LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday, March 18, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mr. Jack Reimer (Chairperson
of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Second
Report of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Public Utilities
and Natural Resources presents the following as its Second Report:
Your committee met on Tuesday, March 2,
1993, Tuesday, March 9, 1993, and Tuesday, March 16, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in Room
255 of the
Mr. John McCallum, chairperson, Manitoba
Hydro‑Electric Board, and Mr. Robert Brennan, president and chief
executive officer, Manitoba Hydro, provided such information as was requested
with respect to the Annual Report and business of the
Your committee has considered the Annual
Report of the Manitoba Hydro‑Electric Board for the year ended March 31,
1992, and has adopted the same as presented.
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for
Motion agreed to.
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to table the Supplementary Information for Legislative
Review for the Department of Family Services.
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Annual
Report for 1991‑1992 for Centre Culturel Franco‑Manitobain.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this afternoon
from the Neepawa Area Collegiate, forty‑four Grade 9 students under the
direction of Mr. Bob Ferguson. This
school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Environment
(Mr. Cummings).
On behalf of all honourable members, I would
like to welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Student Social Allowance Program
Student Statistics
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): My question is to the First Minister.
Mr. Speaker, this week we have been asking
a number of questions to the Premier on the long‑term economic impact of
the cutbacks in the student social allowance provisions that are in the
Mr. Speaker, this is a serious, serious
issue for at least a thousand Manitobans.
The quote is: For many of these
young people who are trying to finish their high school, they can remain at
home with their parents. Others can
access other support programs.
I would like to ask the Premier (Mr.
Filmon): How many students are
affected? How many of these students can
live at home, based on the government's analysis, and how many students will be
cut off of their educational opportunities with the decision that has been made
by the government?
* (1335)
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, the member asked the other day how many students are involved in the
program at this time. Just over 1,100
students are on student social allowance, again, a program unique to
Alternative Programs
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) what other solutions he has to a person named Mrs. Neufeld. The Premier makes the decisions. He should be willing to stand up in this
House and justify his decision. I am
sick and tired of asking questions.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the
Premier: What is he saying to Mrs.
Neufeld, a 24‑year‑old parent of a one‑and‑a‑half‑year‑old
girl, who is married to a person who is also going to the Adult Education
Centre and is receiving assistance as full‑time students under the
student social assistance program? They
want the opportunity of an education.
They feel it is the only way they can get on their feet. We must have an education for our
future. It is not a luxury; it is a
necessity for us to have a meaningful occupation. This budget has been a gigantic ripple
effect. We are people with lives, not
numbers.
What answer does this Premier have to that
person, where the Minister of Family Services has not given us any
alternatives, any options for those people so they can get a living, have some
dignity and have a future rather than have despair under the Tory government?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, we have many thousands and thousands of students in
Many students work on a part‑time
basis and pursue education at the same time.
For those who need to rely on the safety net offered by this department,
there are other options that they can access.
Funding Elimination Impact
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the Premier did not answer the
question. The minister has not answered
the question. He did not answer the question
yesterday; he did not answer the question the day before.
We are asking: How many people are impacted, and what is the
long‑term economic impact on these people? What options do they have with the government
cutback?
These are two parents with a one‑and‑a‑half‑year‑old
child, Mrs. Neufeld writes in a letter, which I will table to the
minister. There is a human face to these
whimsical Conservative decisions that are affecting the most vulnerable people
in our society. [interjection]
Well, Mr. Speaker, if we could get some
specific answers, we could start debating the government.
Everyone says to us, stay in school‑‑[interjection]
Well, if the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) wants to answer, it would be the first
time we ever received an answer in this House‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Neufeld says in her letter
today‑‑which I will table for the government to see the human face
of their decisions‑‑everyone says "stay in school,"
"no education, no job;" then they cut the very means of support for
people taking that advice. It is not
fair.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Premier (Mr.
Filmon): What long‑term economic
advantage is this for the people of
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, the Leader
of the Opposition indicates that he has not been able to get information. I have indicated today quite clearly, there
are just over 1,100 students who are accessing this program which will come to
an end at the end of June.
The member refers to budget decisions as
whimsical decisions. I would ask the
member to realize what is happening across this country, at the federal level,
at the provincial level in every province in this country, where there are huge
deficits, that everybody is having to make decisions regarding these deficits. These are not whimsical decisions. These are very serious decisions.
Workforce 2000 Grant Criteria
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, this
government's commitment to education has been shown in so many ways: $7 million from the community colleges, a $2‑million
clawback and then a rollback to universities, cuts to school boards, cuts to
daycare and finally the elimination of the student social allowances
program. The only new initiative we have
seen from this government has been Workforce 2000, grants to the private sector
to employ and train existing employees.
* (1340)
I would like the Minister of Education to
explain how she justifies the provision of grants for training to, for example,
Wardrop Engineering for 34 people to be trained at a rate of $625 an hour, to
Canadian National Building Materials for 24 people to be trained at a rate of
$527 per hour, or even, for example, Glendale Golf and Country Club for 30
people to be trained at $177 an hour.
Does the minister have any justification for the high cost of this
training when any one of those $10,000 grants would have kept two young
Manitobans in school for a whole year?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, my honourable friend does not seem to understand the purpose of
Workforce 2000. The purpose of Workforce
2000 is to assist people who are currently working to be upgraded in their
skills and allow their small business also to be upgraded, as well as larger
corporations. I think that the honourable
member should know that Workforce 2000 deals with small business people as well
as larger, and it is a cost‑shared program.
Ms. Friesen: The fact that it is a cost‑shared program
means that the numbers I quoted were low.
They could be double and triple that.
I would like to ask the minister: Would she acknowledge that the Workforce 2000
grant of over $8,000 to a printing company to train their employees was
intended to enable them to take the jobs of the 59 Queen's Printer workers whom
her government fired?
Ms. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start with the
statistics that the honourable member raises because frankly I put those into
doubt. She continually raises a series
of statistics and statements when she starts her questions, and they have not
always been accurate. She said the other
day that
Workforce 2000
Dave's Quick Print
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, my question was quite
simple. Did Dave's Quick Print receive a
grant from Workforce 2000 of $8,000, and did Dave's Quick Print receive the
jobs that the 59 people who were fired by this government from the Queen's
Printer had to give up at the insistence of this government?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, again, the preamble from the
member opposite is absolutely wrong.
There were 59 employees in the Queen's Printer,
and in fact, there will be somewhat less within government, but we are finding
out that within the private sector, all of those different companies that have
tendered and have been successful indeed for getting government business will
be providing that service at approximately 1.6 cents per copy when it was
costing government 5 cents per copy.
Obviously, members of the opposition would
rather have inefficiencies within government and waste and mismanagement than
having government dollars spent on the priorities of health, education and
social services.
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry Report
Government Commitment
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Justice.
Mr. Speaker, this week the government cut
funding to 11 native friendship centres.
I want to ask the Minister of Justice about those cuts in the context of
his responsibility for aboriginal justice in this province.
For three years he and his colleagues gave
promises that the AJI report would be respected, and they could hardly wait for
the report to come out. They spent three
years, $3 million singing the praises of that commission. That report, when it came down, specifically
called for‑‑[interjection] Mr. Speaker, for the edification of the
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), the fact is that the Minister of
Justice spent three years telling us that he would respect the decisions of
that‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for St. James with your question, please.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, will the minister acknowledge now
that this government has absolutely no intention, never had and will not have,
of complying with the spirit and intent of the AJI which called specifically
for increases in organizations that brought the native and non‑native‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has put his question.
* (1345)
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, the question and the speech
that preceded it raise a number of inaccuracies. I think the honourable member was saying that
before we even received the report from the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, this
government was binding itself to each and every recommendation. That has never happened, and the honourable
member knows that.
With respect to certain key
recommendations in that report, the recommendation of separate systems of
justice, for example, we have been very clear.
We reject that recommendation. We
have been repeatedly clear on that point.
Instead, we hoped to have the assistance
of the aboriginal leadership of this province in putting into motion a number
of initiatives that would vastly improve the justice system as it pertains to
aboriginal people. We have not had the
co‑operation that we have needed, but that has not stopped us, Mr.
Speaker, as you will find out when I give my answer to the next question.
Mr. Edwards: This minister has never given that report the
time of day. Every member of this House,
every member of the native community and everyone in this province knows that,
Mr. Speaker.
Aboriginal Friendship Centres
Funding Elimination Justification
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Again for the minister, Mr. Speaker.
Can the minister indicate whether or not
he took into account, his government took into account, the December 1990
report on native friendship centres in this province which specifically
indicated the success of these centres in their tasks, indicated that they had
met and exceeded the expectations? On
what basis did this government cut funding to eleven native friendship centres?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, the member has to be aware that across this country many institutions,
organizations and governments are looking at the way they do business, restructuring,
having to do with less.
We have made some very, very difficult
decisions in regard to the friendship centres.
The province is responsible for a little less than 13 percent of their
global budget of all the friendship centres.
Friendship centres, with the remaining
almost 90 percent of their budgets, will have the ability to carry on the
majority of the work that they had done in the past. The boards of those centres will have to make
some difficult decisions about what programs they adjust within their centres
and what they carry forth with.
Meeting Request
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, for the
Minister of Family Services then.
Did the Minister of Family Services do
what this report recommended at page 28 and get together with the people who
are running these friendship centres so that the government might better
understand what they did?
The comment at page 26 of that report was
specifically: The report group concluded
that the government had no understanding of the accomplishments of friendship
centres and the struggle of the majority of the membership, and that the
government had a lack of belief in the whole concept of friendship centres.
Did the government take the friendship
centres up on their offer to sit down and discuss the merits‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, I can assure the member for St. James that we have met with the
umbrella group from the friendship centres.
Within the past few months, I had the opportunity to visit one of the
friendship centres in
Again, I would point out to him that these
are very difficult times, as we look at budgetary deliberations at the
municipal level, that other governments across this land are going through
making very tough decisions.
I can assure the member that we looked
carefully at the annual reports that are brought forward by the friendship
centres prior to us making this decision.
* (1350)
Student Social Allowance Program
Funding Elimination Impact
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Hundreds of other students are writing,
students like Claudette Lacroix, who says:
Student social allowance is my only means of support. I have been trying to improve my education so
I can get a better job, so I can get off welfare.
People like Hung Nguyen, who says: Please do not hurt us. Do not cut our only
lifesaver. After school, we are sure to‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: My question to the Premier is: Does he now realize the impact of his
devastating decision in terms of cutting the student social allowance
program? Does he not realize that not
investing now in people's education and training will only cost us much more
dearly in the future?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, what I do recognize is that nine
other provincial governments in this country have found that they were not able
to support such a program within their budgetary means, that nine other
provinces, in looking at their priorities‑‑three of them being New Democratic‑‑could
not see their way clear to supporting such a program.
What I do realize, Mr. Speaker, from
looking at the issues that are being dealt with, very difficult issues by people
right across this country and indeed in every civilized country in the world,
is that programs that were brought into place in the '70s and the '80s may no
longer be sustainable in the '90s when we are left with a debt legacy from the
previous administration that causes us‑‑that built in place‑‑
An Honourable Member: Grant Devine over there.
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, Grant Devine was not in this
province, but Howard Pawley and Gary Doer were.
They are the ones who built in the debt base that we inherited at a rate
of $450 million of annual interest costs.
That is what it cost us for their spending in their years in
government. That $450 million is not
available to be spent on programs such as this.
Mr. Speaker, it is very, very difficult
for us to be able to make ends meet, to be able to spend the money on these
programs that are found to be unsustainable by every other province in the
country.
Funding Elimination Justification
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Mr. Speaker, how can the minister, the
Premier and this entire government now justify cutting the student social
allowance program, which in effect means taking away the key from the door of
opportunity‑‑not only that, it means throwing away the key of
opportunity‑‑for hundreds of students in the province of
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I repeat, because the member for
Some Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members to give
me the courtesy of listening to my response.
I listened to their question. I
am up to try and respond to it. If they
do not want to hear the response, they should not ask the question.
Nine other provinces, including‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Alternative Programs
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has put her question.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, the
response is that nine other provinces, including three New Democratic
provinces, cannot afford to fund this kind of program. However commendable it may be, this program
is one of many programs that we have to look at and say, there is no longer
enough money to pay the interest on the debt that was accumulated, over $450
million of it as a result of expenditures by New Democratic administrations, no
longer available for us to pay for this program.
We cannot, regrettably, afford many of the
things that were sustainable in the '70s and the '80s that are not sustainable
now.
* (1355)
Sunday Shopping
Rural Consultations
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr. Speaker, we are getting letters and
calls from councillors, Chambers of Commerce, all residents, business people in
rural
Will the Premier make a commitment to
these people that they will be heard before the government makes a decision on
the future of this initiative?
Hon. James Downey
(Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, before the government embarked upon
this issue that the member refers to‑‑there is a trial period that
has been established to determine the results of such an activity as Sunday
shopping in
There will be, as normal, an opportunity for
all Manitobans to participate before a committee of the Legislature at the
Standing Committee Referral
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Hon. James Downey
(Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, when legislation
or any activity is taking place by this Legislature, there is an opportunity
for any and all Manitobans to bring their thoughts forward between a committee
of all members of the Legislature.
It would be helpful, and I am certainly
not pointing any fingers at the official opposition, but it would be helpful to
get on with the business of the Legislature, doing Estimates, debating some of
those things that the people of
Sunday Shopping
Government Analysis
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I want to ask the Premier: Have they done the studies? Have they done any assessment of all of this,
and is there any information available on the real impact, because this is destroying
business in rural
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): The answers to that are
yes, yes and yes, Mr. Speaker.
Multicultural Community Politicization
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
The government has decided to take away
the funding from MIC, yet on the other hand, it finds the resources in which to
go into the politicization of multiculturalism.
My question to the minister, and I will
make it as simple as possible, and that is:
How does the minister justify cutting back on the
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister
responsible for Multiculturalism): I have
heard the critic from the Liberal Party on several occasions in this House even
bring forward private member's bills, Mr. Speaker, in order to have government
remove governmental supposed interference with the Manitoba Intercultural
Council.
Mr. Speaker, we had legislation here that
both opposition parties spoke in favour of that did exactly what is happening
today. That is, in fact, removing the
heavy hand of government from a community organization that should have the
ability to elect its own members and indeed set its own role and mandate, hire
its own staff and serve the community that it is elected to serve.
* (1400)
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Question, please.
Mr. Lamoureux: ‑‑what the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
wants, and that is MIC to die. He has
taken away the whole thing. Mr. Speaker,
that is not what the Liberals were suggesting‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
This is not a time for debate.
The honourable member for
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I am suggesting to the government
that they be responsible and not politicize the multicultural community, and
that is in fact what they are doing.
My question to the minister is: Can the minister tell this House if she has
any plans on incorporating MIC or any other organization such as MIC into the
multicultural act, like we had suggested in June of last year?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister responsible for Multiculturalism): Mr. Speaker, unlike the critic for the Liberal
Party, I have every confidence in the multicultural community in this great
province of ours,
Alternative Organizations
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
My question to the minister is: Is there any commitment from this government
to a nonpolitical, apolitical organization that will do the types of things that
MIC did in the past?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister responsible for Multiculturalism):
Mr.
Speaker, this government is committed to the entire multicultural
community. We provide assistance and
work together very effectively with many, many community organizations to try
and attempt to address their needs through government programs and other
activities that are ongoing. We will
continue to do that. We will work with
and meet with anyone who makes that request, and we will reach out into the
community to try to support all Manitobans.
Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation
Road Maintenance
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister responsible for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, which lost,
I note, $14 million in the first quarter of the current fiscal year.
Mr. Speaker, the City of
I ask the minister: Did the minister and his colleagues raise
concerns with the City of
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation
Act): Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly sure where
this question is leading, but I believe the member is asking for people to pay
for city street maintenance out of their Autopac premiums, and I do not agree.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Leonard Evans: They have it totally reversed.
Vehicle Safety Inspections
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question very directly
for the Minister of MPIC.
Since cutting vehicle safety inspections
will result in more unsafe vehicles operating on the road, I want to ask the
same minister: Did the minister consult
with his colleagues before cutting vehicle safety inspections by more than 80
percent?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): This is a very difficult
situation, where the corporation is faced with rather large capital costs in
order to put the equipment back on the road.
This is a pause in the volume of inspection, but a maintenance program
is being carried on using the existing Autopac claims centre line. The numbers, I believe, will be somewhat
larger than what were indicated in the reports today.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Very specifically, Mr. Speaker, why did this
minister decide to increase brokers' fees by some $1 million this year instead
of keeping car inspections at the same level as previous years?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate that
the member refers to students, because one of the things that we believe the
corporation has to continue to put a high priority on is driver training, and
those are the places where we want the dollars spent at this most critical
time.
Education System Reform
Government Strategy
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, the Manitoba Association of
School Trustees are beginning their annual convention in
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, in view of the
fact that she received the task force report on education reform almost a year
ago, will the Minister of Education now tell us what action she has taken on
the task force report that was given to her almost a year ago? Will she be outlining a plan of reform
including goals, objectives and a plan to the trustees at their annual meeting?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, the member
has his facts somewhat wrong. The task
force that reported to me was a task force on the reform of The Public Schools
Act. The Public Schools Act is a piece
of legislation that provides authority for school divisions to do their work,
for school trustees to do their work.
This was not the document on education reform. This was a document on the reform of The Public
Schools Act.
Mr. Plohman: I just asked the minister if she is going to
provide any direction, any plan for reform at the trustees' meeting this
weekend. She can surely answer that.
As well, I want also to ask her today
whether she will provide a listing of the local levies and the additional
dollars that were needed by school divisions as projected by her department and
herself when she announced the funding announcement in February, about a month
ago, as well as the actual figures that were tabled with her as a result of the
March 15 deadline that is passed now.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, to answer, will I be tabling to the
trustees over this weekend a plan of reform, no, I will not, because reform is
ongoing. Reform is also a process of
consultation which the member‑‑[interjection] Well, it sounds to me
that this member would simply like to bring forward a plan and present it.
In the throne speech, we did outline areas
for reform and reform discussion areas such as a curriculum teaching practice
and assessment. Those are ongoing. We are having discussions with the school
trustees in addition to other partners in education, including the parents, Mr.
Speaker, which I think is very important.
Mr. Plohman: Their version of reform, Mr. Speaker, is neither
new or innovative. It is simply the
Social Credit actions and cutbacks in education.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for Dauphin with your question, please.
Mr. Plohman: That is all that happened in B.C.‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Plohman: ‑‑and that is what they are
following right now.
Education System
Professional Development Days
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): I want to ask this minister: In light of the fact that yesterday she is
quoted as saying that she does not intend to roll back teachers' salaries, is
this minister planning to bring in legislation that will eliminate the
professional development days or turn the jurisdiction of those days over to
school divisions?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I would
start by asking the member to listen to the information that will be coming
from
In addition to that‑‑well, he
is very busy, I will answer when he asks his next question.
Health Care System
St. Boniface Area Services
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Mr. Speaker, over 18
months ago, home care and mental health services were moved out of St. Boniface
community and moved downtown. The
Minister of Health promised concerned community groups on November 20, 1991,
that the move was, and I quote: I want
to stress that this relocation is a temporary measure.
* (1410)
Mr. Speaker, yet a year and a half later
their services are still outside of the French community.
My question is to the minister: If the Minister of Health is committed to
community‑centred health care, can he tell this House when will these
offices be relocated in the community in which they belong?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I will provide my honourable
friend with current information after I make inquiries to gain such.
Mr. Gaudry: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the same
minister. Winnipeg Region's space has been bogged down in the minister's
department. To effect efficiencies in
housing staff, his senior staff need to be moved out of the ivory tower in
Will the minister direct his staff to be
flexible in their office location so that the front‑line health services
can serve the community better?
Mr. Orchard: We are always encouraging staff and the ministry
across government, in our funded agencies, in school divisions, in universities
and in all of the areas that we fund across government, to show greater flexibility
in leadership. My department is no
exception, Sir.
Mr. Gaudry: Mr. Speaker, the minister has indicated that
he will supply me with the information, but is he prepared to table in the
House the correspondence ensuring that the plans are proceeding to put home
care and mental health care back into the St. Boniface community?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to my honourable
friend, I will provide to him an update in terms of the scheduling, which ought
to answer that last question.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): My question is to the Premier. Yesterday in
an interview, the Premier said the cuts that were announced by the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) to the Flin Flon and
My question is to the First Minister. Given that he will have now received letters
of support for the Lynn Lake Friendship Centre from the Kinsmen Club, from the
LGD of
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that the
preamble is inaccurate. The question was
not asked about specifically the Lynn Lake Friendship Centre.
Mr.
Storie: I hope then that that leaves
the Flin Flon and Lynn Lake Friendship Centres with some hope.
Funding Reinstatement
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Will he now acknowledge
that they are not advocacy groups but service providers, and will he reinstate
the grants, in particular, for those two friendship centres?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I will say
this, that across the board, on average, the friendship centres' proportion of
the budget that came from the provincial government last year was 13 percent,
was not 100 percent.
In addition to that, I will say that there
was a whole variety of reasons why various programs were reduced in various
ways. He is speaking of specifically the
Lynn Lake Friendship Centre and the proportion for‑‑[interjection]
Let us talk about facts. I mean the
members opposite become embarrassed when they are challenged on the facts. In Flin Flon the proportion was 9 percent. The 1990‑91 revenues from right out of
their annual report, it was 9 percent.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
Committee Changes
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
Agreed and so ordered.
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for
I move, seconded by the member for
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
Agreed and so ordered.
House Business
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, before
Orders of the Day, I would like to announce that the Standing Committee on
Economic Development will meet on Tuesday, March 23, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. to
consider the 1992 Annual Report of the Communities Economic Development Fund.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable
government House leader for that information.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you call Bills 2, 3, 5 and 8.
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 2‑The Endangered Species Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), Bill 2, The Endangered Species
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les especes en voie de disparition,
standing in the name of the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard
Evans).
An Honourable
Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
Bill 3‑The Oil and Gas and Consequential Amendments
Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), Bill 3, The Oil and Gas and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant le petrole et le gaz naturel et
apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois, standing in the name
of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
Bill 5‑The Northern Affairs Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister
of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Downey), Bill 5, The Northern Affairs
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les affaires du Nord, standing in the
name of the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
Bill 8‑The Insurance Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh), Bill 8, The
Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les assurances, standing in
the name of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The honourable government House leader, what
are your intentions now, sir?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would
you call Bills 10, 11, 12 and 13.
Bill 10‑The Farm Lands Ownership Amendment
and Consequential Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), Bill 10, The Farm Lands Ownership
Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la
propriete agricole et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois,
standing in the name of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
Bill 11‑‑The Regional Waste Management Authorities,
The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), Bill 11, The Regional Waste
Management Authorities, The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments
Act; Loi concernant les offices regionaux de gestion des dechets, modifiant la
Loi sur les municipalites et apportant des modifications correlatives a
d'autres lois, standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr.
Clif Evans).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
Bill 12‑The International Trusts Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister
of Justice (Mr. McCrae), Bill 12, The International Trusts Act; Loi sur les
fiducies internationales, standing in the name of the honourable member for
Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
Bill
13‑The Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), Bill 13, The Manitoba
Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi
constituant en corporation le Fonds de participation des travailleurs du
Manitoba, standing in the name of the honourable member for Flin Flon.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, I am going to take a few moments
to comment on this particular amendment and to, I guess, relay some concerns,
not specifically with respect to the amendments but general concerns.
Mr. Speaker, I recognized, after reading
the minister's introduction in second reading to this legislation that many of
the amendments here were of a minor nature and were actually addressed because
of some wording changes that were required to facilitate the development of the
Crocus Investment Fund. No one in this
Chamber would want to undermine the ability of the Crocus Investment Fund to do
its job in
We have been talking for a great deal of
this session already about the need to invest in the
* (1420)
Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that it
is sad, it is pathetic that it has taken this government some five years to put
in place a mechanism to make sure that this kind of investment was
possible. It is equally sad that this
government has failed on virtually every other investment strategy in the
The government today and the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) today talked about the need to reduce expenditures of government. Who is the government attacking? The government is attacking children. The government is attacking families who are
in crisis. Mr. Speaker, the government
is attacking northerners. The government today and the First Minister (Mr.
Filmon) today refused to defend the cutting of funds for the Lynn Lake Friendship
Centre, a centre that provides service to 12,000 clients over a period of a
year, a service that is essential in the minds of the
This government has failed when it comes
to investment in
Mr. Speaker, there was never any such
investment on the part of MacLeod Stedman.
Why? Because the company that the
Premier was negotiating with was heading to bankruptcy. Not one of those promised 117 jobs ever
showed up in
Repap‑‑1989, the government
signed an agreement that was going to create an investment of some $1.2 billion
in the
What are the consequences? Why is it important that we are debating this
bill at this time? Well, the amendments
of this bill are going to allow the Manitoba Federation of Labour and working
people across this province actually invest in the province. Working people want to invest in the
Mr. Speaker, the consequences of that
fact, the consequences of losing 25 percent of our manufacturing sector, the
consequence of the decline of the retail sector, the movement, the transfer of
jobs from
We believe the First Minister when he says
we are in financial dire straits. We
believe the First Minister, but, Mr. Speaker, that government has introduced
five budgets, soon to be six budgets.
Sooner or later, they have to take responsibility for their own
financial mess.
Now, instead of taking responsibility,
instead of changing economic course, instead of saying, yes, we have made some
mistakes and we are going to have to change course if we are going to have
economic growth and development in the province, what are they doing? They are attacking the very people who need
help the most. They are attacking
students on student social allowances.
They are attacking families in crisis in communities across the province
who have used services provided by friendship centres, by crisis centres. That is what they are doing. They are attacking the very people who are
now most vulnerable as a direct result of the economic incompetence of this
government. That is the problem.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to belabour
this point on this piece of legislation.
The fact of the matter is that‑‑and it would be quite ironic
if working people and the Manitoba Federation of Labour, through the Crocus
Investment Fund, actually end up to be the only bright spot in the economy of
the
Mr. Speaker, I did not want to miss the
opportunity to chide the government for its failure to change course when it is
apparent that a change in course is necessary.
The unfortunate fact is that because of the stubbornness, because of the
refusal to recognize that there is no economic plan in place, the people of the
The young people that the member for
Concordia (Mr. Doer), my Leader, referenced today in Question Period are the
people who are being sacrificed. The young
woman who is trying through the student social allowances program to get an
education so she can contribute is going to be sacrificed. The young children in
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to a number of
people about the contents of Bill 13.
We, on this side, are prepared to let Bill 13 proceed through second
reading and on to committee. There may
be other members in the Chamber who want to speak on this legislation, but
this, unfortunately, is the only ray of hope we have for the
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a bill which would, in fact, put into legislation the
activities and actions of the Crocus Fund.
The Crocus Fund is a fund which is to
provide for the participation of Manitobans in a new and innovative way through
their ownership of corporations. This
concept is a bold one and one which gets its heritage, quite frankly, from
experiences in many of the countries in
We think it is somewhat regrettable,
unfortunately, that the Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund to this date in time,
through the Crocus Fund, has only been made available to the Manitoba
Federation of Labour and has not been made equally available to the Canadian
Federation.
We have two different umbrella groups, if
you will, for labour organization in the
* (1430)
We think that it is a positive move to, in
times particularly of a recession, in times where there is a reluctance to
address the needs of the stimulation of the economy, that we not limit that
stimulation to just some people to the exclusion of other people. We think it would be far better if it was
made all‑inclusive.
That will not, Mr. Speaker, keep us from
supporting this legislation because in and of itself it is a very positive
thing. We do believe that there is a
need to make additional examinations of the type of ownership fund which has
presently been made available to the Manitoba Federation of Labour.
I think it is important to put on the
record why such ownership funds are valuable experiences and exercises.
We have had in this nation, and
unfortunately in the
What they have found in that experience is
that it actually has resulted in their getting out of recessions more quickly,
that, yes, the stockholders have to take a reduction in their dividend, or
indeed no dividend at all, but they do not lay off their employees. That is the absolute last resort.
It tends to be in the North American
economy the first step, not the last resort.
As a result, when the recessionary period is over, and when they are
looking to bring that company back on stream with higher productivity levels,
they have lost many of their talented and well‑trained workforce.
Those individuals have first gone on
unemployment, unfortunately for many of them, and then into other occupations.
In some of those occupations, they have learned new skills, it is true, but
some of them are wasting their skills.
As a result, they have been unable to get
back on the economic prosperity track as quickly as they would have been able
to do if they had had a continuation of that trained workforce with no
interruption.
The experiment has worked well in
Employee ownership is I think very much a
new concept in this province, certainly, generally, a new concept in
The Employee Ownership Fund began this
year with a lot of television advertisement‑‑at least, the Crocus
Fund did‑‑with a lot of public interest. I would be interested in hearing from the
government which will soon have the results of that information, what has been
the investment in the Crocus Fund, because it was a very valid investment.
In fact, I deeply regret, Mr. Speaker,
that I was not aware of the change in the RRSP monies, which I only found out
about by receiving a cheque at the early part of this week. Had I known that, I would have been able,
quite frankly, to have put more money in my RRSP or into an alternative fund
like the Crocus Fund. As it turned out,
because I did not get the information before the deadline, I, and I know a
number of other MLAs, were not able to make the kind of investment that they
would have been able to make in their RRSP.
I look forward, certainly, in the future
to making an investment in the Crocus Fund because the money will stay here in
the province of Manitoba, will hopefully help to create the kinds of jobs that
we want in this province, will start us perhaps on a new developmental track in
looking at the way in which labour and employees in general can take more
participation in the ownership of corporations in the province of
Manitoba. Perhaps, it will also lead us
into a new direction of how we deal with employees in a recessionary economic
circumstance, one which I think we are lagging behind and one in which I hope
can be renewed in terms of our attitudes towards employees in the future.
With those words, Mr. Speaker, I will
indicate that there will be other speakers from the Liberal Party, although
brief, on the Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund, Bill 13.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay,
Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
The Crocus Fund in itself is a good idea,
and one would have liked to have seen that good idea or the concept, the
principle of what the government entered into with the Manitoba Federation of
Labour, in fact, to have been expanded upon.
I know that the Canadian Federation of Labour had sent some
correspondence and wondered why it is that they were not necessarily included
in the process. I am not 100 percent
sure if in fact they had been consulted.
I like to believe when government takes
action and moves in certain directions that they do not just limit that action
to one specific group on something of this nature anyway, because there are a
number of things that could be done.
I am sure that we will see a number of creative
ideas coming from the MFL, in particular with respect to the Crocus Fund, that
will make a difference. It is good to
see labour getting involved or more involved in making those sorts of decisions
or being able to influence the economy in a different way. This is, of course, one of the things which
is a positive, and hopefully we will see more ideas.
You know, I have always maintained that if
something does come forward from government and it appears to be something that
is worthy of supporting, then in fact we will support it. But it still is a responsibility for us to
talk and to ensure that the government is aware of some of the other things
that it could do.
I know that when it comes to training and
retraining or trying to generate some enthusiasm out in the job market, giving
people opportunity to feel good about the future prospect of employment
throughout the
I know that there are other things that
could be done. In fact, I did have a
press conference a while back where the Liberal Party put forward a number of
thoughts and ideas in terms of what it is that we believe the government could
be doing in addition to things such as the Crocus Fund.
It primarily came out of the press
conference, primarily focused on the Skills Training Advisory Committee. They have the report known as the Partners
for Skills Development. It talked in
terms of workforce revitalization strategy, and what can be done, and what the
government itself should do.
You know, there were basically six
recommendations, and I want to go over those recommendations because I believe
these are some of the things that even the MFL, to a certain degree, can act on
because it is an interest group that has great influence and could help sway or
have an impact on government policy.
* (1440)
We talked about the run of the
recommendations to develop a provincial labour force strategy. We like to believe that this one particular
bill is, at least in part, a part of the strategy, or I hope it is a part of a
strategy.
I am not entirely convinced, Madam Deputy
Speaker, that this particular government looks at all different aspects and
then develops it into one overall strategy, primarily because some of the
actions that we have seen by this government. [interjection]
Well, the Minister of Natural Resources
(Mr. Enns) said he intends to focus on one or two and so forth. No doubt, there are literally hundreds of
things that could be done. The ones that
you focus on should be put into the broader picture, a package, so that it is
not just here, and the next ad hoc decision comes from there, and you want to
do this and you want to do that, so that all of those ideas or actions that you
want to take are in fact, Madam Deputy Speaker, put together. Put them together and present it to the
province of Manitoba, so what we would see is debate on a package that covers
the different areas for job creation, labour, labour retraining programs, the
education, retraining, things of this nature, because if we have that package
then we are going to be able to have, I believe, the type of debate that would
be able to provide the alternatives to the government.
It is very important that we develop that
provincial labour force strategy, because if we do not develop it, Madam Deputy
Speaker, what we will see are potential industries in the
The numbers that I understand are there
are something to the effect that in the last few years we have seen the
manufacturing industry in itself drop from 61,000 to just below 50,000. Madam Deputy Speaker, those types of jobs
have been what have provided
Madam Deputy Speaker, those are the type
of jobs I believe that we have to be very concerned about. That is why I would go back to the fact to
develop that provincial labour force strategy that would include the Crocus
Fund and other aspects, but you need to see the different departments working
together to ensure that there is that overall strategy.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the MFL, the
Manitoba Federation of Labour, can do many different things, but unless we see
another point or another recommendation that came from the Skills Training
Advisory Committee, unless they start acting on the other points such as the
point No. 2 recommendation to improve the public school system, even they will
be limited.
When we develop and pass a bill that we
are passing today, we need to know what the other departments are in fact
doing, because in the province of Manitoba we have a public school system,
which is a positive thing, Madam Deputy Speaker, because we want all to be able
to educate. It is called putting
individuals on an equal playing field.
What we do need to do is to correlate the needs of what our future
workforce will be to what our educational facilities are providing, because it
is very limited in terms of what it is that this bill will be able to do
because so much of it will require the skills and the education of the
workforce itself. If we do not have
those skills, those required skills, what will happen is that we could give all
the money we want to the MFL and to other labour programs or initiatives that
this government comes up with, such as this particular bill, but it is not
going to be spending the tax dollars in the most efficient way we could if in
fact we do not have the labour force, the other aspects of the strategy, the
overall strategy from this government.
It is very easy for us to stand up and to
speak on a piece of legislation that does move in a positive direction. It does provide some good things, Madam
Deputy Speaker, but unless we know what it is the government wants to do and
the different aspects, it is hard to say in terms of what or how potentially
effective it could be.
The Partners for Skills Development report
also made recommendations to revitalize the apprenticeship system. I am sure that what we will see is programs
that will, at least in part, address this particular issue, because we are
using or we are going to be generating through the Crocus Fund the funds that
in most part will be concentrating, I believe, on those new jobs. In order to provide those new jobs, there has
to be some form of training, of apprenticeship and so forth.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would suggest that
the Skills Training Advisory Committee and the report that they tabled, the
Partners in Skills Development, is something that all of us should read through
because it does bring to us a very legitimate concern that has to be
addressed. We hope that we will see some
of those points addressed in more detail, because we have seen the government,
well, not necessarily acting on all of the different recommendations that have
been brought forward that could have been fairly straightforward to do
something, to show some sort of indication that the government is willing to
move in a direction.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I wanted to comment
a bit more specifically now on the Crocus Fund.
I know when it had come out there was a lot of interest in terms of what
was going on. In fact, I had phoned the
office and had asked to get a copy of the brochure. They did a first‑class job, I must
admit, in presenting the brochure. It
has, as a part of the brochure, an application.
It is very eye‑appealing, talking about double your RRSP tax
savings. They did a wonderful job in
promoting it and now it is only a question on whether or not they will get the
support that we believe should be there.
It is something that will make a difference and, hopefully, we will see
a positive response and that the government will not just leave it where it is
currently at, just with the Manitoba Federation of Labour, that in fact it will
look at expanding the program.
* (1450)
Some of the ideas that the government has
entered into or initiatives that the government has entered into have not
necessarily proven to be the greatest success story in the
What I would suggest to the government,
Madam Deputy Speaker, is that they continue to have dialogue with some of the
other unions with respect to this program to see if we can get other groups
involved. As I say, I know the CFL, the
Canadian Federation of Labour, did have a press release, and I just happen to
have a copy of it in front of me now, which was dated January 18, 1993‑‑Working
Ventures Team Seeks Equal Treatment from the Provincial Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe that the
Canadian Federation of Labour has some points that could be made in terms of
ensuring that they too not be excluded out of programs such as this. I can understand the government wanting to
move along not necessarily as fast as many people would like to see, but the
Canadian Federation of Labour has proven itself over time and is something that
I would suggest to you is worthy of the same sort of consideration that the
Manitoba Federation of Labour was given.
I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this is
at least a bill which the minister had introduced just before we got out of last
session, and the New Democrats have already spoken on this bill. I do not know
if the government's intentions are to get it into the committee stage or how
soon they would like to get it into the committee stage, but I do know that
there will likely be a number of presenters, or I would anticipate that there
would be a number of presenters on this particular bill.
I think that we have to be sensitive to
what others feel is important with respect to expanding this particular
initiative, because I do not believe that I can say it enough, that what we
want to see is a broader picture dealing with how we can get the
If we take a look in terms of where the
greatest potential growth in the
It does not necessarily mean that you have
to give money. It is a question of
providing a service for those entrepreneurs, Madam Deputy Speaker, so that they
can tap into the expertise that government can provide, so that they can tap
into a resource bank, if you will, to cut away the bureaucracy that is there
that quite often, at times, proves to be more of a stumbling block than
anything else.
This is why, as I say, Bill 13, in itself,
is indeed one aspect of looking at what we can do in the local economy in the
We have to look at the other aspects. We have to include as many Manitobans as
possible in terms of getting them involved in the economy, because we are not
going to see, at least I do not believe we are going to see, the large multinational
corporations coming into Manitoba in any sort of great numbers.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is not to say
that
What we do have in this particular bill is
money that is going to be brought in, and it will likely come primarily,
obviously from Manitobans, but that money will be invested into
Hopefully, Madam Deputy Speaker, what we
will see is a number of good ideas that will turn into long‑term jobs,
jobs that will help diversify our local economy, because it is the
diversification of the economy that allows us to be able to weather the storms
of bad economic times if the will of government is to allow growth in a certain
fashion.
I say a certain fashion because I very
much believe in the Keynesian theory, where government has excess in good
times, that you should be holding back.
In the economic bad times, Madam Deputy Speaker, the government has to
be a bit more creative. It has to be
able to ensure that the economy is going to be able to minimize any dramatic
hardships to so many.
Madam Deputy Speaker, hopefully what we
will see is more initiatives coming from government, initiatives such as Bill
13‑‑but not just to believe that because we have one or even two
ideas, we stop at that.
* (1500)
I am sure if you went around, everyone in
this Chamber, no doubt, could come up with one or two ideas as to what they
believe would help Manitobans invest in themselves, whether it is through a
program such as this or whether it is through other programs. I know, I have had the opportunity to speak
on some of those other programs in the past.
Having said those few words, Madam Deputy
Speaker, I am going to suggest to the government that we do want the bill to go
to committee at some point in time. We
hope that, when it does go to committee, what we will see is the sort of debate
at that time also dealing, not specifically with‑‑I should not say
not specifically, because when we go into committee we are dealing specifically
with the clause by clause, but that we will go beyond that to a certain degree
and hear from individuals who have some other ideas, because it is the only
opportunity that the public has.
As I said, I had conversations with at
least two individuals who have talked about the Crocus Fund and have brought me
a number of ideas that I think are well worthy of some sort of dialogue. I am sure those issues will in fact be
touched upon. I know that I will likely be speaking on this bill again in third
reading.
Again, to the government, we hope to see
this bill pass in the not‑too‑distant future and hope to see the
government act accordingly in terms of trying to develop other initiatives
similar to this with potential organizations such as the Canadian Federation of
Labour.
Having said that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I
thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): I move, seconded by the member for
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy
Speaker, would you call Bills 14 and 15, please.
Bill 14‑The Personal Property Security and
Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 14
(The Personal Property Security and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi
concernant les suretes relatives aux biens personnels et apportant des
modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 15‑‑The Boxing and Wrestling Commission Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 15
(The Boxing and Wrestling Commission Act; Loi sur la Commission de la boxe et
de la lutte), standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr.
Clif Evans).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
DEBATE ON PROPOSED MOTIONS
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy
Speaker, would you call the motion to go into Supply, standing in my name,
please.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Debate on the proposed motion of the
honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) that this House at this sitting
will resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to
Her Majesty, standing in the name of the honourable member for St. James (Mr.
Edwards), who has 21 minutes remaining.
An Honourable Member: Stand.
An Honourable Member: No, no.
Point of Order
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Madam
Deputy Speaker, we have a member who wants to be able to speak on this
motion. I know that the member for St.
James would like to be able to conclude his remarks. If in fact the government is willing, we will
have someone else who wants to speak on it also, stand, but I would ask that
the government not be so hasty in making a decision that would take advantage
of someone who is unfortunately not prepared to be able to stand up.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am wondering, is it the
government House leader that then is denying the member for St. James to be
able to conclude his remarks?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for
* * *
Madam Deputy Speaker: The motion has been moved.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak on the motion
for the fact that what has been happening in the House in the last week.
[interjection] No, I am not ashamed. No, I should not be. I think it has been very unparliamentary what
has happened here in the House.
An Honourable Member: Unprecedented.
Mr. Gaudry: Yes, unprecedented. It is quite obvious that is what has
happened. [interjection] No, no, I am not concerned about speaking about
this. It is the fact that it is very
unprecedented what has happened in the House, and it is quite clear.
We have the people of
I went to a school board meeting last
night where there were a hundred people at the meeting, where they have
expressed their concerns and know that during these hard times they have to
understand there has to be cuts. I think
as parliamentarians we have been elected by the people of
I think the minister has done wrong to
Manitobans by introducing this motion at this date. [interjection] No, I am
not. I think someone who has done a
disservice is the government that is in power now.
An Honourable Member: That is right. Unprecedented, the only government to ever do
it.
Mr. Gaudry: That is right. We have checked and you know yourself that it
has never been done in the House of Commons. [interjection] Yes, last Friday,
the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) indicated himself it was unparliamentary,
what he was doing. When he announced his
budget for April 6, he says it was unparliamentary.
That is his choice. He has done two things, as far as I am
concerned, that are unparliamentary. I
think to be fair to Manitobans, we will continue to debate this motion until
the Estimates‑‑I think there are two things that have to be done
here so that it is fair to Manitobans.
This resolution has to be withdrawn from the Order Paper so that we can
continue to work properly as legislators for Manitobans.
Not only that, I think the most important
ones are the cuts that have been announced in the Department of Education and
the Department of Health. I think we
have discussed‑‑there has been a lot of debate in Question Periods
in regard to health care and education.
There is no reason at this stage to do any
Estimates when we do not have the Main Estimates or the budget. As far as the budget is concerned, we do not
have the revenue that is coming in so that we can debate to see where the cuts
have been, where we should be supporting the government and things of that
nature.
We have asked the government‑‑I
mean to say, if they are concerned about Manitobans, we have asked the
government to adjourn this House and come back after the budget. Look at what it is costing Manitobans at this
time for us sitting in the House when there is no agenda. We have gone out‑‑[interjection]
Pardon? Just listening to you for the
last 10 years, it is costing Manitobans.
I said before, the NDP are morally bankrupt, and they have bankrupted
this province. There is no question
about it. [interjection] Well, sure, I would probably make a better leader than
what you have right now.
* (1510)
That is right. Do you know what some of your members have
said? I would not say that, because I
have a lot of respect for everybody who is in the House, a lot of respect for
my colleagues in the Legislature, but I am talking about the party, and I say
that very honestly when I say the party is morally bankrupt. I did not attack you, the member for Elmwood
(Mr. Maloway). [interjection]
There is no translation, so I will not
speak in French. I would love to do it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will get back to
relevancy. I was talking about the fact
that I think we have asked that the House be adjourned. It would just make sense, because the government
has no agenda. You look at the bills
that have been introduced. You said you would have an agenda when we came back
in the House in March, and there is no agenda.
Look what is in there. You have
said yourself. There are housekeeping
bills. I agree they have to be
introduced and discussed and debated‑‑[interjection]
Well, if I was campaigning I would go out
in the rural areas where I know there is work to be done, because some of the
ministers are not doing the job they should be doing. I am looking at the member for Minnedosa (Mr.
Gilleshammer), for example, just right now.
Maybe I should read one of the letters I just got here in regard to‑‑[interjection]
No, I would not do that.
An Honourable Member: I think they are sensitive, Neil.
Mr. Gaudry: Oh, yes, they are, because they know we have
the Manitobans on our side in regard to this motion that has been introduced in
the House. They see how the government
is wasting their money, and they know that the government has been wasting
their money. They have not done anything
for the last five years they have been in power.
They have done good things, I have to
agree with that, because they could not do any worse than the NDP did for the
years that they were in power. We look
at their‑‑[interjection] It is true. You have to face facts. Look at the debt we have here in
I would not have to bring back all of what
the Conservatives are bringing back every day‑‑the bridge to
nowhere and MTX and what other ones‑‑[interjection] That is
enough. We could give that to Education
today.
It is quite important, I think, that we
debate this bill, because I think we are on the right side.
An Honourable Member: Because you do not want to go into Estimates,
that is all.
Mr. Gaudry: No, we would be prepared to go into Estimates
if you‑‑we do not have the tools to work with the Estimates that
you have tabled in the Legislature.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Only 18
percent of the Estimates are tabled.
Mr. Gaudry: Like the member for
Well, we looked at the Highways and
Transportation and we‑‑[interjection] No, there is not unlimited
time. There is limited time when you
come down to Estimates. You are talking
about 240 hours, and I think it is very precious.
I think you people who are interested
right now‑‑as rural members you are putting in your 90 days, and I
think that is wrong.
An Honourable Member: Where were you at ten o'clock last night?
Mr. Gaudry: Where was I?
Campaigning. [interjection] I put in a lot more time than you will ever
do, the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau). We are not here for debate across the floor
here: who is here, and who is not
here. I think we are all there to do the
work, and I am sure we all do our fair share of constituency work. That I will not argue.
I have met members, and I know they are
working out in their constituencies. We
expect that we all do that because we have been elected. [interjection]
Pardon. Well, you could get a chance
there. We are wasting our time because
you have no agenda here in the Legislature right now, so there is a chance to
go back to your constituency.
I just want to make it clear that we
should adjourn this House and come back here on April 5, so that we can have
the budget in place, we have the Main Estimates, and then we can debate the
Estimates accordingly and go into committees and whatever other work. Right now, you listen to the bills that have
been introduced, and sure there are bills, and as far as I am concerned, they
are all housekeeping bills.
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Gaudry: Yes, and the member the other day was questioning
whether they were going to put 50 bills this session. Well, there are other bills that should have
been introduced, and maybe I should talk about the‑‑[interjection]
Well, sure, but there will be more the next time, with our good leaders here that
are going to be working very hard to bring back the party again. [interjection]
No, both. We have two good candidates,
and I have not announced yet whether I am going to run. I will probably be better than them yet.
We talk about bills. Maybe I should talk about the bill on the
French governance this afternoon. I mean
there is a bill that has been promised St. Boniface for a long time, and I know
there is concern from both sides, from the community, whether they should get
together. Apparently, they are very
close to sitting together. It is one in
which I have an interest because I have a community that I have been supporting
in regard to the governance of schools.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): That group will end
up being shortchanged because of the fact we are not dealing with Estimates
now, unfortunately.
Mr. Gaudry: No. The
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) says that we are being shortchanged. We are not being shortchanged. The bill can be presented at any time, and it
can be debated. If it is going to be a
major bill, let us bring it so that it is there for debate. We are prepared to debate the bill on French
governance and, I think, Manitobans.
The governance of schools should be part
of the school reform that the Department of Education is talking about. It should be part of that. This was stopped last May, I believe, and I
felt at that time that the governance of schools also fell between the cracks
at that point.
I know it is being brought back; it is
supposed to be introduced very shortly, and I hope it will. Therefore, as I say, there to me is a very
important bill that should be introduced and brought into the Legislature so
that we can debate it. My people in St.
Boniface and across Manitoba‑‑there are not only French schools in
St. Boniface; there are French schools in French communities outside in the
province, and they are looking for it also, some of them.
There are some that are not sure what they
are getting because they have not seen the bill. I think if they saw the bill, what was in
there for them, they would be prepared to support it, and maybe it would bring
the people together faster so that they can negotiate in regard to the French
governance.
Madam Deputy Speaker, other things that I
think affect this bill, the motion that has been brought to the Legislature is
the fact that we are concerned as legislators what is happening and‑‑
An Honourable Member: Parliamentary tradition is important.
* (1520)
Mr. Gaudry: Well, that is exactly right again. We have said it before. The parliamentary tradition has been
forgotten, I think. Where is the
democracy of our parliamentary system when we are going to set a precedent here
that should not be allowed? I think our Leader has said it many times. Once it is done, it will be continued and it
is something that we do not want. We
want the tools to work for our people in
This practice of having the Estimates, it
has always been, and the budget. It is
important that we have this budget. We
are looking forward to debating. They
have been using the fact that we are not prepared to debate. It is not that we are not prepared. We are prepared to debate this. We will work the hours that we have to work
to get these debates so that we are satisfied with what is going to happen in
the hard times that we are facing at this time.
We know that. We meet people at
all times.
Like I said, I went to this school meeting
last night where there were 80 people.
They are going to change the hours in the St. Boniface School
Division. They are going to start an
hour earlier, because they have realized that the transportation is a costly
item in our education system. They were
showing last night, for example, if they change the hour of school from an hour
where school will start for Grades 9 to 12 at eight o'clock and at nine o'clock
for kindergarten to Grade 8, that they would save over a million dollars just
by having that hour difference. Where they could use the same bus, they would
reduce the buses from 18 to 15 and the cost would be a saving of a million
dollars.
The parents there last night were
concerned of the fact that they had to put their kids on the bus at 7:10 a.m.
and then in the evening, because you take students from Grades 9 to 12, at
night they will not go to bed earlier.
Then they were suggesting that we change that. We send the kindergarten to Grade 8 first,
but, again, the parents were leery to the fact there are single parents and you
have young kids on the street and then the kids would come home in the
afternoon. What happens? They are there without supervision from two
o'clock or 2:30, whatever it would be.
Then another question was, well, my kids
are being picked up at 11:30. I have to
put them on the street at eleven o'clock to be in school at twelve
o'clock. When does my kid have
lunch? So there are all kinds of
concerns, but the school division was trying to get input from the parents. The night before there were 20 parents. Last night, there were 80, when we have such
a big school division. So what is it
going to create in the school division?
I know people will say no. We
have school trustees, the same thing as we have here, legislators. They have to make decisions and good
decisions on behalf of Manitobans, but you cannot satisfy everybody.
Therefore, there is our school division
again, and it is part of where the government has put a cap on the school
divisions in regard to increasing taxes.
They feel that they are being controlled by this government. I think they are right to a certain extent,
because I think trustees can make decisions on their own. They should not be controlled by this
government's dictatorship, I guess I could call it.
I will read an article here: Cooling the bankers. It says here:
"What Mr. Manness has offered instead is a rip‑and‑read
process of estimates, in which social agencies and advocacy groups suddenly
find their budgets disappearing with no explanation and no indication of how
their pain contributes to a rational process of expenditure control."
We see these things every day. I mean, it is important. I think we should be able to work for our
constituents. There is article after article
where people are concerned about what is happening with the government.
In another article here, it says: Bulldozing grants. I think we saw that the other day. I think questions have been raised in the
House, and they are legitimate questions that are being asked. We do not get any reply on what is going to
be happening.
It says here very clearly, quote: "The cuts announced this week are
consistent with the government's overall strategy‑‑avoid the tough
management decisions and make everybody share the misery."
The misery is not hard when it is done on
the backs of the poor people. I mean, it
is quite obvious with all the grants that we have seen, the 56 or 57 that‑‑[interjection]
Again, as was mentioned in the House in questions today, the foster children.
Do we get a favourable answer for the
children from poor families or single parents, or as the member for Osborne
(Mr. Alcock) was saying today, abused children are forced to return into an
environment that they have just come out of, and it is not fair. What are these cuts to these grants going to
do? It is the same thing. They will be forced to return to that kind of
environment.
It says here: "The government is vulnerable because
there is still so much uncertainty about the state of the provincial
finances."
If we had the budget and all the
Estimates, we could maybe support and give suggestions to the government.
[interjection] Pardon? Well, we will see
about that. The member for St. Norbert
(Mr. Laurendeau) says support the budget.
How can we know?. It is fine to
say we will support. If it is a good
budget, we will certainly support it, but if it is one of these budgets that is
not fair to Manitobans, we will not support it.
Here is one thing it says: "One thing is certain: Mr. Manness is scared stiff of announcing a
deficit that will approach $700 million."
I do not blame just the Minister of
Finance here‑‑[interjection] Yes, I would be. I fully agree.
As I say, I do not blame fully this
government for what is happening. We
look at the figure of interest that we are paying for the money and the debt
that we have. I fully agree. It comes from when they were on this side of
the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is unfortunate
but there are a lot of things that we are concerned about. "Until those cuts are put into some kind
of context", it says here, "they won't do much to impress the
bankers. What might impress them more
than lopping off a few thousand dollars from one community agency or another
would be a demonstration that
I know this government has indicated they
want to reduce this deficit. I think we
all want to see that‑‑and reduce the debt, but how can we reduce
the debt when we are always in a deficit. [interjection] Maybe I will be able
to sell some memberships to some of my friends in the government there to
support me in the leadership. It looks
that way at this stage. A little
coherence‑‑[interjection] Pardon?
I am running right here, not over there, you can rest assured of that,
because I would have a lot of cleaning up to do if I was on that side‑‑a
little coherence in fiscal policy might just do as much for our provincial and
national credit rating as indiscriminate hacking and slashing.
Madam Deputy Speaker, all I would say at
this stage, and to conclude, is the fact that this motion I think was wrong to
be brought in at this time, especially when we did not have the Main Estimates
to deal with. I think it is very
important, because I maintain again that it should be the full Estimates that
are on our desks with the budget and the other Estimates. Then we are prepared to sit down and work and
debate the Estimates. We will maintain
that until we get that budget and we get the Main Estimates, so that we can
deal fairly. Fairness, I think, is part
of this deal. [interjection] The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) asked me if
I would not be scared of this deficit. Sure, I would be scared. Anybody who understands finances would be
scared in a situation like this.
* (1530)
We will continue to debate this motion
until we get those Estimates. If we
cannot get the Estimates, let us adjourn the House and go and do work in our
constituencies. Everybody has work to do
in their constituency. Look at the money
we will save‑‑[interjection] The member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway),
if he wants to get up and speak, I will give him a chance but he would have
nothing to say, anyway.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will conclude with
these remarks and hope that the Main Estimates will be on our desks tomorrow
and that we can start debating or adjourn so that we can go into our
constituencies and work with our constituents.
I know I would love to go tonight again to a meeting but we are in
committee. I will be back in committee
so that we can continue the work in the Legislature here. I will send somebody else to do my
constituency work, because they are meetings that are my concerns as well as my
people in St. Boniface. It is in regards
again to the closing of pediatrics in St. Boniface.
I know we have indicated that we were more
or less supporting the reform of the health care system. We have always said, though, what we wanted
was the process be clear and communicated and consulted. I have three forms in St. Boniface in regard
to explaining the health reform. I have
made the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) aware of that. He was kind to me. He gave me some of the information, but what
we found out in those meetings, in regard to health care‑‑
An Honourable Member: Neil, you are talking, but you are not saying
anything either.
Mr. Gaudry: I am saying more than you have ever said. You should have got up yesterday on a point
in regard to Flin Flon and say a few things, ask the questions.
An Honourable Member: I did.
And I straightened out the Liberals for a change.
Mr. Gaudry: I doubt it very much.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as I was saying in
the health care reform, I think what we found out was a lack of communication,
a lack of consultation, and it was important and people admitted.
Administrators from hospitals also were being requested why they had not
advised their employees, the nurses, the doctors. One meeting that I made there were five
doctors there. They were debating the
fact that pediatrics should have stayed in St. Boniface, because they had not
been told what was happening at St. Boniface, whether the French services were
going to be given at the Children's Hospital.
They were guaranteed that at that point, and it sort of eased off.
The process was not there for the health
care reform. We meet groups pretty well
on a daily basis and some of them understand it has to be done. We will work with them, and we intend to work
so that the process, whether this health reform book comes from the Tories or
comes from the NDP 10 years down the line, it would be the same book, the same
health reform. I think we are at a stage
now that it has to be done and we have to work together for the benefit of
Manitobans and Canadians in general because it is not just a
I think when we discuss this with our
groups in our constituency, if you explain it to them in that respect, they
will see if you follow what is happening.
We look today at the budget from Premier Romanow in
The government at this time might say we
are not co‑operating. We are co‑operating. We are giving them suggestions. What we want is the Estimates book and the
budget and then we are prepared to sit down and work with this government. Then we are prepared. We are sure we will have good debates going,
and it will be for the benefits of Manitobans, but let us have the budget and
the Main Estimates and then we will debate and we will be prepared to deal with
it.
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to talk about
this.
An Honourable Member: No, you do not.
Mr. Alcock: Yes, as a matter of fact, I do want to talk
about this. I have wanted to have this
discussion in this House for a very long time.
So I am delighted that I have the opportunity today to have it. I am reminded of a point about a year ago
when I was responding‑‑I forget whether I was responding to the
budget or responding to the throne, but at that time I made the comment towards
the end of my remarks that there is a real problem with the way this Chamber
operates. There is a real problem with
the fact that a large of number of people sit in here afternoon after afternoon
and step privately out in the halls and say, it is a gigantic waste of time. When I said that, what was interesting is
that members from all sides of the House came to me and said, you are right; it
is.
I realize that we are caught in the
situation that all democracies and all parliaments get caught in: that it is very difficult to devise an
alternative method of doing the work of the people and of allocating and
sharing power in this country. But the fact is that the processes that we have
in place right now cause a lot more heat than light. They do not provide the kind of intelligent
debate, intelligent examination of issues on behalf of the people of the
I sat in the Public Accounts committee
today. I, finally, just made a few
concluding remarks and left because it was a gigantic waste of time. I felt sorry for the minister, believe it or
not, and I felt sorry for his staff who had to sit there and endure yet another
hour of mindless conversation on irrelevancy. [interjection] I am not going to
name the member at this point. I think
the minister can enlighten the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings).
What we are talking about here is the
process by which we do the work of this province. Hopefully, all members in this House are
working to the same end, and that is to build a stronger, more productive
province that employs and cares for the people that live within it.
I think this Finance minister (Mr.
Manness) is committed to that end, but his original intentions and his original
beliefs about this Chamber have kind of gotten off the rails. I am a little surprised at his actions
lately.
When we first came into this House, I was
the House leader for a period of time, and I remember welcoming the arrival of
the current Minister of Finance and the current government House leader into
the position of House leader, because he seemed to be someone who was prepared
to sit down and work with all parties in this House and to negotiate a way, a
solution to the problems that confronted the House.
I do not know, it may be‑‑he
has got a very difficult position‑‑it may simply be that the
pressures of the position, watching the financial position of his province
erode the way it has and watching how his plans have fallen into tatters and
ruins, are so great that he simply does not have the time, or perhaps the will,
to continue those negotiations. Because
they are tough; it is not easy negotiating with all three parties. I think that is part of what has brought us
to this impasse.
All three parties worked hard on an
agreement to try to solve some of the silly problems that confront us
here. One of those was we always got
into this sort of standoff, this game of chicken, around the end of the
session, where we would back it right up against the summer and then we would
dare somebody to do something to screw up the end of the session.
* (1540)
We got into a negotiation that said, let
us sit in the fall, and do part of the work of the government in the fall and
part of the work of the government in the spring. Let us try to get onto a more rational
schedule, rational for all members of this House, more rational for the
business of this House. I think that was
a good idea.
I think the work which is being done by
that committee can be, and will eventually be, very productive on behalf of
everybody in this House, and on behalf of the people of this province, because
it will produce a more productive Chamber.
We started that this fall, and we made an
agreement. We sat a bit in November and
December, and then we were to come back on March 1‑‑or between
March 1 and 8, by agreement.
If the government realized‑‑and
I am not even going to castigate them for not putting any work before this
House. If they knew that was going to be
the case, if they knew they were not going to be ready to come back into this
House on the 1st of March, the government House leader could have approached
the other two parties and said, look, for a variety of reasons we have these
problems; the legislative load is not what we would like it to be or it is not
going to be ready in time; we do not have significant legislation for you to
debate; the budget is not going to be ready.
We could have said, look, we will simply postpone the beginning of the
House, and then we will go back into our normal processes. He did not do that. He called the House anyway.
We came in and we sat. What did we do? We sat here and we went through a bunch of
irrelevant bills and we adjourned the House early and we went home. What a gigantic‑‑[interjection]
Well, if the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) wishes to speak, I invite
him to stand on his feet and speak to this.
As the dean of this Legislature, I suspect he might have something to
say on this issue. The fact is that we
had nothing to do in this Chamber. [interjection]
Well, actually the Minister of Natural
Resources has said something that I think is worth considering. He did say the one benefit was that we all
had a chance to spend a little more time together. I suspect he is right. We would all benefit by spending a little bit
more time together. Unfortunately, what
we were doing when we were here did not produce, shall we say, a productive or
a heart‑felt sense of bon ami. It
produced an enormous sense that we were wasting time, because that is what we
were doing.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
then, rather than saying, look, obviously this is not working, and again
sitting down with the two opposition House leaders and saying, well, let us
find a solution to this; let us negotiate around this; is there something we
can do; is there a piece of legislation we can work on and get through, said,
no, I am going to bring in the Estimates, but I am not going to bring in the
Estimates the way they have always been done.
He says, himself, that this is unprecedented. He says it is unparliamentary‑‑this
from a minister who stood in this House when he was in opposition and talked
about the budget being the most important document that the government dealt
with, talked about the fiscal planning and the expenditures of a government
being the most important thing that a government did. Rather than dealing with that within the
context that we have always dealt with this information, he decided to shatter
that. He decided to tear it apart.
One can speculate at great length about
what his reasons are for that. One can
read in all sorts of plots and plans.
One can suggest that maybe they are trying to dribble out the bad
information, that they do not want it all to come out in one piece, that they
want to get it on the table a little bit at a time. In fact, he suggested that in his remarks on
Friday, that we get a little bit of bad news about Family Services this week,
and next week we get a little bit of bad news about Health. Surely, that is not
responsible. Surely, that is why we have
never done this before.
I mean, if this was the normal way of
doing business I would not be standing on my feet here, but it is not. It is not the way this government has, or any
government has, conducted itself. That
is very clear. There is a reason for
that. The reason is, as the Estimates are
one part of the process of running this province, if we are to evaluate them,
we have to evaluate them in total.
I know other members across the way who
have some experience in management, who have some experience in business, would
not accept a financial sheet that was only 18 percent complete. They would not accept that as a way to
evaluate an organization.
The fact is, Madam Deputy Speaker, when we
sit in this House right now and we look at some of the disgusting, regressive
actions that this government has taken‑‑[interjection] The Minister
of Finance (Mr. Manness) has said, well, we will give you a summary sheet.
[interjection] He said if‑‑if I gave you a summary sheet, would
that be enough? The fact is, it would
not be enough.
Let me explain, since we seem to have the
attention of the Minister of Finance, why it would not be good enough. We have sat in this House for the last few
days talking about some of the very regressive, and I believe, dangerous activities
that this government has engaged in. We
have watched them while they have kicked children out of school, while they are
pandering to the worst tendencies in this community in their treatment of visa
students in this province, while they have cut back on the very thing that they
profess to value, the education of people in this province, and then we say‑‑you
know, my first response when I heard that we were going to kick 1,200 to 1,400
kids out of school, or force them to go back to their parents, as the Minister
of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) so ludicrously suggested, I thought, I
cannot be hearing right. I must have
misunderstood. This cannot be true. There has to be some other solution to this.
When I asked the question, because I did
not have the information, of the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey), I thought
maybe the Minister of Education has a solution to this. Maybe what has happened
here is they have just changed some administrative procedure, and kids will
receive support from one line and they will receive their educational support
from a different line, but that is not true, or if it is, I do not have that
information.
I do not have any ability to evaluate the
overall‑‑I do not even have a reconciliation statement. I do not know what has been moved, what has
gone where, who has come back, none of that kind of information, so how am I to
do the job that I am called upon to do and evaluate the planning of this
government if I do not have the plan.
This minister wants for his own political
purposes, his own ability to manage his political agenda, he wants to pony it
out in whatever way he chooses to do so.
We are saying no. We are saying
it has not been allowed in any Legislature, and it will not be allowed in this
Legislature as long as we have the opportunity to prevent it.
I will suggest to the minister that he
could have prevented all of this if he just took the time to sit down and
negotiate and to talk to people, if he sat down when he encountered problems
and if he stopped trying to order the opposition around the way he orders his
own members around. It seems that he is
able to exact a certain amount of discipline, and they all jump to his tune on
that side of the House, but they do not on this side of the House and they will
not. As we are learning fast, and as I
hope that this government House leader is learning, this House only runs when
there is co‑operation among all three parties in the House. We may fight about policies, we may fight
about issues, but we can get the work of this House done when there is some co‑operation.
It was interesting, it was the former
member for Churchill, the former House leader of the New Democratic Party when
it was in government, Jay Cowan, who taught me that lesson so well in those
first two years in the House. Jay demonstrated
many times that the work of this House will not get done unless there is a
willingness on the part of the government to negotiate, to talk to people.
That is what we have lost in this
House. That is what this Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) has stopped doing, because there was a time when he
did. There was a time when he would work
to try to facilitate the business. [interjection] Well, the Minister of Finance
says that we should petition the Premier (Mr. Filmon) for a change. I think that is something, perhaps, that
would be a good thing.
* (1550)
I suspect it may be something that the
Minister of Finance would feel relieved to have that responsibility off his
back. I said in the beginning of these
remarks, it may simply be that the minister is under so much pressure because
of the financial position of the province that he does not have the time to
give the attention required to the business of this House, and maybe it would
be better to hand that over to somebody else. [interjection] Yes, now the
Minister of Finance makes the point that we came back on the 1st of March
because he had made an agreement with the three parties. He could have sat down with the three parties
to that agreement and had a discussion.
He chose not to do so.
In the same way, it comes through in even
little things. There is not even consultation on the calling of committees‑‑they
just happen. There is no consultation on
anything anymore in this House, it just occurs because this Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness) is either too tired, too overworked or too arrogant to consult
the other parties in this House. That is
why he finds himself in this position.
He seems to have found himself too
overworked to consult with the members of the cabinet, because he is making decisions
within their departments that I simply cannot believe some of them support and
certainly I know privately that some of them do not support. He can get away with that within his own
cabinet; he cannot get away with that in this Chamber.
I want to suggest a couple of things,
since we are talking about the processes and the procedures of the House, the
way the House conducts itself and does its business. I want to suggest a couple of things that, I
think, take this movement in the rules a little bit further.
When you think about how an organization
works, when we look at how a business, for example, conducts its business, you
can go to all sorts of management workshops or you can study this at university
or at the colleges, and they will tell you that the first thing you have to do
is, you have to plan. In your planning,
you look at your environment, you look at your resources, you come up and you
establish a plan. In government we do
that.
Part of the planning is done through the
Estimates process. Part of the planning is done through the legislative agenda,
as we establish a legislative agenda.
You then take some actions. The actions in the case of the government
may be through legislating something or regulating something or withdrawing
legislation or amending legislation. It
may be through the budget, through funding something, through not funding
something, through changing, reprioritizing, any one of a number of decisions
that can be taken financially.
The third thing you do, if you are going
to be a prosperous, effective and growing business is, you evaluate what you
have done and you use that evaluation to feed into your planning for your next
year.
Now, what do we do in this Chamber? We sat today, March 18 of 1993, evaluating the
results of '91. By the time we got
information out of the Public Accounts, which is one of the primary ways in
which we look back on government and look back at what it has done, it is more
than a year since the end of that process.
Is that responsible? Is that
effective?
We do not even review in any structured
way the annual reports of the departments.
We may, if we choose, bring them up in the Estimates process, but we do
not go through and say, gee, you know, we spent X number of millions of dollars
in this area, what did that produce?
What was the outcome of that? Are
we better off? Are we worse off? Did we meet the need we spent that money
for? We never ask that question in any
structured way in this House, and yet we would expect any corporation that was
effective in its functioning to do exactly that. But we do not do it.
We do not relate the money that we spend
to the output that we get. We do not
look at the value that we get for money when we spend. We come in here, we rush around in response
to a Speech from the Throne and the budget.
We spend a lot of time going through the Estimates, a lot of time which
I think every member of this House would agree is a waste of time. Then we jam through a legislative agenda in
the dying hours of the session, sitting up until all hours of the night,
passing legislation and then we get out of here. Then we let it all sit for six to eight
months.
That is clearly ridiculous. Anybody who looks at that process comes to
the conclusion that it is ridiculous, but that is how we govern the affairs of
this province. So what happens is that
this Chamber becomes less and less relevant to the reality of managing this
province. I would like to see it become
more relevant. I would like to see us
get back in charge of the management of the affairs of this province.
I want to make a couple of
recommendations, and I hope the Rules committee will think about this. Why could we not start in the fall? Why could we not sit in the fall, in October,
and why could we not, in a structured way, review the annual reports of
departments and look at the outcomes and the processes, not deal with the
budgets, not deal with the money at that point, deal with the product that we
produce? Why could we not at that time
deal with legislation and look at the legislation in absence of the pressure of
dealing with the budget?
Mr. Manness: Two years that process has failed.
Mr. Alcock: Why could we not do that‑‑well
now, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) from his seat says in two years it
has failed. It has failed because of his
inability to establish it and bring forward anything meaningful.
Mr. Manness: Anything meaningful.
Mr. Alcock: Exactly.
Mr. Manness: So if I brought something forward, why would
you not deal with it? Is that any reason
not to deal with it?
Mr. Alcock: Well, if the Minister of Finance would care to
listen I will explain it to him‑‑[interjection] Just listen, you
will become enlightened. [interjection] Some people suggest that maybe you will
not become enlightened.
Madam Deputy Speaker, why could we not
spend that period of time looking at what we wish to do and what we have
done. Why could we not spend that time
in planning and reflecting on what we do before we move to the budget. Then we could spend this period in the spring‑‑and
this Minister of Finance has made the case before that he wants to get his
budgets down, as the federal Minister of Finance has made the case that he
wants to get his budgets down, before the beginning of the fiscal year. I accept his explanation as to why he has not
been able to do that.
There is chaos at the federal level also,
and there are enormous changes taking place in the economy of this
country. So I am even prepared to accept
his explanation for why he cannot get a budget on the table before the
beginning of the fiscal year, although the six days he has bought himself I am
not certain is relevant, frankly. I
think it would be important to have that information before people before the
beginning of the fiscal year.
But if we had a set schedule for it, if we
brought it in on a particular day of the year, then the Minister of Finance
would be forced to do that. We would see
that information before the beginning of the fiscal year, and we would focus on
the financial information and the operating information of the province, but we
would do it in a completely different environment. We would not do it while we were debating
legislation. We would not do it in the
absence of the evaluative information or the program information. We would do it within a context which said,
this is what we set out to accomplish, and this is how we are going to pay to
accomplish that. It might be a very
different debate that we have in this House.
It might be a debate that is less filled with irrelevant posturing and a
little more focused on getting some work done.
That is the kind of debate I would like to participate in.
It is sad that this Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness), rather than attempting to assist that kind of debate, rather
than attempting to facilitate that kind of debate, where we begin to work
together in this House on solving some problems and getting some work done, has
chosen to treat the other side of the House with such complete disregard.
I must confess, I must digress for a
moment because the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) is back in the House, and
I want to reflect momentarily on some remarks that he made in this debate last
week when he stood up in the House. He
questioned the reason why we might be concerned about this.
I am saddened, I am genuinely saddened, by
the actions of the Democratic Party on this particular issue. They seem so quick and so ready to throw away
any kind of values or position or respect that they have had here. They are prepared to change, modify and move
to do anything. They do not seem to have
any kind of central respect for this Chamber, any understanding of how it works
or any sense of trying to make it better.
They want to come in here and posture so the other side can come in here
and posture, and none of us are well served like that.
I would have expected the NDP to be on
their feet first challenging this minister's right to bring down those
Estimates in that fashion. I fully
expected that and I am surprised that they were not. I am surprised to hear them on their feet
defending their actions as though somehow they are advancing, but no action‑‑[interjection]
That is true. The member for Flin Flon
(Mr. Storie) says, no, they are not defending.
What they are doing is speaking out of both sides of their mouths‑‑well,
we do not agree with the government doing this, but go ahead and do it.
* (1600)
That is such patent nonsense. Mind you, it is consistent with the actions
that they have been taking in this House, but it is such nonsense. Surely, we can find some way to work together
to do the work of this province. Surely,
we can find some way to sort out this particular situation, but not just this
situation because this is only a reflection of the way this House works. The
fact is, we spend an enormous amount of time, or we waste an enormous amount of
time, and we produce very little of value.
I have sat in the loges of this House with
a number of members of the House. I have
had conversations in committee with members from all sides of this House, and
in those conversations we say, you know, is it not a shame that we spend our
time in the way that we do here? Could
57 intelligent people not be working together, be competing about how we make
this province stronger by working to do better on behalf of the people of this
province, by trying to build a stronger, more productive, more competitive
province? Could we not be supporting?
You know, I want to reflect, for example,
on the example set by the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) who, when the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) started talking about reform, could have stood
up in this House and said, oh, it is awful.
The Tories are trying to trick you.
They are trying to slip one by you.
He did not do that. The member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) took
the minister at face value. He examined
what the government was proposing to do, and he said he would support it.
Unprecedented. People were shocked. The NDP, of course, could not understand,
could not comprehend what was going on, that somebody could actually reach
across the floor and support an action of the government. He did it because he felt that it was
important to have a debate in this Chamber that was really on behalf of all of
us, that we had to have a debate about how we reform health care because we all
benefit from the health care programs, and we want to see them continue.
Why could we not have the same debate on
educational reform? The government, the Premier (Mr. Filmon), has promised
it. We certainly supported it, and we
have called repeatedly to see it begun.
If the government is serious about saving money, changing the processes,
finding some way to reduce expenditures, there is a way they could do it
without throwing kids out of school. There is a way they could save an enormous
amount of money and still continue to offer people educational ways out of
poverty, but they have refused to do it.
They have chosen not to try to solve a problem. They have chosen to act out their narrow,
self‑serving political agenda at the expense of a lot of people in this
province, and, unfortunately, at the expense of the poorest, most vulnerable
people in this province. I think that is
completely unacceptable.
I want to speak about something. I had a chance to speak to the member for St.
Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) briefly in the committee this morning. I made the comment that I was very concerned
about the actions of the government relative to Visa students in this province,
and I really am quite shocked at what they did, because they did not affect
their bottom line by one nickel. They
made their financial decision. They said
the
They could have gone to the university and
said, there is your money, now you make your decisions about revenues and cuts
and everything else, but they reached around the Universities Grants Commission
and they said, in addition to that, you will raise the fees of Visa students by
75 percent. Now why did they do
that? What was their purpose in doing
that? What did they achieve? Did the Minister of Finance's (Mr. Manness)
financial picture change? No. Did it help his budget one bit? No.
Why did they do it?
Surely, the university has a Board of
Governors, some of whom they appoint, that has a lot of intelligent people who
work in the management of that institution.
Could they not have left that decision to the university? They leave an awful lot of other decisions to
the university, if they respect the Universities Grants Commission. So why did they not leave that decision to
the people who run the universities?
The conclusion one is left to draw is
because that decision panders to a very narrow portion of their support. They want to feed that portion of their
support, and, unfortunately, it panders to what is wrong in this
community. It panders to the worst elements
of this community. It panders to those
who say that in tough times, it is okay to victimize people who cannot fight
back, that in tough times, it is okay to attack people who cannot fight back. It was a vile and vicious decision.
It caught a lot of people who are part way
through programs by surprise, who have come here planning to function in a
certain way. It caught them with a
tremendous increase in their basic costs, and for what? Did it improve things for us here? Has it made this budget a little easier? No. So
what has it done? What is the result of this?
How are we better off as a result of this decision? The
What is interesting‑‑I was
very proud the other day to meet with the union of
Madam Deputy Speaker, there is another
aspect of this that is equally puzzling.
If someone came into this province and said to the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness), the Premier (Mr. Filmon), or the Minister of Industry and Trade
(Mr. Stefanson), I am going to open a business here, and I think I can sell $20
million worth of Manitoba product overseas and bring that revenue into this
province, this Minister of Finance would be on his knees, as he has been on his
knees every time a company has come forward with that proposal, and he would
offer them tax concessions and he would offer them money and he would offer
them all sorts of support and his staff would run around trying to make their
life a little easier.
That is what we have here. We have people who are coming here from other
parts of the world that are bringing in $10,000 to $15,000 each and spending it
in this province. They cannot take jobs
away from Manitobans because by regulation they cannot work in this
province. Yet we are saying to them, go
away, we do not want you. We do not want
you in this province.
Now, there is another aspect to this that
is a little troubling when I read what this government says about the global
marketplace and the need to expand trade overseas and the need to develop
relationships with other countries overseas.
There is a very puzzling development here. These people, these students, represent
exactly that. They train here, they work
here, they go back to Hong Kong, they go back to
As they go on into business, what do they
provide but ambassadors for this province, with linkages with this province,
linkages with other businesses, linkages with other companies, linkages with
other countries. Is that not what this
government is talking about when it talks about its Technological Innovations
Council and the need to develop greater linkages around the world and greater
contact to facilitate international trade?
Is that not what we are talking about, setting up trading links? Is not the fact that we educate and send out
into the world another thousand people a year a good thing for us?
So why are we preventing it? Every other province who has done this has
found some way to compensate. I go
occasionally to
We do not even do that; we do not do that
here. The member for Rossmere has asked
the question: How many? I unfortunately cannot speak for the entire
university. I do not know the answer to
that question, but I know that in the Kennedy School it is in the area of about
30 percent of the student body versus 4 percent at the University of Manitoba,
and we do not give them that kind of subsidy because they come in and they pay
for their housing and they pay for their fees.
* (1610)
An Honourable Member: Undergraduates‑‑two‑thirds
of the undergraduates.
Mr. Alcock: That is just absolutely not true. See, I guess this is what I find so alarming
with these questions coming from the backbenchers of the government, that you
do not know. You support that decision
and you do not know what you are talking about.
That is the thing that is just so damn frustrating about this.
We have a university out there. We have an administration of that university
that has examined this question very carefully and year after year after year
has made a decision not to do it and, despite the fact, and this is the thing,
it does not affect your budget. You made
your budget decision, so why? Why?
I just find it so absolutely appalling
that you would then take this action to victimize people who cannot fight
back. It is such an absurd decision, and
not only that, I mean, kids that are here that are halfway through a program,
they came in here with one set of financial understandings and now all of a
sudden you change the rules. Not for
your benefit‑‑it does not affect the taxpayers in this
province. It does not reduce your
budgetary expenditure. So why did you do
it? It is so bizarre. [interjection]
Well, I have expected better from this
House leader for a very long time and he has not delivered, and when he begins
to deliver, you may get a little better. [interjection]
I was not.
I requested you. No, I did
not. Actually I petitioned on your
behalf, unfortunately. I have to take
some responsibility for this particular decision I find myself in right now.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I suspect, or I am
beginning to get a sense that my time is drawing to a close. Can I ask you how much time I have left? Three minutes?
Madam Deputy Speaker, would you canvass
the House to see if there would be a willingness to give me leave to speak
longer?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Is there leave to permit the honourable
member to go beyond his limited time?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: No?
Leave has been denied.
Mr. Alcock: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am saddened by that,
because I think the members would perhaps have learned a little more about what
is happening. I had hoped in this few
moments that I have had to speak that I might make two points.
One is that the processes of this House
need to be reformed. We all need to work on that reform, and we would all be
better off if we undertake that reform.
The second is to sound a call to the members of the government to wake
up, to read the papers that are going in front of them, to think about the
decisions that are being made on their behalf and to reflect on the outcomes of
those decisions, because you are being fooled if you do not know the
information that is being put in front of you, and you are making decisions
that are‑‑[interjection]
Well, parliamentary tradition does not
allow me to describe the decisions that you are making adequately,
unfortunately. They are so narrow. They
pander to what is worst in this community and they hurt people who have no way
of fighting back. [interjection]
Well, the Minister of Natural Resources
(Mr. Enns) says, it is not true. Let me
describe one situation. Children come
into care because they have been sexually or physically abused. During that
period of upset they will fall behind one or two years in school because of all
the disturbance in their house. They are taken out of their homes. They go live in a foster home, or they used
to go live in foster homes. I guess they
will not anymore‑‑but they lose time at school. They turn 18 and we push them off a big cliff
into the cold world. We say, you have
not got the skills because you lost a couple of years of school. But for a
brief time we said, look, if you go to school and if you do well, we will
support you. We will allow you to do
that because we know the only way out of poverty, the only way, is to get an
education.
We said to them, if you do not perform
well in school we will not give you the support. We would jerk those kids off of that support,
like that. But if they did well‑‑if
you wrote your test, if you passed your grades, if you succeeded, we would
support you because we knew it was better for us as a province to have you
educated.
This minister said yesterday and today in
the House, well, they can go back home.
We took them out of those homes because
they were being abused. Now, wake
up. We are denying those kids the only
chance to get a damned education, and you guys sit there and support that decision
and laugh at it and cheer when people talk about it. I think that is disgraceful.
An Honourable Member: Who is laughing?
Mr. Alcock: Everyone at your benches, and I think you
should be ashamed of yourselves for that decision. I think it is the most regressive, stupid,
evil decision I have seen the government make.
I think every one of you should walk out
of this Chamber and hang your heads, because the only chance that these kids
have got is to get an education. So give
it to them. You are saving nothing. You are not saving the taxpayers of this
province anything. You are costing them
money.
An Honourable Member: You are putting them on welfare.
Mr. Alcock: They are already on welfare. So you are going to pay the cost or you are
going to force your municipalities to pay the cost of that welfare. What have we saved? We have saved a few‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.
Mrs. Carstairs: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am delighted to rise
on this motion. I am only sorry that the
Legislature did not give leave to the honourable member for Osborne (Mr.
Alcock) because he was making some very critical points about the issue that is
before us.
I want to redirect this House very briefly
to what it is we are dealing with. This
motion says, "THAT this House, at this sitting, will resolve itself into a
committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty."
Well, the young Pages sitting before us
today, I wonder if they really knew before they came into this Chamber that we
used such arcane vocabulary, "Supply to be granted to Her Majesty."
What does it mean, "Supply to be granted to Her Majesty"?
In order to understand that concept, you
have to understand the whole parliamentary system. The parliamentary system comes from a French
word, "parlement." That in
turn comes from the French verb, "parler," to speak. Parlement, spelled with an "e" in
French, not with an "ia" as in English, was a sense that a group of
people, the "ment" if you will, came together to speak, to speak
together.
The original origins of the concept of
parlement, to speak together, comes from
So we have the evolution, very gradually,
of something that is called the Great Council, but the Great Council had little
or no power. It did have the ability on
occasion to come together for the purposes of discussion, but it had no other
power than that. It did not have any
power, that is until 1215; 1215, you will remember‑‑if you remember
your history books, everybody in this Chamber‑‑that it was the time
of the Crusades. Richard the Lion‑Hearted,
Coeur de Lion, as he was called, was off in
* (1620)
This is the day of Robin Hood and Maid
Marion, if you will, and the sheriff of
Point of Order
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Urban Affairs): On a point of order, Madam Deputy
Speaker. This is terribly interesting,
but not terribly relevant, and I would ask you to call the member to order.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I must admit I am somewhat surprised on a couple of points,
first and foremost, that the minister would have the guts to stand up and make
a statement of that nature.
An Honourable Member: Audacity.
Mr. Lamoureux: "Audacity" might be a better word to
use for here. Secondly, the fact that
the member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs) is putting forward a speech that
is very relevant, and if the government members would be more attentive to
listening as opposed to chatting amongst each other to try to distract the
member for River Heights, Madam Deputy Speaker, what we will see is that in
fact the member is being very relevant.
I would suggest to the members that they be patient, they listen,
because this could be a long process. As
a responsible opposition, we feel that it is‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I believe the leader of the second opposition
party has indeed made his case in defence of the point of order.
The honourable member for Flin Flon, on
the same point of order.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have no point of
order, and neither did the member for
Madam Deputy
Speaker: I thank the honourable
member for Flin Flon for that advice. It
is accurate; there was no point of order.
* * *
Mrs. Carstairs: I am very thankful to the member for Flin
Flon, because I think he has indeed pointed out the point, that there was no
point of order. From the beginning of my
speech, I have been discussing the concept of supply and that is the motion
before us, that we would go into Supply.
I have heard a lot of comments throughout
this debate that have not been talking about supply, and so I think we have to
begin with what has in fact occurred in 1215 and what was the granting of the
Magna Carta, that fundamental principal document of our parliamentary tradition
and how it was related to the concept of supply, because it is fundamental.
Let me read from a political and cultural
history of modern
The second thing which it did, and this is
where it becomes highly relevant to what we are doing right here, its most
important provisions, by which the king could not levy extraordinary taxes on
the nobles without the consent of the Great Council, furnished something of a
basis of the idea of self‑taxation.
The third clause was: To no man will we sell or deny or delay the
right of justice from which, of course, came the right of habeas corpus.
So we had, therefore, the beginning of a
process in Britain which eventually came to Canada that in order for His
Majesty, in this case, to get funds from the people, he had to appear before
that council and he had to suggest to that council why he required that item of
money, why he needed supply, how much supply he needed, what he intended to do
with that supply‑‑that is the critical issue, what he intended to
do with that supply‑‑how, in other words, he intended to spend that
money. So that became our tradition of
supply from the days of John, who, because he in ruling as the protector of
Britain in the absence of his brother Richard was acting in a way which was
despotic, was acting in a way which was unacceptable to the people of the day,
although, it is very clear that the people of that day were not the common
people.
I would suggest to this Chamber that those
of us who represent the 57 constituencies of
The evolution of parliamentary tradition
did not go through a great deal of changing between 1215 through the rules of
the Tudors. The Tudors came to power for
the first time in 1497 with Henry VII, and they ruled through Henry VIII and
Edward VI and then Mary Tudor and then Elizabeth. She unfortunately left no heirs, so when she
died in 1603, it was necessary to her successors in the Grand Council to look
toward another monarchy. So they turned their attention to
One cannot understand parliamentary
tradition unless one understands what happened under the Stuarts, because it
was under the Stuarts that the authority of the Grand Council took on a whole
new meaning. The authority of the Grand
Council was seriously questioned by the Stuarts. They were of the philosophical belief that
they had authority which had been lost to monarchs in
James I, in fact, took his essential
political theory from a document which had been written by Bishop Bossuet who
wrote about the divine right of monarchy, which said that Her Majesty or His
Majesty, depending on who was ruling at that particular time, needed to go to
no one. They quoted, in fact, biblical
references to supply. They made the
reference, for example, in this treatise, render unto Caesar that which is
Caesar's, and, as the father corrects his children, so should the king correct
his subjects. If the head directs the
hands and feet, so must the king direct the members of the body politic.
James I summarized his idea of government
as, A Deo rex, a regi lex; a king is from God, and law is from the king. So in his particular philosophical
orientation, he did not believe that he had to refer to anyone for supply, that
this was his absolute right as the monarch of the day. So comes the concept of absolute monarchy; so
comes the concept of the divine right of kings.
Unfortunately, he was quickly made to realize that if he did not call
the Great Council into being, that he could very quickly find himself without
any money.
That is why we were called into being, one
would assume, on the 1st of March, because the government knew that it was
quickly running out of supply, and that in order to get that supply, it would
have to come before this Chamber according to parliamentary precedents and
traditions, and demand from this Chamber in an orthodox, recognized, acceptable
way the means by which they would obtain that particular supply.
* (1630)
They did not do that, and as a result,
when his son succeeded to the throne, the bitterness and the resentment toward
his father bubbled in the cauldron of political activity until it got higher
and higher and higher. Charles, when
first asked to meet with his first parliament, angrily dissolved it. He said, if you will not do what I want you
to do, then I will dissolve it.
You know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that
reminds me a lot of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) a couple of years
ago, when in a committee he said, you will not do it my way, I will walk out,
and he did. The unfortunate part about
it was‑‑[interjection]
Well, the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr.
Praznik) says we would not offer him a piece of pizza. Well, you know, that was Charles's problem,
too. They did not offer him anything
either, and as a result he dissolved the Parliament. But you know what happened to Charles? Let me remind the member for Lac du
Bonnet. They took off his head. That was the end of him, some 29 years
later. So we have to watch that. We would not want, in our liberal attitudes
of today, we certainly would not want that to happen to the Minister of
Finance. That would be a dreadful fate
to occur to the Minister of Finance.
Charles, of course, found himself very
quickly without supply. He had no
money. He could not do the things he
wanted to do. He could not put his army
into place. He knew that he was going to
get more and more revolt from the members of the establishment, most of the
nobles, and so he called a second Parliament.
Again he wanted to make sure that he could get his loans, that he could
get his money, that he could get the revenue that he needed to function
appropriately.
Unfortunately, Charles was not very happy
with this particular Parliament either.
They would not grant him the money that he wanted to raise. They would not grant him the loans that he
wished to have. So again he got angry
and he dissolved that Parliament as well.
Then, of course, it became absolutely imperative that he needed to
compromise, and this is the critical word here.
Even Charles discovered the art of compromise. Now, we did not get any compromise from the
Minister of Finance, but Charles I of
Now what did we find in the Petition of
Right? Well, the one that was most
important for our purposes‑‑although there were a number of others
about the fact that they could not have standing armies for longer than one
year‑‑the most important one for us is that he was not allowed to
levy taxes without the consent of Parliament.
That became critical. Without
Parliament, he could not levy any taxes.
Parliament and Parliament alone was supreme in supply, and that is why
we are talking about this supply motion today.
For 11 years, despite the Petition of Right, he decided he could still
do without Parliament, that he could promote his own activities, that he could
levy taxes if he wanted to, despite the fact that he had signed and sealed the
Petition of Right. So they finally got
completely fed up with him and they tried him, they convicted him, and they
beheaded him. It was that simple. As a result, we kept a parliamentary
evolution continuing.
When the period of the Protectorate under
Oliver Cromwell had ended by 1660, we had the restoration of the monarchy. First of all, it was his son Charles II and
then his son James II, but eventually the British people through their
parliamentarians became fed up, quite frankly, with the Stuarts and they looked
elsewhere for leadership and for guidance.
In this particular case they looked to William of Orange who was the
duke of a small principality in what is now
I think it is important for the purposes
of this House‑‑[interjection] Madam Deputy Speaker, if I could just
have a moment I think I will disconnect both of my hearing aids because that
way I will not hear all of the silliness coming from the other parts of the
House. Let me talk about what was in
fact given to the people of
The second thing it said was that he had
no right to levy money of any kind‑‑no kind, not just taxes, but at
this point they also had a number of what we would call the so‑called sin
taxes but which were not considered taxes in the normal sense of the word. He also was prevented from ever levying those. He could no longer maintain an army without
the consent of Parliament. It stated
that neither the free election nor the free speech nor the proceedings of
Members of Parliament should be interfered with‑‑the proceedings of
Members of Parliament. This is the Bill of Rights, 1689, the proceedings. That is where we are at in this Chamber.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) has
indicated that he wishes to interfere with the proceedings. The Minister of Finance represents Her
Majesty. He is part of Her Majesty's
government. The right to interfere with
proceedings was removed from Her Majesty, or His Majesty, in 1689. The Minister of Finance seems to want to get
some authority back which, quite frankly, they lost centuries ago.
It went on to say that it affirmed the
rights of subjects to petition the Sovereign.
This is what, of course, gives us our whole ability to, in this Chamber,
present petitions, and we are presenting those petitions to the Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council,
therefore to Her Majesty. Back in 1689
came our right to do that.
* (1640)
The Bill of Rights, far more important in
English history than the Petition of Rights inasmuch as Parliament was now
powerful enough to maintain as well as to define its rights, was supplemented
by the practice begun in the same year of granting taxes and making
appropriations for the army for one year only. So entered into the concept of
our historical tradition the idea of an annual budget; 1689 began the concept
of an annual budget. That is what we learn, when we go back, and we review, and
we analyze history, of the importance of Parliament to us as citizens of this
land.
We go through the monarchs of the days
that followed because William of Orange, when he died very shortly actually
after he came to the throne, was actually replaced by his wife's sister, Anne,
and she in turn died in 1707. At that
point, they had to turn once again away from British monarchs because they did
not have any left, and they had to go to a duchy in Germany, the Duchy of
Hanover, and so came the Hanoverians to the British throne, because there was a
marriage between one of the Stuarts and one of the Hanoverians, and that is
where the line of authority came from.
So you ended up with George I as the first
Hanoverian to come to the throne.
Ultimately, after World War I, they changed their name to
There was no Julie and there was no
Henry. There were, in fact, some six
Georges and a number of Edwards and, of course, an
I think it was 1547 that his son, Edward
VI, came to the throne. If it was not
1547, it must have been in that particular‑‑[interjection] Well, it
is true. The Minister of Natural
Resources (Mr. Enns) is really asking me to digress here. He certainly did not die of unrequited love. After all, he did go through six wives. The final sixth one, of course, Catherine
Parr, outlived him. He had managed to
get rid of Anne, and Catherine of Aragon also was gotten rid of but by divorce.
He got rid of Anne of Cleves, he got rid of Catherine Howard, but he was stuck
with Catherine Parr until he actually took his leave from this earth.
We saw the further evolution, however, of
parliamentary government and tradition when we looked at the 18th Century and
the British constitution, because it further limited the powers of the monarchs
in five very important respects.
First of all, and this is the one that is
most critical to us, at that point it was the monarch who lost the right to
levy taxes even with the consent of Parliament, because henceforth‑‑this
was under the reign of William III‑‑only Parliament could levy
taxes. Not even the king could do so.
That, of course, is the Supply motion that we have before us now, where it is
not a Supply motion that comes from Her Majesty, it is a Supply motion that in
fact comes from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). When we vote on this Supply motion, it is a
Minister of Finance Supply motion. It is
not a motion from Her Majesty.
The second thing, of course, was that he
could make no laws. He had lost control of the judiciary. The king could not maintain a standing
army. This too had to be maintained by
Parliament. The king could not even
appoint to office, or retain in office, any member or any minister who did not
enjoy the confidence of the parliamentary majority.
So the powers of the king were taken from
the king or the queen and were vested entirely in Parliament. That is the wonderful tradition that we have
obtained as parliamentarians in this very important history, but it was still
safe to say that even by 1837, Parliament in and of itself was not what you
would call a very democratic institution.
The Parliament of 1837 was not
parliamentary in our sense of the word because in order to be chosen to appear
at Parliament, in other words, to be a parliamentarian, it was a very narrow
group of people who could in fact select you in that particular process.
The first great reform act, which was
introduced in 1837, is the one that began to make it possible for the member
for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) and the member for Springfield (Mr. Findlay)
and the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render) to actually represent our people,
because, unless they have a lineage that I am unaware of, I do not think that
any of them came from the nobility. [interjection] Well, I am not suggesting
they are not noble people. I think that
it is quite clear that everyone in this Chamber is a noble and an honourable
person, but it is equally clear, I suspect, that their great great‑grandparents
were not lords and ladies of the manor.
That is an interesting digression and one
that is certainly relevant to the parliamentary tradition, because I think it
should be understood why we are called honourable persons and why it is
essential that we all be referred to in this Chamber as honourable. Of course, it is because in the early days of
Parliament everyone in the Chamber had an honour. Everybody in the Chamber had a title. It was that title that gave them their
honour, and it was their honour that made them referred to as honourable. So that is why we in this Chamber are
referred to as honourable in this particular situation.
So, when we look at 1837, we look at the
situation of who was in fact represented in this Chamber. For example, more than 300 out of the 658
members of Parliament of the House of Commons were chosen by a small group of
influential nobles or by the ministers who were in the office at the time of
the election. So almost half of the
entire Chamber was selected by a group of about 50 nobles and the ministers of
the day, which means it meant it was a pretty select group.
The 421 members of the House of Commons
who sat for the cities, towns and universities represented only 84,000
electors, even though there were several millions of people living in
Because the number of towns and cities in
1628 was very limited because it was primarily an agricultural
* (1650)
What happened after the Napoleonic Wars,
which ended first in 1814, and then there was another little brief one in 1815,
and finally they were over, was that the whole movement in Britain changed
dramatically. This was the day when people
left the agricultural life and moved to the cities. This was the forerunner, the beginning of the
whole industrial revolution, and more and more cities, more and more towns
evolved and developed. They began to demand that their towns and their cities
had representation in the House of Commons.
They did so. They obtained that representation in a series
of acts concluding with that granted in 1832 and the first reform bill. What the first reform bill did was to enfranchise
the majority of the middle class, not all of the middle class but certainly
large chunks of it. Certainly, big
farmers were represented. The member for
There also were age restrictions. Nobody could vote unless they were the age of
30, so that they could bring to the voting process a certain amount of
responsibility or perhaps sober second thought.
There was of course criticism of that
particular reform bill because there were still large numbers of people left
out of the process. So a second reform
measure was introduced in 1867, and it was in 1867, followed by 1884 that
gradually the vote was extended to all men, all men, that is, that were not in
jails or all men that were not in mental institutions or all that were not
declared mentally infirm. They were
given the vote.
At about the same time, there were some
very important reforms that came into being, again important reforms that
reflect on the process that is before us today.
In 1870, for example, they introduced the
Civil Service reform act. It was the
Civil Service reform act that made it possible for the Minister of Finance to
have a staff that would not be appointed by his direct command but that would
be appointed by competitive examinations, who would be hired on the basis of
their competency, who would be able to present him and therefore Treasury Board
with a series of Estimates based on the financial forecast of the government of
the day and based on the direction given by the government. Certainly, they could do that from
professional competence and not because they were loyal to the individual
Minister of Finance.
In 1911 something very interesting
happened. That bill was an example of a
budget that was rejected by a Chamber that was not elected. That is known as the Parliament Act of 1911,
and what occurred in that particular piece of historical reference and, again,
evolved our parliamentary system was the rejection of the budget by the
lords. Now at this point the lords had
only two forms of representation. They
were those that had inherited their title and therefore were indeed still the
vestiges of the nobles of the land or those that had been appointed by
Parliament to the judiciary. They too
had seats in the House of Lords. They defeated the government's budget.
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Not a wise move.
Mrs. Carstairs: It was certainly not, as the Minister of
Labour says, a wise move, because the Parliament of the day decided to do
something very similar to what Brian Mulroney decided to do just a few years ago
in order to get the GST passed. The
House of Commons and the Prime Minister threatened to swamp the House of Lords
and that if they could not get the votes that they wanted from the House of
Lords what they would do would be that they would, quite frankly, put enough
people in the House of Lords so that the House of Lords would vote the way the
government of the day wanted them to vote.
An Honourable Member: Some things never change.
Mrs. Carstairs: Some things never change.
An Honourable Member: Some things should not change.
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, I am delighted, Madam Deputy Speaker,
because I have just heard the words I have been wanting to hear from the
government benches. I have two ministers
that are saying from their seats, some things should not change. That is exactly what this whole speech is all
about: Some things should not
change. Some traditions, some rights,
some proceedings that we have been given as opposition members of this Chamber
should indeed not change.
The House of Lords finally yielded. The House of Lords finally did, by a narrow
majority of 17, pass the Parliament Act, which henceforth limited the amount of
stalling time for the House of Lords on any budget to one month. Now that power has dissolved in its
entirety. They do not even take the
budget into the House of Lords in Great Britain as they do not take the budget
into the Senate, but they lost this authority and this authority came down to
this Chamber. It is in this Chamber that
we deal with budgets. It is in this
Chamber that we deal with Estimates. It
is in this Chamber that our rights as parliamentarians must be protected.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to talk about
just what has happened in the process of the last few days. About a week and a half ago the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) as the House leader, not as the Minister of Finance, but
as the House leader, made contact with the Liberal Party House leader and he
said to us through our House leader that he wanted to do something which was
quite unusual. He made no bones about
that. He was very upfront. He said, I want to do something which is
quite unusual. I want to introduce some
of the Estimates, but I am not going to be able to present you with the Main
Estimates book.
The House leader came to my office, and I
told him that to the best of my knowledge, it was unprecedented, but I said, I
am not an authority on parliamentary tradition.
I certainly have some knowledge of parliamentary history, but I am not
an authority on parliamentary tradition.
So I asked our research staff to make some
critical calls. I asked them first to
call the House of Commons. I asked them
to call other Legislatures in this nation.
I even made contact with our own Clerk because, to my knowledge in this
House while I have been here, they had never even presented Main Estimates
outside of a budget presentation, and I thought perhaps you could not even do
that.
Well, the Clerk of the Chamber, having
knowledge of the traditions of this particular House, quickly informed me that
this was in fact possible, that prior to 1983 and rule changes in this House,
it had happened that the budget was not presented at the same time as the Main
Estimates book.
However, I was informed that individual
Estimates had never before been presented without being in the context of the
Main Estimates book. So I went to
So I went and I asked if they had done
this in the House of Commons, which is really the one we look to. I mean, it is very frequent that the Speaker,
for example, will make contact with the House of Commons staff in Ottawa and
the Speaker's staff because they have many more staff than our Speaker here,
and they have been, quite frankly, functioning longer than we have, and they
have traditions from more countries than we have.
Our staff did indeed go to the House of
Commons, and we learned that, of course, this does not happen. In the House of Commons, what has happened is
that there is now a very clear time sequence, by agreement, that the Estimates
of the Government of Canada will be presented in the House of Commons on March
1, not the Estimates of Defence or the Estimates of External Affairs or the
Estimates of Health and Welfare‑‑all of the Estimates. All of the Estimates will be presented on
March 1 of any calendar year.
(Mr. Speaker in the
Chair)
At that point in time, with the
presentation of Estimates, the members of the House of Commons are then given
three months to debate, in committee, of four standing committees‑‑
* (1700)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., time for private
members' hour.
DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS‑‑PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 200‑The Child and Family Services Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), Bill 200, The Child and Family Services Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services a l'enfant et a la famille, standing
in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) who has seven
minutes remaining.
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand‑‑and also standing in the
name of the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing in the names of the
honourable two members? [agreed]
Bill 203‑The Health Care Records Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis), Bill 203, The Health Care
Records Act; Loi sur les dossiers medicaux, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 205‑The Ombudsman Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), Bill 205, The Ombudsman Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur l'ombudsman, standing in the name of the honourable member
for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
SECOND READINGS‑PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Speaker: Are we proceeding with Bill 202 (The
Residential Tenancies Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la location a
usage d'habitation)? No. Okay.
Are we proceeding with Bill 208 (The
Workers Compensation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les accidents du
travail)?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Are we proceeding with Bill 209 (The Public Health Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur la sante publique)?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Are we proceeding with Bill 211 (The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'evaluation municipale)?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Prior to going into Proposed Resolutions, the honourable member for St.
Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) will do his committee changes.
Committee Change
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): I move, seconded by the member for
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
That is agreed.
ADDRESS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I just have a quick piece of
House business. There is standing on the
Order Paper an Address for Papers in my name.
I would just like to inform the House that that Address for Papers has
been satisfied by the minister‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is private members' hour.
Mr. Alcock: Might I ask leave just to correct this? That is what you asked me to do last
time. I am simply trying to clean up the
Order Paper at the request of the House, that there is an Address for Papers
sitting here in my name that has been satisfied. I would like to thank the minister for doing
it.
Mr. Speaker: Okay.
Just wait a second. We will find
it.
We have been asked by the honourable
member for Osborne to remove an Address for Papers for which the honourable
member has indicated the conditions have been satisfied. Is there leave of the House to remove said
article from the Order Paper? [agreed] I would like to thank all honourable
members.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 9‑Dr.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable depute de St. Boniface (Mr.
Gaudry),
WHEREAS Dr. Charlotte Whitehead Ross was
forced to get her medical degree from the Women's Medical School of
Philadelphia because no Canadian medical school would accept women as students;
and
WHEREAS after graduating in 1875 and
practising medicine for a few years in Quebec, Dr. Ross and her family moved to
Whitemouth where her husband was involved with the construction of the railway;
and
WHEREAS Dr. Ross established a practice
looking after railway workers and eventually a full family practice when the
railway brought settlers to the area; and
WHEREAS women became eligible to be
doctors but they had to have at least six months education at a Canadian
medical school; and
WHEREAS Dr. Ross refused to relearn at a
Canadian medical school what she had learned in five years in Philadelphia; and
WHEREAS she faced fines and jail for
continuing to practise without a licence; and
WHEREAS in 1887 she petitioned the
Manitoba Legislature for her right to practise and was turned down; and
WHEREAS Dr. Ross continued to practise
medicine serving the community of Whitemouth until her retirement in 1912
without a licence; and
WHEREAS Dr. Ross played an important role
in the development of the
WHEREAS Dr. Ross's dedication and
perseverance improved opportunities for all
WHEREAS very little has been done to
recognize the role of pioneer women like Dr. Ross and their importance to our
history.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of the province of Manitoba grant to Dr. Charlotte
Whitehead Ross the posthumous right to practise medicine in recognition of her
valuable contribution to Manitoba life and the unfair barriers she faced in her
lifetime.
Motion presented.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that all members of
the Chamber will join with me in the passage of this resolution. It is
certainly not a controversial resolution.
It is one that, quite frankly, came to me by virtue of a book that I
read last summer called The Iron Rose:
The Extraordinary Life of Charlotte Ross, written by a Manitoban who now
lives in
Charlotte Whitehead Ross did not go to
medical school until she was 27 years of age and already had three
children. The reason she chose to go to
medical school, despite the fact that she had to leave her husband, take her
younger child with her, leaving the two older children in the family home and,
by the way, with the full support and encouragement of her husband, tried to go
to medical school in Canada, but at that particular time‑‑these
were the days before Jennie Trout managed to get into a Canadian medical school‑‑Charlotte
Whitehead Ross, whose father, by the way, was a member of the House of Commons,
could not get into a Canadian medical school, and so she had to look elsewhere.
Because many schools in the
She practised for the first time in
One of the ways in which, of course, they
got around this was the way in which we got around it in
Upon her return from having achieved her
medical degree, her husband decided that he wanted to move to
At first, because by this time her family
was indeed quite large, it was her original thought that she would adjust her
family, but, of course, the first accident occurred; it was life threatening,
and it quickly became apparent that a doctor was necessary. Her husband immediately sent for her so that
she could provide that medical assistance.
* (1710)
She, therefore, began with the railway
workers, but, of course, it quickly became evident that not only railway
workers needed her, but women in the area needed her, children in the area
needed her, because there was no other doctor.
The only way you could then get a doctor into Whitemouth was to bring
one out on the train from
She finally realized, however, the
difficulties that she was in, in not having a licence, when the Manitoba
College of Physicians and Surgeons came down with a series of regulations which
said that they would not recognize anyone who had not graduated from a Canadian
medical school.
This is where some of the names will
perhaps become more familiar to people.
She came into
He decided that the best way for her to
achieve this was to petition the government directly and to by‑pass, if
you will, the
An Honourable Member: The
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, that is right, originally.
What happened in this particular case was
that he was vehemently opposed to women being allowed to practise medicine, and
he was not only prepared to fight it on the floor of the Chamber, he was also
fighting it in the editorials that his paper was writing.
Donald Smith, an English immigrant farmer,
who sat interestingly enough as an independent member from Springfield‑‑I
thought that would be of interest to the current member for
I have to suggest to you, it did not stop
her from practising medicine. What does
one do when one is a fully qualified doctor, there is no other doctor in the
vicinity, and patients need you? She had to hope that she would not come to
somebody's craving for enforcement of the law to its nth degree. She continued to practise medicine for the
rest of her life. Nobody ever did prosecute
her, fortunately. She was never charged
and, therefore she was never convicted of practising without a licence.
I should also point out to you that there
is‑‑and I did not know this until after I had actually proposed the
resolution‑‑a direct connection to a former member of this Chamber.
Last year, in our condolence motions, all
of us spoke about Mark Smerchanski. I
did not know at the time when I proposed this resolution that his wife Patricia
Smerchanski is a granddaughter of Charlotte Whitehead Ross and only learned
that when the book was being unveiled and she spoke that evening as the
granddaughter of Charlotte Whitehead Ross.
I am hoping that all members of this
Chamber can right a wrong that, unfortunately, an earlier Chamber in my opinion
committed, and that we can posthumously grant in the tradition of co‑operation
which we sometimes do get on interesting resolutions, and to do something which
will pay tribute to the very fine work that this woman pioneer in Manitoba gave
to the life of so many Manitobans. Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, it is
indeed an honour to rise on this occasion to speak about Dr. Charlotte
Whitehead Ross. I must indicate to the
Leader of the Liberal Party that this is one of those occasions when a
resolution comes before this Chamber that is designed to right what in our view
today is certainly a wrong in the history of the province of Manitoba, and to
recognize certainly the role of pioneer women in our province's history, their
tremendous contribution, and not only contribution, but I think, as the member
for River Heights has pointed out, certainly the tremendous number of obstacles
that they had to face in trying to make that contribution.
The member for
I say to her today, should it not pass at
this time, I think at another point in the session. This is certainly a resolution that is worthy
to be brought forward again on the Order Paper for consideration of passage. I know the hour allotted to it may not be
sufficient for those who wish to contribute, but I would indicate to her very
clearly today to not be disappointed if time should run out because, as someone
like her who appreciates and enjoys the study of history, this is certainly one
resolution that is worthy of that kind of unanimous effort by the members of
this Chamber, if not today, certainly at some other point in this session.
I would like to say to members of this
House and to the member for
It was an area that grew up primarily,
initially, around the running of the CPR line, the main line, the original line
which runs through my constituency aimed at the town of Selkirk whose city
fathers at the time‑‑because women were not able to sit on council‑‑made
a decision that they would not match the tax benefits that the City of Winnipeg
was to provide. So just a little to the
West of where I live, the railway takes a sharp turn to the South to cross the
Red River and the city of Winnipeg and made Winnipeg what in fact it is today,
a major city in our province.
The coming of that railroad opened up that
part of eastern
That part of the province, the prairie
region, particularly the short‑grass prairie, even the tall‑grass
prairie, in no way matched the difficulty‑‑a whole different set, I
acknowledge, of trials to be undergone by our pioneers‑‑of having
to settle in a significantly wooded area, because before you could turn sod,
you had to cut trees. You had to do a
lot more physical work to make the land productive.
The people who settled in that area not
only had those great difficulties of beginning their farms and the beginning of
that settlement, but they were also very, very much isolated from the major
areas of settlement in our province.
They did not have the access, of course, to a lot of branchline
railroads. In those days, there was not
much of a road system anywhere. They
certainly did not have any. They were
solely dependent on the main line of the railroad.
*
(1720)
Consequently, the ability to attract
physicians, the ability to attract any kind of basic services to those
communities was very, very difficult and to have a practising physician who
could service the community in those early pioneering days was a tremendous
asset.
As someone who is 31 years of age today‑‑[interjection]
I am 31 today. I will be 32 in May, so
my colleagues may wish to celebrate that with me at that time. But for someone of my age today in 1993, it
is so hard to appreciate why the profession of the day would find such
difficulty in providing a licence to a properly trained doctor to practise
medicine in a frontier area of our province.
It is absolutely amazing to someone of my generation living in this year
to understand how that in fact could be the case, because it really defies
common sense, at least how we see it today.
The fact that the Manitoba Legislature was
petitioned by, I understand, the sitting MLA of that time to override the
College and Physicians and Surgeons and to grant to Dr. Whitehead Ross the
right to practise I think was very significant but, here again, we have an
early example of an establishment in our province, the news media and member of
the Legislature from Winnipeg really imposing a set of values that would be to
the detriment of those areas of our province that did not have access to the
medical profession in the city of Winnipeg.
What is interesting, and I say this as a
rural member, the parallel that one can draw from time to time of how a large
urban centre in a province, how the issues are debated in that centre and
judged by a set of standards within that centre may not always have a sound
application to those areas that are far distant from that urban centre.
I know from time to time we have seen
decisions made by provincial governments, by provincial parties, and I offer
trying to engage in partisan debate, but I know the Liberal Party, with its
strong urban presence in our province and without representation from outside of
the city, has from time to time done the same thing on issues where they have
made suggestions or recommendations to policy that may have been perfectly
sound within the boundaries of the city of Winnipeg but have not had as sound
an application out in rural Manitoba.
There is a lesson in this experience not
only in how our own view of the world can treat someone so terribly based on
their sex but, also, the lesson of how a Legislature or the influences in one
part of our province can impose restrictions that are to the detriment of other
parts of this province. That lesson is
one that has occurred throughout the history of our province. This is certainly
one of the very, very early examples of it.
As a member of the Legislative Assembly
for eastern
Mr. Speaker, again, just to the member for
River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs), I know I share with her a love of history and
of learning about our past, which is so often forgotten or discouraged almost
by many who teach history or by many in our school system who do not share that
same appreciation and for many of our students make it into a chore and an
exercise that they do not appreciate. I
certainly appreciate this resolution, the reasons that it was brought to this
House. It is certainly worthy of this
House's consideration. I know myself in
my experience with the Manitoba Metis Federation, representing a very
significant Metis population, the concern that was always expressed to me about
the need for this House and the House of Commons to recognize the role of Louis
Riel, to right a historical wrong. The
same principle applies, I think, in this case, a way of us acknowledging a
wrong that was committed in our past.
I know that I enjoyed very, very much my
work with the Manitoba Metis Federation, with my colleagues, the Honourable Jim
Downey, the Minister responsible for Northern and Native Affairs and Deputy
Premier in crafting that resolution that came before this House. One of the moments that I will always
remember in my legislative career is having the honour and the privilege of
seconding that resolution that came before this Assembly, because it was
something that meant very much to me to be able to participate in righting what
was really a wrong in the early days of our province.
I am sure the member for
Again, it outlines to us the great
difficulties that were encountered by our pioneers, particularly our women pioneers,
who had to bear a great deal of the burden of settlement and the difficulty of
settlement. It outlines to us and
reminds us, as well, of many of the barriers that we, in fact, put in place of
women and others in our society over the years that prevented them from using
their ability and their best efforts to serve their community and their fellow
Manitobans and to build our province.
It reminds us again in 1993 that we should
always be ensuring that all of our citizens have the right and the ability to
pursue their talents through their efforts to make a contribution to the people
of our province.
As I have indicated as deputy government
House leader, I think this is a resolution that is worthy of consideration of
this House. If it is not passed today, I
think it is worthy for discussion to see it brought forward again at another
point.
I would like to thank the honourable
member for
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I think, in recognizing her, we have to also
recognize the stumbling blocks that were put in the way of many women as they
tried to pursue a career of their choice.
It is unfortunate that those blocks were put there, but it is also
fortunate that things have changed in this province and that women do have the
opportunity, although there are still many cases where there are not as open
opportunities as there should be. There
are still blocks there.
This is one way that we can recognize the
contributions that women have made to this province, and I am looking forward
to perhaps getting a copy of that book and reading through the contributions
that this woman has made. It must have
been a tremendous hardship and a disappointment to spend that much time studying,
particularly the difficulties that she went through, to leave her family, to go
out of the country to get an education because that was not available and then
to have that education and not be able to make use of it. It must have been very, very disappointing.
* (1730)
Where she practised with her husband and
her father being involved in the railway industry brings back memories of some
of the things that my ancestors did.
Both my grandfathers and my father were involved in the railway
industry. I know that they faced some
very difficult jobs, and there were many accidents as well. Our families also lived in very remote areas
where we did not have access to a doctor, so the people in the Whitemouth area
were very fortunate to have someone who could provide services to them which
were not available to many people in other parts of the province.
I think it was wrong what happened to this
woman, that she was not granted her licence to practise in this province was
wrong, Mr. Speaker. I think it is only
right that these things should be corrected, just as the member for Lac du
Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) talked about the corrections that we had made in
recognizing Louis Riel, who was not recognized.
It is time that we should recognize other people if they have not been
recognized in the past.
Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to see this
resolution brought forward, and we would offer our support to it as well.
Mrs. Shirley Render (St.
Vital): It gives me pleasure to rise to speak to this
motion.
I think all of us know that perhaps here
in
What I found interesting, and I have just
had the book sort of seconds in my hand.
I was just reading one little part here where‑‑now I have to
put my glasses back on here‑‑
An Honourable Member: Oh, you are getting old.
Mrs. Render: I am getting old.
I am quoting from the dust jacket. It says:
After overcoming resistance to herself as a female doctor, she became a
trusted and well‑loved figure in the community.
This is something that I found out in my
research. Some of you know that I have
just written a book on women pilots, Canadian women pilots, and one of the
things that the women there told me, in fact, the men told me, that so often
they judged a woman. They said, gee, you
do very well for a woman. The women
said, we will know that we have made it when they say, you are a good pilot,
not just that you are a good woman pilot.
So as I say, I think it is very
interesting that 100 years earlier, this lady, Dr. Charlotte Ross, said much
the same thing, that she was judged not just as a medical doctor, but as a
female medical doctor. Of course, that
is the root of all of this right here, that women who went into nontraditional
roles had a whole pile of misconceptions, obstacles, barriers that they had to
overcome. I think one of the things that
was probably common, whether a woman became a doctor or a lawyer or a pilot or
an engineer, was the thought that women's proper place was in the home. That was probably the toughest barrier for
women to overcome, because it was not written down in any legislation. There
was not any rule book that said women must do this and women must do that, but
that was the tradition, and tradition and unwritten rules are some of the
hardest things to overcome.
Social attitudes of the day, certainly
back in the 19th Century, even though this was a country that was a pioneering
country and there were really no rules, there was no laid‑out pattern
that women had to do this and women had to do that, and of course we all know
from our history, our knowledge of women in the farm area, those women did not
stand on ceremony and say, my job is only to cook, I am not supposed to go out
in the fields, I am not supposed to push a plow. Again, I think it is very interesting that
when things have to be done, women do not stand on ceremony and say, I am not
going to do that, they just go ahead and do it.
But, on the other side of the coin, when
they try to move into areas that perhaps others do not think they should be
there, all of the sudden the unwritten rules come out. And certainly Dr. Charlotte Ross found these
unwritten rules. I notice that the very
first part of the resolution states that she was forced to get her medical
degree from the
Now, down about the sixth or seventh
WHEREAS, it says: WHEREAS Doctor Ross's dedication and perseverance improved
opportunities for all Manitoban and Canadian women. I think those two words, dedication and
perseverance, are very important, because again, in my research and in my
studies I have found that women who moved into the nontraditional areas, the
trait that was common to all of them was persistence. Dedication and perseverance are just another
way of saying it, that the women who persisted and who were not about to take
no, who were not about to be turned away or to be afraid to take that
challenge, they were the ones that were the true pioneers.
Just as a sort of a personal note, my
father is a medical doctor and he received his medical degree before World War
II. When I asked him what he thought about women being in medical school, he
said, as a matter of fact, Shirley, approximately one‑third to one‑half
of the class were women, and that was before World War II. I am not too sure what happened in the interim
period, because certainly throughout the '40s and the '50s and the '60s there
were not that many women, but my youngest brother is now just finishing his
medical degree and he says that more than half of his classmates are women, so
I do see a difference.
We have had to wait a long time. I see here that Dr. Ross graduated in 1875,
so I certainly hope 100 years later that we can say that, yes, women do make up
at least one‑half of the graduating class. But whether it is numbers, I think that is
immaterial. I think the important part
is whether there are barriers preventing women from going into whatever
field. I do not think there has to be a
quota on women. It is whether or not the
doors are open. I certainly know that in
this day and age, and I am sure all members here in this Legislature would have
no qualms about saying, yes, if women are qualified, if women are competent,
there is no reason why that particular woman should not do what she wishes to
do.
Certainly, Dr. Charlotte Ross was one of these
women. She was qualified; she was
competent; she was courageous. I think
it takes a lot of courage to leave your home, your family, your province and
indeed your country to go away and pursue that career. That takes a lot of guts, and I am not too sure
how many people here would be able to do something like that.
So she was a pioneer. She was a pioneer in a whole variety of
ways. She was a pioneer because she was
one of the first Canadian women doctors.
She was a pioneer because she did overcome obstacles. The word "pioneer" I think
sometimes we use in the sense that they were the first or they were early, back
in the early part of this century, and Dr. Ross qualifies in all senses of the
word. I do not think from the little bit
I have read on her‑‑and I remember getting an invitation to the
unveiling of this book. If my memory is
correct, I think the unveiling did take place at‑‑was it at the
university or at the medical college library?
It seems to me it was at the medical college library. It was a downtown address.
* (1740)
But in the write‑up that I remember
reading in the paper, I do not think she was one of these‑‑well,
how shall I phrase it‑‑loud‑mouthed feminists who banged and
waved her arms and sort of flapped around.
My feeling of Dr. Ross was that she‑‑[interjection] No, I do
not think they had it back in those days.
My feeling is that Dr. Ross was just one of these women who said the
best way to prove that women can do the job is simply to be qualified and
competent, just simply to do a good job and just go about doing it, not rant
and rave.
Again, that was something that I found out
in the research that I did for my book.
The women in my book felt that the best way to make their mark was
simply to be competent, to be qualified, and to do the best possible job.
Mr. Speaker, I think that this is a good
resolution. I think it is very
definitely worthy of our spending time talking about an individual such as
this. Dr. Charlotte Ross I think has the
admiration of everyone here in this Chamber, and I think we should‑‑it
is a little late, but I think we must congratulate her family for bringing to
light this history because it is a piece of our history, a piece of our history
that has been forgotten, that has been sort of shoved under the mat.
I think it is high time that we here in
Mr. Ben Sveinson (La
Verendrye): Mr. Speaker, it has been said a number of
times already in the Assembly just now of the wrong that was done many years
ago. I do agree and would like to, I
guess you could say, connect with this person in some way just relating back to
my own life and the area that I grew up in, also the area that I represent
right now. This lady, her husband and
family, actually it was not in Whitemouth that they lived‑‑I guess
you could say it was the R.M. of Whitemouth possibly now‑‑but it
was in the River Hills area.
At any rate, it was said earlier by the
honourable member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) of the different trials that our
pioneers did run into at that time and how the CN did connect them in some way
with the area of
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take my
friends within this Assembly back to my time as a child in northern
My mother, for example, was not trained as
such in the medical field‑‑[interjection] in being a mother, that
is right, exactly, and in raising a family of a very large number I think, 13,
nine boys and four girls. I, Mr.
Speaker, was born in a log cabin about seven or eight miles east of Spearhill
in the middle, literally, of wilderness.
It is absolute wilderness all around it.
I was told by my grandparents and by my parents and my brothers what
kind of a mischievous little fellow I was during my growing‑up years and
the troubles that I got into. I am not
going to go into all of them, because some of my colleagues around here might
laugh too long. However, just to give
you a few things that we used to do, one was cutting wood. We used to sell it to the lime plant in
The point that I want to get to here is
just to show you how mothers‑‑and indeed this lady was indeed a
mother. She did have schooling, but I am
just trying to connect it with what things my mother did. My brothers and I were out cutting cord one
day, and being mischievous young fellows we saw‑‑and indeed we did
some trapping in those days, too, actually a lot of it.
An Honourable Member: Gophers?
Mr. Sveinson: No, squirrels, muskrats and so on.
At any rate, we saw this squirrel in a
tree, and we were just kind of sitting around the fire at the time, it was in
winter. We said, hey, let us scare that squirrel a little bit, you know. So we
grabbed little sticks and we threw them up in the tree to scare it, you see, a
little bit. Then we started running
through the trees because he was jumping from tree to tree. So I grab another stick and I let it go
again. It hit some branches, and it came
right back and went right through my lip.
There is a scar right here. It
went right through my lip. [interjection]
This is where the connection comes in,
Reg. If you listen closely, Reg‑‑the
member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), if he will listen now he will get the
connection.
I threw the stick. It hit the branches on the spruce trees and
came right back at me just like a dart.
I could see it coming just like an arrow, and it went right through my
lip. You can see the scar right here.
At any rate, it was strange. I felt no pain, but I just kind of backed up
against a tree and I just slid right down to the ground. I was out.
I passed out. When I came to, my
brothers were there. I was bleeding, of
course, from here and I could feel this thing inside here. The branch had gone through my lip and the
knot had broken off just inside the skin.
It swelled up pretty good, and we were about a mile and a half to two
miles away from home. We did not have
anything fast to get there. We had to
walk. Away we went. We got home.
Now the key here is, we were about 15
miles away from the nearest hospital. We
did not have a car or a truck. It was
horse and buggy time.
An Honourable Member: You are not that old, Ben.
Mr. Sveinson: Oh, yes, unfortunately I am.
However, my mother said to me, Ben, there
is something we have to think about here.
If I push that stick through your lip it is going to tear the muscles in
your lip, because it was just inside. If
I push it back through it will not tear anything more than has been torn
already. It was quite numb at the
time. It was starting to give me some
pain, but she did slowly push it back through and took it out. I did not go to a doctor. If you look at this scar, it is hardly
noticeable. There is no lump there now
at all.
An Honourable Member: Can I see it?
* (1750)
Mr. Sveinson: Yes, it is right here. I was about eight or nine years at the time,
about eight or nine years old.
What I am trying to point out here is that
this lady was indeed a pioneer. My
mother was a pioneer. In fact, I guess
you could say that, in some ways, I was too.
I grew up in what is called the horse‑and‑buggy days. I did drive the horse and buggy. I did drive the horse and the sleighs and had
a great time doing it, a great time. I
loved every minute of it. I did a lot of
trapping and hunting, which was part of that pioneer spirit, but having
somebody like this lady‑‑[interjection] woman?
I am being told what to call this
lady. I truly think she was a lady. A lady is indeed a woman. I hope my colleagues connected with that. When I say a lady, that is even, I do not
know, it kind of gives more‑‑how would you call it? [interjection]
That is more like it. That is
right. A woman on a pedestal, if you
will. It is something, I do not know,
somehow maybe a little more glamorous.
On a pedestal kind of exemplifies what I mean.
I really do consider what this woman, who
was, indeed, by anybody's measure, a doctor, and a very trained doctor, who in
fact practised‑‑and this does connect. It kind of makes me feel good, in the sense
that I do represent the area where at one point she did live and practise. So it does make me feel good to be able to
talk on this, and indeed to, in some way, be able to connect with this woman
who lived actually quite a long time ago.
I was not born in that time, of
course. In fact, I was born quite a long
time after that, but there was something more in the area, and not as the kind
of connection, if you will, that those areas had with civilization.
I believe that I was about 14, no, about
12 years old before we had hydro at the farm that we lived on in the area where
I was born. It is not that long ago
either, when you really think about it.
Eleven off of 48. That is about
37 years ago that in fact we finally got hydro in that area. [interjection]
Yes. When you try to think about it, it
is not that long ago, really. You look
at the services given today, and this is again connecting with this woman. I do not like that; I like
"lady." At any rate, this
woman who was a lady and a doctor, if you look at today in the Whitemouth area
still, because I guess of the population in the area, it still has a hard time
to hold doctors in that area.
So I would just like to say that I indeed
think that this is a resolution that is worthy of passage and compliment the
member for
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Niakwa): Mr. Speaker, indeed, this is a very
appropriate resolution to come before the House in regard to looking at past
discretions for some of the members who were in the House a long time ago. I guess when you look at the resolution
regarding Dr. Charlotte Whitehead Ross and her contributions not only to the
medical profession but to
The fact that the doctor came to
Whitemouth to do her practising and to serve her community in regard to, I
believe, with her husband being part of the construction with railway, the
railway here in
There was that Victorian attitude. We came to call it a Victorian attitude of
the male dominance at that particular time and the fact that the woman was not
allowed to even look at a naked man. In
fact, she was involved with the medical practice. It just seems unapproached at
that time. [interjection] Mr. Speaker, I should maybe not have gotten into this
subject in that particular way. We have
to get back onto the track of looking at this resolution and not what my
colleagues here are trying to mislead me and take me down this path of wrong
direction.
Indeed, it is a very apropos motion and I
believe that the member for
As mentioned before, women have played a
very, very significant role in Manitoba and the history of Manitoba, and it just
seems that a very short time ago, in fact, we just finished celebrating, I
believe, the international year of the woman here in the Legislature just less
than two weeks ago.
An Honourable Member: International Women's Day, March 8.
Mr. Reimer: Yes, March 8, that is right, International
Women's Day. There was a significance
and a recognition by the Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Mrs.
Mitchelson) here in the Legislature for the strong contribution and involvement
that women have had in
Dr. Ross certainly would qualify as being
one of the pioneers here in
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for
Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) will have 12 minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is now
adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Friday).