PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
SECOND READINGS--PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 201--The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), that Bill 201, The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance-maladie) be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable minister--the honourable member for Inkster.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you almost made a bit of a foresight mistake possibly, never wanting to be somewhat presumptuous, of course. You never know five years from now what the situation could be.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is in fact with great pride that I introduce Bill 201. I think it is a bill that is long overdue. In fact, we have as a Liberal caucus attempted to introduce it in the past, and most individuals, at least on this side, would indicate to me that in fact this is a bill that is long overdue, and people tend to be very supportive of Bill 201.
Now that Bill 201 is before us and we have plenty of hours in the future to debate it if it is felt that it is necessary--ultimately, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would argue that we do not necessarily need to debate it too much at length but, in fact, to allow it to go to the committee stage, and I am somewhat hopeful, maybe some would say an eternal optimist, that at some point in time, this session, we will see Bill 201 go to the committee stage, where we will be able to just see what sort of support is out there from Manitobans for this particular bill.
I personally believe that the support would be overwhelming. I say that because health care is an issue in which, since I was first elected, time and time again, people bring up the issue of health care. They feel very strongly about it and passionate. Ultimately, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would argue that it is a part of that Canadian identity, if you like. That is what makes people feel good about being a Canadian.
They will often, when you say, well, what is the difference between the United States and Canada, many people will make reference to medicare and how fortunate we really and truly are to have such a wonderful health care system in the country.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do believe it is important that we acknowledge that there is a change that is necessary, that we cannot just live with the status quo, and, if we do not rise up to meet that change, our health care system will not be as good as it is today. I look forward to having many different forums to debate, forums to question the government, to ensure that the government is, in fact, not necessarily supporting just the status quo, but it is looking in terms of what is in the best interest of health care into the future.
But I would like to start off any sort of discussion that we have regarding health care with one premise, and that premise is that there is a general agreement from all members that those five fundamental principles of our health care are public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility, that those five principles are really the starting point so that, whenever we enter into any form of dialogue, we are in agreement with it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, a few years back, my former colleague for The Maples, Dr. Gulzar Cheema, introduced, I believe it was, either Bill 50 or 51 at the time, a bill that, in essence, is the same as Bill 201. The Minister of Health then, Mr. Donald Orchard, indicated that he did not have too much of a problem, other than the fact that there were some concerns which he would have liked the Department of Health to have looked into just to make sure that it was not going to cause any problems if in fact we passed this legislation.
Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the concern was that we just did not allow for enough time for the department to do its work. The government, at the time, was a bit unsure, and what ultimately ended up happening is that there was a consensus. I like to believe I had something to do with the consensus in terms that we had a resolution that was introduced, and I believe even a government member was the seconder of it. The member for The Maples was the mover. We saw the legislative Chamber unanimously support a resolution that was supportive of the five fundamental principles.
I believe that the Chamber could be well positioned to take the next step, and, ultimately, that next step is to affirm those five fundamental principles in The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act. I believe what we would be doing is, we would be sending a very strong message to all Manitobans, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that message is that no matter what one's political stripe, at least of the three major political parties that are inside the Chamber, they do support the five fundamental principles of health care.
We might agree on some areas. We might disagree on other areas in terms of direction that government is coming from. We could use all sorts of examples of how maybe this government is trying to create user fees. There is no doubt in my mind that you can virtually go across from one province to the other across Canada and you will see that there are all sorts, and many different forms, of what could be labelled as user fees. I think that, in order to at least achieve some sort of good will, if you like, or the long-term best interest of health care, it is to try to accomplish a definition of what we feel is essential health care services that we believe Manitobans should have, and those five fundamental principles have to be applied. It does not matter where in the country you happen to live.
I have something that is a bit outdated, but an excellent article that was given to me when I had spoken on this matter a number of years ago. It was with respect to insured eye care. It really shows the difference from province to province. It seems that every province has a different level of payment and so forth. So there is no doubt that the federal government does have a responsible role to play. I hope and trust that, in the future, the federal government will play that role.
The Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), the Premier (Mr. Filmon) I have heard in the past talk that in order for the federal government to have that role, they have to be able to contribute dollars into health care. It is a very legitimate concern that has been expressed, but I have found in time that there is a certain amount of exaggeration that goes on, that in fact the federal government does have the potential to have incredible clout at ensuring that those five fundamental principles are followed. All you need to do is to look at the financial Estimates of this government and the commitments that are, in fact, being made by both the federal Minister of Health and the Prime Minister.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would be someone that would be, very much so, critical of the national government if for whatever reasons they started to abandon their responsibility in terms of ensuring that we have medicare from coast to coast. I would like to see, not only this provincial government, all provincial governments doing what they can to try to harmonize those sorts of services. The best way in which you can do that, and Manitoba could be at the forefront of this, is to deal with the whole question of a definition of health care.
Through the Health Estimates, I had many opportunities with the Minister of Health and asked questions about health care, and what is believed to be essential services and what some might not determine as essential services. Depending on what province you are in, for example, in vitro fertilization might be a service under medicare fully paid in one province, but not in another province. Achieving what is that core essential health care services has to be a high priority because once you have established that, then you are in a better position in which you can talk about the concepts, such as what is a user fee. For example, some provinces, you would pay an up-front premium, a monthly premium. To me, and there is no real discretion, that is, in fact, a user fee. Other provinces have talked about having a fee in emergency services. To me, again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that would be a user fee. The question in terms of going to the eye doctor. Now it is every two years you are allowed to go.
These sorts of discussions need to take place. The most appropriate forum in all likelihood is inside this Chamber. One has to be extremely careful what you say inside the Chamber.
An Honourable Member: That is right. That is true.
Mr. Lamoureux: As much as I would like to believe what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) said in terms of this providing us the opportunity to say whatever we would like to say as an independent, quite often what will happen is that, if you say something, it could come back to haunt you, especially when you are dealing with an issue of great substance such as health care. It is important that individual members are very clear and they are concise on what it is they believe and what it is they are fighting for.
The underlying important issue for me when I talk about health care and the services of health care is, in fact, first and foremost, the patient; that has been, always will be. I believe very firmly in the five fundamental principles. I believe governments of all political stripes throughout Canada need to sit at a table to achieve that definition of services so that we can take it to the next step, if you will.
I like to believe that on behalf of the Liberal Party provincially this is the starting point at which I would advocate from, and that is why I feel fairly passionate about the issue, for example, of the emergency services and the strike that is going on. When I look at the emergency services, I believe and the Liberal Party provincially believes, that is in fact a part of the core health care services that have to be there. What is more important than an individual if they are suffering pain and they want to be able to get that pain or discomfort addressed, so they go to emergency services, that they should be able to receive treatment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That, to me, is probably the most important aspect of health care. Then it could go down from there, if you like, and that is why when we look at it, we are now entering what I believe is the fourth week, it will be at the end of the month before you know it.
Services in our emergency wards have been stressed. I brought up the other day about an individual who had to go to Winkler. There have been other cases where medical professions have been--additional stress has been put on. If there is a need to rectify a particular problem, I believe this is one of those areas.
I think there should be consensus virtually from all members that that is one of the services that should not be allowed to have the ability to strike, quite frankly. It is extremely rare that I would take such a dramatic position because I very much so believe in the worth of the free bargaining process. I was there for the final offer selection, the many debates that occurred there. It is something in which I would very rarely ever advocate in terms of back-to-work legislation, but given the importance of emergency services to all Manitobans--and I look at what I have been talking about, what the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) has been talking about, what the New Democrats claim to talk about, and that is to put our patients first. That is the reason why the party has taken the position that we have.
Hopefully, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we will see this issue resolved in the short term if the government decides not to, but ultimately the government is going to have to reflect on the length of this particular strike and, if necessary, bring in the back-to-work legislation. From our point of view, it has gone on for far too long. Those are the types of essential services that I think in the future Health Estimates that we would like to be able to enter into to try to get a better idea in terms of what are the types of services, whether it is personal care homes, residential homes, our community health clinics. No doubt that is where the future really is in terms of health care reform, is our community health clinics.
Government and opposition have to recognize that and start working co-operatively. Let us put the patients first. Thank you very much for being able to say a few words on this issue.
Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): I move, seconded by the member for Morris (Mr. Pitura), that the debate now be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 13--Crime Prevention Foundation Act
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): I move, seconded by the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), that
WHEREAS the former NDP government of Manitoba introduced and this Legislative Assembly enacted The Crime Prevention Foundation Act, ("the Act") in 1987; and
WHEREAS this act, the first of its kind in Canada, provided for the establishment of the Crime Prevention Foundation, a charitable nonprofit corporation; and
WHEREAS the act further provided for a fund to be used for co-ordination and organization of crime prevention through community organization and the development of crime prevention programs; and
WHEREAS the act provided for a foundation to act as a research resource in all areas of crime prevention; and
WHEREAS crime prevention is the most effective, proven method of ensuring greater community safety; and
WHEREAS Manitobans want and must have safer communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has not proclaimed the act and thereby has failed to take the most immediately available means to deal with rising crime; and
WHEREAS the need for this legislation is urgent, particularly given the Conservative government's attack on education and employment opportunities and its withdrawal of support for programs that can reduce crime; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has failed to comprehend that six years of bestowing greater benefits on the privileged in our society while ignoring the needs of the disadvantaged leads to a more violent community.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the provincial government to consider immediately proclaiming The Crime Prevention Foundation Act; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly urge the provincial government to consider adequate funding for the foundation.
Motion presented.
* (1620)
Mr. Mackintosh: We are introducing a resolution today that speaks even to the headlines in today's newspapers which proclaim: break-and-enter stats down, nation gets relief but not in Manitoba, and the headline, "Burglars cash in on Manitoba."
The report states, "Manitoba has one of the highest rates of break and enters in Canada, . . .
"Worse, it says Manitoba is bucking a national trend to fewer break-ins, and the rate is increasing."
It is only Manitoba, of the provinces in Canada, that has had an increase in break and enters between 1991 and 1994.
Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is one small part of the story. We have the dubious distinction of leading the country in increasing crime. Manitoba had the largest increase in criminal code offences in 1994; the highest rate of violent crime, including the highest robbery rate; the highest rate of assault as well as the largest increase in property crime, including break and enter, as well as the highest rate of motor vehicle theft. Finally, we had the highest weapons offences rate in all of Canada.
We can no longer afford to allow the status quo to continue. There must be real and meaningful efforts on the part of all Manitobans to deal with this crisis, and it is time that the provincial government, as I said yesterday, being I think the most effective single agent in empowering community action, co-ordinating community police and school response, to take a very active role.
(Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
We are talking today about crime prevention. We have from time to time and indeed in Question Period yesterday talked about consequences for crimes already committed. I know the member for Riel (Mr. Newman) for example, yesterday in his remarks acknowledged that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, that if we are truly to respect the rights of victims, then it is our obligation to prevent the creation of victims. We have to reduce the victims in Manitoba, and it is a big job ahead.
Unless we can prevent crime from arising in the first place we know that it is difficult to change the behaviour of offenders for the better. It is a very expensive, time-consuming task and one the records show that has been questionably successful.
Now, when this legislation was introduced into this Assembly in the spring of 1987, it was the first of its kind in Canada. The legislation established the crime prevention centre. The centre was to be accessible to crime prevention organizations. It established a crime prevention foundation which was to use the crime prevention centre as the head office of the foundation as a meeting place for crime prevention organizations and as a location for crime prevention resource materials.
The act provided that the foundation, by providing funding and acting in its own right, was to encourage and promote public awareness of crime prevention; crime prevention research; the development of crime prevention programs; the collection of crime prevention resource materials; the co-ordination of activities of crime prevention organizations; and the participation of private citizens in crime prevention programs.
The crime prevention fund was established and the funds were to be disbursed as the board considered proper. The foundation was given the power to accept and receive any financial assistance made available to it, including gifts and bequests, and to encourage private contributions to the foundation, provided a role for the Provincial Auditor, but essentially this was not a government fund. It was an independent fund.
Finally, the foundation was empowered to receive from any person or organization submissions for funding as long as the funding went towards crime prevention programs or research. At the time of the second reading of the bill in the Legislature on April 29 of 1987, the then-Attorney General, Mr. Penner, stated a very important principle. He said, and I quote: The foundation should not attempt to replace in any way community programs but assist them to become more successful.
That is the key. It is not the government itself seeking to deliver crime prevention programs and to replace the tremendous involvement--and Manitoba has the best record of any province in that way with bureaucracies and with government-directed programs--is to lend support to crime prevention programs, assisting with support services, collecting and sharing information about crime prevention, promoting research, co-ordinating activities.
Mr. Penner again stressed: So that is the key, not for the government itself to attempt to expend money on the front lines of crime prevention. He went on to say: We must find a better mix between the conventional, institutional response and the community-based responses that are required for effective crime prevention.
The opposition at that time, the Conservative Party, put its position on the record when Mr. Mercier said: This, of course, is a bill that would be very difficult to oppose. In fact, it is certainly a proposal in principle that we have long supported in opposition.
Mr. Mercier went on to say: If there is anything the community organizations needed, they need some assistance in the way of a meeting room, in the way of helping them perhaps with secretarial work and helping them communicate with the residents of their community. Hopefully, this bill will provide that assistance to those community organizations, some of which have been very active and very successful to date. Hopefully, other community crime prevention groups will be encouraged to develop in this city.
Then Mr. Ducharme got up on behalf of the Conservative caucus also supporting the bill. In fact, he said at the beginning of his remarks: I also rise and agree with this type of bill. It is one that is very dear to my heart.
The legislation went on to third reading and passed unanimously by the members of the Chamber. At the time of its passage, then Staff Sergeant Don Peters of the Winnipeg Police department said, the police department welcomes a program like this with open arms. It ties together a network of programs out there and makes them stronger.
It was interesting that Reg Alcock, then a board member of Project Prevention, which was a clearinghouse for smaller crime prevention groups and was a sponsor of Crime Prevention Month, and also an employee of the Corrections department, said, and this was reported in the Winnipeg Sun of April 30, 1987, that this foundation will supplement existing programs and not replace them.
* (1630)
The Attorney General of the time made a commitment of $250,000 to enable organizations to fight crime more effectively . Mr. Penner is paraphrased in the Free Press of April 30, '87, of saying: While $250,000 would hire only two or three police officers, it will help prompt thousands of citizens and community groups into a more active role against crime.
Mr. Acting Speaker, what happened to that unanimous consent? What happened to a proposal that was dear to the heart of people, particularly one member of the Conservative opposition of the day? What happened to the promise of a co-ordinated network of crime prevention? There are many crime prevention organizations, whether they be Neighbourhood Watch, Block Parents, Citizens for Crime Awareness. There are patrol groups that are forming. There are parent groups that are forming. I was at a meeting just last Wednesday in my community, which formed very quickly in response to a threat being made against school patrols, a threat that was made by a youth carrying a gun.
These organizations need support. As I said yesterday, in response to comments from the member for Riel (Mr. Newman), observations like, well, crime is a community responsibility and solutions must be found in the community, cannot be used to excuse a provincial government from its essential role in spurring, promoting, whether it is through funding or leadership, those organizations. Just as we cannot say, well, a lot of the roots of violence and our crime rate can be found in the family, that statement cannot be used to excuse the role of the provincial government.
The Conservative government, when it was elected, did look at The Crime Prevention Foundation Act and the plans that were underway. It was estimated that the total costs of staffing the crime prevention centre with an executive director, a research officer and a secretary, as well as providing grants to community organizations, could total approximately $350,000 a year. When we look at what has taken place since the passage of that legislation, when we look at the devastation to individuals, when we look at the damage to property as a result of crime in this province, we cannot begin to add up the financial loss. Of course, it is much more difficult to add up the human loss, both in terms of lives, in terms of working capacity, in terms of healthy living, contribution to family, of lost working time.
I will not dwell on this, but lament that that legislation was never proclaimed by the Conservative government of Manitoba in all the years. The Conservatives never took the most obvious measure available to deal with crime. They did not even have to draft the legislation. They did not have to bring it through the House. It was there for them when they came to office. It is interesting, we come to the last provincial election, the crime rate has become notorious in Canada.
It is interesting, there are two notorious stories emanating from Manitoba over the course of the summer. One was the fiasco of the Winnipeg Jets and the other is the tragedy of our crime rate. I am sorry that those stories come from my province, but surely in response to the demand by the public for some meaningful action by this government, the Conservatives went on the election hustings and they made this amazing pronouncement. They said the provincial Crime Prevention Council will continue to seek the advice of experts on the development of community crime prevention initiatives. I read that and I thought--the provincial Crime Provincial Council--never heard of it. There has never been a crime prevention council. It cannot continue to do anything. It is a secret. It is one of Casper's councils.
Obviously there was this need for some kind of a crime prevention council. They wanted to let Manitobans think that there was such a body. Maybe that would just help them through that campaign, a few votes here and there maybe. Then the election material went on to say this: The Filmon government will create a centralized provincial registry of crime prevention and community safety programs and services. It will enable community-based organizations to have access to a wide range of crime prevention information thereby enhancing their effectiveness. They also went on to promise standard training programs for the crime prevention groups.
Mr. Acting Speaker, in conclusion, the Conservatives themselves promised what the crime prevention foundation was established to do. I ask them now, let us do it right, proclaim the act and in that way you can fulfill this election promise. Thank you.
Mr. David Newman (Riel): Mr. Acting Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to this resolution, not only because I am the successor MLA to the former member for Riel, Gerry Ducharme, who very proudly stated in speaking to the proposed legislation back in 1987 that the constituency of Riel and the whole broader community represented now by the Speaker, the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) and the honourable member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render) had created the first part of what is now called the Citizens for Crime Awareness back in 1982. So if ever there was a grassroots evolution towards crime prevention, we know where it started. I am proud of that fact and proud of the people who were behind it.
A person named Hugh Coburn, a constable in the Winnipeg Police, retired at the time, I believe, was instrumental in making that happen in that particular community. He developed a group soon of 21 others and they began a movement, a grassroots movement, which has evolved, and these things tend to happen. If government does not get too involved in these things, does not interfere too much, things can evolve with support and encouragement of MLAs like ourselves to work positively in our communities to bring about positive change.
The evolution of that Citizens for Crime Awareness has now brought us to a point where we have representative units in each of the police districts and, beyond that, one of the districts with three zones has a unit in each one of those. These are all citizen-driven crime prevention programs, the most recent one formed, I might say, in 1994.
(Madam Speaker in the Chair)
So what has happened is, this Crime Prevention Foundation Act, which came along in the middle of this evolution and on its face was not regarded as a bad idea at all, addressed crime prevention, which was being addressed in the grassroots ways in the communities being nurtured and encouraged by this side of the House. But what happened was, other issues arose after that legislation was given Royal Assent and, I might say, not proclaimed by the NDP government of the day. When it came to this government to be chosen to proceed with the continued evolution in a positive way of the sorts of grassroots changes I have been talking about, issues arose, issues that are there to this day,which I submit deserve consideration, and I am going to identify them.
One is whether or not there should be central control of this crime prevention by government to the degree that the opposition is apparently asserting is correct by government, on one hand, or, as apparently asserted by the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), by an nongovernmental organization like this crime foundation which would be created by this bill.
The alternative to the sort of central control, that sort of trickle-down, the handing-out-grant system, would be a neighbourhood control system where there would be a breakdown by neighbourhoods along the lines of the Citizens for Crime Awareness, who would do their own fundraising, who would in effect take ownership in their community for that situation.
* (1640)
The second issue, which I think is still a current one, is whether or not the donations to those kinds of nongovernmental organizations should be tax deductible. Now, the bill that was passed, Bill 20, The Crime Prevention Foundation Act, provided for tax deductibility of donations to that sort of foundation. Well, again, that issue is still current because when you do that that takes revenue out of the coffers of government to be used for purposes like health and education and family services.
Let us assume that that is something that warrants consideration. I believe it does. I believe it does whether or not there should be tax deductibility of those donations, I think that is a positive feature probably of this bill, but what is even better, I submit, is if the communities themselves through their neighbourhoods, through their community organizations, through their volunteers, decide that they want tax deductibility, and they seek it, and they can obtain it.
In fact, I note with some interest that tax deductibility status was just granted to the one in my district, and when they now ask for funds, they want to help my community soar to new heights, and they make a donation, so that issue does not have to be solved, it appears, by legislation anymore.
So that is an issue. Do we need that sort of legislative interference to accomplish that sort of objective?
The third issue, I submit, is are current NGOs of this type working? I would submit that the evidence is--and I think the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) has agreed with that. Certainly, in certain areas like community justice programs, I notice he cited programs which certainly would receive my endorsement and enthusiastically, and certainly the Citizens for Crime Awareness is one of those. He mentioned citizen patrols. All of these sorts of things are evolving and are working effectively in many different areas.
We have another issue, I submit, and that is what can be done to make them work better, and I submit without further cost to government? Again, it is so easy for the opposition and people on this side of the House to say, things are all wrong out there, and just in a general sort of way get headlines. However, if one looked at it and said, we are going to be accountable for this ourselves--I mean, we are members representing our constituencies. Let us look at our own constituencies. What are we doing to help our own constituencies, each of us in this Legislature? What are we as MLAs each doing to help our constituents help themselves with this issue?
Are we giving them the idea that government is going to provide the answer and the money and the resources and again cause them to become dependent and overdependent on government, or are we appealing to them to do it for themselves with our help and encouragement, knowledge and influence? Well, I am telling you what I am going to do. I am certainly going to do what I did before I was elected, and I will continue to do the same thing, and that is to work with volunteers and work with the community to help them help themselves.
Now, this resolution--once again, we have this kind of resolution that has 11 paragraphs to it, and three of them are simply taking shots at the government. The others have more thought to them, so once again, if this whole members' hour is to be made meaningful, it would be better to take the shots out of it and work to do something constructive. I am trying to enter into this debate and show some of the success stories and invite participation and ideas from other MLAs as to what is being done, what can be done, to make it work better, to address the issues that I have raised which are worthy issues for consideration by all of us and not easy ones to resolve.
What gives me great comfort is that the grassroots of our different neighbourhoods are looking for solutions, and what they need is our support and encouragement and ideas, not simply rhetoric and not simply blame-somebody-else approaches.
To be more specific as to some of the programs that are happening, for those that do not know, the Citizens for Crime Awareness is an association of the five police districts and three zones in Winnipeg. These self-autonomous chapters that form the association are governed by a common constitution, and the affairs of the association are governed by a Memorandum of Understanding.
It was established for the following objectives: to co-ordinate and promote crime prevention activities within the city of Winnipeg in co-operation with the Winnipeg Police department; to promote citizen awareness and involvement in crime prevention programs; to evaluate crime prevention programs and educational materials to ascertain their effectiveness in implementing them within Winnipeg; to liaise with related organizations in other cities in order to maintain current information on crime prevention activities as practised outside Winnipeg; to provide guidance to chapters in developing and providing educational programs in crime prevention; and, when necessary, to co-ordinate and consolidate fundraising and promotional activities.
These are volunteers, sometimes supported by a part-time staff person working in conjunction with the local police, who do wonderful, wonderful work. They have specific programs in place which we identify. Probably one of the most noteworthy ones in terms of the public eye is our Neighbourhood Watch Program. That is the biggest program to administer on behalf of the Winnipeg Police Services. It is active in almost all areas of the city and is a program in which the residents of the community care and take an active interest in the well-being of their neighbours.
As examples, this may be done by looking after a neighbour's property while the neighbour is on vacation or by reporting to the community police office any suspicious cars that may be parked or hanging around the area. Operation Identification is another program that is administered by them. This involves engraving personal property, TVs, VCRs and so forth. The number is given to the police. In the event that a break-in occurs and items are stolen, then police have an easy way to identify the articles if they are found or located in a pawn shop.
There are seniors' programs put on by the Citizens for Crime Awareness as well. Seniors are advised how to guard themselves while at home alone, how to safeguard their homes and property and so forth. There are bicycle rodeos put on by some of the chapters for the children of their community, done in conjunction with the police service. There is a fingerprinting service at some offices for children. There is a bike registry by at least one of the chapters. They have been instrumental in supporting the CAT Program or Combat Auto Theft, which I know my wife and I are involved in and many others are that are beneficiaries of these sorts of programs.
` There are other programs all left to the imagination of the community and the particular needs of the community. Now it is interesting. They solicit support and they ask questions when they hand out materials--if I were interested in becoming more involved, how much time would I have to commit?
They approach volunteer organizations to get co-operation and liaise. Sometimes it involves, as a volunteer, three hours a week doing a particular thing, everything from organizing and manning mall displays or events such as bike rodeos. The time commitment may be intense, but it may be just for a short time, so it gives everybody a chance to get involved.
I single out that particular one for attention. There are many others, but these, I submit, are the constructive things that we can do without expending government money, without taking control and telling people how to run their lives in their own communities.
You are certainly going to have the support of the constituency of Riel and the MLA from Riel and, I submit, from this side of the House, from those sorts of endeavours which stimulate neighbourhoods solving their own problems with our strong support and whatever we can muster in the way of communication of knowledge and encouragement. Thank you very much.
* (1650)
Mrs. Shirley Render (St. Vital): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this resolution, and I find it interesting that the member for Riel (Mr. Newman) concentrated a fair bit on community involvement and having the ownership of what is happening in your community happen with the people involved in that community rather than government always taking a lead. He mentioned that he did have a concern with, what he called, legislative interference.
I think the idea of the resolution is an interesting one. I think it warrants perhaps more discussion, but I really and truly believe that when people take ownership for the problems in their area, that is what is going to make something work. I find it most interesting that just last week the Norwood Grove Bulletin headline, front page, Volunteers--well, actually now, I think I have just backed myself into a corner. It said: Volunteers needed to help prevent crime in community. But actually the lead article is on the Citizens for Crime Awareness, and, as the member for Riel pointed out, it was the member for Riel who was very instrumental in starting this group about a dozen years ago.
Now the St. Boniface/St. Vital chapter is one of eight in the city. It is an active chapter, and I think what makes it work is the fact that the people are totally involved. It is a street-by-street kind of involvement. As the office manager for the District 5 chapter told me, she said, the program is based on the very simple concept of neighbours watching over other neighbours' property.
Of course, I think most of us have seen the Neighbourhood Watch block is identified with a sign at either end of the block which does serve to act as a deterrent to criminals.
One of the other programs which has also received a fair bit of publicity through the Citizens for Crime Awareness is the CAT program, and the CAT, as the member for Riel I think explained, stands for Combat Auto Theft. I think that all of us, on our drive home today, just sort of keep a watch out, and you will probably see at least one car with a large decal at the back of the car, the CAT decal, the CAT sign. Of course, these are people who are enrolled in this program. They put the decal on the car and this signifies to the police that this is a vehicle that is rarely driven between the hours of one o'clock and five o'clock in the morning so that if this car is out on the road with the decal on it, the police will stop it and make sure that the person driving that car is in fact the owner of the car.
Not only was there a full page article in last week's Norwood Grove Bulletin, but there was also a very large article in the Winnipeg Free Press, September 20, and I am just reading from that. I think the bottom line here is that people are beginning to realize that government should not be the answer for everything, that they simply have to take the initiative and they have to become involved.
Now two weeks ago--coincidentally, I find it very interesting that these resolutions on crime and safety and violence have all come together in the Legislature just within the past week--I was out to the Citizens for Crime Awareness group speaking to the group. We were talking about what citizens can do. Very interestingly, not once during that whole evening that I was there did anybody say to me, will government give us more money? Will government do this? Will government do that? Rather the questions were, how can we raise even more public awareness in the community? How can we as residents of this community do more? So I think maybe this is the approach whether it is in crime or many of the other areas of government, whether it is health, and now I am going to be getting off topic so I will get back to the crime. Again, we come down to the bottom line that people have to be responsible.
One of the things--when I spoke to the group a couple of weeks ago--I said our approach to crime revolves around four principles: (1) criminals must be held accountable and pay the consequences for their criminal acts; (2) the rights of victims are also of importance; (3) the justice system must be fair and accountable; and (4) families and communities have a role and a responsibility to make their area, their city, their province, a safe and good place to live. So those are some of the things that we talked about that evening.
This group of people who were involved with the Citizens for Crime Awareness agree. As I said, they did not come knocking on the door saying what more is government going to do. Their approach was rather how can we as residents of the area, what more can we do. Now our approach as the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) has said many, many times in this House, our strategy to fight crime has been a holistic approach. The member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) talked about an ounce of prevention. Well, one of our strategies is prevention and we have put into place some very good initiatives; the Street Peace, the No Need to Argue program which was initiated just earlier in the year in March 1995.
Again, I think it is interesting to note that the project sponsors for this came from the community; Q-94 FM, the Winnipeg Free Press, Motown records, MTN and the Winnipeg Police Services, plus the school divisions throughout Winnipeg, and of course they also were highlighted with the international hit band, the Cranberries. In fact, the Cranberries provided the public service announcements for this program. It went into the schools and schools helped develop some very specific strategies to help fight crime.
Now, some of the other things that we have done is put in place the gang and youth contact line and this was established in June 1994. It is a pilot project. This province and B.C. are the only provinces in Canada that have such a service. This contact line was designed to provide youth and parents and others with a confidential method of providing and receiving information from the Winnipeg Police Services on youth gangs and crime issues.
Something else that we have done is we have put in place a youth secretariat, again, a co-ordination kind of function to help co-ordinate, to help communicate between the various departments of Justice, Family Services, Health and Education. An antiviolence co-ordinator is another initiative. The community notification process for high-risk sexual offenders, another initiative. The zero tolerance policy, this was put into place by the previous Minister of Justice in 1991.
Now, I mentioned consequences. We believe that criminals must pay the consequences. They must be held accountable for their actions. It is one of the reasons why we brought in some of the--well, not some of, but the toughest drunk driving legislation in Canada.
Of course, a year ago we brought in the made-in-Manitoba boot camp concept. I know some members opposite like to say, what is a boot camp? All you are trying to do is toughen up things. Yes, we are toughening up things. We are trying to bring discipline to the life of the young people who are in the boot camp and deter them from further actions of crime. But we are also trying to do more than just toughen things up for them. We bring in a community service program that they must be involved in, intervention programming that they must take, academics and work preparation, and a very stringent release preparation and supervision program. So it is not a matter of just the punishment only on one side. It is a balanced kind of program in the boot camps.
Of course, for a number of years now, we have been talking at various levels about toughening up the Young Offenders Act. Something else that we feel is very necessary is to make parents more responsible for the property crimes of their children.
The third part I would like to go to right now, Madam Speaker, as to how we see preventing crime, is the community. We very firmly believe that there has to be community support. It cannot be government working by itself. The community must be there along with the government.
* (1700)
Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for St. Vital will have five minutes remaining.
As previously agreed, the hour being 5 p.m., we will now proceed with the next private members' resolution.
Res. 14--Minimum Wage
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), that
WHEREAS the provincial government has a responsibility to ensure that all Manitobans are able to afford a decent standard of living, including adequate nourishment, shelter, clothing and income for some personal expenses; and
WHEREAS in May of 1994 there were an estimated 43,000 people in Manitoba living at or around the minimum wage income, and
WHEREAS the minimum wage in Manitoba provides full-time workers with an income that still falls well short of the poverty line, and does not allow them to provide any sort of quality of life for themselves or for their children; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has only increased the minimum wage in Manitoba once since 1987; and
WHEREAS the minimum wage in this province is insufficient to the extent that an estimated 11,000 working families are forced to use the Winnipeg Harvest food bank; and
WHEREAS the current system of changing the minimum wage abruptly and sporadically at the discretion of the Minister of Labour leads to uncertainty on the part of business--both those already established in Manitoba and those considering investing in our province--as well as on the part of workers.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the provincial government to consider immediately raising the minimum wage in Manitoba to $5.75 per hour, followed by an increase of a further 25 cents after six months; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly urge the provincial government to consider tying the minimum wage to the average industrial wage in Manitoba in order to ensure that the well-being of minimum wage earners is not subject to ad hoc decisions by the Minister of Labour.
Motion presented.
Mr. Reid: It is my pleasure and honour to rise in the House to speak to this resolution and to introduce it for consideration by members of this Chamber.
This has been a topic that has been much on the minds of working people in the province of Manitoba. I know I have had the opportunity to talk with many of my own constituents throughout the last five years, many of those who are currently searching for work, a good number of them who are lucky enough to have work and are working at minimum wage jobs, but, unfortunately, are unable to make ends meet to either support themselves and/or their families.
Of course, as the resolution has already indicated, we have not seen an increase in the minimum wage in this province but once in the last five years. That is unfortunate, considering that there has been a significant increase in the cost of living for the people of this province.
It was interesting to note, too, Madam Speaker, that the government chose to only raise the minimum wage once in the last five years and that they chose to do this a very, very short time before the provincial general election this year. They have convened the Minimum Wage Board, and the Minimum Wage Board, of course, came back with their report, which was dated February 20, 1995, and then it was just one month before the election was called that the then-Minister of Labour indicated that he was going to change the minimum wage in this province in two steps.
Now, many might think that this was done for the purposes of electioneering and that it was only going to be tied to the provincial general election that was just around the corner, since the minister only made the recommendation or the change one month before the election. Maybe members opposite do not believe that or they try to think that the public does not believe that, but it is pretty hard to disguise that fact. [interjection]
Well, if it was good government, then why does this government make an ad hoc adjustment after five years instead of having an orderly adjustment in the minimum wage over a period of time? Perhaps my view of the world is somewhat idealistic in that I would like to see an orderly fashion of adjustment to the minimum wage, but then again, if you talk to the people who are working at minimum wage jobs and trying to support themselves or their families, they find it very difficult to do, and in a few moments I will give you an example of some of the costs that they would incur and how it is difficult, so that members opposite who are earning the income that they have and are driving government cars will realize that the working poor of this province living on minimum wage--[interjection] You charge your own to us, exactly, so you are still being compensated. [interjection] You are right. That is the case. But at the same time, I am willing to admit that there needs to be some adjustment in the minimum wage to allow those people to have a decent standard of living, something that you are not prepared to do, Mr. Minister.
So what we need to do, Madam Speaker--the previous Minister of Labour has indicated that one month before the election call, he was going to change the minimum wage in this province and he was going to do it in a two-step fashion.
Of course, we have before us the report from the Minimum Wage Board, the report that they brought back and that there was not a consensus of that board.
Some of their recommendations ranged from $5.15 an hour up to $5.75 an hour for the minimum wage. That was the range of recommendations. Now, one does not have to be a rocket scientist to understand who was proposing the $5.15-an-hour. It is very clear where that recommendation came from, and it is very easy to see that the $5.75-an-hour recommendation was coming from representatives of working people. That is very obvious and clear to see for everyone who would look at this.
One of the things that I notice is that this government brought forward, as I said, Madam Speaker, recommendations to increase the minimum wage from $5 an hour up to $5.25 an hour on July 1 of 1995, and then on the second step, they are going to take the minimum wage from $5.25 an hour, and on January 1, 1996, increase it to $5.40 an hour. That still leaves the minimum wage earners of this province at 70 percent of the poverty rate. So earning minimum wage and trying to support yourself and/or a family, you will still be at less than poverty income for the people living in this province.
Now, I do not think that is any kind of recommendation for the people in this province to say that Manitoba treats their working people fairly. Since this government was elected, in the last seven to eight years, inflation has gone up dramatically, and it is only just recently that the inflation has been wrestled under control as the federal government likes to talk about. Mind you, we have seen a much higher level of unemployment in this country than we had previously, but we have got inflation under control; we just do not have as many people working.
I do not know how we are better off in a situation like that, but I guess that is the wisdom of the federal government. At the same time, while the inflation was going up some 40-plus percent, the minimum wage, by the adjustments of this government, went up just over 12 percent. How are the working people of this province that are living at minimum wage going to earn or keep up with the level of inflation in this province with an adjustment that this government has made in the two steps up to $5.40 an hour.
Now, I took a look at some of the comments that were made. Working people thought it was unfair and unrealistic of the government to tie the minimum wage to the level that they did into the two steps. I thought for a while that there was going to be some hue and cry from the business community to the government's adjustment. But if you take a look at the comments here, the then-executive vice-president of the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce says, and I will quote, that this increase is not of great concern or a moment to the business community.
So it is obviously not onerous to the business community. The question that I have in my mind, if it is not onerous to them, and there was a recommendation to a level that would ensure more fairness, then why were they not asking for it, in the Minimum Wage Board, something that would be more realistic to allow the working families and the working poor of this province to achieve a decent standard of living? Now, that has not occurred. So the business community is already saying that they could have withstood and were able to pay for something that would have been more substantial and more fair for the working people.
I take a look at some of the statistics that we have got here relating to the number of working poor families. I mean, Manitoba has got the distinction, the unfortunate distinction, of having the highest child poverty level rate in the country. I believe it is 64,000 children living in poverty. That is a pretty sad statistic and damning statement for the province, and the efforts by this government or lack of efforts to try and do something about the problems. It is not the children that go out and work at the minimum wage jobs, but it is the parents that go out and work at the minimum wage jobs and try and support these children.
One also finds, when looking at statistics in this province, that of the people holding down the minimum wage jobs in this province, 67 percent of those people are women. A lot of them are working mothers, single parents, getting paid minimum-wage jobs, trying to support their families.
If one takes a look at the National Council of Welfare, they have guidelines, and I will read them into the record, that state that a single person in Manitoba is at the poverty line if they earn $7.42 an hour, and this government comes in with a recommendation, a two-step change, that will only increase the minimum wage to $5.40 an hour--[interjection]
* (1710)
Now, these are not my figures, Madam Speaker. This is the National Council of Welfare. The Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) thinks that this is a joke, and he has absolutely no compassion and understanding for the working poor of this province. That is $2 an hour that this province has set as the minimum wage level--$2 an hour lower than what the National Council of Welfare guidelines state is required to live at the poverty level in the province of Manitoba. [interjection]
We have said, for the interest of the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), whose own former leader, who used to sit in this Chamber, said during the recent election campaign that he, too, would raise the minimum wage and that he would raise it up to about $5.50 an hour. So he gave 10 more cents an hour. He was pretty generous.
Now, for an individual that is making $70,000 a year--he gets a small stipend from the party to pay for his dry-cleaning expenses, and he has, obviously, other sources of income because I know, Madam Speaker, that while he was sitting in this Chamber, he was also working as legal counsel, obviously getting other income and then says that the minimum wage rates of this province should only be raised to $5.50 an hour. That is pretty generous of him, I must admit.
Now, we have said through the election campaign--[interjection] It is the National Council of Welfare. What we are saying, what we said during the election campaign, and let me be very clear about this--[interjection] You hold on a sec. Let me be very clear and explain. We have said that we want to take the minimum wage and establish it at $5.75 an hour. That is the starting point. After six months, we would increase that by 25 cents an hour. We would then take the minimum wage of this province, and, instead of making ad hoc adjustments through the Minister of Labour and the Department of Labour at his or her call, whoever that person may be, we would tie that to the average industrial wage for the province. So as the average industrial wage of the province made adjustments, the minimum wage would follow accordingly. [interjection]
Now, I do not want to have to do the research for the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). He can sit here, and he can ask questions. Now, if he does not have the ability to go back to his research staff and do some of the research on the topics, maybe he should spend some of his time not only talking to his constituents but researching the impact of the minimum wage.
I listened to members opposite, Madam Speaker, when they were referencing the fact that there would be spiralling unemployment as a result of this change that we have proposed. There were studies that were done that said that the review has turned up evidence that the minimum wage increase would have no significant impact on unemployment so that there would be no--[interjection] No, these are not my words. These are studies that were done saying that the changes to the minimum wage rate of this province would have no significant impact on unemployment in this province.
Therefore, I suggest that, based on the studies that independent sources have done, it would be reasonable to assume that we could raise the wage rates in this province without having significant impact. At one time, Madam Speaker, Manitoba's minimum wage rate was at 110 percent of the poverty line for this province. Now that has significantly dropped so that we are at less than 50 percent of the funds that are required to live at the poverty level. So we have seen a significant erosion or decline. There are other figures that are available looking through the Manitoba Bureau of Statistics too, so there is other information that could be available.
I am sure that if the members opposite, and I know the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) may have an opportunity here in a few moments to add his comments, how he himself or other members opposite that think it is so great and wonderful to live on the minimum wage, how you could support a family on $216 a week working a 40-hour week. Then how can you say in good conscience that the minimum wage is adequate at $5.40 an hour? Madam Speaker, $11,232 a year would be your income working full time at this province's minimum wage rate of $5.40 an hour. You have $500 a month for rent if you are living on your own; your food could be in the range of $330 for a single person; clothes, $50 to $100 a month. Your expenses could range from a thousand to $1,300 a month on an income of $864 gross. How can any member of this House live on that and in good conscience--
* (1720)
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to this resolution. Clearly, members on all sides of the House, including the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), wish to take meaningful and effective steps as may be necessary to minimize poverty. Clearly, none of us want poverty. We want to minimize poverty. We want to reduce it, and we want, hopefully, one day to eliminate it, even though--as one of the members across the way who was a minister or still might be a minister, the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), may well be familiar with the Biblical statement, the poor you always have with you. In spite of being Biblical, I still think that we have an obligation to try to rid our society of poverty. I think the member for Burrows would agree with that as well. That is right.
This challenge to reduce poverty is particularly important because of the innocent people who are affected by poverty, and no one takes that lightly. The question, however, that this resolution poses for me is whether this resolution and the measures proposed will in fact effectively deal with ensuring the well-being of minimum wage earners.
My concern with the resolution is twofold. The first is the statement in the resolution, whereas the current system of changing the minimum wage abruptly and sporadically at the discretion of the Minister of Labour leads to uncertainty. Now, I would suggest that that statement is an insult to the many people who took part in the current system of changing and recommending changes to our minimum wage laws. There are many individuals who came to the hearings and made representations. There were individuals on the Minimum Wage Board representative of the views of employees who considered those representations. There were members representative of the views of employers who considered those representations and, finally, there was a chairperson who considered those representations. Many took part in that process.
Just for the record, to dispel the illusion that this is somehow done on a whim, perhaps the record should be set straight. What in fact is the process? Well, in this particular case, the former Minister of Labour requested the Minimum Wage Board to convene as soon as possible to provide the minister with its recommendations. In his request, the minister said, I trust that the board would be sensitive to both the needs of workers and the--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am experiencing great difficulty in hearing the honourable Minister of Labour.
Mr. Toews: I must say, Madam Speaker, that members of the opposition were in fact listening attentively. I know. I am not above pointing a finger in the other direction from time to time either. In this particular case, the members of the opposition were sitting and listening. Now, whether they understand what I am saying is another thing. Anyway, I am not passing judgment in that respect.
The minister at that time indicated, I trust that the board would be sensitive to both the needs of workers and the ability of the economy to support wage adjustments in an increasingly competitive business environment. In carrying out its mandate, the board is required to look at sections of the statute that give it its jurisdiction.
In particular, subsection 28(5) of The Employment Standards Act provides: "A board, in settling the recommendation it makes to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, shall take into consideration, and be guided by, the cost to an employee of purchasing the necessities of life and health."
So the recommendations or the request by the minister to the board is governed by legislation which sets out certain parameters or concerns that the board must be mindful of.
In this particular case then, after hearing from over, if my notes are not incorrect, 100 representations--[interjection] 115, I am advised by the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) who is paying close attention to this. So what was the outcome?
Well, the employees' representatives suggested to the Minister of Labour of the day that the minimum wage be increased by 75 cents to $5.75 per hour, effective July 1, 1995. They suggested that future increases in the minimum wage take place annually on July 1 of every year, based on 45 percent of the Manitoba average weekly earnings industrial aggregate, among other recommendations.
Then the members' representative of the views of employers made certain recommendations, and they submitted those recommendations to the chairman of the board, the recommendations made by those who--let me see here--recommended that a new employment wage of $5.25 be introduced in two increments: July 1, 1995, at $5.15 an hour and December 31, 1995, at $5.25 an hour. [interjection]
No, there was no consensus in that. That indicates the very, very complex nature of the consideration. Those representative of employee views had one view. They brought that to the table, and they brought that to the attention of the minister. Those representative of the views of employers brought another view, and there were various submissions that they summarized.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business recommended that the increase be 10 cents an hour. The Manitoba Chamber of Commerce suggested among other things that there be a flat rate of $5.25 for all workers. The Manitoba Restaurant and Food Services Association indicated that the industry cannot bear additional costs of an increase. So there were many representations considered by the board and ultimately then it falls to the responsibility of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to consider all the recommendations and come up with a conclusion that is fair, and it did in fact make those considerations.
Now, the resolution states that that is an arbitrary artificial process and yet the solution is an automatic tying to an average wage rate. So whatever that average wage rate is, it is tied to that. It gives absolutely no discretion to people or to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to say in view of all the facts, in view of concerns with inflation, in view of concerns with unemployment, in view of all those things--
An Honourable Member: But you are abdicating responsibility through balanced budgets and now you are saying the minister should have it, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.
Mr. Toews: Well, my learned colleague across the way states that we have abdicated responsibility in respect of balanced budgets and that is another issue which is being debated in this House. On that issue I prefer not to mortgage my children's future. The honourable member does not mind mortgaging his children's future and the peoples of Manitoba's children.
In any event, so we have a proposal that is fraught with the difficulties that he seeks to cure, and I would suggest there is nothing arbitrary about the democratic process. There is nothing arbitrary about citizens coming before a board making recommendations and giving the decision makers the information that they must use to make a decision. We do it in our judicial system. We do it with our administrative tribunals. We do it in every facet of life, and that is in fact the best way to ensure that a minimum wage is responsive to every concern in our community.
* (1730)
Minimum wages are necessary and we accept that and that is why in fact we made the proposal that we did. Minimum wages can go to some extent to assist people in poverty, but we are not naive enough to believe that minimum wages cure poverty. It is the same as saying laws create money. Regulations create jobs. They do not, they do not. I would suggest that the overall thrust of this government's policy in creating jobs, in creating investment, in creating the opportunities for people to be employed, that is the way we are going to break the poverty cycle. Clearly, economic initiatives by themselves are not sufficient. I agree with that. Social programs are important to assist those who cannot assist themselves. We agree with that. We agree--well, most of us anyway--[interjection] Most of us in this House. Unfortunately, the people across the way may not. As I look around my side of the building here, I think we can say "we here," or I can say "we," Madam Speaker.
In any event, we do not want to regulate jobs out of existence. We do not want to set up roadblocks to investment. We want laws that encourage investment, that protect workers, that reduce the level of poverty. That is the aim of this government. That is the aim of considering what is an appropriate minimum wage law. I think we have accomplished that. Sometimes the process does not work perfectly; in this particular situation, I believe it worked very well. But there are other initiatives that we have to be mindful of, that we must in fact ensure that--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister's time has expired.
Mr. Mike Radcliffe (River Heights): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise this afternoon to echo the remarks of my learned friend the honourable Minister of Labour.
I would like to put a few other remarks on the record at this time. I believe that the honourable minister has outlined in very good detail the due process which the department followed in establishing the limits that they did. I would suggest that this is one more point where it shows that the Filmon government is truly listening to the representations that are coming from the people of Manitoba.
In order to truly understand the resolution that the honourable opposition member has raised, I think some attention should be focused upon the preambles of the resolution. I would suggest, with the greatest of respect, that the preamble which reads, "in May of 1994 there were an estimated 43,000 people in Manitoba living at or around the minimum wage income," that those are challengeable figures. In fact, the opposition member is fudging the question by saying "an estimated 43,000."
An Honourable Member: Is he stretching the truth?
Mr. Radcliffe: Well, they have been known to do that.
The labour figures which come from our department indicate that there are approximately 8,000 people in Manitoba in 1994 working at the minimum wage level and there may be a further 22,000 people near that level, but 43,000 is gilding the lily, I would suggest, with the greatest of respect.
The next point, I think, which deserves some attention is the next preamble, where my learned friend, the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), suggests the minimum wage provides full-time workers with an income that still falls well short of the poverty line.
Well, is this the poverty line again in Toronto? Has the opposition been trying to be deceitful and take figures from--[interjection] I am just saying "trying to be deceitful," and taking figures from the statistics from the streets in Toronto and applying those to Winnipeg levels?
Madam Speaker, I would suggest that in fact this may also be a misinterpretation of the reality.
Point of Order
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that Beauchesne's has ruled "deceive" and "deceived" unparliamentary, I would ask the member to withdraw the word "deceitful."
Mr. Radcliffe: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, what I was saying was that if the learned opposition was trying to be deceitful--and I was in no way saying that they were deceitful, but I was saying that the information could be misinterpreted and that in fact it was my duty as the member of this Legislature from River Heights to suggest that in fact I had to correct the record. [interjection]
Madam Speaker, if in fact I have caused any offence to the honourable members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, I would certainly be more than pleased to withdraw the reference to deceit, because I would in no way want to imply that any member on this side of the House was deceitful.
Madam Speaker: Order, please; order, please. I have recognized the honourable member for River Heights on the point of order, and I have not made a ruling on the point of order at this point in time.
On the point of order, the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) is correct. Both "deceit" and "deceived" are indeed on both unparliamentary lists. However, it is difficult to know without seeing the exact citation in which context those words were used. However, I would like to caution all honourable members to pick and choose their words carefully, and we now, I think, are very cognizant of the fact that there is not to be any direct utilization of unparliamentary words directed to a specific member or all members. All honourable members in this Assembly are referred to as honourable members.
Point of Order
Mr. Reid: On a new point of order, Madam Speaker, I need some direction.
When the point of order had been raised by the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) and asked for your guidance and direction on this matter, the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) continued with his dialogue, and I am wondering if it is appropriate, Madam Speaker, to have this contained within the Hansard or whether or not you had indeed recognized the member for River Heights to allow him to continue and that there still has not been an apology and that the reference had been made directly to the member for Transcona.
I ask for your guidance and direction on this, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the member for Transcona's point of order, it is not a point of order. All comments on record remain on record. If indeed the ruling was that the member had cited an unparliamentary remark, the Speaker would, if I had ascertained without doubt that the speaker had made an unparliamentary remark, the Speaker would have asked the honourable member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) to withdraw that comment and the remarks then that would be contained in Hansard would be: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
I am seeking the recognition by the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) that indeed that is clarification on the point of order.
Mr. Reid: I am just concerned that there has been a fair degree of latitude given to the member for River Heights here to allow him to continue making remarks on the record without being recognized by the Speaker and that that was while you were taking under advisement and dealing with the matter on the point of order raised by the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
Now, Madam Speaker, I want to ensure that if that is the case that the same rules will apply to members on this side, that we will have the opportunity as well.
Madam Speaker: I understand fully what the honourable member for Transcona is saying, and I would remind the honourable member for River Heights that once I recognize him for a point of order, he indeed speaks only to the point of order addressed, then sits down and awaits the ruling by the Speaker.
I thank the honourable member for Transcona for his advice.
* (1740)
* * *
Mr. Radcliffe: Madam Speaker, I was addressing my attention to the preamble contained in the ill-founded, I would suggest with the greatest of respect, resolution which has been advanced by the honourable member for Transcona.
The next preamble which I think deserves some attention is the clause which says, whereas the minimum wage in this province is insufficient to the extent that there are an estimated 11,000 working families forced to use the Harvest bank.
I would suggest, with the greatest of respect, that what the language is saying here and the type of thinking that is trying to be presented is that the motion is saying, the people who are using the food bank are the people who are drawing the minimum wage. I do not think that there is any substantiation to that fact at all.
In fact, Madam Speaker, there has been a scholarship prepared which are characteristics of the minimum wage earners of Manitoba which shows, and I believe we have heard that figure today in this House, that 1.8 percent of the employed workforce in Manitoba are estimated to earn the minimum wage. These figures show that there are many female people involved in this. They are people who are in the restaurant industry, they are people in the accommodation industry. These are people who are largely--I would suggest that up to 60 percent of these people are students and they are part-time employees. I would suggest that if the minimum wage is going to be raised to the level which the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) has suggested that what that will do is have the effect of cutting off this opportunity for employment. Employers will look at the situation and they will see that this has put this category of employees beyond the reach of their type of business.
Another point I think which deserves some significant attention at this point is that there would only be a small proportion of what we classify as the poor who would benefit from this raise. The poor can be categorized regretfully as those people who are on assistance, the unemployed, the people who are unable to find work and people who are perhaps on fixed investment income or pensions or things of another nature. These are people who are unrelated to the minimum wage. So therefore to equate poverty to the minimum wage is a misnomer and I believe is not properly representing the facts as they actually exist.
Another very significant issue is that the low-paid may not necessarily be poor. Those recipients of the minimum wage may in many, many cases be people who have access to a second income, may be people who are seeking a higher level of study, a higher level of qualification and are resorting to minimum wage jobs in order to fulfill their educational needs. They are people who may be involved in long-term relationships of one kind or another and have access to a partner who has a significant income.
Another point which I believe the honourable minister made reference to which was considered during the deliberations of the Minimum Wage Board was that minimum wage legislation has the effect of reducing employment. There are many, many businesses in this province, and we know that the majority of the employers in this province are small-business people employing 10 or fewer employees, and if the minimum wage is raised to such a height that these people are put beyond the reach of small-time employers, then those jobs evaporate from the market.
One last point, Madam Speaker, is that the effect of raising the minimum wage will have an inflationary aspect on the economy of the province, because there will tend to be a corresponding reflection of a rise in the general overall wages which would not improve the employment of the people of Manitoba.
I thank you very much for the opportunity of addressing these few remarks to this topic.
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I rise because members opposite said they have not heard my voice for a long time, so they wanted to hear me, so here we go. [interjection] Now the Minister of Highways (Mr. Findlay) regrets he said that. I thought I was giving them a treat by being quiet.
I just want to say a few words. Maybe somebody else wants to speak. I have a few words to say, because it is an interesting topic, and it is an old topic. These arguments we have heard on both sides have been heard in this House for years. I have been here 25, 26 years; the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) has been here 29 years, but I am sure he will say this too, that we have heard these arguments on both sides for a long time. It maybe comes down to a value judgment as to what you think is the right wage, what is the proper wage, but I want to tell the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), his description of the process of a Minimum Wage Board hearing representation from all sides, from unions, from poverty groups, from business and so on, is not a new story; I mean, this has been going on for a long time. We have had a Minimum Wage Board in this province for many, many years, and this is the process.
Then, of course, the process is that the board makes a representation to the minister or gives him a report, and the minister goes over it and then he goes to his cabinet colleagues and they bat it around. You finally have to make the judgment as to what you think is fair and is adequate. Like all matters of judgment, we have differences of views. I would be inclined to bring it up a little faster than the members opposite, and I think one of the reasons why you find so many businesses today paying above the minimum wage is that your minimum wage increase has not really kept up with what is expected to be an increase in minimum wage, which, in turn, partly reflects the increase in the cost of living.
* (1750)
So it is not unusual to find a lot of small employers today saying, hey, we pay more than minimum wage. The reason for that is, as I said, I do not think the government has kept up with its increases. As the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) has said, this is the first we have won since 1987. And now the proposal is for $5.40 an hour, which, when you consider other provinces are adjusting right now, puts us not in the middle but towards the lower end. B.C., I am told, is going up to $7 an hour, shortly.
Now, admittedly, wage rates are higher on the coast. Our wage rates here tend to be a bit lower, and so one can understand that. But the fact is, I just could not believe my ears, the last speaker when he was saying, well, one of the arguments against raising the minimum wage is that was going to be inflationary. Surely, you do not mean that, because you just told us that there was a very small percentage of the workforce that was affected by the minimum wage, and really I cannot accept the argument that suddenly the demand for consumer goods and services is going to expand so dramatically because we raise the minimum wage by a few cents that suddenly we are going to get massive inflation in Manitoba. I just really cannot accept that kind of an argument.
You know, people are hurting out there. I know the figures are showing more people being employed in Manitoba. I might say that that is a relatively recent phenomenon because up until the last six, seven, eight months Manitoba was lagging very badly in terms of job creation; in fact, we were going backwards. We were getting fewer jobs. The longer this government stayed in, the fewer the jobs we had. I have got all the figures here if anyone wants to argue. I will show you the tables and you will see how the level of jobs did decrease, but we have some expansion now, for different reasons, incidentally, Madam Speaker, because of a relatively cheap Canadian dollar vis-à-vis the American dollar. That is expanding our exports which, in turn, are creating the jobs in this province, plus the healthy agricultural industry--that helps too.
There are many factors at work in job creations. We want Manitobans to work. Unfortunately--[interjection] With all due respect, I doubt very much if the taxation regime in this province has much bearing on job creation. Really. There are more important things than the schedule of taxation, far more important. If you were setting up a business, the more important thing is, you look at all your cost factors. Certainly taxes are one. It is not the most important, especially if you are talking about income tax because, if you do not make any profit, you do not pay any tax.
The fact is, if you are going to go into business, you are going to look at: Is there a demand for your goods or your services? Is there in fact a demand? Can you sell the products? Can you sell your services? That has to be critical. What is the market like in Manitoba? Then you want to look at your labour costs. You want to look at your transfer costs. There are all these things that you have to take into consideration. With all due respect, there has not been that much of a change in taxes in Manitoba that would make any significant difference.
In my judgment--[interjection] Since you have been in government--that would make any significant difference to job creation. There are factors out there beyond, and I would say, I mention a couple of them, the health of the agriculture industry and certainly the value of the Canadian dollar.
The member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) suggested a different approach, and this has been proposed years gone by, and what it does is it takes the arbitrariness out of it. Once you made a decision as to what you think is a fair minimum wage, a reasonable minimum wage, one that we can afford, that is fair on both sides, then you tie it into the aggregate average industrial wage, and you get automatic indexation year by year if the wages go up. So if the wages go up by 1 percent or 2 percent in a given year, that will be reflected in the automatic increase in the minimum wage. I would say that that process is fair.
The biggest challenge is deciding in the first place what the level should be when you begin this process. The member for Transcona was talking about the NDP position of raising it to $5.75, then another 25 cents and in six months time to bring it up to $6. He also referred to $7.42 being the poverty line. It is rather interesting that if you take Manitoba's average industrial wage and the latest figures we have available from Stats Canada and published in one of these Manitoba statistical reviews, $503.01, if you divide that by 40, you get an average of $12.57 per hour in Manitoba. So that is the average industrial hourly wage in this province as of March 1995. That is the latest we have here.
If you were to decide that you take 60 percent of it, that 60 percent brings you to about $7.55 an hour, which is just above the $7.42 an hour that the National Council of Welfare guideline state that a single person in Manitoba is at if it would be deemed to be at the poverty line. The poverty line in Manitoba is deemed to be at $7.42 an hour. According to the National Council of Welfare--[interjection] I do not know how they figure this; I am just telling you that is what they report.
If we did go to 60 percent of the average industrial wage, $7.55, we would be just above the poverty line. I do not know whether we would want to go immediately up to that amount, to $7.55, whether we could manage it that quickly. Maybe a government would have to say, well, we will do it in stages over two or three years or whatever and then get to that 60 percent level.
The point I want to make, Madam Speaker, is that it is not just the 1.8 percent of the employed workforce that is estimated to be earning the minimum wage. This is from a press release put out by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), so I presume it is correct.
It is not just that, but it is the fact that there are many workers in certain industries that are impacted by the minimum wage. One that comes to mind especially is the garment industry or the fashion trade or fashion industry, however you wish to describe it, because those people are mainly on piecework, but the minimum wage is a base. So the employers in that industry are very, very sensitive to what governments do to minimum wage. So it is not just those people who are on the minimum wage, but it is all those people working in industries whose employers have a payment schedule, primarily the piecework, that is directly impacted by the minimum wage.
That has been my experience. If our government when we were in office in years back was considering that, the garment industry was in there. I would be surprised if they did not make representation to the Minimum Wage Board this time stating their case for not raising it very much if at all.
I just want to make this comment in closing, because we are running out of time, and that is that there are, regrettably, too many people even at that percentage that is quoted here, 1.8 percent. There are just too many people out there that are having to work and live on the minimum wage. I recall not long ago in Brandon running into this young woman who was serving me in the restaurant, my wife and me in the restaurant, in the morning. She was at the minimum wage in a restaurant in Brandon. In the afternoon we went to one of the supermarkets and here she was at the cash register working in the afternoon. That woman had to work at two jobs and she could not survive just working part time on the minimum wage. That is true of so many, many people.
During the election I, indeed, ran into a lot of young people in particular who were really concerned, and they asked me, what about the minimum wage? What will you guys do if you get in? What will your party do if you get in with the minimum wage? I told them, we would look at it very favourably and generously and fairly. The other point I want to make--well, I actually quoted our platform. The platform are the numbers that the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) mentioned. I quoted that and I said also that we would also like to tie it into the average industrial wage.
Another point I want to make which is very critical, when you make a decision, when the Minister of Labour and government make a decision on this, you also have to compare what we are paying for welfare. What does the social assistance person get on welfare? You have to compare it. If you do not bring your minimum wage up satisfactorily or fast enough you will find that people do not have an incentive to get off of welfare and work. You remove that incentive, and I am not saying that people do not want to work. I think most people want to work, but that is a reality that you have to take into account. So please be concerned about that.
I really did not plan to speak, Madam Speaker, until the Minister of Highways (Mr. Findlay) suggested that he would love to hear my voice. I think maybe we can sit down. Maybe people would like to vote on this because I think it is an important issue, and we would like to have a vote on it. Maybe we have 30 seconds, and perhaps the Speaker will call the question.
Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Madam Speaker, because we have such a short time I would just like to, for the record, correct a couple of the items expressed by the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans). As of January 1, 1996, when the minimum wage in Manitoba rises to $5.40, the adult minimum wage rates in Canada, that puts us ahead of Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Alberta, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and the federal minimum wage.
I would like to suggest that is not in the lagging or the bottom end--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Turtle Mountain will have 14 minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).