LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Monday,
July 26, 1993
The House met at 7 p.m.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY (Continued)
SUPPLY‑CAPITAL
SUPPLY
COMMITTEE
OF SUPPLY
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order. This section of the Committee of
Supply is dealing with the concurrence motion.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): I will start with the Premier (Mr. Filmon),
and I would like to thank him for joining us on this concurrence motion this
evening.
Madam Chairperson, I would like to ask the
Premier whether he has been apprised of the situation in the Bloodvein
aboriginal community of
I
also understand from health officials that they feel to not have sewer and
water in a community like this is obviously a health risk.
I
am further apprised that professional engineers have indicated to the band‑‑and
I provide copies to the Premier who, of course, has a background in engineering‑‑that
without any work starting in the retrofit project that there could raise some
vulnerability in terms of the sewage system itself and the water system itself
in terms of potential problems with freeze‑up. Northern Manitoba
Consultants Limited are concerned that sewer line and lagoon freeze‑ups
will occur creating system failures which would adversely affect capital
requirements and create extraordinary maintenance and repair costs over the
winter of '92‑93 and then '93‑94.
I
would ask the Premier, in his role as Minister of Federal‑Provincial
Relations, and also in recognition of the fact that the Prime Minister is
scheduled to visit here, I believe, on Wednesday, whether this issue has been
raised by his ministers with the federal government. I know we have a new Minister of Indian
Affairs‑‑a new minister, I think, from
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Madam Chairperson, a number of things occur to
me, and that is the planning of the people within Bloodvein or whoever made the
decision to plan it in such a way that they did not leave themselves enough
money for hookups of the individual houses.
That does not sound like very good planning.
Secondly, Madam Chairperson, we are talking in
terms of an area that is total federal responsibility. This is the provincial Legislature. We are talking about money to be spent by the
provincial government. We do not have a
nickel in this project.
I
hardly think this is the type of project to be raised for other than political
purposes by the member opposite. To be
honest with you, I do not understand why he would do it. He knows the direct lines of authority. The relationship is between the Bloodvein
First Nation and the federal government.
Surely, they would be raising this directly with the federal government
and not running around to provincial politicians when their issue is with the
federal government.
* (1905)
Mr. Doer: Madam Chairperson, I thought I would ask this
question to the Premier in light of the fact that he is the Minister
responsible for Federal‑Provincial Relations. I have asked him similar questions before
about the status of projects that deal with the northern centre for substance
abuse. We have raised other questions
before. We have a Ministry of Native
Affairs in his government. The Deputy
Premier (Mr. Downey) chairs it. We have
letters from health officials indicating health problems.
I
should say to the Premier that there is a problem between the federal
government's Green Plan, which allocated money for sewer and water and capital
projects and the federal Department of Indian Affairs that is responsible for
the retrofitting for these community homes.
It seems to me that the community did take advantage of a positive
announcement, the federal Green Plan that did provide for the capital for
sewer, water, the lagoons, but did not provide for the capital retrofitting
hookup. So it is not as if it is a
problem of planning for the community. I
think it is a problem I believe that the sewer and water is not hooked up to
the homes because it did not fit into the Green Plan, but surely after an
investment of $7 million, there must be a way to fulfill it.
So
I am sorry. I just asked the Premier
whether he could have his federal‑provincial office look at it. I know that the community of Bloodvein
reports directly to the federal government.
I was not blaming the provincial government. I was asking a favour of the Premier in his
capacity as Minister responsible for Federal‑Provincial Relations on
behalf of the residents of Bloodvein. I
am asking him to see whether he can move this along. I am not being critical in any way, shape or
form of the Premier, and I would ask him to look at it in that spirit, not in a
partisan way, but in a way to help
Mr. Filmon: I apologize to the Leader of the
Opposition. I am so used to him
criticizing me day after day after day that when this clearly was not a matter
in which there was one nickel or one aspect of provincial involvement
whatsoever, I assumed that he was trying to lay this one on me.
Madam Chairperson, I will certainly take that
as an initiative that can be pursued. I
do have a rather extensive agenda that I wanted to cover with the Prime
Minister on matters in which it is a government‑to‑government
thing, federal to provincial, but perhaps we can get officials talking about it
to see if we can move along.
Mr. Doer: I thank the Premier for that and I will send
the Premier some of the documentation I have, but I appreciate that on behalf
of the community. I wish the Premier
well on all the other items that he will have on the agenda on Wednesday with
the Prime Minister of the country. I
thank him for staying a few minutes in concurrence and taking this issue, and I
expect the water to be hooked up shortly.
Thank you.
Mr. Doer: Yes, I have a new question to the Minister of
Finance. It is dealing with taxation
matters, income tax reimbursement.
We
are being told by, again, the First Nations communities that there are
administrative agreements between Revenue
I
will quote from letters: They are
eligible for this tax reimbursement; however, it is being held up by the
provincial government to pass a remission in order for these years that have
applied to the present.
We
have further seen documentation all across the North that says clearly that the
Federal‑Provincial Research Branch has advised that the cabinet has not
yet considered the matter, but that that matter was currently in process. He advised us that he could not estimate as
to when cabinet would reach a decision; he had advised that cabinet does meet
over the summer months‑‑I do not agree with that, but this is just
what the communities are being told.
Can
the Minister of Finance indicate whether there is a federal‑provincial
agreement on this matter, on UIC, with First Nations in
* (1910)
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): I want to indicate
right away, there is not an agreement at this point mainly because the issue is
a lot larger than UIC.
The
federal government, over the course of the last three or four years, has been
granting remissions in a whole host of areas, just not with respect to the UIC
issue with regard or with respect to aboriginals on reserves. This issue involves going back, in some
cases, many years, again on case files of ordinary business people, ordinary
citizens of the country.
The
federal government has asked the provinces to take a more lenient approach to
remissions, and the provinces quite frankly are balking. They have every right to balk, because it is
one thing to have the federal government administer your tax policy, it is
another thing for the federal government to decide now they are going to start
to give back their portion of it, and then ask the tax filer to come after the
provinces to give back their portion.
I
can tell you that if the reverse were to be done and the provinces were to want
to do some redeeming and give back some relief, and we went to the federal
government, the federal government would tell us to mind our own business, they
would look after their affairs. So my
response basically to the Leader, as I said earlier, at this point in time, we
do not have an agreement on the broader issue.
The
member is asking me, no doubt, to unbundle the whole consideration and look
specifically at one component of it, and at this time, we cannot do so.
I
remind him, though, of all the agreements that this government is signing with
the reserves and the bands throughout this province with respect particularly
to the tobacco tax recently, but before that, fuel tax, and how it is that we
have entered into a whole host of agreements; I would say on tobacco alone,
approaching with half the bands, whereby our tax levy will remain in effect but
indeed the total recipient or the recipient of that total amount collected will
be paid back in cash to the bands.
Mr. Doer: I appreciate the government is dealing with
the whole issue of taxation with aboriginal people in
I
want to know from the minister‑‑there is a great deal of confusion
in communities across
I
would like to ask the minister: Do they
agree with the federal government when they say that the province can pass this
on, that is the legal entitlement, point No. 1?
Point No. 2: Does the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) have a status on
this same situation in other provinces?
Is this an unusual situation in
Mr. Manness: Madam Chairperson, I do not know whether I
can answer all the questions or not.
I
will say very forthrightly to the member, we are a senior level of
taxation. We do not have to follow in
line with the federal government. Every
province has different sets of circumstances.
How do I know that some of the provinces have entered into agreement for
remission? What is the percentage, what
are they talking about in global terms?
The
member could say, well this is a matter of principle. Well, it is a little bit
more than that. I would have the member
know that for instance the federal government, with respect to GST exemption,
has gone beyond the borders in
I
can tell him that we are seriously looking at it but not in its own
context. It is being looked at in the
broader issue. The federal government has moved, in our view, in isolation, and
we will not move until we are satisfied that all of the other points of
principle are taken into account.
Mr. Doer: Just a question again on this: Can the minister indicate, does he have a
status report of how this is being handled in other provinces? Are we the exception to the rule? Are we the
rule? Obviously, his staff keep track of
this issue. Can the minister provide to the House in general terms what the
situation is across the country, in more specific terms from his staff at a
future time?
* (1915)
Mr. Manness: I will endeavour to do so.
I
can tell you, we are not the exception to the rule. As a matter of fact, I am led to believe most
provinces are conducting themselves like we are, not again specific on the UIC
issue but on the whole area of remission, because the federal government is
trying to involve us in a whole host of remission, and I would say to the
member, going back in some cases 12 years, and of course we will not accept
that‑‑and again this is the UIC issue. We cannot separate at this
point the UIC issue, so I will endeavour to try and provide more information
once I avail myself of it.
Thank you.
Mr. Doer: I would also ask the minister how they are
going to communicate to communities on this issue.
We
hear it on an individual‑by‑individual basis‑‑the
member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes)
have heard this issue. There is a great
deal of concern; there is a great deal of confusion. I would just leave with the minister: (a) please try to find a way to resolve it‑‑I
agree it is not always easy; and (b) if there is a way of informing people
through whichever communication devices the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
utilizes, either through the meetings he has with the First Assembly of Chiefs
or other means, so that people know exactly where it stands. I would just like to leave that with the
minister.
I
would like to move on to a few questions on Health to the Minister of Health.
Some of these issues are pertaining to
northern communities. They are, of course, communities that come under the
administration of the federal government.
They are also citizens of
I
want to start with
I
was very moved by my visit to the homes that I had an opportunity to
visit. Members of the community said
that there was, quote, no more personal care negotiations going on between the
federal and provincial government because, quote, there was a 1987 freeze.
* (1920)
I
want to know whether the Minister of Health has had any discussions about some
of these communities, recognizing of course that this is a matter that could be
dealt with by both levels of government.
Certainly they are Manitobans and
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): I presume my honourable friend is asking how
do these projects stand, which are personal care home projects being proposed
on reserve in remote and northern
Mr. Doer: Yes, Madam Chairperson.
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, it is my understanding, and
I will have to stand corrected if I have the community named incorrectly, but
the
If
what I am saying to my honourable friend is not an accurate recollection of the
issue, I will provide differing information, if that is the case,
tomorrow. It is my understanding that
those are a federal responsibility for their funding and the province does not
participate in the funding.
Mr. Doer: If a person is unable to receive the personal
care home facilities that they need in a northern remote community and are
moved to a southern community, what is the obligation of the provincial
government? For example, if somebody is
moved from that community to
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, my understanding is that that
funding obligation has not changed for 20 years in that the province picks up
the costs. That has always been a bone
of contention. The native community
makes the case that the province should then be funding those facilities on
reserve. With all due respect, no provincial government in the last 20 years
has made that case. I am interested in
my honourable friend's line of questioning.
Maybe we can find out whether my honourable friend is suggesting it
should be different.
Mr. Doer: No, I do not have all the answers to all these
questions. What I do know is we have a
situation, and I come here trying to see how we can solve the problem. We have elderly people, our elders in
communities in northern
I
am told that some of these people are moved or have to move from the community
to southern communities, which provides two problems: one, obviously, for the province and the
other one for the family of the individual who is culturally, perhaps, and
geographically very far removed from their own family.
I
am not suggesting for a moment that we should condone the federal offloading of
their responsibilities. I have a great
deal of sympathy for the government in dealing with this. What I am concerned about is how do we solve
this problem? I wonder whether there are
any negotiations? We have huge
populations, say, in the
There are other remote communities as
well. It seems to me that it makes the
most health sense and the most sense to the community, and perhaps to the
province as well, to have resources in the communities for the elders to get
personal care home services, just as, perhaps, it would be the case for members
of our family if they so needed those resources in our own community; take
northeast
So
I am wondering: How do we deal with this
problem? Is there any strategy to deal
with this problem? Are there any federal‑provincial
negotiations going on between the provincial Department of Health, who would
then have to assume some of the costs and the federal Department of Health or
the federal Department of Indian Affairs to look at this situation. Do they feel it is a problem? Are there any discussions or negotiations
going on to resolve it? Is there any way
of getting a provincial joint strategy on this issue?
I
am just asking, Madam Chairperson. I
know that there are people that need a service, and I know if they cannot get
it in their own community, they are going to another community to get it. I just asked the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard) whether he shares our concern and what advice he could give us on this
issue.
* (1925)
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, I really find my honourable
friend's concern very legitimate. That
concern my honourable friend no doubt had in 1987, 1988 when he sat around
Howard Pawley's cabinet table, when the same situation existed, and to the best
of my knowledge, the same approach to the issue was taken today as then. We do not have any negotiations ongoing with
the federal government to build personal care homes on reserve. That is not, as I have said today, the responsibility
of the provincial government as it was not from 1981 to 1988.
Now, there are enormous resources being placed
on reserve from the federal government, from DIANA. If the need in those communities is as acute
as my honourable friend says, and I trust him to say that, then it strikes me
that the immediate prioritization of those resources would be to meet that
greatest need, and the band councils collectively in the
I
mean, if that is a priority‑‑all of us today are faced with, as I
have said many, many times, my capital budget has a billion dollars of requests
at any given year, and we fund approximately $200 million per year. On any given month, I will have proposals in
my office to significantly expand the expenditures of our $1.8 billion health
care budget, and we do not have the resources to do that. We cannot be adding new resources. That is why we are making difficult
prioritization choices from within our internal and the available budgets.
I
suggest in advice to my honourable friend, would be the same advice that he no
doubt gave to those very same native councils, that if this is a priority, work
with the federal government, your funder.
Make that urgent priority, if that is what it is, a reality on your
community. It has happened in some
communities. It did not happen with the
provincial government being there facilitating it or, as my honourable friend
said earlier, participating in the funding of it. It happened within the resources of the
federal government and the respective bands.
This same opportunity exists today. It requires a great deal of will to
prioritize those dollars and make that happen, but we are not at the table with
that issue in personal care home construction operation on native reserves in
northern
Mr. Doer: I thank the minister for that answer. If I can be frank with the minister, when I
was Minister of Urban Affairs in 1986 and '87, I did not have a lot of
experience in aboriginal northern communities.
I will be honest with him; I did not have any. I was dealing mostly with The Forks, which
was trying to deal with other priorities, the second Core and some other areas
that were priorities. So I want to be
honest with the minister. I did not have a lot of first‑hand knowledge
during my tenure in cabinet. I learned a
lot, but I did not have a lot of first‑hand knowledge in some of these
areas that I am raising today.
I
guess my question is dealing with the fact that the province picks up the cost
when a person‑‑
Mr. Manness: Jay Cowan was in control.
Mr. Doer: Well, I am not into political shots right
now, for the Minister of Finance. I know
he mentions the former member for Churchill with a great deal of respect and
endearment and having‑‑(interjection) Oh, I think the former member
for Churchill was a strong individual. I
think we can say that, and we would argue the member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard)
is a strong individual as well. Being in
control is a different question.
* (1930)
But
moving to concurrence here in dealing with the issues raised, it seems to me
that the provincial government is picking up the cost when people come outside
of their community and the federal government is not proceeding with projects
that are needed in the northern community.
There seems to me to be a vested interest from both levels of
government. I am wondering, from the
Minister of Health's (Mr. Orchard) perspective, do they maintain any tracking
of elders that are sent to nonaboriginal communities and are picked up by the
provincial government?
Do
they conduct any studies of that intake on that issue, and would that help
them, perhaps, dealing with the federal government to try to develop resources
through the federal government, paid for by the federal government, in federal
government jurisdiction, but help the community itself have a way of working
with the federal government to get some of these resources that are paid
outside of the normal capital, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think there is an operating capital grant
every year, but there is the ability to have the capital for health care, for
education, for policing, et cetera. Is
there any tracking maintained, and is that a help to the community?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, I do not have that
information and will attempt to provide that.
Mr. Doer: Thank you.
Just looking at communities that do have a personal care home, and
Oxford House does have a personal care home with serious structural damage,
even though it is a fairly new building, to the floors, walls, ventilation and
the gas distribution system. Would the
government have any involvement, would the Minister of Health have any involvement,
about that kind of issue in that aboriginal community? Would they have any monitoring
responsibility? Would they have any
responsibility at all, or would that be outside of the provincial government's
jurisdiction as well?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chairperson, I will attempt to confirm
this, but the only role the provincial government might have, and I know we
have done this upon request in the past, is to examine the operation of a
personal care home to assure that it is meeting the provincial standards and
guidelines. That I cannot answer to my
honourable friend if that has been undertaken, for instance, at Oxford
House. I would fully expect that the
management, i.e., the native band, has identified the structural or the
physical problems with the facility on their own or possibly from the
inspection of a fire commissioner's office or Workplace Safety and Health.
If
I can anticipate my honourable friend's next question, we do not participate in
any capital support of any renovation costs such as my honourable friend has
just mentioned with Oxford House as the example.
Mr. Doer: Madam Chairperson, I want to thank the
minister for his answer. We have been
advised that the facility, because of the structural problems in it, will be
below the standards, and I would ask the Minister of Health whether he could
look at the Oxford House facility. It is
an excellent facility, but as I say, it requires considerable capital
renovation, not considerable, but some capital renovation. It appears to us, in my opportunity to visit
there, that the longer this waits the more difficulty it will have to meet
these standards.
I
would ask the minister whether there are any reports dealing with provincial
standards in this area, dealing with the walls and floors and ventilation. If there has been any information to the
minister, could he advise us of that and see if his officials share the same
view as we do and the personal care home administrator does, that this
information could be passed on to the federal government, if it has not already
been passed on, in terms of standards.
Mr. Orchard: I do not know what my honourable friend is
asking here, but if my honourable friend is asking have we made an inspection
of the Oxford House personal care home, I cannot answer that. I will attempt to provide that answer to him.
I
do not know the genesis of this report.
If my honourable friend has been informed of this deteriorating physical
condition as indicated, I believe he indicated by the administrator of that
personal care home, perchance my honourable friend should have asked, who made
the report, who did the inspection.
I
am not aware of our staff making an inspection up there. I am going by memory, this is three or four
years ago, we were called in to check standards of care, I believe, it was at
But, Madam Chair, let me tell my honourable
friend that if the circumstance is as my honourable friend alleges, then there
is a process within the federal government funding responsibility to make those
funds available to do the renovations that are necessary. We do not, as I indicated earlier to my
honourable friend, and have not for some 20 years as a provincial government
got involved with a capital construction for original construction or
subsequent renovations.
Mr. Doer: I would ask the minister if there is any
record of this to please take it as notice.
If there is not, I will send him what we know about it, and perhaps his
department could look at it. Thank you
very much.
I
want to move on to the Department of Northern Affairs, to the other member of
the present troika here on the front bench here this evening. I want to ask some questions to the Minister
of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) dealing with‑‑I will start with
I
am sure the minister has been to the community and knows that the road has gone
from good gravel to a moderate amount of gravel and now from gravel right down
to dust and mud. We are also advised
that because of the conditions of the road that there are respiratory problems
in the community and that some days of the year the road does not allow for the
school bus to run along the five or six miles to pick up the kids to go to
school.
I
would like to know whether the minister is aware of this situation, and has he
been working on this problem as Minister of Northern Affairs and Minister of
Hydro in the community of Oxford House?
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Northern Affairs): Madam Chair, I
appreciate the question. I am not sure
whether he is talking about the strictly provincial responsibility and/or a
joint road between the federal and provincial governments. I wonder if he could give me some
clarification.
I
will take as notice the concerns that are raised by the honourable member. I can appreciate the fact that is and has
been a concern of many of our northern communities, the dust conditions which
occur, and it is important that we try to resolve, the No. 1 issue of course being
safety for the residents that live within those communities, whether it is dust
or whether it is roads that play havoc with the equipment that has to travel
over them.
I
will take under advisement the question asked and get back to the member.
* (1940)
Mr. Doer: I appreciate the minister's response to look at
the situation.
I
want to move on to another community dealing with roads, and then I want to
come back to fur trapping and to the issue of tourism and First Nations
tourism. Dealing specifically with
It
appears to us that the airstrip has been shortened some distance from where its
original length, point No. 1, and point No. 2, in terms of
But
I want to know whether the Minister of Northern Affairs could advise us of
whether he is concerned about the safety of people travelling on the airstrip
and whether there will be an access road built.
There is a little bit of capital going on from the Department of
Highways, but there does not seem to be a long‑term plan to deal with
that issue.
Mr. Downey: Madam Chair, at the outset, let me assure the
Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) that my colleague the member for
Can
I say, in all seriousness, the questions which the member is asking, he could
probably get more information from the Minister of Highways and Transportation
(Mr. Driedger) to say, first of all, yes, we are concerned about people
travelling on the airstrip. Of course
the member realizes that there was a long‑outstanding issue as it related
to the
I
cannot, at this point, give him the status as to the road but, again, if it is
on federal or a band area, then I could say it would be a federal issue, but I
think when it is the area which I think it is, we will have to get the Ministry
of Highways to give us some more specific detailed answer on it. As far as I am concerned, yes, we are
concerned about people having to travel on the airstrip in an automobile, not
an airplane.
Mr. Doer: I would ask the Minister of Northern Affairs
(Mr.
Again, it is the
I
want to move to the whole issue of fur trading and harvest of furs. It is not a problem I know that the
government has not heard about. The
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), I am sure, has heard about this
issue, and the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey). There is a great deal of frustration on
behalf of elders, whether it is in Hollow Water or Bloodvein or Oxford House,
I
would like to ask the government, what has it done? How should we answer the questions about what
is the provincial Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) doing along with the Minister of
Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) to ensure that the trapping and fur trading or fur
business in northern
Mr. Downey: Madam Chair, the Minister of Natural Resources
(Mr. Enns) may have something further to add, but let me say at the outset that
it is encouraging that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) is now asking
some questions from the area which the member previously was from, the member
known as Elijah Harper who no longer is with the member, and he is now coming
to the Legislature on behalf of those former constituents of his to get some
information. I find that encouraging,
that he is either taking a genuine interest in the North, or there is maybe a
by‑election coming which may have something to do with it as well, but I
do not want to get into the political arena‑‑
An Honourable Member: No, you just did, but go ahead.
Mr.
Now, to deal with the matter which the member
has raised, that being the concern for the fur lobby or the anti‑fur
lobby and what are we doing about it. I
believe it was some two to three years ago, at least two years ago, that the
government of Manitoba in co‑operation with other organizations hosted,
in fact encouraged, the European Economic Community‑‑those individuals
who would be making the rules and regulations and influencing the voters in
Europe‑‑we put on an educational program which was held here in
Manitoba at the Legislature. As well,
they were hosted in several communities in the North to show how truly dependent
those people are on the sale of furs. It
was a direct lobby with those people who were in decision‑making areas of
the European Community.
I
want to say as well that the point they made was that we have to demonstrate,
the trappers and those people depending on the fur harvest have to demonstrate,
that we are using more humane traps in this country. I know the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.
Enns) can speak in more detail to this, but it is my understanding that we have
had a program for several years now educating and working with the trappers of
the North to do just that, to change from the old traditional leg‑hold
traps, or what would be considered an inhumane type of system, to a new
immediate‑kill type trap or some new humane system that would in fact
take some of the concerns away from the purchasers of furs.
* (1950)
Let
me say as well, I think the member opposite has a role to play as well, as a
Leader of a political party that does have, in fact, a representative sitting
here from The Pas whose people traditionally have trapped and hunted; as well,
a resident from Churchill who depended heavily on the whaling industry, which
in many circles is not seen as a desirable type of harvest. He has got the member for Swan River (Ms.
Wowchuk) that I am sure has many people in her riding that depend heavily on
the area of harvesting of furs; sits as a Leader of an opposition where, I
think, in the Manitoba Legislature, legislators have to take on the
responsibility of putting the facts out as to really what is happening, how
important it is for the people of the North, the traditional methods of
obtaining their livelihood, that they are able to continue to do so.
I
happen to have had the privilege of doing a little bit of travel in the past
while, and there are many people, many consumers, who still prefer to buy wild
fur coats and wild fur clothing. It is
really something that they want to do. Unfortunately, there is a lot of
misinformation that is disseminated between the producers of those goods and
the people who are purchasing them.
So
I challenge the member opposite, and I know he has got a member for Radisson
(Ms. Cerilli) who is causing considerable concern throughout the province with
some of the recent statements that were made or some of the accusations that
have been made about her participation.
Those are the kinds of things that I call upon the Leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Doer) to help get the proper message out, as I call upon the member
for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), as I call upon the former resident from Churchill
and
So
I have pointed out two particular areas that we have worked on. One, the conference and the educational
process for the European legislators, we have had them here in
In
fact, as much as I had a little bit of a difficulty some years ago when there
was support put in place to help some of the communities and some of the
northern young people as to how to carry out trapping activity, I was appalled,
to tell you the truth, that there had to be such a program put in place. After looking at it closer, it is easily
understood that, as that tradition leaves some of the elders and the young
people break away from that, there does have to be a reintroduction of those
harvesting methods. So the whole
educational working with communities, I think, is essential. It was traditional that the elders did
it. Now the elders see that there is a
break in the pattern as to what has followed them, and they have every right to
be concerned, but there has to be a market for the product that is
produced. It is up to us to try and make
sure that market is established and expanded for those individuals.
Mr. Doer: Perhaps we are asking some questions in this
area. We could have done it at an
earlier stage in the Estimates process, but I felt‑‑I think that
people in this Legislature, members of our caucus, are doing an excellent job
in representing the former member for Rupertsland. This seat has been vacant for a considerable
period of time, and we are choosing a very nonpolitical forum to raise it in
the concurrence motion. These are just
concerns from people in the community that live in the most distant and remote
area that have no representative in this House.
There are only two constituencies in
I
would say to the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey),
that we do, and I have heard many members of our caucus, speak out on behalf of
fur trading and trapping in terms of the livelihood and the way of life. We remain committed, as we were in the past,
to that harvest, to that resource, to that utilization of a resource in
Last time I listened to elders, they told me
the price of beaver has not gone up. It
has stayed very, very low. They have
told me that the price of many furs are still a way below where it was numbers
of years ago because we have not‑‑we collectively‑‑succeeded.
Mr. Downey: Madam Chairperson, I guess on the price side,
we have not seen any tremendous successes.
I would say that a success that we have seen is that we have not seen
total bans on the activities carried out that have been traditional harvesting
activities. So the educational process
is, in fact, working.
It
is extremely stressful, and I know that these numbers are not specific to
He
is no longer in that job, but three years after that, at about the mid‑1980s,
he indicated there were probably less than 1,000 muskrats produced, and they
probably would average 25 cents apiece.
That is the tragedy of what has taken place. What I would say, Madam Chairperson, you have
an irresponsible lobby that is out there trying, on one hand, to put their
message across that we have to save all animals at all cost, and we are seeing
those communities that depended on that livelihood turn to welfare, turn to
substance abuse, turn to alcohol, turn to everything but what they should be,
and that is a traditional way of life and advancing their young people.
They are now trying to recapture that
history. They are trying to recapture
it. That is the same in a lot of our
northern communities. I am sure the
member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) would probably agree, but what we have seen is
that livelihood taken away from them. In
those remote communities, nothing else to turn to but despair, and what do you
do with the time you have on your hands?
You find that you are into activities that are less than
productive. Idle hands mean troubled
hands in most cases.
So,
again, I think we have to genuinely put forward an attempt to seriously get the
message across that since this country opened up with the
But
what has changed is the human interest in the overactive environmentalist
movement; it has, in fact, taken the balance the other way where we now have
substantial people living on social assistance, again, substance abuse, all of
those things that none of us want to see our young people or our families have
to depend upon to put in the time. So I
am genuinely serious about this.
If
the Leader of the Opposition, and I know he is doing this in a nonpolitical
manner‑‑I think we have to work together collectively to get them
information out that in trying to save all of the animals that would normally
be harvested, we have really upset the communities which have traditionally
lived on this type of harvest and this kind of lifestyle, which many people
would give, Madam Chair, to participate in for their young people to understand
how nature develops and produces the type of animal that has to be harvested.
I
appreciate this debate. I think it is
helpful, and I would hope that the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) would get
aggressively involved in this and take on some of these environmental‑‑I
do not call them people who do not have a right to speak out, I call them
activists who have to take a look at the total picture and what it has done to
many of our aboriginal and remote communities.
* (2000)
Mr. Doer: I would ask the Deputy Premier, and I mean, I
am sure we all agree in this Chamber about the traditional livelihood and the
traditional way of operating and trapping, Madam Chairperson. I wonder whether the government has discussed
this at the Round Table on Environment, and whether they have tried to develop
this strategy in conjunction with other members of the round table.
A
second question is, has this government discussed it‑‑they are on
the board, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) is on the board, I believe, or an observer
at least with the International Institute of Sustainable Development? Have they used the offices of the
International Institute of Sustainable Development to make the case about the
sustainability and the desirability for our people in northern
Mr. Downey: Madam Chair, let me further add that even to
a greater extent than that, not at the international scene, but particularly as
it relates to the activities of the province of Manitoba and the import of the
trapping and the resource harvesting industry to Manitoba, I will be publicly
releasing within a short period of time the report on the Northern Economic
Development Commission, which was carried out and chaired by one of the members
of the Manitoba Round Table on Sustainable Development, Mr. Thomas Henley‑‑
An Honourable Member: He is in that too. He is on a lot of things, is he not?
Mr. Downey: He chaired it.
It is now completed, and the report has been delivered to me.
We
also had Mr. Pascal Bighetty as well, who is a former chief of the Pukatawagan
Band. We also had Chief Helen Cook from
the Bloodvein Indian Band, but due to illness had to step down and was replaced
by Sue Lambert from the northwest region of which the member for The Pas is
familiar. We also had Mr. Doug Webber,
the mayor of Churchill. Also we had
Sonny Clyne, who is the mayor of the town of
The
report is in, and there is a lot of good information and direction which has to
be considered as it relates to northern
I
do not take lightly the recommendation that the Leader of the Opposition has
recommended, that this maybe should be elevated to more of an international
arena which I fully endorse. The more
influence and impact you can have from the more angles, at the end of the day
hopefully we can accomplish for those people who have lived on traditional
harvesting methods, I think will assist in the end objective: more jobs, more and better lifestyles which
are of a traditional nature and not foreign to those people who have so much depended
upon that type of lifestyle for their incomes.
Mr. Doer: I thank the Deputy Premier. I would ask him to look at the strategy of
utilizing the international centre here in
I
do not believe that sustainable development and environmental issues is a
defensive issue on the economy. I
believe that sometimes we should be utilizing the comprehensive approach to
sustainable development in a very positive economic way, such as utilizing our
international contacts to get rid of all the myths on fur trading and trapping
and to‑‑
Mr. Orchard: Where is Karl Marx on this one?
Mr. Doer: The Minister of Health has helped with this
intervention I am sure, but I would ask the government to utilize the
international community here, and let us go on the offensive on this. It is a sustainable resource in
Mr. Downey: Madam Chair, I was negligent in my identifying
who the individuals on the Northern Commission were as well. Adrian De Groot from Thompson was as well on
the commission which I wanted to further add.
But
again, Madam Chair, I have to say genuinely how encouraged I am by the Leader
of the opposition party and his newfound ways in approaching the whole economic
activity of
The
whole environmental question is very serious and we all have to make sure we
work on what we call the sustainable development agenda, not
proenvironmentalist or antienvironmentalist, but sustainable development agenda
I believe is one which will give us the kind of responsible approach to
policies that will sell not only in the Canadian marketplace, but in the
international marketplace.
We
truly are on a sustainable development agenda for all the people of this
province. I encourage the Leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Doer) to make sure that his party speaks in full support of him
because I am not so sure that he has that full mandate from his party. I would hope that he could clarify that, but I
say genuinely, I appreciate his newfound ways in dealing with the northern
communities and the trapping and getting on with the marketing opportunities.
I
say, particular from the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), who has spent a
lifetime in the harvesting of whales, how important it is to him and his
culture and the livelihood which he has enjoyed, the same with the member for
The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) and his traditions of hunting and trapping and fishing,
how important it is to his people and to their livelihood. The Leader of the Opposition, in his comments
tonight, has given me new hope, and I want that on the record, Madam
Chairperson. I hope it stays in a
consistent manner.
Mr. Doer: Is that a yes or a no, that you are going to
take that to the International Institute for Sustainable Development? I mean, I got all the other hallelujah
choruses here and there. I got Handel's
Mass at all four parts, but is that a yes or a no that you are going to take it
to the international sustainable development centre, and when will you be
taking it, and when will you be reporting back to the Legislature about your
progress in this area?
* (2010)
Mr. Downey: Madam Chairperson, as I said previously, it
would be my intent to give as much support through whatever avenue is possible
to the northern and the aboriginal communities as it relates to the sale of
product that is produced through the harvesting of furs, through the harvesting
of the fisheries, of all the natural resources that have been tradition to them
to in fact encourage them to get off the social assistance lifestyle which none
of them want to have, to get off the substance abuses that none of us want to
see them involved in.
Maybe we can see some resolve to some of these
difficulties. Yes, I will make sure that it is raised through that forum, but
the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) has been raising some questions about
the substance abuse centre from the government of
It
is maybe time, Madam Chairperson, that we join together with those communities,
and rather than building bricks and mortar and concrete, that we establish some
traditional camps or lifestyles that take these people into what has been their
natural trapping and hunting environment.
I
would ask for the member for Point Douglas to look at that as an option. I remember as a young person in communities
throughout Manitoba where some of the therapy which was encouraged for people
who were having difficulties with their life or lifestyle, what they had were
farms where these people were involved with some of the normal activities of
looking after livestock or production of gardens, just that kind of a lifestyle
that changed their dependence on some of the modern social systems.
Maybe it is a time that we should look at that
kind of a system where those young people get an opportunity to be more exposed
to the elders of those communities, where those young people get a chance to
relive some of the life experiences of living in a community where the
harvesting of the fur‑bearing animals is an important part of their life,
or the fishing. That to me has a lot of
merit.
Rather than putting a person in a room where
we apply all the modern‑day medicines and all the modern‑day
technologies of that kind of a setting, I think we should genuinely work
together with the elders and with the community leaders to work to establish
some of those kinds of activities that would take away some of the day‑to‑day
dependencies on substance abuse or a different type of treatment.
That to me is what I think we should raise to
the profile of the leadership of the communities, because the healing has to
come from within, to raise that kind of a profile with the federal government
who have a responsibility and, yes, genuinely participate as a province.
But
it is not only government‑‑I do not want to take a lot of time, to
the House‑‑but it is genuinely a concern of all of us that we live
in a society today where we cannot do something to help these people who are
second‑ and third‑generation substance abusers. I say it is not only government, it is
church, it is community, it is family, it is all of us that have to do
something about the tragedies that are taking place in these communities.
I
feel as genuinely as the members opposite about trying to develop a treatment
centre, but I think we have to think of a little bit different way than
building hospitals or bricks and mortar.
We have to look at some traditional camps or settings that take these
young people back to what their families and their family's families have
participated in.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): That is what we have been talking about.
Mr. Downey: The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) says, that
is what we have been talking about.
Well, I have not heard it explained in that manner‑‑(interjection)
traditional treatment.
I
know that it will cost money and I know that we have said the federal
government has a major responsibility, but I think we all have to get
involved. There has to be some special
funding, raised through whatever means, to try and assist those people and the
assistance has to come from the leadership of the aboriginal communities,
working in co‑operation with us.
Mr. Doer: Thank you for the answer on the issue of taking
trapping to the International Institute for Sustainable Development, and thank
you for moving along to your opinion on dealing with antisniffing. Perhaps when we are talking about all of us
dealing with this issue, we could remember that the proposal that starts from
MKO is a proposal that starts‑‑the minister has expressed his
opinion on this‑‑from the people that have a pretty good feel for
their own citizens and their own communities and for challenges in those
communities. We could perhaps listen to
those peoples, as well, along with the excellent leadership shown by the chief
of
I
would like to move to another area. We
have the Minister of Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) here as well as the Minister of
Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey). Provinces
now are entering into‑‑
Mr. Orchard: Are we for a ski hill in Roblin now? Like, you are not going to let Carla stop
that, are you?
Mr. Doer: I know the minister from Pembina is an avid
skier and the last number of months, he has been a less than avid skater. So
maybe the member for Pembina and the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) should
stick to downhill skiing because he is going downhill fast as opposed to
skating which he does all the time. You are good at downhill skiing. The problem for the Minister of Health is he
has got no tow rope to go back up again‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please.
The honourable Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer) is
attempting to pose a question.
Mr. Doer: I would ask members of this House not to worry
about the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard).
He has had a rough three months, you know. We should not be too hard on him.
I
just raised the issue of tourism here and look at what happened‑‑(interjection)
If the Minister of Health and I had our way, I think we would be in here for
another couple of months.
I
would like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) and the
Minister of Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) whether they have been involved in
establishing any aboriginal and First Nations' tourism programs. The Province of Ontario, I believe, is
working on proposals to look at the‑‑(interjection) The Minister of
Health may not be aware of this, but there are a number of potential European
tourists in this area that are very interested in First Nations' communities,
not only the beautiful wilderness areas, but some of the other communities.
I
was in Peguis last week, Madam Chairperson, not only witnessing the opening of
a new bank with all aboriginal staff, the Royal Bank, but I also saw a number
of tourists from Belgium. Many provinces
now are looking at working in partnership with an aboriginal, a First Nations'
tourism initiative looking at European tourists.
I
am wondering, have we done anything under the Canada‑Manitoba Tourism
Agreement, the $5‑million agreement?
Are we looking at anything? Are
we letting other provinces move ahead of us, like
Mr. Downey: Madam Chair, let me at the outset say to the
Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) party that, yes, there has been some work
done as it relates to not only the tourist industry, but let me also add that
their tourism is not unrelated to some of the activities of which we have
recently funded under the Department of Northern Affairs with some $50,000
grant to the Northern Fly‑In Sports Camps program which will support some
500 aboriginal youth in northern Manitoba this summer getting experiences in
northern tourism or northern guiding and that type of activity.
There is a program established at
* (2020)
I
have also had the privilege of visiting Little Black River where Chief Abraham
was indicating and showing some of the most beautiful areas of their community
where the Little Black River flows into Lake Winnipeg, which has tremendous
potential for tourism development, in fact, looking at long‑term leases
for cabin development on the shores of Lake Winnipeg which is extremely
important to that community, and I would like to see get off the ground.
I
think that there is new thinking and certainly good leadership coming from the
communities. Again, it is the
initiatives that they are bringing forward, not government imposing upon them,
that are important. They have to be
supported by the community, as the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) knows, that
it is very much a community decision that these types of things are carried out‑‑not
enough, never enough, Madam Chair, never enough, that there can be more. But I think as we see the opportunities
develop, and I say that genuinely, I think a lot of the sports camps, and one
can make reference to the Big Sand lodge, at which former president Jimmy
Carter was visiting some week ago, that is a tremendous example. Last week was a tremendous example of what
can happen in the communities when they get resources to do it.
Let
me as well say, Madam Chair, that the resolve of the Northern Flood Committee
where we have established the trust funds for Split Lake and we are working
with some of the other communities and giving them the resources in their hands
to develop on their own with the support of government kinds of tourism
packages that will work.
In
that regard, and I have to compliment Don McCrae, who has been managing Big
Sand recently over the last couple of years, has worked with the community of
South Indian Lake, where they sell a moose hunt where the people come in, bag
the moose, and they pay a substantial amount of money, whatever it is, for the
right to shoot those animals. What they
do is, they take a small package of meat home.
The rest of the meat is distributed amongst the community to the elders
and to the people who are unable to get moose meat on their own. It is a program that I think is working well.
What it is doing, it is rather than going out
for that community to shoot one moose, everybody eat it, that they in fact get
several thousands of dollars for the industry and for the community. I can tell you that it is that kind of
thinking that I see coming from the community.
I
think there is tremendous potential. We
have many northern lodges which I think can be enhanced and further developed
with the aboriginal community, and it is the young people, it is particularly
the young people that we will be depending upon to manage, not just to be there
to guide, but to manage and to bring forward their ideas as very much a part of
the Manitoba tourism scene. I think we
have tremendous potential, and the Minister of Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) may want
to add to it, but there has been a lot of work done. There always has to be a lot more done.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Chair, I will be very brief, but in
responding to a specific part of the Leader of the Opposition's (Mr. Doer)
question as it relates to the Canada‑Manitoba Tourism Agreement, it has
various aspects to it.
One
is a product development enhancement and improvement element, and that is
currently being utilized. I can
certainly provide all of the details, and we discussed it somewhat during my
Estimates, but there have been at least three or four lodge operations in
northern Manitoba, in The Pas area, in the Flin Flon area that have received
capital assistance dollars for upgrading of their facilities, adding on
additional spaces and/or improving their accommodations.
We
have also provided marketing dollars for those organizations in northern
That
program is very much project driven.
When I say project, either a marketing project or a capital project, and
northern
We
have also been dealing with a group, although that is getting to be some time
now, out of
So
when you watch those advertisements, hopefully it comes through, as it does
from the feedback we get, that the combination of the heritage, the historical
and the safe, clean, friendly environment of Manitoba. So, Madam Chair, those are some of the
initiatives that we are pursuing.
Mr. Downey: Just one more brief comment that I would like
to add, and I think, again, we tend to underestimate the importance of the
native community in our tourism activity.
We have and see many pow‑wows throughout southern and northern
It
is a tradition which is very encouraging.
We see, of course, the native dancing which is a part of Folklorama
which is a major tourist attraction of which the aboriginal community plays a
tremendous and important role. So we
want to encourage those kinds of activities as well, bring together the
different communities to get an understanding of the cultural and the
entertaining side of which, of course, is a major part of our tourism
attraction.
Mr. Doer: I am not going to pursue this any further
tonight, but I would just say that I think Manitoba is behind some other
provinces right now in going after a component of their tourism strategy
dealing with the potential for the tremendous cultural reality that aboriginal
people bring to people from other lands, and I note particularly with British
Columbia‑‑and Ontario I think is behind British Columbia‑‑there
are some real systematic initiatives, real strategic initiatives, not just on a
project‑by‑project basis. I
think it is really worth pursuing on behalf of the provincial government, and I
will leave that with the government.
I
have one last question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism in his
capacity as minister of industry. Can
the minister advise us of the status of the community ownership of the Abitibi‑Price
operation? We heard a couple of times
over the last couple of years that the plant, the deadline is this date and the
deadline is that date. We heard of some
problems with financial commitments from various lending institutions. We noted last week or the week before there
was an announcement on recycling. Is
there a comprehensive package for Abitibi‑Price? Does it include
modernization? Does it include a de‑inking
plant? Does it include recycling capacity? Is there a community ownership plan or are we
going to continue to drift, albeit a very serious situation for those workers
and employees in Abitibi‑Price?
Can the minister advise us where that situation is today?
Mr. Stefanson: Madam Chair, there is a comprehensive plan
that deals extensively with the upgrading requirements of the Abitibi‑Price
facility in
There is also another element of it, which is
a major cogeneration project element where there are dealings with West Coast
Energy and dealings with Manitoba Hydro and others that still have to come
together in terms of the project. There
are also some environmental issues as it relates to environmental liability,
the whole concerns around the financing of the project, because what we are
seeing with banks, I think all of as MLAs received a package from the banks
within the last couple of weeks stressing the whole issue of environmental
concerns as it relates to dispositions of properties. That issue has to be addressed with the
financial institutions, Madam Chair.
* (2030)
There are about four or five major issues that
we are still in the process of negotiating with the management group, with
Abitibi, with the financial institutions, with the cogeneration group of West
Coast and others, and, Madam Chair, those have to be successfully resolved to
bring the whole package together. There is a comprehensive redevelopment
package in terms of what they see doing with the facility over the next many
years, but there are the elements of the financing and these other issues
around the financing and potential liability which we are still in the midst of
negotiations with them. We are still in
the midst with Abitibi on a final price that they are in fact looking for, in
terms of the equity that they have in the facility and the inventory that they
currently have on site.
So
we continue to have ongoing dialogue. It
is an important initiative, as the Leader of the Opposition says. It is an important part of our economy, a
very important part of the economy of
Mr.
Doer: So, as I understand it, there are
four or five again major issues still to be resolved. The government is talking about
cogeneration. Obviously, there is a
proposal that the gas line be extended to Pine Falls and that be substituted
for the energy supply coming from Manitoba Hydro, which obviously has an impact
on the load‑growth projections for Manitoba Hydro that are flattening out
every year or every couple of months now in terms of the manufacturing sector
in Manitoba.
When does the minister feel this issue will
reach a conclusion? We have never
suggested in the House that he draw a line in the sand, because we recognize
first of all that the Minister of Finance has already done that three times
before in Repap and it really has not worked.
So we have never suggested that.
When does the minister feel that this is going
to be resolved? When are the kind of
dates, the windows of opportunity to resolve these tough issues before the
people of
Mr. Stefanson: Madam Chair, as the Leader of the Opposition
does recognize, it is a difficult issue to put a very fixed time frame on. We have had previous deadlines that have come
and gone. The good news on all of that
is that everybody involved in the project is attempting to work towards a
successful conclusion, whether it is Abitibi, whether it is the management group,
whether it is the government, whether it is the organization, the cogeneration,
whoever it might be that the parties have not broken down, that the parties
continue to communicate and try to resolve any outstanding issues.
Madam Chair, it certainly is an issue that has
to be resolved shortly. I cannot give a
fixed time frame, but obviously we are talking about resolving it within the
next short period of time, the next few months, the next two to three months. We are not talking many more months. I mean, we are talking a two‑ to three‑month
time frame, I believe, to resolve all of the issues.
Mr. Doer: At one point, Abitibi Price was asking from the
community ownership some $45 million be forwarded to the corporation. At the same time they had their own
liabilities of about $12 million, and even though the former minister's lead
minister for
Has
Abitibi Price done the logical thing and lowered their price? Recognizing that their own liabilities are
$12 million, if they close that plant, then $45 million is a ridiculous amount
of money considering the environment liabilities of the existing plant and the
lack of modernization for that plant.
Mr. Stefanson: Madam Chair, that is one of the issues that is
under negotiation at this particular point in time, and the Leader of the
Opposition is right in terms of, it is one of the issues that there has to be
some movement on to ultimately conclude a deal in terms of what the final, not
maybe so much the final purchase price, but the actual payment of the purchase
price is probably even more important, the cash flowing, because the operation
is projecting utilizing cash flows from future earnings to do an awful lot of
the major capital improvements that need to be done.
So
it is as much the combination of the fixed price, but also the terms of that
fixed price that are still a matter of negotiation.
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): I do not
wish to interrupt the dialogue‑‑I find it very interesting‑‑that
is occurring between the Leader of the Opposition and my colleague the minister
of trade and technology.
I
do want to remind the honourable Leader of the Opposition that absolutely
critical, absolutely critical to the surviving interests of Abitibi Price and
their 500‑plus workforce is their access to resources, which has been
made possible and more secure by passage of Bill 41.
I
would ask the honourable Leader of the Opposition to take that into
consideration as he chooses to vote on that bill when it appears before this
Chamber on third reading.
Mr. Doer: I am sure the Premier (Mr. Filmon) took that
into consideration when he promised to have 12 percent set‑aside land by
the year 2000. So all we want the
government to do is follow through on the Premier's own promise in August of
1990. I am sure the Premier was not
going to put 500 workers out of work by passing the endangered spaces
legislation. I am sure the Minister of
Natural Resources is not suggesting for a moment that his Premier was going to
put those workers out of work by having the 12 percent set‑aside by the
year 2000. That is all we asked this
government to do in the parks bill, to fulfill their own election promise.
I
am sure that that fulfillment of that promise would not have meant the loss of
those jobs, because we would work with the 12 percent set‑aside and over
that threshold, Madam Chairperson, there would be the resources available and
the timber available for the workers of the
That is where we differ because, Madam
Chairperson, the minister did not put "by the year 2000" in the
bill. The Premier did put that in his
promise. I know the Premier did not want
to put those workers out of work. We
know that we did not want to put those workers out of work, so all we wanted
the Premier to do and the minister to do is to fulfill his own election promise
of 1990 to the people of Manitoba, which called for the 12 percent set‑aside
and then the multiple use including logging to take place over and above that
threshold. We recognize that logging
must take place in this province‑‑many jobs depend on it‑‑but
we also recognize the 12 percent promise that was made by the Premier also must
be fulfilled and fulfilled in the year promised by the Premier himself, by the
year 2000. That is where we differ.
I
would like to ask, as I have the floor, with my last question to the Minister
of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), unless the Minister of Natural
Resources and I are going to get into it.
I
would like to ask another question on dealing with the Abitibi Price operation,
and I am sorry if we sidetrack the issue of the community ownership for a
minute, although I do recognize that the minister desperately wants support on
his bill. Madam Chairperson, I have
mentioned the price of $45 million which, it was my recollection, Abitibi Price
had proposed. On the other hand, the
community ownership plan had included some close to $30 million to $35 million
in a combination of grants and loan guarantees to be made by the provincial
government.
Are
we still in that kind of range of financial commitment through loan guarantees
and other means by the provincial government in terms of the community takeover
of the Abitibi Price operation?
Mr. Stefanson: Yes, Madam Chair, that is the range that has
been requested of the provincial government in some form of financial support
in actually $35 million to $40 million vicinity. That, as well, is obviously one of the issues
that continues to be under negotiation.
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): Madam Chair, I am going to be asking a few
questions, not very many questions, but before I do that, I would just like to
talk a little bit about the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey).
Madam Chair, throughout the almost three years
now that I have been in this Legislature listening to the minister get up
during Question Period answering questions and also during Estimates, when we
get a chance to query him on some of the activities that are being carried out
by his department in Northern Affairs, I always have this feeling that
everything is A‑all‑right in northern Manitoba. Whenever I ask the Minister of Northern
Affairs questions regarding northern employment, for example, the nursery, the
road system, the health care programs, training and so on, the response that I
invariably get from the minister is that everything is all right, you know,
look at all this wonderful work that we are doing in northern Manitoba, to the
point I think where he gets annoyed at my asking these questions.
I
think that he, whenever I ask questions, that either I do not know what I am
talking about or I am being partisan or playing politics and so on. The fact of the matter, Madam Chair, is that
when I ask these questions, even this evening, you know the forum that we are
utilizing here to be able to ask questions of the government, I take it very
seriously.
* (2040)
Sure, many members may use this forum as
political, but you know, in all sincerity, I say to you and members here that I
take this forum very seriously. I ask
serious questions and I expect to get answers that are just as genuine and
serious from government ministers.
When I listened to the minister this evening
describing the situation in the North, you know I could not help but get the
feeling that he is now maybe speaking in terms of the reality that is there in
the North.
He
talks about aboriginal people, who have been virtually stripped of everything
that they have had before, not to mention their land, their culture, their
language, their way of life, trapping and fishing were talked about quite a bit
this evening, Madam Chair. When I
listened to him talk, things that went through my mind were, why are we doing
this here? Is this useful or is this
just politics?
I
would like to think that what we are doing here this evening is, at least for
me anyway, genuine, that it is because we are really interested in trying to do
something for our constituents. So when
I listen to the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) answering questions
in Question Period, as I said before, he speaks glowingly of the work that
Northern Affairs is doing. Even in
Estimates, I asked him, you know, what his role is really as the Minister of
Northern Affairs, because I explained to him what my perception was of the Minister
of Northern Affairs.
My
understanding of the ministry was that he is one of the key ministers in
cabinet. He is Deputy Premier. He is Minister of Northern Affairs, and I
know that he has other portfolios, other responsibilities, so I always saw him
when in cabinet to really be speaking for the North. That is how I saw him, and that is how I
tried to explain to him in Estimates the way I understood what his job was to
be all about.
But
as I said before, when he talks in the House, you would almost think that there
was full employment, for example, in northern
So
I guess I want to say, Madam Chair, that in a way I want to believe that the
minister understands what is going on there in the North. I want to be able to believe the minister,
that he understands those problems, that he empathizes, that he knows what is
to be done, and having all that understanding about the conditions of the
North, I would like to also believe that when he goes to cabinet, that is the
way he presents his case to cabinet whenever he is talking about northern
issues.
I
guess in a way I am encouraged. So then,
with that kind of genuine understanding that he seemed to have displayed here
this evening, let us put those words into action then, the treatment centre,
for example, in the North. We had a
meeting here in the Legislature; some government members were present. A lot of aboriginal people representing
various organizations were present. I
was there. Some of our colleagues were there. Now, that is a real problem, the problem of
solvent abuse, sniffing, alcohol, alcoholism and drugs. I think he understands why those conditions
have come to be the way they are. He
knows how they have developed, solvent abuse, alcoholism, drug abuse and so on.
I
agree with him. We should all work
together. I for one am willing to work
with anybody, no matter who they are, if it means enhancing the lives and
welfare of people who reside in the North, particularly aboriginal people in
the more isolated areas. Let us put
those concerns, the genuine understanding that he seemed to have displayed here
this evening into adequate health care programs, education, employment,
training, the transportation system, because he is giving me the message here
this evening, Madam Chair, that in fact those people living in the North are
real people. They matter. They are human beings.
So
with that in mind, I would like to ask the minister to advise us, because I did
get a chance while I was in
My
concern is, just as the AJI was treated‑‑there may be all kinds of
good recommendations, there may be all kinds of pleasant surprises, as the
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) once told me‑‑will the minister
act on those recommendations once he decides to publicize them. Secondly, when is he going to release the
report of the Northern Economic Development Commission?
Mr. Downey: Madam Chair, I am going to take a minute to
just elaborate, and I do not want this to be seen in any way, shape or form as
me standing here blowing my horn or overemphasizing some of the things that
have taken place in our northern and native communities.
I
want to say at the outset that the first things that I learned in my
association with the people of northern
No,
he may find that strange that I would make reference, but I say this
genuinely. I had a lot of respect for
him as the chief of The Pas Indian Band, as a leader of his people in a
nonpartisan way, and I say that genuinely.
He did not approach his job in a partisan way because he knew that he
had to represent the community regardless of which government was in place.
I
say genuinely that I was somewhat disappointed when he took the decision to run
for the New Democratic Party, when he did make that decision, but it was his
right, and I have every right to express how I genuinely felt. I think that is what the member for The Pas
indicated here tonight, and I am going to do that. I was genuinely disappointed.
I
did learn, and I have been learning and will continue to learn, because the day
that I do not learn anymore, then I am no longer of any use to the
constituencies of which I represent in southwestern Manitoba and/or the people
of northern Manitoba, so it is a continual learning process.
There are three important things that I
learned from the aboriginal community.
One is the respect for the elders within that community and the
knowledge that they needed to get from their elders as to what it means to the
young people in their communities.
One
of the other ones is love for their Creator and the concern, the consideration
for the Earth and for all of the creations of nature.
Thirdly, which is probably as important as
anything and should be acknowledged because it is a very important attribute to
any people, and that is their desire to have fun, sense of humour and enjoy
life. To me that is a quality which I
have always been able to feel good about and I have learned from being able to
associate, because that truly is extremely important.
Yes, employment and all of those other things
that the rest of society‑‑we have all put demands on ourselves and
our different cultures to participate in, but there are some values that you
really have to see.
Let
me quickly go over some of the things, and I am not saying who has done this,
but what was done was the important thing.
* (2050)
In
the short term that I have had, and I call it a short term, and if he wants to
compare the history of our government and the past government, I would hope
that he would do that. But as chief, he
was the first leader in this province to participate in a gaming agreement
which allowed for the development of funding right in that community. Major resources staying in that community
through a legal agreement on gaming.
Let
me further add, a nursing program which again was consummated under this
administration of some several amounts of dollars which provided a training
program in the northern community which he represented.
Madam Chair, I cannot help but mention in his
region particularly the settlement that took place under the flood agreement,
which was an obligation by the people of Manitoba to pay some funds to
Chemawawin at Easterville, Moose Lake and all of those communities, and even
The Pas, which he knows was questionable as to whether they would get any
support, receive support under whose direction?
Premier Gary Filmon said to Manitoba Hydro in a letter to the chair, we
believe that you should look at if there is a moral obligation to assist those
communities. We know there is not a
legal obligation, but there is a moral obligation.
What took place, Madam Chair, what took
place? Several millions of dollars
flowed into those communities under a Conservative government. I am sorry, but it is true. It was under Premier Gary Filmon and this
government that flowed several millions of dollars to the communities of which
he is represented.
The
same applies to Channel Area Loggers, the same experience on the east side of
the river, owned by the province, no local control, going nowhere fast. It is now operating as a community‑based
operation and working very successfully.
Wabowden, Madam Chair, again a community that
was looking for opportunity. The
Community Economic Development Fund has currently lent something like $3
million to several operators who are now having in‑bush chipping
operations supplying product to whom? To
Repap. Who does it create employment
for? Local people. Who owns the businesses? Local people.
Again a commitment of this province.
The
member makes reference to the nursing station which was a provincially operated
system at The Pas. We just did not shut
down that operation and forget about the aboriginal community. My colleague the
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) entered into a major contract with the
aboriginal community of
Madam Chair, I will go on because it is
important to put this on the record. The
Northern Flood Agreement wanting for some resolve for how many years? How many years? Fifteen years, and you know who said to me as
the Minister of Northern Affairs, let us get on with it? He made a commitment. Premier Filmon made a commitment prior to the
election of '88. What was the first
thing my colleagues did? The Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) advanced to those five aboriginal communities $10
million.
We
also put a team together to try to resolve globally a settlement for funds of
some $247 million of which has been agreed to for major resource control areas
which are now in place in the Split Lake community, Letters of Intent signed or
Memorandums of Understanding signed in Nelson House, York Landing and concluded
the Split Lake agreement.
I
am proud of $47 million that is in the trust account for the
My
colleague the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson),
with the Department of Northern Affairs, developed the Northern Rec Program,
employing young people to do what? To
organize and help the productive way in life with those people, to get on with
life and help organize recreational activities‑‑a pilot project
that has turned into a major ongoing program for the development of youth‑‑again,
important to help those people.
I
can take you into
That is just two communities that we were
involved in. I can tell you, Madam
Chair, I referred to it earlier, $50,000 into northern sports camps for 500
young northern and native people to be involved in with summer activities.
My
colleagues the ministers responsible for education year after year have
fulfilled commitments to support the ACCESS and the BUNTEP and the training
programs which we have been criticized for, but we have carried out commitments
to young people to finish their education, again, a commitment not only made by
this province, this government, but lived up to, because we know the education
of our aboriginal community is extremely important.
I
do not mind, and I am being very honest with the member for The Pas (Mr.
Lathlin), one area that we have to work a lot harder on is the difficulties the
aboriginal community is having when they proceed to live in some of our urban
settings. It is troublesome, to say the
least, when we find our young aboriginal people who come to the cities having
difficulties making a go, getting a way in life that is different, to sustain
themselves and to look after the children that they are responsible for.
We
have to put a greater effort into those communities, and we will‑‑and
we will. I am serious. But the best thing we can do is to take the
partisan politics out of it, because my colleagues are not mean spirited. They are loving, caring parents of children;
they have parents or have had parents who they dearly love as the aboriginal
community love and respect in their own community.
It
is our responsibility. I can tell you,
members of this committee, that we do care, and we will continue to work within
our capability to accomplish greater goals for those individuals.
I
do not care what political party you come from, it is a joint responsibility,
and please let us not play politics with the lives of those people.
I
can tell you that I am prepared to meet at any time with any group. I have done so, as it relates to some of our
aboriginal people, with Winnie Giesbrecht, who took the lead role in the
establishment of Dial‑a‑Life facility in
I
can tell you, this government was the first government to support a native
elders facility in the city of
It
was done because the aboriginal community genuinely came forward, as the member
for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), I believe, is genuinely coming forward.
Another area that I want to talk seriously
about, because I am not going to give up on this, because I think it is
extremely important.
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Do not give up on yourself. You can always change.
Mr. Downey: The member for Dauphin, I will compare my record
with his manipulative political manoeuvering with the aboriginal community any time. Because when he wants to stand up and take a
half hour to put his successes and their success as an NDP government on the
record, I will listen and I will listen for every word of it. I will tell you the speech will not be very
long.
* (2100)
But
I say genuinely, the whole question of substance abuse, substance abuse is
extremely, it is a crucial, and it is a difficult issue that we all have to
deal with, because we are dealing with first‑ and second‑ and third‑generation
abuse people. The way in which we have
to deal with it is collectively. The
government does not have all the abilities, the answers. It is incumbent upon the church community,
the greater community of your service clubs.
The community itself has to take the leadership to pull along with their
people. It will come about, Madam Chair,
because it is incumbent that it does come about.
We
cannot sit back and see the suicides that are taking place. We cannot sit back and see people taking
advantage of the people by taking in the substances and selling them, because
it is just not right in the country that we live in that we are all so proud
of. I am encouraged, but I am encouraged
that if we resolve some of the other issues‑‑and I will touch
briefly on it, and I know I have gone on for too long. There are two other areas, and that is the
progress we have made on Treaty Land Entitlement.
Until we resolve the land issue with our
aboriginal people then we will have less than a trusting relationship. It is an outstanding debt that has to be
resolved, has to be resolved. (interjection) The member for Burrows (Mr.
Martindale), who I hope would read what I have said on the record tonight as to
what has taken place, genuinely read it, and compare it to the history that we
are in very serious discussions with the
I
know there are some differences of opinion, but if there is a genuine desire to
resolve it, we will do so. We will do
so, Madam Chair. That to conclude on the
substance abuse. I am encouraged that
the member is prepared to work in a nonpartisan way. I think there are other players that we have
to invite to the table, and I say the church, the service club community, and I
do honestly take my hat off to the front‑line social workers who are out
there today who find themselves in impossible situations with the conditions in
which they are being expected to work on behalf of government.
We
have to lighten their load and show them that there is hope, because if you do
not you have tremendous burnout within that workforce. (interjection) The
member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) seems to have had all the answers, but I will
tell you, Madam Chair, I honestly have a hard time getting how genuinely
concerned he is when he had two communities in his backyard wanting to set up
community status, he did not have time for them.
That I think speaks volumes, and what he has
been able to do is be able to continue to manipulate their support for
continuing him to come back to the Legislature.
He laughs about it, Madam Chair.
Let him laugh, because he is laughing at other people's misery‑‑lack
of respect.
So
I say I am genuinely interested in organizing the leadership of the aboriginal
communities. I am interested in
organizing the church community. I am
interested in taking the lead with service clubs. I am interested in taking the lead with
government to try and find some of the answers for the substance abuse
problems, not because it is the right political thing to do, it is the right
human thing to do, and we just have to do it.
I
will conclude by saying, Madam Chair, I apologize for taking the time, but the
member for The Pas asked me to put this on the record. I am going to be tabling publicly the Northern
Economic Development Commission report within a few short weeks. We will be
expressing at that time‑‑
An Honourable
Member: How many weeks is that?
Mr. Downey: Well, the members opposite want to know how
many weeks that is. Well, I would say,
Madam Chair, they will be the same number as a few long weeks. It will be within a few weeks, sooner rather
than later, if that will be helpful to the members.
Now, the members are going to immediately say
we need more money or we need something else to happen. I do not believe that. I believe we can take the recommendations,
and those areas that are genuinely doable, we will work on. Those that are not will take some time.
I
know the communities are genuinely speaking out. I can tell the member he will be seeing the
report sooner rather than later. I hope
he is supportive. I do not think that it
will certainly be the answer to all the problems, but at least it is giving us
a base line of information of telling us what is out in the communities,
telling us what the opportunities are and how some of the community people feel
that they fit in to the Manitoba scene and the Canadian scene.
I
can tell you, Madam Chair, that I have had nothing but admiration and respect
for the people living in our remote communities. I feel troubled; I really feel troubled that
many of them have had to move. Many of
them have had to move to our urban settings to try to find a lifestyle or a
life maintenance that is better than what they had in their previous
communities in which they lived. We all
have a home, regardless of how good it is or how bad it is. It is always home, and there is love that has
to come from that home. We need to
establish those kinds of settings in our northern aboriginal communities and
all our communities.
The
members take it lightly, but I take it very seriously. The member who professes
to be a professor at the university is taking lightly‑‑
An Honourable Member: I will believe you, but you have to show
action first.
Mr. Downey: Well, if I have not shown action in the things
I read tonight‑‑and I wanted to compare it to the action of the
previous administration of which the member for Rupertsland sat around the
cabinet table and did absolutely nothing.
I
apologize, Madam Chair, there is one other item that I have to conclude on, and
I will conclude‑‑(interjection) Oh, the member talks about
friendship centres. Well, I heard one of
the community people say about friendship centres: We ran these before the government ever got
involved, and we can do it again. That is right. They will run them again because they are
important to them.
I
am telling you that we have got in place, and you have read it recently in the
northern newspapers, major work on the northern transmission line, north
central line that will take overland electricity to some nine communities that
have had to live on electrical energy generated by diesel fuel, which is second
rate, treating those communities as second‑rate people.
I
say they deserve to have overland electricity.
They deserve to have the jobs that go with those transmission lines.
They deserve to have an economic future in their communities, and it is Premier
Gary Filmon and this Conservative government that are providing it for those
communities.
I
will stand up in any community in the North, and I will defend our record. I will challenge any member on the opposition
benches to put on the record what they have done over the past many years.
Mr. Lathlin: I want to just close off on Northern
Affairs. I am glad we got the Minister
of Northern Affairs going here for a while, and I hope that excitement will
carry into tomorrow and the weeks after and we will see roads getting improved
in northern
But
I also want to say to the minister, you know, when he talks about being sincere
and when he talks about northern
Madam Chair, I suggest to you, that is playing
politics. That is, even to me, trying to bribe those Indian people from
northern
The
question that I wanted to ask next is of the Health minister. Not that long ago during Question Period, I
asked the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) what he was prepared to do for those
people from The Pas who were being forced to travel great distances to other
centres in order for them to access dialysis services.
As
I explained during Question Period not all that long ago, there is dialysis
service available right in The Pas. I am
also given to understand by those people in authority in The Pas that indeed
there are qualified registered nurses readily available in the facility at The
Pas and they are willing and able to operate the dialysis machine in order that
those people living right in The Pas and surrounding area could access those
kinds of services.
* (2110)
But
apparently the problem lies in the area of a directive that had gone to The Pas
health complex, as was explained to me by people in The Pas health complex,
that you are not to use this machine for not any more than I believe it was
twice a week, Madam Chair. I cannot
exactly remember the number of times that they were allowed to use the machine,
but in any event that is the problem.
The health complex in The Pas is not allowed to use that dialysis
machine, even though they have it right there.
It is only open, I believe, two days a week. They have the registered nurses qualified to
operate those machines.
On
top of that, Madam Chair, the caseload is such that people are on a waiting
list, right in The Pas, waiting to access the service. But instead what they are being forced to do
is travel an hour and a half, two hours to Flin Flon. Some people from Easterville have to travel
right through The Pas to go to Flin Flon to access that service.
My
question to the minister this evening would be, has he looked at the situation,
has he reviewed the situation as I explained to him the other day? If so, has he reconsidered his decision and
if not, will he reconsider and reinstate or at least expand the dialysis
service that is being made available on a limited basis in spite of the
caseload in The Pas, Madam Chair?
Mr. Downey: Madam Chair, I just want to make a brief
comment before the Minister of Health answers.
I
think the member for The Pas does somewhat of a disservice to the community
representatives and leaders which he refers to about eating dinner with at Le
Beaujolais. The member for The Pas, I
think, is doing a disservice‑‑(interjection) He does not need to
get so excited.
Let
me tell you, I say genuinely, Madam Chair, I have had the privilege to visit
most of those communities and when visiting them have received a feast or have
received a gift from those community people and very genuinely taken into their
communities and enjoyed the opportunity.
There was an opportunity of which many of the leaders I understood
wanted to meet with myself and other leaders of the
Yes, we talked about fishing issues in Natural
Resources which I can remember very clearly.
We talked about hydro. We talked
about employment opportunities, and yes, Madam Chairperson, there was talk about
Rupertsland because his former colleague, Elijah Harper, who was of the New
Democratic Party, who could not deliver anything under the New Democratic
Party, in so much frustration, what did he do?
He quit the New Democratic Party and walked over to the Liberals because
he could not get anything from the New Democratic Party for their community.
I
make no apologies, Madam Chairperson. Is
he telling me that the leadership of those communities should be deprived of
coming to a
No,
Madam Chairperson, I think he is a disgrace to this House and to his people to
discredit those leaders who came to
It
was legitimate, honest and open discussion, and he should apologize to them for
the manner in which he has talked about his own people. I, with respect, would hope that each leader
who sat there in council with us would so appropriately say to me that they
felt that they did not belong, because we had a very good discussion about
issues and concerns about their people.
I think they have every right to eat in Le Beaujolais restaurant in
Thank you, Madam Chairperson‑‑(interjection)
I
will tell you how much, and I will tell you who was there, and I will tell you
what was said.
Mr. Lathlin: Madam Chair, my question was not directed to
the Minister for Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey).
It was really directed to the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), and I
would appreciate it now if the Minister of Health could maybe answer my question.
Mr. Orchard: Well, I can understand why the member for The
Pas wants to change topics, if you are getting embarrassed, as he has been
tonight.
Madam Chair, let me indicate to my honourable
friend the member for The Pas that dialysis is available in a number of
locations within the
Periodically, some facilities have‑‑because
of the erratic nature of demand, there are, in some instances, a greater
patient demand for a temporary period of time than the facility has budget for,
yet in a nearby facility‑‑and in the case of The Pas, it is Flin
Flon, an hour and a half away‑‑there is underutilized capacity for
which budget is being made, provided.
In
other words, what we try to do in these times, where there are temporary
changes in the demand on various capacities throughout the province in
dialysis, we do have individuals move from one facility which is stressed for
capacity to another facility which has excess capacity. That makes prudent use of the trained
resource and the budgetary provisions that the province has made in
anticipation of the demand. That is what
has happened in The Pas.
It
happens, from time to time in
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
* (2120)
The
first relates to some of the previous discussion, and that is the whole issue
of solvent abuse. I just wanted the
Minister of Health to know that after the public hearings on Bill 29, we did
receive a copy of a brief from MKO. They
did not have an opportunity to travel down to Winnipeg for the public hearings
and, I am sure, wanted everyone to get copies of this brief, and I will make
sure that all the ministers involved in the issue of solvent abuse have copies
of this brief.
I
just wanted to ask the Minister of Health the current status of discussions
with the federal government. In this
brief, MKO indicates that they have had a funding from the federal government
for a three‑year solvent abuse project, which began in July of 1990. I am assuming that we are now at the state
where those funds run out, and the future of some sort of solvent abuse project
is the question.
I
am just wanting to know from the Minister of Health: If those discussions are now taking place,
has the federal government initiated any dialogue around joint funding for such
a proposal, or how can we best pursue this issue and ensure that some sort of
solvent abuse treatment program for young people in the North does become a
reality?
Mr. Orchard: Madam Chair, this discussion is not
dissimilar to one that we had earlier on with the Leader of the New Democrats
(Mr. Doer), whose questions on health care were on the status of personal care
home construction on native reserves in northern
I
say the my honourable friend the New Democratic critic that likewise the
proposal for a treatment centre in northern Manitoba has been to the federal
government. It was a $20‑million‑plus
capital construction project. It was not
proceeded with and approved by the federal government for any number of
reasons, and I certainly am not knowledgeable to indicate for the federal
government why the project did not receive funding.
I
can indicate to my honourable friend that there is currently a review on
substance abuse in the aboriginal communities ongoing, sponsored by the federal
government and, I think, in part, stimulated by the incident and the community
circumstances in northern
Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis: Just one quick follow‑up on this issue,
once that has happened, can I ask the Minister of Health if it is appropriate
then for MKO‑‑once they have made that contact with the federal
government and the federal government is looking at the success of this pilot
project, is it at that point, then, that the province enters into discussions
to see if there is a partnership arrangement that can be worked out with
respect to ongoing funding and support for a northern treatment centre.
Mr. Orchard: I just want to make sure that I understand
clearly my honourable friend's question, because it is rather important. My
honourable friend, who wishes to become a federal M.P. after serving as a
provincial MLA, is suggesting that the province ought to assume responsibility
for funding a treatment centre on reserve land in northern
(Mr. Edward Helwer, Acting Chairperson,
in the Chair)
Is
my honourable friend saying that the province ought to pick up part of the
operating costs of that treatment centre, should it become a reality, and
assume part of the federal responsibility?
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: As I understand it, the minister has
indicated that the federal government must take lead responsibility on this
issue. I had, at no point, heard up
until now the minister or the province say that there was no role for the
provincial government in some sort of future program in the North.
I
am wondering, once those discussions begin with the federal government, if it
is then appropriate for the province to get involved as well in those
discussions. I am not suggesting,
provide the core funding, provide all the operating funding. I am talking about a partnership
arrangement. As I understood, that was
part of the minister's thinking all along.
Mr. Orchard: It is not my thinking; I want to
clarify. I have always been fairly
direct in terms of federal and provincial responsibility roles, but I detected
clearly two questions ago that the member for St. Johns, who is moving to the
federal arena, is saying that the province ought to pick up operating costs for
an on‑reserve treatment centre.
I
mean, that is a fairly significant policy statement by a potential federal
M.P. I have to tell my honourable friend
that we are not in a position to assume any more federal offloading. I remind
my honourable friend, my honourable friend stood up and railed daily when she
was the critic in Health about the federal government's offload on health
care. She kept saying the federal
government is offloading their responsibility.
I can close my eyes and hear those speeches. She was wanting to lead a protest movement
down to
That is why I asked the simple question, are
you suggesting that we ought to pick up part of the operating cost for an on‑reserve
treatment centre, because we have not done that in the past? I remind my honourable friend when she sat
around cabinet tables, they did not do that in government. So I simply say, the policy of the
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I do not want to
pursue this issue. I was simply trying
to ascertain from the Minister of Health how this government would be
responding to MKO's proposals and letters and communication to this government,
particularly their statement from the brief, and I quote: We continue to wait on both governments to
come forward with a strong commitment to support the efforts of MKO.
Mr.
Acting Chairperson, I was not getting into specific dollars and cents. I was asking for an indication of when MKO
could re‑establish contact with the provincial government on this general
issue. I do not think that is an
unrealistic issue or request to pose or put before the minister.
Let
me go on to another issue‑‑(interjection) Oh, go ahead.
Mr. Orchard: Before my honourable friend moves on to
another issue, let us deal with this issue, and let us deal with the resourcing
of this issue. Now, my honourable friend
is trying to make the case that somehow the provincial government is wrong in
saying that we will not have provincial supportive funding onto an on‑reserve
treatment facility, a policy that she upheld when she was in cabinet.
I
want to tell my honourable friend that there are two options for MKO to pursue
this goal: firstly is with the federal
government as is in process, as I understand it now; secondly, let us deal with
the issue directly of who has the money and who has the ability to fund that
kind of a treatment centre if it is the priority that my honourable friend the
New Democrat says it is.
This province has signed flood agreement
compensation packages with member communities of MKO. If this is a burning priority for that
community, those millions of dollars could be placed into that treatment
facility and do their citizens a lot of good.
They have the resource right now, if they choose to make that as one of
their priorities.
I
hope my honourable friend is not saying, well, they can receive that flood
compensation money, but they do not have to use it for such things as youth
treatment centres on reserves in northern
I
do not believe that if she made that case, the taxpayers of
* (2130)
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Just like old times‑‑I ask a
fairly straightforward question about the provincial government being open to
discussions on this very serious issue, and I get a very defensive response
from the minister.
I
want to ask about an issue pertaining to women's health in the
In
fact, they have identified treatment options outside of the province. They have, in particular, mentioned in
correspondence to the minister treatment that is available in
I
know that this is a fairly new and major topic.
I wondered if the minister has recently held any discussions or reviewed
this whole area. There is an endo‑support
group in
Mr. Orchard: As with all issues of this nature, it is under
investigation within the physician complement of the MHSC and in collaboration
with experts in the medical community practising in
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Just one final question on this issue: Has the minister responded at all to
Christine Braun, who wrote to the minister requesting coverage of her out‑of‑province
claims but, more significantly, requesting the minister to review this whole
area and to consider the specific needs of women in terms of treatment for
endometriosis?
Mr. Orchard: I will have to take the specific individual's
letter as to whether I have provided a reply as notice. I cannot provide that information this
evening.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: On another issue, this pertains to
physiotherapy in the
The
minister may be aware of a letter that went to the Minister of Education, and
he was copied, pertaining to proposals for a national physiotherapy exam. A group of physiotherapy students from the
1994 graduating class have been appointed to raise their concerns with this government
and have sought some help with respect to their concerns. In particular, they point to what they feel
are extraordinary financial costs associated with the proposed exam. They indicate it would cost up to $1,500 per
person. They have also raised questions
about accessibility since
They outline a couple of other concerns
pertaining to whether or not such as exam is justified and also the barriers it
produces in terms of freedom of movement.
I
am wondering if the minister has reviewed this issue and has taken a stand with
respect to this proposal by the Alliance of Physiotherapy Regulatory Boards.
Mr. Orchard: Yes, Mr. Acting Chairperson.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Could the minister indicate the results of
his review and what position his government is taking with respect to his
proposed national physiotherapy exam?
Mr. Orchard: When I read that correspondence, I believe,
from three graduates of physiotherapy in
In
terms of pursuing the issue, one of the things I asked of my staff to determine
is whether the proposed examination would make physiotherapists who graduate
with the coursework in
I
asked that question because I have to tell my honourable friend that from time
to time I find professional organizations can develop standards which forget
about the reality of quality of education, quality of practice, and do more to
develop artificial barriers to entry to the profession than necessarily they do
to serve the clients who need their assistance in a very equitable and fair and
economical fashion.
The
reply I got back was twofold, as I recall it.
I am going by memory, and if I am slightly in poor recollection, I
apologize to my honourable friend. But
it is my understanding that the provincial regulatory body of the
physiotherapists of Manitoba do not endorse this national examination;
furthermore, they have answered the question that it would not change and
improve the practice ability of Manitoba physiotherapists, that we graduate
quality‑trained practitioners in physiotherapy in Manitoba.
Subsequent to that, I have indicated to the
department that we will not acknowledge the necessity of the national exam for
I
recognize very clearly the twofold problem for new graduates: first of all, the costs of the examination or
the proposed cost of the examination by itself, No. 1; and No. 2, the potential
difficulty of not even having that exam sit in
My
preliminary investigation and recollection of same says that they have made a
good case, and I am quite willing to use my good office to assure that their
case is heard.
* (2140)
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: I thank the minister for that answer. I appreciate his comments on this matter, and
his commitment to do whatever he can to oppose this proposal for a national
physiotherapy exam.
I
want to raise a couple of other issues.
I hope I am not opening any can of worms. I am just simply seeking some information and
help as I deal with some constituents.
This first one has to do with senior citizens who go south for a period
of time in the year. It has to do with
the requirement that an individual cannot be out of the province for more than
six months at one time in a calendar year, or else lose basic
My
understanding is that that is a change.
I realize that under the previous NDP government the stipulation about
six months out of the country was put in place.
My understanding is that there has been a change under this present
government indicating that one cannot be out of province for more than six
months.
I
am wondering if that has been a change.
Secondly, what help can the minister offer, what advice can the minister
offer for seniors who are contacting us and wondering why, if they spend six
months out of the country, if they cannot find a way to visit relatives in
another part of the country and still be covered?
I
am not trying to have a debate with the minister. I am simply trying to find an understanding
of this issue and to be able to advise individuals contacting us about what
course of action they should follow.
Mr. Orchard: First of all, Mr. Acting Chairperson, my
honourable friend is correct that, as she sat around the cabinet table, the
Howard Pawley administration put the six‑month‑less‑a‑day
regulation in place. It was a strict
residency requirement that they put in place.
Those were the rules that we inherited in
1988. There was no provision, for
instance, for a Winnipegger who spent six months less a day in
That was drawn to our attention, and we have
made this exemption to the NDP regulation that, if one has a principal
residence in
We
strongly urge and advise them to buy additional insurance coverage as they have
always had to do. But we put in place an
exception that, if they have a cottage in the
Mr.
Acting Chairperson, I indicate to my honourable friend that currently the
federal government is doing an investigation on the out‑of‑province
residency requirements of provincial health plans and is probably going to
present information to the provinces at some time in the near future. It would be my desire that we attempt to have
some consistency across
But, certainly, since we have come into
government, we have liberalized the NDP regulation on residency so that it does
not penalize seniors who have main residences in Winnipeg or any part of
Manitoba, spend up to six months, less a day, out of country in Florida or
Texas and have a cottage at Lake of the Woods and would be out of province more
than six months, less a day, should they spend any time during July and August
at their cottage.
We
have made the exception. Now, I tell my
honourable friend that that information is not easily communicated, because
there is a lot of confusion. I will tell
my honourable friend exactly where it comes from. There was an op‑ed writer with the
Winnipeg Free Press, subsequently retired, who had running battles with the
Manitoba Health Insurance Fund from time to time. Despite the fact that information presented
was not accurate, it did not deter the individual from continuing to put out
incorrect information to the residents of
Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis:
I again thank the minister for clarifying that
issue; however, out of it, I do have one follow‑up question. The minister refers to individuals who might
have a cottage at
Mr. Orchard: As I understand the way the Howard Pawley
government wrote the regulation, their coverage would be disallowed. Under the way we operate that regulation, it
is not.
Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis:
I thank the minister for liberalizing the
regulations, and I hope that it will be appropriate for us to communicate that
information to seniors who are concerned about whether or not they will be
covered if they visit relatives in other parts of the country.
Mr.
Acting Chairperson, a question‑‑and again I want to preface my
remarks by saying I am not trying to get into a debate‑‑and this
ties into the home care issue. I am
simply wondering, we have seen in recent times a lot of new companies popping
up in
* * *
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): My apology to the
members for interrupting the debate. I
am wondering, Mr. Acting Chairperson, whether or not there would be unanimous
consent to have this committee recess for a short period of time. I would propose that we go back to the House,
deal with some matters just at this time, and then come back to the motion
dealing with concurrence and sitting this evening to roughly twelve o'clock.
I
wonder if there would be agreement to recess this committee for a period of
time.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Helwer): Is there leave of the committee to temporarily
suspend proceedings so that Mr. Speaker can resume the Chair, with the
understanding that we will resume later? (agreed)
* (2150)
IN SESSION
House
Business
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would
ask for the unanimous consent of the House to have the House recess after the
sitting of Committee of Supply tonight and reconvene at 10 a.m. tomorrow,
sitting until 1:25 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to allow us to
change the sitting hours tomorrow from 10 a.m. until 1.25 p.m., instead of the
regularly scheduled 1:30 p.m.? (agreed)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call one bill
for second reading. It is on the Order
Paper. That is a private member's bill
but a public bill, that being Bill 212.
DEBATE ON
SECOND READINGS‑PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 212‑The
Dauphin Memorial Community Centre Board Repeal Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), Bill 212, The Dauphin Memorial Community Centre Board Repeal Act; Loi abrogeant la Loi sur le Conseil du Centre commemoratif de
Dauphin, standing in the name of the honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Leave is denied.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I just want to speak very
briefly on this bill. I want to thank
the government House leader on behalf of our caucus. I know we made this request of the government
House leader today, as is traditional, Mr. Speaker, toward the session end, and
this is a bill that is important to Dauphin.
It
is a private member's bill, but it is of public importance. It will have an impact, I know. I have talked to the member for Dauphin (Mr.
Plohman) on this particular bill, and it will certainly be of assistance to the
community centre board in enacting the repeal, which is brought about by this
particular motion. I do want to indicate
that we have had a varying number of bills of this nature in the past, Mr.
Speaker, and this will, I know from talking to the member for Dauphin, have a
signficant impact and will certainly save legal costs for the board involved.
In
fact, I know that the member for Dauphin will, probably in his remarks closing
debate in a couple of minutes, be certainly thanking the government for once
again bringing this forward. It is
appreciated, I think, not only on behalf of our caucus, but also the people
from Dauphin, and I am sure the member for Dauphin in his brief closing
comments will elucidate members of the House even further on this important
bill for the community of Dauphin.
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, just brief
comments at this particular time. As we
did in second reading, I had explained the importance of this bill for the
community of Dauphin and for the various groups involved in the agreement that
has administered the Dauphin Memorial Community Centre for a number of years,
perhaps close to 40 years. The various
groups had come together to negotiate a revised method of dealing with the
administration of the community centre, and so the legislation that was in
place was no longer required.
This bill is simply repealing that act that
has been in place, and the incorporation has taken place. It will ensure that all actions of the new
corporate structure are validated by way of this particular bill as well. So I am pleased that we are able to pass this
bill and ensure a smooth transition from the old administration to the new one,
and ensure as well that the administration can get on with an agreement with the
employees as well, which is something that has been delayed pending the passage
of this bill. So it was very important
to have it passed this sitting of the Legislature.
With those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to see this go forward at this time.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 212, The Dauphin Memorial Community Centre
Board Repeal Act; Loi abrogeant la Loi sur le Conseil du Centre commemoratif de
Dauphin. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion? (agreed)
* * *
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, seeing
this bill has passed second reading, I would like to refer it to a Committee on
Law Amendments that will sit tomorrow afternoon at 2:30, and at that time I
will ask for the concurrence of the House that that committee sit concurrently
with it.
Mr. Speaker: Okay, I would like to thank the honourable
government House leader for that information.
I
would like some clarification here, or to clarify for the members‑‑a
few minutes ago we had unanimous consent to change the sitting hours tomorrow
from 10 a.m. rather than 1:30. What is
actually happening, Committee of Supply will sit tonight, will recess, and then
we will reconvene the House tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. Okay?
That was just for clarification.
That is what we all agreed to.
Okay, good enough.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, back into the Committee of Supply.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable
government House leader, seconded by the honourable Minister of Environment
(Mr. Cummings), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve
itself into a Committee of 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
SUPPLY‑CAPITAL
SUPPLY
COMMITTEE
OF SUPPLY (continued)
(Mr. Ed Helwer, Acting Chairperson, in
the Chair)
Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis
(
The
parents continue to actively pursue busing beyond Grade 4. It is their understanding that there was some
indication from the province that there would be funding to the extent that
busing for Grade 5 would take place in '94‑95, and busing in Grade 6
would take place in '95‑96. There
is some confusion around this. I am
wondering if the minister would be able to indicate whether or not the province
has made that commitment, and if I can convey that to parents who send their
kids to
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Acting Chairperson, there have been some changes this year in the
transportation portion of the schools funding formula. If the member would like to give me the
details, then I will check with the department, and let her know the policy and
as it applies in the area of Winnipeg No. 1.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Acting Chairperson, I have a number of
questions for the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), and I would
like to begin with the Student Social Allowances Program, probably the worst
piece of legislation in this session, piece of legislation that the editor of
the Free Press called, I think, the stupidest decision.
I
said, in debate, this decision was dumb, dumb, dumb. Numerous members on our
side and presenters of the committee stage criticized this minister for this
decision. Finally, after considerable
pressure, the minister has made a change by way of a press release today, and I
will have some questions based on that press release.
* (2200)
But
I would like to put on the record, one more time, that the reasons that this
minister gave for this change were totally unacceptable, and some of them, in
fact, were untrue. The minister said
that there were no other provinces in
But
in New Brunswick‑‑and I would like to quote from a paper that I have
here. It says: Students attending high school, living away
from home, may be assisted where the parental home is unsuitable. In
In
the
In
This government fails to recognize that
investing money in education is an investment that pays good dividends. In fact, the Conference Board of Canada put
out a paper called Dropping Out: The
Cost to
To
continue quoting from this paper: The
rate of return to society for investing in high school education is 19 percent
for males and 17.8 percent for females.
This is a government that likes to use the
language of business. They should be
comfortable with words like "investment" and what do they do? They disinvest in students' education.
The
paper goes on to say: The $4‑billion
cost to
They say:
The value of investing in education can be assessed by calculating the
rate of return. A rate of return is the
yield on a dollar that has been invested.
The use of rates of return to assess the value of education is similar
to the use of rates of return to make decisions about other investment options
such as bonds or stocks. In the case of
education, the rate of return can be thought of as a yield on completing high
school.
I
think that is a very valid way of looking at the investment by the Province of
Manitoba in the education of students, but this minister did not want to do
that. Instead, all he wanted to do was
to offload the expense to the City of
At
the conclusion of this synopsis by the Conference Board of Canada they
say: Any initiative that will encourage
students to complete high school can have a major positive impact on the future
economic well‑being of both individual students and
Now
there are some words in there that we have been hearing from this government
repeatedly in their throne speeches, and so I would like to repeat them. They talk about "emerging technologies,
international competitiveness and economic productivity." I am sure that we have heard those words
repeatedly in throne speeches, but this minister's action says no, we are not
interested in any of those things, we are going to force 1,100 students to drop
out of high school.
Well, they repented. They have changed their minds slightly, I
think, in response to the excellent presentation by City Councillor Glen
Murray, who said, if you are at least not going to change your minds on this
legislation, give us the authority to allow these students to go to school full
time.
So
we have this minister's press release of this afternoon. I think really it is
an admission that this government was wrong all along, and finally they have
come to their senses and admitted it.
I
would like to ask the minister, first of all, will single parents on provincial
social assistance be allowed to continue in high school? Will the minister and the department of
economic security permit single parents to attend high school full time?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Acting Chairperson, I listened with great interest to what my honourable friend
has put on the record tonight. I would
think that he must be having a little difficulty with his conscience using some
of the words that he has used this evening about his perception of motives.
Certainly there is no other province in
I
know he has spoken in the past, and my honourable friend from Osborne is
here. We have had the opportunity to
discuss social programs before. If he
would want to join the debate, I would invite him to do so.
My
honourable friend from the NDP has‑‑it is in the past‑‑recognized
the many issues within social allowances that we have addressed. I would maybe just take the opportunity to
remind him of that. Not only have we
addressed the rates at a level consistent with what his party did when they
were in government‑‑and I would remind him at that time government
revenues were accumulating at double‑digit increases as compared to where
revenues are today, and at the same time, they only increased rates according
to the cost of living. We have done a
similar thing. (interjection) I think maybe he is finding a difference in one
particular year, but the pattern is similar. Other provinces do the same
thing. We address those rates according
to the cost of living.
* (2210)
I
know the member has been very complimentary at some of the other programs and
initiatives we have taken. For instance,
we have created a program called Income Assistance for the Disabled at a cost
of $8 million or $10 million to the provincial government. This is not a new issue. This was an issue that was around during the
'60s, the '70s and '80s that the NDP government chose not to address and that
this particular government did. I know
that within the various groups that advocate on behalf of social allowance
recipients and the disabled, this is an issue that has been met with a lot of
good will, a lot of compliments.
I
know that since I have brought it up this evening, the member will certainly
want to acknowledge that, because it was not an issue that simply came to
government in 1990. It is one that has
been around for some time.
In
fact, I am just trying to think of the name of the member who is the president
of the WORD organization. I do not know
whether he has any political affiliation or not, but I suspect that maybe he
has some record of speaking for a particular political party. But I will tell you that I know he has been
complimentary, and he has appreciated the fact that while previous governments
did not address this issue, this government has.
In
the same vein, we introduced something called a supplementary benefit, and I
know the member was very complimentary about this. At one time, provincial assistance and other
clients received a lump‑sum payment, and this was subject to individuals
being taken advantage of in the income tax season. I remember distinctly that the member for
Burrows (Mr. Martindale) spoke in very kind and laudatory terms about the
government, in putting in a new program.
I
understand he has since had other thoughts about it, but I suspect that maybe
those thoughts were a result of politics, rather than saying and doing the
right thing for clients. I know that the
member finds this difficult, because I think he an honourable member. I know he wants to do what he considers right
for his constituents, and maybe he is prepared to change back again and say the
government did the right thing, because I think, by and large, members of that
community have accepted this as being something that is very positive.
A
third thing that we have done is created an exemption of children's trust
assets. There was a time when children
who were willed or received substantial sums of money, this was regarded as new
income and was clawed back by government.
In recent years we have created an exemption of $25,000 so that
individuals who receive a lump‑sum benefit like that will have that
protected for their later life.
(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)
In
1991, this government created some assistance for children on social allowance
for school supplies. We have indicated
and followed up on the fact that we have allotted $80 for school purchases for
children of social allowance families who are entering the school system.
We
have also passed on the goods and services tax credit, and not every province
has done this. I believe the
I
know this must trouble my honourable friend, a man who has a history in working
for the poor, working for the disabled and working for those who are considered
the downtrodden in society. I would hope he would maybe even criticize the
government of
Yes, he is indicating he would phone
them. I know Janice MacKinnon, when she
was Minister of Family Services, would be very open to something like
that. Now that she is Minister of
Finance, I think she is maybe even in a better position to make this a reality. So I would hope that, as he has indicated, he
would pick up the phone and talk to a fellow traveller in
That would certainly be consistent with the
image I have of the honourable member, who I believe is an honourable member
and maybe overstepped the bounds a bit in his initial comments, but as is his
pattern, I think he will maybe retract some of that and indicate that he is
pretty supportive of what the government has done today and what the government
has done in recent weeks and months, and see that in the realities of
government you have to make very difficult decisions.
I
know that probably he is not unfamiliar with what NDP governments are
doing. We talked months ago about the
realities of opposition and government.
I think with recent polls and with recent awareness of where his party
is nationally and provincially, he might have, sort of, a better comprehension
of the difficult decisions that government has to make. I would suspect that he might even admire the
way this government has shown that balance between the difficult decisions we
have to make and the funds that we have for social programs.
I
know that colleagues of his who want to see more highway construction, who want
headwater storage‑‑and I wish someone over there would explain to
me what the Manitoba NDP really means by headwater storage, because I suspect
it means building dams. I know there
have been major apologies and restructuring over there as to what they really
mean on PMU production.
I
am sorry the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) is not here, because I
know that the government of
The
member for Brandon East is saying no,
I
am sure my friend from Burrows, who I think is an honest man, will maybe want
to give further clarification about where the member for Brandon East (Mr.
Leonard Evans) is on this co‑op issue.
Right now, the community out there feels he is actively supporting the
government of
Getting back to social allowances, I know the
member for Burrows has been very supportive of the fact we have increased the
liquid‑asset exemption level, again, an issue where the liquid assets
have been at a very, very low level. The
previous government, the NDP government had an opportunity to address this
many, many times, and they chose not to do anything about that issue. They chose to leave that liquid‑asset
exemption level very low.
I
will tell you, I am proud this government has been able to make dramatic
increases in the liquid‑asset exemptions, and at the present time for
disabled people, for instance, they can have liquid assets of $2,000, for
families with a maximum complement, they can have liquid assets of $4,000. I know the member often has said, you know,
we should have a situation where social allowance families should be able to
save money for deep freezes, for television sets, for refrigerators and so
forth, just give them a chance to assemble some money.
* (2220)
I
will tell you, we have made that change to the liquid‑assets exemptions,
and I know the member has spoken favourably about that. I am sure he might even put that on the
record again, because he has introduced this whole area of social allowances,
and I know deep down in his heart he is probably proud of what this government
has done to bring in a number of reforms, reforms that the previous government
chose not to do anything about. I know,
as an honourable member, my good friend from Burrows recognizes this.
It
was only a year and a half ago when he raised the‑‑I know the
member wants to get down to the press release and we are very pleased to be
able to have released that today and pleased to have tremendous support from
the City of Winnipeg. I know that my
friend from Burrows will also want to recognize that.
A
year and a half ago, head of the household was an issue, again, not a new
issue, an issue that I am sure the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis)
had to deal with around the cabinet table, all members of that party who once
in some fashion served in government, but chose not to recognize that the head
of the household may be of either gender.
I am sure the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) probably raised this
at party conventions. I know the member
for
I
cannot believe that they would not have addressed the head‑of‑the‑household
issue. The member for Burrows has spoken
on this at some length. I know he
blushed when he did that, because it was an issue that should have been
addressed. It was an issue that my good
friend the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) assisted me with
in cabinet. I know that while the member
for Burrows is supportive, there must be some degree of, sort of, antagonism
within him towards some of his fellow colleagues who should have addressed this
10 years ago but chose not to. I am
pleased that this government did that.
I
know that some of his colleagues now are nodding their heads in the affirmative
and saying, I wonder where those people were, the member for Flin Flon (Mr.
Storie), the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), the member for
I
am pleased that I have the support of the member for Burrows (Mr.
Martindale). I tell you it was just a
year ago that we brought in Bill 70 to deal with the municipal assistance
regulation, again something that municipalities were asking for. We put into
place a process, the SARC committee, whereby we could standardize the amount of
social allowances being paid to recipients across the province.
Again, I know the member is a little bit
embarrassed. He may not admit it, but
the previous NDP government allowed for social allowances that were down here
at a very low level, social allowances that were very high. I know it would bother him that all
Manitobans were not treated the same. I
suspect, sort of silently, while he did not vote for this piece of legislation,
he supports it.
I
want to thank him for that, because I know that while we did not have his
support in a voting sense, silently he did support this, and he understands
that, no matter where you live in this province, you should have the same
access to social allowance whether you live in Flin Flon or
I
thank him for that because I think within his caucus he probably worked very
hard to get‑‑
An Honourable Member: The only one that is that progressive.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, and I think the only one with that
degree of compassion over there.
Although there are others who espouse that compassionate outlook, I
think it is the member for Burrows who probably mitigated some of voices
against this piece of legislation.
We
also have addressed the whole area of wheelchair transportation. Again, not a new issue, but we have met with
groups like WORD and SACOM. I know the
member opposite is familiar with the executive officers of SACOM because they
often attend here for the throne speech and when the budget is brought
down. I have wanted to invite them to
sit over here, but I know they have already been invited to sit with my
honourable friend.
I
can tell you that they have brought invaluable evidence forward to help us make
decisions and bring forward these reforms.
Again, I know this was something that the NDP government was just about
to do, but of course their mandate ran out‑‑
An Honourable Member: Well, now, you are being awful kind.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I say that, thinking that the member for
Burrows had a lot of influence there, and I suspect that they were just on the
verge of doing that. But we have given
them some flexibility on how they want to use their transportation, and I can
tell you, within that community it has been well received.
The
final thing I would deal with before I get to the question the member posed is
the extension of health benefits. I know
the member for Burrows has some interest in health benefits, but for a long
time we felt there were people who would leave the social allowance system if
they had some comfort that they could take‑‑(interjection) Well,
the member for Burrows is interrupting here.
I know he wants to hear this, and in his next question he could frame
his thoughts.
But
for a long time I think people who are part of the disabled community, the
single‑parent community, are wanting to move into that world of work but
have had some reluctance to do so because they would lose their health card and
their health benefits.
We
have been able, within recent times, to give them some assurance that for a
year, as they make that transition from social allowances to work, that they
would maintain that health benefit card.
This has been a very progressive step, a step
that, I think, is going to be emulated in other provinces, irrespective of
their political persuasion. Believe me,
the ministers in
I
know again that the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) will want, at some
point, to recognize a rather lengthy list. This is only a partial list, I might
add, of the reforms we have brought forward.
I guess if I am pushed, I could get into some more detail on some of
these things. If there is a need for
clarification, I would be happy to offer that.
Those reforms were not new issues. I know on the floor of many NDP conventions,
the member for Burrows was probably pounding his fist on the podium trying to
get recognized, trying to put forward issues like this. I am just sorry he was unsuccessful, and I
know in his heart he is, too.
I
know on the other hand, he probably will take some pride in the fact that he
was a member of the opposition that sat here as the government brought these
things forward. I compliment him for
that, because there were a number of times he gave me a gentle reminder that
these things should be done, and I am proud that we have done them.
* (2230)
I
know that I have his support. I have
been able to share with my caucus that, you know, do not always listen to what
the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) says publicly. Kind of watch him privately and see how he
urges his members to maybe not applaud so loud and kind of in a way give me
support. I want to thank him for that.
The
member raised the question of student social allowances. I think if members
will perhaps look at comments I made in committee and comments I have made in
the House‑‑I have had a couple of questions on this issue over the
last‑‑(interjection) Well, the member questions‑‑a
couple is kind of a vague numerical term.
Perhaps there were a few questions that came forward from the honourable
member.
We
were listening to the community. We were
meeting at the officials level with members of a number of municipalities who
indicated that they wanted to have a little more flexibility in the way they
dealt with student social allowance.
I
know at committee‑‑and I think the member not only came to
committee but brought some friends with him and took some friends home with him
that night. We listened to presentations
and met with individuals who were accessing the system and had discussions with
a number of groups within the community.
As
a result, I am pleased we were able to bring forward an initiative today that
does offer greater flexibility to municipalities in how they deal with social
allowance recipients. We have enunciated
today a number of policy guidelines with municipalities, and while I missed a
phone call from Councillor Murray, I understand he was on the media tonight
saying he was extremely pleased that the City of Winnipeg and other
municipalities were now going to have the flexibility to deal with social
allowance recipients, whether they are looking for work or perhaps wanting to
restart their high school career, and I look forward to having some
conversations with him.
I
thank the honourable member for his kind words in support of this
initiative. I am almost embarrassed that
he supported so many of my initiatives.
I know that my colleagues here will wonder why so many things we have
done have met with support from the honourable member for Burrows, but I think
it is probably good policy, and I compliment him on his honesty.
Mr. Martindale: I can see that the Minister of Family Services
is practising to be the next Minister of Health. It is very obvious that he comes from the
same school as the Minister of Health and that he is following in his footsteps
and practising to be the next minister.
I know he is tired of this cabinet position and he wants a change. He wants to do something different. I assume his Premier (Mr. Filmon) will listen
to these concerns and oblige him in the near future.
Now,
there was so much innuendo and garbage that he put on the record, and I would
like to rebut all of it, but time‑‑
Point of
Order
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, Madam Chairperson, it was a long time
since I first began my remarks, but I know I began by advising the member to go
back to his roots and to be honest and speak what he knows to be the
truth. If he has forgotten those
remarks, I would just remind him of that.
Madam Chairperson: The honourable minister does not have a point
of order. It is a dispute over the
facts.
* * *
Mr. Martindale: Madam Chairperson, as I was saying before the
interruption, there were a lot of remarks that were really by way of innuendo
that I would like to rebut, but there is no point in doing that with one
exception, and that is that the minister said that I brought a lot of friends
to the committee stage on the student social allowances bill and that I took
some of them home, neither of which is true.
We
did not need to bring people or give people rides to that committee, because
those students were so upset that they came on their own, in spite of the fact
that it was July. There were a lot more
people who had registered than actually came out to committee, but it was the
actions of this government that brought those people out to committee.
Now, I would like to ask the minister some
specific questions on his press release.
In the second last paragraph it says, the new guidelines give
municipalities discretion in determining if participation in secondary education
or vocational training constitutes a reasonable effort to obtain employment.
I
would like to ask the minister if these guidelines are by way of a policy
change or by way of regulation. Could
the minister clarify that for me, please?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Chairperson, I know that my honourable
friend would not want to have this House believe or the record to show that we
did not bring this legislation forward many, many months ago, and the fact that
it did not get into public hearings until July is not a function of government.
I
know the member is now pointing a finger at the Liberals. They are not able to
defend themselves, but this legislation was introduced in the spring, and it
could have been brought to committee in April or May or June. It was clearly the opposition members who
chose not to debate this week after week after week. Those public hearings
could have been held in the spring, and this could have been finalized many,
many months ago. The honourable member
knows that, and, again, I know that having pointed that out to him, he may want
to apologize for that. Certainly if not apologize, he would correct the record.
I
am pleased he has recognized there is more than myself and others here from
rural
The
member has asked about the guidelines.
These are policy guidelines and we have made some changes to make this
more flexible and to have municipalities look at not only the employment that
might be available but also the educational requirements and allow them the
flexibility to allow students who want to restart their high school career, who
cannot live at home or have not lived at home for some time, if they have
educational aspirations which would have them restart their high school career,
and if they have no family support and they have not quit a job, we have sent
some new guidelines to the municipalities.
I
am pleased that our largest municipality, the City of
Mr. Martindale: Madam Chairperson, I would like to thank the
minister for offering to give me the guidelines in writing. I appreciate that offer. I will be looking forward to that.
Unfortunately, I was not at the minister's
press conference and neither were our staff because he said it would start at
four o'clock, and he started it at 10 to four when the bells were ringing.
However, I have heard some comments from the
media, and I would like to clarify and ask the minister directly some questions
based on what I heard he said. For
example, the minister is quoted as saying that a student cannot leave a job to
go back to school. I wonder if the
minister could clarify the rules around leaving employment to go back to
school.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Chairperson, we have frequently thought
over here that members opposite rely on the media for information. I am not surprised that the member has now
confirmed that, that there is not much understanding of these issues, and that
research that is done, while I would not want to characterize it as inadequate,
and I know the member did not use that word, but I would almost think that he
might want to look at the complement of staff he has around him if he is
receiving insufficient explanation and would offer to provide him with that
information if he wanted to contact me earlier and privately. We would be pleased to give him a briefing on
this. I know he was particularly
thankful at the briefing we gave on Bill 30.
We tried to give as much information around that.
* (2240)
At
any time that the member might want to get a better understanding of issues
that are either provincial issues or constituency issues, I would be pleased to
make staff available to give him that sort of education in the issues that
surround the Department of Family Services.
Mr. Martindale: I am sorry, Madam Chairperson, but I missed
the answer that I was looking for about the rules around leaving a job in order
to go back to school.
Could the minister answer that particular
question, please?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I am pleased that the member does have
support within his caucus to try and get an understanding of these issues.
I
would explain to the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) and the member for
Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), as well as the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale),
that what we have indicated is that the recipients who have attended school and
are now in the world of work will not qualify for student social allowances by
quitting a job that they have at the present time to return to high school.
We
are looking at the dual issue of attaining an education and finding work. These are very difficult economic times, and
for those who are already in the workforce, we are telling municipalities that
they will not qualify for student social assistance if they are currently
working and want to quit a job to become part of this program.
Mr. Martindale: Could the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) tell me what the rules are regarding students who leave home and
whether or not they will be allowed a rental allowance?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes.
What we are indicating to municipalities is that students who are living
at home and who want to restart their high school education, we would give them
some support for their living expenses, but not for their residential
requirements.
Mr. Martindale: Does this apply to students who are over 18
and living at home, because I have recently had a phone call from a constituent
who is concerned about her daughter who is turning 18 and is still enrolled at
Mr. Gilleshammer: The member is entering into the same lack of
understanding as the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Edwards) when he thinks
that this program is for children who are part of the school system. This program is an adult program and is
applicable to adults. The caseload that
the previous program encompassed was basically adults from 18 to 24 years of
age.
Children can avail themselves of the public
school system at no cost and are part of the child welfare community, so there
is a major distinction. I think the
member knows that and perhaps maybe has been listening to the member for St.
James (Mr. Edwards), and has gotten confused on this.
Mr. Martindale: Well, I take it from the minister's answer
that the previous rule about having to be out of school for two years before re‑enrolling
still applies. Is that correct?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Chairperson, what we have announced
today is the intention to give municipalities greater flexibility in how they
deal with clients who are employable, who are part of the municipal
caseload. We have indicated to them that
they no longer will be encumbered by having those students take only two
courses, but will have greater flexibility in allowing them to take additional
courses if they have an educational plan.
For
many of those clients, the world of work is what beckons them and what they
wish to access. However, for those who
want to complete their secondary education, we are going to allow the
municipalities more flexibility in dealing with them, and this is basically
what the major municipality in this province asked for at the committee
hearings. We are pleased to accede today
to that request.
Mr. Martindale: Does greater flexibility mean that they can be
enrolled full time as students?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Chairperson, that would be consistent with
our thinking on this issue. However, the
municipal government will take the lead on this, and their counsellors will
deal with those issues on a case‑by‑case basis. For some, it would involve getting directly
involved in the world of work, and that is where those clients want to be. For others, they may wish to pursue the
completion of their secondary education, and if taking a full course load meets
with a particular educational and job search plan, that will certainly be
permitted.
Mr. Martindale: Going back to my previous example of parents
who are on social assistance, a child turns 18, still living at home, wanting
to continue being enrolled in high school full time, is there social assistance
available to that family to help pay for the living expenses of that individual
after they are 18 and living at home?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, the member is referencing a
hypothetical case where perhaps the family is on provincial social assistance,
with a child reaching the age of majority who may also be on social assistance,
who will become part of the municipal caseload.
But there may be further complications to that in that if as a single
parent, there are no longer any children who would make that person a single
parent qualifying for provincial social assistance, they may be in a situation
where they both want to access provincial social assistance.
What I am saying to the member is, there are
very many variables here, and I guess what I would assure the member is that
they would get fair treatment under the regulations that exist and that are
being brought forward by the government.
Mr. Martindale: I will be writing the minister about a
particular case.
Similarly with SOSAR, I would like to move on
to the program that used to exist to help single parents attend university full
time when they were on social assistance.
I will also be writing the minister about a particular case that has
come to my attention, the same one I brought to his attention in Question
Period, and ask the minister to make an exception on compassionate grounds or
to use discretion to allow this person to finish the last six months of her
university education.
But
I would like to ask some general questions, once again ask the minister why
this excellent program was terminated.
This was a program that allowed individuals to get a university
education, and therefore to become independent.
I am only sorry that we do not have time, and the rules prohibit
preambles on our second and third questions in Question Period, but it seems to
me that this is something that‑‑(interjection) Well, we certainly
try to sneak in as much information as we can in the question, you know in our
carefully crafted one‑sentence questions.
* (2250)
What I would have liked to have done, but what
I can do now is to emphasize the fact that this program helped many students in
the past become independent, independent from government support, independent
from welfare because they got an education and education pays.
This Conference Board of Canada report that I
was quoting from earlier talks about education as an investment. I am sure the minister agrees with that. I am sure that this minister agrees that
helping people to get an education, particularly post high school, post
secondary education is the key to their future, to quote their throne speech,
and does indeed get people out of the system and off social assistance.
I
talked to someone today who is a social worker who was enrolled in the SOSAR
program for three or four years, got a degree in social work, and now she tells
me she is off the system. She is working
full time. She pays her own daycare. The
province is not even subsidizing her daycare.
So it seems to me that the taxpayers are better off, the government is
better off, this minister should be happier.
Social assistance is one of the few budgets of this government that is
growing every year because of the recession, so it only seems logical to me
that this government should want to support programs like that.
So
I would like to ask the minister what is the rationale. Why was the SOSAR
program terminated? Do you not believe
in it anymore, and what is going to happen to these individuals?
I
know the minister is going to say they should take out a student loan, but the
example that I am going to write the minister about, this individual was told,
well, get a student loan. She estimates
it will cost $7,000. She says they might
as well have told me $70,000. I believe
that is the advice she was given at the welfare appeal board.
I
know I have asked a number of questions, but basically it boils down to one
philosophical question that I would like the minister to answer please.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I appreciate the member does need to collect
his thoughts, and I look forward to receiving that letter. I can assure you we will give you a timely
answer.
Mr. Martindale: I appreciate the minister will get back to
me, as he always does, on a particular case, but I would still like to have the
minister answer the question about why the program was terminated.
You
know, we are not just concerned about one individual who approached me and also
approached the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray). In fact, the member for Crescentwood wrote
the letter to the minister about this on behalf of this individual, I believe
dated July 15, but I am still concerned about the program. Why did this government terminate this
particular program?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am pleased that the member is interested in
the correspondence from the Liberal Party, and perhaps that member will share
the correspondence and the answer with him.
My understanding of the activities here today is that the ministers are
here to respond to questions regarding their department, and if the member
wants to ask questions of other ministers, I am sure the House leader will be
pleased to have those other ministers present themselves, if not today, at the
next sitting.
Mr. Martindale: I guess I should have anticipated that this
minister was going to pass the buck to the Minister of Education (Mrs.
Vodrey). My understanding is that the
decision to terminate it was made by his department, and now those kinds of
training programs are in the Department of Education. But the program does not exist anymore, so
the Minister of Education probably will not have any answers either. We will request the Minister of Education and
see if she can provide the answers that this minister will not.
Now, on a number of occasions in the past, I
have complimented the Minister of Family Services.
Point of
Order
Mr. Gilleshammer: On a point of order, I would just like to take
this opportunity to thank the member for Burrows on those many occasions where
he has complimented me. I look forward
to future comments.
Madam Chairperson: The honourable minister does not have a point
of order.
* * *
Mr. Martindale: Madam Chairperson, the next thing I was going
to say is that when I have complimented this minister, I have usually regretted
it, and I would like to give an example of another one. For example, we sat in committee and passed
Bill 30, the legislation regarding vulnerable persons, and I complimented this
minister for having wide consultation.
Well, now I am beginning to question how really wide that consultation
was. Well, I will get to that by asking
a series of questions, and the first one is, when does the Minster of Family
Services plan to make public the report of the review committee examining
legislation affecting adult Manitobans living with a mental disability as
vulnerable persons, which is dated November 29, 1991?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I do not know whether the member meant to get
that personal or not, but I did hear him say that often his instincts are
kindly and supportive and correct, and then he gets into some conflict with the
rest of his caucus on where they think he should be and that he should be
critical and condemning and negative. I
would urge you not to listen to your colleagues but to follow your calling and
speak your mind and to sort of be that honest and kind and caring person that I
think you are.
The
member is asking a question about Bill 30.
Yes, we did do widespread consultation, and I know the member talked to
many, many people in the community which reflected that. We had a number of people present at
committee who also indicated that there was widespread support for the
legislation. I can tell you that with
some minor amendments, that I believe were unanimous, those people who had some
minor concerns‑‑
An Honourable Member: Not my amendments. You voted down my amendments.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, we are not talking about amendments that
failed; we were talking about amendments that passed. The amendments that were supported,
unanimously supported by the committee were met with a good degree of favour.
I
can tell you that since those amendments were passed we have had a number of
phone calls in support, and from members, feeling that this legislation was
very progressive legislation that addresses a particular problem, a number of
problems. I can tell you that we are
going to work with that legislation, work with the advocacy groups out there,
and over a period of many months bring this legislation into practice. I am pleased that we not only had the support
of my honourable friend's party but the second opposition party and advocacy
groups in the community, and there seems to be widespread support for the
legislation. We will do our very best
within the department of bringing that forward in a timely fashion.
Mr. Martindale: Madam Chairperson, I would like to tell the
minister that when I ask questions in Question Period and I take positions on
bills, my colleagues and my party totally support me because our positions and
our questions are vetted with caucus. So the minister does not need to try to
stir up division. There is no division. I have support on my positions.
The
minister did not answer the question so I will repeat it. When does the minister plan to make public
the report called Towards the Recognition and Enhancement of Rights of Vulnerable
Persons Living with a Mental Disability which is dated November 29, 1991?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Chair, I guess I am a little upset that
there is just one mindset over there, that there is complete agreement on each
and every issue, that the honourable member would join other caucus colleagues
to support various initiatives. I am
particularly disturbed that the member, and he is speaking for his entire
caucus‑‑and I think he is maybe even caucus chair or caucus co‑chair‑‑that
they would support the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) who is against the ski
hill development in the Russell area, that every one of those members opposite
condemn that project, are against that project, oppose that project, oppose any
development in that area which would bring about a wonderful recreational facility
in the Asessippi valley.
* (2300)
I
cannot believe that there was not a tremendous fight in caucus. Yet, they have come out of caucus all
agreeing that ski hill should not be built, that they are antidevelopment, that
they are against recreation, that they will oppose any kind of development like
that. I suspect that they also support
the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) who is supporting the
government of Saskatchewan which is anti‑co‑op, that they are in
support of the Saskatchewan government who want to put a gun to the head of co‑ops
not only in Saskatchewan but in Manitoba and say that we are completely against
co‑ops, that we will not negotiate with you, that we will not listen to
you, that we are completely against you.
Of course,
they are also all of the same mindset then on the PMU industry, an industry
that is a lifesaver in rural
I
know the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) organized a meeting in
I
know the member for Burrows would like to speak out in favour of Manitobans,
and I cannot believe the member for
I
can tell you that a man who had a tremendous participation in the development
of the PMU industry, Reg Forbes, has written an open letter to the member for
Brandon East. I would hope that he would
get out of the bunker and respond to that.
I know he is trying to take credit for the start‑up and the
support of the NDP government for the PMU industry, but I can tell you that
producers in western
I
think the member for Burrows, who is saying that all NDPers think the same,
that they caucus all these things and that they all firmly believe this, may
want to change his mind on that. I know
the member for
So
I am disappointed in the member for Burrows, who I believe is an honest man who
has had a training that would lead me to believe that he would be honest and
forthright on issues and would want to have even some independent thinking on
certain issues, yet he comes to the House and tells us they all think the
same. On some major issues, I would think
that maybe he would want to break away from some of the thinking that is lodged
in that particular party and maybe even break away from the party in
I
am disappointed and I would hope, given some of the discussions that take place
over today and tomorrow and whenever this House ends, that maybe he would say,
hey, there is some independent thinking over here and we are not all together
on these issues. If he cannot support
the PMU operators, if he cannot support the co‑ops, maybe he could see
himself clear to support the ski hill, maybe he would be for recreation in the
Westman area. I would think that there
might even be a fellow traveller from
So
I would urge the member to have his independent thinking come forward a little
and not be afraid to speak out against those front benchers, who were once in
cabinet, who were a good part of leading us to a road of destruction. I would hope maybe the member for Burrows
might have some independent thinking‑‑
Madam Chairperson: Order, please.
Mr. Martindale: Madam Chairperson, obviously this minister is
not going to answer that question, so I will move on to another area.
The
assistant deputy minister of Health has sent a letter to all clients of the
Subsequently, I asked questions in Question Period,
and we have been talking to this individual.
Somebody in the minister's department phoned the individual and had to
explain how they get their ostomy supplies and how the billing works because
the person who phoned was not aware.
So
I would like to ask the minister, since I asked in Question Period about this,
if he has had some time to sort it out and if the minister is willing to send a
letter to all of those clients in his department informing them whether or not
this policy applies to them or not. Now
it is our understanding that it does not, but would the minister correspond
with these people and clarify for them what the real situation is?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Chairperson, the member has said
something very interesting. He is saying
that he was afraid that there were Manitobans out there that did not understand
something that he does not understand.
So to further confuse them, he has sent them all a letter indicating
that we think this was what the government meant, but we are going to do a
little fearmongering and have you further misunderstand this.
I
can tell you that I have listened here intently for days about this whole
debate, but this is the first time anyone from that party has admitted that
they have actively sent letters to misrepresent the issue, to confuse
Manitobans. I am pleased that member has
put that on the record, because that is exactly what I told him that other day,
that the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) should be ashamed of himself for
putting false information on the record, for being factually inaccurate. Now the member is saying, because we think
that is what happened, we sent more letters out to confuse the people.
I
would like the member to stand up and say, you know, given this explanation, we
are wrong. Maybe we should send those
people another letter and say, you know, the information we are sharing with
you, we are not sure about. But what the
member is saying is that they want to confuse the public; they want to do that
fearmongering with the public; they want to misrepresent the facts and, as a
result, scare a lot of people.
I
am pleased the member put that on the record today, and I would like him to
further clarify that.
Mr. Martindale: Madam Chairperson, I would be very pleased to
clarify. I am going to table the letter
signed by Betty Havens, assistant deputy minister in the Department of
Health. This is the only letter that I
have referred to, and I will table a copy of it now.
I
have not written to any ostomy patient in
Point of
Order
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Point of order, Madam Chair, I am glad that
my honourable friend now has corrected another misrepresented fact that he put
on the record earlier on that I had sent a letter out to all ostomists. He now has finally told the truth.
Madam Chairperson: The honourable Minister of Health does not have
a point of order. It is a dispute over
the facts.
* * *
Mr. Martindale: Madam Chairperson, another frivolous point of
order because the minister knows that in Question Period I referred to the
assistant deputy minister of Health. It
is in Hansard. The minister can look it
up if he wishes.
* (2310)
The
only letter that I have sent is the letter that our research staff sent to an
Income Security office because they had not seen the letter that some of their
clients received. So we provided the
letter from the assistant deputy minister of Health so that they could help
this individual who was phoning us for advice.
But
it is up to the Minister responsible for Income Security to clarify the
situation for these individuals, preferably by communicating to them and
telling them whether or not the program applies to them. We understand that it does not, but I think
it would be much better if they heard this directly from the Minister of Family
Services (Mr. Gilleshammer).
So
I am asking him, will he inform this individual and others who are on social
assistance who are ostomy patients who also received this letter, so that they
know what the real situation is?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I am aghast that the member refers to
this as a frivolous issue. The member
for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) has been standing here for weeks and weeks talking
about an issue that is a life‑and‑death issue, an issue on which he
has put facts on the record which are inaccurate. Now the member says it is a frivolous issue.
Now
he also says that his research staff is sending letters out to correct
impressions that are out in the community which have been brought about by the
member for Kildonan and other members of the NDP. He described those actions as frivolous, and
their research staff is further compounding it by sending letters out.
There
is no wonder that there is confusion in some minds out there in some parts of
the community. What the member is
saying, and I think he is smiling and gloating a bit and saying we have been
pretty successful in muddying the waters out there.
I
think it is a time for honesty, and I think it is time, and I know the member
has a difficult time with this, but he might want to distance himself from the
member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) who has been factually inaccurate, who has
sat here and stood here day after day to put his thoughts on the record. Now the member is saying their research staff
is sending letters out to the community to further muddy the waters.
There is no wonder that there is confusion out
there in the minds of some who listen to the NDP, who listen to the Health
critic, who listen to the Leader and have been misled. I would dare say, it may even be deliberately
misled.
I
would think the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) is feeling some discomfort
with all of us and may want to correct the record. I would say that the NDP caucus may want to
look and see what their caucus research is sending out.
The
member is saying that the NDP caucus is trying to make the issue right out
there. Please, I mean, who is going to
believe that? We know why the NDP is
doing this, and the member is just confirming that their research staff is now
sending more letters out to confuse the issue.
Mr. Martindale: Madam Chairperson, for the final time, I will
ask the minister if he is willing to clarify the situation with his clients.
I
would like to say once again that the only letter that was sent was the letter
from the assistant deputy minister of Health, and it was faxed to an Income
Security office. It was not sent to any
of his clients. It was faxed on request
to an Income Security office.
But
this is the opportunity for the minister to correct on the record or to clarify
so that we can tell people what the situation is, and he can tell his clients
and Income Security whether or not this letter applies to them because we would
like to inform them.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Chairperson, it is absolutely horrifying
for Manitobans that they would have to rely on the NDP caucus to clarify
government policy. We know what the NDP
caucus is there for. We know the tactics
of the NDP caucus, and the member must be terribly, terribly, in his mind and
his heart, uncomfortable being associated with that NDP caucus doing what they
are doing to muddy the waters out there on health care issues.
The
member is asking me to respond to letters.
I have had one letter. We have
had no letters in my office, no letters in our department. The only letter that has come forward is one
written on Friday by the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), scratched out on
letterhead with his picture placed on it to say, would you clarify this
issue? That is a prime example how this
is not an issue in the public mind. This
is not a public issue; this is an issue manufactured, created and promoted by
the NDP caucus. That is symptomatic of
what he has been talking about tonight, about health care, about all of the
health care reforms and about this particular issue. Not one phone call to my office, not one
letter to my office, the only letter, the letter from that member for Burrows
with his picture on the letterhead asking me to respond to one of his
constituents whom he has generated to ask the question.
I
can tell you we will do that, but I can tell you that the member must feel
terribly uncomfortable being part of a caucus that is writing letters trying to
clarify a number of issues that he knows are wrong. I know in his heart of hearts he may want to
dissociate himself from the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) and this caucus,
and I think this is a time when you better listen to that inner feeling within
you and do the right thing.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I
have a question that I would like to ask the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.
Enns), and it relates to the flooding that just took place in the Swan River
area and, in particular, in the community of Minitonas. The minister is aware that the mayor, Mr.
Hart, has raised some serious concerns about the drainage ditch, the government
drain, that ended up flowing back into the town and causing the flooding
problems there.
In
fact, when I look at‑‑what I have here is a copy of a news report
where Mr. Enns, the minister, had said that he does not‑‑first of
all, the community of Minitonas had asked that this ditch be moved and drained,
the water drained away from the community.
In this clip from 24 Hours, there is a quote here that the minister does
not want to move the ditch to prevent flooding; he wants to build a new dam and
a drainage system to protect the lands around Minitonas.
I
want to ask the Minister of Natural Resources, if he has had any communication
with the Village of Minitonas since the flooding and whether or not he is
seriously committed to improving that drainage ditch to take the water away
from Minitonas, and if he is, in fact, looking at a dam system as he did say
when he was talking to the reporter as a means of preventing flooding in that
community and in other communities in the Swan River area.
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): I will
try to respond to the member's questions.
I am currently awaiting a detailed report of those particular structures
that have caused difficulties or, indeed, have been damaged as a result of the
flooding situation in the member's constituency in
The
kind of work that the honourable member is suggesting would have to be looked
at and budgeted for, and I have to acknowledge that I do not have any capital
monies for that particular drainage improvement or redirecting the course of
that drainage. I have . . . on that
matter, and I will be asking my staff to provide me with a proposal and
estimates as to what can be done.
I
have been, quite frankly, soliciting the honourable member's support, which
she, I know, is capable of doing, encouraging my government, my Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) to ensure that this department, which houses the Water
Resources shop, receives adequate consideration in the overall distribution of
government funds to carry out these responsibilities.
I
must say, Madam Chairperson, not just to the honourable member opposite but,
indeed, to many members that are affected by this‑‑I know my
colleague the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) and, indeed, others, the member for
Emerson (Mr. Penner)‑‑that it sometimes takes extreme water
conditions that we are now suffering to remind people that, although these
conditions only arrive, hopefully, once every 10 years or maybe less often,
they do have a tendency of arriving, and arriving with a vengeance.
We
have been lulled somewhat by going through most of the '80s in moderate, in
fact, even in some instances, drought conditions, to lose sight of the fact
that the works that the Water Resources Branch does are extremely important to
communities, to the farmers involved and, indeed, important to the overall
ability to withstand these kinds of natural disasters.
* (2320)
Now, the honourable member raises a point that
she has raised‑‑I think the very first time that I had the
privilege of meeting the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk)‑‑in
fact, I believe it was before she was an elected member, if my memory serves me
right‑‑she made such a lasting impression on me. I do not forget these occasions.
She
raised the question of a project that is near and dear to some of the residents
of her constituency, including the member, a project to impound water and to
restrict water flow. It would not only
offer‑‑as I know and I have experienced and as members that have
experienced this, my colleague, the member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard) understands
this‑‑in such projects like Stephenfield, which supply communities
like Morden not only with a reasonable supply, an adequate supply of water, but
some good recreational opportunities as well.
These are always the multipurpose benefits
behind these projects; in her instance, it would, I really believe‑‑and
I think that was the original thing.
Because of the geography of the land, it is important to slow down the
velocity and the runoff of waters when we do get these heavy rains. That is what is causing the damages. I am asking the department, I suspect that
there will be several millions of dollars of damage that has been done because
of water coming off the escarpment, off the
I
say to the honourable member in all good faith that I had hoped that I could
encourage the federal agency, the PFRA people, to be involved in helping with
the funding of that project, because these are the kinds of projects that,
throughout the province, they normally are prepared to fund. It was with some regret that earlier on in my
return to the ministry I found out that, regrettably, the PFRA people had this
one on a fairly low priority. The year
that we still had some funds available we had four other projects, the Jackson
Dam, improvements to the Stephenfield Dam, improvements to‑‑my
memory escapes me, but there were four projects which the federal government
had agreed to share on a 50‑50 or a 40‑60 basis with us, and the
decision was to use our limited capital funds on those projects.
Madam Chair, I would like to be in a position,
and I will undertake to correspond with the honourable member in a few weeks
time when this reporting from field staff is more or less complete. There is also a possibility, I would like to
say to her‑‑and I need to consult with my colleagues‑‑that
if we can put together all the costs associated with the floodwaters in that
area as a result of that thing, under some emergency support program which
would provide some additional federal dollars as well, the chances of doing
some of the these projects is, of course, improved.
I
have been asked by my Finance department, by my government, that we are doing
this inventory of damage partly for that reason, as is the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness). We are also asking the
municipalities to provide us with their costs, which they will, so that we can
see what, in fact, the damage to infrastructure totals up to be. That will determine the extent to which we
may have some federal government support under the emergency formula that I
think the honourable member is conversant with.
Ms. Wowchuk: I hope that the minister is sincere and that
he will look at every opportunity there is to address the concern that has been
raised by the people of Minitonas with this drainage ditch, and if there is an
opportunity to make this correction through the emergency measures funding formula,
it would certainly be a benefit.
The
minister mentioned the other project that I am concerned about on the north
I
hope that the minister will look into these projects, and I look forward to
hearing any information he can provide to the community on that particular
matter.
I
want to touch on one other area that falls under the area of Natural Resources,
and that is bear licence allocation. I
had written to the minister last year, I believe, and he had had communication
from several people who are concerned that the number of bear licences are
being concentrated into the hands of larger operators, and there is not any
opportunity for smaller operations to expand or even get started.
We
had suggested to the minister that since the allocation of bear licence took
place some eight to 10 years ago, in that range, somewhere in there, whether it
was not possibly time to review the allocations of those licences and look at
possibly redistribution of some of them that are sitting idle, and thus giving
the opportunity for smaller operators to expand their operations.
The
other area on bear licence is that some of these operators who have bear tags
that are not licensed for outfitters are looking to convert those tags. We had also asked the minister if he would
review that.
Can
the minister tell us then whether he has assigned anybody on his staff to
review the allocation of licence to outfitters and also look at the other idea
of whether those hunting‑‑the tags that are not attached to hunting
licences for outfitters, whether any consideration is being given to changing
those licences?
Mr. Enns: Madam Chairperson, I wish to speak softly,
just in case Carla hears this, because we are talking about shooting bears and
trapping bears and skinning them and doing all those kind of things to them.
An Honourable Member: Was that Rosann saying we should skin the
bears?
* (2330)
Mr. Enns: I would not want to upset the honourable
member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) at this stage of this session because one
never knows, it could prolong the session.
But
to the honourable member Rosann, she strikes on a point that is very
valid. I can indicate to her that there
is a review that has, in my understanding, just about completed. I share the member's concern that the
allocation system was established some seven or eight years ago. They have had some arbitrary features about
it. I am not happy in the manner in
which the department is allocating the licences. There needs to be some better method found to
enable new entries into the outfitting to gain access to these tags. I share her concern that in some instances,
too many of the tags currently allocated are in the hands of very few people.
So
essentially, I can tell her that‑‑and I have a request from her
colleague, the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), that addresses the same issue‑‑in
this case, is transfer it seems. Under the current rules, the tags are not
transferable or saleable, and I do not know whether that is what we want to do,
but I need to find some way of freeing up the rigidity of the current
allocation system.
On
a more positive note, I can inform the honourable member that while, you know,
our data on bears is not as sophisticated as I would like it to be, all
indications are that bear population is up, that the bear population is
extremely healthy and, if anything, is increasing. Now, some of that may have to do with the
fact, as an aftermath of the fires of '88 and '89, it certainly improves the
habitat for bears as it does for many other wildlife species, but my reports
from field officers is that the bear population is healthy, and we can indeed
and are looking at making more tags available in the coming year.
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chair, I want to thank the minister for
the answer, and I look forward to seeing that report. Hopefully, we can resolve some of the
concerns that have been raised by both the constituents of the member for
Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) and also the constituents in my area.
I
want to ask a question of the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) with
regard to the
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Madam
Chairperson, yes, it is true that the member for
Indeed there are members who are on council
and hold prominent roles in that community who feel that perhaps this is not
the proper approach to take since there are other buildings and joint
initiatives in communities, such as libraries, et cetera. So that would also have an impact if we were
to exempt one particular facility in a community.
Let
me say to the member for Swan River that I am encouraged by the fact that she
looks at the importance of such a facility as an airport in a community like
Swan River, because not only does it act as a service to the community, but it
also draws to that community potential industries that might be interested in
locating in that community. Indeed, I
would hope that as a member representing a rural community, she would talk to
some of her colleagues about the importance of economic development in rural
Madam Chair, this means that there could very
well be a danger to some of these operations closing down, like the PMU
operations, in our province. This is an
important type of industry in rural
Now, I get a little sensitive about PMU
operations because that is an extremely important industry in rural
This is a disturbing issue for people in rural
I
hope in the next question, the member for
It
does not stop there. You know, Madam
Chair, airports are an important service area to our rural communities because
we have many people who need to get in and out of some of these communities
quickly to do their business and get back to their home, whether it is here in
Winnipeg or elsewhere in our country.
The globe is shrinking.
Communications are very important in this day and age.
If
we are against economic development, and it does not matter whether it is the
PMU industry or whether it is a ski hill which will provide jobs, yes, it is in
my own constituency, and I would love to see the project go ahead. But every time we talk about economic
development in rural
I
understand the fact that they know very little about rural
Madam Chair, I have to also mention one other
issue. We heard about the need for water
in rural
I
would ask that the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), who understands these
elements, I know she understands these issues, that she would stand up in her
place and perhaps talk to her members, to her colleagues, and inform them that
perhaps we should wait for the assessments before we jump into the criticism of
projects and before we know the value of these projects, because, Madam Chair,
we are not going to develop this province with that kind of an attitude.
* (2340)
We
need to work together in order to be able to develop our province and in order
to be able to allow the rural part of our province to also take an active role
in the progress that we have in this province.
So, Madam Chair, I look forward to working with the member for
With regard to the
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Chair, I am really surprised that the
minister should say that all the community is in support of this, because I
have resolutions that are passed by each council in the
If
there is someone within the community‑‑and I have a suspicion that
I know which area where it might be coming from‑‑if there is
someone that has changed their mind on this, they certainly have not let me
know or certainly have not asked me to continue pursuing this matter. So I will go back to the community, and if it
is their wish that the matter not be pursued, certainly we will let it fall,
but that is certainly a change from what I have heard.
Now, the member gets into the whole issue of
the PMU and tries to imply that I am not supportive of the industry, and he has
not heard my position on it. It is very
clear. I have made my position very
clearly known. The member across the way
knows that I have been very supportive of all economic development in rural
The
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) says that it is our intention to shut the
PMU industry down. That is a pile of
garbage, and he knows it. It is a pile
of garbage.
Madam Chairperson, they accuse a member from
this side of the House of lobbying to shut down the PMU industry, and her name
was affiliated. She said that she did
not give her permission to be on that, and we have to respect that.
I
think that we saw clearly that the actions taken by the member for Brandon East
when he tried to raise this as a matter of privilege that she had put false
information on‑‑(interjection) Brandon West (Mr. McCrae), pardon me‑‑that
he did not have a matter of privilege and there was not the adequate
information out there, that the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) was not
involved with that petition. She did not
sign the petition.
Now, clearly there are people of different
views, and I think that we as rural members have the responsibility to make
other people aware of how valuable the industry is to rural
As
farm people, when we use soil, we do not have the right to abuse that
soil. It should be there for future
generations to use. If someone is
questioning whether‑‑
An Honourable Member: Are they not putting land into forage?
Ms. Wowchuk: Pardon me?
An Honourable Member: Are they not putting land into forage?
Ms. Wowchuk: Yes, and they talk about‑‑
An Honourable Member: Is that not a conservation approach?
Ms. Wowchuk: Of course it is. Now, I am not saying that it is not
conservation. What I am saying is that
when farmers use the soil, they have to protect it.
I
know most people who do farm want the soil to be there for future generations
to use. We have a responsibility to
protect it and use it. When people are
having another industry, if someone questions whether they are polluting, there
is nothing wrong with questioning whether or not‑‑there is nothing
wrong with asking for an assessment.
As
I understand, the affluence that comes out of the Ayerst operation in
An Honourable Member: Well, say that publicly.
An Honourable Member: She is, it is on the record.
Ms. Wowchuk: Can I finish, please? It is my understanding that there is not a
problem. If I have information of that,
I am satisfied.
But
I think that there is nothing wrong with asking for the information, ask for
it. It is like any other business
getting started, you can ask for the information. But that does not mean that you are‑‑(interjection)
Madam Chairperson, if the member from
Madam Chairperson: Order, please.
Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you, Madam Chairperson, and if the
member for
Now, Madam Chairperson, I think the government
latched onto this PMU issue because they are desperate in rural
They have latched onto this idea that they are
going to blacken the NDP on the issue of PMU.
We have said loud and clear, we support the PMU industry. I have said that I support the PMU industry.
I
have talked to my constituents, and I have talked to the PMU operators in my
area. I think that it is a very valuable
industry, and people have the right to ask questions about it‑‑
An Honourable Member: Legitimate questions.
Ms. Wowchuk: Yes, people have rights to ask questions, but
for this government, for these members across the way to say that we do not
support the PMU industry, again I will say is a pile of garbage, because that
is exactly what it is. It is hogwash.
They know clearly that we support the industry and when we were in government,
when Howard Pawley was in government there were expansions made to the plant,
but I see nothing wrong with people asking questions. We ask questions all the time about various
issues. There is nothing wrong with
asking questions.
* (2350)
Madam Chairperson, as the member has just
reminded me, this is not a time for debate, it is a time to ask questions, I
would like to ask the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) one more
question if I might before I pass my time on to someone else. I want to ask him about an issue that is also
important to rural
Mr. Derkach: Madam Chair, I could not allow the member's
comments to be left on the record without responding to some of the‑‑well,
I have to choose my words carefully, I suppose, but let me say that the words
that she has put on the record pose questions in my mind as to the sincerity
that this member has with regard to an industry that is very important in our
province. Then she tries to downplay the
effect that her colleague has had on the industry as a whole and in this
province‑‑
Some Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please.
The honourable Minister of Rural Development is attempting to finish his
comments.
Mr. Derkach: Madam Chair, I find it almost amusing at the
members opposite getting a little exercised over comments that I am making with
regard to the response that we just heard or the question that was posed by the
member for
Madam Chair, I have to tell you, you know, the
member for
Madam Chairperson: Order, please.
Mr. Derkach: Madam Chair, when the member for Radisson‑‑(interjection)
Madam Chairperson: Order, please.
The honourable Minister of Rural Development has the floor.
Mr. Derkach: Madam Chair, as I was saying, when the member
for Radisson compares Premarin to thalidomide, I ask the member for Swan River,
is that the way you portray questions with regard to an industry by putting the
fear of God into people who are out there by comparing it to something like
thalidomide? I ask the member for
Madam Chair, if the member feels that strongly
about this industry, then I ask her party to answer the letter that was written
by Mr. Reg Forbes. I would like to quote
the last paragraph when he says, I challenge Ms. Cerilli and her friends in the
animal rights movement and the environmental activities to name the industries
which are more environmentally friendly than the PMU industry and to name the
livestock enterprises which are more kind to animals. I look forward to seeing the two lists
published in this publication, and I look forward to a strong response from
your party.
He
is calling on the NDP to respond to those letters and that petition. Where is the response? I wonder if he will ever get a response.
Madam Chair, the member for
Today we announced another Grow Bond
initiative, and this Grow Bond initiative is for $417,000, I do believe, or
$413,000 in the community of Winkler for the expansion of Elias Woodwork. This
will add something like‑‑
Mr. Orchard: Leonard, do not say this; Carla might hear and
try to shut them down.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please.
Mr. Derkach: Well, Madam Chairperson, that is a just tiny
example of the kind of activity that is going on throughout rural
I
could not only talk about Elias Woodwork in Winkler, but I could talk about
Rimer Alco in Morden. I could talk about
the care company in Teulon. We could
talk about the REDI proposals that have gone out as approvals to the many
industries throughout our province, creating jobs and creating wealth in our
communities so that we can afford those social services that are so needed in our
province.
Madam Chair, we are doing something
constructive for rural
Madam Chair, now every time we come up with an
initiative for rural Manitoba, as an example, the PMU initiative which will
provide a thousand jobs to rural Manitoba, what do the New Democrats do? They are against the jobs that are created
there.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): How come you lost 10,000 jobs?
Mr. Derkach: So the Leader of the Opposition says now he
wants to add to that. He wants to add to
the lost jobs by losing another thousand.
* (0000)
Well, Madam Chair, is PMU the only
initiative? No. What happened with the proposed ski
hill? We had the member for Radisson
(Ms. Cerilli) come forward again. Even
while the project is in a formative stage, the member for Radisson is already
fomenting some kind of fears about the fact that we are going to have an
environmental problem here.
It
goes on and on. When a community wants
water, what does the member for Radisson do?
Before the Clean Environment Commission even concludes its hearings, we
have all kinds of fears being promoted by the member for Radisson. So this is the New Democratic approach to
rural economic development.
The
member for
Madam Chair, I can tell the member for Swan
River that a great deal of work and energy has gone into the establishment of
an approach to providing natural gas, at least to the communities where there
is a need for it, and Swan River is one of those communities.
Madam Chair, I can tell the member for
I
know that the good people from
Madam Chairperson: Order, please.
As previously agreed, I am leaving the Chair with the understanding that
the House will reconvene at 10 a.m. tomorrow (Tuesday), with Mr. Speaker in the
Chair.
Committee rise.