinet, had looked at an emergency situation, and these
people would not be inconvenienced today, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, there is no communications
network. The people in
My question is simple. I am not placing blame. I am asking the minister responsible, what is
going to be done to ensure that an alternative means of emergency communication
is available in remote communities, significant‑sized communities in
northern
Mr. Ducharme: Mr. Speaker, what I explained yesterday and
explained outside this House was that we are looking at a mobile system. As the member can realize and is yelling
across the floor, put in a 911, well, 911 is not the answer when you cannot
have an immediate rescue to the situation.
A mobile system is being looked at. I disagree with the member. There was access to the mobile lines and to
the telephone lines as a result of emergencies.
They were handled very, very fast by EMO.
* (1430)
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, given that there are likely to be
literally hundreds of individual and community‑based claims as a result of
the fire in
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister of Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, the member well knows that there is a process in place, a cost‑sharing
agreement with the federal government. I
have notified the federal government in regard to the disasters in the northern
area. That is done by this minister.
He also should know, with his experience,
that local municipalities have these types of forms to fill out, and also our
EMO, Disaster Assistance constantly works with the municipalities in the
area. They work with them, and some of
them are working in those particular areas now.
No-Fault
Auto Insurance
Top-Up
Insurance
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, one of the consequences of the
government's policy to reduce benefits available from the Manitoba Public
Insurance Corporation is the creation of a private market for what the
government describes as top‑up insurance.
I wonder if the Minister responsible for
MPIC can tell us whether or not he has had discussions with private insurance
companies about filling this gap.
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, I have not met on a one‑to‑one
basis with the companies, but I have made inquiries about the availability of
additional income insurance, and I made inquiries regarding the availability of
this type of insurance or the demand for this type of insurance under the
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, could the minister describe for
us the estimated size of this market here in this province, given the workup
that they did prior to introducing this new policy?
Mr. Cummings: As I indicated, I made inquiries as to the
demand for this service in the one other jurisdiction that uses this system,
and the demand was not high.
Our plan does cover a much greater
percentage of the community to 90 percent of their net income. It seems to me that leaves a fairly small
market that would be potentially covered in this province.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, the information the government
sent out promoting its new policy is advertising the need for top‑up
insurance.
Is it the government's intention to have
MPIC provide this insurance?
Mr. Cummings: No, it was not our intention that MPIC would
venture into this area, but I would assure you and Manitobans that we will be
watching the development in this area.
It certainly seems to me that the demand
will decide whether or not there is an increase in competition for this type of
service or whether in fact‑‑and if the member is advocating that
MPIC should expand its services, then perhaps that is something he might want
to advocate when we get the bill into committee.
Senate of
Abolition
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier.
Support for abolition of the Senate is
growing every day in this province and indeed across the country. I was intrigued to note that seven or eight
Premiers supported the abolition of the Senate, Sunday in
What position did the Premier of this
province take, and did he agree with the abolition or not?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
As usual, the member for Elmwood does not have
his facts right. There were only eight
Premiers there, and Premier Bourassa, Premier Klein and I did not support. So he can take his figures from there.
I also happen to know that Premier Wells
does not support abolition, so there could not possibly be seven or eight who
support abolition.
Mr. Maloway: If he does not agree then that it should be
abolished, would he support saving the taxpayers over $50 million a year, and
would he agree that abolition of the Senate should at least be put on the
ballot along with the federal election?
Mr. Filmon: I know that the abolition of the Senate has
been a long‑standing New Democratic policy tradition. I for one, though, believe there has to be an
alternative voice for the less populous provinces of
I would not be willing to just simply
abolish the existing Senate without having an answer‑‑(interjection)
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the New Democrats
are serious about this. If they were,
they would want to listen to the answer.
Disaster
Area
Public
Inquiry Line
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister
why these calls are going to the legion hall and a caretaker is answering the
calls, rather than to EMO. It is a very
serious problem. They are not getting
the information. Has this situation been
corrected?
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister of Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, I am not aware that they are going to another location. I just talked
to the member who talked to my department late this morning. She could have made the department aware of
that at the time instead of waiting until 2:30 in the afternoon to make them
aware.
I fully briefed the member from across the
way, and she has a briefing again at 3:15 this afternoon, so I am sure she
could bring her concerns, and we will get that question answered for her when
she gets her briefing at 3:15.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I hope the problem can be
corrected because it is serious.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister of Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, the provincial and the federal governments work with the
local municipalities on a cost‑sharing basis. When it is all reassessed, each municipality
is on a per capita basis. I think it is
a dollar a head. Anything over a million
dollars up to the first $3 million is 50‑50 share. After $3 million, it is 75 percent share with
the federal government.
We have people who are assessing the
situation, and they will be receiving the applications that are available in
the different municipalities. They
usually come forward to our department and then pass through cabinet through
Treasury Board. So that is how the
claims are handled.
Disaster
Assistance
Crop Loss
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Since there are thousands of acres of crop
land that are flooded at the present time and will be in that state for many
days to come, is crop loss covered by Disaster Assistance, or are there any
steps being taken to offer assistance to farmers through another channel
because of the tremendous loss they are facing and the difficult situation they
are facing right now?
Hon. James Downey
(Acting Minister of Agriculture): Mr.
Speaker, let me first of all indicate that any time this kind of disaster
situation takes place, it is very difficult for the farm community or anyone to
have to deal with it.
At this time, it is too early to assess
the damage that has taken place on the farm community. However, let me assure you I will bring it to
the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) as soon as
possible. That is why farmers buy crop
insurance, and coverage of that nature is available to the farm community.
* (1440)
Child Protection
Centre
Government
Funding
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (
In 1992‑1993, the Child Protection
Centre received $807,000. The budgeted amount this year was $578,000 because they
had a surplus. The government has now
clawed back that surplus.
Will the minister today confirm that the
grant to the Child Protection Centre will not be $578,000, which is what he
said in Estimates, but will be $776,000, which is 3.8 percent less than they
received last year?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, our funding to the Child Protection Centre is as I had indicated in
Estimates. We are providing them with a
grant. We are asking them to use the
accumulated surplus they have had for some time.
There has been an issue of the level of
that surplus, and I have indicated we are going to address that. Their total funding will be 3.8 percent less
than it was last year.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, they have taken back the surplus.
The figure should be $776,000.
Will the Child Protection Centre have
$776,000 in money to spend this year from the provincial government?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated the process that
we went through in terms of establishing the funding for the Child Protection
Centre. I indicated that in Estimates,
that they will have the grant at a certain level, the surplus that has been
accumulated.
We are currently in the process of meeting
with them to determine the exact level of that surplus. Their funding will be consistent with what I
have indicated, 3.8 percent less than it was the previous year.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
NONPOLITICAL
STATEMENT
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for St. Norbert
have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? (agreed)
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau
(St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
great pleasure to rise in the House today to recognize the outstanding
achievement of the graduates of two high schools in my constituency, Fort
Richmond Collegiate and St. Norbert Collegiate.
These two schools saw over 200 students graduate this year.
Mr. Speaker, it is not too often that we
have the opportunity to have one of our graduates present on the floor of the
House. This particular graduate had an outstanding scholastic record and set a
fine example for all the students to follow.
She graduated this year from Fort Richmond Collegiate magna cum laude
with a 90 percent average and received the proficiency award for the highest
mark in History 300 with 98 percent.
This graduate also received the Gord Huber
Memorial Scholarship for interest in government and current affairs, with a
value of $500. She also received a
This young woman is certainly an
inspiration to all students in the
Mr. Speaker, today I ask all members to
join me in congratulating one of our Pages whom I am honoured to represent as
the member for St. Norbert, Karen Tymofichuk.
Committee
Changes
Ms. Becky Barrett (
I move, seconded by the member for
Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) for Broadway (Mr.
Santos), for Wednesday, July 7, 7 p.m.
I move, seconded by the member for
Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law
Amendments be amended as follows:
Thompson (Mr. Ashton) for Transcona (Mr. Reid);
I move, seconded by the member for
Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts be amended as follows:
Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) for Broadway (Mr.
I move, seconded by the member for
Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) for Selkirk (Mr.
Dewar); and Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), for
Thursday, July 8, 9 a.m.
Motions agreed to.
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Niakwa): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Economic Development for July 6, at 7 p.m., be amended as follows:
I also move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the
member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing
Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources for July 6, at 7 p.m., be
amended as follows: Sturgeon Creek (Mr.
McAlpine) for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer); Morris (Mr. Manness) for Emerson (Mr.
Penner); River East (Mrs. Mitchelson) for Ste. Rose du Lac (Mr. Cummings).
Motions agreed to.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
I also move, seconded by the member for
Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Economic Development be amended as follows:
St. James (Mr. Edwards) for
Motions agreed to.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would ask if you could begin by please calling for introduction for
second reading, Bill 54. As well, if you
could call for continuation of debate on second reading in this order,
please: Bill 41, Bill 34, Bill 20, and
Bill 32.
Following the completion of that business,
I will have further announcements for the House.
SECOND
Bill 54‑The
Municipal Assessment Amendment Act (2)
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): I move,
seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), that Bill 54, The
Municipal Assessment Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur
l'evaluation municipale, be now read a second time and be referred to a
committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Derkach: This amendment to The Municipal Assessment Act
before this House today could be described merely as a housekeeping
change. It is simply extending the
authority provided to the municipalities when The Municipal Assessment Act was
first introduced in 1990. The provision
in question allowed municipalities to phase in tax increases resulting from the
1990 reassessment.
As some members of this House may recall,
through this provision, the new assessment act provided municipalities with a
means to phase in reassessment‑related tax increases which they believed to
be unreasonable for ratepayers to absorb in one year. The provision provided them with the ability
to deal with localized increases which were unique to their municipality.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the
Chair)
This section is permissive in that it
allows municipalities, at their discretion, to phase in reassessment‑related
tax increases to local taxpayers which may otherwise be difficult to handle in
one year with only a few months notice.
Madam Deputy Speaker, several
municipalities in rural
Accordingly, Madam Deputy Speaker, our
department is putting forward this amendment to ensure municipalities have the
tools they need to deal with changing assessments within their
jurisdictions. I say again that this
particular amendment to The Municipal Assessment Act before this House could be
viewed as a housekeeping matter which would accommodate municipalities in
dealing with their reassessments which are occurring for the 1994 tax year.
It is something that municipalities,
indeed, have expressed an interest and a desire to have as a tool in dealing
with reassessment. So, I recommend this
bill to the House. Thank you.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Motion agreed to.
DEBATE ON
SECOND
Bill 41‑The
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading, Bill 41
(The
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? (agreed)
Bill 34‑The
Public Schools Amendment (Francophone
Schools Governance) Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading, Bill 34
(The Public Schools Amendment (Francophone Schools Governance) Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles publiques (gestion des ecoles francaises)), on
the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey),
standing in the name of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? (agreed)
Bill 20‑The
Social Allowances Regulation Validation Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 20
(The Social Allowances Regulation Validation Act; Loi validiant un reglement
d'application de la Loi sur l'aide sociale), on the proposed motion of the
honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), standing in the name of the
honourable member for
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: No?
An Honourable Member: No leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: No leave?
Leave has been denied.
Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 20. Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members:
Agreed.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 32‑The
Social Allowances Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: Bill 32 (The Social Allowances Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aide sociale), on the proposed motion of the
honourable Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), standing in the name
of the honourable member for Flin Flon.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Madam Deputy Speaker, this in many ways
follows on the heels of some comments I made with respect to Bill 20.
I do not have to tell anyone on that side
that this is one of those pieces of legislation‑‑members on this
side are going to be opposed to this piece of legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am going to try
and explain as carefully and as dispassionately as I can why I think is a
terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible mistake. This piece of legislation, I think,
symbolizes what is wrong with the current thinking of the front bench and
perhaps even extending back into the back bench. I think probably that thinking has escaped or
perhaps not touched the member for
* (1450)
But I think this is a serious, serious
flaw on the part of the Conservative Government. There seems to be an impression that everyone
who is currently being given a hand is somehow, No. 1, undeserving; No. 2, that
person is almost incapable of being helped, or that person is not deserving of
help.
It has become apparent in virtually
everything that this government has done in terms of the social services that
it has lost touch with the notion that the economy and social well‑being
of Manitobans are inextricably linked. They
have forgotten that, when it comes to health care. They have forgotten that, when it comes to
education, and now we see that they have forgotten that, when it comes to our
young people.
I have watched as time after time after
time when questions were raised, when individual cases were presented to the
Legislature, first the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey), then the Minister
of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) and then the First Minister (Mr. Filmon)
stood in their place and said we are the only province that has this program,
therefore it should go.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we are not the only
province that has a similar program. We
may be the only province that has this unique individual program, but that in
and of itself should not be justification for eliminating it. The question you would hope that government
members would ask themselves, the question you would hope the Minister of
Education, the Minister of Family Services, yes, even the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness) would ask themselves is:
Is there a net benefit to Manitobans through this program?
It reminds me of an argument that we had
in this Chamber back in 1984‑85 when the legislation on daycare
standards, The Day Care Standards Act, was introduced in the Legislature. I remember the cries from this side saying
that we cannot afford it, it does not make sense, it is simply a drain on
taxpayers and on the social envelope of the
Well, to my surprise, the Winnipeg Chamber
of Commerce, a body which I have often disagreed with, came to the government
and said we are going to study the issue of child care. We are going to try and determine whether
child care, the provision of not universal child care, Madam Deputy Speaker,
but the best that we could possibly provide at that time. And the president of the Chamber of Commerce
during that period was a Mr. John Doole, someone whom I respect a great deal,
who is an independent thinker, undertook, on behalf of the Chamber, to do the
study.
Approximately a year later, the Winnipeg
Chamber of Commerce came to the Minister of Education, the Minister of Family
Services, and said that they had completed their study, and surprise of
surprises, the Winnipeg Chamber concluded that there was in that economic
benefit by providing child care, that in fact, in terms of the social and
economic benefit to the province, this was a reasonable course to take.
I think that the government should apply
the same logic to every decision it makes.
It should ask itself: Where is
the sense in this; where is the economic sense?
We are not standing here saying this is simply a matter of us being more
right, more morally correct, more compassionate than members opposite, although
that happens to be true.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that members
opposite, by and large, want to do the right thing, but wanting to do the right
thing means being responsible. It means
not simply going with what your colleagues may think is true or what the
conventional wisdom of the Conservative Party happens to be at the moment.
Reason means assessing the pros and cons, looking at a balance of
probabilities, doing some objective analysis.
So I have to ask the member for Roblin‑Russell,
the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), whether he is aware of any
objective study that says this is going to save taxpayers money now or in the
future.
We know that the savings that the
government is supposedly going to have by this program are going to be assumed
by other programs, by other levels of government. The vast majority of the savings are simply
going to disappear and be assumed by some other level of government. That is the fact of the matter.
What we are doing is saying to someone who
is getting an education and on social assistance, you cannot do that. Do not educate yourself; do not improve
yourself; do not improve your potential.
We are saying to that person, no, what you can do is go on welfare, that
is what you can do‑‑essentially that is the choice that is being
given‑‑or we are saying, go and return to your family if that is
possible. In many cases it may not be,
but go and return to your family and despair, essentially despair.
The fact of the matter is that programs of
this kind‑‑and I include many of the ACCESS programs. The programs that were specifically designed
and targeted to move people from a position of disadvantage to a position of
opportunity and hope, have been successful.
There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that it is a progressive
and an economically viable option.
The government simply cannot talk about
investing in people while at every turn taking out from under them the programs
that they have to turn to to survive, that they have to turn to to take
advantage of the opportunities that present themselves. They simply cannot be
taken seriously when they talk about the importance of having an educated
population. They cannot talk about the
importance of education as part of our industrial infrastructure and then cut
back on the opportunities for people to become educated, to gather training.
It does not make sense, particularly for
the weakest, for those most disadvantaged, but we have to look at it in a more
positive vein. These young people stand to
gain us economically the greatest benefit if we invest in them. Who knows what impact the decision of the
government to withdraw support for hundreds and hundreds of young people is
going to have ultimately on their lives?
They are now relegated to watching reruns in their parents' livingroom
or relegated to moving on to assistance with the City of
Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that the
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) has given us some indication of
what the Student Social Allowances Program offers per individual. I can assure the minister that it pales into
insignificance the cost of supporting someone for a lifetime and then perhaps
supporting their children, all because of a lost opportunity, all because we
said, no, it makes more sense to cut these people off than have them getting an
education. I just cannot believe that
makes sense.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have said the same
thing about many other programs. It does
not make sense to me. It never did make
sense to me that we should tell people who are unemployed, no, you cannot go to
school and upgrade your training, you must be unemployed, that is your job
now. It is a waste of money. It is a waste of opportunity.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this government is
honing that to a fine art. They are
basically saying, we are not going to give anybody an opportunity, we are not
going to invest in people, particularly people who require the investment the
most. These hundreds, these thousands of
students‑‑some thousand students are affected‑‑are
those people.
Madam Deputy Speaker, maybe one of the
things that is lacking on that side is experience. I do not know how many members on that side
have had an opportunity to attend the graduating class of the Winnipeg
Education Centre, of the BUNTEP centre, of the training programs that were put
in place by the previous Core Area Agreement, training programs that took
people who saw no hope, who had lived on welfare in some cases for many, many
years, who were in many cases single parents supporting children‑‑I
do not know if anyone could ever really understand the sense of accomplishment
that these people feel when they have succeeded.
* (1500)
An Honourable Member: I do.
Mr. Storie: The former Minister of Education says he
does. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, it disappoints me to hear that he says he
understands, knowing that the Minister of Education was the minister
responsible when many of these programs began their decline. That is the problem.
I see the Minister of Education (Mrs.
Vodrey) shaking her head in dismay that I would say such a thing. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am quite certain that
the Minister or Education does not know whereof I speak. We know the Minister of Education's
background. We know where the Minister
of Education is coming from. I would
hazard a guess that the Minister of Education has not seen a soup kitchen in some
time.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the fact of the
matter is that many of the people who this government is turfing out of the
Student Social Allowances Program came from there. They have been on
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think the
government's decision to close this program for lack of understanding the real
value of the program is the real tragedy.
The government does not appear and none of its members appear to
recognize the value of the program. What
is even more startling is that none of them seem prepared to do the analysis,
to say, what does it cost to provide a student with assistance for a year
versus what it is going to cost if we do not educate and offer hope and
opportunity to those students over the long haul.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that this
program paid dividends to the
What the government has chosen to do is to
take away that hope all in the name of some sort of perceived economic
responsibility, when it is a double‑edged sword and when all of the
evidence points to the fact that this will not save money, it simply offloads
the cost and destroys hope in the meantime.
So I will be opposing this
legislation. I know that my colleagues
as well will be opposing this legislation.
I would have wished that there would have been some more independent
thinking by some of the members opposite.
I want to assure members opposite that
these are the kinds of actions, these are the kinds of symbols that people
grasp on when they come to vote.
I can tell the members on the government
front benches that when I talk to people on the street and say, does this make
sense, the answer is a resounding no.
What the government is doing is going to make sure that they do not get
re‑elected.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to read
finally from a Free Press article of June 13, and it says: "Premier Gary Filmon is putting himself
into
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that is a
question that needs to be answered. Why
does this government want this reputation? Why has this government consistently
failed to look at the facts? Why has
this government and its ministers consistently refused to acknowledge their
obligation‑‑the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey), the Minister
of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), the First Minister (Mr. Filmon)‑‑their
obligation to ensure that young people in this province get an opportunity,
that they get a chance at an education, that they get a chance to move
themselves out of the cycle of poverty and despair and abuse and so forth. That is the history and the role, the lot of
many of the people who are involved in this program.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as I say, I had the
privilege of knowing someone who worked with these young people, these people
in the program. For all of the people
that worked with them, who shared sometimes their successes and many times
their failures and successes, this is a real tragedy. The government is not going to be left off
the hook by the people of
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 32. Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: No?
All those in favour, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): On division, Madam
Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: On division.
* * *
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I
would ask if you could now please call in this order, Bills 26, 27, 35 and 36.
Bill 26‑The
Expropriation Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 26
(The Expropriation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'expropriation), on
the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae),
standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
Is there leave to permit the bill to
remain standing? (agreed)
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker,
it gives me some pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill 26, The Expropriation
Amendment Act. I do not intend to have
lengthy comments. It is the position of
our party that this bill should move to committee.
It is a bill which deals with the
expropriation process and, of course, that is a very important process in the
province. It is an important public
power to be able to expropriate property. It is a power that has on occasion
been abused by government authorities and must be used very carefully.
This bill essentially provides for the
Land Value Appraisal Commission to have the final say for both the expropriated
person in addition to the expropriating authority. Currently, of course, the Land Value
Appraisal Commission decision is only binding on the authority. This does take away that second look of the
Court of Queen's Bench with respect to the appeal which could have been launched
by the expropriated person. However, it
is important to remember that both parties, both the expropriated party and the
expropriating authority, still have recourse to the Court of Appeal as a final
court of decision making on those issues of law, in fact, under the normal
rules of judicial review, which are restricted grounds of appeal.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to put on
record again that one of the things which disturbs me about the no‑fault
bill before the House, and I have some concern about this bill, although I look
forward to further discussion in the committee on this point, is that we are
moving increasingly away from the impartial, learned decisions of judges and
toward the decisions of politically appointed individuals whose terms are set
by politicians, whose pay is set by politicians, who do not have all of the
safeguards of neutrality that the courts offer.
Now, the courts have become, in many
cases, cumbersome and too expensive. I
acknowledge that; almost everyone in the system acknowledges that. That is why I proposed the quick court
solution. What I see here, and I see in
particular in the no‑fault legislation, is that we are moving away from
the neutral decision making, the guarantee of neutrality in the courts and more
and more toward final adjudication power in the hands of tribunals which are
much more tied to the political system.
I know from working with the Workers Compensation Board Appeal
Commission that it is not the same, it does not give the same hearing, it does not
offer the same fairness, it does not offer the same neutrality that courts do.
* (1510)
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do have some
concern about moving generally away from courts and towards politically
appointed tribunals. I do note that this
does not appear on its surface, and I have simply read the minister's comments
in this regard, and I am trusting him in that respect that this does not do
that. It still allows for the Court of
Appeal to be the final court of review; however, it does simply provide for a
binding decision from the Land Value Appraisal Commission to both parties, the
expropriated party and the expropriating authority.
With those comments, Madam Deputy Speaker,
I look forward to presentations at the committee stage on this bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill remains
standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
Bill 27‑The
Environment Amendment Act (2)
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 27
(The Environment Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur
l'environnement), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of
Environment (Mr. Cummings), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
Is there leave to permit the bill to
remain standing?
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave?
Leave has been granted.
Mr.
Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition):
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 27,
The Environment Amendment Act (2). This
is an act which is of particular importance to me, because I, since being
elected in 1988, every year raised this issue with the government and every
year was told that there would be no recourse, there would be no ability to
control the abuse of burning stubble. I
do not say and I have always said that the agricultural community itself should
always be involved in reaching a consensus solution. I have said that the vast majority of farmers
who did stubble burn I am sure did so responsibly. There were some who did not, and that was by
and large the genesis of the problem.
I represent an area, the St. James area,
and I am sure my other colleagues who represent ridings in that area will
attest to the fact that that area has consistently over the years been
particularly subject to large clouds of stubble smoke.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
Mr. Acting Speaker, it is not that it
causes an unpleasant odour for people for a period of time. That is not my concern. My concern stems from
the fact that this poses a real health risk to many thousands of people. Just ask Dr. Chochinov, the head of emergency
at Grace Hospital, just ask the people in the field who have to deal with the
dozens and dozens of children with asthma, seniors with emphysema who show up
and need treatment, and they are still needing treatment long after the smoke
has cleared. They start feeling the medical effects before perhaps you and I
have even noticed that it is in the air.
The sensitivity in people is widespread.
Those with any difficulties with breathing feel the effects of this.
We needed to do something. I stood up year after year and greatly
resented the government saying, you do not understand, you are from the
city. You do not understand. You want to restrict farmers from doing their
job.
Mr. Acting Speaker, no such thing. I stood up year after year because it was a
health hazard. I stood up because in
fact I had spoken to the people in the agricultural community. They agreed with the approach that I
advocated, which was one of structuring a committee including the farming
community, coming up with some ability to restrict stubble burning in a
sensible, common‑sense, reasonable way.
That is in fact what the government did at the end of the day, and I am
pleased that they did that.
We now have a set of regulations. It is going to be tested for the first year
this year. I have some concerns about
those regulations. I have expressed
those to the members of the committee, but I am very willing and desirous of
giving these regulations a test run. Let
us see how it works.
I am very concerned that there are
adequate enforcement provisions there, and for that reason I am pleased to
support this bill, which does allow the RCMP to act as the enforcement officers
and does, the minister advises, assist in the enforcement of those
regulations. So I am pleased to do
anything to expedite this so that we can put it in place, so that the
mechanisms can be there for the fall burning season.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I hope that if there
are flaws in the regulations, and I am sure there will be some, that after we
have had a chance to see how this works in the fall season, we will look at
revisions to improve the system because we have, for the first time in the last
year, come to a common goal, that we do have to provide some relief to those
thousands of people in this city, and indeed I think in many other locations
around the province, who suffer greatly because of this practice.
It is preventable, and there are ways to
work around it, and that is what we are working towards. So I am pleased to say that we would like
this bill to move to committee. We look
forward to hearing any comments at that time, but we do want this framework in
place in sufficient time to do all that is necessary to regulate this
effectively and efficiently in the coming fall season. Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): I want to speak on this bill. I can testify first‑hand to the
problems from stubble burning under the current system. My son has asthma.
I still remember driving down Highway 6
last fall with the suffocating smoke on Highway 6 from stubble burning, the
unrestricted stubble burning at that time, and the difficulties that placed my
son in. I know, having seen the impact
on many residents of
Mr. Acting Speaker, it is unacceptable
that we have not had proper controls on stubble burning and that we are only
now dealing with this bill. I say that
all have to accept some responsibility for this fact. I go beyond that and say that, in my view, it
is not a question of trade‑offs or compromises. I believe that the onus in the case of this
has to be on those who will stubble burn, to do it in such a way that it is not
a health hazard.
I feel too often in the past we have
treated it as something that is sacrosanct and something that is essential to
agriculture, the unlimited right of stubble burning. That is not the case, that is not acceptable,
and I will be looking very carefully at this particular bill, any regulations
that follow and any enforcement that takes place, because this bill should be
enforced in its entirety. I think people
have to understand that this a serious health problem. I feel that some who have said that they will
ignore the law should be fully prosecuted.
That is not acceptable.
We live in a society where I think we all
recognize the impact of pollution on individuals. Stubble burning is a form of pollution. It is like any other form of pollution, it can
create major health problems. Like any
other form of pollution, it needs to be restricted, eliminated wherever
possible, and where it cannot be eliminated, it needs to regulated and
regulated very strictly. I hope that
this will happen with the passage of this bill.
I must say, Mr. Acting Speaker, given some
of the politics that sometimes surrounds this type of issue, I am
skeptical. I really am, but this issue
should not be driven by political compromises.
It should not be driven by political lobbying.
The fact is, we saw this past fall in
particular and we have seen in other years how serious a problem it is. One has to remember that those who suffer
from asthma, particularly children, that there is an increase in our society in
the number of people with asthma. This
is actually despite the reduction in many other diseases and health
conditions. In terms of asthma, there
has been an increase and there has been an increased number of deaths from
asthma. It is a very serious health
concern.
* (1520)
I will say, Mr. Acting Speaker, having
driven through some of the densest smoke I have seen, worse than half the
forest fires I have seen up North in terms of the amount of smoke that was
produced and having seen the entire city of Winnipeg surrounded by this haze
and knowing my son, who is only eight years old, and the fear that smoke put in
him because he knows he is susceptible as being an asthmatic in terms of his
breathing from smoke, I just imagine the terrible burden that placed on people,
the many people in this city and surrounding rural communities who have far
more serious asthma than even my son does.
So in conclusion, I want to say there
should be no politics with this bill.
There should be no unnecessary compromises, Mr. Acting Speaker. Any stubble burning that is in place should
take place only under the strictest of conditions, and we should seek every
possible way of eliminating it as a practice where other practices are
available of an equivalent.
That has to be the message from this
Legislature, and I hope it can be a three‑party message, because I have
never seen a more clear example of a health problem that has not been dealt
with, a problem that needs to be regulated.
It is up to us now, and it is the many people in
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): As previously agreed, this matter will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
Bill 35‑The
Fisheries Amendment Act
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), Bill 35, The Fisheries Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Peche, standing in the name of the honourable member
for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Is there leave that this matter remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Flin Flon? (agreed)
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Acting Speaker, I
want to thank the member for Flin Flon for allowing me to put some very brief
comments on the record. I will, of
course, look forward to reviewing his comments as well.
This bill, of course, changes the quota
entitlement system in the inland fisheries industry in this province. There is a departmental administrative
practice which this is formalizing and to that extent it does put into
legislation what I understand is already the practice in the industry, Mr.
Acting Speaker, and that is that individual quotas are handed out in the major
lakes. Of course, there are lake quotas
for the lesser lakes where fishing is done, but those individual quotas are
then of some value, some considerable value, I would assume, in some circumstances,
perhaps something like a quota for milk production in this province or other
such quota systems.
Mr. Acting Speaker, this is formalizing
that process in legislation which, of course, then will allow those who have
the quotas to sell them, and because presumably there will be some limit, there
will be a limit on the amount of individual quotas so that there can be a
control of the amount that is harvested from the lakes. Now, that is moving from a system where the
lake has a quota, which then allows everyone to fish, everyone to participate,
and then it is simply controlled by, whomever has taken it out, whenever the
amount that is determined can be taken out, has been taken out, that is
it. That is the end of the season.
Mr. Acting Speaker, that system allows
everyone to participate and sets a quota for the lake. This system, like the milk system in this
province, other marketing schemes, allows only certain individuals to harvest
again up to that certain level. It is
certainly easier to regulate, to make sure that no more than is allowed is
actually taken out. Why?‑‑because
you have a set number of people who are fishing at all. They reach a certain point; then it is over.
The difficulty is, of course, that it does
restrict the number of people that can get into the industry. The argument, of course, in favour of that
is, well, you set quotas at a level that somebody can do this and earn a
reasonable living, one hopes. One has a
quota that is based on what is necessary to purchase the start‑up
equipment to get into the business. If
you just simply stick with the lake quotas on the larger market basis, the
larger lakes, then you may sacrifice that and there may not be people who are
going to do this on a large enough scale to maintain the industry.
So there are pros and cons to both of
these systems. I generally, of course,
like, I am sure, the minister, favour free enterprise. Obviously, in certain sectors of our economy,
it is not a perfect system. If we want
to maintain an industry, we have to deviate from that, and I look forward to
some discussions at committee about what this system has meant in terms of
people getting into the industry, specifically, how difficult is it for those
who want to, to get a quota.
I would like to think that we are
prepared, of course, to have the industry expand if the market is there. I understand that it has not been a very good
market in the recent times, and so that problem has not arisen. I do want to have some discussion at the
committee with respect to the overall way that the minister sees this industry
going. It is a very important industry
to certain sections of our province, certain communities. It is the mainstay of those communities, and
we all, I believe, in this House want to do whatever we can to reasonably,
within the bounds of a sustainable approach to this, have people enter and be
able to earn a living. I have every
faith, Mr. Acting Speaker.
I can tell you, many of those in the
Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation whom I have dealt with from time to time‑‑and
I believe that they as well have done a good job in this area. I think that corporation has worked, can
work, but I also know that it is very important that we maintain the ability to
do what we can to maintain the ability of those who are committed to this
industry as a way of life to be able to provide for themselves, to be able to
have a reasonable standard of living because, otherwise, they will not be in
this business and there will be no industry.
I would not want this industry to simply
be one where it was populated by people who did it from time to time as a
hobby. I think that it is an important
way of life for many communities. I think that we want to respect that. If this bill formalizes a system, and the
minister seems to indicate in his comments that it does, which is beneficial
and the commercial fishermen's associations are in favour of this, and he
indicates that they are, I look forward to that being made clear at the
committee, Mr. Acting Speaker, then we are certainly prepared to have this go
to committee to have that fuller discussion with those comments about the
concern for the industry overall being noted on the record, and we look forward
to some detailed discussion at the committee stage. Thank you.
* (1530)
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Acting Speaker, I
appreciated the comments of the member for St. James on this bill, and I think
he raised a number of questions that needed to be raised. I intend to raise a
couple of other considerations for the minister's review prior to this bill
going to committee.
Mr. Acting Speaker, while this is a very
thin bill, I think it does have major repercussions for fishermen across the
province, but I think more than fishermen it has major repercussions for many
of our communities. Representing an area
where there are literally millions of pounds of whitefish taken from our lakes,
I am very concerned about the direction the minister is taking us in this
legislation.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the
Chair)
I know that the minister has indicated to
one of my colleagues that the intention here is to simply open up and allow the
sale of quota, to allow quota to become a commercial entity in the Lake
Winnipegosis‑Lake Winnipeg area.
Unfortunately, I think that this
legislation certainly leaves open the door that the areas that are going to be
prescribed under which this legislation will have sway is going to be left to
the minister's discretion, and the Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council's
discretion.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to put on
record the case against moving very quickly to do what the minister intends to
do through this legislation.
I know that the industry and particularly
some of the larger quota holders, fishermen who have experience, some would say
the wealthier fishermen to the extent there are any wealthy fishermen today,
are anxious to have this quota entitlement be considered a commodity in
effect. We all recognize that there are
certain beneficial aspects to having it a commodity because it will, as I am
sure the minister suggested in his remarks, make it easier for fishermen to
access capital, to get operating loans if there is some sort of certainty to
the allocation of fish quotas. That is
in itself a legitimate goal.
Certainly, from another perspective, you
have fishermen who have been fishing a lake for a long period of time, who like
most small‑business people, are lacking in significant financial
resources, who see the sale of, someday, their fishing enterprise as a nest
egg, like farmers see selling their lands.
They see it as an opportunity to retire by selling their business.
As it stands, that is sometimes a
difficult proposition, because, although you may sell your boat and your
equipment and your nets and all the rest of it, the fact of the matter is that
until we implement a system like this, you cannot sell the quota, that in fact
the Department of Natural Resources can allocate the quota to whomever they
wish. There is no search fee for the
individual operator, and that is a legitimate problem for some operators.
I want to simply express concern over the
potential that the spread of this particular system would have for a lot of
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think there are
two dangers in this. If the minister is going to stand and say, no, this is
simply for
I would certainly like to think that if it
is the government's intention to have this particular bill affect those two
areas only, what we do is enshrine that in the legislation, that we not simply
add another piece of legislation which gives effectively unlimited authority to
the minister and the government of the day, that I think this is of significant
enough importance that it deserves a debate in the Legislature before we start
amending it further, that if all we want to do is to offer that opportunity in
areas where we think there is enough competition, where there is enough venture
capital to make it realistic to ensure that we do not see the amassing of
fishing quota into the hands of fewer and fewer and fewer people, then let us
specify the areas in the legislation.
I think we can do that, Madam Deputy
Speaker, and I for one will be looking for some indication on the part of the
minister that that is what we are going to do.
I will tell you why I think it is so important. I have already sent this legislation to all
of the fishermen's associations, all of the Northern Association of Community
Councils reps in my area, sent it to Northern Affairs communities individually,
because I am concerned about the implication.
I can explain, Madam Deputy Speaker, what
is going to happen if this system spreads, and there is going to be tremendous
pressure on the government, because there are large "fishermen"
people involved in commercial fishing in northern Manitoba, people who have
their roots in many cases in Lake Winnipeg and communities along Lake Winnipeg,
but they have been the most successful and they already enjoy the advantage of
having substantial quota in northern Manitoba.
That in itself is a contentious issue
because there are many communities that watch as someone from some other part
of
What is going to happen, if this is
introduced, unless there are some careful controls, is that the fishing quota
that is allocated currently to individuals in northern
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is going to be
possible and perhaps this year is a typical year for primary agriculture. The fish prices, particularly whitefish
prices, are disastrously low. We have a
glut of whitefish on the market, and, of course, fishermen out there, who have
been fishing for many years, may be in desperate circumstances. They may not have enough money to meet their
loan obligations. If someone comes along
and says, yes, well, you have got a licence to fish on this lake; I want to buy
your licence now and here is the money, or I will pay off your loan‑‑
An Honourable Member: It is the same as farmers.
Mr. Storie: Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for
What is going to happen is that over a
period and maybe a very short period of time, a few fishermen in the province
will amass these quotas. Yes, it may be
a benefit to a few individuals who are at a point in their life where they want
to sell, but it also may be to their disadvantage because they may be at a
point in their life where they have to sell.
So what is going to happen is that
southerners, a few individuals, not necessarily southerners, are going to
basically take control of a resource away from the community. So where once a few local fishermen fished
local lakes and employed local people, you are now going to have a situation
where that control is lost.
Madam Deputy Speaker, let us just look at
it from a business perspective. Anyone
that has done any fishing, and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns)
knows this better than anyone in this Chamber, that the cost of transporting
fish is prohibitive, for many of the fisheries in northern
So what is going to happen is that, while
we would like to believe that the employment will be maintained regardless of
who has the quota, if I am a fisherman from southern Manitoba and I happen to
enjoy having a whole raft of quota in northern Manitoba, licences to fish in
northern Manitoba, when the prices go up, I go up north and I fish. Yes, I do hire people. When prices go down, I simply abandon
northern
So they lose twice, Madam Deputy
Speaker. Certainly in periods when fish
prices take a plunge, and that happens, they are going to lose employment and
they have already lost control of the resource.
So I think and I do honestly hope that the minister's suggestion to my
colleague that this is to apply to only Lake Winnipeg and Lake Winnipegosis can
be enshrined in legislation so that we can be very clear on the area of the
province that we are talking about, so that I will not‑‑or my
friends, my fishermen friends, my commercial fishermen in northern Manitoba
will not wake up one day and find that the government, by Order‑in‑Council,
has changed the regulations and opened up the sale of quota across the
province, because they are going to lose in that process.
* (1540)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have already
spoken to the fishermen's association in Pukatawagan,
The minister could solve this problem if
he insists on introducing this, I think, in a couple of ways. Number one, he can, by amendment, define the
regions where this is going to be in effect.
He could also mitigate any effect that it will have even on those
regions by allowing a moratorium for a year, that there was a full year after
coming into force of this act to give people who may want to be in a position
to bid on a quota an opportunity to arrange their finances, so it is not simply
the people who can be bankrolled, the people who have access to capital, the
people who have a significant line of credit at the bank, can go and buy
quotas, that there is some thought gone into this so that people who want to
have a chance to be commercial fishermen have that chance. So I think that is one possibility.
The second one, certainly if this is going
to expand beyond a very small area in the province and maybe the south end of
even
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think there are
three possibilities that the minister should investigate with respect to this
legislation. I think, one, we want to be
very clear, before we support the legislation, where this is going to be in
effect. It should be in the
legislation. Having said that, even
recognizing that that is the government's stated intention, there are going to
be concerns, and we will want to hear what people say at committee. The smaller communities, the communities of
Bloodvein and Princess Harbour and Big Black River, Berens River, all the way
up the east side of Lake Winnipeg, I think, have to be heard in this
process. The same could be said for
Number two, I would certainly be
encouraged if the minister would introduce the idea of a year's moratorium
after coming into force of the legislation to allow everyone who may be
interested in commercial fishing an opportunity to pull together the financial
resources, put together a business plan so that they can go to CEDF or some
other lending institution to bankroll the purchase of quota. I think it is important to recognize that
many of the people in these communities do not have a great deal of experience
dealing with the commercial banking system.
They are not the kind of people necessarily who simply go and write out
a cheque for $50,000 for a quota.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the fact of the
matter is that the people who the minister may intend to aid through this
legislation may in fact be the very victims of the legislation in the long run.
The third thing the minister can do,
obviously, is offer in some way in the legislation the right of first refusal
so that northern communities are not once again put in the position where their
birthright, and that is how many communities see it, their resources, where
they have lived all their life, is being sold out from underneath them. The right of first refusal will at least give
community councils and fisherman's associations, fishermen's co‑ops,
individual fishermen an opportunity to say, this is what is being sold, this is
the price being asked, I have some time to try and meet or better the price
that is being offered.
It just would be extremely unfortunate if
this were to progress even piecemeal over a few years to the point where
northern communities again lost control or lost even more control of their
resources.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I look forward
to the minister putting some remarks on the record at some point and perhaps in
committee sharing with myself and other committee members where we are actually
going with this legislation.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, those are my
remarks, and I am sure there are other members who want to discuss this because
it is a significant change in the way that we operate in terms of the fishery
industry.
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): I move, seconded by the member for Thompson
(Mr. Ashton), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 36‑The
Highway Traffic Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 36
(The Highway Traffic Amendment Act; Loi modifiant le Code de la route), on the proposed
motion of the honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr.
Driedger), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr.
Reid).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? (agreed)
* * *
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I would ask if you could please call now in this order, Bills
Nos. 2, 10, 20, 25 and 33.
Bill 2‑The
Endangered Species Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 2
(The Endangered Species Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les especes en
voie de disparition), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of
Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans).
Is there leave to permit the bill to
remain standing? (agreed)
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker,
I just want to indicate that we in fact do have someone who wishes to speak if
the bill could be called somewhat later and we actually may be in a position to
pass that bill through at that point in time.
I just ask that we proceed to the other
bills on the Order Paper as called, then return, and we should be able to pass
this through to committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave of the House to revert back to
deal with Bill 2 after reviewing the order listed? (agreed)
Bill 10‑The
Farm Lands Ownership Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading, Bill 10
(The Farm Lands Ownership Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur la propriete agricole et apportant des modifications
correlatives a d'autre lois), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister
of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes). Is there
leave to permit the bill to remain to standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: No, leave has been denied.
Is the House ready for the question?
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the
opportunity to speak on this bill, Bill 10, and pass it through, hopefully with
the support of the other parties, at least to pass through to committee for
input from the public. Bill 10 deals with some changes to the legislation that
was brought in in 1982 by the New Democratic government, at that time the
Minister of Agriculture, Bill Uruski.
The bill is an amendment to The Farm Lands
Ownership Act, and we have noticed, Madam Deputy Speaker, the actions of this
government with regard to implementation of that particular act over the last
five years that they have been in government and have seen, as a matter of
fact, that the Farm Lands Ownership Board has approved every single application
that has come before that board.
* (1550)
We wonder whether, in fact, it has ever
been treated with any degree of sincerity by the government in terms of the
mandate and jurisdiction of the Farm Lands Ownership Board, whether there was
any effort at all to implement the act as it was envisaged. The act was put in place in 1982 by the New
Democratic government because it was believed, based on what we considered very
factual information, that speculation had a lot to do with increased land
prices, especially during the '70s in Manitoba.
As a result, the government of the day,
under Howard Pawley and Bill Uruski, who was Minister of Agriculture, brought
forward the act which put on some very strict parameters as to who could in
fact own land in Manitoba and that it specifically dictate that those who were
owning land would actually be involved in an active way in farming that land.
We felt that that was a way to preserve
the family farm in
However, it seems that since this
Conservative government has come into office in the province, we have seen a
different approach with regard to the administration of this particular act and
the work that was undertaken by the Farm Lands Ownership Board, a different
view of the world, shall we say, being taken by this board where, in fact,
every single application was approved by the board. There did not seem to be any that they would
even have concerns about, none to be rejected.
Every application for a variance from the act was approved.
I have to question, Madam Deputy Speaker,
this government's support for the concept of family farms in this province as a
result of their failure to implement this act and now their desire to make
changes in the act that would broaden the definition of a family farm
corporation, of a farm corporation, broaden the definition to allow other not‑so‑immediate
family members to be considered family under the corporation, in fact to change
the percentage of active farming interests from the previous 60 percent to 50
percent.
That indicates to us, again, a desire to
open up the corporate farm concept insofar as its influence and impact and
extent on the farming community today.
That, I think, reflects the general philosophy of this Conservative government
with regard to farming in this province, a move away from the small family farm
to the corporate farm, and that is something that we fundamentally disagree
with in the New Democratic Party and in this opposition. I say that because, although they have never
stated publicly in this House that I recall, any members, that they do not
support family farms, it seems to me that there is a growing movement within
the Conservative ranks to in fact move away from the traditional support for
family farms to more corporate farm support.
I say this in a provocative way for some
members opposite because in fact it did come up as a subject of debate somewhat
when the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) was running for the federal
nomination, which he was unsuccessful with just a couple of weeks ago. It seems that the member for Brandon West had
made a statement in an advertisement in The Brandon Sun about his position on
agriculture and on family farms.
A person, who was undoubtedly a supporter
of the Conservative Party and member, by the name of Donn Mitchell of Klondike
Farms of Douglas took exception to the position that the member for Brandon
West had enunciated in his ad in the paper.
She wrote or he, this is Donn with two Ns
and I am not sure if this is a male or female, wrote this letter, and I quote,
Madam Deputy Speaker. It is short, and I
think it is relevant, so I want to read it into the record.
As soon as I read Jim McCrae's
advertisement on the third page of your Saturday's edition, I felt compelled to
use your columns in order to send a message to
Of course, we are talking about Charlie
Mayer there.
If he had done so, he would never have
written that ad‑‑Donn Mitchell, Klondike Farms,
It seems that this person, who would give
the impression of being in tune with the PC policy, as stated, and who seems to
think that the Canadian Minister of Agriculture, Charlie Mayer, has a different
view, which we also believe is the case, of family farms, and that he supports
large corporate farming at the expense of the small family farm, is saying that
Jim McCrae, or I should say the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae), is not in
tune with the mainstream of PC policy on agriculture.
Now the member for Roblin‑Russell
(Mr. Derkach) points out that when we are talking about "small," in
fact, that is all relative in today's terminology, that what was small years
ago is no longer considered even viable and that maybe what was considered
large a number of years ago is now considered a small farm. So it is all relative. But the point is, they used the terms‑‑they
are not my terms‑‑that the small family farm should be
supported. If in fact the member for
Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) did support small family farms in his eyes, I give
him credit for doing that, but it seems that the federal Minister of
Agriculture has moved away from that.
Clearly, in his policies of doing away
with the Crow benefit and the total support for deregulation and free trade and
all of these things, the removal of barley from the Wheat Board, and oats‑‑certainly
supported by this Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) in Manitoba‑‑would
indicate to us that the policies of the Conservative government in this
province and nationally are not in tune, in sync, with the member for Brandon
West's statements in his ad when he was running for the nomination for Brandon‑Souris.
So we have a serious concern about where
this government stands with regard to the support of the family farm. When we see a bill like this, which is making
it easier to be considered a farm corporation under the guise that somehow this
is making it consistent with The Revenue Act, as the minister said in his
opening remarks when he introduced this bill, it is really abandoning the
traditional concept of the family farm and moving towards corporate
farming. That is probably the mainstream
policy of the Conservatives in this province, unlike what it used to be when
they would not be caught saying that they did not support small family farms.
I believe that they are now moving away
from that traditional support, and that is of concern. I think that those of us who look at this
bill, Bill 10, which is now hopefully going to be passed through to committee to
hear from members of the public in Manitoba.
We look at it, and we wonder why the government felt it was necessary to
make these changes.
* (1600)
How many corporations have applied for
remission of land transfer taxes under the existing Revenue Act
legislation? How many corporations have
applied to the farmland protection board, which have between 50 percent and 66‑2/3
percent shares owned by farmers or very close relatives, because that is the
change being made here? Is this a big
problem? Were there a lot of corporations
applying, that there had to be special considerations made by the farmlands
protection board? Was this a major
concern and consideration? We want to
know those things and those pieces of information.
We will be asking those of the minister
when we get to the committee stage, when we are doing clause by clause, once
the public presentations have been made, because, in fact, they may be able to
give us some idea as to why the government and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Findlay) felt it was necessary to change the definition for farm corporation.
We will ask what is wrong with the current
legislation. Really, what is wrong with the current legislation in terms of its
application? We know the government does
not support it because it did not support it in the Legislature in 1982. It has not implemented it in a realistic way
because in fact the board, which they have appointed, has not turned down one
application.
One can only assume that they are applying
the rules in a very loose way. They are
making exceptions for everything that comes forward, which is rather odd. There are not too many boards that are
appointed. Even political boards,
commissions, that are appointed by governments will make the same decision
every single time when they are considering applications.
Because the government does not believe in
it, it is obvious that they had to bring in legislation to legitimize
exemptions. I think that is what in fact they did. I note that W.O. Pruitt, a professor, had
written a letter saying that when he referenced Bill 10, it says and I
quote: It appears to me that this entire
exercise is an attempt to legitimize exemptions to the sense of the original
act by the FLO Board, the Farm Lands Ownership Board.
He said, and I continue the quote: I think a better route would be for the
government to direct the Farm Lands Ownership Board to stick to the law and not
give exemptions.
What the government found was that it was
making a farce of the legislation by not applying it, so the board was having
to make all these exemptions and on that basis decided to bring in amendments
to legitimize what the board was already doing.
I have to agree that is in fact what they have done with this piece of
legislation.
They have also made a couple of other
changes. They will not have to bring in
a report to the Legislature. The reports
have essentially been "nothing reports" up to this point in time
since this government has been in office, because they just simply said that
there were no applications turned down.
So since the government was not turning any applications down, it was
not a very involved report that was brought forward. There was no controversy, no changes that
were being recommended, because, indeed, the act was not being applied in a very
thorough way by this government.
There were a few aspects of this bill that
the government felt extremely sensitive about and therefore decided to make the
changes with regard to the definition of corporations, with regard to who could
be considered family, with regard to the percentage required of active farmers
and with regard to the need for an annual report to be provided to the
Legislature. They also are going to
charge fees for applications to recover their costs. I do not think that there is anything
particularly wrong with that.
One wonders though, since they are not
applying the act in any way, why they would even think they need it any
longer? Why did not they just move to
delete the farm lands protection act in the
They have chosen instead to take this act,
to in fact remove some of the requirements that will make it easier for them to
ignore the act and to legitimize the practices that have been in place for the
past five years under this Conservative government.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am going to close
my remarks on Bill 10 to indicate that while we do not support the changes in
this bill, we do support the opportunity for the public to provide input and to
have some of our questions answered by the minister in the committee as to why
these changes are necessary at this time, some of the questions that I have
posed in my remarks here today. We are
prepared with that to have it pass forward to public hearings.
I want to express one more time though the
concerns that we have with regard to where this government is going in support
of family farms, in light of the evidence and information I have brought before
this House, as to where they stand with regard to farming corporations as
opposed to the traditional family farm operation that we have known in this
province and which we think has still a very valuable role to play in
agriculture in this province.
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Madam Deputy Speaker, I
move, seconded by the member for
Motion agreed to.
Bill 25‑The
Public Schools Amendment Act (4)
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 25
(The Public Schools Amendment Act (4); Loi no 4 modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles
publiques), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Education
(Mrs. Vodrey), standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson. Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I just want to put a few
comments on the record. I want to
indicate that we have a number of speakers, but we are prepared to put this to
committee.
The bill is one of a number of bills that
deals with The Public Schools Amendment Act.
This one deals in particular with Frontier School Division. I just want to put on the record some
concerns representing northern communities affected by Frontier School Division
and point to the unique nature of Frontier School Division.
I do not know if all members of this House
are aware of the difficult task that Frontier School Division performs in
providing education to many northern communities scattered across northern
Manitoba, in communities that often lack road access, lack scheduled air service
and lack many of the amenities that people in this House take for granted on a
daily basis.
I want to point in particular to the fact
that it is unfortunate when we are dealing with The Public Schools Act in
general, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are dealing
with the impact that can have, some of the actions of the government can have
in terms of northern Manitoba, the lot of times it can impact in particular on
remote northern communities in ways that perhaps are unforeseen by the
government.
More obvious examples I think can be found
in the child dental service. I want to
indicate it is going to be a major problem for many children in the Frontier
School Division. They have relied on the
Children's Dental Program, and I think that is very crucial. I think it is appalling that this government
has cut back in terms of the children's dental service in the remote northern
communities, in Northern Affairs' communities.
I know I just recently visited the
In the case of Wabowden, it is probably
one of the more accessible communities.
Once again, most children in Wabowden are now going to have to access
dental services, if they access dental services at all, in Thompson. Other communities have no road access, so
they are going to have to rely on train service, on scheduled air service or
chartered air service. I can say what is
going to happen is many children will not access dental services. They will not access dental services.
* (1610)
The responsibility for that lies with this
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), this Premier (Mr. Filmon), and this
government, and that is absolutely unacceptable. I want to indicate that this government may
destroy the Children's Dental Program today, but this government will not be in
office permanently. In fact, Madam
Deputy Speaker, it is very much a temporary government. Its mandate is running
out, and it should be aware that one of the first things we will do when we
regain government is to reinstate the Children's Dental Program for rural and
northern communities, particularly for remote northern communities.
Let us understand, the Frontier School
Division does not have the ability to pick up this program. The Frontier School Division does not have
the kind of tax base, the property tax base to set up‑‑the former
Minister of Education knows this, he is fully aware. Perhaps, I hope, the Minister of Education
(Mrs. Vodrey) will be aware of that fact.
We are not dealing with Fort Garry School Division, or the school
district of Mystery Lake, or any of the Winnipeg schools that have an ability
to pick up some programs, if not all programs.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we are dealing with
Northern Affairs communities that by definition have limited or no tax
base. We are dealing with a specific
structure that is set up to recognize that fact. I want to say that if this government is
going to cut the program in its entirety across the province, it should at
least look at the specific circumstances in remote northern communities. I hope that will in fact happen, and I would
appreciate some recognition of that. I
think it is unacceptable on the behalf of this government to make these kinds
of cuts and deal with the consequences afterwards. I want to put that on the record. I think that is fairly important.
I want to indicate too that the impact of
other bills dealt with in this session are also impacting on Frontier
Schools. I have talked to teachers, I
have talked to principals in communities‑‑in fact, in particular,
Bill 22, the wage rollback. I want to indicate that it has been difficult
enough over the years to recruit and maintain teachers in remote northern
communities. It has been difficult
enough. This makes it that much more
difficult. It is as simple as that.
I want to stress that education is the key
for northern Manitobans. Education is
key in remote northern communities in particular. It is particularly important to aboriginal people.
I wish members of this House could have attended the graduation in Nelson House
that I have referenced in previous speeches in this House‑‑not a
Frontier School Division school, but I see the hope in that community arising
out of that.
Perhaps come with me when I visit many of
the schools in the Frontier School Division‑‑I have been in the
school in Wabowden, my own community in Ilford, Thicket Portage, Pikwitonei,
because, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think what we will find is that many people
who have not had the opportunity for an education themselves beyond elementary
grades are committed in a way that many of us could learn a lesson from to the
education of their children.
I find that is so much a matter of
importance, and it is so fundamental to aboriginal people and a sense of self‑confidence
and pride for the future. That is
something that we should all be supporting.
I cannot think of a better investment than investment in our human
potential and our human resources, particularly northern
Traditionally, people from remote northern
communities have had access up to perhaps Grade 8, and that is it‑‑very
limited access to post‑secondary education. Things such as the ACCESS programs have
changed it somewhat, Madam Deputy Speaker, some of the programming available in
terms of community colleges, some of the programs available through IUN. We still have a long way to go, but we cannot
access those kinds of programs unless we get people to a certain level within
the school system itself.
Statistics are very clear. The level of education is fundamental to the
level of employment. It is absolutely
fundamental. If one is to compare 20
years ago, one will find there is only one group in society generally, and it is
particularly the case for women, but there is only one group in society that
has not expanded its employment levels, its participation in the labour force,
which hovers around the 30 percent level.
That is amongst those with Grade 10 education or less. Statistics
That is a stunning statistic if one looks
at the fact that 20 years ago we had the same levels of employment for those
who did not complete high school as to those we have currently. Every other group in society, and
particularly amongst women, has seen an increase of 10, 20 and 30 percent in
labour force participation, but amongst those who do not even get into high
school, it is much lower.
Let us recognize, Madam Deputy Speaker, that
many of the communities involved in this are the Northern Affairs
communities. Many Frontier schools do
not have complete high school available and people have to go to Cranberry
Portage after leaving their home community.
I am in the process of sending letters to
graduates of Grade 8 in many communities.
The reason for that is because that is the end of schooling in many of
those communities.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I wanted to put
these comments on the record. I am
concerned about the progress of northern education. I am concerned about the impacts of this
government's cuts in terms of education funding, the impact of Bill 22, the
impact of the Children's Dental Program specifically on the Frontier School Division.
I hope that some of the people who are
making these decisions will take the time to talk to people who are affected,
because I feel that in many cases out of either ignorance or spite or malice or
just out of complete lack of caring or, indeed, as the member for Transcona
(Mr. Reid) says, perhaps they made the cynical decision that people do not know
how to vote right, to use the words of the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr.
Downey), whatever the reason, the situation in those communities today is worse
right now than it has been for many years.
They are sucking the lifeblood from the communities when they affect
education, when they affect health and when they affect dental services. It is as straightforward as that and the
bottom line is, that is unacceptable.
I just hope at some point in time this
government takes the time to see what it is doing, because I think even this
Conservative government would have to have second thoughts when it sees the
impact of its callous cutbacks in northern communities. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Madam Deputy Speaker, I only want to add a few
words to this debate. I concur with much
of what my colleague from Thompson said about the educational conditions that
residents in northern
Certainly we are all concerned on both
sides of the House about the efficient operation of Frontier School
Division. It is a very unique school
division in our province and has served as a model, incidentally, for other
provinces who are looking to consolidate and find a way to manage school
divisions in the remote parts of other provinces as well.
Madam Deputy Speaker, Frontier School
Division has actually evolved considerably over the past few years. While I have not always agreed with many of
the things that the Minister of Education has said‑‑in fact, I have
hardly agreed with anything the Minister of Education has said, let alone done‑‑but
I have to say that on balance, I think that the amendments proposed here are
reasonably responsible and follow in a vein that will probably be supported by
many of the communities in northern Manitoba.
Having said that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I
know that there are concerns. The
Manitoba Teachers' Society has concerns.
I know that some communities may in fact have some concerns about the
way this piece of legislation is structured, but I think the bottom line is
that the intention here is basically to legitimize what has been a practice in
many Frontier School Division communities for many years. School committees have increasingly been
empowered over the last decade to make important local decisions about school
decisions, school policies.
* (1620)
This legislation, to my way of thinking,
simply justifies what has evolved over the past few years in terms of
responsibility for Frontier. The
legislation basically provides for the structure that may be needed to create local
school committees and then gives them some responsibility. To have those responsibilities outlined in
legislation, I think, is important.
Their responsibilities clearly are to advise the superintendent, to make
recommendations on a whole range of issues that clearly affect the school
system and the effectiveness of the school in their community.
That is not to say, Madam Deputy Speaker,
that like any elected body, school committees are not going to make mistakes
and that they are not going to be challenged by other members of the community
or by the Department of Education or by teachers or by parents, but I think
like every community they deserve the right to be empowered, to make decisions
about the effectiveness and the operation of their own school.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the only technical
comment that I would like to make, and I would like the Minister of Education
and Training (Mrs. Vodrey) perhaps to answer this when she closes debate on
second reading. I know that the minister
is not listening attentively to my remarks, but I know that given the fact that
this is a bill dealing with The Public Schools Act, despite the fact that she
is not paying attention, she will be reading very carefully the remarks that I
am making. So despite the fact that the
minister continues to ignore my remarks and continues to talk, apparently
aimlessly, with another member across the way‑‑
An Honourable Member: And perhaps will not even close debate.
Mr. Storie: Perhaps the minister, if given the
opportunity, would not close debate because of not paying attention, which
would be a shame. Perhaps, Madam Deputy
Speaker, you could tell me how to get the attention of the Minister of
Education (Mrs. Vodrey). It would be
much appreciated if you could do that, because apparently she is still
engrossed in conversation, very deeply engrossed in conversation, and she is
still not paying attention.
Madam Deputy Speaker, to sum up, it has
been about five minutes‑‑
An Honourable Member: Who was not paying attention to you?
Mr. Storie: Well, I have been trying to get the attention
of the Minister of Education who seldom pays attention to questions apparently
either and certainly does not appear to be concerned about the fact that I, to
this point, have been very supportive of the legislation that she has
introduced.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would have hoped
that the Minister of Education, whom I seldom commend, would have taken this
opportunity to listen to some advice that was freely given and offered in the
spirit of co‑operation.
Perhaps now the Minister of Education is
paying attention, so Madam Deputy Speaker, that is very gratifying to the
individual who is speaking.
I wanted to say that generally this bill
has not much to commend it, but is worthy of support because it does something
constructive. Madam Deputy Speaker, what
I am concerned about is one issue. That
is why, under local communities to be established, the word "may" is
used. It says: "The minister may, by regulation, (a)
establish a local school committee . . . ."
I would like to think that, where a
community requests that a school committee be formed, that be undertaken. Given that all the school committee has is
advisory power, the power to recommend to the superintendent, it would seem to
me to be a simple matter of democratic empowerment that these communities be
given that power. I am not sure why the
minister has chosen the word "may" or the draftspeople have chosen
the word "may" rather than "shall." Perhaps the minister can clear that up. Perhaps there is a logical explanation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, having achieved my
goal of getting the minister's attention and providing that small piece of
advice, I am prepared to allow this bill to proceed to committee for review of
the details.
I am going to avoid the temptation to once
again chastise the minister and the government for their approach to education
in general and for their lack of support to educational endeavours across the
province, because I think once in a while you should be positive.
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Madam Deputy Speaker, I
am pleased to put on the record a few comments about Bill 25, The Public
Schools Amendment Act (4).
This bill allows for the indirect election
of school trustees for the Frontier School Division. Certainly in principle, we support this bill.
I had the opportunity to work in northern
Certainly the system for selection of the
school trustees by the five area advisory committees, that has been in place for
some time, Madam Deputy Speaker, and now the government has decided that they
want to transfer this format for the selection of trustees from the regulations
into the act. We certainly have no
difficulty with that. I know the member
for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) commented on some concerns potentially from
individuals about that structure, but we will certainly support this bill going
to committee so that in fact if there are comments and concerns that they can
be brought forth at that time in the committee.
Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, I suppose I
could spend the next 35 minutes talking about the fact of the analogy of how it
is unfortunate that the government has not been as responsive to individual
school divisions in other areas of the province as it has to Frontier School
Division. I could certainly go on and on
and talk again about the many comments that we have already put on the record
in regard to the direction that education is taking in this province of Manitoba
and our concerns with respect to not only autonomy of school divisions, but
decisions that are made with respect to children's dental services, speech and
hearing clinicians, decisions which are made which affect the autonomy and
ultimately affect the ability of a child to receive education in this province.
Be that as it may, Madam Deputy Speaker, I
have put those comments on the record before.
I will not take the opportunity to repeat those today. I will keep my comments very brief. So suffice it to say, we support the intent
of this particular bill, we are pleased to see it go to the committee stage,
and we look forward to hearing from concerned individuals and the public at the
committee stage. With that, I will leave
those remarks on the record and I thank you very much.
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Madam Deputy Speaker, Bill 25 deals with
legitimizing a practice that is already in place as a result of Regulation
118/91, as the minister said during her opening remarks on this particular
bill. It in fact reflects existing
provisions in that regulation and is therefore one that I think most of us
support on the point of view of a structure that is working reasonably well in
northern Manitoba in the Frontier School Division in that it provides for a
system of electing school boards and ensures that local communities have an
opportunity for direct input into decisions that are made about schools in
their community.
* (1630)
It is a model that has been followed in
other legislation in this Chamber.
Before this House at the present time, as the minister well knows, Bill
34, the Francophone school division, would have a similar structure as the one
that is proposed here. I guess some people have expressed some concerns about
area committees being used as a new kind of school board structure in this
province, this being a precedent or some type of policy move by the government
to move away from the kind of system that is in place at the present time.
I do not expect that the government is
going to do that. Certainly, they may be wanting to look at boundary review,
and we may get an imminent announcement from the minister on that as she said a
month and a half or two months ago. All
these imminent announcements may be happening now that the minister may find a
little more time on her hands to deal with some of these important pressing
matters. We are waiting for these
imminent announcements from the minister now so that we can respond to them and
give her advice and input, and I expect that they will be coming shortly. But, in this particular case, we have a
system that is in place and working.
Now, of course, if the government ignores
the needs of the communities insofar as their schools are concerned, the
education of their children, they do so at their own political peril at least,
because we have seen some of that in the last while. It is of the greatest concern for us, not the
structure, but the way that the government has responded in terms of providing
the funding that is necessary to support these schools. We, on our side of the House, have expressed
this concern about the lack of support for the public education system across
the province. It includes the
Insofar as this bill is concerned, Madam
Deputy Speaker, we have discussed with some of the groups what some of their
concerns might be and they have said that they feel, with regard to The
Manitoba Teachers' Society, for example, that perhaps there are too many powers
in the hands of advisory committees. I
do not necessarily think that is the case.
I remain to be convinced that would be the case. It seems to me that they are only
recommended; however, there is some concern that they are expressing about how
this might impact on all staffing matters.
We will be able to hear those concerns
before the committee to determine with some questioning whether we feel that
there is any need for the concern or any way that we would want to support the
concerns they are raising. Certainly,
Madam Deputy Speaker, the principle of having advisory committees in the communities
is one that we all support and that is why it was put in by regulation
initially. When the government found
that perhaps they were overstepping their legislative authority, they decided
that they had to bring in changes to the act to ensure that it was protected
and there could be no court challenge to it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not continue
with a long dissertation on this particular bill. My colleague the member for Flin Flon (Mr.
Storie) has indicated and the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) have said we are
prepared to pass this to committee to hear if there are any concerns beyond
those which I have raised as a result of discussions with the Teachers' Society
as to some of those that they will bring forward. Beyond that, we are not aware that there will
be serious concerns raised by the public about this legislation.
The only other concern that I have
referenced was that perhaps this sets a precedent of change in elections for
trustees and I think that is some distance off, at least I would hope, insofar
as the actions by this government. I am
sure that there would be an extensive process before something like that would
take place in the province as part of education reform.
One that we are advocating is that
advisory committees at the school level be established and be enshrined in The
Public Schools Act. We hope that will be
a major consideration and aspect of education reform in this province because
parents and communities must have the opportunity to the greatest extent possible
to be directly involved. All this is
predicated upon the fact that they have adequate funding though. If the government ignores that, does not
provide the kind of financial support for our schools, we are going to have
great difficulties meeting the needs of the children in our communities. That is the bottom line, Madam Deputy
Speaker. Thank you.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 25. Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 33‑The
Provincial Railways and Consequential
Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading, Bill 33
(The Provincial Railways and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant les
chemins de fer provinciaux et apportant des modifications correlatives a
d'autre lois), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Highways
and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), standing in the name of the honourable
member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): It is my pleasure to rise and speak to this
legislation, something that we have been studying for a period of time since
the minister came forward and introduced this bill for second reading in the
House.
We have had the opportunity to review in
some detail the concerns of other members of the community who are employed in
the rail industry, and I will be drawing some of those concerns to the
attention of the minister, as well as information that we have been able to‑‑
An Honourable Member: Let us pass it.
Mr. Reid: I know that some of the members opposite would
just like to pass this through, but this legislation is important and is in a
sense historical for the
We do not, from the best of my
recollection, have any other short‑line operations in this province. This is a first for us, I believe, since the beginnings
of railways, when they first came to the
I would have to rely on the long‑term
experience of some of the members opposite.
I know some of the members opposite have a lot of experience so, if I
say something, since I was not around during the 1880s, that is maybe not quite
accurate, they could draw it to my attention and I will be glad to correct it
for the benefit of the record.
I thought I would start off just to give
members a brief bit of history that came to my attention through family members
who have been employed in the railway industry going well back into the late
1920s in this province. We have been
quite fortunate in our family to have earned our living through railway jobs
for my family in this province and I, of course, continued in that tradition
until I was fortunate enough to be elected to represent my community of
Transcona.
In going through some of my grandfather's
possessions‑‑
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Energy and Mines): That
admission of luck is pretty accurate.
Mr. Reid: Well, the Deputy Premier says it may be luck
and that may be the case that I was elected, Madam Deputy Speaker, but only
time will tell if that was luck or not.
I am sure that if the government wants to call that next provincial
election anytime, we will be prepared to speak to the issues that are important
to the people of Transcona.
Going back to my comments a few moments
ago relating to the history of rail line abandonment in this province, in going
through the possessions that my grandfather had, of course, we came across a
particular article relating to rail line abandonment, and the date on this
article is June 16, 1938. So this is
only some 45 years after the first railway line came to the
I will read it for the members
opposite. It is titled the Rail
Abandonment Program, and it has a map showing various rail lines going through
different communities of the province of Manitoba and, of course, on the map it
showed railway lines that would be scrapped in Manitoba under the line
abandonment program recently submitted to the Senate committee at Ottawa by the
Canadian Pacific Railway in representing its case for unification of the
railways. So going as far back as 1938,
CP Rail was pressing to have unification of the railways.
Under the CP Rail plan, 340‑some
miles of CN line and 360‑some miles of CPR line would be discarded in
I raise this information because I believe
that this program of abandonment that the railways are undertaking now has
forced this minister to act, to bring forward short‑line legislation to
encourage entrepreneurs to take over the class one railway branchlines to allow
for continued railway service to rural communities of the province of Manitoba.
Now we have had many discussions, and I
now there has been questions in this Chamber relating to what the root cause is
with respect to the need to have such legislation at this time. We only have to look back to a recent
proposal that came forward by the National Transportation Agency review
commission wherein they stated that‑‑and one of their recommendations,
in fact recommendation No. 8, with respect to abandonment of railway lines was
to permit the federally regulated railways to discontinue rail line operations,
whether through conveyance or abandonment, without being required to demonstrate
financial loss or absence of public need.
* (1640)
Their recommendation No. 9 as well
recommended that the rationalization of the prairie branchline structure not be
delayed. So the National Transportation
Agency review commission who made these recommendations, and the chair of that
commission, who now happens to be the chairperson appointed by the Mulroney
government at that time to head the National Transportation Agency, now has to
implement these recommendations. So the
same person making the recommendations now has to implement them. In a sense you would think there would be
some conflict of interest in there, but I sense the federal government does not
view it in that light, although others in the country might sense that that
would be the case.
I have had some discussions with members
of the railways, with the national transportation agencies, with Transport
There were recent articles dealing with
line abandonments. The national railways‑‑and there is only one
transcontinental national railway that is currently existing. That occurred as a result of CP Rail's
decision to abandon a leg of its eastern transcontinental service, which leaves
only Canadian National Railway as the remaining transcontinental railway for
During the NTA decisions that came about
as a result of changes to the National Transportation Act in 1987, the
amendment allowed the NTA to arrange for railways to provide for sales without
getting prior approval from the National Transportation Agency. The railways have been allowed or permitted,
over the course of the last four years, the time period which expired last
year, to abandon up to 4 percent of their total branchline network. It is my understanding that they have chosen
not to move in that direction of branchline abandonment and have not come
anywhere close to the 4 percent allowable limits, which is fortunate for us in
this province because we still are provided branch line service for the rural
communities in Manitoba. Many of the
communities that rely on that service, some of them in fact have no other forms
of transportation, alternate transportation arrangements, so these branch lines
provide an essential service for them.
The railways, of course, from my
understanding, maybe decided to hold on to some of these rail lines, looking at
the fact that there has been an expansion of short‑line rail operations
throughout the country. In that sense,
the railways then may be looking at conveying in a form of a sale to any short‑line
rail entrepreneurs that may wish to come forward and take over such operations.
So, in other words, if the railways had
applied for abandonment of those railway lines, there would not be the
opportunity for the railways to recoup some of the monies that they have
invested in those lines, other than the scrap price for that railway line.
I sense that what they want to do is reap
as much profit out of the abandonment of those lines as they possibly can to
put towards their own deficit and their own operations. That is unfortunate because that will put
more pressure on any of the individuals wishing to take over the short‑line
operations, and it might be more difficult then for short‑line operators
to get involved in continued service to these communities.
I had asked the minister, during the
Estimates debate, to provide us some information on the impact of rail line
abandonment, what it was going to mean to the rural communities. We know that
obviously there is going to be some impact upon the minister's department with
respect to highways and then capital and maintenance programs of his
department, because if the traffic is diverted from railway lines that are
abandoned, that traffic, should it still exist, has to move onto the highways,
which will increase the wear and tear and put a further strain on the
minister's budget, which I am sure is already being depleted as a result of the
flooding conditions in the northwest portion of our province, particularly in
the Swan River area. I am sure the
minister does not need to have any more expense for his highway network in the
province than he is already incurring.
One of the comments that came from short‑line
operators‑‑and there are other short‑line operators in
existence in
I know, in my own time, in my own
discussions with CN Rail, who turned over this railway line, a 180‑kilometre
grain line, in 1986 to this company, and it was sold to that line, that CN did
continue to provide some level of service to allow that railway short‑line
operation to become successful. I see
that they have become successful. In
fact, they are looking to expand their services to other points in
The reason they said that they are
successful to some degree is that they have more flexibility in their staffing
than the Class 1 mainline railways would have.
To a degree, that may be true because of the bureaucracy that is in
place in the Class 1 railways.
I know in my discussions with people that
are employed in CN and CP Rail, they have expressed quite often that when they
are providing levels of service to some of the rural communities in the
province of Manitoba, they do not have the degree of flexibility that will
allow them to provide the type of service that the rural communities need, the
grain elevators and the small communities need.
Although there is some possible light at
the end of that tunnel and maybe some flexibility that is finally working its
way into the mainline systems, I am told that CN Rail has what they call the
Okanagan Agreement which provides some flexibility to the crews operating and
allows them to meet the customer needs for the rural communities.
In other words, if the grain elevator
needs to have cars moved or spotted, and the crew happens to be there at the
time even though it is not on their work order, they will provide that service
for the customer. If they have to wait
to pick up a car to carry it to its terminal point for movement to export
position, the crew is empowered to take those actions on behalf of the
customer. If the customer reports any
deficiencies in equipment, then again the crews can take action on it at that
time, too. So there is some flexibility
that is provided in the system through the Okanagan Agreement.
Now if that type of an agreement could
work its way through other parts of
I know that we have raised questions with
the minister here with respect to why railways, in particular CP Rail, are by‑passing
the
* (1650)
For the benefit of the Minister of
Transportation (Mr. Driedger) and the Minister of Finance who are here today,
they may not be aware that the individual from CP Rail that was lobbying them
for the reduction in the railway fuel tax, Mr. Barham, who is the assistant
superintendent at CP Rail, now has a hat placed in his office that says 3.5 on
his hat, and it is called the preacher.
He was able to come to preach to this government that they needed a tax
break to allow them to remain in business, and they got what he wanted, and
they are continuing to move the jobs out of the province. So he is now called the preacher, and he has
a hat stationed in his office here in
It is unfortunate though that we could not
have had some assurances of jobs to go along with that tax break and to protect
the railway jobs that we are losing in this province. The government likes to talk about jobs that
are coming here. In fact, they made a
great fuss about the customer service centre that is coming here and the jobs
that are attached. The government always
says there are 200‑and‑some jobs.
In actual fact, there is a net loss of jobs if you look at the other
areas that have been cut by this.
CP Rail has said to their employees in
their internal discussions that they do not really want to do business in
There has been a history of deregulation
that has caused the minister to move towards Bill 33. There have been some problems with this
legislation in the sense that there are portions of it that the minister has
not explained clearly enough.
In fact, if the Minister of Transportation
(Mr. Driedger) is listening, there is no definition of short line in this
legislation. What is a short line? Is a short line somewhere between 10 and 20
kilometres? Is it 100 kilometres, or is
it 700 kilometres like the bayline?
There is no definition of what a short
line is in this legislation. The bayline
is, of course, one of the major concerns here, and I will raise that in a few
moments with respect to the National Transportation Act and draw to the
minister's attention something that might have escaped his attention or the
attention of his department who have drafted‑‑I take it that they
drafted this legislation for him.
The bayline, of course, goes through two
jurisdictions here,
With the legislation itself, in Sections
158 and 174 of the National Transportation Act, and I will read this for the
benefit of the minister, and he may wish to take this back to members of his
department for further clarification. If
I am incorrect on my interpretation of this, maybe the minister could provide
me with some clarification on this. But
in a section of the National Transportation Act, 1987, Section 158, Section
4(d) says: Where pursuant to an approval
under subsection 3, a line of railway or a segment is conveyed to a railway
company, where the railway company to which the line or segment is conveyed is
not within the legislative authority of Parliament and there is not at the time
of the conveyance an agreement described in paragraph C in respect of the line
or segment, any declaration that the line or segment is a work for the general
advantage of Canada ceases to have effect.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Now, that section is also spelled out
again, that same section is spelled out again under the same act, Section 174.
That can have repercussions for the bayline.
All members opposite might wish to make light of this, but the bayline
is important to the
So we would like to see the rail line
continue there, but if the bayline is put in jeopardy as a result of this, then
it can create problems for this minister when he has to deal with that.
So if my understanding of this section of
the National Transportation Act is correct, that if CN Rail is allowed to
transfer this bayline or portions of it to a short‑line operator, that
short‑line operator, should they assume responsibility for the complete
section of the bayline, can then apply to provincial government for abandonment
of sections of the line that they deem not to be profitable; in other words,
only take part of the operations, leaving the other parts abandoned. Now, that would put some pressure on this
minister to make a decision on whether or not he is going to allow that
abandonment or not.
But the protected status of that line
would not remain according to the National Transportation Act in my
interpretation of it here, if that line is transferred to that short‑line
operator from the Class 1 railway, which is CN Rail in this case.
I am not sure if the minister's department
has taken that into consideration, but I ask that the minister take that
information back to his staff and that when we do go to committee then we will
have the opportunity to find out if, indeed, that is applicable to the bayline
operations.
This bill, of course, was brought about as
a result of a deregulated environment that occurred as a result of the changes
in the National Transportation Act in 1987.
That legislation, of course, was brought underway by the then‑Transport
Minister Lloyd Axworthy who started to move
An Honourable Member: Lloyd the Liberal?
Mr. Reid: Yes, in fact, maybe I can dig out in a few moments
some of the comments of Lloyd Axworthy when he was fighting with‑‑(interjection)
Lloyd Axworthy, taxworthy. Lloyd
Axworthy was then fighting with Don Mazankowski who was in opposition at the
time. At that time, they were fighting
over who was responsible for‑‑(interjection) The godfather of
deregulation. Lloyd Axworthy, the godfather of deregulation.
In that time, in 1984, there was
considerable debate taking place in committee, at the parliamentary Standing
Committee on Transport, and Mr. Mazankowski who was then in opposition was
raising concerns about deregulation. Of
course, Lloyd Axworthy who was Transport Minister was saying he was doing all
these great and wonderful things to deregulate the transportation industry in
the province.
Of course, after that, looking at some of
the other discussions in the Hansard from the Commons debate, we find that Mr.
Mazankowski is trying to take credit for the deregulated environment. So there is a battle ongoing in Parliament
even about who is responsible for deregulation in this country.
The problem is, it has created a problem
for us in this province here, and it has caused this Minister of Transportation
(Mr. Driedger), I believe, to have to move in a direction that will provide for
the continued operation of railway services in our province.
This minister, of course, says this is
enabling legislation. He has also indicated that there are several people who
have come to him looking to establish short‑line railway operations in
this province. In fact, one of them, I
believe, Mr. Speaker, is down in the Waskada area, which is the Lyleton
subdivision, and the minister has indicated there are people looking at taking
over that operation there.
It is my understanding in talking to
Transport
I hope the minister will be able to
provide us some information on which communities are going to be affected and
which communities are going to be provided with a continuation of short‑line
railway operations, because the rural communities themselves stand to be severely
impacted by any decision to either allow abandonment or to move to short‑line
operations which could enhance the service opportunities for those communities.
I know the Minister of Northern Affairs
(Mr. Downey) thinks this‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House,
the honourable member for Transcona will have 15 minutes remaining.
* * *
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I wonder
if there is a willingness to waive private members' hour and stay in bills for
the remainder of this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private
members' hour so that we can stay in bills?
Is there leave?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No, leave is denied.
The hour being 5 p.m., time for Private
Members' Business. Order, please.
* (1700)
House
Business
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, on House Business, I would like
to make these changes.
I would like to indicate that the Standing
Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources that I called for Thursday
morning, Mr. Speaker, we will cancel that and replace that with the Standing
Committee on Law Amendments that will consider at that time Bill 32.
(interjection) 9 a.m.
We will also add, Mr. Speaker, to the Law
Amendments Committee tomorrow night that is scheduled to sit, for its
consideration, Bill 20.
That is it at this time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable
government House leader for that information.
PRIVATE
MEMBERS' BUSINESS
DEBATE ON
SECOND READINGS‑PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 200‑The
Child and Family Services Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Debate on second readings, Public Bills, on
the proposed motion of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), Bill
200, The Child and Family Services Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
services a l'enfant et a la famille), standing in the name of the honourable
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that that matter remain standing? (agreed)
And also standing in the name of the
honourable member for the Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans), who has one minute
remaining.
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that that matter remain standing? (agreed)
Bill 202‑The
Residential Tenancies Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), Bill 202, The Residential Tenancies
Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la location a usage d'habitation),
standing in the name of the honourable member for
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave that that matter remain standing? Leave? (agreed)
Bill 203‑The
Health Care Records Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis), Bill 203 (The Health Care
Records Act; Loi sur les dossiers medicaux), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave that that matter remain standing? Leave? (agreed)
Bill 205‑The
Ombudsman Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable member
for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), Bill 205, The Ombudsman Amendment Act (Loi
modifiant la Loi sur l'ombudsman), standing in the name of the honourable
member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave that that matter remain standing? Leave? (agreed)
Bill 208‑The
Workers Compensation Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), Bill 208, The Workers Compensation Amendment
Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les accidents du travail), standing in the name
of the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that that matter remain standing? Leave? (agreed)
Bill 209‑The
Public Health Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that that matter remain standing? Leave? (agreed)
Bill 212‑The
Dauphin Memorial Community Centre Board
Repeal Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), Bill 212, The Dauphin Memorial Community
Centre Board Repeal Act (Loi abrogeant la Loi sur le Conseil du Centre
commemoratif de Dauphin), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Gimli (Mr. Helwer).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that that matter remain standing? Leave? (agreed)
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
The Rural Municipality of Dauphin, the
Town of
The board is now in place. They are operating as a corporation. There are some difficulties the board is
facing because of this act, one of them being that they are having difficulties
negotiating with their employees because they say they will not negotiate
agreements while the old act is still in place.
So, again, on behalf of the people of
Dauphin, I urge this government to give very serious consideration and consider
passing this bill so that the people of Dauphin, those people who are managing
the Dauphin Memorial Community Centre, can continue to operate and work, but
not be hindered by an act that is outdated.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: As previously agreed, that matter will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer).
Bill 216‑An
Act to amend An Act to Protect the
Health of Non‑Smokers
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), Bill 216, An Act to amend An Act to Protect
the Health of Non‑Smokers; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection de la
sante des non‑fumeurs, standing in the name of the honourable member for
Gimli (Mr. Helwer).
Stand?
Is there leave that that matter remain standing? (agreed)
PROPOSED
RESOLUTIONS
Res. 40‑Permanent
Housing for the Homeless
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), that
WHEREAS every Manitoban has a right to
decent housing; and
WHEREAS increasing numbers of
WHEREAS temporary shelters do not provide
security of tenure, a sense of community, responsibility, empowerment or
decision making; and
WHEREAS the creation of permanent housing
addresses both physical and social problems that many homeless people are
forced to deal with; and
WHEREAS permanent housing for homeless
people has been successfully built in
WHEREAS people are capable of managing
their own housing; and
WHEREAS the long‑term costs of
permanent housing may be cheaper than staffing shelters for the homeless and
paying social assistance per diems; and
WHEREAS people in permanent housing are
much more likely to upgrade their education and job skills and therefore re‑enter
the job market.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Housing to consider
providing permanent, affordable housing for homeless people which includes
involvement by tenants and management.
Motion presented.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, this resolution was put on the
Order Paper when I was still the Housing critic. However, it is appropriate that I should
still speak to it as I am still very interested in housing and still very
interested in the problems of homeless people, although I would say that most
of the homeless people in
The people that we are talking about have
been marginalized by our society in a number of ways. First of all, they probably have no
income. They are living on the
street. They may be living there due to
problems which they themselves are partially responsible for, but nonetheless,
regardless of why they are there, they are still there, and they need to be
assisted, and I believe that they can be assisted in very positive ways and in
ways that are different from the kinds of hostels and short‑term
accommodation that are now being provided.
There are some good reasons for that. The kinds of hostels and housing that are
provided now are very temporary. In
fact, most hostels in
On Sunday I attended a birthday party at
Charles Cathedral Housing Co‑operative, a co‑op that was built and
officially opened by the former Minister of Housing. I was the M.C. of the official opening,
having been part of the resource group that organized it and filled the suites.
It was good to be back and meet the people
that I knew, who have been there since February 1989, but also to meet new
people and ask them why they moved there and if they were enjoying it. They
said, yes, they did enjoy being part of Charles Cathedral Housing Co‑op
and enjoyed being part of the community and having things like a birthday party
to which all residents were invited.
They have also torn up the grass at the back of the housing co‑op
and planted garden plots. So those are
the kinds of things that create community, in this case, in permanent housing
in a housing co‑operative.
A sense of community is something that
everyone needs. Everyone needs to feel that they belong to an organization or
have friends that they live in community with.
Also, responsibility, empowerment and decision making‑‑these
are things that people need in order to have control over their lives. When people have control over their lives,
they tend to be more responsible citizens, and they act more responsibly.
* (1710)
That is why, in this resolution, I have
recommended tenant control or tenant involvement in decision making. I think that my WHEREASes follow in a logical
order because I have said that, when people have permanent housing, this
addresses both the physical and social problems that homeless people are forced
to deal with.
I believe that when people have a sense of
stability and a sense of permanency and a roof over their head and some
involvement in the place in which they live, their other problems can be dealt
with and can come under control by themselves, not because they are forced to
conform by other people.
I mentioned that permanent housing for
homeless people has been built in
The one in
In
I have more recent statistic from the
YMCA, Y‑Triangle publication from the summer of 1993, which estimates
that the number of homeless young people on
In any case, these people were unskilled
people, but someone showed them how to do framing, and they framed the walls
themselves. Someone showed them how to
do drywalling, and they did the drywalling themselves. So they actually did the renovations
themselves, the people who were actually going to be living there. It is also self‑governing. They have their own mayor. It does sound a little bit like Habitat for
Humanity, but I think there are also major differences. In any case, a success story.
I have also pointed out in my resolution that
people are capable of managing their own housing, and I think
For example, the former Fred Victor
Mission run by the
I have said that permanent housing may be
cheaper, and the reason is that, when we have temporary shelters, we are paying
for all the operating costs; we are paying for the staff, in many cases, three
shifts a day; and the government is paying for a per diem for all the
residents. I am sorry that I did not
look up my Family Services Estimates' information to see what we are paying for
places like the Salvation Army, Booth building in
I said that people in permanent housing
are much more likely to upgrade their education and job skills and therefore re‑enter
the job market. A good example of this
is Kinew Housing, whose general manager is Stan Fulham, and Stan wrote a very
interesting book sponsored by CMHC. One
of the things that I remember from Stan's book is that he said when he began
something like 70 percent of his tenants were unemployed. Maybe it was head of households, I do not
know. Ten years later only 30 percent
were unemployed. I think that is very
significant. That is a very successful
story.
I think the reason is when people had
stability in terms of their housing and permanency in terms of where they
lived, then they could get on with other aspects of their lives because they
were not constantly moving anymore. They
could go back to school and get job upgrading or training which enabled them to
enter the workforce. I think another
advantage of permanent housing is then people can get on with improving and
developing other parts of their lives.
My final THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED says
that the Minister of Housing (Mr. Ernst) should consider providing permanent
affordable housing for homeless people, which includes involvement by tenants
and management.
I think that is the difference between the
kinds of housing we have now and what my resolution is recommending. I anticipate that the government speaker
today, the former Minister of Housing, is going to talk about some of the
existing projects in
I think these are providing a public
service. They are housing people. In the case of Veterans Manor, it is
certainly permanent housing, although I do not know how many of their residents
were formerly totally homeless. I think
a number of them lived in the
But the difference is, as far as I know,
there is no tenant management in any of these buildings. I have been to Veterans Manor, and I have had
a tour of the Booth building. I have
talked to John Rodgers, the manager of Main Street Project or the executive
director of Main Street Project as recently as today. He says there is little
or no tenant involvement now; however, he is open to looking at some tenant
involvement in their new hostel. I hope
Mr. Rodgers will do that because that would be filling a gap in the existing
kinds of housing in
He did point out that he is taking people,
he calls them clients, who are difficult to house, people that no one else will
take. That is why I said they are
providing an important function or a public service. So we commend them for wanting to be involved
in housing people that basically no one else is taking care of.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
* (1720)
I would urge the government to do
something a little bit different and something new. Perhaps there needs to be funding for
resource groups who would work with homeless people, perhaps an aboriginal
organization, maybe even an existing organization who would do some community
development and community organizing to get homeless people together and
involve them from the first stage, from the first meeting and say, what kind of
housing do you want? What do you want it
to look like, and how would you operate it?
How would you run it, and who would you hire to run it? Could you see yourselves running it, because
I believe that is possible.
There is no reason why the people who are
living there could not be the security staff, could not be the caretakers,
could not be management with some training and some assistance. I hope the government will be open to
this. I doubt it. I think we are probably going to hear once
again a self‑congratulatory amendment which will commend the government
for the millions of dollars of capital expenses they are putting out for the
kinds of housing I have already identified.
I would challenge the government to be a
little bit creative, do something a little bit different and look at examples
in other cities. I know the former
minister of Housing was nodding his head, and he is aware of Seven Sisters Co‑op
in
Winnipeg is a very cold city, and people
should at least have the compassion to say, let us build some housing‑‑(interjection)
It is hot in the summer and cold in the winter, I will grant you that, but it
is a very cruel place to be homeless in winter.
We have people living in hotels, in terrible accommodation, and this
minister responsible for Housing legislation is repealing parts of the liquor
act which govern hotels and is going to take away some of the inspection of
hotels. These people are not covered by
The Residential Tenancies Act, and they are going to have absolutely no
protection and no regulation of the place that they live.
So we are failing these people as well as
people who are on the street and truly homeless. We may be talking about 1,000 people or more
in
Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Government
Services): I always enjoy, not that I
always agree, but I always enjoy listening to the member for Burrows (Mr.
Martindale). I have known the member for
Burrows quite a long time. It goes back
to the City Hall days when I used to watch him wear his collar and come in and
talk about housing. Each one of us has
our little niche, and I must say that he has contributed, in his own way, in
his own area, and I appreciate that.
He mentions that the government will
probably have a resolution that will be passed; and, not to keep him in
suspense, yes, I will have.
The member mentioned that he just appeared
recently at the Cathedral housing project that we opened in February of
'89. I remember it well. It is one of the better projects in the city
of
He also mentioned that he talked about the
housing unit in
So we do have our differences. I know he probably would not have copied that
particular program, but it was interesting to hear him talk about that
project. As he is aware, the housing
situation in
I have also gone through some of them with
a brother who is involved in housing, and he fills me in every once in a while
when we get together. He is like the
member across the way; he has his history built into that. I can appreciate that.
He also mentioned the one in
I know that the minister at the time, the
Liberal minister, did mention to me that just housing alone, regular housing,
they had to probably produce, they told me, 100,000 units within two or three
years because of the population coming into Ontario. We were talking at the time 900, 800 units. So all of a sudden you are in this monster
that they have created, that they brag in one part about the population
increase, but then they also would say that we had problems with our housing.
He also mentioned, it is not only there,
but being a little bit of TV addict, you see a lot of times the TV coverage
when you are switching through the channels about different types of housing
projects. There was just one the other
night where they took over a housing project, and the person had been talking
about the homeless for five or 10 years.
The only way he got noticed was finally someone had taken over the
building, and he was able to get the press there and stress in regard to the
homeless.
He did mention that, yes, the government
has been involved in several projects, and I guess it is how you talk about
what a project is with the homeless. He
talked about the Salvation Army Booth Center.
I remember, in 1989, we opened that particular project. I know I was through it partway through the
completion. I was not the father to that
one, but I also did work with the Salvation Army to make sure that it was
completed.
It offers a wide range of residential
support services for the homeless males, and for the member and those who are
not aware, it is a 30‑bed short‑term shelter. It is not a long‑term shelter, as the
member has stressed.
The long‑term residence has some
long‑term‑‑I think there are approximately 80 to 85 private
rooms. There is a 14‑bed crisis
stabilization unit built in, a substance‑abuse unit consisting of another
55 rooms. There are 17 beds for long‑term
residents, for mental health patients, and there is a 35‑room halfway
house for parolees.
It is quite a project. I would say it is probably one of the better
ones that you will find across
The project was funded by a mortgage
loan. I do not know what the interest
rate was, but it was very, very low, by the province. As well, it did receive $1.2 million of the
Core Area grant.
It was one of the projects that I always
felt, as a minister involved in the Core Area grant, was probably one of the
better projects. It did very, very well,
and it was probably, I think, one of the main reasons why we wanted the core
area redevelopment.
The member also mentioned the Main Street
Project, was committed just recently under the '92 nonprofit program and will
consist of 34 beds, including 22 one‑bed and six‑bed hostel
units. This also was mentioned at the
time during Core Area programs, and the difficulty at the time was coming to
some agreement on the ongoing costs that the City of
Anyone who knows John Rodgers there‑‑and
I have known John since probably when John and I were in the Jaycees
together. No one probably considered John
ever being a Jaycee, but John was always the innovative type of person who
would get up at any hour of the night and is a compliment to that type of
project. I do not know how any
individual could last so long in that particular environment, but John is the
one that does everything. He is going to
be very delighted when he sees his project replace that terrible existing
shelter that we have with a newly constructed building operated by the Main
Street Project people.
* (1730)
I am sure John is going to see his dream
come true. Unlike the Salvation Army,
the project will provide short‑ and long‑term housing for both men
and women, including those with behavioural problems who may not be accepted by
other shelters. The province will
provide again mortgage funding through that nonprofit program to the tune of
$919,000 as well as the ongoing cost, federal‑provincial operating
subsidies that, as the member knows, are necessary after you get by the brick
and mortar.
The member has said that there is a lacking
in the long term. However, the member in
the Chair will remember or probably knows about the other project that is
involved. Maybe the member could tell me
when I have approximately three minutes remaining.
The province is also involved in the St. Norbert
Foundation, which is a 12‑bed residential treatment facility for teenage
females, a very good project. The drug‑alcohol
addiction will be worked, and this project was committed again under the 1990‑‑I
think it was probably one of the last ones that I as minister was involved in‑‑under
the nonprofit special purpose program.
It was completed in 1991, a very, very good program‑‑again,
a loan by the province and the federal government and, of course, the subsidy,
and then they had a write‑down of about 2 percent on their mortgage cost
share with CMHC.
The member did not‑‑and I
guess I consider, in some of the cases that were involved, the Osborne House
project that I was involved in. When
people consider the spousal abuse, these people really are homeless at many
times. Those who have had experience in
their families about abuse, and not just elderly but spousal abuse, will
understand how important the Osborne House project on
I have to say at the time, a member, the
late Gerrie Hammond, was very involved in that particular project. I know Gerrie had a lot of pride in working
with my department and hers in establishing that particular project. If they would have seen the type of building
that they moved over from, it was a great project.
I could go on and on in regard to the
many, many projects. As the member knows, I could sit here for days and talk
about housing. I enjoy talking about
housing; you noticed last night. I got ribbed a little bit today about taking
30 minutes to ask a question yesterday.
But, as the members know, I do not drag the puck very often. When I get into something that I really
enjoy, I really enjoy it.
He mentioned the Veterans' Manor. We got the federal minister, Veterans
Affairs, in to open that one. I know
watching the gentlemen that were there, they were just ecstatic. They were walking around with their war
badges and telling you to come to visit their rooms. They could not get away from the old hot
plates that they had. They actually had
stoves in their rooms. They took you through there, and they were just
delighted‑‑another great project.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I would at this time,
though, like to move a motion. I will
move it, seconded by the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae)‑‑or
the government will move‑‑I will move a motion,
THAT Resolution 40 be amended by deleting all
words following the first WHEREAS and replacing them with the following:
The government of
WHEREAS the government of
WHEREAS the government of Manitoba, in co‑operation
with nonprofit groups, initiated several permanent housing facilities for
homeless people, including SOS Co‑op Housing, Veterans' Manor and YM/YWCA
Winnipeg; and
WHEREAS the government of Manitoba and the
nonprofit sector have co‑operated to provide shelter facilities for the
homeless such as the Salvation Army Booth Centre, the Main Street Project and
the St. Norbert Foundation; and
WHEREAS the government of
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba support the continuing efforts of the Minister
of Housing and the government of
I look forward to all members in the House
supporting the amendment.
Motion presented.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Acting Speaker, I am disappointed that the
government could not support my resolution.
They have built some housing, and the minister has listed all the
different kinds of housing they have built.
Unless there is some that I do not know
the specifics about, I would say that the kinds of housing this minister is
talking about, the government is talking about, is quite different than what I
was talking about in my resolution.
I agree with the fact that they have built
affordable and accessible housing. That
part is true, but then they say they have made efforts to solve the problem of
homelessness. Some of the people who
have lived on
Now, the government has co‑operated
with nonprofit groups. That is true, and they have initiated housing
facilities. I am familiar with what SOS
Co‑op Housing is. I do not know
what the status of those people was before they moved into the SOS Co‑op
Housing. I would be surprised if any of
them were truly homeless. If they are, I
give the government the benefit of the doubt.
Likewise with Veterans' Manor. As
far as I know, most of the people were living in hotel rooms and in the
I confess that I do not know a whole lot
about the YM‑YW as to whether it is permanent or temporary and whether
their people had been previously homeless.
Now the Salvation Army Booth centre is
definitely temporary. Main Street Project, according to the minister, will be
temporary and permanent, and the St. Norbert Foundation, I am not familiar with
the kind of housing there. I was not
aware that it was permanent, and I have been to the St. Norbert Foundation.
The minister includes in his resolution
"alleviating homelessness resulting from spousal abuse." It is true that because crisis shelters are
available these people are not forced to be homeless, and we agree with
that. However, it is not permanent
housing. It is not intended to be
permanent housing, and it is very temporary in that most of them have
rules. For example, you are allowed to
stay for three weeks, and then you have to leave. You have to find some other kind of shelter.
There is longer‑term shelter for
people called second stage housing. In
fact, my colleague from the constituency of
Unfortunately, the government does not
agree with my resolution and had to move a self‑congratulatory amendment
to basically gut my resolution and change its intent quite drastically.
The minister talked about Charles
Cathedral Housing Co‑op, and I was involved with the minister with that
housing co‑op. It is providing
decent, affordable housing to people living in 20 suites there. However, if you look at this government's
approach to co‑op housing, you will see that they do not have an approach
anymore. They totally cancelled the
housing co‑op program. They do not
believe in housing co‑ops anymore.
The former Minister of Housing, now the
Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme), likes to use Charles Cathedral
as an example, and I am glad that he used a good example, but his government
does not believe in co‑operative housing.
They killed the co‑op housing program. This was a program that rehabilitated
existing buildings to provide permanent housing for people, yes, not for
homeless people, but for people, yes, and keep people living particularly in
the inner city.
That was part of the strategy of the Core
Area Initiative which he and his government supported, was building a
considerable amount, actually, of housing in the inner city of Winnipeg, so
that our streets have people on them, particularly at night, so that our
streets are safer, so that we do not have the kind of cities that are very
common in the United States, cities that are basically a doughnut model where,
in the inner city, we have a high concentration of immigrants and poor people,
and in the United States black and Hispanic people, surrounded by more affluent
and usually white suburbs.
In many ways, Winnipeg is like that,
unlike other major cities in Canada where in the inner city of Winnipeg we have
a concentration of low‑income people and immigrants and aboriginal people
and people of colour, because that is where the affordable housing is in
Winnipeg, unlike places like Toronto and Vancouver where much of the inner city
is very expensive kinds of housing.
* (1740)
Part of the rationale for three levels of
government spending money on the Core Area Initiative was to revitalize the
inner city of
So particularly during the 1980s, during
the life of the Core Area Initiative, considerable millions of dollars were
spent by the three levels of government, much of it through Manitoba Housing,
jointly sponsored by Manitoba Housing and CMHC, to build new apartment
buildings and through the Co‑Op HomeStart program to renovate existing
buildings. There were all kinds of
different kinds of housing, including some the minister mentioned in his
remarks on this resolution, and that was a good thing. We supported the Core Area Initiative. Our government was part of two Core Area
Initiatives for part of the five years that each one lasted.
However, both the federal government and
the provincial government have undertaken major changes to housing policy. Not only did the Conservative provincial
government cancel funding to the Co‑Operative Housing program, but the
federal government cancelled their funding to the federal co‑op housing
program as well, and we are disappointed they did this because co‑op
housing involves many of the things I talked about in this resolution for
permanent housing for homeless people.
For example, all of the parts I mentioned
about empowerment, about‑‑I did not say the word democratic decision
making, but basically that is what it is.
Certainly in housing co‑ops, democratic decision making is
embedded in their charter by‑laws because every member has one vote. They must have an annual general
meeting. They must have audited
financial statements at the annual meeting.
They elect their own board of directors, and the board of directors
hires the staff, and so co‑operatives are very much democratic
organizations. They create a sense of
community, and I gave a couple of examples of that from the Charles Cathedral
Housing Co‑Op. There are many ways
in which housing co‑ops are communities, and that was the same concept I
would like to apply to permanent housing for homeless people.
So we are disappointed this government
does not believe in housing co‑ops, nor do their federal colleagues,
since both of them cancelled co‑op programs.
The minister talked about the Booth
Centre, and it is true that they have a number of beds there, and they provide
a public service, but my understanding would be that some of it is shorter term
and some of it is longer term, but none of it is really permanent; similarly
with Main Street Project, although I need to talk to John Rodgers again and
find out more about their new project because I need to learn more about the
kind of housing they are going to provide.
When I talked to John on the phone this
afternoon, he pointed out that in his opinion, he did not think that providing
permanent housing for homeless people in which there was tenant self‑management
or self‑government would work, because in his view, the people whom he
calls clients are unable to be involved in tenant management just because of
the nature of their problems.
Now he and I have disagreements on this,
but he does have a lot more experience than I do on this. I think he has been at Main Street Project
for something like 15 years or is it longer, and has certainly garnered a lot
more experience.
My experience comes from having visited
places like the Homes First Society in
Also, the building I was at, they have
tenants involved in selecting tenants who are going to live there, and the
tenants also have a say in who stays and who gets evicted. They were telling me that tenants who live
there noticed that there was a lot of traffic going to one suite, up to 60 or
80 people a night going to one suite.
Very quickly, they said to themselves, something is going on here. It is not right. We think that it is drug dealing, and they
immediately had a meeting of this tenants committee, and they evicted the
people from that suite. So that is an example of democratic decision making and
control and self‑management by the tenants who live there.
That was what I was looking for from this
government in this resolution. Either
they do not believe in it, or they are unwilling to put money into it if they
do.
The minister also talked about federal‑provincial
cost sharing for operating expenses. I
am quite familiar that the federal government puts up 75 percent of the money,
and the provincial government, 25 percent.
I know that this has always been a problem for the federal government or
for CMHC because the public does not see this money, and I think that has
always been a great concern to the federal government because they do not get
very much credit for it. I mean, they go
to the official openings and they have these bronze plaques. In fact, I noticed at Charles Cathedral
Housing Co‑op that they had the provincial minister's plaque on the wall,
but the federal minister's bronze plaque, this big heavy thing, was sitting on
the window ledge. Maybe they are hard to install or they did not have the money
to put it on the outside of the building.
Probably people are aware that Manitoba
Housing is putting this money in, because they put up their sign during
construction. In fact, I took the sign
down because it was blowing over in the wind, and I got a phone call, I got a
complaint, and we used it for the roof of the play structure, for our kids'
play structure in our backyard, after it had served its useful life outside
Charles Cathedral Housing Co‑op.
So it was reused or recycled. It
is still in my backyard, with the former Minister of Housing's name on it, the
Minister of Government Services. So his
sign is still fulfilling a useful purpose.
The federal government has put millions
and millions of dollars into public housing of all different kinds. I think they have always felt aggrieved
because they did not get the credit. The public is not aware of the money,
especially the money that they put into operating, the 75 percent that they put
into operating.
* (1750)
I do not know whether that is the reason
or whether it is just a lack of commitment to public housing by the federal
Conservative government, but we know that they are cutting back every
year. Even the current Minister of
Housing (Mr. Ernst) has complained about this.
He has not criticized his federal colleagues very strenuously; and, when
I have asked him if he had written to the federal minister and if he would
table the letter, he has always declined my questions on that. But it has seriously affected
Ms. Becky Barrett (
So it is a process that happens. It is an unusual process, and in normal
parliamentary procedures it would be ruled out of order, but in the government
rules it is perfectly in order. So I am
not unhappy in the sense that this is a surprise, Mr. Acting Speaker. What I am a bit concerned about is that,
unlike many of the resolutions that are put forward, both by the government and
the opposition, this particular resolution is really not political in any
partisan sense.
It deals with a serious issue, and it
brings forward what I believe is a very serious and well‑thought‑out
recommendation for implementation for the government to tend to in an attempt to
deal with a problem that is becoming more serious in
So the concerns that I have in the
amendment are that it appears, not only from the amendment, but also from the
words of the former Minister of Housing when he was speaking to the original
resolution and then putting forward the amendment‑‑it appears that
the government really does not understand, or is choosing not to understand,
the distinction between short‑term shelter, or shelter that is tied to a
particular program, and permanent housing for the homeless.
I think that is a problem that this
government needs to address. It should
address it. I think the chances of it
seriously addressing it in any meaningful way in the few short months left to
it in its mandate are little or none, but it would be very nice if they would
look at it.
The programs that the minister referred to
in his amendment, as the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) has discussed
earlier in discussing the amendment, deal basically with the short term,
providing shelter in a short‑term context. The short term can be differently
defined. It can be defined as little as
the three weeks that women and children are allowed to stay in a shelter for
victims of abuse to as long as a year in the WISH program that the member for
Burrows referred to earlier.
But it still is short term in the sense
that everyone who goes into those programs or into that set of housing knows
that this is not their home. This is a
temporary place where they are residing; and, in many other cases, such as the
St. Norbert Foundation, for the people who are housed in that foundation and
using those facilities, that is not even just housing; that is attached to a
particular program. People have to apply
or be referred to that program. It is
not housing for the permanently homeless.
There is a very major distinction that needs to be made that is not made
in the government's amendment to the resolution put forward by the member for
Burrows.
I think the member for Burrows was
completely accurate in his comments about the importance of looking at this
problem of the homeless and seeing what we can do about alleviating it in the
short term and the long term. It is a
situation that, if we do not address it now, we will be reaping the whirlwind,
to put forward half of a phrase. We need
to recognize the problem and start to put into place measures to alleviate the
problem and address the root causes of the problem, or we are going to end up,
like major cities across
It is, as we all know, the fact that, if
you do not have a permanent home, that you go from one flop house to one
boarding house to another, it is not just a question of a lack of shelter. That is only the most basic definition of the
problem of homelessness. The attendant
social, economic and justice issues that surround each and every one of these
individuals and the people they come in contact with are the real problem that
needs to be dealt with in our society, the problem that this resolution looks
to addressing, and the problem that the amendment to the resolution deals with
not at all.
I would like to clarify because I think
the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) and the Minister of Government Services
(Mr. Ducharme) were inaccurate in some of their comments that they made to me
off the record in earlier debate.
We are not in opposition to any programs
that the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme) put forward in his
amendment. Not for a moment would we suggest that those are unimportant
services. They are, certainly, important
programs, and they provide essential assistance to people in trouble.
We are not in any way, shape or form
saying that they are not essential and important and must be supported. What we are saying, Mr. Acting Speaker, is
that these programs and these housing units do not provide what is necessary to
be in place, which is permanent housing for people who, literally, have no
home.
It is not providing shelter for women and
children who have been abused and for whom there is an urgent need in a crisis
situation. Yes, you need those. You need them even more than they are in
place now. You need women and children
to be able to stay there longer than the time that they are allowed currently.
We have had this discussion in the House
on many occasions. That is a different issue.
It is unfortunate that the government is confusing the issue of short‑term
program and short‑term crisis intervention programming with the permanent
long‑term policies that the member's resolution addressed.
It is unfortunate, because it misses the
boat. I guess I am concerned a bit about
the thinking behind the amendment to the resolution. If the government is really serious, and legitimately
feels that these two issues are compatible, that they are the same, then this
government is really less intelligent than even I gave them credit for.
If, on the other hand, the government
knows full well the difference between the short‑term housing provided by
a women's shelter and the permanent long‑term housing as proposed in the
member's resolution, and chooses to make an amendment such as the one that was
put forward, then it is, again, another example of crass political posturing of
the sort that the government accuses the opposition of indulging in all of the
time, which is actions and statements that are less than forthcoming and
straightforward.
So, Mr. Acting Speaker, in closing, I
would just like to say that we support wholeheartedly the resolution as brought
forward by the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), understanding the
importance of permanent housing to facilitate the integration of these people‑‑
Mr. Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Order, please. When this matter is again before the House,
the honourable member will have six minutes remaining.
The hour now being 6 p.m., this House will
adjourn until tomorrow at 1:30 p.m. (Wednesday).