LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday, June 24, 1992
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
Speaker's Statement
Mr.
Speaker: Prior to Routine Proceedings, I have a
statement for the House.
I must inform the House that Edward James
Connery, the honourable member for
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Ms.
Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I beg to present the petition of Violet Thurston, Eleanor Heminger, Elio
Mancinelli and others requesting the
government consider restoring the former full
funding of $700,000 to fight Dutch elm disease.
Mr.
Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I beg to
present the petition of Carol Kendrick,
Angele Kernel, Ted Zarn and 1,100 others
requesting the government consider reviewing the funding of the
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): I
beg to present the petition of Kim
Lalonde, Brenda Osborne, Kathy Clark and
others urging the government consider establishing an office of the Children's Advocate,
independent of cabinet and reporting
directly to this Assembly.
PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL
COMMITTEES
Mrs.
Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply sat yesterday
afternoon and last evening and has
considered the concurrence motion, directs me to report progress and asks leave to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member for
Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the
report of the committee be received.
Motion
agreed to.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Hon.
Gerald Ducharme (Minister responsible for Seniors):
Mr. Speaker, I have a ministerial
statement.
It gives me great pleasure to invite the
members of this House to join me in
celebrating tomorrow, Thursday, June 25, as
Seniors Day in
Seniors Month gives us a special opportunity
to thank our seniors for their role in
making
Seniors' contributions have had an enormous
impact on our lives and continue to
enrich our communities. Their knowledge and experience guides our youth in their
quest for a better tomorrow. Their energy is an inspiration and motivation
to all of us.
As we gather tomorrow, we will recognize
Seniors Day. It is fitting that we consider and acknowledge how
much our seniors have shaped the quality
of our existence in the past, present and
the many years to come.
Mr. Speaker, in recognition that senior
citizens' achievements have improved our
lives and continue to give us great hope
for the future, I ask the members of this House to join me in extending sincere thanks and best
wishes to all
* (1335)
Mr.
Conrad Santos (Broadway): Mr. Speaker, we are happy that at least this government has continued this
tradition of recognizing Seniors Day,
which was started by the NDP.
While we are happy about this continuation of
this tradition on behalf of our citizens
who have contributed their lives and
their talents for the improvement of this province, we are very unhappy and disappointed on behalf of seniors
on the failure of this government to
again correct the deindexing of 55 Plus for
our unfortunate senior citizens.
We are unhappy on behalf of seniors, for they
are again imposing a new tax on the Blue
Cross, which will have its detrimental
effect on the bulk of our senior citizens, but
Seniors Day should be continued, and all good practices should have their day in this Legislature. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow will be Seniors Day at the Legislature, and along with the New Democratic Party and the
Conservative Party, we welcome the
seniors here.
However, we wonder about the amount of money
that will be spent on that particular
enjoyment of that day here at the
Legislature when money has been denied those very same seniors in programs such as 55 Plus which is no longer
indexed, and never was indexed under the
NDP, and the Shelter Allowance‑‑
Some
Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
* (1340)
Point of Order
Mr. Leonard
Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is in order for any member of this
Legislature to mislead this House‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member does not have
a point of order. It is clearly a
dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mrs.
Carstairs: The seniors know how much money they got
under the NDP.
Mr. Speaker, the other issue, of course, is
that the shelter allowance has also been
frozen. So there is a lack of funding to make those very seniors, the so‑called
economically vibrant partners whom the
minister makes reference to in his notes today.
So while they are wandering around the
Legislature tomorrow, I only hope that
some of those who are able to come will be those individuals who would be able to come more
easily if they had enough money on a day‑to‑day
basis for their food and their shelter
and, tragically enough, do not have enough money on a day‑to‑day basis because of the
unwillingness of this government to meet
their needs.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Economic Growth
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier.
In December, six months ago, the Premier made
four economic boasts in this House, in
Hansard, about the
Mr. Speaker, six months later, we have the
reality of those boasts, the reality
that the member for
Will the Premier now, instead of boasting
about the future, take really strong
action as chair of the Economic Committee of
Cabinet, and will he call together the various groups in
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, we see the prince of darkness again quoting statistics that he
likes to quote about 1991, always
looking through the rearview mirror and gloating about the difficulties of the
Manitobans are not looking for that kind of
leadership. Manitobans are looking
forward positively. They know the statistics that we quoted in December for
1992, for 1993 and for 1994 are still
valid. We are going to be, according to
all of the recent economic forecasts, in
the top three or four in the country,
above the national average in growth for '92, '93 and '94.
In fact, the most recent survey that was just
out yesterday from CIBC says: The recovery in 1992 is expected to be
somewhat stronger than the national
average in
They go on to talk about agriculture having a
better year. They go on to say that
overall, in '92, '93, '94, we will
continue to outperform the national average. That is the
forecast, and it remains valid, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Doer: I would refer the Premier back to his own
boasts in December, in Hansard, when
this session first started, Mr. Speaker. They are all his words in this Chamber. These were his so‑called forward‑looking views
six months ago, and he is wrong, wrong,
wrong all the way through his predictions.
One of the things that is becoming abundantly
clear, Mr. Speaker, is that this Premier
and his office do not listen to
Manitobans. Whether it is
legislation on social assistance, they
were not listening to Manitobans.
Whether it is legislation on
child advocates, they were not listening to Manitobans. Whether
it is legislation dealing with police, they were not listening to Manitobans until they were forced to do
otherwise.
On and on and on‑‑with the
economy, they are not listening to
Manitobans. In fact, this Premier
is not even listening to members of his
own caucus, Mr. Speaker. He is not even
listening to members of his own caucus.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask this Premier to change
his style and change the style of his
government and call together an economic
summit so that all Manitobans would have access to the Premier in terms of the province, so that we can work
together in a consensus with all
Manitobans rather than a few select members of
the economy whom the Premier chooses.
Will he call an economic summit
and involve all Manitobans in that?
* (1345)
Mr.
Filmon: Mr. Speaker, you know, again, the Leader of
the Opposition is wrong, wrong,
wrong. Number one, he is basing all of his information on last year's
statistics. He is not looking at all of the forecasts‑‑'92, '93
and '94‑‑which are saying that
we will outperform the national average in '92, '93 and '94.
Secondly, he says that this government has not
listened. On the bill, with respect to‑‑
Some
Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr.
Doer: Again, Mr. Speaker, all the predictions the
Premier made in Hansard in December are
wrong. All the predictions of the Premier, the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) and the Minister of Industry,
Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) last year
at this time are all wrong.
Mr. Speaker, we need an economic approach that
involves all Manitobans, not just a
select few. Why will the Premier not
call an economic summit, an economic
summit that was just called with
business, labour and government in British Columbia‑‑a
province, by the way, that is predicted
by all the forecasters to lead all other
provinces in
Why will the Premier not call an economic
summit with all Manitobans being
involved in a consensus way to solve our
problems rather than just a select few who have the ear of the Premier?
Mr.
Filmon: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying when I was so
rudely interrupted, the Leader of the
Opposition was wrong when he said that
we did not listen to the presentations of the City of
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the
Child Advocate, that bill was just
passed this morning, and nobody voted against
it in this House. So if it so
wrong, why did the opposition not vote
against it? Again, he is wrong‑‑again.
With respect to the issue of a summit or a
discussion of all groups in the economy
with respect to the economy, I attended
last Thursday and Friday a two‑day session of the Economic Innovation and Technology Council, at which
point one of the decisions that was made
by that council was to hold just such a
seminar, just such a conference in
Rural Economic Development
Video Lottery Revenues
Ms.
Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Rural
Development.
Mr. Speaker, this government has failed
dismally in its economic development
plan for rural
Mr. Speaker, video lottery revenue was
promised to be spent to stimulate rural
economic growth and to create permanent jobs
rather than to cover up government cutbacks in Natural Resources and student funding.
Will the minister give his commitment that
money from Video Lottery Terminals will
be put back into the rural economy to
stimulate it, to have economic growth and to have real jobs, not cover‑ups?
* (1350)
Hon.
Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development):
I certainly do not accept any of
the preamble that has been put forth by
the member for
Mr. Speaker, let me just give you an
illustration of what has happened in
terms of rural economic development issues in this province since this government has been in
power.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, it was this
government that introduced the Grow
Bonds program in
Mr. Speaker, it is also this government that
has put a substantial amount of money
into the rural economy through the GRIP
program. I will not accept any of the
rhetoric put forth by the member for
Ms.
Wowchuk: Well, the minister is not listening to
rural Manitobans. Millions of dollars have been raised on
Video Lottery Terminals; 95 percent of
this money comes from rural
Since all of the revenue comes out of rural
Mr.
Derkach: Mr. Speaker, it is only a mere four or five
days ago that the Leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Doer) stood in his place,
as the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) did, and criticized this government for not putting
forward employment programs for the
youth in
We have done just that. We have put forward a program for rural
Minister's Commitment
Ms.
Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for
Ms.
Wowchuk: Since this government has broken its promises on decentralization, and mayors and reeves
across the province are upset with this
government on this decision to take Video Lottery Terminal funds out of economic development,
when is this minister going to show some
leadership, stand up for rural people and urge
this government to have some commitment to economic growth, real economic growth in rural
Hon.
Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development):
Mr. Speaker, I am extremely happy
that the member raised the question of
decentralization, because 720 jobs will be decentralized to rural
Mr. Speaker, $25‑million worth of
payroll will be going into rural
This is a sincere and a serious commitment to
the economic development policies for
rural
Constitutional Proposal
Public Hearings
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, the ongoing
constitutional negotiations cause us grave
concerns. It would appear that
the Premier is going to be meeting with
other Premiers if he accepts the invitation for
lunch with the Prime Minister next Monday, and we are concerned as to what his position will be at those
discussions. We asked a week ago, I specifically asked him, if, when
the tentative agreement among First
Ministers was reached, the public would be
given the opportunity through public hearing process to give their opinions as to whether they accepted
that tentative deal.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it appears that we have
come a long way from the original
position of the people of this province, as reported in the
Mr. Speaker, my question is: How does the Premier reconcile his answer to my request last week and this
recommendation in the task force report?
* (1355)
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): Very simply, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have the proposals go before a
public committee of this Legislature to
be reviewed and commented on by the public before any resolution will be voted upon in this
Legislature. So the public will have full input and full
opportunity to do that.
I have said before that I would not presume to
sign away the rights of the people of
Spending Powers
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that
the spirit of the task force report on
We have other areas in which this government
is separating itself from the task force
reports that have been done. The Meech Lake Accord proposed that individual provinces
receive compensation for opting out of
national programs without any
requirement for national standards‑‑that was the Accord‑‑but merely compatibility with national
objectives.
The first
Now we have come full circle, and the rolling
draft contains a spending power clause
that is virtually identical to the one in
the Meech
My question for the Premier is simple: How does he justify this vast distance which has been apparently
travelled by his government?
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): Wrong again, Mr. Speaker. The
consistent position of the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. McCrae) has been
that we prefer the Dobbie‑Beaudoin
wording, and we have stayed by that position at
the table all the way through.
Multiculturalism
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, the second
That is not what is in the rolling draft
texts. The rolling draft texts make no reference whatsoever to
multiculturalism, and they extend
further derogation of the Charter to aboriginal
peoples and to the people of
Can the Premier tell us today exactly what his
position is and what position he will be
taking to the Premiers' and Prime
Minister's table on Monday at lunch?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, as I understand, the purpose of the meeting is to review the
considerable areas of disagreement that
are contained within the current rolling draft
text, areas of disagreement that the Leader of the Liberal Party's questions bring out.
We will be attempting to achieve, as much as
possible, the positions that were put
forward by the Manitoba All‑Party Task
Force.
Economic Growth
Government Policy Performance
Mr.
Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the Minister of Finance.
There are many statistics that reveal the
serious economic stagnation that is
occurring in this province. My
Leader referred to some of them‑‑declining
manufacturing, lagging investment, heavy
unemployment‑‑but probably one of the key indications of
Figures that we now have, Mr. Speaker, show
that in the first quarter of this year,
we lost more people than in the first
quarter of last year. In fact,
since this government assumed office in
the spring of 1988, we have lost over 36,500 people to other provinces. That is almost as large as the city of
My question, therefore, to the Minister of
Finance is: Will he and his government now admit that its economic
policies are totally failing?
* (1400)
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I categorically reject the assertion of the
member for Brandon East. I watched and waited very carefully for
census statistics to come out, and it showed
that the growth of the province
continues at a rate which although not incredibly fast, still is growing in a positive sense.
Again, I have to chastise the member for
trying always to dwell on the
negative. Mr. Speaker, I would have to
say for the record‑‑and this
is basis of the middle of June‑‑this is the area in which we are performing above the national
average. Of course, you will never get this from members
opposite.
In business bankruptcies, we are far above the
Canadian average as far as a diminution
of that indicator. The CPI in this province is far below that in
Population Statistics
Mr.
Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Well, if it is so great,
why is everybody leaving
My supplementary question to the minister
is: Can the minister explain why
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Well, that is the mind‑set of the member opposite. He measures significance in the terms of numbers, Mr. Speaker. That is his ultimate determinant factor.
I would say to him, if he believes that
Mr. Speaker, I do not know for sure why it is
that the census and the number of people
in the
So, Mr. Speaker, obviously, within the
Canadian context, if
Mr.
Leonard Evans: The honourable minister knows that I am
not reflecting on the quality of our
people. We have the greatest people in the world. I am talking about the magnitude, and
you know that very well.
My question to the minister is: When will this government change its economic policies so that we are
going to have more job opportunities for
our people in this province and help to
slow down, if not entirely eliminate, this brain drain that is occurring?
I note, Mr. Speaker, that our rate of
population loss on an annualized basis
is the second worst in
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, when are the members opposite
going to stop voting against budgets
which provide for tax decreases? When
are the members opposite going to stop voting against budgets that provide increases in a number of
social areas, going to stop chastising
the Minister of Rural Development (Mr.
Derkach), who is trying to take some money and put it into employment opportunities? When are the members opposite going to live up to what they did when they were
government and saddled this province
with the highest taxation load in the country?
So, Mr. Speaker, I can point fingers, too, but
the reality is we have a course; we are
following it; we are staying out of
debt. We are managing well, and
we are giving those credits within the
Canadian context.
Post-Secondary Education
Accessibility
Ms.
Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Students at St. Boniface College and
Mr. Speaker, these students live in small
communities, where there are almost no
jobs available and fewer jobs since this
government cut the support for student employment by more than 50 percent.
These students already have high debts.
They are not eligible for UIC‑based
training. Our community colleges
have long waiting lists; in some cases,
more than a year.
I want to ask the Minister of Education: Does she have a plan?
Does she have any emergency response to these
Hon.
Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): We certainly support the students in
We have maintained that commitment through our
support for the Student Aid program in
Universities Review
Timetable
Ms.
Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Will the minister tell us when, in the fullness of geological time, she is going
to introduce that university review, and
will she tell us how students will be
represented on that review?
Hon.
Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training):
Mr. Speaker, she will not have to
wait quite that long, and it will be
very soon.
Post-Secondary Education
Accessibility
Ms.
Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, will the minister ensure that the university review, when it
does emerge from the myths of history,
will examine the crucial issues facing Manitobans,
and that is, accessibility to university education?
Hon.
Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training):
Mr. Speaker, we have taken the
issue of the university review extremely
seriously. We have developed a mandate
which is very wide in scope and which, I
believe, will certainly address the
issues that the member opposite has raised today.
Dutch Elm Disease
Research and Development Funding
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, the pioneers who
established the city of
Can the Minister of Natural Resources tell
this House whether he met, or any of his
department met, this week with Dr. Carl
Hubbes, who has been working at the
Hon.
Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, Dr. Dubis's [phonetic! research with respect
to potentially finding a cure for Dutch
elm disease first came to the attention
of myself and my department three years ago, when I was increasing the level of the Dutch elm disease
program to the City of
With all the respect that I have for Dr.
Dubis's [phonetic! research, it simply
has not been supported, nor is it hopeful
enough that a cure in fact can be found.
He himself suggests that it may
be found in five years or in 10 years.
There is no guarantee to that.
I have suggested to him at that time‑‑and
I say this very publicly‑‑we,
as taxpayers, support a major research institute called the National Research Council
operating out of
* (1410)
Mrs.
Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, the name is Hubbes, and I can
only assume that he has not read the
research project work since he obviously
has not clearly understood the spelling of the man's name.
The government has indicated that they thought
it was better to spend money on managing
the disease, but in fact they have
decreased the money they are spending managing the disease. They
have also made the decision they are not going to fund R & D in this area even though they have strongly
advocated funding for R & D in a
number of presentations and election campaigns.
Can the Minister of Natural Resources tell the
House why this government has chosen to
put no money into research to find a
cure for this particular disease?
Mr.
Enns: Mr. Speaker, quite simply because the
best professional advice provided to
this government and indeed to former
governments was that the monies currently being spent in controlling Dutch elm disease are being spent
in the most prudent manner. There has never been a professional case put
forward, obviously, for the good doctor
to attract the kind of research dollars‑‑even
the potential for a cure. My foresters
quite frankly tell me that it is blowing
money into the wind, and if we have any
monies available, I am being advised to help in the maintaining of control of dead and diseased
trees in precisely the manner we are.
Mrs.
Carstairs: But that is in fact exactly what the government has done.
They have cut the program. They
have cut the program they already were
funding. Can the minister explain to
this House why there is now less money
available for the prudent program he is
now advocating?
Mr.
Enns: Mr. Speaker, let me state it very
clearly. Never before in the history of this province‑‑never
before since the onslaught of Dutch elm
disease has a provincial government
provided the level of funding that this government, my government, is providing for Dutch elm disease.
That is a categorical statement. We are providing $1.5 million for the fighting of Dutch elm
disease, more by several hundreds of
thousands than any previous government in the
province's history.
Pharmacare
Calcium Supplements
Mr.
Conrad Santos (Broadway): To the honourable Minister of Health, I recall the Biblical story of an old
woman who was sick for 12 years, and
being unable to get the attention of the Lord
Jesus Christ, she approached the back and touched the hem of the garment, moved by the faith that by doing so
she would get well.
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Health,
ignoring the recommendation of the
Centre for Health Policy studies, delisted
a dozen forms of calcium from the eligible list in the Pharmacare program.
My question is on behalf of sick seniors,
particularly women: Will the honourable Minister of Health
explain to this Assembly why his department
ignored the recommendation that they
first conduct a utilization study before doing the delisting?
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I would be totally pleased if someone would find a
cure for the common cold as well.
Mr. Speaker, I take my honourable friend's
question quite seriously, but I want my
honourable friend to understand that in
the establishment of the included products that are reimbursed under the Pharmacare program, we engage the
professional minds of pharmacists in the
Now that professional advice has said to us that
there are many over‑the‑counter
calcium replacements, including TUMS, by
which individuals can access calcium needs. They have
recommended to government that we examine that list and have made recommendations to government that some of
the products be not reimbursed under the
Pharmacare program because they are
available either as over‑the‑counter or in other
equally effective nonprescription
sources, Sir.
Mr.
Santos: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the suffering
women, senior citizens, may I approach
the minister and touch the hem of his
garment and ask him to list again at least one form of calcium supplementation so that these women
may be safe from osteoporosis, which is
a crippling disease and not like a common
cold?
Mr.
Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I will even shake hands with
my honourable friend if you get rid of
this cold.
Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend is
attempting to paint a picture where
there are no available calcium products to women and others who may well wish, under a
doctor's advice, to supplement their
calcium. That is not the case. There have been a number of over‑the‑counter
products that individuals have bought.
The recommendation from the professional
pharmacy group, pharmacists,
professionals‑‑and I realize my honourable friend is advocating on behalf of possibly a
constituent, but professionals have
recommended that we do not have the need to make recommendations and reimbursement under
Pharmacare for calcium products
available as over‑the‑counter products.
Employment Creation Strategy
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.
The resignation yesterday of one of the
Premier's own caucus colleagues
demonstrated what we have been saying for years, that this government is not listening and is
particularly not listening to rural and
northern
My question is simple, to the First
Minister: When will he listen to northern Manitobans and reinstate
the kind of funding cutbacks we have
seen to CareerStart and the Northern Youth Corps program, which is leaving a devastating
situation in terms of unemployment in
those communities? When will he start
listening?
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the figures that I saw not too long ago indicated that the highest
per capita income in the province today
is in the city of
This administration has spent four years
trying to work at problems that were
created and unsolved by the former
administration. We have, for
instance, entered into a trilateral
agreement to build the northeast hydro line to serve seven native communities in northern
Today, right at this very minute, the Minister
of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), the
Deputy Premier, is signing with Split
Lake an agreement that will provide over $45 million of funding to the Split Lake Cree Band, the largest
input of financial contribution that
community has ever seen in its history, as a
result of the efforts of this government.
I can say, despite the fact that the northern
flooding that affected that band
occurred under the Schreyer government in the
mid‑'70s, it took this government's commitment, this
government's integrity to work with the
Split Lake Cree so they could get that
kind of agreement. No other
administration has been able to do
it. No other administration has
put that kind of money into the North
that this administration has, Mr. Speaker.
* (1420)
Mr.
Ashton: Mr. Speaker, the Premier does not
understand. Thompson, for example, has
had 6,800 applications for welfare,
thanks to the failure of this government in terms of economic policy.
I want to go further and ask as my final
supplementary: When will this Premier stop designing programs on
job creation for Tuxedo and recognize,
in remote northern communities that have no
jobs, have no tax base and have no funds, that they get no job creation under the kind of programs this
government has brought in? When will he listen to the people of the
remote communities of northern
Mr.
Filmon: Mr. Speaker, that kind of irrational ranting
and raving is what produced the kind of
irrational policy that the New Democrats
applied to northern
What we see today, of course, is the hundreds
of millions of dollars of debt that was
created by that kind of irrational
spending that occurred under the NDP.
Of course, the member for
Thompson was there every step of the way, counselling that kind of irrational throwing away of money and
building up of debt for this province.
Mr.
Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Introduction of Guests
Mr.
Speaker: Prior to recognizing the honourable member
for The Maples for a nonpolitical
statement, I would like to draw the
attention of honourable members to the loge to my right, where we have with us this afternoon Mr. Sid Green,
the former member for
On behalf of all honourable members, I would
like to welcome you here this afternoon.
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENT
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable member for The Maples
have leave to make a nonpolitical
statement? [Agreed!
Mr.
Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, in April of this year, the Winnipeg Hawks Triple "A"
Bantam Red hockey team captured the
Western Canadian Bantam Championship in
Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the
members of the team and the coaching
staff. Congratulations to: Dorian Anneck, Chris Brett, Jeff Chatyrbok, Mark Dawybida,
Tony Ducharme, Billy Ewanchuk, Kyle
Janssen, Chris Kavanagh, Clayton Lyons, Craig
Malaschuk, Ryden Marko, Kevin Medwick, Juilien Phillips, Edmond Turcotte, Jason Klos, Vince Kluz, Curtis
Menzul, Craig Slasor, Justin Kurtz, head
coach Wayne Chernecki, assistant coaches Glen
Harrison and Brian Kizuik, parent representative Bill Kitchen, team manager Donna Medwick. Thank you.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House, I would like to
seek permission to have the Standing
Committee on Privileges and Elections sit at
2:30 p.m. to consider the report on Judicial Compensation.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave for the Committee on
Privileges and Elections to‑‑
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, there is no leave from our side for sitting this
afternoon. Discussions may continue, I
believe, between the individuals
involved. Our critic has to be in
the House to deal with a number of
bills.
Mr.
Speaker: Leave is denied.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, would you call bills? We will
continue from where we left off earlier on this afternoon.
I would ask you to call Bills 34, 49, 79, 82,
93, 96 and 98 in that order. Of course, all of those bills will require
the leave of the House.
THIRD
Bill 34‑The Surveys Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave of the House to have third
reading of Bill 34, The Surveys
Amendment Act? Is there leave? Leave.
It is agreed.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): By leave, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of
Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), that Bill
34, The Surveys Amendment Act (Loi
modifiant la Loi sur l'arpentage), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 49‑The Environment Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 49,
The Environment Amendment Act? Leave?
Leave. It is agreed.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House
Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment
(Mr. Cummings), that Bill 49, The Environment
Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur
l'environnement) be now read a third time and passed.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 79‑The Highways Protection and
Consequential Amendments Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 79,
The Highways Protection and
Consequential Amendments Act? Is
there leave?
Some
Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: It is agreed.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns),
that by leave Bill 79, The Highways
Protection and Consequential Amendments Act
(Loi sur la protection des voies publiques et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois),
be now read a third time and passed.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 82‑The Farm Practices Protection
and Consequential Amendments Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 82,
The Farm Practices Protection and
Consequential Amendments Act? Leave?
Some
Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: It is agreed.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of
Agriculture (Mr.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I just want to say in response to the committee
hearings that we had on this bill that I
believe they reflected the concerns that we
stated in this House during second reading debate dealing with the need to deal with companion issues,
dealing with the environment and zoning
and guidelines. I believe that point
has been made very clear to the
government during those hearings, as
well as by the opposition in this House, and we will be following that closely with this minister, following
the passage of this bill. We will be supporting the third reading of
this bill as we did during second
reading with those concerns being registered
and will ask the minister to move quickly on those other related issues.
We did have an opportunity to improve the bill
as well last night with some removal of
a clause that was somewhat confusing and
ambiguous insofar as its meaning.
Mr.
Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question
before the House is third reading of Bill 82, The Farm Practices Protection and Consequential Amendments
Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some
Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr.
Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
* (1430)
Bill 93‑The Mental Health Amendment
Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 93,
The Mental Health Amendment Act? Leave.
It is agreed. Third reading, Bill 93, The Mental Health Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la sante
mentale.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr.
Praznik), that Bill 93, The Mental
Health Amendment Act, be now read a third time and passed.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 96‑The Special Operating
Agencies Financing Authority Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 96,
The Special Operating Agencies Financing
Authority Act? Is there leave?
Some
Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: It is agreed.
Third reading, Bill 96, The Special
Operating Agencies Financing Authority Act; Loi sur l'Office de financement des organismes de service
special.
Hon. Clayton
Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Rural
Development (Mr. Derkach), that Bill 96,
The Special Operating Agencies Financing
Authority Act, be now read a third time and passed.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, very,
very briefly, we are not happy with this
bill whatsoever. I think information to that extent was provided to
the committee last night. We see that as a proliferation of
agencies. We are not convinced that there will be any value to the
government, to the taxpayers of
It seems to be a proliferation of bodies that
are really unnecessary. We are always in favour of ways and means to improve efficiency in government spending,
but we do not think that this is a way
to do it. We are not convinced. The whole
area seems to be very fuzzy, Mr. Speaker,
It is not clear to us that anything positive
will be accomplished by this. So on this account we on this side cannot support this legislation.
Mr.
Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, I want to be quite brief.
I was at committee last night when this view went before the standing committee, and we heard from
representatives of the Manitoba
Government Employees' Association and, quite frankly, we are quite surprised when they contradicted
the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
with respect to the consultation that
supposedly went on before this bill was introduced.
The fact of the matter is that there was no substantive consultation.
There was, as is traditional with this government, a declaration that this was going to be done
and that is the way it was. But I want to put on record, I guess, two
overriding concerns that were already
mentioned by my colleague from Brandon
East (Mr. Leonard Evans) and mentioned by others that the government on this occasion is speaking out
of both sides of its mouth.
It says that these kinds of arrangements are
going to create for a more businesslike
atmosphere in parts of the department,
and they say that it is going to expedite, I guess, the work of administrators and managers in those areas,
when it is argued against such
efficiencies in agencies like the Manitoba Energy Authority and Manitoba Data Services and
others.
Mr. Speaker, there are two other significant
problems with this legislation. Number one, let it be very clear that these new financial authority agencies are going to
have the authority to hire consultants
and hire people who are noncivil servants.
They are going to become the new gateway for political patronage appointments.
They are going to be the new avenue for agencies within various departments, separate entities
to hire political operatives in one form
or another.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) said in
his remarks that was not going to
happen, but notwithstanding the good
intentions, the fact is that there is no rational reason at this point for the introduction of these small
minicorporations within the
department. They serve no useful purpose
that could not be served by the
efficient running of government departments at the present time, that the current system of
charge‑backs, if the government
wished to refine it, could offer the same kinds of advantages that these new SOAs, special
operating agencies as they are called,
Mr. Speaker, the same kind of efficiencies could be achieved with good management within the
department. In fact, the former Minister of Government Services
said they had already been achieved in
the Fleet Vehicles branch of the Department of
Government Services.
Mr. Speaker, the government is going to get
its way, assuming it comes to a vote,
but we want on record that this is no panacea
for some of the problems that are plaguing this government in particular.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question
before the House is third reading of Bill 96, The Special Operating Agencies Financing Authority
Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable
Members: No.
Mr.
Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say
yea.
Some
Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr.
Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some
Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr.
Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Some Honourable
Members: On division.
Mr.
Speaker: On division.
* * *
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 98,
The Manitoba Multiculturalism Act?
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, my apology.
I am wondering if we can delay the third reading call of Bill 98, and go to Bills 86, 87 and 101.
Bill 86‑The Provincial Police
Amendment
and Consequential Amendments Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 86,
The Provincial Police Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act?
Mr.
Paul Edwards (St. James): I just wanted to speak on the bill.
Mr.
Speaker: Okay, just hold, we are ascertaining
leave. There is leave for third reading of Bill 86?
An
Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: It is agreed.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, with leave, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Bill
86, The Provincial Police Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Surete du
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Edwards: Mr. Speaker, very briefly I want to put
some closing comments on the record with
respect to both Bills 86 and 87. My comments will relate to both.
We heard last night from a very large group,
and a very persuasive group, of police
officers in this city, as well as
representatives from the City of Winnipeg‑‑I am sorry, I
might add, as well, there was a representative
from the City of Brandon police‑‑who
came to our committee last night to put on the record their concerns about the proposed amendments
of the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae).
Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, after an arduous
process, quite a lengthy hearing of the
committee, a resolution was reached which
accommodated the legitimate desires of the police constables involved and the police forces of this
province, to be heard on these issues
and to have a voice in how they are to be judged in executing their duties.
I, at this point, want to put two things on
the record. Firstly, I do acknowledge
and I do appreciate, and I think all
Manitobans recognize that the minister did the right thing last night by sitting down with the police, albeit
far after he should have done that. But he did sit down with them, and they did
come to a resolution, and it was
acceptable to both sides. The
second comment I want to put on the
record is that process, which occurred
right around midnight last night, after five hours of hearings, should have occurred, it is our
view, months before.
Concerns about the Law Enforcement Review
Agency, the Manitoba Police Commission
and the regulation and enforcement of
standards and discipline within the police force have been issues that have been before this minister, debated
in this House for years, for at least as
long as I have been here, in the last four
years. It is, I think, a sign of
the arrogance of the minister that he
would presume to come forward with legislation without having consulted beforehand. Again, I acknowledge that at the end of the day that occurred, and that is
good.
My only statement here today is that should
have happened some time ago. I look forward to a new relationship between
this government and the police forces
whereby they will get together ahead of
time and consult about what is going to be in this bill.
Nobody expects them to agree all the time. But the least
that can be expected by members of this House, by the police forces themselves, is that the minister would
come forward at a date when he is coming
up with the solution to the problems, when
he is actually formulating his ideas as to what should be in the bill, not after he is committed to the bill,
not after he has tabled it in this
House, Mr. Speaker.
I leave those comments on the record. I am pleased that we do have a resolution which appears to be
workable and acceptable to the police
persons of this province. I want to
acknowledge and thank the many police
officers and their supporters who came
forward last night, literally in the hundreds. It was a very
clear, very convincing sign that they were concerned and that they had not been listened to up to that
point. The minister did, at the end of the day, thankfully,
listen to their concerns and make
amendments accordingly. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question
before the House is third reading of Bill 86, The Provincial Police Amendment and Consequential Amendments
Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some
Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr.
Speaker: That is agreed and so ordered.
* (1440)
Bill 87‑The Law Enforcement Review
Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 87,
The Law Enforcement Review Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
enquetes relatives a l'application de la loi?
Some
Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: It is agreed.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Culture,
Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs.
Mitchelson), that Bill 87, The Law Enforcement
Review Amendment Act, be now read a third time and passed.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, like the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), my comments on Bill
87 will also reflect in general my
comments on Bill 86. I am dealing with
both issues basically at this time.
Mr. Speaker, we, too, in the New Democratic
Party, are very pleased that the matter
was resolved late last night. The
bill that went to committee yesterday at
10 a.m. and emerged last night at
approximately midnight was substantially different‑‑the two were substantially different‑‑and
in fact, one could say there was a new
bill that was put in effectively last night.
We are pleased with that. I want to say at the onset, we are pleased the government heard the wishes of
the public, through the forum of several
hundred police officers and their families
and others who made representation last night, who made their views known to the government.
The unfortunate aspect of this whole process
is that we raised these concerns for
weeks in this House. For weeks, at least on four separate occasions, I stood up
in this House and I queried the minister
on this bill. Right from the start,
on principle, I laid out our opposition
and our concerns with this bill. Each time the minister was evasive; the
minister dismissed our claims, and it
was basically a steadfast position, an
unbending position, an unyielding position.
The minister never gave our concerns the
opportunity to even review or discuss,
he simply dismissed them in this Chamber.
That spoke to the entire process.
Last night at the committee
hearings, we heard that the Winnipeg Police Association requested last December from the Department of Justice
under Freedom of Information, the
recommendations of the ministerial committee
dealing with changes to the Law Enforcement Review Agency.
Mr. Speaker, the Police Association obtained
some documents, but they did not obtain
11 pages which consisted of
recommendations to the minister as to how to change LERA. That
was in December 1991. At that
time, they had approached the minister and
said, what are you talking, what are you looking at, what are you thinking about, what direction
are you going in, we want to discuss it
with you.
The minister failed to respond and provide
that information. Subsequently, months
later, the minister, with no report, with no
background, with no review, introduced in this Chamber a bill to change LERA substantially. The minister then marched out of this House and at a press conference said the
change was being invoked for two
reasons: efficiency, it would be more
efficient, and it would be
speedier. Those were the two reasons.
Now, Mr. Speaker, during this session, we, in
the New Democratic Party, have supported
most of the government's initiatives in
terms of the Justice department. We supported most of those initiatives because they were
based on a sound process. Generally, in fact, most of the
recommendations from the minister were
as a result of the Law Reform Commission
process.
In most of the cases we supported, we made
suggestions and it went back and
forth. This LERA initiative came out of
nowhere, it had no consultation. The minister marched out of the House and announced that it would be more efficient
and more effective. That was shown to be hollow and that was
shown to be shallow, and that was shown
to be inaccurate. There was no consultation.
It was not an attempt to be more effective,
and it was not an attempt to be more
efficient. In fact, to this day, we do
not know why the government proposed the
ill‑fated measures that it
did. We do not know what the
reason and rationale was behind it. Now, I will grant that there are problems
with LERA. There were improvements required in LERA, there is
no question, but there was no
consultation with anyone involved in LERA.
The City of
Mr. Speaker, we opposed the bill on
principle. We opposed the bill after having talked with the
community. We opposed the bill after having talked with the Police
Association and others. Where was the government? Why was the minister not listening? If the minister would have paid even a little
bit of attention to what was going on,
he would have known there were concerns, he
would have known there were problems.
The matter could have been
resolved in an amicable fashion.
As it was, we were forced into a situation
where members of the public, who
generally do not like to take public stands
because of their position, were forced to appear en masse in front of the minister and say, Mr. Minister,
stop this process; it is wrong, Mr.
Minister, stop this process.
I will grant you, they succeeded. We suspect that in the morning when we had heard that there might be
representation that perhaps the
government could at last be forced, could at last see the error of its ways, could at last begin to
do, at least in 24 hours or in eight
hours, what the government had failed to do in
three weeks, and that is consult with the affected population.
Mr. Speaker, over and over again, the issue
that came out at yesterday's hearings
was that this bill was unfair, something
that we had said from the very start, this was an unfair bill. It was felt by the rank and file as
unfair. I suggest that any fair‑minded representative or
constituent would say, when looking at
this bill, that it was unfair.
Fortunately, by eloquence, by sheer numbers,
by some persuasion, the members who
attended last night and most of them
were police officers and their families, most from
The minister brought forth nine changes last
night to the bill. It effectively is a new bill and we welcome
that. I am going indicate that we will be supporting
this new bill because that is what it
is. We are going to miss the part that
is billed, it was first introduced last
night at twelve o'clock. That is what we
are going to do. The previous bill, we
voted against in this Chamber on
principle, and we told them this was
going to happen. We had told them
for three weeks. Fortunately, the government, the minister, saw the error
of his ways, introduced a new bill last
night, and we will support it.
* (1450)
The bill does not go entirely all of the way
to meet all of our concerns, but given
what we were faced with yesterday at 10
a.m. and given what came back last night at 12 midnight, we in the New Democratic Party are going to support
these changes to LERA, but we want to
remind the minister and the government to
start listening, because this is not the only case and the only bill that I have had occasion to participate
in this Session where the government has
not been listening to the public.
This one served to illustrate, however, that
the public can be heard and that if they
get out their message, even in this
instance, that steadfast minister who refused to listen to any of our concerns for three weeks, in a mere
several hours last night, could be
persuaded.
So the hope is there. Hope springs eternal. Mr. Speaker, we urge the minister to continue the dialogue
that he launched in those few hours last
night to move away from the last three or
four weeks of steadfast nonlistening and move towards the path of consulting, the path of listening to the
public, the path of going forward and
listening and incorporating people's concerns
before moving. If the minister
were to do that, I think that he would
have saved himself a good deal of difficulty last night and will save himself a good deal of difficulty
in the future.
There are things that still have yet to be
done with respect to LERA. I hope it continues to be examined. I hope changes are looked at, and I hope they are looked at in
consultation with all of the citizens.
When we talked about this bill in the House,
we indicated it just does not deal with
the police. The minister is fond of saying that it is a public bill. That is right. This bill
affects every man, woman and child in the
The rule of law indeed is considered the
fundamental basis of our society, so
this bill touches every man, woman and child.
The bill that the minister wrought forth the last month, Mr. Speaker, was found to be unfair. The new bill that emerged last night goes a long way to redressing the
inequities and the unfairness.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
indicated that I said it several
times. I said it for three weeks, Mr.
Speaker, and the minister did not
listen. It took 300 police officers to
get the minister to listen. I am only sending a message to the minister that I hope he hears.
He mentioned last night in the press
conferences and the scrums that this was
the dawning of a new age of consultation
that was occurring in
Mr.
Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question
for the House, third reading of Bill 87, The Law Enforcement Review Amendment Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some
Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr.
Speaker: That is agreed and so ordered.
Bill 101‑The Statute Law Amendment
Act, 1992
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 101,
The Statute Law Amendment Act,
1992? Leave. It is agreed.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): I move (by leave), seconded by the Minister of Urban
Affairs (Mr. Ernst), that Bill 101, The Statute
Law Amendment Act, 1992 (Loi de 1992
modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives), be now read a third time and passed.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I am going to take this occasion to comment on a practice, with
respect to this bill, that has been
adopted by this government, that we in
principle think is wrong, with respect to The Statute Law Amendment Act and specifically one of the
subsections, specifically subsection
27(1) through to 27(7) dealing with The
Public Schools Act.
As a preamble, let me make it very clear that
in my comments, I am not dealing with a
substantive issue which can be debated in
another form at another time with what the government is trying to do in those subsections.
The issue that I am rising on today is a
question of principle. It is a principle that I think has been
overlooked in this particular statute amendment,
and that is, the amendment introduced
under The Public Schools Act, by the government, changes the law. It introduces expenditure items of many millions of dollars, Mr. Speaker.
The government has chosen to put that change
into a statute law amendment. My recommended course would be for the
government to introduce a bill amending
The Public Schools Act or alternately
setting up a private schools act or whatever.
The point is, the government is
choosing to do through The Statute Law
Amendment Act what they should be doing in a separate bill. The difficulty with that is that it does not
allow for meaningful debate of this
particular item, Mr. Speaker.
Now Mr. Speaker, we queried the minister at
committee stage this morning on this
bill, and the minister indicated that
initially this amendment was being introduced to
"clarify" changes that already
had been passed but not proclaimed by the
Legislature. That is fine.
We then asked the minister what those changes
were, and the changes that were to be
clarified in this bill were not
clarified. In fact, the changes
that are made in this bill are
substantively new law that allows for new rights on the expenditure of different funds, and that is a
great leap from clarification. The minister admitted that at the
committee stage. She admitted it would set up new rules, new
regimes and qualify new schools and
agencies for funding.
That, to our mind, should be the subject of a
separate bill, or separate legislation,
not included at the end of a session in
a bill which is specifically designed to deal with administrative and with legal clarifications and
changes. We are finding no fault with all of the other changes, Mr.
Speaker. What we are having difficulty dealing with is a
substantive change in the law that is
done to the Statute Law Amendment. We do
not think this is correct. We think this should be a subject of a
separate piece of legislation. If one examines Hansard, one will
clearly see that the minister admitted
that a new regime was being established
by virtue of this particular amendment.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are basically my comments
with respect to this particular
amendment.
Mr.
Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question
before the House is third reading of Bill 101, The Statute Law Amendment Act, 1992. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Agreed?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Mr.
Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say
yea.
Some
Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr.
Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some
Honourable Members: Nay.
An
Honourable Member: On division.
Mr.
Speaker: On division.
Done.
* * *
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call third
readings on private members' Bills 52
and 90, and I guess that ought to be
preceded by Report Stage.
THIRD READINGS‑PRIVATE BILLS
Bill 52‑The Pas Health Complex
Incorporation Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: Bill 52, The Pas Health Complex
Incorporation Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation
"The Pas Health Complex," standing in the name of the
honourable member for The Pas (Mr.
Lathlin). Is there leave? No?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Mr.
Speaker: Leave is denied.
* (1500)
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I just want to put a few comments on the record on
behalf of the member for The Pas (Mr.
Lathlin) and thank the government for moving
this bill along.
The member for The Pas, as the House knows, is
attending on government business with
the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) at
The volunteers at The Pas Health Complex and
the community of the Pas very much
support this bill and very much want to see the
amendments to the incorporation act passed by this Legislature.
We were sorry that we could not get this bill
passed last year, but we thank the co‑operation
of the members opposite this year. I think this bill being passed by the
Legislature is in the best interests of
The Pas community and the many volunteers
and staff who work diligently on behalf of patients and the community of The Pas and its related areas.
So, I would like to thank the House, and on
behalf of the member for The Pas, we
will be voting for this bill on third
reading. Thank you.
I move, seconded by the member for Thompson
(Mr. Ashton), that Bill 52, The Pas
Health Complex Incorporation Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation "The Pas Health Complex," be now read a third time and
passed.
Motion
agreed to.
REPORT STAGE‑PRIVATE BILLS
Bill 90‑The
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I would ask if there is leave of the House to allow me to both
report on behalf of the member for The
Maples (Mr. Cheema) and give third reading to the bill.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
We will do one at a time. We
will do the report stage.
Mr.
Lamoureux: Is there leave?
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave for the honourable member
for
Some
Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr.
Speaker: That is agreed.
Mr.
Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for St. James (Mr. Edwards), that Bill
90, The Seven Oaks General Hospital
Incorporation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation le "Seven
Oaks General Hospital"), reported
from the Standing Committee on Private Bills, be concurred in.
Motion
agreed to.
THIRD READINGS‑PRIVATE BILLS
Bill 90‑The
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Again, Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House I would ask if I could
read the member for The Maples' (Mr.
Cheema) bill for third reading.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 90,
The Seven Oaks General Hospital
Incorporation Amendment Act (Loi
modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation le "
Some
Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: Leave.
That is agreed.
Is there leave for the honourable member for
Mr.
Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for St. James (Mr.
Edwards), that Bill 90, The Seven Oaks
General Hospital Incorporation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation le "
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to put a very
few words on the record and acknowledge
the willingness of the government, in
particular the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard)
with the co‑operation of all members of this Chamber, that we were able to bring in this bill which is a
bill that is very necessary and thank
them for allowing us to have it read a third
time and passed for Royal Assent, possibly later today.
Mr.
Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion? That is agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
* * *
Hon. Clayton
Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you call adjourned debate, third
readings, in this order, Bills 42, 76,
78, 98, 70 and 85.
(Madam
Deputy Speaker in the Chair)
DEBATE ON THIRD
Bill 42‑The Amusements Amendment Act
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Is there leave for third reading, Bill
42, The Amusements Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les
divertissements, standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton)? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am prepared to speak on this particular bill. Indeed, as the Leader of the Opposition, our Leader (Mr. Doer) points out,
the full weight of the government, this
big, brave Conservative government is being
brought to bear on a couple of dozen projectionists‑‑a
couple of dozen projectionists.
You know, the story of this fight is an
interesting one, Madam Deputy
Speaker. This goes back to the late
1970s when the then Conservative
government attempted at that time to de‑license all projectionists, and they trotted out the
same arguments then. They said everything is changed, there are no
longer the safety problems in terms of
projectionists. That, in and of itself, was a reason to de‑license the
projectionists. Well, indeed, times had changed, but the concerns
were still there in terms of safety. The requirement for trained individuals
to operate as projectionists was
there. What happened? The
projectionists fought the then‑Conservative government, and
the Conservative government backed down
in terms of the major urban centres and
continued to require licensing of projectionists.
So that is what happened in the late
1970s. This has been a fight that has taken place in other
areas. In
In fact, successive Ministers of Labour in a
row tried to sneak it in every year in
Statute Law Amendment. I refer to
the comments made earlier about the
abuse of Statute Law Amendment that our
Justice critic referred to in terms of this Bill 101 this year where they are again trying to ram
through particular items. But as the former member for
* (1510)
They try to sneak it through on Statute Law
Amendment, and along came the current
Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) who I
cannot refer to by name. But the
member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik),
he picked up the torch from the previous Ministers of Labour, and guess what? The projectionists were targeted again.
We tried last year in terms of Statute Law
Amendment, but I am sorry, each and
every time the Ministers of Labour tried to
sneak it through in Statute Law Amendment, some of us on this side were alert enough to the fact and we put
a stop to it. So now the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) has
gone one step further. He has introduced a bill of the Legislature.
Madam Deputy Speaker, let us look at
this. There are 101 bills that have been introduced. Some of them are very formal bills.
Many of them are opposition bills that have been introduced in this Legislature. The current number of government bills is not even more than 60. There is a lot of time and effort that goes into preparation of bills,
translation of bills, and publication of
bills. The time we spend in first
reading, second reading, committee and
third reading, out of the 50 or 60 bills
that this government thought were important enough to bring before this session of the House, one of them
was to de‑license projectionists.
Well, indeed, the big, brave Conservative government‑‑[interjection! Well,
the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik)
talks about dinosaurs. He need only look
into the mirror to see the dinosaurs in
this Chamber. They are following the lobbying efforts of the movie theatres
who do not want licensed projectionists
because they do not want to have fully
trained and qualified individuals working there so they can cut the amount they pay the projectionists.
This minister is leading the charge. Well, if anything is a greater example of the pathetic degree to
which this government will go to
implement the kind of agenda we see from the Chamber of Commerce, it is the projectionists bill,
Bill 42, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The minister laughs. He should talk to the projectionists instead of being the "yes" man for
those who are lobbying to de‑license
projectionists. We, only this morning, talked
to the projectionists who are quite
concerned and upset that they were
unable to‑‑they did not get the notice in terms of the
bill. They would love to have made a
presentation at committee.
But you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, it just
goes to show the inability of the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) to listen‑‑he does not even listen to his own caucus members‑‑is
something that is being followed by
other ministers, in particular, the Minister of
Labour (Mr. Praznik). The
Minister of Labour did not want to
listen to the projectionists, did not even bother to go and listen to their concerns that is brought in
this bill. So one out of‑‑
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Our department met with them.
I have spoken with them.
Mr.
Ashton: Well, the minister says his department met
with them; and he has spoken to
them. Probably, some of his best friends are projectionists, Madam Deputy
Speaker. The bottom line is he has ignored them, he has not
listened to them.
We have a bill before us, Bill 42. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I could list 100 other bills, 100
other things that the Minister of Labour
(Mr. Praznik) could be doing in this House
besides Bill 42. I could list all
sorts of changes that the minister might
want to implement in terms of making greater
fairness in our Labour Relations Act, instead of Bill 85 which makes it more and more patently unfair.
I could talk about dozens of suggestions that
could be made in terms of employment
standards, in terms of employment standards
dealing‑‑[interjection! The minister talks about dealing with a changing world. What about dealing with the changes in terms of family, in terms of
implications, in terms of leave,
parental leave, bereavement leave? What
about the many suggestions? I made those in committee in terms of debate
on the Labour Estimates. So I ask the question, to look at it. [interjection! If there had been 300 police
in committee on Bill 42, maybe they
would have backed down on this bill as well.
We have seen the legislative process grind at
one of the lowest levels I have ever
seen it. This government is a government that is coming apart at the
seams. It has resignations, as we saw yesterday, from the
member for
We saw yesterday a committee that was
adjourned more than it actually sat, I
think, for some parts of the evening, while the
minister was doing shuttle diplomacy, trying to bail out in a face‑saving way the fact that he had
botched the bill. This is an incompetent government. This is a government that has lost sight of all sense of priorities. We have a government, the big, brave government, prioritizing as one of the
top 50 or 60 matters that should be
dealt with by legislation, the elimination of
licensing for projectionists, Madam Deputy Speaker.
An
Honourable Member: Some priority.
Mr.
Ashton: Some priority, and indeed some government. [interjection! The member for Kildonan (Mr.
Chomiak) suggests they make a movie
about it. We already know what the title
is going to be. It already exists on another one; it has
been referenced by members of this
House: "Blame It on
While the First Minister has been in Rio
meeting with governors and Prime
Ministers, while he has been doing that,
while he has been travelling the world, solving the problems of the world, we know how the government has
prioritized one of the major problems
facing Manitoba in 1992 is the fact that we have a few dozen projectionists that have to be
licensed, as they have been for decades
in this province. That is one of the
major problems.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this may be seen by some
as a small bill, but this bill says
volumes about the misplaced priorities
of this government. That is why
we oppose Bill 42. We will fight for the few dozen projectionists and we
will say to this government, it is about
time they stop prioritizing the kind of
antilabour initiative that this is, that is driven strictly by the lobbying power of corporate and business
interests, and start dealing with the
real problems of
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The
question before the House is third reading of Bill 42. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: 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.
An
Honourable Member: On division.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: On division.
Bill 76‑The Pension Benefits Amendment
Act
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Third reading, Bill 76, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness), The Pension Benefits
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
prestations de pension, standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I also have some comments on 76. I want
to indicate, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think the concerns of our caucus were put through very eloquently
by the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett),
who spoke both on second and third
reading in terms of a number of problems with this particular bill.
I wanted to indicate, Madam Deputy Speaker, we
voted against this bill at committee
stage, in the committee, because this bill
does a number of things that we feel moved this area, in terms of pensions, into areas that we do not agree
with. We feel this is not a positive development for pension
legislation in
I mentioned before, Madam Deputy Speaker, we
are concerned about the movement
increasingly toward self‑directed individual retirement plans rather than the traditional
group plans which have provided
significant financial benefits for those who have been part of those group plans for many
years. We feel that is a wrong move on the part of the
government. In fact, even investment analysis has indicated that is a
risky move.
We are concerned about the government's
failure to understand the issue of
pension surpluses. This has been a major
concern to employees for many
years. Many employer‑ and employee‑funded pension plans have developed significant
surpluses over the years because of the
collective investment of those funds and the
return on those investments.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this matter
was dealt with in committee when the question was asked by a number of people with differing views on this
as to who owns the pension surpluses.
I want to indicate very clearly the view of
the New Democratic Party is that those
pension surpluses are the propriety right
of the employees. The employees are the
ones who are the beneficiaries of the
pensions. Pensions are deferred income.
They are very much a part of, if there is a collective agreement, the collective bargaining process,
and the discussions and negotiations
that go on. They are very much a part of
it even as individuals, if they do not
have a union, if there is not a
collective agreement in place.
The bottom line is this government, instead of
allowing the kind of access that
employers are going to increasingly have to
pension surpluses, should be saying very clearly that is unacceptable.
There have been many incidences of that.
I point to the situation a number
of years ago with Dominion stores in
* (1520)
We see cases of that today, Madam Deputy
Speaker, in a number of jurisdictions,
where businesses are treating the pension
surpluses out of the employees' pension plans as surpluses which they can tap into for their own business
concern. We are seeing people purchase companies for very little
more than access to the pension
surpluses.
Let it be very clear that when companies
contribute they contribute at a set
rate. If there are surpluses that
involve the employee pension plan fund
having some additional revenue in it,
that should be given to either enhance the benefits of the employee or in the form of some sort of
rebate in terms of employee
contributions. That is only fair, but
this government has not recognized that
in this bill. That is a negative direction.
I mentioned earlier about the move this
government has made to totally open up
the issue of pension splitting. I want
to say that this is an area where I
think the government has moved hastily
in response to some legitimate concerns that have been expressed, most notably at committee, not
only this time but in terms of pension
legislation that was brought to committee last
session.
I want to say that I share the concerns
expressed by the member for
There are indeed situations where women have
the superior pension plan, and it is the
husband who is in the more vulnerable
position. We feel it would have
been far more appropriate in this area
if the minister had insisted on moving, that there be far greater regulation and protection of the
rights of the more vulnerable person in
this case.
I agree 100 percent with the member for
It has been shown statistically that following
the breakup of a marriage often the real
disposable income available to the
majority of individuals, the men, the husbands, actually increases while the disposable income of
women who are divorced drops
dramatically. [interjection!
I appreciate the applause from the member for
Pembina (Mr. Orchard) on this. I am glad to hear he is concerned about pension splitting. What is going to happen is we are going
to end up in a situation where women are
going to be even more at risk in their
retirement years, because they are going to be
pressured into not accessing the pension plans; they are not going to have access to future pensions; they
are going to suffer even increasingly in
their retirement years.
So this is a matter of principle, Madam Deputy
Speaker. Our caucus is opposing several of the directions
in this bill, and we feel the government
once again, particularly in the area of
pension surpluses and group pensions, is following the Chamber of Commerce agenda.
It is about time we saw some balance from this
government and that it looked at the
real concerns of Manitobans in terms of
pensions. This bill does not do
that. That is why we are therefore going to be opposing it as we did
on second reading at committee stage.
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Madam Deputy
Speaker, I will only take a few moments
to put a few comments on the record in
response to the remarks of the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
I would just like to point out to members of this House on the ownership of pension issue in which
the member indicates clearly that the
NDP position would be, by legislation, to grant
ownership of all surpluses to employees.
This legislation deals with that particular
issue in two manners. Firstly, for new pensions it requires that
issue be settled in the establishing
documentation of the pension. So that becomes an issue in new pension plans
for negotiations between the employers
and employees. With respect to
existing pension plans, this legislation
simply allows the governing
documentation in those plans to be effective.
If one were to take the New Democratic
position, which would be to establish in
law ownership of those pension plans contrary
to the government documents of those plans, it would amount‑‑in some cases, where the plans were negotiated
and ownerships were agreed to, it would
be on the part of the employer‑‑to
expropriation.
So the fact of the matter is this legislation
allows the governing documents to be the
determining factor on existing plans as
to who owns the surplus. With respect to
the pension‑splitting provisions,
and the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton)
talks about Chamber of Commerce agendas, I would just like to clearly indicate on the record at
this time that the proposals under this
bill are supported by the Manitoba Teachers'
Society. Despite the fact that
the Manitoba Federation of Labour did
not comment on the matter, the Manitoba Nurses'
The Manitoba Nurses'
So I think it is very important to put on the
record that with respect to the pension‑splitting
provisions of this act, the changes that
allow parties to opt out by mutual agreement, that there is no consensus among the labour
movement as to what should happen. There is clearly division, and there is
division for good reason, because there
are obviously views on this matter, both
of which are very legitimate.
This government chose to support the principle
that women and men should have the right
to make their own decisions on matters
regarding their assets, rather than what some have argued, some may refer to as a very patronizing view, that
government should settle that
issue. So I wanted to make those two
points on the record, Madam Deputy
Speaker.
I would thank all members who participated in
this debate.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The
question before the House is third reading of Bill 76. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 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.
Some
Honourable Members: On division.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: On division.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Third reading of Bill 78, on the
proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), The
City of Winnipeg Amendment Act (3); Loi no 3 modifiant la Loi sur la Ville de Winnipeg, standing in the name of
the honourable member for Concordia (Mr.
Doer).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing?
An Honourable
Member: Stand.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave to permit the bill
to remain standing? Leave?
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader):
Madam Deputy Speaker, I
understand that the reason why there is some
commotion is that the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) wishes to address the bill later this afternoon or
during this debate. I think we would deny leave to stand, but we
will certainly try to accommodate all
members who would like to speak on the other side.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable
member for Concordia (Mr. Doer)? Leave?
Some
Honourable Members: Leave.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
* (1530)
Ms.
Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Deputy Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak on this at second
reading. I am glad to be able to respond to some of the concerns that
I heard at the community committee and
to add some additional comments to our
concerns about Bill 78, yet a further bill dealing with the City of
In this case, what they did was to choose to
include a large section dealing with
French language services with a variety of
other issues of diverse origins and purposes, dealing with, amongst other things, community committee
issues and some environmental issues, as
well as some issues dealing with
political process at City Hall and some issues concerning by‑laws and timing on variances. So it was a wide‑ranging bill,
Madam Deputy Speaker, not one that was
perhaps focused in its intentions.
There were a number of sections dealing with
the French language services. On this subject, Madam Deputy Speaker, I spoke last time. If I can repeat myself in French this time:
Je crois que l'objectif du gouvernement
provincial, c'est a faire plus precises
les responsabilites de la Ville de Winnipeg
en ce qui concerne les services dans la langue francaise.
[Translation!
I
believe that the objective of the provincial government is to make more precise the responsibilities of
the City of
[English!
The French language sections have been
included in this bill, The City of
Winnipeg Act rather, since 1971. At that
time, the old St. Boniface became part
of the city. The purpose of those sections was, in fact, to retain the existing
practices in the old city of
Sections of the act have from time to time
caused some difficulties and confusions
and have not always perceived to have
been useful in practice. This
bill attempts to clarify those services,
the locations, and the particular boundaries within which such services should operate. We anticipate that this legislation provides the clarity requested by
the community on several occasions,
including the community hearings and, of
course, at the Cherniack committee some years ago.
However, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are two
parts of this bill which give us great
cause for concern and which we spoke
about in this House earlier on and which we attempted to amend unsuccessfully in committee.
First of all, the section 494.71(1), which
deals with construction over waterways,
has a number of objectionable accounts. First of all, it gives full authority for
construction over waterways and for the
regulation of such buildings, a very
wide definition in fact of buildings to the municipal government.
It seems to me that there is a very strong case to be made for joint provincial‑municipal
responsibility for waterways, and
particularly, first of all, for provincial policy to preserve and protect our rivers and
streams.
We all know and we all come from different
constituencies, and we will know,
particularly on the edges of Winnipeg, the
great difficulties that there are with septic fields, the difficulties that the rivers and streams of
Manitoba have with waste effluent, with
the dumping of snow, for example, by various
municipal governments in and around the city of Winnipeg and pouring chemicals in many cases into places
like Omands Creek and the Seine and
other smaller rivers and streams in the city.
There are many other areas, I think, of
environmental concern which people would
want to discuss relating to the rivers and
streams of
Two or three years ago they touted the idea of
a joint provincial‑municipal
waterways commission. They reached
no agreement on that. There seems to have been no further discussions with the city on this issue. The whole principle of sustainable development, one of the things
which this government hangs its
political hat on, seems really to have had very little impact upon the city of
We have a Capital Region Committee, which is
moving at perhaps the rate of‑‑very
small, slow discussions, not even
changes, I would say. For two
years, they have really had a series of
discussions about a variety of issues that face the whole of the metropolitan area.
So the kind of policies, agreements and
principles which should be there for the
protection of the rivers and streams of
this area are not in place. What
the province has done, as it did in Bill
35, is in fact to turn over full jurisdiction to the city.
Now, there is in this bill a saving grace. The city must
have by‑laws on waterways, but it must hold public hearings
when it has a version of those by‑laws,
and that is important.
I commend the government for that, but in a
manner which is becoming very consistent
with the way in which this government
operates, one hand is given and the other hand is taken away. That very principle of public hearings is
undermined by a subsequent clause in the
legislation, 494.71(3), which says that
for changes of a minor nature which do "not prejudice the
rights of any person", the city may
dispense with that very important public
hearing. It is that that concerns me
particularly about this bill.
First of all, the principle, the record of the
city on waterways and, thirdly, this
opportunity that the province is now
offering them to forgo the principle of a public hearing. I am
concerned, as I said in the committee, by the phraseology,
"the rights of any
person." That seems to me to be‑‑does
not confirm, it does not give to the
city of
Indeed, if we look at the French version of
that particular paragraph, it gives us
even greater cause for concern, because it
adds to the ambiguity of the English section. It says, in fact: "ne brime aucun droit." We can translate that as "not
breaching any law" or "not
breaching any right", the rights of an
individual, the rights of a corporation, the rights of a community.
Those kinds of interpretations are not there. There
is an ambiguity, I should say, in the translation that is available there.
I ask the minister to check into that. I do not know whether he will be bringing amendments at this time
or not, and it may be that he has an
alternative legal interpretation or linguistic
interpretation than I do. If that
is so, we certainly look forward to
hearing about it.
I do note that the community that I represent,
Wolseley, has had many close calls with
the desires of some people in the
community to build commercial buildings over rivers and streams, in our case, particularly, Omands Creek. The member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), whose riding abuts on
the other side of Omands Creek, has
spoken on this in second reading and supported
us. The Liberal Party supported
us in the amendments that we made on
this.
I recognize the common interest that we have
around Omands Creek. I recognize the common concerns that we have
about maintaining community
interest. I think we both recognize
that the action of the community on both
sides of Omands Creek has been most
significant in saving it on several occasions from commercial construction.
It was also served, as I mentioned in the
second reading, by the alert action of
the last New Democratic government and its
creation of
We need to guarantee public hearings. We especially need openness, I believe, in a municipal
government which is going to be one of
15 councillors, and where each councillor will now be responsible for at least twice as many
constituents as he was before, and the
distance between the city councillor and the
constituents will certainly have grown.
Indeed, as I constantly try to put it in the
context of my own constituency, people
who live at the corner of Sherbrook and
Portage Avenue, people who are very much inner‑city people
with all of the difficulties that they
face, issues of poverty, issues of
trying to maintain neighbourhoods in inner‑city communities, are being represented now by a councillor who
is responsible to a far larger number of
suburban residents, people in fact whose
residences are on Kenaston Boulevard in some cases. So it is now
a very diverse constituency by a councillor, and whoever is elected is going to face many of those same
difficulties in being in touch with
their constituents.
So in that context and in the context and the
desirability of the openness of
government, we opposed this particular section.
As I said, we were pleased to have the support of the Liberal Party on this amendment which, of course, the
government voted down and unfortunately
failed.
* (1540)
Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to talk
about the community committees, because
we also have some very serious concerns
about this section. I outlined our
concerns on this in second reading. I want to emphasize that a number of members
on our side have received a large number
of letters about this issue. Over 150 letters have been received in our
caucus about this particular issue, so
our concerns were confirmed by those
letters and by the people who appeared from various parts of the city, not just from the unicity but from some
of the suburbs as well, who came to
argue for the existing system, that is, of the
opportunity for community committees to have the final, political say on variances and, in fact, the local
decisions.
They spoke of the need for communities to make
local decisions, something that the
minister derided as parochial. They
spoke of the need for decisions to be political and accountable and to be made by those people
who are most accessible to their
constituents, but something again which this
government derided as too political and too local. The people we
heard wanted those decisions to be local, they wanted neighbourhood decisions. They spoke about not just the outcome of the decision, but the process of a
community coming together with its
councillors to discuss, to debate and to resolve the issues which are brought before a community.
We heard a variety of people: a planner, for example, who spoke of the difficulty of taking people from
local constituencies to City Hall to
make presentations to a committee, the
standing committee of City Council which this minister wants to be the final court of appeal on local
decisions, a committee which changes its
personnel every year. So much for
consistency and for larger scale
planning. The planner spoke of the difficulties that people faced who have never
been to City Hall and who go to appear
in front of a committee on which their own
representatives do not appear.
They feel very distant and, in
fact, often quite overwhelmed by the situation, and there is another option.
There is the option of community committee
which is there in the existing act. The planner emphasized that every community has different by‑laws, and that
community committees were, in fact, as
the Cherniack report will say, set up to create the political communities that will help to
decide local issues. That is their
purpose, and there is an opportunity in the last Bill 35 for that to happen.
Councillor Timmers of the inner city spoke on
the importance of accountability, of the
importance of a city councillor elected
by local people being responsible and being seen to be making those decisions, not back‑room
decisions, not the tit for tat that has
gone on in gang politics at City Hall, but a city councillor elected locally making local
decisions, so that accountability and
accessibility is, I think, very important.
The residents of Armstrongs Point came to
represent the neighbourhood associations
of all of the inner city. They
spoke about the impact of this on the
inner city and upon the sense of
neighbourhood, and again the issue of accountability was stressed by all of those inner‑city
neighbourhood groups. Madam Deputy Speaker, every one of those people who
presented shared one opinion. They said, we have that existing power under
Bill 35; give it a chance. Some communities have only operated with it
on one appeal, some have had several
appeals, but every one of them said, the
minister has no evidence that this is not working; give it a chance, and then in three years, after
the next City Council is over, come back
to us if it is not working, if it has created
havoc, if it has created the difficulties that the minister somehow, in his mind, must be assuming are
there. Tell us them, and then let us look at it.
But the minister and the government voted down
the amendments that we proposed on this,
Madam Deputy Speaker, and it became
clear, as they were speaking, that in fact the government had made a mistake last time on Bill 35. They had made an error, and the community had taken advantage of it. The minister had never intended, he said, that community committees
be used as appeal. He was perhaps
somewhat disconcerted and was now seeking to
rectify the error that he believed had been made and the advantages that had been taken of it by local
communities.
But who agreed with him? Not one of the presenters spoke in favour of this. There was one submission, a written
submission, which came later, and it did
deal in some part with the amendments to
The City of Winnipeg Act. The large part
of it, in fact, deals with sections on
time limits on variants, but there was
the first section which dealt with the appeal process from the board of adjustments.
This particular brief said, very briefly: The appeal process from the board of adjustments to community
committee is self‑defeating. Once more, politics will result in
arbitrary decisions. A far better solution is to refer appeals to
a standing committee.
Exactly the same viewpoint of the minister,
that these decisions are too political
to be made by a local committee.
Well, who wrote this, Madam Deputy
Speaker? This came from the commercial real estate services of Pratt,
McGarry Inc., who represent over 50
landlords and over 2 million square feet of
commercial space. I do not know
if they represent the entire real estate
community. I am sure that cannot be the
case, but I am concerned that this is
the only representation and that it
spoke in almost the same words as the minister. It is, as it is put bluntly in this document‑‑one
might say if one were not more
charitable‑‑almost a ludicrous argument. It is a very peculiar definition of politics. Politics is about priorities, it is about choices, and it is about politicians
being accountable and accessible to the
people who elect them.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, in closing, I want
to emphasize that this is a step
backward. We were disappointed that the Liberal Party did not support us in our
opposition to this, but it is consistent‑‑I
will commend them on this‑‑it is a consistent position for the Liberal Party to take,
because they were, of course, in favour
of the 15‑member council. They
were in favour of the change in
boundaries, which, in the case of my community,
has resulted in a de facto pie‑shaped ward. They were in favour of reducing the accessibility of people to
their councillors by creating a much
smaller City Council.
So it is a step backward in civic government,
we believe, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I want to close with the words of Catherine
Collins, President of the McDermot‑Sherbrook
Residents' Association, who also took
the time to write to the committee.
As far as we are concerned, she said, Bill 78
is a step backwards in civic
government. Our elected representatives
and our local community committee are
accountable to us because we elect
them. Bill 78 removes their authority
and the accountability of the entire
municipal government. Bill 78 will do a great deal of damage to the poorer parts
of the city which are already under a
great deal of stress.
She represents a community committee which is
certainly under a great deal of stress
and has faced some very difficult
situations recently at City Council and with decisions made at City Council, and I commend her for taking
the time to write and welcome these
particular kinds of representations.
With that, I will close. I regret the changes this government has made. I welcome the support of the Liberal
Party on the environmental issues. I note their consistency in opposing community committees and the role
that they should play in local
democracy.
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to simply reiterate briefly the comments that I
made at second reading with some
additions at this point now that the bill has
gone through committee. The bill,
of course, has been spoken to at length
by the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) with respect to the provision of French language
services.
* (1550)
I want to state again for the record that I
believe this government made an error
and showed its arrogance upon being
elected in a majority position, by revoking the section of The City of Winnipeg Act put into place by the
former member for Wolseley, Mr. Harold
Taylor, when he was on the committee back in
1989, and put into place against the wishes and the votes of the Conservative government at the time, the
provision which prevented construction
of commercial buildings over waterways in
this city.
That was an issue that he had been involved in
and fought for, for many, many
years. It was an issue that I came to
when I came to represent the area, and
it of course came to a crescendo when
the owner of property immediately east of Omands Creek, the owner of a 500‑yard piece of property,
a strip going on the north side of
Portage Avenue, decided to put up an office building and a car wash over Omands Creek, essentially
destroying the linear green belt of
Omands Creek Park and Bluestem Park in that part of the city.
Now this provision which was put into the act
at the behest of Mr. Taylor was
extremely progressive and was extremely
popular, and that is important to note.
I do not know where this
government got its advice on that provision in having it repealed, but I received nothing but
accolades, as did the former member for
Wolseley, for putting that into place in the first place.
Let me just cite some of the supporters for
that amendment. In particular, I recall
the Real Estate News, the editorial page,
a lengthy editorial proclaiming this amendment as progressive and necessary.
Now, the Real Estate News has not, in my experience, been noted for its support generally of
issues put forward by members of the
Liberal Party, supported by members of the New
Democratic Party as that was, but they did. They took a stand; it was greatly appreciated, and I believe it
correctly read and tapped the desire of
Winnipeggers to start protecting our
waterways.
What occurred in that proposal by that
developer was that he was going to get
around The Rivers and Streams Act by building a
concrete platform which in no way diverted or impeded the flow of the river and did not affect the bank
stabilization. With some very, very specific technical drawings and
engineering plans the development was
not going to kick into place, in other words, the rivers and streams provisions, and then the
building and carwash could be built on
top of the platform.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I recall that
committee meeting. I recall the government of the day voting
against that amendment but eventually
putting it into place, because they wanted the
rest of the bill to go forward.
That, frankly, was a sign to me
that minority government works, and worked then and worked quite well.
I really thought that once the reviews of that
amendment were so positive, I thought
the government might see the wisdom of the
amendment and say, listen, we opposed it then but, obviously, the support is there. In fact, there was no one, to my knowledge, who did not support it, at least no one who
got into contact with me except, of
course, that specific developer.
Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, that unfortunately
was not the case. Very shortly after the September 1990
election, very shortly after this
government was returned with a majority, what
did they do? They buried a
provision in a City of
That, in my view, was a very regressive
move environmentally. They referred the matter, of course, back to the City of
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government of the
day repealed that section with their new‑found
majority. It was a mistake. They
sent it back to the City of
Now the government finds itself in the
position of having to demand that the
city put into place some sort of by‑law dealing with commercial construction over
waterways. So, to that very limited extent, this could be seen as
positive, because at least now they are
saying to the city, look, you have to come up with a by‑law saying something about
construction over waterways. You cannot just leave it. We intend you to do something, but what this government has not done, has not been
willing to do, is show any leadership
with respect to the City of Winnipeg in showing
the way towards sustainable development, showing the way towards environmental sensitivity and leading with
respect to protecting our very important
and, I might add, limited waterways in this
city.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to have
seen that provision applied province‑wide. I believe it is a provision whose time had come back in 1989 when it was
put in just with respect to the City of
Obviously, the government does not feel the
same way and is content to leave it to
the City of
Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, they have taken
this step and said to the city, now you
must come up with a by‑law. In
that very limited sense and with the
caveats of my prior comments, that the
whole chain of events stemming from repealing that section has led to this, that could be seen as somewhat,
and I stress somewhat, positive because
at least the city is going to have to do
something. Presumably some
accountability will flow from their
decision.
I hope, and I have got to say I do not expect,
but I do hope that the city councillors
see the wisdom of the initial provision
put into place by Mr. Taylor, and with the assistance of both myself as the MLA for St. James and our
caucus of the day, in putting the
initial restriction into place. Madam
Deputy Speaker, those are my comments.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable
member for Concordia (Mr. Doer).
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Deputy
Speaker, I waive my opportunity to hold
the bill. Our critic has articulated our concerns.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The
question before the House is third reading of Bill 78. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
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): Yeas and Nays,
Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call
in the members.
(Mr.
Speaker in the Chair)
Mr.
Speaker: The question before the House is third
reading of Bill 78, The City of Winnipeg
Amendment Act (3); Loi no 3 modifiant la
Loi sur la Ville de Winnipeg.
A
STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Alcock, Carstairs, Cummings, Dacquay, Derkach,
Driedger, Ducharme, Edwards, Enns,
Filmon, Findlay, Gaudry, Gilleshammer,
Helwer, Lamoureux, Laurendeau, Manness, McAlpine, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Neufeld, Orchard, Penner,
Praznik, Reimer, Render, Rose,
Stefanson, Sveinson, Vodrey.
Nays
Ashton, Barrett, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar,
Doer, Evans (Interlake), Evans (Brandon
East), Friesen, Hickes, Maloway, Martindale,
Plohman, Reid,
Mr.
Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 30, Nays 18.
Mr.
Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.
THIRD
Bill 98‑The
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I would like to
move, seconded by the Minister of
Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson), that Bill 98, The Manitoba Multiculturalism
Act; Loi sur le multiculturisme au Manitoba,
be now read a third time and passed.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 98,
The Manitoba Multiculturalism Act? Leave?
Some
Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: It is agreed.
Motion
presented.
* (1620)
Ms.
Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I am rising
to put some thoughts on the record with
respect to Bill 98. It has been a bill that the government has made a
commitment to as an extension of its
multicultural policy. It is a bill that
is important to
Even though there is some dispute over the
interpretation of multiculturalism, even
over the application of multiculturalism
and what it means, I would say that the intent of this bill is favourable and is positive, and I have said
that a number of times. I have said that we support the bill and we
support that
I would remind particularly the member for
We brought the Manitoba Intercultural Council
to the province and The Manitoba
Intercultural Council Act to the province.
We brought a number of other
services. We developed what has
been called one of the best English as a
Second Language programs to the province
which this government has changed, has gone along with their Tory counterparts to change to
make it less accessible and sensitive to
people's needs.
I would remind the member for
I would also like to remind members in the
House that the number of individuals who
would be targeted in the visible
minority category has decreased under this government, and it was due to the affirmative action program that
our government, the NDP government, put
into place that ensured that there was some
equalization so that the Civil Service would reflect the multicultural and multiracial nature of our
community.
This act that was promised by the government
was delayed in such a way, I believe, to
not allow full consideration and full
debate by the public. We were
waiting all session. It was promised in the throne speech. The government claims that they have been consulting on this. The real concern is why was it brought in so close to the summer holidays so
that the communities were rushed to have
their comments considered.
We saw no specific indications by the
government on what was going to be
included, and I was quite concerned when I contacted members of the Intercultural Council before
the bill was tabled that they were not
quite sure what was going to be included in
this bill.
I guess I want to remind the House as well
that this is not the Multicultural
Secretariat act, that this is not the
Multicultural Grants Advisory act, that this is the multicultural act that is supposed to encourage all of
government to be sensitive to the needs
of our multicultural, multiracial
society. I think in the Free
Press it used the phrase,
"bureaucratic turf‑splitting," to describe the bill. I am quite
concerned that the bill is not going to go far enough in ensuring that the multicultural policy of the
government is actually going to reach
all of those individuals out there who want to be assured that there is a commitment by government
that they have the right to promote and
practise their culture.
That is what this bill is supposed to do. It is supposed to not only declare that citizens have that
right, but it is supposed to declare
that the government is committed to ensuring
that right is upheld and supported by the government. It is
supposed to ensure and recognize that one of our strengths is the diversity of our community cultures. It is supposed to recognize that there is a tendency for minority
cultures to be subsumed, if you will,
and that there is a need for special programming to assist those communities, the need to promote
and preserve their culture, to ensure
that they are going to have the resources to
do that.
It is important for that reason, I think‑‑that
is, the government has opened the door
to including a policy section in this
act, that they would make it a strong affirmation of their commitment to the kinds of initiatives that
are going to ensure that that take
place. I am not convinced that this act
is doing that in as strong a way that a
number of people would like to see
it. I am concerned that there is
not the strong commitment in the
legislation to ensuring that there is heritage language programming; commitment to ensuring that there
is employment equity; that there are
services for newcomers so that they will
be able to learn the official languages of our province and that they will be able to access all of the
opportunities, the training
opportunities, that they need to become full
participants in our society.
I am not convinced that there is a strong
enough commitment to promoting cross‑cultural
sensitivity throughout government
agencies, and to develop that within the community at large. As I
said earlier today in the House, I was concerned, and still am concerned, that there is not enough emphasis
to deal with racial discrimination and
to make a commitment to eliminating racial
discrimination, as well as discrimination on the basis of religion, which is another aspect of
multiculturalism that often goes
unconsidered. The amendments that were
proposed in the committee would have
done all those things and it would have done
it in a way that I had hoped would have been reasonable, because it would have drawn directly from the wording
and the spirit of the government's own
multicultural policy.
The other issue that is of great concern with
respect to the bill is that it has left
out the Manitoba Intercultural Council, and
it has left out linking the Manitoba Intercultural Council with the other agencies and giving it some
equal status in The Multiculturalism
Act.
As I said, this is not the Multicultural
Secretariat act or the Grants Advisory
Commission act. This is the act that
is supposed to be the multicultural act
to bring together all of the policy and
programs and a commitment to those policy and programs into one act.
We have said before that the minister had made
a commitment that all of these issues would
have been dealt with together. I notice that there were some news releases
today from groups that made
presentations that were saying that the avenue to go is to develop companion legislation to deal with
employment equity and contract
compliance. That is necessary to deal
with the specifics of implementation,
but I think that a commitment to that
would also have been appropriate in the act.
* (1630)
That is directly the kind of recommendations
that the Manitoba Intercultural Council
was making. I think that the lack of consideration of those recommendations by
the minister or the lack of follow
through has caused us some concern with respect to her commitment to ensuring that there is a
body like MIC that is there to advise
government and has that grassroots community
contact.
There was concern expressed at the hearings
that in some ways this bill is in a
quandary, because on the one hand it is talking
about inclusiveness and equal participation and those ideals, that it has become politically inexpedient to
not agree with. I sometimes question that that is the influence
of this government, political
expediency. I am concerned that the lack
of commitment to having that grassroots
agency that is going to link the
legislation with the community and link the minister with the community is not part of the act. Having an act that is supposed to be about inclusiveness that does not
specify how this is going to happen is
indeed a limitation.
Mr. Speaker, there were a number of presenters
at the hearings that felt that the
process that this bill was created under
and brought in was not as inclusive as it should have been.
They were recommending that there be a delay.
So there are a couple of reasons for wanting a
delay. One of them is because of the lateness of the
tabling of the bill. I think that is especially true for a bill that
is dealing with the kind of communities
that we are dealing with in multiculturalism,
the kind of organizations that would want to come out in full force to make their thoughts known on the
legislation. But the other reason that the delay for the bill was
recommended was that it should not
happen until after the Manitoba Intercultural
Council review has taken place.
There has been some concern, as I was saying
earlier, about the government's
commitment to that organization and its
commitment to having democratically elected, grassroots community leaders advising the government. It is a concern that the government is trying to exert more control
over MIC and that they are not being
included in this act until that control is
assured. They have done it in a
number of ways. They have decreased the funding for the Intercultural
Council; they have eliminated their
community outreach staff; they have taken away
their granting authority which gave them that much more importance in the community.
Another thing that I think they have done is
they have influenced‑‑some
would even say, through the Secretariat‑‑that they be preoccupied in this navel gazing of
trying to reassess what their role
should be. Well, until they did all
those other things, the Intercultural Council
was operating quite fine. But, by requiring them to continually reassess and
reassess what their mandate is, the
organization has not been as active in the
community as it used to be.
It is also compounded, I think, because a
number of the appointments, it has been
suggested to me, who are on the council,
do not support the council's existence.
These are some of the things that
have been suggested to me. So all of
these kinds of things have been
happening with MIC. Now there is
going to be a review, and there is a lot
of concern that review is not as
independent as the minister claims.
I, for all of these reasons and for the reason
most clearly of wanting this government
to make a strong commitment to having
the kind of grassroots democracy advising the minister on these issues that will be in place‑‑Mr.
Speaker, democracy is not a neat and
tidy process at all times.
I am concerned with the minister's and the
government's concern to exert some
control over what was happening with MIC
previously. It has been
acknowledged that it was a very lively,
active body that oftentimes engaged in some conflict. I have
always said that I think that that kind of exchange is very healthy.
That kind of exchange happening on a body such as this was healthy, especially if all those
individuals who are engaged with MIC
were representative and elected from their community.
I am concerned that cannot take place as well
because of the number of political
appointments and arrangements that have been
included on the MIC executive. So
I think that we have some legitimate
reasons for concern that the review of MIC take place before the act is brought into force.
For that reason, I move, seconded by the
member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale),
THAT the motion of the Minister of Finance for
third reading of Bill 98, The Manitoba
Multiculturalism Act, be amended by
deleting all the words after "THAT" and substituting the following:
Bill 98, The Manitoba Multiculturalism Act, be not now read a third time, but be read a third
time this day six months hence.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Speaker: This amendment is debatable.
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I have a number of concerns that I want to put on the record
with regard to the bill itself, but
first what I want to do is to address the motion that has been brought forward by the member for Radisson
(Ms. Cerilli).
I must say that I am somewhat
disappointed. I am disappointed primarily because the member for
Radisson obviously did not listen to
what was being made in terms of presentations.
She has obviously not been listening to the different ethnic communities.
Her and I both‑‑and I will acknowledge the member for Radisson attends a large number of
events, as I do, as the minister
responsible does.
I feel that this particular bill, even though
there are all sorts of wonderful things
that we too would like to see in this
piece of legislation‑‑we would love to see lots of
wonderful things in this
legislation. As we had pointed out in
the committee, this is a starting point.
This is not the first time this Chamber is
going to see a multicultural act. I am expecting the minister to follow
through in the next session, based on
recommendations, on a multicultural act,
because failing that, we will be introducing amendments to the current act. Unfortunately, and I do not know if the
member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli)
realizes this, she is putting into
jeopardy the multicultural act.
* (1640)
I am sure that if she consulted with the
different ethnic groups she would find
that the principles of this particular act,
in particular the area around Clause 2, is an area which should be passed, that there really is no need to
delay it. What is the difference if we delay it today and have the
act "hopefully" come back in
next year?
There is no guarantee that the act would in fact
come back if you move a six‑month
hoist. We could prorogue the session as
we have done in the previous five
sessions. Then we have to wait for the minister to take the initiative once
again, as we have stood up on numerous
occasions demanding the minister live up to
the throne speech and bring forward a multicultural act.
Mr. Speaker, even though, as I say, there are
a number of things that we would have
liked to have seen in this act, we will
be introducing a bill, a private members' bill in the next session in hope that we will see some
positive changes to the multicultural
act. We will say that we are
disappointed that it did not go as far
as we would have liked to have seen it gone,
but we are going to acknowledge that this is as far as this particular government is willing to go on the
multicultural act at this point in time.
I share many of the concerns that the member
for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) has put on
the record. We had suggested‑‑we
had heard during a throne speech from this
government that the multicultural act
will be introduced in this session, and it was
only introduced a couple of short weeks ago. In fact, it was only called for second reading twice.
The community, the different ethnic groups and
individuals, did not have an opportunity
to give as much input as we would have
liked to have seen them give, but I know‑‑as the minister responsible, as the critic for the New
Democratic Party, as I did‑‑when
the bill was introduced we ensured that we put out as much material and called as many individuals
as possible, so that they would in fact
be aware. There was an onus on us to
consult and come back and report as to
what we feel is the proper way to
proceed with this particular bill.
I have come, or the Liberal Party has come, to
the conclusion that this bill should be
allowed to pass, and it should be
allowed to pass when this session comes to an end. If the member
for Rossmere were sincere in her comments‑‑[interjection! Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), I stand corrected, I
stand corrected. If the member for Radisson‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I
think the member for
Mr.
Speaker: The honourable member does not have a point
of order.
* * *
Mr.
Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I would refer to the member
for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), the critic
of the NDP party. If she were sincere in wanting the public to have more
notice, that was an option. Why did she not just stand and continue
speaking on Bill 98? Why did she not argue‑‑
Mr.
Ashton: You would not let her.
Mr.
Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the House leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Ashton) says I would
not let her. It is not up to me to decide. The rules allow for every member of this Chamber to speak. She could even have done what I did and taken the Leader's designate, but she and the New
Democratic Party were quite content to
see Bill 98 pass this Chamber as it was.
They knew there was a majority
government. There was only one
party in this Chamber that was arguing
for change and put that as a condition
in order to get out of here.
Now, Mr. Speaker‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Ms.
Cerilli: On a point of order, I think that if anyone
in the Chamber or outside the Chamber
checked the Hansard, they will see on
the committee that I proposed‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member does not have
a point of order.
* * *
Mr.
Lamoureux: I want to address how consistent the New Democratic Party was in committee. They introduced an amendment, an amendment that is two pages. It is fairly extensive, and it virtually took from, verbatim I understand,
in terms of the policy, the government's
policy. My question to the member
was: Has she consulted with anyone? Has she consulted with MIC?
Her response was: Well, I have talked to a couple of individuals of MIC and possibly some other
people. She did not, Mr. Speaker‑‑
Mr.
Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): What is the harm?
Mr.
Lamoureux: The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie)
said: What is the harm?
Well, I had abstained from voting, and I want
to tell the member why I abstained from
voting‑‑because right after that I
moved a motion in which the member for Rossmere‑‑Radisson
(Ms. Cerilli) voted on, and that
amendment was, acknowledge and respond,
and this is for the minister's responsibilities: (e)
acknowledge and respond to issues brought to the minister's attention by the Manitoba Intercultural
Council established under the Manitoba
Intercultural Council, and to consult with that
council on all proposed changes to this act.
Mr. Speaker, she voted for that. She has a double standard. Here she introduces with no notice to myself
a lengthy amendment, no recommendations,
no assurances from the member for Rossmere
that she had a consensus from MIC‑‑for Radisson (Ms.
Cerilli).
Mr. Speaker, I will say right now, whenever I
say Rossmere, replace it with the word
Radisson.
She cannot have it both ways, and she tried to
get it both ways. Now, the reason why I bring this up is
because the member for Rossmere‑‑Radisson‑‑had
ample opportunity‑‑my apologies to
the member for Rossmere.
* (1650)
Point of Order
Mr. Harold
Neufeld (Rossmere): I believe that three times now the member for
Mr.
Speaker: The honourable member does not have a point
of order.
* * *
Mr.
Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, knowing the support for the multicultural community that the member for
Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) has, I will
apologize for making reference to him,
because I know he too wants to see this bill pass.
Mr. Speaker, the reason why I emphasize this
is because with all sincerity the New
Democratic Party had an opportunity to
ensure that the debate occurred and they have forgone that opportunity.
Now they are introducing a motion, if it were to pass, that could jeopardize The Multicultural
Act. Now, I know and I have concerns in terms of what the New
Democratic Party's real position is on
this act, and the reason why I say that is
because during second reading, you will recall, I asked for a recorded vote. The reason why I asked for a recorded vote
was because I was interested, given the
remarks that were put on the record from
the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) in what it is, if they were going to vote for it or against
it. Now, I turned to my colleagues and suggested that they
watch what the member for Radisson said,
and she said no. That is the reason why
I asked for a recorded vote. Did she mean no? She ended up coming back in saying yes.
Point of Order
Mr.
Ashton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I mean, we allow some
latitude in debate on bills, and I think
we have allowed particular latitude, but
it is not in order for the member for
Mr.
Speaker: On the point of order raised, I would like
to remind the honourable member for
* * *
Mr.
Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, what I have been suggesting,
for those that are questioning the
relevance, and I know that the NDP feel
very sensitive on this, is that it is relevant.
Mr. Speaker, if the member for
Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) is willing to
stand up and say that is not in fact the case, I will apologize to the member.
Having said these few words on this particular
motion, I am going to encourage all
members of this House, of this Chamber, in
particular the member for Radisson and her caucus, to really think about what it is that she is saying,
think about what it is that she is
doing. I recommend to the caucus to not
allow this amendment to pass, because if
it were to‑‑even without the NDP
support I am sure it will be defeated.
I would conclude by saying that
we will be voting against the member for Radisson's amendment, and I will put the rest of my
remarks on the record once we get into
the third reading, in hopes that this bill will, in fact, pass.
Thank you.
Mr.
Conrad Santos (Broadway): Mr. Speaker, a motion to hoist is not a denial.
It is merely a deferment; it is a postponement. Any fair‑minded person will acknowledge
the importance of the very introduction
of The Multiculturalism Act in
This is simply the shell of a very insidious
development in the governing of the
multicultural community. We should
not forget that a culture is the totality
of a people's shared values, of what
they hold desirable or important, including their collective accomplishments, their common
goals and hopes for the future.
This Multiculturalism Act is defective in two
aspects. It is a basic derogation of democratic principle,
because the act is substituting a
nonelected, nonappointed body in the form of a
Multicultural Grants Advisory Council in place of a grassroots representative democratic body known as the
Manitoba Intercultural Council.
It is a basic doctrine of democracy, one of
the shared values of every enlightened
and civilized society, that the authority and power to govern derives from the consent
of the governed. I repeat that basic principle of
democracy. The authority and power to govern derives from the consent of
those who are governed. Once this is denied, and it is denied because
of this substitution and replacement of
a representative, democratically elected
body with an appointed, autocratically, unilaterally selected body to exercise the decision‑making
power which affects the affairs and
fortunes of the multicultural communities.
Therefore, we are trying to delay this very
magnificent milestone in the advance of
multiculturalism in this province
because of this denial of a basic, and fundamental, democratic principle.
Another odious, unacceptable development
within the framework of what apparently
is a desirable multicultural act is the
insidious centralization, concentration and autocratization of power.
Let me be specific and cite the evidence.
Section 6 states: "the minister may establish an office,
to be operated by the secretariat, to
provide practical assistance to groups
and individuals in dealing with departments or agencies of the government."
Section 7:
"the minister may make grants for the purposes of this Act out of money appropriated by the
Legislature for those
purposes." The word
"may" implies the opposite.
The minister may not.
"May" means "may" or
"may not," so that it is entirely within the unbounded discretion of the minister‑‑with
due respect to the present occupant of
that position‑‑it is simply an unbounded discretionary power on the part of that
office‑‑I am talking of the
office, not of the person‑‑to establish or not to establish a secretariat, an access office, for the
benefit of the multicultural community
to grant or not to grant . . . .
* (1700)
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House the honourable member for Broadway
(Mr. Santos) will have 35 minutes
remaining.
The hour being 5 p.m., time for private
members' hour.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
House Business
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on House business, again I would ask for leave
of the House to call the Standing
Committee on Privileges and Elections at 7 p.m.
tonight in Room 255 to consider the review of the judicial compensation proposal.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to call said
committee?
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr. Speaker: Leave.
It has been agreed to.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 24‑Economic
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, as per agreement between the three parties, we
are prepared to provide unanimous
consent to the Leader of the opposition party
(Mr. Doer) to bring forward a resolution that is on the Order Paper at this time.
Mr.
Speaker: Which one?
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, it is not in order, but we waive
the condition that we speak from the
top, and it can be brought forward, and
I will let the Leader of the Opposition address the specific resolution.
Mr.
Speaker: Which resolution do you want to bring forward
at this time? Which number?
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Number 24.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave of the House to bring
forward Resolution 24 of the honourable
Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer),
Economic
An
Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: There is leave.
Mr.
Doer: I move, seconded by the member for
WHEREAS Manitobans across the province from
all sectors of the economy are concerned
about the impact of the recession; and
WHEREAS unemployment is rising, people are
being forced out of work because of free
trade and other economic forces; and
WHEREAS northern
WHEREAS there is no labour force strategy that
focuses on the need for training and
retraining; and
WHEREAS jobs in the transportation sector are
being devastated by the deregulated free
trade environment; and
WHEREAS farmers are losing their livelihood
and the rural infrastructure is being
eroded rapidly; and
WHEREAS Manitobans from across the province
have a variety of ideas, solutions, and
innovative strategies that can help pull us
out of this recession;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative
Assembly of Manitoba recommend that the
Premier consider convening an economic
summit immediately which includes farmers, labour leaders, business leaders and other concerned
Manitobans that would work together with
the government to find solutions and new
ideas to help resolve our economic crisis.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Doer: Mr. Speaker, this resolution may finally
reach consensus in this Chamber, and I
would hope that all members likely voted
last evening who supported the resolution.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) looks up
from his seat like the cat that
swallowed the canary, but I would note that the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) today acknowledged the fact that an economic summit is a good idea. In fact, 30 business leaders that are
now part of the Economic Innovation
group and the two labour members that
are part of that group, and the few academics that are part of that group are making the same
recommendation.
Now, I have asked this question in the Chamber
10 times at least in the last six
months, and the Premier says it is a bad
idea. Fine, if he wants to say it
is a bad idea because the NDP is asking
for it, so be it, but if he wants to acknowledge the merit of the idea because his own Economic
Innovations Council has now recommended
the same thing as what the opposition has
been recommending for the last year and a half, so be it. I do
not care who gets credit for it, Mr. Speaker. I just want it to happen.
I think if this Legislature supports it, along
with the economic innovation council of
the government, fine. So let us not play games and amend it, and let us not play
games and debate it into six
o'clock. Let us give the force of this
Legislature as reinforcement to the Premier's
(Mr. Filmon) commitment today in
Question Period, wherein he stated, as I recall correctly, and I have not got Hansard, that he has already
received a similar recommendation from
the Economic Innovation Committee of cabinet,
and that they will be proceeding accordingly in the fall.
So we do not have to waste a lot of time
debating this or speaking it out or
amending it or whatever else, because really
we should just agree that a summit is good for us. If you look
at the RESOLVED, the summit that we are recommending‑‑and
the RESOLVED is the operative section of
any resolution‑‑the RESOLVED
basically says that we recommend to the Premier (Mr. Filmon). I know
the government will not like all the WHEREASes and that is fine, but we are dealing with the RESOLVED,
because that is the motion that goes on
the records of this Legislature.
Mr. Speaker, it basically says that all of us,
farmers, labour, business, and
government should be working together to
develop a consensus to deal with our economic crisis, to find solutions and new ideas. Now there is not one word in the RESOLVED, I would suggest, that members of
this Legislature can disagree with, not
one word in the RESOLVED. In the
WHEREASes I know we will disagree, we
have traded statistics around this House
long enough, we can disagree with‑‑let us just state that disagreement as a given. Let us not restate it.
There is a tremendous advantage, in my
opinion, of people working
together. Our strength in this province
is our people. We do not have all the
proper locations in terms of being close
to all the large markets, although we have a tremendous location in terms of time zones and geographic
location. We have some assets in raw resources. We have some assets in a diversified economy, in manufacturing, in agriculture, in
mining, in forestry, in service sector,
in some health care sectors.
We have some advantages in terms of a highly
skilled work force in our province. We have other advantages, Mr. Speaker, but our greatest advantage has always been
the people of this province. When we ask the people of this province to
work together, they are generally much
better than one sector or another sector
of the economy working apart.
If the business community is only working with
the government, or if the labour
community is only working with the
government, or if the agricultural sector is only working with the government, in isolation from each other,
they are obviously presenting their
agenda. But when you get them working
together, in the same room faced with
the same challenges and the same
economic reality, they come up with ideas, and they develop consensus that provides the kind of agenda
for government that I think is really
necessary in this province.
We were in last place last year in economic
performance. I know the government says now, that was last
year, this is this year, and the member
for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) has been raising a
lot of very important statistics as well, but that does not mean that we should just develop our agenda for
the economy as if it is business as
usual. It means that we should use new
ways of reaching out.
* (1710)
Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of sitting in
on an economic summit with people from
the business community, and labour
community, and government community in the early '80s. I
remember sitting in a room with Kevin Kavanagh; Otto Lang; Howard Pawley‑‑at the time I was not in
government‑‑Vic Schroeder;
Muriel Smith‑‑I cannot remember all the other people‑‑I
think a person from the National
Farmers' Union; Jackie Skelton; the
former president of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce who is now on the board of directors of the
Environmental Sustainable Development
Centre, Mr. McGinnis.
There was a terrific amount of discussion that
went on, and it was all focused on, not
what can this province do for me, but
what can we do for this province collectively. I believe if the government were to call this summit together,
they would get the same kind of advice
from all different groups as what I thought
we had in the early '80s.
You know, many of the health initiatives that
are being announced by the government
today came out of a consensus from
people, from Manitobans. They
were from Manitobans from all walks of
life and from all political parties. I
mean, we know what Otto Lang's politics
were, and we know what other members of
that body were. But they all came
there, not with political uniforms or
not with uniforms from the sector of the economy that they represented, they came there as
Manitobans to work together.
Mr. Speaker, this was the first summit in
Mr. Speaker, right now, in British Columbia, a
province which is now predicted to lead
the country, there was an economic
summit two weeks ago, the business community, the labour community, and the government. There was a tremendous amount of consensus about how B.C. should work
together, how the various sections in
the British Columbia economy should work together to develop an agenda for British Columbia.
(Madam
Deputy Speaker in the Chair)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I only refer to the
reports from the Economic Council of
Canada, and the reports, even some of the
people who are economic gurus that are studied by members opposite, I think, many reports about the
Canadian economy have identified the
same problem.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would encourage the
member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) to go
door to door with the member for Inkster
(Mr. Lamoureux) in the next provincial election. [interjection! Well, okay, I will stop that.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have also suggested to
the government, with the greatest
respect, that we go with an all‑party
committee on the economy. We are
pledged, also, to have an all‑party
committee on the economy like we did on the
constitution. So Resolution 25 as
opposed to Resolution 24‑‑and
I would hope the member for
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is off the topic,
because I believe this resolution for
all parties of
We get groups coming to us, manufacturing
groups, small‑business groups,
farmers, labour groups, environmental
groups, we get them coming to us.
But I like sitting in the room
with everybody together because then you are not saying, we want you to do this. We are developing an agenda through much
more consensus, through debate and through
discussions about what the winning and
losing industries of Manitoba will be now, and what we could do to create jobs and opportunities
in the future, what kind of
infrastructure do we need in terms of our labour force adjustment strategy and labour market
training to get us there.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, this idea is not
revolutionary. This idea is not difficult
to accept. If we see the government amend it or if we see the government speak it
out, we will know where the government
is at. Where they are at is that
they cannot even give the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) a recommendation from this
Legislature to support the recommendation they have from their own economic innovation fund.
I am not going to speak any longer. The countries of the world that are successful have a co‑operative
relationship with business, labour,
agriculture and government. The
provinces that right now are predicted
to be No. 1 in the economy have developed
a co‑operation between business, labour and government‑‑the Harcourt government of
We must do the same thing. If we fail to do so, we do so at our continued peril. I urge all members of this Legislature
to not play parliamentary games with
this resolution but to support it and
let us get on with the rest of the business of this House.
Thank you very, very much.
Hon.
Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise to
put a few comments on the record as it
relates to the resolution before us today.
It is actually encouraging to hear the Leader of the Opposition start to talk about people working together
in partnerships because, based on his
comments over the last few months, one
would certainly wonder in terms of the lack of confidence that he far too often shows and his party far too
often shows in this House in terms of
Manitobans and their ability to compete and
produce, and compete with people throughout the world.
That is something that our government works on
day in and day out, each and every day
interacting with Manitobans, dealing with
Manitobans in terms of how to improve the economic situation of our province.
That has led to some innovative approaches to economic development that I feel will produce
very positive results for Manitobans
over the weeks, months and years ahead.
That is what has led to programs like Grow Bonds
that get the communities themselves
involved, the people of communities coming
forward and investing their hard‑earned money in economic opportunities in their local communities‑‑a
very innovative and aggressive economic
development capital fund for rural Manitoba.
That also led to a program that I am sure the
Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer)‑‑he
did support, I believe, the Crocus Fund,
the establishment of the second employee‑ownership fund in all of
The Vision Fund is the fund that is able to
take equity positions and profitable
companies, again, an opportunity for
government to interact with, in this case, the private sector. They put money into the fund. Government puts money into the fund.
Once again, a capital resource that is available for Manitobans to invest in their economic
future, Madam Deputy Speaker.
So day in and day out we have an opportunity
to interact with Manitobans and work on
the economy and the economic development
of our province. I go back to
February 17, which, I believe, was the
first or second day of our session, when the members across, the members of the opposition, brought in a
motion for a matter of urgent public
importance. [interjection! February 17 was the
date; I have got a copy of Hansard in front of me.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we all agreed
unanimously in this House to support a
matter of urgent public importance and have a
debate. But what was disturbing
is the void‑‑it is a repeat, and
I have to do this occasionally to be sure that my point gets home with members of the opposition. What is showing is that, if you go back in Hansard and read some of the
debate of that day, the complete lack of
substance and ideas coming from the opposition.
A forum, an opportunity to put some
fundamental principles, some ideas, some
innovation on the record in terms of their
vision, their ideas, what direction
When it comes to the economic development of
* (1720)
I will touch on just a few fundamental aspects
of economic development. One is that they seem to miss far too often
is the value of a positive economic
climate for your province or for your
region. One need look no further than
the days of the NDP government from 1982
to 1987 to realize how they do not
comprehend that very fundamental, that very important aspect of economic development.
I have read some of these into the record in
the past, but I have to admit, they are
worth repeating for the benefit of the
members across the way in terms of recalling what they did during their term of office in terms of economic
development, and the detriment and the
impact they had in a negative aspect, Madam
Deputy Speaker, to the economy of Manitoba.
I will only touch on a few of them in terms of
the increase in retail sales tax from 5
percent to 7 percent, introduced and
increased the payroll tax 2 1/4 percent a payroll, introduced a personal net income tax and surtax, increased
corporation income tax from 15 percent
to 17 percent. The list goes on and
on, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I have
read it into the record before, and I am
sure the members can look back in Hansard.
The total cost to the taxpayers
of
If you look at
We can go back again to the time frame of '82
to '87 and look at the dollar losses in
many of our Crown corporations and some
of the poor investments of the government of the day totalling over those five years approximately $500
million, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we take the hard‑earned
tax dollars of Manitobans very
seriously, and it is with that in mind that we
have dealt very frugally with our expenditures, and that is a major part of the economic climate that you
create is in terms of how you as
government lead by example in terms of controlling your own costs and creating, again, a
positive economic climate.
I want to talk about a couple of other
programs. We have talked a lot, and I know the Leader of the
Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) has
expressed concerns on many occasions about
training and the value of education, and we agree with that‑‑fundamental to economic
development. It was with that in mind that our government brought in the
Workforce 2000 program, Madam Deputy Speaker. If you look at the statistics for 1991‑92 some 15,000 employees benefitted through the
utilization of Workforce 2000 and the
anticipation is that is the program that
will continue to be utilized extensively, and one of many programs that is being utilized to enhance
and promote skill development and
further training in terms of the employee base
and the labour pools of Manitoba.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) I
think spends a great deal of time going
through economic indicators and
attempting to define the gloomiest and the doomiest that he can, but if you look through the list today and
look at the projections for Manitoba,
Madam Deputy Speaker‑‑and I will not walk through all of them‑‑if you
look at the economic growth, while no
province within Canada is pleased with the projections in '92, Manitoba is projected to be third in
the country in terms of economic growth
for 1992. Next year we are projected to
have the fourth best growth rate in all
of
In terms of capital investment in the
manufacturing sector we are expected to
lead the nation, an increase of some 31 percent, whereas
Just a couple of other brief points I want to
make. An
interesting survey was done by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which is really a
majority of small businesses. They did a survey of almost 16,000 of
their members. The questions related to conditions necessary
for firms to hire more employees than
presently planned. The biggest concern, the concern of 80 percent of them, was
that increase in customer demand
occurs. They need more consumer demand
and so on. That makes sense; I think we all recognize
that. That is something that is required. Consumer confidence throughout our nation in terms of consumer spending will
certainly stimulate our economy.
The second biggest area of concern was more
confidence in provincial
government. That was some 54 percent, I believe‑‑expressed that as the
second major concern in terms of hiring
more employees than presently planned: obviously
a concern for small businesses. But when you look at the provincial breakdowns, while within
So I encourage the Leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Doer) and his party: get out and talk to some of these people. Talk to
them about what they want. Talk
to them about taxes; talk to them about
government expenditures. Talk to them
about the kind of economic environment
that should be created in this province
for long‑term growth and long‑term quality jobs, and you
will get the answers. You will get the answers that will concur
with many of the things that this
government is doing, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Prior to concluding, I want to speak very
briefly about the Economic Innovation
and Technology Council. We had the bill
at committee just the other day. We have 29 outstanding Manitobans serving on that committee, many important functions
in terms of the development of
innovation and technology in our province, a
fundamental part of their role.
It is spelled out within the act,
the enhancement of awareness and the dialogue and so on with the stakeholders of
We have a great deal of confidence in that
committee which has business, has
labour, has academic and research and is well
represented with some outstanding Manitobans who are going to help this government and Manitobans to continue
to grow and prosper. We are very pleased with the job that they
are doing to date.
(Mr.
Speaker in the Chair)
It was with that in mind that I want to move
the following amendment. I move, seconded by the member for
Charleswood (Mr. Ernst) that Resolution
24 be amended by deleting all words from
the second clause beginning with the word WHEREAS and all subsequent clauses, and replacing them with
the following:
WHEREAS Manitobans across the province from
all sectors of the economy are concerned
about the impact of the recession; and
WHEREAS the government of
WHEREAS the economic future of
WHEREAS efforts in support of enhanced
competitiveness must be both intensive
and ongoing; and
WHEREAS the government of Manitoba has
established the Economic Innovation and
Technology Council involving members from
labour groups, businesses, academic and community sectors, as well as other concerned sectors of
Manitobans; and
WHEREAS the role of the council is to provide
a forum for consultation and dialogue
between government, business, labour,
research community and the general public and to bring together all groups with a stake in research and the
growth of our economy.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative
Assembly of Manitoba fully support the
province's new Economic Innovation and
Technology Council in its efforts to foster economic development and to support economic restructuring through
innovation and the development and
commercialization of technology so as to enable
Manitoba to compete effectively in a global market economy; and endorse the Economic Innovation and
Technology Council's efforts to provide
a forum for dialogue and to sponsor interaction
between and among stakeholders.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Motion
presented.
* (1730)
Mr.
Doer: Mr. Speaker, you know this government is so
two‑faced on these things. They talk all day long about providing
positive ideas and the first time they
get one that we actually can debate in
this Legislature with an opportunity to vote on it, they put in a self‑serving amendment.
Mr. Speaker, the arrogance of the Premier (Mr.
Filmon), just sitting there, making the
comparison between a debate in this
Legislature and the economic summit that we have proposed in this legislation, shows us why this Premier is
stewarding a province that was in last
place in 1991 and in last place in many of the
private‑sector indicators.
He is all public relations and
absolutely no substance. The
member talks about the‑‑he is happy
about a last place performance in 1991.
They talk about what is going to
happen in '92 and '93. You know, Mr.
Speaker, by the end of 1993, Manitoba
will not be back to where they were on
January 1 of 1991 in terms of growth, investment and opportunities in this province. Three years of stagnation, three years of absolute treadmill economic
development under the leadership of the
Premier as chairperson of the Economic
Committee of cabinet, and they give us these absolutely hypocritical amendments, self‑serving
amendments, in this Chamber.
We had a chance today to recommend to the
Premier that he follow through on what
he actually confirmed in Question Period
today, on calling an economic summit of business, labour, farmers and government. That was the resolution‑‑not the
all‑party committee, that was the
other resolution‑‑that was the resolution before the Chamber. That is something that just took place
in
An
Honourable Member: So I suppose Chinese money has nothing to do with it.
Mr.
Doer: It does have something to do with it, but I
would encourage the Premier to look at
the successful countries now in the
world. They have co‑operation with
business, labour and government on
developing our economy. Now I want to know
why the Premier could oppose a
resolution and have to amend a resolution
that said, "Therefore be it resolved that this Legislative Assembly of Manitoba recommend that the
Premier consider convening an economic
summit immediately which includes farmers,
labour leaders, business leaders and other concerned Manitobans that would work together with the government
to find solutions and new ideas to help
resolve our economic crisis."
So, Mr. Speaker, the Premier plays politics
and his caucus plays politics with the
resolution. That is what it comes
down to, because the Premier on eight
occasions in this Chamber said that
having an economic summit was a bad idea.
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Mr.
Doer: I will give him the Hansard. A number of other times the Premier said having an all‑party
committee dealing with the economy was a
bad idea because this Chamber was the place to
debate. He had two different
answers to the question. Now that the NDP has recommended it for a year and a
half to deal with the dismal economic
performance of the Premier and his government,
something that has been identified by our caucus and by the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) on a daily
basis to deal with this last‑place
performance, they amend it, because now the
Premier is going to convene one because his own economic innovation committee is saying the same
thing. Business is saying the same thing as the NDP in terms of
this resolution, saying this Premier
needs new ideas and needs to develop a
consensus in this province.
Hallelujah, the Premier has
confirmed today that he has finally changed his opinion, his stubbornness on this issue, and finally has
admitted that this government is
bankrupt of ideas and needs an economic summit to get this economy going.
Mr. Speaker, you know the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
says he does not like to look at what he
said in the past, and I do not blame
him. I do not blame him. You know, when we asked the question in December, he said, oh, I am looking at the
future, I am looking at '92. When we asked the question a year ago, he
said, oh, I do not want to deal with
what just happened the last year, I want
to deal with what is happening in the next year.
Well, let us take a look at what he said six
months ago about what was going to
happen when he lectured us about asking him
about his performance. First of
all, we found out three months later he
was a last‑place government on economic growth which measures private and public sector
investment. He was in last place in many of the private sector
indicators. This was after he told us a year ago, all he was going to do
was step aside. I am a step‑aside Premier, I am a step‑aside
kind of person. I will just sit in my office and just let the
thing go along and hopefully it will
work its way out. I will just step aside
and let things work themselves out.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen the results. You have got the report card, last place‑‑last
place in terms of private sector
investment in many categories, second last in terms of manufacturing investment, last place in terms
of residential construction investment,
second only to
Well, December, he said, just look at the
future. Do not look at the past, that is negative, look to
the future. Fine, six months later, we look at what the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) said to look at in terms of
the future. He said to us, 4 percent growth in December, the first Question Period
of this Chamber, 4 percent growth. What are the growth predictions right now?‑‑1.1. He is wrong.
* (1740)
He said to us the unemployment rate would be
8.7 percent. It is 9.7 percent, it is averaging 5,000 more
people than what the Premier
predicted. Wrong again. He said to us, look at the manufacturing jobs in this province. They are down 5,000 from December of 1991 when this Chamber first
sat. Wrong again.
So, Mr. Speaker, I do not blame the Premier for
saying, look at '98 and '99 and 2000,
because he does not want to look at what
he said a year ago. He does not
want to look at what happened on the
bottom line a year ago. If he brought
this bottom line to a group of
shareholders or a nonprofit organization, they would fire him.
Last place, they would fire him; 10 out of 10, dead last, they would fire him.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) knows
that is true. He knows that is true. Last place for economic performances for most people means you are out the door. They will try somebody else.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I was in a caucus that left a $55 million surplus, and I will go not by the
record for the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
opposite, I will go with the record and absolute empirical evidence of the auditor's report.
Mr. Speaker, this government promised‑‑I
remember the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) when he was in opposition; I
remember the member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard) when he was in the opposition; I remember the hotshot Leader of
the opposition who was called the mouse
that roared at that point when he was in
opposition.
They said that they would always balance the
books. They used to lecture the former Premier Pawley
about the finances. So they inherit a situation where they are
getting $4 million a month in surplus
revenue. It was not all because of the
former government, some of it was
because of revenues in mining, some of
it was because of equalization and some of it was because of the actions of the former government.
The bottom line is that when he walked into
the Premier's office, he was getting $4
to $5 million a month more than what the
province was spending on all costs. Mr.
Speaker, when you take the Fiscal
Stabilization Fund and read the auditor's
comments about his action, he is now spending $530 million. So you
are now spending‑‑[interjection! Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) knows that
the interest payments in
The swing of the deficit under this Premier
(Mr. Filmon) has been $600 million. Howard Pawley's swing went from Sterling Lyon's deficit of $280 million, and it was
about a $400 million swing and then it
went down. You know what, and I know
they do not like this and I know they
will not admit this, I know they will
not like this, but the member for Tuxedo (Mr. Filmon) has run the deficit up $600 million and he has
not told us yet what he is going to do
about it.
He is doing the same thing as Grant
Devine. Well, they laugh.
Conservatives‑‑that is right, it is not so funny, because it is a lot of change in terms of the deficit
and the financial situation of this
province. We have a situation now where private sector investment, and the member for
Osborne (Mr. Alcock) has identified many
of those factors and we have identified
many of those factors, is way down below 1988 levels. Employment is down below 1988 levels; good‑paying
jobs in manufacturing, research and
development, telecommunications,
transportation are all down. The
population is stagnating. We have less people today than 12 months ago in
this province, just exactly the same as
Sterling Lyon.
(Madam
Deputy Speaker in the Chair)
Madam Deputy Speaker, what have we got to show
for it? We have a very serious problem. So, when we propose an economic summit, which I thought was a rather innocent
recommendation, something that
They congratulate themselves on their Economic
Committee of Cabinet chaired by the
Premier (Mr. Filmon), the council now that
is costing the taxpayers about $880,000 a year, and we have not seen one dollar of benefit for the people of
Madam Deputy Speaker, when we start seeing
employment levels above 1988, when we
start seeing manufacturing jobs above 1988,
when we start seeing transportation jobs above 1988, when we see research and development jobs above 1988,
when we start seeing population growths
year over year higher than what we saw in the
'80s, when we start seeing some bottom lines, we will say, hallelujah.
But, on every major economic indicator, this
Premier (Mr. Filmon), this member from Tuxedo,
has failed the people of
Thank you very, very much, Madam Deputy
Speaker.
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am delighted to follow the mouth that roared.
Mr.
Doer: You are the mouse that roared. I have the cartoon and I will bring it tonight.
Mr.
Filmon: You are the mouth that roared. I have not developed a lisp. [interjection! Well, I think perhaps
my writers should go over and assist the
Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer); that was
quite a contribution he made.
At least when he was the president of the
Manitoba Government Employees'
Association, from time to time he came up with some reasonable contributions, as when he said
that the New Democratic Party's Jobs
Fund, all it did was plant flowers on the side of the highway and put in signs all over the
province.
Then, of course, when he called his now
colleagues "white‑wine
socialists," I remember that one very, very well. He
also called them fraudulent from time to time. Of course, that was before they offered him the leadership of
the party and then he said, oh, I have
changed. You are all nice people. Where do
I sign?
Madam Deputy Speaker, we know the principles
of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Doer). He says, I have principles, and
if you do not like those, I have got
another set of principles over here that
you might like.
In any case, the issue here is not the matter
of an economic summit. The matter of an economic summit is a good
idea. It is a good idea, but it is not a partisan idea. It is not an idea that is the domain of a political party, and
it should be appropriately conducted by
somebody who does not have political
motivation, such as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) or the Leader of the government, for that matter.
Ms.
Jean Friesen (Wolseley): You do not call the state of the economy a political issue?
Mr.
Filmon: The member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) thinks
that the state of the economy should be
a matter of a political issue. She thinks that it ought to be the matter
that she could use for cheap, partisan
purposes. We believe that the economy
is too important for that. We believe that the economy should be a matter of getting everybody together to work
for the betterment of our province.
That is why it is absolutely essential that
something like the Economic Innovation
and Technology Council ought to do that,
because it has representation from organized labour; it has representation of people who are involved in
economic development measures for our
aboriginal community; it has people involved
from the farm sector, from the rural sector, from the manufacturing sector, from the service
sector, from all sectors of the economy.
* (1750)
People who are not there because of their
partisanship; people who are not there
because of their political leanings;
people who are there because they want to contribute to the structuring of a new, improved and
strengthened economy in this province,
because we are going through very, very difficult times across this country.
Country‑wide there is a massive
restructuring taking place, a massive
restructuring that is seeing us move from a production economy to an information‑based
economy. I can tell you that in some provinces that restructuring is absolutely
just devastating. The
It is that transition that is going to be the
biggest, single challenge that we and
every other province in this country face.
So to go and take a look and blithely identify for their own partisan purposes the number of jobs that
have been lost in manufacturing because
factories that no longer can compete in the
new era of economy‑‑[interjection! No. It is the businesses that cannot compete, very clearly. You see, the members opposite were not even listening when the Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson)
pointed out what businesses are saying,
what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is saying about what it is that is preventing them from
investing.
In other provinces it is their lack of
confidence in provincial government
policy. In fact, in provinces such
as
Of course, in every province they talk about
the tax regime, because in order to be
competitive the tax regime is paramount in
their bottom line. In this
province, this is the only province in
the country that five straight years has not raised any of the major taxes, has not imposed any additional
burden on individual Manitobans or the
business community despite the fact that we
were left with a situation by the New Democrats, who want to talk about their growth in government, the growth
that was all based on the tax dollars
that they confiscated from the public in order
to feed into the economy to create artificial growth. That is
all that growth was, and the only thing that we had left to show for it by 1988 was the second highest overall
tax regime in the country and a per‑capita
debt that was amongst the highest in the
country, leaving us with annual interest costs of $550 million. You want to talk about growth? I will talk about growth.
When Howard Pawley took government in 1981,
$100 million a year was going to
interest costs. When he left government
it was $550 million a year. That is growth‑‑growth in
interest payments annually; growth in
the amount of taxes that they had to take
away from the people of
That is the kind of administration we are
dealing with. [interjection! Come and
listen. If you cannot take it, do not leave, please. You see, Madam Deputy Speaker, the truth
hurts. When New Democrats are faced with
the reality of their policies, with the
effect that their policies have on the real business investment decisions, they run. They cannot stay here even to listen to the sad tale of havoc that they
wreaked on this province.
So that is why this government is taking an
entirely different perspective rather
than taking a pure partisan perspective
and saying, what we have got to do is get people of all different politics together in a room and
come out with the answers. No, we have to go to the people who are making
the decisions with their pocketbooks,
with their time and their energy and
their talent, who are saying, I am going to put my time and energy on the line. I am going to invest it in this province because I believe in this province,
I believe in its future, I believe in
its growth potential. Those are the
people whom we should be listening to,
not to some people who are politicians
on the other side of the House who are trying to make short‑term hay for their own personal
purposes. No, that is not where the answers are.
That is why the answer lies with an
organization like the Economic
Innovation and Technology Council that is broadly representative of the people out there who
take the real risks, who have to put
their own personal welfare on the line, who have to put on the line the welfare of their
industries, the welfare of all of their
employees and the welfare of their future
economic well‑being in this province. That is why we turn to people like that who broadly represent all of
the sectors of society, who broadly
represent the real people who are out there
working, taking risks and creating opportunities, not the people like the academic from Wolseley who sits
there offering pious responses day after
day and quoting scripture and history, Madam
Deputy Speaker, without ever having risked her own energy or efforts to make anything work in this world‑‑[interjection!.
No, I do not want to talk about the
professional politicians who have never
worked in the real world, who have lived in their ivory towers.
Point of Order
Ms.
Friesen: Point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to
respond to the Premier speaking of teachers and people‑‑
Some
Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) does not have a point
of order.
* * *
(Mr.
Speaker in the Chair)
Mr.
Filmon: Mr. Speaker, it is because of the attitude of
the member for Wolseley and others like
her that the New Democrats had to raise
the personal income taxes in this province 138
percent in their six and a half years in office. It is because
of the attitude of the member for Wolseley and others like her, who always say give more, give more, give
more, who always want to take from the
taxpayer and force the taxpayer to pay for her
interests. That is exactly why we
want to turn this issue over‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
* (1800)
House Business
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I am mindful that the Leader of the Liberal
Party (Mrs. Carstairs) did not have an
opportunity to speak on this resolution, but I
know there will be more debate in this vein later on, because there will certainly be many money bills that
are coming where all members will have
an opportunity to engage in debate.
Mr. Speaker, I am seeking unanimous consent of
the House to sit beyond 6 p.m.
Mr.
Speaker: First of all, let us ascertain, is it the
will of the House that the Speaker not
see the clock until we resolve this House's
business matters?
An
Honourable Member: Agreed.
Mr.
Speaker: Okay.
That is agreed.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, I would also ask unanimous
consent to waive Rule 65(11) as it is
likely that Committee of Supply will sit
beyond 10 p.m., so that motions may be moved after it rises.
Mr.
Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive Rule
65.(11)?
Some
Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr.
Speaker: That is agreed.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, the House will continue to sit
at this time. I do not know whether I have to have
unanimous consent or I already have
it. I would suggest we go back to
completing discussion on third reading
of bills, and I think we were engaged in
an amendment on Bill 98. I would suggest
that we pick up at that point.
Mr.
Speaker: Is it the will of the House to sit beyond
six o'clock? That is agreed.
Committee Changes
Mr.
Speaker: Prior to recognizing the honourable member
for Broadway (Mr. Santos), the
honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr.
Hickes) with committee changes and the honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) with committee changes.
Mr.
George Hickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by
the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos),
that the composition of the Standing
Committee on Privileges and Elections be amended as follows:
Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
Mr.
Speaker: Agreed?
Agreed and so ordered.
The honourable member for Gimli with his
committee changes.
Mr.
Edward Helwer (Gimli): I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition
of the Standing Committee on Privileges
and Elections be amended as follows: the member for Roblin‑Russell (Mr. Derkach)
for the member for Brandon West (Mr.
McCrae); the member for Ste. Rose (Mr.
Cummings) for the member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard).
Mr.
Speaker: Agreed?
Some
Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr.
Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
* * *
Mr.
Speaker: Prior to recognizing the honourable member
for Broadway (Mr. Santos), I would ask
the House for a retroactive leave. Inadvertently, when I recognized the
honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Doer) to bring forward Bill 52 on behalf of
the honourable member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin)‑‑I am asking
for leave of the House to clear up the
books.
Is there leave to allow the honourable Leader
of the Opposition to bring forward Bill
52?
Some
Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: Okay, that is done. Thank you very much.
DEBATE ON THIRD
Bill 98‑The
Mr.
Speaker: Now, resuming debate on the motion of the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli),
and right now it is standing in the name
of the honourable member for Broadway (Mr.
Santos), who has 35 minutes remaining, I believe.
Mr.
Conrad Santos (Broadway): Mr. Speaker, let us not forget that The Manitoba Multiculturalism Act deals
with the culture of all Manitobans,
which by definition that particular culture is
multicultural in nature. Culture
is the totality of the people's shared
values, their collective achievements and their common aspirations and hopes for the future. A more enduring basis for any culture is the character and courage to
accept what has already been
accomplished rather than hope for some grants of money or some kind of temporary benefits.
Mr. Speaker, we view the very introduction of
this first multicultural act as, on the
surface, a significant milestone in the
recognition of Manitoba as a multicultural society, and yet we deplore the glittering generalities of the
wordings of the statute itself. We deplore the absence of a specific program
of activities, of behaviourally
measurable objectives in terms of
substantial issues that face the multicultural communities, such as the issues of the Affirmative Action
Program, employment equity, equality for
social and economic opportunities and the
struggle to stamp out racism in our society, in our community.
It has sometimes been argued that, because
this is the first multicultural act, let
us, therefore, docilely accept it, because
we can improve upon it later on.
If a person is thirsty and he
wants a drink, he does not simply accept the first offer of a drink, if the drink consists of automobile
transmission fluid. Rather, it might be
wiser for him to wait six months for a good
drink like gin and tonic, scotch and vodka, rye and water, Bloody Mary or a drink they call "Sex on the
Beach."
If a person is desperately hungry and he is
offered at the first opportunity a whole
loaf of bread but the bread is mouldy
and rotten, it might well be wise for him to wait for six months so that he could have the second opportunity
for a freshly baked health‑related,
sweetly smelling bread.
In introducing this multicultural act, this
government is insidiously introducing
undemocratic arrangements in structure in
our system of governance of the multicultural community. It is
trying to replace a democratically and representative‑elected body like the Intercultural Council with an
autocratically appointed, unilaterally
selected body of elites that are
accountable to no one but the minister.
This is a denial of the very basic principle
of our government, a part of our shared‑value
system in which the legitimacy of those
in authority will be recognized if they are
derived from the concern of those whom they are governing.
The same thing with the decisions that affect
the granting authority of
government. If the granting authority is monopolized by the Minister responsible for
Multiculturalism (Mrs. Mitchelson) and
refuse the sharing of such authority with
the consent of those who are primarily affected by the decisions that are to be made. There is a denial of the democratic principle that the legitimacy and
acceptability of authority to allocate
money derives from the consent of those taxpayers, who, in the first place, are the ones who provide
the money.
In introducing The Multiculturalism Act, we
cannot permit any derogation of the
basic democratic principle. We cannot legitimize and allow the unilateral grab for
power without accountability and
responsibility to those who are primarily
affected by the decisions.
* (1810)
(Mr.
Jack Penner, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
We would like to see a multicultural act that
deals with the basic issues of
multicultural society, such as affirmative action programs, employment equity, and enforcement,
to assure not only vague generalities
but actual achievement in terms of equality of
opportunities.
The one redeeming feature of this act is the
recognition in the preamble of Manitoba
as a multicultural society, not being a
collection of separate societies divided by language and culture, but being a single society united by shared
laws, values, aspirations and responsibilities
within the Manitoba community.
The failing of the act is that it does not
specify what a specific program of
legislation, enlightened and progressive
legislation, a program the government commits itself to do for the multicultural communities, is. It does not specify how such programs will advance the freedom and
opportunity to participate in the
decisions that are made within the multicultural society.
The denial of the fundamental democratic
doctrine is strong enough reason for the
motion to hoist and delay this legislation,
in order that we can remedy a defect, not of the surface, but a defect in the very substance of the
legislation itself.
If only the Manitoba Intercultural Council
would be recognized by the legislation,
if only the legitimacy of this duly
elected body would be linked with the advisory council to the honourable Minister responsible for
Multiculturalism, if only the minister
were willing to share some of the premises of the allocations the budgetary allocative authority‑‑in
the fair distribution of grants, if only
the minister would assume the duty and
obligation to create, as a matter of duty, the Access Office for multicultural problems, then this
legislation would probably be better
legislation.
It is the collective power of the people, duly
organized and structured according to
established procedures, that creates the
legitimacy of political authority in government. But, if the
government itself denies the very foundation of that authority by denying the grassroots consent of the people
they are trying to govern, that is just
the surface of autocratism that we cannot
tolerate in our democratic society.
One of the enduring principles that we
recognize is that the body politic
should be accountable to those people whom they
govern, and that has been the genius of our parliamentary system in our society. The voters will elect the government. The
government therefore exercises delegated powers from the voters, and when the voter is not satisfied, the
voter can turf out the government and
reclaim to itself that legitimacy of authority.
But in the structuring of the governing of
multicultural affairs, there is no
democratically elected structure. The instrumentality, the agency, the decisional
unit is in the palm of the minister
herself, unless the minister is a person like the present minister of Multiculturalism.
We cannot foretell the future, because
somebody else in the future may sit in
that position and exercise the autocratic
authority in the arrangement and in the processes of the multicultural affairs of this province. Remember that we are not dealing with particular persons or particular
instances or particular situations. We are trying to devise and design a system of governance that is justifiable in
terms of the basic value of our
democracy.
The Manitoba Intercultural Council is a
legitimate, elected, representative
body. That is the institution that was
originally created in designing the
multicultural affairs of this province.
Let not the government deny that basic principle that the elected procedure, accountability to the communities
themselves, will be the ultimate
standard by which the performance of government will be judged and will be evaluated. Otherwise, we will be governed unilaterally without any responsibility or
accountability, because it destroys the
very basis of democratic representation
in our institutions and agencies of government. Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker.
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner): Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner): All those in favour of
the amendment to the motion, will please
say yea.
Some
Honourable Members: Yea.
The Acting
Speaker (Mr. Penner): All those opposed, would you indicate by saying nay.
Some
Honourable Members: Nay.
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner): I would declare the Nays
have it.
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yeas and Nays, Mr. Acting Speaker.
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner): A recorded vote having
been requested, call in the members.
(Mr.
Speaker in the Chair)
Mr.
Speaker: The question before the House on the motion of
the honourable member for Radisson (Ms.
Cerilli), seconded by the honourable
member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), that the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) for
third reading of Bill 98, The Manitoba
Multiculturalism Act, be amended by
deleting all the words after the "that" and substituting
the following: Bill 98, The Manitoba Multiculturalism Act,
be not now read a third time but that it
be read a third time this day six months
hence.
A
STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Ashton, Barrett, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar,
Doer, Evans (Interlake), Evans (Brandon
East), Friesen, Harper, Hickes, Maloway,
Martindale, Plohman, Reid,
Nays
Alcock, Carstairs, Cheema, Cummings, Dacquay,
Derkach, Driedger, Ducharme, Enns,
Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer,
Helwer, Lamoureux, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McIntosh, Manness, Mitchelson, Penner, Praznik, Reimer, Render,
Rose, Stefanson, Sveinson, Vodrey.
Mr.
Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 17, Nays 28.
Mr.
Speaker: The motion is defeated.
Committee Change
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Osborne (Mr.
Alcock), that the composition of the
Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections
be amended as follows: St. James
(Mr. Edwards) for Osborne (Mr. Alcock).
[Agreed!
* * *
Mr.
Speaker: Is the House ready for the question on Bill
98?
Mr.
Lamoureux: I wanted to spend just a few minutes to
talk about Bill 98. As I had alluded to previously, Mr. Speaker,
this is a bill, in which not necessarily
we agree with all aspects of what is in
the bill, but we do believe that it is in the best interest of the citizens of the province that
this bill does pass at this time.
I was very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that an
amendment that we had put forward, an
amendment that we had fought very hard for as
a compromise of sorts in order to allow the bill, if you will, to go to committee somewhat prematurely, was
accepted. We think that is a positive thing. Now, we also believe still that the Manitoba Grants Advisory Council should not
be the one that should be handing out
multicultural grants and are extremely
pleased that we have not legalized any politically appointed body to hand out those grants.
We are also disappointed that another
amendment that we brought forward to the
committee in fact was defeated. I appreciate the support from the New
Democratic Party on this particular
amendment, because we in the Liberal Party believe that MIC does have a very valuable role to
play. Now, Mr. Speaker, the amendment that we felt was being
brought forward was in fact a very
responsible amendment and felt that it was very
unfortunate that the government decided not to include it.
* (1850)
Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on in terms of
talking about the Manitoba Intercultural
Council, but I am somewhat reluctant to
in the sense that I know that the minister has heard me on many occasions on the importance of the
Manitoba Intercultural Council. Our position has not changed. The response has consistently been from the minister that
because Mr. Blair is going to be doing a
study on MIC, they are now going to wait
until the recommendations come forward.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that was a
convenient way for the minister to avoid
putting the Manitoba Intercultural Council into
the legislation. The reason why I
say that is because, when we had
introduced a private members' bill to this Legislature, the minister stood up to speak on it and told me
that what she was looking at, she did
not want to address the MIC in a piecemeal
fashion, that she wanted to look at it and incorporate it into a multicultural act.
Well, the minister had plenty of time to do
that between the moment she said that to
the moment that the bill was introduced.
As I say, we found that it was unfortunate that the government waited so long in the session. We had stood up during Question Period to ask the minister when she was going
to be bringing forward this bill but,
unfortunately, we did not see the bill as
soon as we would have liked to have been able to see the bill.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have often made reference
to Clause 2 of the legislation, because
this is a piece of the legislation that
really, we feel, does a lot and says a lot, and individuals in the different communities, I believe, feel
that this is at least better than having
nothing. That is why we had felt that it
was so very important that we take this
as a two‑step approach. We have a multicultural act that we want to see
passed. We also want to see some changes. We were fortunate in the sense to be able to convince the government to withdraw
the MGAC, but that is only one aspect.
We want to be able to see additional
amendments to this bill, and that is
where the second step is. I encourage,
Mr. Speaker, the minister to go through
some of the presentations once again
that were made before the committee‑‑there were a number of
ideas that came out of there that I
believe this Legislature can and should
address‑‑but also to recommend to the minister and to the New Democratic Party that any changes to the
multicultural act should be, at the very
least, vetted through the Manitoba
Intercultural Council.
If, whether or not, the government agrees with
whatever the recommendations they might
have as a council, they can do whatever
they want. If they agree with it,
fine. One would think, if they follow up on a recommendation
and agree to implement that
recommendation, that she will get much more
support, that we will not see the type of presentations that were made before committee, that we will not see
the concerns that have been expressed as
much as they have during second reading
and so forth, that there are, in fact, a number of things that could make this bill better.
Having said those very few words, Mr. Speaker,
I want to recommend to all members of
this Chamber to vote in favour of the
amended multicultural act and only hope that we will see additional changes to the act, because as I
have pointed out‑‑and one
could even go right into the act itself, where there is made reference to the Community Access Office,
where it says that "the minister
may establish."
Mr. Speaker, that particular portion of the
legislation does not really make a
commitment. The reason why I say it does
not make the commitment‑‑right
now the minister may establish. It does not call upon the minister of the day to
continue or to create. Obviously, it has been created, and hopefully
through time, we will see this
particular office up and running and doing
a number of services to the community, things such as what the minister had proposed as an amendment during
the report stage, which was the whole
question of racial harmony. The member
for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) brought in an
amendment last night that we believe is
something that should be in this form of legislation. The member for Radisson brought in some other
ideas that I believe are essential. On many different occasions, I myself have made recommendations as to what we
believe are necessary to have in a
multicultural act.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we see that we are
in a situation where there is a majority
government. A question for us that has to be answered is‑‑ultimately,
the majority government can pass
whatever it wants if it is willing to use the different means that are made available to it, the different
tools that are made available to the
government of the day.
So even though, as I say, we wanted to see
additional amendments, we wanted to see
more co‑operation because the Leader
of the Liberal Party in her opening remarks said this is a piece of legislation that should have come in with
unanimous support, a lot of support,
morale support, not only from inside this
Chamber, but outside of this Chamber.
Unfortunately, because of the manner in which
the legislation was brought in, because
of the manner in which this legislation
was not consulted with, the numbers of individuals, in particular, the Manitoba Intercultural
Council that made a number of
recommendations, we did not see what the minister's position really was on it.
Again, I am going to conclude by saying that
we want this bill to pass. We perceive this bill as a first step. We will be
introducing, no doubt, future private members' bills if the minister does not accept the responsibility
of bringing additional amendments to
this bill. I only hope that, in
fact, one of those amendments that we
will see from Mr. Blair‑‑and I
have been assured that Mr. Blair will be in fact meeting with all different ethnic communities. In addition to that, he is also going to be meeting with the members of the
Legislature, and I will definitely take
that up and look forward to my meeting with
Mr. Blair in hopes that we can be able to really and truly do a service to the province of Manitoba. Thank you.
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I speak today on Bill 98 because of the importance of
multiculturalism. I have been committed to multiculturalism
personally. I know it is very important for our own family. In fact, I have had the experience of seeing some of the growth of Manitoba in
recent years in terms of
multiculturalism. I attended many of the
founding meetings of the Manitoba
Intercultural Council. In fact, my wife
was an elected representative from
Thompson for a number of years when it
was first established.
I can indicate that multiculturalism to my
mind goes to the heart of the Canadian
identity. That is why I stand in my
place to speak today. I think it is important to put on the
record very clearly what was said and
what is being said by the New Democratic
Party in terms of multiculturalism.
I want to begin, by the way, Mr. Speaker, by
correcting some misinformation that the
member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) put on
the record about what happened in second reading. I would like
to note for the record that the Liberals spoke on Bill 98. We
attempted to be recognized, and in fact, the member for Inkster was recognized instead of one of our members,
similar to what, I might add, happened
earlier in private members' hour when I feel
the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) was unfairly missed and should have had the opportunity to
speak.
* (1900)
So we attempted to be recognized, Mr. Speaker,
and through an error at that time in
terms of the normal process, we were not
able to do so, but let us go one step further and recognize that the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) spoke
every time the bill was called. He had indicated he wanted to filibuster the
bill and having had the opportunity to
speak at length on previous bills, it
should be put very clearly on the record that we were caught in the position of not being able to
speak on the bill for more than 10
minutes without running the risk of not getting the multicultural bill to the committee to hear
the views of the multicultural
communities.
So it was because of the tactics of the
Liberals that debate was cut short on
second reading. We voted in favour of
the principle of a multicultural
bill. That is very clear. We also
went to the committee to hear the concerns of the multicultural community and to propose amendments to make
it a better bill.
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is the bill was
not significantly amended. The bill includes a number of fine statements about multiculturalism, but it
does not go anywhere near as far as we
should in terms of multiculturalism.
Mr. Speaker, multiculturalism is more than
about culture and heritage. It is more than about fine ideals. It is about
day‑to‑day life, and we need a multicultural policy in
every facet, including in terms of
economic concerns, so we get full
equality in this province for everyone regardless of their ethnocultural background. That is something the MIC has been pushing for, for many years. That is not fully represented in this bill, so there are many faults.
What I want to indicate is that is why we
called for an opportunity to do it
right, not to kill the bill. We did not vote on the hoist to kill the bill. We are back here in October, by agreement of all three parties. We have a guaranteed fall session for the first time, Mr. Speaker, in a
considerable period of time, a
guaranteed fall session.
We could have brought this bill back in. We could have
properly consulted with the multicultural committee. We could
have made it a far better bill if we had accepted the hoist and brought it back in. Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are wrong if
they believe that introducing a private
members' bill is going to correct any
weaknesses in this bill, because there was not a single private members' bill in terms of
matters of public concern in this
session that has been passed.
It is very rare that they ever pass. We have even had bills such as the antisniff bill which was passed
and never enacted, Mr. Speaker. The only real opportunity is through a
government bill. This is not necessarily the first step and
that concerns us. There needs to be the second step.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, despite the fact
that the Liberals and Conservatives have
voted down our hoist motion, we will be
continuing to push for a real, substantive multicultural bill that goes beyond some of the principles
outlined in this bill, that goes into
some real substance in terms of multiculturalism. Indeed, we will be raising that in the next
session of the Legislature.
We need a substantial, substantive
multicultural act, Mr. Speaker. While this may be not a negative bill per se,
while it may take some positive steps by
even recognizing the concept, it can be
far better. So we, the New Democratic
Party, say, do it right; do it right
when it comes to multiculturalism.
Mr.
Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question
for the House is third reading of Bill 98, The Manitoba Multiculturalism Act; Loi sur le
multiculturalisme au Manitoba. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Agreed?
Some
Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr.
Speaker: That is agreed and so ordered.
Mr.
Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I would like the record to
indicate that there was unanimous
support for this particular bill.
* * *
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader):
Yes, I believe, Mr. Speaker, if
you would call for further debate on third
reading, Bill 70.
Bill 70‑The Social Allowances
Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), Bill
70, The Social Allowances Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aide sociale et apportant des
modifications correlatives a d'autres
lois, standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows.
Mr.
Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have to speak on this bill tonight. We had hoped that after the minister listened to public presentations
last night in committee, that he might
have changed his mind, that he might
have listened to the community, that he might have learned from his mistakes, that even though he consulted
the SARC committee and did not follow
all of their recommendations, that he might
have listened to the people he did not consult with, namely the churches in the inner city of Winnipeg, the
Manitoba Anti‑Poverty Organization
and Choices, and that he would have listened to
their advice because they were unanimous. They all condemned the major flaw of this bill.
He did not consult with them. In fact, he did the opposite. He bragged about how he had consulted
people. Well, the only people he consulted were people from rural
Manitoba, elected officials, and one
representative from the City of Winnipeg in
spite of the fact that the vast majority of people who will be affected by this capping of welfare bill, the
vast majority of people affected by this
are residents of the city of Winnipeg.
The minister could have called these
groups. The minister knows about the existence of the Manitoba
Anti‑Poverty Organization. He knows about the other groups in the
community, and he did not ask them. He did not ask the people who are the most affected, and that is the poor and the
people who are working with the poor. In fact, the minister last night talked about whom he did consult, but he did not
talk about whom he did not consult.
Mr. Speaker, we are opposed to the main flaw
of this bill, namely the capping of
welfare. The minister, though, is being very coy about this. He is hiding behind his regulations. He
will not tell us whether or not he is offloading $5.6 million in expenses to the city of Winnipeg. We asked him in Question Period.
We asked him in committee last night.
We said, you must have taken this to Treasury
Board. What is the financial implication of this bill? How much are you going to save or how much are your expenses going
to increase? The minister will not tell us. He is hiding behind his own regulations.
So all we can assume is that the bill and what the minister says in the bill is what is actually
going to happen.
I wish that I could take the minister with me
canvassing in Burrows. Burrows is one of three constituencies and
the riding in Canada that has the second
highest incidence of poverty in Canada,
Winnipeg North Centre federal riding.
Door after door he will see many people who
live in incredible poverty, and I know
that, probably, all members here have
pockets of poverty in their constituencies including in rural Manitoba. But there is an extremely high concentration
of poverty, probably exceeded in
Broadway and Wolseley and Point Douglas,
but numerous people living in poverty in Burrows.
I can remember campaigning during the election
and going into a home where there were
children present and there was no food in
the house. So I went to my former
place of employ, to North End Community
Ministry, and got groceries for this family.
People in this household had
obviously been sniffing.
We have an antisniff legislation that was
approved by all three parties in this
House and has not yet been proclaimed. Why is that?
Does the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) not care about the problem of sniffing and children,
especially, who are being affected by
this problem in our community?
I know that the minister has agreed to come
with me to a food bank outlet. I have yet to take him up on that since he
accepted my offer; but I will. We will go perhaps to Colony Street, to West Broadway Community Ministry and their
food handout at All Saints Church every
Tuesday morning, where there are up to 150
people accepting food for at least 300 people in families, or to North End Community Ministry where they have
a sharing circle every Wednesday morning
and up to 150 people come for food from
the food bank.
I would like the minister to come and sit at
the back of the sharing circle and
listen to the stories of people as they talk
about their problems on social assistance, as I do and as the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) does,
as we go and we try to answer some of
their problems about social assistance and this
minister's department. We believe
we are going to hear a lot more
complaints if this bill goes through as is and the minister does what he says he is going to do.
Well, we are not really sure that he is going
to do what he says he does because the
minister will not come clean with us. He
will not tell us exactly what the implications of this bill are, whether they are going to pick up more
responsibility or whether the City of
Winnipeg is going to be forced to pick up
$5.6 million of additional expenses.
We wish the minister would tell
us now instead of waiting for the regulations.
Well, why is this government not following
the recommendations of the SARC
report? Why will they not pay above the minimum rates? Well, either they are trying to save money
or they do not care. It could be that in their obsession with reducing the deficit and keeping government
costs down that they have decided that
this a very convenient way of saving at least
$5.6 million of expenses just in offloading to the City of Winnipeg; or it could be that they do not
care.
* (1910)
Now we have heard the members side say, oh, we
care about these things and that is why
have made priorities of certain
government departments. I have
even listened to speeches from
government members, even backbenchers.
It was a common thread through
one of their speeches during budget debate, probably all written by the same person. They said, we are the kind of people who care.
Well, if you care, you would not be supporting this bill.
If you had been in the committee the other night‑‑and
some members opposite were at the
committee the other night‑‑they
heard Greg Selinger, city councillor, say the implication of this bill if implemented is that it is going to
force more children and adolescents onto
the street in Winnipeg where they are
victims of prostitution and homelessness, where they are extremely vulnerable. That is what City Councillor Greg
Selinger said, this bill will force more
youth onto the street. If these members cared, they would not be doing
that. They would not be forcing more adolescents onto the street in
Winnipeg where they are extremely
vulnerable.
Another example that was used, the Social
Planning Council of Winnipeg pointed out
that there is a very large difference
between the infant allowance for food between the city and the province.
The City of Winnipeg infant food allowance is $160. The provincial infant food allowance is
$85. If members opposite cared about infants, they would not be
passing this bill as is. They would have
supported our amendments last night, because what they are doing is they are taking food out of
the mouths of infants. It is very obvious from the social assistance
rates.
If they cared, as they say they do, they would
not be passing this bill as it is. Why is this government passing this bill without amending it? If they cared, they would not be
reducing expenses on the backs of the
most vulnerable members of our society. If this government cared, they would not be
doing that.
Mr. Speaker, the presentations at committee
were very interesting. For example, the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty
Organization submitted a brief, three
pages, but very interesting, very well
written. For example in the third
paragraph, and I quote: The stereotype of people who are on welfare as
being lazy, irresponsible and drinking
their money away does not wash.
(Mr.
Bob Rose, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
The people we talked to at MAPO are caring and
responsible and are on the system by
circumstances not by choice. The frustrations of being on welfare can destroy
a person's self‑esteem and
emotional well‑being. This becomes
even harder when money is constantly
being juggled around each month for things
not covered in the initial budget.
Then they go on to itemize things that are not
covered in a social assistance
budget. In fact, one of the things that
I came across, which I found very
interesting and which I believe MAPO has
access to and used in presenting their brief, is guidelines written by home economists employed by the
Department of Agriculture of the
provincial government.
It talks about minimum costs for different
items in a household, yet when you
compare that schedule or table with what
people on social assistance get, you will find that there are huge differences between what a home
economist in the Department of
Agriculture says a family needs to survive on or to live on adequately and what people actually get on a
social assistance budget.
But did the minister consult with MAPO? Did the minister consult with churches? No. He
probably did not even consult with the
staff, the home economists in the Department of
Agriculture who are experts in devising household and family budgets.
On page 2, they said, and I quote: Food banks are already overloaded and provide a temporary, band‑aid
solution. Food banks are for emergencies only and will not
carry a person long‑term. If a person needs more than a couple of days
food assistance depending on their
circumstances, sometimes welfare will
provide an emergency food voucher.
Unfortunately, the person is then
dealing with an overpayment, causing even more of a strain on their budget for the next few
months until the overpayment is cleared
up.
Well, as we heard from Mr. Selinger last
night, there is a food bank in
Winnipeg. We all know about Winnipeg
Harvest. But do people know that they are distributing food
through 173 different churches, social
agencies and organizations, mostly in
the inner city of Winnipeg but certainly not confined to the inner city of Winnipeg, because at Transcona
United Church they are serving huge
numbers of people every week, over 700 families
a week being served out of Transcona United Church, and we commend them for that. But we have a philosophical problem. The
problem is we do not believe that food banks are an adequate response to poverty in our society. They are only, at best, Band‑Aid.
It is very significant that David Northcott
from Winnipeg Harvest has changed his
position. Whereas at one time he was opposed to lobbying on behalf of Winnipeg
Harvest food bank, now he has publicly
said that he is joining with other organizations to lobby governments to do something about
poverty in the province of Manitoba.
This problem is not restricted to the city of
Winnipeg. We have a food bank in Beausejour in the
constituency of the member for Lac du
Bonnet (Mr. Praznik). We have a food
bank in the constituency of the
honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness),
in the constituency of Morris, and we have a food bank in the constituency of the member for Selkirk (Mr.
Dewar), in the town of Selkirk.
This is a measure of the seriousness of this
problem in our society when people's
income is not adequate, that they are
forced to rely on charity. They
are forced to beg in order to subsist in
our very affluent society.
In this paragraph, MAPO points out a problem: If people get
emergency assistance from welfare, they are faced with an overpayment.
Now we have a very interesting case before the Supreme Court of Canada, the Jim Findlay
case. He has already appeared before the Supreme Court.
We are waiting for the judgment which could be
out in a matter of days. Lower courts have already found that it
was illegal to deduct payments from his
social assistance cheque because people
on social assistance are already living at a bare subsistence level.
In fact, people probably do not know that
social assistance is calculated
ostensibly on people's need, and the Canada
Assistance Plan provides for people's basic needs in three areas, food, shelter and clothing. So if people's minimum needs are not being met, how can you possibly subtract from
their very minimal needs?
The Supreme Court may rule that it is illegal,
and that is going to pose this minister
with a very serious problem because if
the city rates cannot be lowered, then this minister is going to have to come up with more money, as much
as $5.6 million in order to cost‑share
the rates which are not being covered by the
Province of Manitoba.
As my honourable friend for Wellington (Ms.
Barrett) points out, if this minister
and his government were to institute some
meaningful job‑creation programs, perhaps they would not have
to put out $90 million more in social
assistance this year than last
year. In fact, on page 3, the
recommendations from MAPO have to do
with job creation.
Their recommendation No. 5 is: Education and training programs must be realistic and lead to real
jobs that pay enough for the individual
and their family to live healthy and
productive lives. The current
minimum wage reinforces poverty and
keeps people living below the poverty line.
In fact, this is a recommendation that the
Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) should
be listening to as well, because when the
minimum wage is at $5 per hour, thousands of Manitobans are working full time but living way below the
poverty line. This is a group that we do not hear nearly enough
about in our society, people who are
working and working very hard, many of them at
what are now called McJobs, working at minimum wage or close to minimum wage.
In fact, many of them are worse off than people on social assistance.
This Minister of Labour, if he cared about
people and poverty, could do something
about it by raising the minimum wage. But what happened? They did not raise the minimum wage for about two years, and so we got behind
other provinces. In fact, the percentage of minimum wage to the
poverty line has decreased over the
years, and it has become much, much less than
the poverty line.
The recommendations of MAPO were excellent
recommendations. They actually start off
with a commendation. They say: We
applaud the provincial government's move to standardize welfare rights.
MAPO has been actively advocating for a one tier system for the past decade. However, there are a number of major issues that need to be considered in this
recommendation.
Then they go on to list five of their
recommendations, the first one
being: Current welfare rates do not
reflect the actual cost of living within
the province of Manitoba.
As I mentioned, the home economist's
calculation of family needs are
considerably above what welfare rates provide for family needs.
Their second recommendation is:
This is an opportune time to
review the overall rates and to ensure that
they adequately cover the basic necessities. Rental guidelines need to reflect the actual cost of rental
accommodation.
A serious problem for renters is that their
rent allowance does not cover the actual
rent that they are paying. What do people do in that circumstance? How do they pay their rent if welfare only gives part of it and their rent
is higher? Well, what they do is, they take money out of food
or personal need or household need in
order to supplement their rent.
* (1920)
(Mr.
Speaker in the Chair)
Another brief mentioned the problem of
security deposits and the fact that many
tenants do not get their security deposits
back. In fact, it was in an excellent
brief written by Karen Tjaden of St.
Matthews‑Maryland Community Ministry.
We know that this is also a serious
problem, and it was discussed at committee
the other night. The problem is
that security‑deposit complaints
in the landlord and tenant department are complaint driven. Unless a tenant complains, the department
does not investigate, and so frequently
people take money out of their food budget to
pay for the next security deposit when they should not have to and when they do not have to.
The third recommendation in the MAPO brief
is: Any changes to the current legislation should include consultation
with community organizations, such as
MAPO, who work directly with welfare
recipients and who have valuable insights into the needs and conditions of people who are on the
system.
I am going to conclude with this
recommendation because this is an
excellent recommendation, one of the areas where we are very disappointed with this minister. MAPO was saying, consult with us.
Consult with people who are affected by your decisions.
Consult with the other groups that made
presentations: St. Matthews‑Maryland
Community Ministry; Genevieve Funk‑Unrau
who also works at St. Matthews‑Maryland and came as a private individual last night;
Erika Wiebe, community development
worker, Winnipeg Child and Family Services, Central Area; and two people who are registered, who
could not make it last night, Aileen
Urquhart of West Broadway Community Ministry
and Mary Davis of North End Community Ministry.
These are the people who work with welfare
recipients on a daily basis, day in and
day out, year in and year out. The minister did not consult them and he
should. If this minister has a heart, if this minister cares, he will
amend this legislation and not offload
responsibility to the City of Winnipeg,
not save money on the backs of the most vulnerable members of our society, not force children
and youth on to the streets, and not
take food out of the mouths of infants, as he is going to do if this bill passes. As my colleagues say, shame on this minister.
I hope he is going to speak and rationalize
and tell us what is behind this. I hope he will put some comments on the
record so that we know exactly where he
stands, because he refused to answer our
questions in Question Period and in committee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon.
Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): I
would just like to indicate to my
honourable friend that we have met with
some of the groups that he has mentioned in his remarks. While they have not been on a regular basis,
certainly I have had a number of
meetings with MAPO and with some of the ministries to discuss areas of concern with social
allowances.
One of the earlier speakers for the NDP talked
about a reluctance to talk about our
track record. I would be pleased to mention some of the reforms that we brought
into being this year. Certainly, I have been able to mention this a
number of times in response to
questions. I would say to the
honourable member who just spoke that we
have consulted with a number of those
people on a number of occasions and have listened to their concerns.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question
before the House is third reading of Bill 70, The Social Allowance Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
l'aide sociale et apportant des
modifications correlatives a d'autres lois. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Mr.
Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say
yea.
Some
Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr.
Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some
Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr.
Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call
in the members.
The question before the House is third reading
of Bill 70, The Social Allowances
Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aide sociale et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois.
A
STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Cummings, Dacquay, Derkach, Driedger,
Ducharme, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay,
Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, Manness,
McAlpine, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Neufeld, Penner, Praznik, Reimer, Render, Rose, Stefanson, Vodrey, Sveinson.
Nays
Alcock, Ashton, Barrett, Carstairs, Cerilli,
Cheema, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Edwards,
Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake),
Friesen, Harper, Lamoureux, Maloway, Martindale, Plohman, Reid,
Mr.
Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 25, Nays 22.
Mr.
Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.
* * *
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you call adjourned debate, third
reading, Bill 85.
Bill 85‑The Labour Relations
Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), Bill
85, The Labour Relations Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur les relations du travail, standing in the name of the honourable member for
Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Stand? Is
there leave that this matter remain
standing? [Agreed!
Mr.
Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I am pleased to be able to
join debate on third reading on this
particular bill, but clearly I think the House
will know that is not the case, that no one on this side, certainly no one in the NDP caucus‑‑I
will not pretend to speak for members of
the Liberal caucus‑‑is pleased to join in this debate.
Our caucus does not believe for a minute that this debate should be taking place.
Mr. Speaker, we believe that there is no
substantive evidence that this bill,
introduced by this Minister of Labour (Mr.
Praznik), was necessary to correct any circumstances in the province of Manitoba. The province of Manitoba, as we have pointed out time and time again, and the
Minister of Labour has not been able to
refute, has enjoyed relative labour peace over
the last number of decades based on the existing Labour Relations Act.
Contrary to what the previous Labour critic
and the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) when
he was in opposition said, the labour relations
amendments that were introduced by the NDP government, whether it was final offer selection or other
expedited arbitration amendments to The
Labour Relations Act, none of those
amendments did anything to encourage the deterioration of labour‑management relations in the
province of Manitoba. Every factual account, every factual basis that you
can discuss, labour relations peace in
Manitoba showed that Manitoba's record of
labour peace continued to improve.
In fact, in the last part of the
1980s and when this government took office, Manitoba enjoyed the second lowest days lost to strike in the
country.
Only Prince Edward Island, which has a work
force of less than one‑tenth of
the province of Manitoba, lost fewer days to
strikes, Mr. Speaker, and those were times when often unions were seeking significant increases, increases
beyond the rate of inflation, when there
was considerable potential for strikes and
lockouts and labour difficulties.
* (1940)
Mr. Speaker, we did not have that in the
province of Manitoba. That was quite different from what other
provinces were experiencing. Certainly the province of Saskatchewan,
the province of Alberta, the province of
British Columbia, the province of
Quebec, not so much Ontario, were experiencing
extreme labour difficulties. The
number of days lost to strike increased
in the mid‑'80s to really unacceptable levels. What
was sought in the labour relations amendments in the legislation which was introduced by the previous
government was a balance.
(Mrs.
Louise Dacquay, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that is what
labour and management want. I know that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) may be taking advice from people
like David Newman, who is as antilabour
as anyone in this province, or maybe he is
taking advice from some of his other colleagues who may share those particular views. What the people of Manitoba and what working people expect, what the labour
movement expects, what the Manitoba
Federation of Labour expects, is for the Minister of Labour to look at the facts and decide not
what he wants to do based on ideological
assumptions, not what he wants to do based
on the wishes of his friends to improve their relative position in terms of the balance between labour and
management, what they want the minister
to do is to do what is right and what is fair
and to keep the process working.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I asked in this
Chamber before, and I ask the minister
to explain if he wishes when he comments at
the end of this debate, before we close debate on third reading, to tell us on what basis he has introduced
this legislation. I would ask him to do a second thing. I would ask him to tell us why this legislation, this government, if it
wishes to maintain some sort of balance,
did not introduce a piece of legislation
that was balanced, that represents maintaining that equilibrium between the rights and obligations of
unionists in the province and the rights
and obligations of management, because as I
pointed out in my previous remarks and has been pointed out by my colleague the member for Thompson (Mr.
Ashton), as was pointed out in briefs
presented at standing committee, the proposed
amendments to The Labour Relations Act do not achieve the balance that I think both union and management want.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I point out again that
what this legislation does is create an
obligation for unions and a new right
for management. That is not
balance. There is no evidence to suggest that we need to tip the scales in
one direction or the other at this
particular time in the province of Manitoba.
There is no evidence, for
example, that the government's last attack on
labour, the decision that it made to eliminate the final offer selection, to repeal final offer selection,
has done anything to improve the harmony
or the co‑operation between management and labour.
In fact, we know that quite the reverse is
true, that since the repeal of final
offer selection, and the minister will
confirm this, the number of days lost to strikes have increased dramatically. [interjection! Well, Madam
Deputy Speaker, that is most certainly
the case, because in 1987 or 1988, there were some 3,000 days lost due to strikes‑‑[interjection!‑‑while
this government was in charge of the
nurses' strike.
What this minister's comments prove is that
this government has no interest in
labour‑management peace. What they
have is some sort of death wish when it
comes to their life in government. The minister knows just as well that there
have been a number of other private‑sector
strikes in the province of Manitoba that
have bumped up the totals. I do not know
if he has looked at the total number of
days lost due to strikes as of
today. They are significantly
higher than they were in 1977, 1978.
This government, Madam Deputy Speaker, is
dancing to the tune of a very few
individuals who have on their agenda the
eliminations of rights, won through collective bargaining, won through legislative action over a significant
period of time, certainly the last 30
years. [interjection!
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Housing
(Mr. Ernst) wants to know whose tune I
am dancing to. I have tried to remain quite neutral on this question, tried to urge
the government to look at facts before
it acts. That is all I have ever
counselled this government to do. I have said time and time again that there is no evidence that this legislation is
going to do anything constructive. In fact, I believe that quite the
reverse is true.
What this legislation does, as it attaches a
new obligation on unions and confers a
new right on management, is to ensure
that the kind of conflict that we wanted to resolve when we introduced final offer selection is going to
be ever present in the workplace. It is not going to be there just when we
are talking about collective bargaining,
because there is significant anxiety,
certainly, when the two groups are bargaining‑‑I think that is certainly the case‑‑but
the minister has added a new twist by
introducing this particular obligation on unions with respect to both the number of people who are
required before certification is
automatic and by limiting or adding another
obligation on those who are involved in the certification drive to ensure that all the i's are dotted and the
t's are crossed, an obligation which has
never existed previously in Manitoba.
Madam Deputy Speaker, apart from that
obligation, the more significant danger
I believe, and certainly many people who have
been involved in organizing believe, is the right that is conferred on management. That is the right to offer what the legislation calls reasonable opinion. Well, with all due respect, I have heard honourable members on
that side and, yes, honourable members
on this side offer what they thought was
reasonable opinion which was certainly not fact and in many cases not reasonable.
We have listened to each other debate and
because of our biased position, because
of our prejudice for or against certain
ideas, often our arguments and the logic we bring to those arguments is not reasonable opinion. It is a statement of belief, not fact; a statement of opinion, not
fact; a statement of ideological
principle, not fact; a statement of faith in some cases, not fact‑‑
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): We never heard facts from this one.
Mr.
Storie: The Premier may believe he has never heard
fact from me. Well, it will come as no surprise to the
Premier that I have never heard fact
from the Premier. In fact, I view the
Premier's statements as ideologically
biased and tinged as statements that I
make quite often. Well, that may be a
statement of fact just for the Premier's
edification.
An
Honourable Member: An opinion reasonably held.
Mr.
Storie: It certainly is an opinion reasonably
held. The problem is that we are introducing this new
right to management at a critical
juncture in the creation of a union, at a time when you are dealing with people who are already
timid, nervous, apprehensive about the
collective bargaining process, about
becoming union members, about the reaction of their employer, the reaction of management. On the other side of the coin, of course, we have management who are
apprehensive about becoming a unionized
"shop"; management who are worried about the collective bargaining process and the obligations that
having unionized members may bring to
bear on their bottom line and on their
operation‑‑so you have that situation.
* (1950)
I think it is a significant leap of faith for
the minister, or anyone else, when it
has not been done in the province of
Manitoba before to say now that we are going to add another voice in this process. Not the one that the workers should have
the right to decide‑‑and
that is, do we want a union or not‑‑but the reasonable opinion of the employer. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr.
Praznik) one very simple question. What employer in this province, in his
opinion, is going to offer the
reasonable opinion that the workers have
the right to decide? What
employer can the minister bring forward
to this House to say, well, certainly, I would only offer objective information, factual information rather
than opinion‑‑[interjection!
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister may
want to put on record the details of
this particular company. We know and the minister knows as well, or he should, that in
many cases because the certification
drive in itself creates apprehension.
The voice of management, when it
comes to the benefits of unionization,
is going to be biased in the main and is going to reflect the ideological opinion and otherwise
of management. Madam Deputy Speaker, I
believe that it is going to bring a
certain bitterness to the certification drive which does not exist and which is not necessary.
So you have to ask the minister the
question: What is the purpose of this legislation? Is it to deny certification, unionization to the remaining work force, the
nonunionized work force in the province
of Manitoba? Because, clearly, it is
not going to improve labour relations
whatsoever amongst those groups who are
already unionized. All it is doing is
affecting the rights of employees who
are nonunionized, who may want to become
unionized.
I pointed out to the minister last time that
in the main the groups who remain to be
unionized in the province of Manitoba
come from smaller employers and represent, in the main, workers on the lower end of the wage scale. They are women, single parents, often working for minimum or just
above minimum wage, workers who require
the kinds of benefits that unionization and
the benefits of collective bargaining bring to workers in our province and in our country.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not certain why
this government is so terrified, so
apprehensive about unionization. I
pointed out that unionization and the
percent of our work force that is
unionized is not an economic problem.
The other countries in the world
who have a far greater proportion of their work force unionized are doing much better than we are
economically‑‑France,
Germany, Sweden and now even Japan.
We have nothing to fear from
unionization. What we have to fear is creating a system which is
antagonistic, which creates an
adversarial kind of bargaining process.
If, in the initial stages, when a
group of people are deciding whether they want to be unionized or not, were introducing this
new element of doubt, this new potential
element of conflict‑‑depending of course on what management says, and I will concede to
the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik)
that there may be some managements who view
unionization more benignly than others‑‑the fact of the matter is, there is significant potential for
hostility and animosity and conflict.
The Minister of Labour is introducing this
into The Labour Relations Act at a point
in time when we do not need it, at a
point in time when there is no evidence that we need to tamper with the balance that exists in a labour
relations legislation that has been
operating in this province for many years.
Madam Deputy Speaker, certainly we are always
interested in amendments to The Labour Relations
Act or any act, if we perceive it to be
an improvement, but this legislation is not an
improvement. This legislation is
a step backward. It is going to ensure that people who need the benefits
of unionization, who could benefit in
terms of pensions and wages and other ways from
collective bargaining, are going to be denied that because of this legislation. I am not sure that in the long run
anyone wins, including the proponents of
this legislation who may be members of
the government and perhaps the Chamber of Commerce and a few others.
Simply because this minister's friends want this legislation is not reason enough to impose it
on the working people of the province of
Manitoba. Thank you.
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (
I want to start off by quoting from
legislation in which the president of
the Manitoba Federation of Labour started off in her presentation, and it goes as follows: "WHEREAS it is in the public interest of the Province of Manitoba
to further harmonious relations between
employers and employees by encouraging the
practice and procedure of collective bargaining between employers and unions as the freely designated
representatives of the employees;"‑‑by
encouraging the practice and procedure of
collective bargaining, again, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ms.
Hart-Kulbaba then went on to say that these two phrases that have been taken together embody what should be the
standard against which proposed
amendments to The Manitoba Labour Relations Act
are measured.
Well, I really and truly believe that both
this administration and the previous
administration are in violation of The
Labour Relations Act, that really what is necessary, Madam Deputy Speaker‑‑and Ms.
Hart-Kulbaba goes further on. She
talks about why she feels as the president
of the MFL they are in violation, in
this case, for the government. She
infers that the reason why they brought
in Bill 85 was to appease or to make
happy a few selected individuals.
On this particular bill, I agree with her on
that point, but when I had the
opportunity to ask a question of her, I also
included in that that not only is it the Conservatives, but it is also the New Democratic Party that have done
the same thing, that have violated The
Labour Relations Act. Madam Deputy Speaker,
as both parties‑‑if you
will, the official opposition and the
government of the day‑‑talk about the importance of the
worker, both are willing to forget about
the worker and cater to a select few
individuals who have control over their respective political parties.
I believe that is wrong. The reason why I believe it is wrong is because the biggest loser is the
worker, is the small businessman. I look at it and if we were to follow the
act, what the act is saying, what the
government of whatever political stripe
should be doing, is getting a consensus from both labour and management or small business and so forth
and introduce on a consensus from both
sides legislation that could change The
Labour Relations Act.
Now, I guess, I understand why it is that they
feel it is necessary to do this. I would suggest, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if the current government, or any potential
future New Democratic government‑‑I
would suggest to them that they might
want to do it in two ways, by bringing in two bills. If they
want to have the political fight and try to appease their catered few, they can bring in a bill for that. Everyone will know it is a political bill and understand why it is
that they have brought it in.
But for those recommendations, Madam Deputy
Speaker, where there has been a
consensus from the Labour Management Review
Committee, in particular, from labour and management, those, I would suggest to you, are in keeping with the
legislation. If the government took that approach, I am sure
that we would see legislation passed
which all political parties inside this
Chamber support. Of course, you
will see the legislation that might come
forward in which the Conservatives want to take one stand and the New Democrats want to take
another stand in order to please a few.
* (2000)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I had said that I was
wanting to be very concise on this
particular bill because I have talked on the
bill both in committee extensively and also during second reading.
I have played on the importance of having strong unions, and the importance of having
management in small business. It is now that I would suggest to you that if
we want to have both sides working
together, then we need to start
consulting with both groups, as opposed to attempting to make political points, pleasing a few individuals
and dividing both labour and management.
That is the sad thing about this particular
bill and the reason why it is that we
feel that we have to oppose the bill.
Had the government gone out and achieved that consensus in keeping with the bill, with the preamble of
The Labour Relations Act, we would in
fact be more than happy to support this bill,
but for the sake of the workers, for the sake of the business person and management, I would encourage all
members of this Chamber to vote against
Bill 85.
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Thompson): I rise with a certain sense of mixed feelings on Bill 85, Madam Deputy
Speaker.
To members opposite, I guess when one
participates in debates in this House,
one hopes that sometimes one's words, one's
arguments, one's pleas sometimes will be heard at least to some extent.
Madam Deputy Speaker, particularly in regard to this bill, industrial relations, I am referencing
those comments now, because we did have
a fairly extensive debate on second reading.
The minister spoke, the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), the member
for Broadway (Mr. Santos), the member
for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), the member for
Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) and
myself.
We raised, I think, on second reading debate,
concern over the very principle of this
bill. I referenced what I felt was the true background to this bill and the fact
that rather than representing strictly a
matter of principle on behalf of the
Conservative Party, it represented instead more their biases and perceptions.
I pointed to the biases as evident in certain sections of the bill which seemed, Madam
Deputy Speaker, to imply time and time
again, if one looked at the construct of this bill, that Conservatives still do not believe that
when someone says they want to be
represented by a union, they mean it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I referred also to the
obvious pressure from the Chamber of
Commerce for this particular bill, the
reference in their own document, their own brief to the government in 1990, about the perception of
an antibusiness climate in Manitoba. Of course, as I pointed out, if anyone
has been contributing toward that
perception, it has been the Chamber of
Commerce itself, those in the Conservative Party and from time to time, those in the Liberal Party who have
supported that view.
We then went to committee. I want to say very clearly on the record what happened at committee. There were a number of very significant presentations, some very
excellent briefs. The Chamber of Commerce sent in a written brief,
a very small brief. There were a number
of people there, mostly from different
unions, different labour organizations, outlining their concerns with the principle of the bill in specific
sections.
Madam Deputy Speaker, some amendments were
introduced, some fairly substantive amendments
in regard to concerns we addressed, that
we had raised in second reading, concerns that I had raised personally, concerns that were expressed by
the presenters at the committee.
Do you know that despite some of those
amendments, the two key provisions of
this bill remain in place today as we debate it
on third reading, the provision that opens up the ability for employers, in my opinion and in the opinion
of many who are versed in labour
relations, to apply undue influence in the very
difficult decision employees make as to whether they want to be represented by a union or not.
In addition, there is another very significant
provision of this bill which has raised
the percentage requirement for mandatory
certification from 55 percent to 65 percent, making it more difficult, even when a significant
majority of the employees have said yes
to a union, for them to be able to achieve that
certification.
Well, perhaps, Madam Deputy Speaker, some
would dismiss the importance of
that. I know the Minister of Labour (Mr.
Praznik), on May 13, when he introduced
the bill, said that he felt it was like
a scene out of Casablanca. I will not
relate the specific scene that he was
referring to‑‑we have heard it too many times‑‑but I would suggest some
of us on this side might agree, but the
scene we are referencing‑‑and it is somewhat misquoted sometimes.
I will use the more well‑known version of it‑‑[interjection! That is
right. It is "Play it again,
Sam." Those are not the exact words
of the movie, but it is the version that
we have come to know.
I would say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that if we
want to talk about Bill 85, the Chamber
of Commerce has said, play it again,
Sam; play it again, Mr. Premier; play it again, Mr. Minister of Labour.
It is the fifth session you have been in government. We
want another tune. What has
happened is the minister has jumped to
it. The Chamber's brief to the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) has been acted upon. It is funny, the same Premier who would not
even listen to one of his own
backbenchers has listened to every cord
and bar that the Chamber of Commerce has requested‑‑play
it again, Sam.
So I suggest that before the minister quotes
back movie scenes from that great movie,
that he just learn the ability to say no
once to the Chamber of Commerce and perhaps that the Premier who is, as I said, quite adept at not
listening to whomever he does not want
to listen to‑‑and I cite the member for Portage (Mr. Connery) as the best living
proof of that‑‑that he might
just for once say no, just say no.
I want to deal with some other comments that
were made by my Liberal counterpart, the
Liberal critic, because I found it a
very different sort of speech.
The Liberal critic in this case‑‑and
I am sure members will remember his speech on this bill‑‑indicated that he was
opposed to this bill, but spent much of
his time attacking the New Democratic Party.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is fine. Believe you me, we can take it, certainly, from the Liberals and the member
for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) in terms of
labour relations. Debate is positive
and we certainly welcome that.
I guess what I think the member for Inkster
and the Liberal Party have misunderstood
in Manitoba is no one is disputing the
fact‑‑and I will put this on the record, Madam Deputy
Speaker, because the member for Inkster
kept saying, well, some working people
vote for the Liberal Party. Indeed, they
do. They
support the Liberal Party, as is their right. Some even support the Conservative Party. Some are members of unions. That is
their democratic right.
I hope the Liberal Labour critic will
understand one thing. The real issue
here is not which party receives that support from working people. The real question to my mind on issues such
as this is which party supports working
people. On issue after issue involving labour relations and in the
industrial relations climate in this
province, not just on this bill, but other
significant bills that we saw introduced, like final offer selection, only the New Democratic Party has
consistently said we stand for fairness
and equity for working people in this province.
That, Madam Deputy Speaker, is something I say
to the Liberal critic, and I appreciate
the fact the Liberals are opposing this
bill. The bottom line is I
appreciate that in this case, they have
realized this is a bad bill. I think the
Liberals would do well to understand
that they cannot oppose matters such as final
offer selection, some of the key debates that we have had in this Legislature when they are on the verge of
government, as they thought they were
between 1988 and '90. They spoke too
soon.
* (2010)
Now the Liberals are reduced in their numbers,
and some I know have suggested are concerned
about being on the brink of
oblivion. It is not simply good
enough for them now to be born‑again
supporters of working people and born‑again supporters of the rights of working people to say yes to
a union, Madam Deputy Speaker. Some of us find some irony in that
particular position and wish that the
Liberal Labour critic would have been
making the same speech when we were debating the final offer selection bills that were brought into this
Legislature, when the New Democratic
Party and only the New Democratic Party stood firm and fast in opposition to the antilabour
agenda of the Conservative Party.
I do not want to criticize the Liberals too
much, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I am
reminded of the Minister of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) who in committee when I supported one of the amendments that we had
actually proposed initially to the
Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) that he was
introducing, when the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs asked me to explain why I was supporting the
amendment, presumably I guess she
thought that, if I was in favour of it and
our party was in favour of it, she had to be against it. I had
to explain to her again and again and again that in this one area there was some agreement between the two
parties and that she should not be quite
so paranoid.
This bill brought up a number of very
important debates and issues. It involves the question of the very
existence of collective bargaining
itself and whether working people have the
right to select to be represented by a union. It also goes
further and deals with the process by which that will can be determined, how the will can be determined
and deals very much with the
certification process, elections, et cetera.
I want to say that is what is
wrong with this bill, Madam Deputy Speaker,
because I believe it still increasingly reflects the fact that Conservative members cannot recognize in 1992
that there is nothing wrong with working
people democratically, without fear of
pressure and coercion, saying that they wish to be represented by a union and wish to bargain collectively.
I want to dwell on that because from what I
have been able to see from this
Conservative government, there has been a
significant shift since the Lyon period.
I do not just want to talk, as I
did in second reading, about particular legislation but in terms of attitudes towards
unions. There is a significant turning back of the clock, the more
traditional views of Conservatives on
unions. There are those in the
Conservative caucus who think that
unions are evil, wrong and they oppose them
fundamentally.
That is most clearly indicated by those who
support the so‑called right‑to‑work
concept that has been developed in the
United States which has destroyed the Rand Formula, which has destroyed the organizational base of
collective organizations, most particularly
unions. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would
say there is a significant group in the
Conservative caucus who believe that is
the approach that they should follow in labour
relations, and that if some of those members had their way, we would be dealing with right‑to‑work
legislation. I remember the debates and I remember the member for Brandon
West (Mr. McCrae), the member for
Pembina (Mr. Orchard) and the current Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) supported right‑to‑work
legislation. There is the group who feels that unions are evil.
There may be another group in there, smaller
in number, who believe that unions are a
necessary evil, that can see that
working people may wish to be represented by a union, but it is not particularly positive and that somehow
this is the reason. So there are those,
Madam Deputy Speaker. Then there
maybe others who feel that if people
want to be represented by a union, that
is fine. But there is still a segment of
that group who say that even when people
say, well, maybe we should be represented
by a union, even when they have gone through the process of making a very difficult decision, that
somehow they were mistaken. I believe that is where much of this bill
comes from‑‑the section on
union dues.
Every presenter before the committee said that
the first question that anybody asks is
how much is it going to cost me. So the
section in here, the only jurisdiction in Canada now to require that union dues be disclosed, well,
that, I think reflects that. It is the same thing with the increase in
the percentage from 55 percent to 65
percent. The government is now saying that when 64.9 percent of the
employees in a unit say, yes, we want to
be represented by a particular union that they
somehow did not really know what they were doing; that there should be another vote; they were somehow
forced into it; or it was under false
pretenses; or they were not given the right
information; or they just do not know how to make that decision for themselves. Because what other justification is there
for moving from 55 percent to 65
percent? It is because they do not believe that.
They do not believe that working people, even if they are not as opposed to unions as some of
their caucus colleagues, can make that
decision and, in fact, through this
legislation suggested that the Conservative government knows better.
That is why I really believe they have brought in some segments of this legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is interesting
because what we are seeing from this
government is an attempt to roll back the clock
in terms of labour relations, because this bill does that. It
does it in one of the most significant ways possible. It is an
attack on collective bargaining, and the ability of people to organize collectively. It is not isolated. Bill 70 last year on the public sector wage freeze was an attack
directly on the current collective
bargaining process. They went further
this year in terms of going back. Last year, they told people who were certified and in some cases who had
reached agreements, they could not have
the agreements that were reached through
collective bargaining and this Legislature had the ability to say, no, it does not matter what was
bargained, what your employer has
said. That does not matter; that is what
they said in Bill 70.
This is even more‑‑what a clever
attack on the rights of working, Madam
Deputy Speaker. I am sure some
Conservatives have figured this out. I am sure the Chamber of Commerce has definitely figured this out. If people do not get to unionize in the first place, they do not have to worry
about collective bargaining. They do not have to worry about first
contract. They do not have to worry
about the concerns of workers in terms
of how they are represented in the workplace. That is, to my mind, the bottom line of this bill. It is designed, I think, by some deliberately and by others through their
biases and perceptions; perhaps more
indirectly than directly, it is designed
to make it more difficult.
Well, I just want to take that in context,
because I want to look at how important
that right is and of all places, Madam
Deputy Speaker, in the City of Winnipeg in the province of Manitoba the fundamental right to collective
bargaining should be recognized by
all. I went back, perhaps given some of
the comments that were made in
committee, and did some really serious
thought about how important that right is. It did not just arise out of the blue. It was not granted by a government. It
resulted out of the struggle of working people for decades in this province, for decades. To do what?‑‑to be able to
bargain collectively.
I was struck by how that process
developed. What particularly struck me was this is the
province of the 1919 General
Strike. I was reading a book recently in
terms of the life of J. S. Woodsworth
and the background of the 1919 General
Strike. What precipitated the
General Strike? It was what, demand for wages, demand for better working
conditions? Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. But one of the key issues was the right to collective bargaining itself. The machinists in the metal trades were fighting for nothing more than the right
to bargain collectively, which had been
denied them by their employers, the iron
masters. That was one of the basic
issues in the 1919 General Strike.
Well, I am not going to go through the
detailed history, although maybe I
should for the benefit of the Minister of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh), who could do well to learn from the history of labour relations
in this province and the struggle of
working people for the right to collective
bargaining.
* (2020)
You know, what struck me the most was J.S.
Woodsworth, a minister, who had been
unemployed for some time and had, through
his progressive views, allied himself with the progressive labour parties.
He was elected, in fact, in 1921 for the Independent Labour Party in the north end of Winnipeg,
but out of his experience of being
someone who was unemployed immediately
identified himself with the strikers and published a bulletin expressing the concerns about the strike that
was in place.
Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, he was arrested
for his efforts. He was later let free, unlike some others who
were arrested, tried on seditious
conspiracy, were jailed. I might add, many of them were elected to this
Legislature and to the House of Commons,
including J.S. Woodsworth, who were arrested.
What was the response of the business
community and the Conservative Party in
those days? They formed the Committee of One Thousand citizens of the business
interests. The mayor was associated with it, the Conservative Party of
the day. They immediately pushed for the federal government
to intervene, which they did.
I know the memory still lives on in many areas
of this city, particularly in the north
end, of the day in which the North‑West
Mounted Police, in those days, crushed a parade by returning veterans where 30 people were seriously
injured, one was killed. What they did
was they immediately phoned up their political
contacts in Ottawa. They changed
the immigration laws. They made it legal to deport anyone, British
subject or foreign citizen, for being
involved or associated with the strike, and
indeed immediately moved to implement that agenda. The federal
government immediately dispatched the Attorney General at the time who met with the Committee of One
Thousand and refused to meet with the
strikers. Lo and behold, Madam Deputy
Speaker, the strike was, through the
force of the North‑West Mounted Police
and the force of the entrenched business communities, crushed.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there were many at the
time who could not believe what was
happening. I think this is a lesson in terms of labour relations. J.S. Woodsworth, in particular, was always an optimist. Mediators have failed, he said at the
time, possibly something might be done
if the principles could be brought face
to face. In spite of the words in the
newspapers, there are very reasonable
men in both camps.
Nothing was done to bring the parties
together. The strike was crushed.
The right of workers to organize collectively was set back in a serious blow.
(Mr.
Speaker in the Chair)
Mr.
Doug Martindale (Burrows): Why did they drop the charges against him?
Mr.
Ashton: Indeed, the member for Burrows asked why the
charges were dropped. Indeed, they were unfounded.
Mr.
Martindale: Then tell us.
Because the Crown was
embarrassed. Now, why was the
Crown embarrassed?
Mr.
Ashton: Well, indeed I have no doubt that they
were embarrassed by the arrest of a man
of the cloth who was concerned only
about speaking out on a matter of principle in terms of that situation.
Mr.
Martindale: It was because he was quoting the Bible. That
is why they dropped the charges.
Mr.
Ashton: The member for Burrows points out he was
quoting the Bible. That was considered seditious conspiracy, Mr.
Speaker. I suppose if this was 1919, the member for
Burrows would have been arrested earlier
this afternoon. That was how ridiculous
it had gotten.
What happened?
J.S. Woodsworth was elected to Parliament. One of the first things he did was get the
removal of the insidious changes that
had taken place in the Immigration Act.
He went on to have a distinguished career in Parliament, raised many matters.
Many of the strike leaders continued the fight on behalf of working people.
You know, in the 1940s, with yet another war,
in the middle of another war, a very
significant development occurred with the
introduction of labour legislation.
Canada recognized in legislation
the right to collective bargaining, recognized the Rand Formula and finally led to a situation
where there was some recognition of the
right to collective bargaining.
Well, after that happened, were working people
allowed to make a democratic decision
without coercion, without undue
influence on behalf of the employers?
Were they, Mr. Speaker? I could cite time and time again where they
were not: The great Eaton's organizing drive of the late
1940s. In fact, the previous deputy minister of Labour was very
much involved with that. I had the opportunity to talk to him about
some of the incidents that took place.
I could cite time and time again where direct
coercion and interference on behalf of
employers resulted in employees not
having a clear, unfettered democratic choice. That is why the New Democratic Party government that was
elected in the 1980s felt that there was
only one fair thing to do, and that was to
say very clearly in terms of legislation that the collective bargaining choice, the choice of whether to
be represented by a union, is that of
the employees, not the employers.
I outlined on second reading how logical that
is. No one expects the Americans and Mexicans to be
participating in our elections in Canada
in the next federal election because they are
implicated in the results of a North American free trade agreement.
It is our decision, and we should be able to make that decision without coercion, without
interference. No one would question it.
Indeed, it is the same in terms of collective
bargaining. Why should an employer be
able to coerce employees not to support
a union when it is not the choice of employers? It is the choice of employees.
That is why we brought in the legislation. [interjection! Well, Mr. Speaker, I hear the
member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld)
talking in terms of what choice the employers
have. They have the choice as to
who will bargain for them. They can hire
David Newman. They can hire any of the
antilabour lawyers we have in this
city. They can, and they do.
All the employees are asking for in many cases
is the chance to have the equal
opportunity to have someone bargain on their
behalf collectively so that they have the exact same right. That
is all they want. They want the
same rights as employers, an equal,
unfettered right to be represented by whom they want to be represented by. So let us put it in perspective in terms of
that.
That is why what this government is doing now
is so negative in terms of its
impact. It is not just tinkering with
The Labour Relations Act; it is not
dealing with something as significant.
But a stand‑alone feature of The Labour Relations Act is
final offer selection. When final offer selection was withdrawn,
it was a significant blow, I think, to
labour relations in this province, but
it still did not get to the issue of what this bill does.
This bill is an attack on the ability of working people to say yes, they want to collectively bargain.
You know, Mr. Speaker, all the people are
asking for is fairness. The provisions in this act would never be
accepted by a democratic people in an
election. They are not parallelled
in The Elections Act. There is no equivalent of the 65 percent
rule that we have in this in The
Elections Act. This government gets 42 percent.
No one questions that. No one
questions an election, the ability to
electioneer on election day other than
in the polling booth, but this minister has introduced a prohibition that will apply, not just to
supporters of the union or opponents of
the union on election day, but to anyone,
anyone. I look to Conservative
members. Are they aware they introduced something that will penalize
someone for electioneering on election
day, for saying to someone, do not
forget to vote "yes" or "no" for a union, no matter
what side they are on, whether they are
associated with the union or not. They
are now bringing in a clause that will penalize them under the act.
You know, what we are asking for is simply
fairness. No one suggests, Mr. Speaker, that the employees
should be able to decide whether the employer
is represented by David Newman at the
bargaining table or not. I just
saw what happened with the CKY strike. No one in NABET, Local 821, really wanted to
have some say over who was representing
the employer at the bargaining table, so
why should employers have the same right in terms of employees?
Does that not make sense to anyone on the Conservative benches? Does that not make sense to anyone?
That is why‑‑and I reference the
Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) as well, because she was vocal in the committee, very vocal. I want to say, I am extremely disappointed in the fact that the
Conservatives, having brought in this
bill, have had one speaker, the minister, have not once given any reason or justification for many of
the significant changes in this
bill. Why is that?
I have been in this Chamber for 10 years. I have seen other bills.
I remember when we were in government, I remember when we spoke on matters of principle, important
bills and important legislation. Have we really deteriorated to the point
where, for the Conservative government,
the only thing that matters is what goes
on in their caucus room, Mr. Speaker, that it does not matter about what they have done, that they
do not have to justify it to anyone in
the public? Is it only their own
caucus and their political supporters in
the Chamber of Commerce that they have
to justify this bill to?
* (2030)
Where is the Minister of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh), who
was very vocal in the committee, putting her views on the record as to why she supports this
bill? Where are the other members, the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) who, I know from previous
debates, is a very strong supporter of the
right‑to‑work concept?
Where is he on this debate? Where
is the member for Brandon West (Mr.
McCrae) who, I remember, led a direct
attack on many of the provisions outlined in this bill? Where are they? Where are the Conservatives when it comes
to justifying what they are doing? They are not there. I want to
say that this shows the level to which we have sunk in terms of public policy in this province.
I think it is dangerous, by the way. It is very dangerous in terms of the Legislature itself. What I believe is happening here, Mr. Speaker, is very much a showing of
disrespect for the parliamentary
process. Simply because this government
received a majority‑‑and we
are seeing on a daily basis that it is very much a temporary majority‑‑simply
because they can now push through items,
they hope‑‑because their majority is pretty slim right now‑‑simply because they can do
that, does not give them the right, for
whatever reason, to listen only to whom they wish to and then to come before this Legislature and
not even justify what they are doing.
They have not even given us the courtesy of
more than an opening statement on this
bill by the Minister of Labour (Mr.
Praznik). What we are seeing is a
deterioration in the democratic process
right in this Chamber, and we are seeing it
increasingly: a government that
wants to use private members' hour as a
rubber stamp for its own policies; a government that will not debate its own policy initiatives; a
government that we saw last night in
chaos on a bill, that was drafting a bill as
the committee was sitting, because there were 300 police officers who were upset over the bill.
Is that the level we have gotten to? Should the labour movement have packed the galleries with 300
angry people calling on them to withdraw
this? Is that the only way they
function, they do whatever they can
until they cannot get away with it
anymore?
Then they go and they had this spectacle
yesterday of amendments being run back
and forth on the second last day of the
Legislature on a matter of major public importance because the minister did not even have the courtesy to
consult with the people involved by the
bill. Is that the way we are going
to function? Is this leadership? Where is the leadership from the Conservative government?
I am not just here echoing the concerns of the
member for Portage (Mr. Connery). I am not talking just about the Premier (Mr. Filmon).
The Premier does seem to be conveniently out of the country, out of sight when anything controversial
comes up, anything that might deflect
from the Teflon image here, which is
getting rather chipped, I might add, Mr. Speaker, recently. That
is not leadership.
If the Premier is not going to be here to
defend the policies of his government,
why is it that none of the other members will
defend it? Why is it they will
say many things from their seat in
committees. [interjection! Indeed, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) is
saying a lot from her seat again. I have not heard her once on this bill. I have not
heard her once speak about labour relations. That is not
democracy. She is not speaking
out on behalf of her constituents as are
any of the rest. We are not a society
which is governed by cabinet fiat or,
even more with this government, by those who
control the Premier fiat, because even, I think, some of the government members are recognizing even they
do not have any say anymore, Mr.
Speaker.
This is an important issue. This government cannot just push through matters of this kind and assume that
things will just continue. They cannot, for example, assume there
will co‑operation on labour
matters. We need co‑operation. We need
it desperately in this province when they are every session introducing antilabour legislation. Some will say perhaps we failed in the opposition on this side, and
being a minority, I do not think it
takes anything to recognize that when the final vote takes place, unless some Conservatives vote
with their conscience and support us on
this bill‑‑I can always hold that hope out, perhaps in the same way J.S. Woodsworth hoped
for some sanity and reason in 1919 from
the then‑Conservatives and then‑Chambers of Commerce.
If we do not succeed in that, Mr. Speaker,
there is something that is probably just
as equally as important. I want to say that first of all, I do not think it is going
to be any surprise to anyone in this
House that this bill is a temporary bill.
If the New Democratic Party forms
government, we will, I am sure,
expeditiously vote out every single one of the negative amendments in this bill. So it is a very temporary bill, because that will not be too far away. I said on second reading, it was two years or two members. It is now two years or one member. In
fact, I think that two‑year clock is ticking away rapidly.
There is a role for oppositions. I was struck by a comment that was made by an historian remarking on
J.S. Woodsworth. You know, J.S. Woodsworth never served a day in
government in his life. He sat as a two‑person labour caucus in
the House of Commons in the 1920s and
extracted old age pensions out of the
Liberals. He sat as part of the
later CCF in 1933.
An historian wrote, just shortly after his
death, what I felt was probably a fair
comment. It was echoed by his daughter
in her book that was brought out a
number of years ago. He was more important, the historian said, for what he
represented, rather than his actual
accomplishments.
Mr. Speaker, that is the importance of this
debate. The government will accomplish yet another attack
on the ability of working people to
organize. The government will accomplish
more implementation of the Chamber of
Commerce agenda; the government will
accomplish pushing through this bill on third reading, but that is not a failure on our part.
I will say that we have an even greater
achievement, because we are here
representing the true rights of working people and the rights of working people to
democracy. That is all we are asking for from this government. This is a democratic society; we are blessed with a democratic society with
all its faults.
It has always struck me that why we can be so
democratic in public life, political
life, and yet not be democratic in our
economic lives. Why is it? There should not even be any question that if working people want to be represented
by a union, that they cannot be
represented by a union. Why should there be any doubt, the working people know
how to choose on that very decision, any
more than‑‑even though I disagree with the members opposite, even though I did not like
the last election result overall in the
province, I always said, I have always
said, and I know the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) has been in this Chamber for many more years
than I have: The people are always right. The Conservative government may be wrong, but the people are always right.
So why can they be right in their political
lives but not in their economic
lives? That is what I say. This is what this debate is all about. It is what it represents more than the immediate day‑to‑day
accomplishments. This represents the
same attitudes of the 1919 General
Strike, when we saw the people opposite
in this same Chamber, I am sure, only a few years later, when this Chamber was opened, make the same
kind of speeches.
I could hear those echoes increasingly as this
government entrenches itself,
increasingly puts itself in a bunker, where it
listens to increasingly few Manitobans and increasingly only the Chambers of Commerce and those that are its
closest supporters. We are seeing it
increasing.
We have seen the same attitudes even after the
recognition of the right to collective
bargaining in the 1940s. We have seen it. I
put this in context as of a recent example of how that continues.
I could cite cases in Manitoba, but I want to cite a case in Nova Scotia, the Westray Mine.
Mr. Speaker, that was not a unionized
facility. Many questions have been raised about what
occurred at that mine with the tragic
deaths that took place. They have labour
legislation very similar to what this
province is moving toward. They
have no automatic certification. It is very difficult for people to organize; we have seen the Michelin
organizing drives fall.
Indeed, the irony is that the Westray Mine may
now unionize after it has closed,
because I know many people are considering
that. I cannot help but wonder,
if those people had been represented by
that union, by a union, if they had been at the
table with the employers, might not that have been avoided. That
is why this bill is so important.
It is the right of miners, such
as the Westray miners, to say yes to a union if they wish.
It is the right of employees here in Manitoba,
whatever area of the province, to say
yes to a union, to bargain for wages and
working conditions, in some cases to bargain for the very existence of the kind of safety and health
measures that are necessary to preserve
their own lives.
* (2040)
That is what unions are about, by the
way. That is all they represent.
People talk about big unions.
Unions are democratic
organizations made up of people.
I say, the government has accomplished
one thing today passing this bill, but they are
accomplishing very little because what they represent is a throwback to those days decades ago when
people did have to fight for the right
to collective bargaining. They did have
to be subjected to coercion and
intimidation in the workplace.
What we are fighting for, Mr. Speaker, is for
the hope that in 1992 we can at least
learn that in terms of labour relations
we need more harmonious labour relations. We need to recognize once and for all in this country that it is
positive to have people represented by
whom they want to be represented, in that
case, whether it is a union or not, and that we would all be far better off.
We might even get some of that co‑operation
that is so important to saving our
economy in this province if for once this
government stopped trying to just accomplish the passage of a bill and stood for something, stood for
something positive, stood for something
that is going to move this province ahead in labour relations and not roll back the clock
decades.
That is why we in the New Democratic Party,
for the fifth session in a row, on every
item of antilabour legislation that this
government has introduced, is going to vote no to Bill 85. Thank you.
Mr.
Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill 85, The Labour Relations
Amendment Act. I listened with interest to the presentations that were
made in committee on this bill, and
there were many interesting presentations that
were made, and the concerns that these working people in the province of Manitoba had with respect to
their rights being infringed upon by
this particular piece of legislation that is
proposed.
But I will deal with that a little bit
later. I want to relate somewhat of my own working experiences
during the course of my 25 years in the
work force and what it has meant to me as
an individual. I have worked both
for nonunion shops, and I have worked
for union shops as well. I have seen
both sides of the fence. I know what it is like to work in these
operations.
I will start first by speaking about the
nonunion shop that I worked in which was
back a number of years ago. While
working in that operation, of course, I
was employed as a labourer in that
particular plant. It was a
manufacturing plant here in the city of
Winnipeg.
After having worked at that particular plant
for a year doing heavy labouring work,
the employer at that time had decided that
for various reasons he no longer needed certain members of his employees.
So the employer one day, at the lunch hour, came up to the employees, myself being one of them,
and indicated that as of four o'clock
that day our services would no longer be required and that we were laid off.
Now, this came as a total shock to us, Mr.
Speaker. We had not expected this to happen; business seemed
to be good. There were a lot of sales going out the door of
that particular plant, and the employer
seemed to be thriving. We found it very
strange that we only had four hours'
notice, but being very young at the
time, we did not know what the rules were.
This is where labour legislation comes into
play, because I think it is important
that we continue to have that protection.
At that time, Mr. Speaker, I was unaware of what the labour legislation of the province was, and I did
not know where to go for that advice and
that counselling. It was a few days
later, after finally searching and
seeking the advice and the information
that I desperately needed at that time, I was put in contact with the Labour Board in this
province.
(Mr.
Jack Penner, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
They made me aware, at that time, that it was
a requirement in this province, where
the individual was paid on a two‑week
basis, that two weeks notice was required. I went back to my employer, that I had been laid off from, and
I notified the employer, at that time,
that it was a requirement, by provincial
law, that if the employer were going to lay off the employees in that operation, that two weeks notice had to
be given or two weeks pay in lieu of
that.
Well, the employer became very upset with that
and after consulting, I am sure, with
the Labour department in this province,
came back a day later and indicated, yes, they would be willing to follow the law. But had it not been for that labour legislation, Mr. Acting Speaker, that
employer would have taken advantage of
myself and other members of that particular plant who were laid off at that time. So labour legislation does play an important role in this province in
protecting the nonunionized workers.
But at the same time, Mr. Acting Speaker, I have
had the opportunity to work in a union
shop for a number of years‑‑over
20 years. I served on both the
union board itself as a shop steward
and, as well, I was part of the management team of that particular operation. So I have seen both sides of the operation, and I know how the system works in
heavy industry as far as union‑company
relationships are concerned.
In that particular operation, where I had
worked for many years, we have had, in
my years there, three strikes, in which I
participated, as a unionized employee, in two of those. I can
assure you, Mr. Acting Speaker, that there were not any employees whom I detected during that time who wanted
to go on strike. This was a last resort
for them. They did not want to
deprive the families of the income that
they desperately needed to maintain
their quality of living, their standard of living, but they saw no other recourse then but to
withdraw their services from this
particular company.
Had the negotiations continued in good faith,
I am sure that it could have arrived at
a negotiated settlement, but it did not,
and the strikes occurred at that time.
Of course, from that, the
employees were forced out on to the picket line. But they saw no recourse, and they saw that the only way that
they could achieve the goals that they
needed, by way of wage settlements that would
allow them to keep up with the cost of living, was for them to withdraw their services and to go on the
picket line at that particular plant's
operations.
It was some 10 or 12 days later that the
employees were ordered, by federal
legislation, back to work, and that it went
to binding arbitration. The
employees did not achieve through
binding arbitration all that they had hoped to achieve, either through the strike process or through the
negotiated process. But, nevertheless,
they were deemed to be essential services, so
the federal government chose to legislate them back to work. The
employees were bitter, and they had, for some period of time, a resentment towards the events that had taken
place. There were a lot of hard feelings that were created and it
took years for those hard feelings to
disappear. The employees lost the
money by going on strike, but at the
same time saw that as their only
recourse.
In the other strike, Mr. Acting Speaker, where
I was a member of the management of that
particular company, I saw the difficult
times that these employees had, the difficult decisions that they had to make before they opted to take that action. It was not
easy watching them on a daily basis on that picket line, and knowing full well, because many of them are
my friends to this day, that their
families were suffering, but had they chosen not to do that, their families too would have suffered,
quite possibly even greater than the
suffering that they incurred while they
were on strike.
It is very important that we have labour
legislation to protect the rights of
these individuals, but, by what we see here
in this Bill 85, we see a watering down, a reduction or elimination of the rights of companies'
employees to unionize.
I think back to the one presentation that was
made in particular that caught my
attention. It was made during committee on this piece of legislation, where
the one presenter indicated that a
certain company in this province was taking its
employees aside on a one‑by‑one basis and quizzing them
on whether or not they had been
questioned or had been contacted by any
members of a particular union organization with respect to organizing that particular company. Now, it is my understanding from the comments that were made during that
committee, Mr. Acting Speaker, there was
no organizing that was intended for that
company. The organizing that was taking
place was happening in the province of
Saskatchewan, and yet this particular company
had the fear, because it was their operations in Saskatchewan that were in the midst of a certification
drive, that it would move to the
province of Manitoba.
* (2050)
So what they were doing by their actions in
this province was confronting these
employees on an individual basis by taking them
aside and attempting, I believe, to in some form pressure or intimidate these employees or coerce these
employees into not entertaining the
thought of becoming a union member should the
certification process come to this province for that particular company.
Now, that is only one example, Mr. Acting Speaker, of the means that a company can use to coerce
its employees into a particular
direction.
I know, looking at the legislation itself
under Section F, where it indicates that
an employer can communicate to an
employee a statement of fact or opinion, reasonably held, with respect to an employer's business.
Now, looking at the case of that company that
had contacted their employees here, and
I saw this take place in my own
experience, my own years of work experience, where the senior managers of a company would instruct their
lower levels of supervision to
communicate with employees certain aspects of
management's beliefs to try and impress upon them the management position.
That is a role that a lot of first level or middle management supervisors have to perform on
behalf of the senior management of the
company.
I believe by that presentation that was made
in committee that it was the same type
of action that was taking place, and by
this, Mr. Acting Speaker, I know it to take place, management does have a role where they do, from time to
time, to further their own ends,
communicate directly with the production line
employees, with the employees of the operation, their opinions, their thoughts, hoping to influence in some
way the employees of that operation.
This particular segment of this legislation I
think is a step in the wrong
direction. I know there were many
presenters at the committee who asked
that this bill in general be withdrawn, but
at the same time, they were very concerned that sections of the bill such as this would be forming part of
the new labour legislation in the
province of Manitoba, and they raised that to
the attention of the minister and other members of the committee at that time.
As my experiences have shown, employers will use every available opportunity to further the
ends of the company itself, and it is in
their own interest to do so. One
would expect that they would do it, but
this will now allow and permit them to
influence the opinions that are held by the employees of that operation.
Other sections of this legislation are
repugnant to myself because of what it
will do to the rights of the working people in
the province of Manitoba who wish to become part of a union organization, to afford themselves with
protection for themselves and their families,
so they can have some sense of security.
There are members opposite and other members
of our society who say that some unions
are too strong and that the unions have
too much power. My experience has
shown that the unions are forced by the courts
of this land to represent their members to
the best of their abilities, otherwise charges can be brought through the court process against the union
by members of the union itself. So the unions have a strong role to play, not
that they would ever shirk that
responsibility or that duty from my
experience, but having read some of the decisions of the courts over the years and having heard of specific
cases, I know that the unions are in a
difficult position where they must, to the
best of their ability, and I am sure they accept this responsibility willingly, represent the
rights of their members.
In my short time in this House, Mr. Acting
Speaker, we have seen many attacks on
the labour movement of this province. I
can remember in the first session of
this House and even prior to my time in
this House, having had made my thoughts known on the final offer selection legislation when it was
attempted to be repealed under the
minority government in this province, and
later, when I became a member of this Legislative Assembly, when final offer selection was in the process of
being repealed, and the attack on labour
legislation in the province at that time,
and the comments that were made that final offer selection was an unfair opportunity for employees in this
province.
Then we saw after that other legislation that
affected the working people in this
province by way of Bill 56 in 1990 and
Bill 59 last session, Mr. Acting Speaker, that eroded the rights, protection and security that working people
have in this province.
This legislation allows the employers to make
statements of fact or reasonably held
opinion. As I indicated earlier, whatever is required for an employer to say
to further the ends of the company, I am
sure that they would leave no stone unturned
if they could influence in any fashion the decisions that are made by the employees who are working for
them. Statements that could be commonly heard, Mr. Acting Speaker,
and I heard this in my years of
experience working in the work force, that the
company would refuse to open up its books to indicate the financial position of the company. They wanted the unions to believe just carte blanche that the company
was in difficult financial times, and I
heard that argument used over and over
again during contract negotiations.
I believe, Mr. Acting Speaker, that by this
legislation allowing companies to speak
directly with and communicate with their
employees during the process of certification prior to the voting on acceptance of the unionization of
their company, that the company will use
the argument that if a union comes in, it
will bankrupt a company.
There are many areas of this legislation that
are not in the best interests of the
working people in this province. I look
at a particular piece of correspondence,
and I think back to the comments that
have been made by this government reflecting the interests of the Chamber of Commerce, and
looking at the communiques that have
come from the Chamber of Commerce, they
specifically state that their mandate is to bring about changes to labour legislation in this province that
will, as they say, and I quote, to
improve the climate for business and investment
in Manitoba.
Well, the only thing that I can see that this
will improve for these companies to
change the climate of business and
investment is to lower the wage and benefits packages that are offered to employees in this province, and by
that, it will mean a reduction in the
standard or quality of life for these
employees employed in our province, whether they be in union or otherwise, and will of course reduce the
opportunities for them to provide for
their families.
* (2100)
It is not in the best interests of the working
people in this province to reduce the
labour legislation, to restrict the rights
of individuals in this province, and I think that this government is moving in the wrong direction. It should be looking to strengthen the labour legislation.
I know the minister, when he was in committee,
I hope he heard the presenters that were
making comments during committee at that
time, that he would have listened, but it is obvious that he did not listen to the presentations that
were there. They were from unions that are not normally part
of the up‑front debates and
discussions that are taking place in this province as far as labour legislation. I think of the comments that were made by the MNU during the presentation at
this committee just a short time ago,
where they asked for this legislation to be
withdrawn because they saw it as a direct attack on their members and the rights of their members for the
future.
So I hope this minister will look seriously at
what the intent of this legislation is
supposed to do and he will, in the
future‑‑because I doubt, Mr. Acting Speaker, that he
will consider making or withdrawing this
legislation at this time, even though we
encourage him to do so. I hope that he
will look seriously at the rights of the
working people in this province, and
that he will stop bringing forward any further legislation that will erode the rights of the working
people in this province.
(Mr.
Speaker in the Chair)
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to having my
opportunity, as I am sure all other members
do, to vote on this particular piece of
legislation. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I will
be very brief in my remarks on third
reading to this bill. The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), made reference
to another image in the movie
Casablanca, but I would just suggest to honourable members that there was a very valuable lesson
in that particular movie.
At the beginning of that movie, the central
figure, Rick, started the movie by
trying to escape from the world that was
rapidly changing around him. He
buried himself away in Casablanca and
tried to ignore what was happening in the outside world.
By the end of the movie, he had come to the realization that he could not escape from that world,
that he would have to deal with it.
Mr. Speaker, that lesson is one that all of us
have to wrestle with. Whether we are government, whether we are political parties, whether we are businesses
or whether we are a union movement,
labour movement, we have to be prepared to deal
with the future. During the
course of this debate, several members
opposite made reference to the need to work together, to have harmonious relations, to work together
to overcome problems.
Mr. Speaker, I very briefly just want to share
with members an experience I had today,
when as Minister of Labour, I presented
a safety award to the No. 1 firm in Manitoba, with the safety record. I presented it to the company and three
unions. The nominations for those awards
were made by the Workplace Safety and
Health Committee jointly, by both the management and labour chair.
Mr. Speaker, the company which won that award,
Abitibi‑Price, United Paperworkers
International Union, the lumber and sawmill
union and the Office & Professional Employees International Union, the three unions and the company that
won that award are a model of labour
relations and working together.
Mr. Speaker, the Manitoba Federation of
Labour, where were they during the
presentation of this award? They were
outside picketing an award being granted
for that harmonious relationship.
Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I just point out to
members that at committee we were able
to make some amendments to the bill
suggested by many of the presenters, particularly Mr. Christophe of UFCW and Irene Giesbrecht from the
Manitoba Nurses' Union. I was very pleased we were able to make those additions
to the bill.
I would, as well, just point out to members
opposite that Mr. Christophe from UFCW
had no difficulty with allowing freedom of
speech with respect to statements of fact. He did express some concern with opinions reasonably held. I think that part of the amendment will be tested at the labour board
and will not prove to be the great
difficulty that many have argued.
Mr. Speaker, I would also just point out in
reference to comments made by the member
for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) about the
need for co‑operation in matters where there was agreement at Labour Management Review Committee. I would point out that some of the areas that did have unanimous
agreement at Labour Management Review
Committee and were therefore included in the
bill were opposed by the Manitoba Federation of Labour when they made their presentation.
So that puzzled me, but I will allow others to
draw their conclusion. Again, I think this matter has been
thoroughly debated in the course of the
House in committee, all positions have
been put on the record. As I started
this debate, I would say I would like to
thank the presenters by and large who made
presentations, and I am very happy that we were able to adopt some of those amendments that I think make
the bill a much better piece of
legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question
before the House, third reading of Bill 85, The Labour Relations Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
relations du travail. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Mr.
Speaker: No. All
those in favour of the motion, please say
yea.
Some
Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr.
Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some
Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr.
Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call
in the members.
The question before the House is third reading
of Bill 85, The Labour Relations
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
relations du travail.
A
STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Cummings, Dacquay, Derkach, Downey, Driedger,
Ducharme, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay,
Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau,
Manness, McAlpine, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Neufeld, Penner, Praznik, Reimer, Render, Rose, Stefanson,
Sveinson, Vodrey.
Nays
Alcock, Ashton, Barrett, Carstairs, Cerilli,
Cheema, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Edwards,
Evans (Interlake), Evans (Brandon East),
Friesen, Gaudry, Harper, Hickes, Lamoureux, Maloway, Martindale, Plohman, Reid,
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 26, Nays 24.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.
* (2120)
* * *
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to move into Committee of
Supply to deal with the concurrence
motion, and after that time we will come out and begin to deal with the Finance bills.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Mr.
Speaker do now leave the Chair and the
House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a committee to consider of
the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs.
Dacquay) in the Chair.
SUPPLY‑CAPITAL SUPPLY
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
Madam
Chairperson (Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the
Committee of Supply please come to order to consider the following motion:
Moved by the honourable Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness), seconded by the
honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), that the Committee of Supply concur in all Supply
resolutions relating to the Estimates of
Expenditure for the fiscal year ending March
31, 1993, which have been adopted at this session by the two sections of the Committee of Supply sitting
separately and by the full committee.
Is the House ready for the question? The question, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Madam
Chairperson: All those in favour of the motion, please
say yea.
Some
Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam
Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some
Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam
Chairperson: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): I would request a formal vote, Madam Chairperson.
Madam
Chairperson: A count‑out vote has been
requested. Call in the members.
A
COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 25,
Nays 26.
Some
Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam
Chairperson: Order, please.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): I request another count, Madam Chairperson.
Madam
Chairperson: The honourable government House leader is indeed in order, and I have been informed by
the Clerk of the House that this is not
breaking with tradition and custom.
A
COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas
25, Nays 24.
Madam
Chairperson: I declare the motion carried.
Mr.
Ashton: Best two out of three?
Mr.
George Hickes (Point Douglas): I was paired with the
member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard). Had I voted, I would have voted with our side.
Mr.
Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Chairperson, I was paired with the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), and had
I had the opportunity to vote, I would
have voted with this side.
Madam
Chairperson: Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Committee Report
Mrs. Louise
Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has considered and
adopted the concurrence motion relating
to the Estimates of Expenditure for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 1993, which have been adopted at this session.
I move, seconded by the honourable member for
La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the
report of the committee be received.
Motion
agreed to.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment
(Mr. Cummings), that this House concur
in the report of the Committee of Supply
respecting concurrence and all Supply resolutions relating to the Estimates of Expenditure for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 1993.
Motion
agreed to.
* (2140)
PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL
COMMITTEES
Mrs.
Shirley Render (Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections): Mr.
Speaker, by leave, I beg to present the
Second Report on the Standing Committee of Privileges and Elections.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave to
report? [Agreed!
Mr.
Clerk (William Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections presents the
following as its Second Report.
Your committee met on Tuesday, June 16, 1992,
at 10 a.m. in Room 255 of the
Legislative Building and Wednesday, June 24,
1992, at 7 p.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider the report and recommendations of
the Judicial Compensation Committee.
Your committee adopted at its June 24, 1992,
meeting the following recommendation:
MOTION:
THAT the Standing Committee on Privileges and
Elections adopt the proposal in Schedule
A and recommend the same to the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
SCHEDULE A RECOMMENDATIONS ON JUDICIAL
COMPENSATION
1. That
salaries for provincial court judges be maintained as follows:
a)
Provincial Court Judges $
91,274 b) Associate Chief Judges $ 93,279
c) Chief Judge $ 98,272
2. That
effective April 3, 1993 salaries for provincial court judges be increased 3% to as follows:
a)
Provincial Court Judges $
94,017 b) Associate Chief Judges $ 96,017
c) Chief Judge $101,117
3. That
Order‑in‑Council 831/89 be rescinded.
4. That
the Civil Service Superannuation Act continue to apply to Provincial Court Judges as though they
were employees within the meaning of
that Act.
5. That
effective July 1, 1992 for full‑time service as a Provincial Court Judge accrued on and after
that date, a supplementary pension plan
for Provincial Court Judges be
established based on the following terms and conditions:
a) the
supplementary plan provides benefits and
entitlements that, in combination with those provided under The Civil Service Superannuation Act,
will equal those that would be provided
under that Act if the calculation of
the allowance was based on an accrual
rate of 2.61% per year of service;
b) the
maximum number of years of benefit accrual equal 23.5;
c) the
supplementary pension plan be administered by the Civil Service Superannuation Board and the
Lieutenant Governor in Council may
provide for payment from and out of the
Consolidated Fund to the Board of such amounts as he fixes to reimburse the Board for the
costs of the administration of this
part; and
d) all
payments made under the supplementary plan be a charge upon and paid out of the Consolidated
Fund without any further or other
appropriation by the Legislature.
Your committee reports that it has considered
the Report and Recommendations of the
Judicial Compensation Committee.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mrs.
Render: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for Niakwa (Mr.
Reimer), that the report of the committee
be received.
Mr. Speaker:
It has been moved by the honourable member for
St. Vital, seconded by the honourable
member for Niakwa, that the report of
the committee be received. Agreed? That is agreed and so ordered.
An
Honourable Member: No.
Mr.
Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): I wonder if I might speak on this matter.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
It has been moved by the honourable
member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), seconded by the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), that the
report of the committee be received. Was that agreed?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Mr.
Speaker: No.
All those in favour of presenting the Second Report of the Standing Committee on
Privileges and Elections, please say
yea.
Some
Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr.
Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some
Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr.
Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On division, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker: On division.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Energy and
Mines (Mr. Downey), that the Second
Report on the Standing Committee on Privileges
and Elections be concurred in.
Mr.
Speaker: The honourable government House leader, with
said message.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a
message respecting the motion from the
Standing Committee on Privileges and
Elections from the Lieutenant‑Governor.
Mr.
Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable
government House leader, seconded by the
honourable Minister of Energy and Mines,
that the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be concurred in.
Mr.
Chomiak: I wanted to spend a few minutes with respect
to this motion that is being tabled in
the Legislature this evening in order to
discuss some of the background of it and our position with respect to that particular motion, Mr.
Speaker.
At the onset, we want to indicate that the
entire process that we went through with
respect to the Committee of Privileges
and Elections and dealing with this matter was, in the best way I can phrase it, ad hockery. It was stunted; it was cumbersome. It was awkward, and the process simply did
not work. I want to lay out a little bit of history with respect
to this particular matter as it
occurred.
The government put in place a statutory
process to review the salaries and
pensions of judges. They put a process
in place. A committee was struck to review judges'
salaries and pensions, and the committee
provided a report, the report to be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. That report came to the committee last July.
At that time, the government that had put the
process in place had no recommendation
with respect to the report, absolutely
no recommendation. Despite our inquiries
and our pressing the government, no
recommendation was made for that
report. In fact, the deputy
minister, the government's
representative on that committee, had indicated that basically they approved of that report but that the
economic circumstances at the time would
not permit the government to proceed with the
report.
Subsequently, another meeting of the committee
was held, at which time the government
again had no recommendation with respect
to that report. At that time, under
questioning, the minister indicated that
certain aspects of the report the
government did not agree with and certain aspects they agreed with.
We at no time had any direction or idea as to
what aspects of the report were agreed with,
so we as committee had no direction as
to where we were going with respect to this matter, Mr. Speaker.
At the end of that last meeting, the
government indicated to us that in fact,
contrary to what was indicated in the report,
the government had already increased the salaries of judges, but the government was asking our advice on
pensions.
We asked the government what their options
were. They were presenting to us at the
end of the last meeting; we were
presented with three options with respect to pension.
When we went into committee this evening, the
government presented us with a fourth
option that was unrelated to the three
options that were presented the last meeting.
The system was awkward; it was cumbersome; it
was ad hockery. It did not work. We did not approve of the government bringing in this procedure, not dealing with
the recommendations, not providing
recommendations.
Tonight was the first time the government ever
came about with a concrete
recommendation which provided us no opportunity
to review it at caucus and no opportunity to deal with this particular long‑term recommendation and
the ramifications.
As a result, the approach does not work. We did not
participate in that approach. It
was stunted. There was no meaningful background, no meaningful
information provided, and we, therefore,
at committee stage, abstained from dealing with
this matter. Those are my
comments, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
Mr.
Speaker: The question before the House is that the Second Report of the Standing Committee on
Privileges and Elections be concurred
in. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the motion? Agreed?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Mr.
Speaker: No? All
those in favour of the motion, please say
yea.
Some
Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr.
Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some
Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr.
Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr.
Ashton: On division.
Mr.
Speaker: On division.
Mr.
Manness: I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that in accordance with
subsections 11.1(5) and (6), of The
Provincial Court Act, the Report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections
respecting judicial compensation
received on June 24, 1992, be concurred in.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave? Does the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) have leave?
An
Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: It is agreed.
Motion
agreed to.
* * *
* (2150)
Hon.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), the
Sixth Report of the Standing Committee
on Law Amendments be concurred.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave?
An
Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: It is agreed.
Motion
agreed to.
* * *
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I
move, seconded by the Minister of
Government Services (Mr. Ducharme), that
the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Private Bills be concurred in.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave?
An
Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: It has been agreed to.
Motion
agreed to.
* * *
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I
move, seconded by the Minister of Urban
Affairs (Mr. Ernst), that the fees paid
with respect to the following bills be refunded less the cost of printing, namely Bill 39, The
Salvation Army Grace General Hospital
Incorporation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la
Loi constituant en corporation "The Salvation Army Grace
General Hospital"); and Bill 90,
The Seven Oaks General Hospital
Incorporation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation le "Seven Oaks General
Hospital").
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave?
An
Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: It has been agreed to.
Motion
agreed to.
* * *
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I
move, seconded by the Minister of Family
Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), that the
fees paid with respect to the following bill be refunded less the cost of printing, namely Bill 97,
The Winnipeg Bible College and
Theological Seminary Incorporation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation
le "Winnipeg Bible College and
Theological Seminary").
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave?
An
Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr.
Speaker: It is agreed to.
Motion
agreed to.
* * *
Mr.
Manness: I move, seconded by the Minister of
Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Mr.
Speaker do now leave the Chair and the
House resolve itself into a Committee of Ways and Means.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a Committee of Ways and
Means with the member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair.
SUPPLY‑CAPITAL SUPPLY
COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS
Madam
Chairperson (Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the
Committee of Ways and Means please come to order. We have before us for our consideration the resolution
respecting the Capital Supply bill and
the Main Supply bill.
I would remind all honourable members that as
the 240 hours allowed for consideration
of Supply, and Ways and Means
resolutions has expired, pursuant to Rule 64.1(1), these resolutions are not debatable.
The resolution for Capital Supply reads as
follows:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $380,917,000 for
Capital Supply, for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 1993‑‑pass; and
RESOLVED that towards making good certain sums
of money granted to Her Majesty for the
public service of the province, for the
fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1993, the sum of $5,058,392,500 be granted out of the
Consolidated Fund‑‑pass.
Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Committee Report
Mrs.
Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Ways and Means has adopted
certain resolutions respecting
I move, seconded by the honourable member for
Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the
report of the committee be received.
Motion
agreed to.
Introduction of Guests
Mr.
Speaker: Prior to recognizing the honourable
government House leader (Mr. Manness), I
would like draw the attention of the
honourable members to the gallery on my left, where we have with us this evening the Honourable Fred
Stewart, who is the Minister of
Technology, Telecommunications and Research.
He is also the MLA for Calgary‑North
Hill.
Also, we have the Honourable Tom Perry,
Minister of Advanced Education, Training
and Technology, from British Columbia.
On behalf of all members, I would like to
welcome you here this evening.
* (2200)
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 103‑The Appropriation Act, 1992
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I
move, seconded by the Minister of Energy
and Mines (Mr. Downey), that leave be
given to introduce Bill 103, The Appropriation Act, 1992 (Loi de 1992 portant affectation de credits),
and that the same be now received, read
a first time and be ordered for second
reading immediately, by leave.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
(Mr. Manness) have leave to introduce
Bill 103? Leave? That is
agreed.
Motion
agreed to.
SECOND
Bill 103‑The Appropriation Act, 1992
Hon. Clayton
Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, by leave, I move, seconded by the Minister of
Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs.
Mitchelson), that Bill 103, The Appropriation
Act, 1992 (Loi de 1992 portant affectation de credits), be now read a second time and be referred to a
committee of this House, by leave.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
(Mr. Manness) have leave? Leave?
It is agreed.
Motion
agreed to.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 102‑The Loan Act, 1992
Hon. Clayton
Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to move, seconded by the
Minister of Highways and Transportation
(Mr. Driedger), that leave be given to introduce Bill 102, The Loan Act, 1992 (Loi d'emprunt
de 1992) and that the same be now
received, read a first time and ordered for second reading immediately.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
(Mr. Manness) have leave? Leave?
It is agreed to.
Motion
agreed to.
SECOND
Bill 102‑The Loan Act, 1992
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I move, seconded by the
Minister of Rural Development (Mr.
Derkach), that Bill 102, The Loan Act, 1992 (Loi d'emprunt de 1992) be now read a second time
and be referred to a committee of this
House.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
(Mr. Manness) have leave? Leave?
It has been agreed to.
Motion
agreed to.
* * *
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay),
that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair
and the House resolve itself into a Committee
of the Whole to consider and report of Bills 102 and 103, The Appropriation Act, 1992, and The Loan Act,
1992, for third reading.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a Committee of the Whole to
consider Bills 102 and 103 with the honourable
member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Bill 102‑The Loan Act, 1992
Madam
Chairperson (Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the
Committee of the Whole please come to order to consider Bill 102, The Loan Act, 1992. We shall proceed to consider Bill 102, clause by clause.
Clause 1‑‑pass; Clause 2‑‑pass;
Clause 3(1)‑‑pass; Clause
3(2)‑‑pass; Clause 3(3); Clause 4(1)‑‑pass;
Clause 4(2)‑‑pass; Clause
4(3)‑‑pass; Clause 5‑‑pass; Clause 6‑‑pass;
Clause 7(1)‑‑pass; Clause
7(2)‑‑pass; Clause 7(3)‑‑pass; Clause 7(4)‑‑pass; Clause 8‑‑pass;
Clause 9‑‑pass; Clause 10‑‑pass; Clause 11(1)‑‑pass; Clause 11(2)‑‑pass;
Clause 12‑‑pass; Clause 13‑‑pass;
Preamble‑‑pass; Title‑‑pass. Bill be reported.
Bill 103‑The Appropriation Act, 1992
Madam
Chairperson (Louise Dacquay): We will now proceed
to consider Bill 103, clause by clause,
The Appropriation Act, 1992.
Clause 1‑‑pass; Clause 2‑‑pass;
Clause 3(1)‑‑pass; Clause
3(2)‑‑pass; Clause 4‑‑pass; Clause 5‑‑pass;
Clause 6(1)‑‑pass; Clause
6(2)‑‑pass; Clause 6(3)‑‑pass; Clause 7(1)‑‑pass;
Clause 7(2)‑‑pass; Clause 8‑‑pass;
Clause 9‑‑pass; Clause 10‑‑pass; Clause 11‑‑pass; Clause 12‑‑pass;
Schedule A‑‑pass; Preamble‑‑pass;
Title‑‑pass. Bill be
reported.
Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Committee Report
Mrs.
Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees): The Committee of the Whole has considered Bill 102, The
Loan Act, 1992, and Bill 103, The
Appropriation Act, 1992, reports the same and asks leave to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member for
Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the
report of the committee be received.
Motion
agreed to.
REPORT STAGE
Bill 102‑The Loan Act, 1992
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, by leave, I move, seconded by the Minister of
Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger),
that Bill 102, The Loan Act, 1992 (Loi
d'emprunt de 1992), reported from the Committee of the Whole, be concurred in.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave? Leave?
It has been agreed to.
Motion
agreed to.
* (2210)
THIRD
Bill 102‑The Loan Act, 1992
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, with leave, I move, seconded by the Minister of
Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Bill
102, The Loan Act, 1992 (Loi d'emprunt de
1992), be now read a third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave? Leave?
It has been agreed to.
Motion
agreed to.
REPORT STAGE
Bill 103‑The Appropriation Act, 1992
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister of Culture, Heritage and
Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson), that Bill
103, The Appropriation Act, 1992 (Loi de
1992 portant affectation de credits), as reported from the Committee of the Whole, be concurred in.
Motion
agreed to.
THIRD
Bill 103‑The Appropriation Act, 1992
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I move, seconded by the
Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings),
that Bill 103, The Appropriation Act,
1992 (Loi de 1992 portant affectation de credits), be now read a third time and passed.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave? Leave?
It has been agreed.
Motion presented.
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I want to take this opportunity to add a few comments to the
record, Mr. Speaker, on third reading.
[interjection! We are a little earlier than we
thought, to the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), in terms of the schedule.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few remarks. It is quite
appropriate to say a few things at the end of a session, even though we are only adjourning and not
proroguing this evening. Nothing I can
say today is as dramatic as the vote we just had just a few moments ago in terms of the energy
that we saw from members opposite
draining away from their faces, and their bodies and their souls. The member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard) smiles now, but there was not a smile on his face on
his face about 45 minutes ago, I can
assure you.
Mr. Speaker, Sir, to you, you have had an
interesting session, I might say. We have always felt that you are a fair and honest person who has guided us in our
debate, has put up with all of our
traditions of democracy that, of course, I think are quite appropriate for this Chamber.
I remember once you lost your temper, only
once in six months. I tried to stop you, walking down the hall. I will
never try to do that again. This
is not a person you should try to stop
by putting your hand on his shoulder.
But, Sir, you have conducted
yourself with the dignity of this Chamber and the fine traditions of our Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I know that Speakers from time to
time get together with other
Speakers. Opposition leaders get
together with other opposition leaders,
Premiers get together, ministers get
together. If you ever have the chance to
visit England, there is a new Speaker
who was elected, a Labour Party
representative, whom I think you will find quite interesting. She was elected by all members of the Chamber
after the most recent elections. Please pass on our regards from our New Democratic Party to her. She is quite a fascinating person and quite an interesting person.
We also want to pass onto the Clerk and staff
and Pages and Hansard staff all of our
thanks‑‑Legislative Counsel, too‑‑for all our amendments both in terms of private
members' bills, many of which never see
the light of day in terms of debate, but we do
work hard trying to draft those ideas and put them forward. Those bills, by the way, we do not
necessarily feel, because they are
temporarily stalled on a government Order Paper as private members' bills that they are indeed a waste
of time, because they will be part of a
huge agenda that we will put forward to the
people of Manitoba for an alternative agenda.
So the Legislative Counsel's time has not been
wasted, and we thank them for their
technical expertise. We also pay tribute
to the Fifth Estate. I noted last year the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) said he was keeping a Christmas
card list about the Fifth Estate. But there is an interesting debate always in
terms of the media and their role in our
democracy.
I also, Mr. Speaker, want to pay tribute to
the Lieutenant‑Governor. I know that the term is over and it has been extended and extended again. Dr. Johnson is honoured as a person who has hosted a number of us at a
number of different times, all of us
when we are first elected, I suppose, in our
first session. He is a person who
has served Manitoba well and continues
to serve Manitoba well in his role as
Lieutenant‑Governor.
Because his term is potentially over and being
extended, I just wanted to pass on our
caucus' respect to him and his
tremendous contributions both as a cabinet minister in the former Roblin government and as a deputy minister in
the Department of Health later on, and
now serving in the highest office as Her
Majesty's representative in this Chamber. He is a fine person and a fine Manitoban.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. In December when we started this session there were 57 members. There are now 55 members in this Chamber, and we have lost two people
since we all gathered here together in
December.
The first one to go was Jim Carr, the member
for Crescentwood, who resigned to go
into journalism. Some of us would argue that that is not necessarily a
more honourable profession; some of us
would argue that it is. But I
always respected Jim Carr. I had some good debates with Jim Carr
over some items over the years. But he certainly, no matter what political party we are from, added a lot to
the debate in this Chamber. He is a person now who is missing from our
ranks, when we first started.
Of course, yesterday, Ed Connery resigned from
his caucus and from this House after six
years. I was elected when Mr. Connery‑‑when I was first elected
in the class of '86 along with lots of
other members, the member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs), the member for St. Johns (Ms.
Wasylycia‑Leis), the member for
Elmwood (Mr. Maloway)‑‑I am going to miss people now when I start this.
We did have some members elected that year,
many other members opposite.
[interjection! Yes, I know. I always had
some good arguments with the member for
Portage la Prairie (Mr. Connery) over
the years, particularly when he was in his
Environment portfolio, but I always respected his ability in his constituency.
I think he always fought for the community of Portage la Prairie, and we wish him and his
family all the best in their upcoming
endeavours.
I would urge the government‑‑I
have been disappointed that the
Crescentwood by‑election has not been called earlier, notwithstanding where we think we are going
to be in that by‑election. For all the parties, I think it is important
that all 57 constituencies have a
representative in this Chamber, and I
would urge strongly that the Premier practise democracy and call by‑elections in those two
seats. It is important that Manitobans have representatives in this
Chamber and speaking on behalf of the
interests of their constituents.
* (2220)
Mr. Speaker, I remember last year saying that
there were two ways to go in my speech
at the end of a session. One way to go was those self‑serving speeches where
we just repeated all our revisionist
history in terms of the past, and another good way to go is just to put a few comments on the
record about the future of this
province. I noted last year that the
Premier stated that none of us will win
in a mud fight. This is the Premier,
the member for Tuxedo, in Hansard: None of us will win in a mud fight.
The people of this province deserve more. They deserve a competition of ideas. They deserve honest acceptance and recognition of the challenges that face us,
and they deserve, in my judgment, an
honest approach to the solution of those concerns.
And then he went and proceeded to knock the
heck out of us all the way through his
speech. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that those words are quite appropriate,
because you, Sir, have cited members of
this Chamber on decorum and words before.
I would suggest to all members of
this Chamber that if we were to keep the
personal attacks away from the debate, to keep the personal attacks away from people's
professions, from people's families,
from people's communities, from people's motivations, and only dealt with the competition of ideas,
this place and all MLAs would be held in
much more respect. So why do we not
all pledge tonight? You know, we are discussing all these
technical rules together. We are discussing whether we should have
a notwithstanding clause in paragraph 78
of subparagraph 46 of some obscure
ritual that we practise. But why do we
not in that rules discussion agree on
the most fundamental rule of all humankind,
and start the session off whenever it is called next time with an agreement that no personal attacks will be
made? Because we have an honourable profession, all of us, on
behalf of the people of this province,
and we should practise it in an honourable way.
We should not take for granted the fact that
we are two members short from six months
ago. We should not take that for granted.
We should not, I think, forget the fact that we have the responsibility to bring the pride and respect
of our profession back to the people we
all serve. So that is a pledge we are making tonight at the end of the
session. That does not mean you are not having feisty disagreements
on substance. I think we all love feisty debates, but we
respect each other as human beings.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few other
comments about issues that are facing
this government and all of us in this Chamber in the next few months ahead. Canada's 125th birthday will be celebrated within a week. Within that same week the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Constitutional
Affairs (Mr. McCrae) will be meeting in
some type of forum with the Prime Minister.
I want to say on behalf of our
caucus that we wish the Premier and his
minister well, and we wish him well in those discussions on our country and the issues before all of
Canada. Manitobans, as I said before in other resolutions, have
always been the bridge between eastern
and western Canada. We have always been
the bridge between the have and have‑not
provinces. We have always been the bridge between those provinces that
see the weakening of federal governments
and those provinces like Manitoba that want
to strengthen and enhance the federal role.
I want to say to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and
the government that we on this side
remain as committed today as we were six
months ago to the all‑party task force that our members were proud to sign. The member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) and
the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen)
signed the all‑party task force on
behalf of our caucus but, more importantly, on behalf of the Manitobans who presented their public views
in public hearings. I just want to say
that we will be supportive of any initiatives
that the Premier and government return with that are consistent with that all‑party task force review
which is consistent with the views of
Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, I want to just go over those, a
couple of items, in that all‑party
task force. When we looked at the
public hearings and the public
presentations, a couple of major themes
came through loud and clear‑‑whether you were in Brandon
or Dauphin or Thompson or Winnipeg‑‑the
absolute strong vision of Manitoba in a
strong national government. I remember
the words in the first recommendation on
a strong national government. It said the ability of a federal government to
redistribute wealth from region to
region or the ability of Canada to redistribute
our great wealth to individuals within our great country. What
greater priority could we not have collectively than that role of a strong national government that we see in
medicare, in post‑secondary
education and the floor being maintained in
equalization? So I say to the
government, you will have our support in
that recommendation.
Mr. Speaker, we also saw Manitobans from all
walks of life, from all communities,
saying that 350 years of a relationship
with our aboriginal people must be reformed in the Constitution of Canada, and we must collectively as
Canadians redress our constitutional
deficiencies with Canada's First Nations.
We too are committed to that
recommendation, and we too will support the
government in achieving those proposals.
Mr. Speaker, the Constitution is also a very
important item for this government and
for all of us in this Chamber. We
have traded statistics and numbers and
facts and figures and blame and not‑blame
across this floor since December. [interjection! The economy, I am sorry. You get into the Constitution and you cannot get out.
But, Mr. Speaker, the economy is an item, as I
say, that we have been discussing for
the last six months, since December. I think I have asked about 75 to 80 questions
on the economy since our session
started, and I think the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has answered and not agreed with me on 80 or 85
questions that I have asked in terms of
the economy or the analysis.
Mr. Speaker, whether we are in first place or
last place or medium place, we have a
lot of people unemployed. We have a lot of people going on social assistance. All the statistics aside, I have not gone to a family event or an event
with friends in the last year where I
have not heard from somebody who has either
been laid off themselves or a member of their family is being laid off or a very close friend is being laid
off. That is very, very serious for Canadians, and it is very
serious for Manitobans.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge the government,
again, to follow through on the idea of
an economic summit. We believe that Manitoba's greatest strength is the ability of
our people to work together, that we are
all equal in wanting a future for ourselves
and our children and that we are all equal stakeholders. There
is no such thing as a better stakeholder than one or the other, that business, labour, agriculture and
government working together gets more of
us working.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the government to
look at what happened in British
Columbia two weeks ago in terms of their
economic summit. I would ask the
government to use the experiences of the
early '80s. It is a positive
experience. It is positive to get people working
together. We do not need solitudes in our own economy. We need consensus. We need
vision. We need people working
together in co‑operation, not
people in solitudes or conflict.
So we would urge the Premier to
consider that idea and follow through with that idea.
Mr. Speaker, I would also ask the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) to be very careful about the free
trade agreement with Mexico. It is an item that is going to be dealt with,
potentially, before this House sits
again. When we had the leaders' debate,
the Premier very carefully said no to
the free trade agreement with Mexico. I
think he said on August 30 specifically:
I am not going to be supporting
free trade with Mexico.
* (2230)
Since that time, the government has developed
six conditions. We have suggested to the government that
there be an additional condition and
that is the involvement of the public of
Manitoba which was not one of their conditions‑‑I know there
is surveying, et cetera, et cetera.
But, Mr. Speaker, we see now, and we believe
we have lost a lot of jobs under free
trade with the United States. The
Premier disagrees, but we believe we
have lost a lot of jobs with the
existing trade agreement. We
believe the stats bear this out. Not
every job that is lost is because of the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, but we have a lot
fewer jobs today in many of those key
sectors. I read back to the Bank of
Nova Scotia predictions in terms of free
trade with the United States, and it was
quite interesting. On the food industry,
on the food processing industry, on the
manufacturing industry and some of the
other industries in this province, they have been bang on, unfortunately, in terms of "winners and
losers."
So we move‑‑I am not here to
debate the past, Mr. Speaker, but I
would suggest to the government that we have serious problems with the free trade proposals with
Mexico. We believe that this is not a trade agreement where we
raise the common denominator up. We believe this is a proposed trade
agreement where the common denominator
goes down.
Environmental groups in the United States have
already identified that. People in Canada have already identified
that, and Manitoba has some very major
risks, notwithstanding the philosophical
disagreements in terms of the role of the public to be involved in the sovereignty investment
decisions of a country, which we will
disagree with with the Conservatives opposite
because we have a different philosophy, but very specific industries are very definitely at risk in
Manitoba.
The apparel industry in Manitoba will be
devastated by the triple transformation
proposals that are on the table, something
we have been raising and the government confirmed last week in this House, 7,000 jobs with that proposal.
The province of Manitoba, I believe, because
we are a net importer of energy, will be
devastated by the energy proposals in
the trade agreement. Mr. Speaker,
the 1,700 farmers who are part of
thousands of people, who are involved in supply‑management farming, will not be better off under this
trade agreement. Do not listen to the NDP, Sir, listen to
Ritchie, the person who was involved in
the former free trade negotiations with the United States.
Mr. Speaker, farmers and agriculture in rural
Manitoba are already under tremendous
strains in western Canada and Manitoba.
All of us have attended town hall meetings across this province and heard the number of people going
bankrupt. You know, when we heard five or six years ago, when people were
going bankrupt, we used to hear farmers
saying, well, they were not a good manager,
or that person maybe was just a little marginal in their operations.
We do not hear that anymore. They
have been devastated by the world
prices. They have been devastated,
in our opinion, by a number of other
factors. In their communities and their town halls, we have heard them loud
and clear.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford, we believe, to
move again on another trade
agreement. We do not believe the
families of Manitoba can either. So we leave that with the Premier (Mr. Filmon) in the next crucial few months ahead.
Mr. Speaker, another area that is a very great
concern for us in the economy, and I am
not going to list everything, is the
Port of Churchill. We are so
fortunate to have a port like Churchill
in Hudson's Bay, a seaport in the centre of North America.
I think all members here, notwithstanding our little disagreements about what was said or what was
not said, are committed to the Port of
Churchill and the rail line to the Port
of Churchill.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that we are
continuing to work together. I say to the Minister of Transportation
(Mr. Driedger), we respect his efforts. I say to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), with all the energy you have and
with all the efforts you will put into
play, do not let the federal government and the
Wheat Board kill the Port of Churchill.
Let us keep it alive in the
future.
Mr. Speaker, in this 125th birthday of Canada,
I want to say to the member for Brandon
East (Mr. Leonard Evans),
congratulations on 23 years of elected service. It was the June 23rd week, I believe, in 1969‑‑
An
Honourable Member: Is he leaving, too?
Mr.
Doer: Well, I just mentioned that because the June
23rd week should play a very special
importance to all members of this Chamber
who were around a couple of years ago, particularly the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Harper). Mr. Speaker, the member for Brandon East joins the other dean of the
Legislature, the member for Lakeside
(Mr. Enns), in a long and illustrious career.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by
saying that I really, really do enjoy
the dedication, the work, the integrity,
the intellectual commitment to the issues of all members of this Chamber.
I really enjoy being part of debates in our own caucus, which I find fascinating and enjoyable. I really enjoy the debate from all members of this Legislature,
whether it is in committee or debate in
this Chamber. I wish all of you
good health to both yourself and your
family. Thank you very, very much.
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, before I begin, I would like to suggest to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) that no matter what
I say, I am not resigning, so you do not
have to run out of the House, as you did
last year, and announce to the media that I was giving my swan song inside the Chamber. I can assure you that it is not a swan song and will not be for many years to come.
Mr. Speaker, I want to, first of all, thank
you, not primarily, interestingly
enough, for your participation in this
Chamber‑‑because we do that every year, and its become a bit
of a tradition‑‑I want to
thank you instead for the warmth of your
personality and your caring about every member of this Chamber outside of this Chamber.
There have been notes that I have received
from the Speaker in which I obviously
had a bad head cold and he has noted it, and
I got this little note saying, I hope you feel better soon. Those kinds of expressions of your concern
for us make, I think, everyone of us
feel that we are part of a family, and like all
families, we have disagreements on occasion, but there are times when we have to reach out to one another with
a sense of caring and compassion.
That is why I have urged my caucus whip to
pair with individuals on occasions such
as that, when they need that particular
reinforcement and concern that we are in fact human beings and that we can have our
disagreements, but there are also times
when we need to treat each other as a bit of a large and extended family. We will continue to have disagreements, and
we will continue to vote against one
another on various issues. We will continue to complain about positions
taken by various ministers or by various
members, but we also have to, I think,
fundamentally remember the humanness that goes into all of us.
I thank very much the Pages who do a great
number of running back and forth and
errand runnings. Tonight, I am sure they
were somewhat confused as these bills
kept running through the place. There
did not seem to be any debate on them.
They just seemed to be
distributing them one after another. But
they perform a very important
function. I know that they, in many
cases, had to work a little harder in
their academic studies this year because of
the extra burden of being with us for many of their hours. I
thank them for that. I hope that
they have learned, and I hope we have
not turned them off completely from the political system and that they will still choose to perhaps
become participants in that political
system.
* (2240)
I thank the table staff, of course, and the
Hansard staff and Legislative Counsel
for providing innumerable numbers of
services. I thank the security
guards, who have always been extremely
concerned about all members but, I think, particularly for the female members, because they want to
assure our safety and our security. They have frequently walked me to my
vehicle late at night just to make sure
that I got into it safely. I thank them for that.
I want to talk about a number of issues
affecting us as a province. Just before I do that, I want to pay some
very special tribute to the House leader
of our caucus. The House leader's job is a difficult one. I happen to consider it the most difficult one in this Chamber. Some people think that is the Minister of Family Services' (Mr.
Gilleshammer), but it is not. I really
think it is the House leader's job. It
is a difficult one. It is demanding. It is time consuming, and there is not a lot of thanks.
I pay tribute to the other two House leaders
while I am doing this, but I have to
suggest that I do not deal with them on a
day‑to‑day basis as I do with my own. I want to say to all of this House how much confidence I have in our
House leader and how much support that
we give him. He is the youngest member
of this Chamber. I think that he has grown in maturity
enormously since his election in 1988,
but more importantly, he has grown in the
affection that each one of us hold for him.
A number of events are going to take place
this summer, not the least of which is
Canada's 125th birthday, but another person
in the Chamber, at least one other person, has a very important birthday coming up this summer, in August, I
think. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) will also reach that milestone
of being 50, and I wish him a very happy
birthday. The class of '42 is doing
it again.
But as to the issues that I am particularly
concerned about, I did not get the
opportunity to participate earlier in the
debate on the resolution with respect to an economic summit. I want
to make it clear to the Premier that I think it is a very valid idea and one that he really should
consider very seriously. If he wants to exclude all politicians from
that economic summit, then that is
fine. I can go along with that. What I do not want to see excluded, however,
are those who are in the workplace and
those who, more importantly, are not in the
workplace. We talk about these summits
as often being government and business
and labour and farmers. We often do not
talk about young people being at an
economic summit.
I am unfortunately dealing with the prospect
of having two daughters who will never
live in the province of Manitoba, and I
think many of you are facing that same prospect. They will not
find the occupations of their choice here in the province of Manitoba.
That is tragic. I would like to
see those young people invited to a
summit, because I think they have very valid
ideas about where this province should be going and what would draw them and keep them here in the province
of Manitoba. So, if he has to exclude those of us of political
parties as government participants in
such a summit, I would gladly give up our places for young people to be in attendance at such
a summit, so that they could offer their
good ideas for where we should be going in
the future, because we all agree that the future is going to be very different from the past.
The kinds of jobs that are going to be
available are going to be very different
from those that we had. The
opportunities that they have are going
to be very different. The technology and
the skills they are going to have to
acquire are going to be very different,
and I hope that they would become participants in such a summit.
I also hope that in the field of health care
reform which we have supported in terms
of the announcements of the ministry do
not get side‑railed. I am
very concerned that if the Minister of
Health (Mr. Orchard) is not very up‑front with the public
every single step of the way, that fears
will grow. Those fears will mushroom and the reform process could be
stymied. That would be very bad for our province because medicare
will not survive if it is not reformed.
It is essential that it be reformed, but
reform must involve the participation of
the people. That means that they have to
be kept informed about the reform
process every single step of the
way. There can be no
obfuscation. There can be no hidden agendas.
There can be no concerns of not enough seriousness that they are not shared with the public, because
the public will decide whether they can
move with the government on these reform
proposals or whether they cannot.
It is very important that they be
involved.
I would like to speak just briefly about the
Constitution, Mr. Speaker. This is Canada's 125th birthday and if I had
my real choice, I would like to see a
referendum offered to the Canadian
people on would they like to put the Constitution to bed until Canada's 150th birthday. I think we would get universal support because I think they are terribly
fatigued about the Constitution. I have come to the conclusion that I would
rather see the maintenance of the status
quo than the rolling draft text which I
saw over the last few weeks because, to me, it does not evoke what this nation is all about.
I have been a fortunate Canadian in the fact
that I have lived in a number of
provinces, having been born and raised in
Nova Scotia, living for some time in Ontario, then in Alberta, and now in Manitoba. I am, first and foremost, a Canadian. I will
always be a Canadian first. For me, my
Canada, and I hope the Canada of many
Canadians, is represented by a strong central
government with national standards on a variety of issues.
I would like to see Canadian standards on
education from kindergarten all the way
through, so that our young children
could move around this country and that their mobility rights, as expressed in the Charter, would be genuinely
that, that their Grade 9 would be
recognized as Grade 9, that their Grade 3 would
be recognized as Grade 3, and yet we seem to be moving away from national standards, even at the post‑secondary
education level and training level, and
that concerns me very much for the future
of our young people.
Medicare is the most important social program
for all Canadians. They believe it is their birthright. They believe it is fundamental to their rights as Canadians,
and if we do not have participation of
the federal government, and that means
federal dollars and federal standards, then we will not have medicare as we know it. When we talk about offloading, when we talk about devolution of powers, we see a
country, or I see a country at least,
and my party sees a country that is becoming
more and more separated and less and less of one with one another.
Equalization is part of that answer, but it is
not the only answer. EPF funding which is essential to the support
of medicare and post‑secondary
education must also be guaranteed. But
we must accept the fact that if the federal government only writes cheques and if that federal government
is not expected nor allowed to take
responsibility for programming, then that federal government will quickly find a way so that it
no longer has to write the cheques, and
then we do not have in my opinion the
country that we have today.
Before we gather on October 20, hopefully we
will have had a couple of by‑elections,
and we will be back to our number of 57.
I hope that each and every member of this Chamber will spend the time to heal themselves because I think
healing is a necessary part of this
business after four or five months in this Chamber.
I think it is important for us to step outside
this building and discover that there is
a whole other world out there, to learn
that often the hours we spend debating that we think are so critically important, often nobody has paid any
attention to what we have had to
say. We have to understand that politics
is important, democracy is critical to
our system, but the most critical thing
is for us to be full and complete human beings,
because when we are full and complete human beings, then we can serve our constituents better. We can be true to ourselves and we can, I believe, fulfill ourselves and our
responsibilities as MLAs which I still
consider to be of the highest calling.
Every one of us has been blessed by our constituents,
every single one of us. They have said to each and every one of us,
we are putting our faith in you. We owe it to them to be fully restored and to be in full health to be able
to serve them to our utmost ability.
* (2250)
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to join with my colleagues, the Leaders of the other
two parties, in thanking you for your
continued strong leadership in this
Assembly, the manner in which you make everyone feel equal and at home here in this Chamber and the manner in
which you are able to preside in such a
fair and impartial fashion.
Along with you, of course, I want to echo the
thanks that have been extended to the
table officers, to the Sergeant‑at‑Arms,
the Deputy Sergeant‑at‑Arms, the Hansard staff, the clerks, the Journals Branch staff, the
Pages, of course, for whom I hope this
has been a positive learning experience, all of
the staff in the building whether it be the security staff, the maintenance staff, the people who so ably
serve us and enable us to do our jobs in
this Chamber. I, certainly, on behalf of
all of my colleagues want to extend
thanks.
I do not want to ignore people who are often
maligned, often perhaps unfairly bear
some of the shots that all of us bear in
this Chamber and that is our political staffs, our support staffs, people who sometimes act as human
shields for us in many situations. I say that they all serve us very, very
loyally and probably put in longer hours
than anybody in the public believes or understands,
and they do it because of a dedication to what
they believe in by way of what our government is doing, what they believe in for the future of our province. I thank them all very much.
I want to compliment and thank the Leaders of
the opposition parties for the manner in
which they have spoken this evening.
I dare say that if more speeches
were given of that nature, more people
might get interested again in a positive way in the Legislature and the things that we do
here. More people might change their views of all of us, and I say it
in a collective sense very definitely.
None of us can point a finger because I can
pull out all the Hansards of the things
that have been said about me and, vice
versa, the things that I have said about you. I think that none of us benefits by that. When we gather together from time to time, when some of our numbers are retiring,
and I can think of some of the nice
speeches that were made when the former member
for Churchill retired or others stepped aside in this Chamber, and we all lament at the disrespect and the
disrepute in which politicians are held
in this country and perhaps
internationally. It is probably
because we bring it on ourselves. It is probably because we all seem to spend
so much time in the latter days of the
session that we end up thinking alike,
but it certainly was my full intention in coming here to pursue the same line of thought that our
opposition Leaders have this evening.
I want to begin by extending my thanks to the
former member for Portage la Prairie
(Mr. Connery), to congratulate him for his
service in this Legislature, for his service to his constituents.
I know that he always was loyal and committed to the people of Portage la Prairie, and I know
that he always came here with the best
of intentions to serve out his
responsibilities to the people.
I can say in all sincerity that we have spent
many enjoyable years together, and
during that period of time, he and I have not
always agreed. I think that as we
look back on matters, we probably agreed
much more often than we disagreed, but reality is that I suppose you always remember more
strongly those points upon which you
have conflict and disagreement. But he
always fought hard. He always held firm. I believe that in the end, unfortunately, our differences, not
necessarily on policy, but growing
personal differences that stemmed from perhaps the most difficult decision in my career in
government, led him to make his
decision.
I respect the choice that he made and the
decision he made. I believe, in the
final analysis, that he will be a happier
individual and a more productive individual, because he has freed himself from the unhappiness that he bore in
latter times in this Legislature. So I certainly will, as I extended personally
to him earlier today, extend my best
wishes to Ed and Bev for good health and
a happy time together in future.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that despite
the fact that we are taking what I believe
is the right approach with respect to
evaluating our problems and our challenges here, we have to all recognize that we are facing some very, very
difficult times, not only in Canada, but
throughout the world. I have had
some experiences even in the last month
that, I think, have affected me very
strongly in terms of the things that I believe are important and the challenges that all of us
are going to have to face.
I think that this is a time when the public
are very rightfully looking for elected
officials who will level with them, who
will not try and sugar‑coat the pill, who will talk openly about what are the big issues that we
face in our country and in the
world. I think, without question, people
are looking for people who will set
aside petty politics and seek to tackle
the very difficult issues in a way that sets aside partisanship, but the difficult issues that are going to be
required in order to make major, major
adjustments in preparation for what I
consider to be perhaps the pivotal decade of this century and maybe the pivotal decade‑‑and
this may be going too far‑‑in the
world's history.
In Canadian terms, we have only just begun
with matters. I was very impressed when I had a series of
four meetings with the Leaders of all
the provinces and territories and the federal
government that began December 21, 1991.
I wish that others in this
Chamber had the opportunity to participate, but what impressed me most was the willingness to set
aside partisanship in trying to deal
with difficult issues at that table.
It reminded me, I might say, of a lesson that
I think was a good lesson, that I
learned early on in my political career, when
I sat on the Works and Operations Committee of the City of Winnipeg in my first term on council in about
1976 and I became good friends with
Magnus Eliason, somebody known well to members
opposite. Magnus said to me at
one particular meeting, Gary, it is
important that you never judge an idea by the person who brings it forward. He said, you know, I have fundamental philosophical differences with many people on
City Council, but I often find myself
agreeing with them on issues and being engaged
by their debate and their position on matters. So I have
repeated that message to people from time to time, and I think it serves us well.
* (2300)
That is precisely the kind of thing that we
were dealing with at the First
Ministers' table in the series of four meetings, because everyone of us, when we examined it,
was facing exactly the same
challenges. None of us are going to be
able to easily deal with the budgetary
constraints that face us over the next
while. It may make for some great
exchanges here in the Legislature, but
the incredible shrinking revenues are an issue not just for the Province of Manitoba and our
Finance minister, but for every
administration in this country.
We have gotten used to inflation taking care
of a lot of our needs, and we still do
not see the point in the future‑‑and I say we, not just this province, but every
province‑‑at which we are
going to get our revenues back up even to inflation. Now what
that means is that there are huge challenges for the vital services that face us. The social safety net that Canadians pride themselves on so very, very much that
separates us I think in a very positive
way from every nation in the world is in great
jeopardy unless we are prepared to throw away some old assumptions and to, in essence, reform the
manner in which we deliver those
fundamental services.
We begin by talking about health care. If there is any service that Canadians depend upon most, take
most pride in, of all of the public
services that any government provides, No. 1,
it is health care. It is the best
system in the world by far, but if we do
not fundamentally reform it, we are in danger of losing it.
I know that I am preaching in many senses to the converted, and that is exactly what the
health care reform program that was put
forward, an approach to health care reform
that was put forward by our Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), is intended to do.
I say to you that when it was discussed in a
nonpartisan forum with leaders of New
Democratic stripes, with leaders of Liberal
stripes, there was no disagreement as to what had to be done, and there was no disagreement as to
what the fundamental shifts had to
be. I know that there will be,
undoubtedly, in every jurisdiction in
Canada, some quibbling as to whether or not
the process is correct or whether or not the checks and balances that are put into the process are correct or
whether or not it is managed properly,
but the fundamental shifts absolutely have to
take place. It does not matter
who is in office, of what political
stripe, that is going to be the challenge for the future for all of us in every province.
What struck me was the offer, the open offer,
of the leaders of other political
persuasions of, in essence, standing together,
holding hands and walking down the beach together on this, because we are all going to be faced with the
same criticisms. We are all going to be
faced with the same demands, and we are
all going to have to have the courage to do it together or else it will fail.
If once we gave into the temptation of blaming
each other or comparing as we used to do‑‑and
I remember 12 years ago when I was in
cabinet and we used to go to federal‑provincial meetings, and every province would give statistics to
prove that they were doing more for
medicare, so many beds per capita, so many dollars per capita, such and such a percentage of
their budget. Everybody felt they were
doing a better job.
Today, in the eyes of our electorate, none of
us is doing a good job. That is the reality. Everybody is not getting enough out of the dollars that we are spending.
I believe that this is a challenge that is
going to be there for all of us, and I
would hope that in our preparations for this
challenge, that perhaps we do consult with our other political parties across the country and just see
whether or not somebody is reading the
signals wrong. So far, I have not found
a jurisdiction, I have not found an
administration which has a different
view of what is going to have to be done in that respect.
The No. 2 challenge for reform was alluded to
and I think introduced very nicely by
the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs.
Carstairs), and that is reform of education. The world that we are facing today is a world in which our
competition is no longer the people down
the street from us, in another community in our
province or across this country.
It is competition that is
worldwide. As I said earlier
today, we are moving from a production
and industrial economy, a production‑based economy to an information‑based economy, and the
information is created instantly by
electronic communications, and the people of the world will be our competitors in terms of
this kind of challenge.
In so doing, we are going to have to ensure
that our education system is not up just
to the test of the people around us or
the people in other provinces, but to the test of whether or not we meet with the best in the
world. That is an immense challenge, and it is one that we have no way
of avoiding. It is going to happen whether we like it or not and
whether or not we are flexible enough in
changing our delivery mechanisms, in
changing our form of evaluation, testing and standard setting that the Leader of the Liberal Party, and I
agree wholeheartedly with her, talked
about.
We are once more going to have to go back to
the things that were important in the
past and I think will continue to be
important in the future, and that is having standards that we can aspire to, that we can measure and that we
can evaluate, because ultimately, we are
all evaluated in the performance of our
responsibilities. People in the
private sector are evaluated in the
performance of their responsibilities.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Doer) said earlier today that I would be fired if I were evaluated on a private sector basis
for my performance, but that is
reality. Everybody is evaluated.
Education is going to be no different and
education is going to have to adjust,
and that reform in education, I believe, will
be another major challenge for the '90s.
Thirdly, of course, is the challenge of
shifting our whole economy, because when
you think in terms of the changes in
jobs‑‑and we can argue, and I am glad the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) left open the question
of whether or not the loss of jobs in
certain sectors of our economy was as a
result of trade agreements, or whether or not it was as a result of major structural shifts that are taking
place in the world's economies, and we are
just a small part of it.
Having just come back from the Western
Governors' Conference, I know that the
United States job losses in the manufacturing
sector have been absolutely awesome over the last couple of years.
Even if we talk about 150,000 jobs lost in the manufacturing sector in Ontario, that pales
by comparison to the major structural
changes taking place in the United States.
So they think that the Free Trade
Agreement has caused‑‑their
opponents to the Free Trade Agreement say they think it is because of the Free Trade Agreement with
Canada.
It is not so.
It is a major structural shift that has taken place throughout North America and, indeed,
throughout the world from the production‑
and industrial‑based economy to the
information‑based economy.
So the key, and we get back to
education, is what are all those people going to be doing who are displaced from employment in areas in which
they had skills and no longer have
marketable skills? That is going to be
retraining and retraining in a whole
series of venues, whether it be in our
colleges and universities, whether it be industry based that we help sponsor innovatively through so many
other means, those are going to be the
major shifts for the future. That is the
big picture that I think we are going to
have to keep in mind as we again go into
the decade of the '90s strongly seeking new
answers, new visions and new opportunities.
That is why I am so happy with the Economic
Innovation and Technology Council. I had the pleasure of being with them
for part of their two‑day
seminar. In keeping with the Magnus Eliason advice, I encouraged them and they
were very supportive of and are going to
be organizing this fall a major conference on
the economy, bringing together all the players. I think they are better positioned to do it.
* (2310)
The Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs.
Carstairs) assumed that I was saying
that no politician should be involved. I
would like to be there because I am very
excited with the prospects of the kind
of people who they would like to bring to the table to stimulate discussion on these major shifts
and challenges in the economy that we
are going to be facing. I would
certainly like to be there as one who
could learn from many of the big thinkers
and the people who can participate from a variety of different viewpoints.
That does include the people who are on the labour front, the people who are on the educational
front, the people who are in all of the
sectors of our economy and how they might
be affected by the shifts. They
have to be there and we have to be
there, hopefully to learn from.
In following up on the Leader of the
Opposition's (Mr. Doer) strong
recommendation on that, I would hope that all the parties in the House would want to participate. I know the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) is interested in it and
asked about it as the critic for Finance
and Trade and other matters in this
House. I am sure that he has
ideas and suggestions to contribute to that. I know that members of the New Democratic
Party do have recommendations and
suggestions to contribute.
I would hope that people look upon that
conference as an opportunity to listen
to what the people who are out there in the
real world, as they like to call it‑‑I apologize for that,
it is not a slight to members here‑‑but
as the Leader of the Liberal Party said,
we have to get out there from time to time, out of this House to recognize that the debates that
we go through are not necessarily
relevant to the real problems that people face
out there.
I would hope that those people from the real
world will provide us with more than an
opportunity to get a 10‑second clip
taking a shot at the economy. I
hope that they will provide us with the
opportunity to really turn this province onto the right path in following those massive, massive
shifts, changes and challenges that are
before us.
The Leader of the Liberal Party mentioned
young people. Well, I am not going to
suggest that there is not a problem with
respect to young people not having employment here in their home province, our sons and daughters who we all
want to have around us. I have a daughter teaching school in British
Columbia. I have a son at Osgoode Hall law school in
Toronto. Sure, Janice and I think about whether or not they will
ever be back living in their home
province. I do say that, in particular,
there are reasons why maybe not, and
there are reasons why I feel that they
will be back. That has not changed.
I am going to be going later this summer to a
class reunion, my graduating civil
engineering class of 1964. Where? In
Alberta. Why? Because a third of that graduating class went
to Alberta. Those were the '60s, and those were the boom
days of the Roblin era when all sorts of
things were happening here. But in various specialty areas, particularly
engineering, the opportunities were
where the resource developments were and all
of those kinds of things. So that
is why a third of my 1964 class went to
Alberta and some of them to British Columbia and so on.
Since we have had several reunions back here, they said we have to come to them this time.
I am just saying to you that has not changed,
it has not changed over many, many
decades. At the same time, we
should never be in a position where we
do not want to have opportunities for
everybody who goes through our education system and who develops the expertise to add to our economy
and to the future of our country and our
world.
It is interesting that we start to think so
globally. That brings me, very naturally, to the Earth
Summit at Rio de Janeiro. I want to begin by thanking the Leader of the
Liberal Party for giving me her personal
pair so that I could go to that. Among other things, I think that was a
conference that did mark a watershed in
the future of the world, not only because it
put the issue of sustainable development at the top of the political agenda for the countries of the
world, but because it allowed people to
start to think about what are going to be
challenges that are implicit in sustainable development for the world's future, because sustainable
development is more than just an
environmental issue. Sustainable
development is not an antidevelopment
concept.
As Madam Brundtland said, you do not have the
option of saying no growth and no
development for the future of the world.
If you do, you will condemn the poor people of this world to a life of poverty and misery. They must have continued development in order for them to be able to achieve a
better standard of living, a standard of
living such as we have. They may never aspire to that, but we have to keep working
towards that goal.
We are the most favoured, most blessed nation
in the world. We have the greatest
standard of living of any country in the
world, in my judgment, in so many ways.
The United Nations recognize
that. That is the good news. The bad news is that there is such a huge proportion of the world
who live in abject poverty.
That was the other half of my experience in
Brazil, because I spent two and a half
days with people from the Manitoba Council
for International Co‑operation which successive
administrations, going back into the
Schreyer years, have funded‑‑almost a half million dollars out of my budget last year,
funded $12 million on Third World
development projects‑‑thanks to the tremendous commitment and dedication of many church‑based
and charitably based organizations who
multiply that effective of our money, and
then CIDA multiplies it by four or five and we get a tremendous impact out of a very small amount of money.
We went into the interior of Brazil and we
visited projects that I think all of us
would be proud of. YMCA in one very
small community about an hour and a half
into the mountains outside of Rio de
Janeiro has a variety of projects. Their
major one is a camp that gives a
positive wholesome experience in the summertime
for basically street children, people who would otherwise not have this opportunity for a wholesome
experience of playing sports, learning
crafts and doing things that might have a chance of altering their outlook on life. They also have a preschool that they developed by renting a very small
space in a little building adjacent to a
grocery store in this tiny village, and
they carry out a preschool for four‑ and five‑year‑olds. These
are children, again, who may or may not ever have a school experience, but thanks to the YMCA they do.
They also have another building in which on
alternate days they have a pediatrician
and a dentist come in and provide free
services to these people in this terribly, terribly impoverished area.
In that same building, they carry on a sewing workshop to teach women, primarily, to sew, so that they
can not only make their own clothes but
perhaps to sell some. That was what
the YMCA was doing with a very, very,
very little bit of money and a lot of
volunteer help.
Then we went into MCC outside of Recife about
a 250‑kilometre drive from Recife
inland and there we were only about three
degrees from the equator in a semiarid area, and we went to see two primary projects. One at Belo Jardim in which the
Mennonite Central Committee works in
conjunction with the local Catholic
church padre who somehow has acquired 28 acres of land, and it has been put into tiny plots that are about
six metres by 20 metres and the
Mennonite Central Committee helps families to
build a six metre by five metre house, 300 square feet.
(Mr.
Bob Rose, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
Of course, the major effect of it is that
Mennonite Central Committee volunteers
teach them how to do it. They take and
they mine the clay off the banks of a
little creek that runs through, and they
fire the bricks in an oven by themselves.
The Mennonite Central Committee
teaches them to make the border and they build
this little house. We were in one
that was only three metres by five
metres, 150 square feet, in which there were nine children and mother and father. Yet, they were happy as you could imagine, because this was the only house that
they had ever had in their lives and
this was a huge step forward.
It is a co‑op, so that with a little bit
of income that they do earn‑‑there
are odd jobs‑‑they pay back the money‑‑most of them‑‑to the pot and so it gets
recycled. MCC, in that project, they built 280 houses in the last
decade. Of course, the volunteers who in this case were a Manitoba
couple, Marvin and Evelyn Koop, they
live there with their little children, and they
devote three years of their lives to this endeavour.
Then we went to a farming area near Caruaru,
and there we had a young woman who was a
graduate of Guelph University in
Agriculture and helped to organize a farmers' co‑op and with
a little bit of money helped each farm
family buy five hectares of land, 11
acres approximately of land. On that 11
acres again, they could grow, because it
is continuous cropping over the space of
12 months, and they would go from fava beans to corn to cassava root to fruit trees and honeybees,
all of these things.
* (2320)
(Mr.
Speaker in the Chair)
Again, we were on the farm a family‑‑and
I might say to you to give you another
dimension of some of the challenges that they
face. The woman who was 44 years
old was in her 22nd pregnancy. If the
child lives, it will be her 14th living child.
Yet they live on this five
hectares of land, and this again is a source of
tremendous pride and tremendous opportunity to them.
I could go on and tell you these stories, but
the unmistakable conclusion of this is
that the problems and the challenges
that we face in the developed world pale by comparison to the problems and challenges that the world
will face. Last year, and the year before, we all talked
about how delighted we all were that the
cold war is essentially over in the world.
That something that we never thought would ever happen did happen.
The world is evolving out of communism, and that threat that we all had hanging over our heads as we
grew up no longer exists.
I think that there is an even greater, I will
say threat because it is a threat, that
if we do not bridge the gap between the
wealthy nations of this world and the poor nations of this world, it will explode upon us some time in
this decade. They still have access to all of the public
information. There are television sets even in the smallest, most
impoverished villages, and they know how
the rest of the world lives. Eventually,
their desires for greater economic
status, for greater opportunity, for
better living conditions, because where we were in Brazil, the average life expectancy in that interior
region is 35 years of age. Thirty percent of children die before two
years of age. You are dealing with
cholera; you are dealing with AIDS; you are
dealing with immense killer diseases, and all of those things say that their quality and standard of life is a
horrible one, that we would not want
anybody to ever be condemned to it. They
are condemned to that lifestyle unless
we, in the developed world, are prepared
to recognize that and do something about it.
So when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Doer) talks about trade and being
against trade with Mexico, I say to him that one of the speeches that I heard from Andrew
Steer of The World Bank at the N.G.O.
Forum at Rio was about the role of trade in helping us to bridge the gaps between the poor and
the wealthy. I think unmistakably if we were to create a situation
in which all we did was continue to
harvest the resources in those countries and not develop a true relationship in which they
could produce goods and sell them to us
to improve their standard of living as part of
it, if we did not allow for trading relationships on a fair basis‑‑and I will stress this
absolutely.
I went through this discussion again at the
Western Governors' Conference where they
have exactly the same concerns as we do
about the NAFTA agreement with Mexico.
Those six conditions that I read
out and shared with the western
governors‑‑they have those same kinds of concerns. It has to be
a fair situation; but at the same time, it is one of the keys to ensuring that as the world develops we find a
way that is as painless as possible of
bringing up the standard of living of the
poorer nations. Mexico certainly
is a nation of contrasts with a very
thin layer of wealth and a very large layer of impoverished people.
We cannot ignore the fact that there has to be
some trade on a fair basis, on a basis
that we can live with in order for us
eventually to get those standards of living up, in order to ensure that we protect the world's
environment, because we have to go to
sustainable development. That is the
only basis upon which the world's environment
will be protected in the long term. Otherwise, resources will be indiscriminately
harvested in a nonsustainable way to the
detriment not only of those impoverished
countries but everybody in the world.
So as we look forward to this decade, it will
be a decade of huge issues. On the home front: health care reform; education reform; perhaps expanded world trade;
certainly sustainable development;
immense, immense issues, the whole shift to the
information economy; challenges that I think would boggle the mind.
Even one of those would boggle the mind of most people, and we are going to have to make all of them. We are going to have to make all of them at the same time as
we, in Canada, go through perhaps our
biggest internal crisis that both Leaders
have talked about, and that is the Constitution and the unity talks.
When you consider how much is at risk, all of
us want those talks to succeed, all of
us, of course, just as we want trade to
be on a fair basis, want the Constitution to be settled on a fair basis.
It cannot be, as we believed Meech Lake was, a one‑way street that was really addressing only the
problems and concerns of one province.
Now, in this round, I think we are addressing
more problems and concerns, but not
necessarily the ones that were identified
in the Manitoba Task Force on the Constitution. That, of course, is a concern to our government and a concern
to me in going to the table for the next
round of discussions, as to whether or not
we can achieve an agreement that will indeed meet the challenges and meet the tests that are put forth by our
all‑party task force. That is our goal; that is our objective. That is our
hope. I hope that we can come
back with something that not only meets
those tests in our all‑party task force report but that keeps Canada, in its 125th year, unified and
obviously on a stronger footing to meet
the challenges of the future. Thank
you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker's Statement
Mr.
Speaker: Prior to putting the question on the
main appropriation act, I also too have
a statement for the House. On behalf of all those who cannot speak, and
that includes the table officers, the
Sergeant‑at‑Arms, the Deputy Sergeant‑at‑Arms, our gallery attendants, our messenger room
attendants, our Pages, the journals
clerks, Hansard, the Clerk's office staff and myself, it has been indeed our pleasure to serve and
help guide each and every one of you.
Now, let me draw a little parallel. Many of you have been able to pull a horse along or guide him along
by the reins, not difficult. You hook two together on a cutter, it gets a
little bit more difficult. You have all marvelled at the fact when
you have seen a six‑ or an eight‑horse
hitch and you have wondered how they
could all move ahead. Now, picture 57
trying to pull together for one common
goal, and that goal being to leave this
place a better place than when we found it.
So on behalf of everybody, all Manitobans, I
want to thank each and every one of you,
because the distinction is very clear,
whether you are a minister, a critic, a legislative assistant, a Whip, a caucus chair, a government House
leader, I sincerely want to thank each
and every one of you on behalf of all Manitobans.
* (2330)
* * *
Mr.
Speaker: The question before the House is, it has been
moved by the honourable Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness), seconded by the
honourable Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 103, The Appropriation Act, 1992; Loi de 1992
portant affectation de credits, be now
read a third time and passed. Agreed?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Mr.
Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say
yea.
Some
Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr.
Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable
Members: Nay.
Mr.
Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On division.
ROYAL ASSENT
Deputy
Sergeant-at-Arms (Mr. Roy MacGillivray): His Honour the Lieutenant Governor.
His Honour George Johnson, Lieutenant-Governor
of the
Mr.
Speaker: May it please Your Honour:
The Legislative Assembly, at its present session,
passed bills, which in the name of the
Assembly, I present to Your Honour and
to which bills I respectfully request Your Honour's Assent:
Bill 5, The Manitoba Advisory Council on the
Status of Women Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur le Conseil consultatif
manitobain de la situation de la femme
Bill 6, The Denturists Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les denturologistes
Bill 7, The Real Property Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les biens reels
Bill 8, The Garnishment Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur la saisie‑arret
Bill 9, The Economic Innovation and Technology
Council Act; Loi sur le Conseil de
l'innovation economique et de la technologie
Bill 10, The Manitoba Hydro Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur l'Hydro‑Manitoba
Bill 11, The Bee‑Keepers Repeal Act; Loi
abrogeant la Loi sur les apiculteurs
Bill 12, The Animal Husbandry Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'elevage
Bill 14, The Highways and Transportation
Department Amendment Act; Loi modifiant
la Loi sur le ministere de la Voirie et du
Transport
Bill 15, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant le Code de la route
Bill 20, The Municipal Assessment Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
l'evaluation municipale
Bill 34, The Surveys Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur l'arpentage
Bill 38, The Manitoba Evidence Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur la preuve au
Manitoba
Bill 39, The Salvation Army Grace General
Hospital Incorporation Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation
"The Salvation Army Grace General Hospital"
Bill 42, The Amusements Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les divertissements
Bill 43, The Farm Income Assurance Plans
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
les regimes d'assurance‑revenu agricole
Bill 44, The Milk Prices Review Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur le controle du
prix du lait
Bill 46, The Jury Amendment Act; Loi modifiant
la Loi sur les jures
Bill 47, The Petty Trespasses Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'intrusion
Bill 48, The Personal Property Security
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
les suretes relatives aux biens personnels
Bill 49, The Environment Amendment Act; Loi modifiant
la Loi sur l'environnement
Bill 52, The Pas Health Complex Incorporation
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi
constituant en corporation "The Pas Health
Complex"
Bill 53, The Dangerous Goods Handling and
Transportation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant
la Loi sur la manutention et le
transport des marchandises dangereuses
Bill 61, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act
(4); Loi no 4 modifiant la Loi sur la
protection du consommateur
Bill 62, The Business Practices Amendment Act
(2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur les
pratiques commerciales
Bill 64, The Child and Family Services
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
les services a l'enfant et a la famille
Bill 68, The Public Trustee Amendment, Trustee
Amendment and Child and Family Services
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
le curateur public, la Loi sur les fiduciaires et la Loi sur les services a l'enfant et a la famille
Bill 70, The Social Allowances Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur l'aide sociale et
apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois
Bill 71, The Retirement Plan Beneficiaries
Act; Loi sur les beneficiaires des
regimes de retraite
Bill 72, The Law Reform (Miscellaneous
Amendments) Act; Loi sur la reforme du
droit (modifications diverses)
Bill 73, The Health Care Directives and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi sur
les directives en matiere de soins de sante et
apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois
Bill 74, The Law Society Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur la Societe du
Barreau
Bill 75, The Health Services Insurance
Amendment and Consequential Amendments
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
l'assurance‑maladie et apportant des modifications correlatives
a d'autres lois
Bill 76, The Pension Benefits Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur les prestations
de pension
Bill 78, The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act
(3); Loi no 3 modifiant la Loi sur la
Ville de Winnipeg
Bill 79, The Highways Protection and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi sur la
protection des voies publiques et apportant des
modifications correlatives a d'autres lois
Bill 80, The Dental Association Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Association
dentaire
Bill 81, The Optometry Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur l'optometrie
Bill 82, The Farm Practices Protection and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi sur la
protection des pratiques agricoles et
apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois
Bill 84, The Residential Tenancies Amendment
Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur
la location a usage d'habitation
Bill 85, The Labour Relations Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur les relations
du travail
Bill 86, The Provincial Police Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant
la Loi sur la Surete du Manitoba et
apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois
Bill 87, The Law Enforcement Review Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
enquetes relatives a l'application de la loi
Bill 88, The Homesteads, Marital Property
Amendment and Consequential Amendments
Act; Loi sur la propriete familiale,
modifiant la Loi sur les biens matrimoniaux et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois
Bill 89, The Family Maintenance Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'obligation
alimentaire
Bill 90, The Seven Oaks General Hospital
Incorporation Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation le "Seven Oaks General Hospital"
Bill 91, The Liquor Control Amendment Act (2);
Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur la
reglementation des alcools
Bill 92, The Provincial Auditor's Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le
verificateur provincial
Bill 93, The Mental Health Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur la sante mentale
Bill 94, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation)
Act, 1992; Loi de 1992 modifiant
diverses dispositions legislatives en matiere de fiscalite
Bill 95, The Tax Appeals Commission Act; Loi
sur la Commission d'appel des impots et
des taxes
Bill 96, The Special Operating Agencies
Financing Authority Act; Loi sur
l'Office de financement des organismes de service special
Bill 97, The Winnipeg Bible College and
Theological Seminary Incorporation
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation le "Winnipeg Bible College
and Theological Seminary"
Bill 98, The Manitoba Multiculturalism Act;
Loi sur le multiculturalisme au Manitoba
Bill 100, The Pension Plan Acts Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant les lois sur les regimes
de retraite
Bill 101, The Statute Law Amendment Act, 1992;
Loi de 1992 modifiant diverses
dispositions legislatives
Mr.
Clerk (William Remnant): In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor doth assent to
these bills.
* (2340)
Mr.
Speaker: May it please Your Honour:
We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and faithful
subjects, the Legislative Assembly of
Manitoba in session assembled, approach
Your Honour with sentiments of unfeigned devotion and loyalty to Her Majesty's person and government, and beg
for Your Honour the acceptance of these
bills:
Bill 102, The Loan Act, 1992; Loi d'emprunt de
1992
Bill 103, The Appropriation Act, 1992; Loi de
1992 portant affectation de credits
Mr.
Clerk: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank
Her Majesty's dutiful and loyal
subjects, accepts their benevolence and
assents to these bills in Her Majesty's name.
His Honour was then pleased to retire.
(God
Save the Queen was sung)
(O
Canada! was sung)
Mr.
Speaker: Please be seated.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment
(Mr. Cummings), that when the House
adjourns today, it shall stand adjourned
until a time fixed by Mr. Speaker upon the request of the government.
Motion
agreed to.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn.
Mr.
Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable
government House leader that this House
do now adjourn. Agreed?
Some
Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr.
Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. This House is now adjourned.