LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Monday, April 5, 1993
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Mike
Smud, Iris Smud, William Smud and others requesting the government of
* * *
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Pierre Chenier, James Russell, Connie Bauer and others requesting the Minister
of Labour (Mr. Praznik) consider holding public hearings on wide‑open
Sunday shopping throughout
Mr. Speaker: I have
reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Storie). It complies with he privileges and the
practices of the House and complies with the rules (by leave). Is it the will
of the House to have the petition read? [agreed!
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the provincial
government has without notice or legal approval allowed wide‑open Sunday
shopping; and
WHEREAS the provincial
government has not consulted Manitobans before implementing wide‑open Sunday
shopping; and
WHEREAS the provincial
government has not held public hearings on wide‑open Sunday shopping;
WHEREFORE your
petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of
BE IT FURTHER resolved
that the Legislative Assembly be pleased to request the Attorney General to
uphold the current law concerning Sunday shopping until public hearings are
held and the Legislature approves changes to the law.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have
reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Plohman). It complies with the privileges and the
practices of the House and complies with the rules (by leave). Is it the will
of the House to have the petition read? [agreed!
Mr. Clerk: The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS the United
Nations has declared 1993 the International Year of the World's Indigenous
People with the theme, "Indigenous People:
a new partnership"; and
WHEREAS the provincial
government has totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and
WHEREAS the provincial government
has stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and
WHEREAS the elimination
of all funding to friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as
well as the services and programs provided, such as: assistance to the elderly, the homeless,
youth programming, the socially disadvantaged, families in crisis, education,
recreation and cultural programming, housing relocation, fine options,
counselling, court assistance, advocacy;
WHEREFORE your
petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have
reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Ms. Wowchuk). It complies with the privileges and the
practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed!
Mr. Clerk: The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS the provincial
government has without notice or legal approval allowed wide‑open Sunday
shopping; and
WHEREAS the provincial
government has not consulted Manitobans before implementing wide‑open
Sunday shopping; and
WHEREAS the provincial
government has not held public hearings on wide‑open Sunday shopping;
WHEREFORE your
petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of
BE IT FURTHER resolved
that the Legislative Assembly be pleased to request the Attorney General to
uphold the current law concerning Sunday shopping until public hearings are
held and the Legislature approves changes to the law.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have
reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Ms. Barrett). It complies with the privileges and the
practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed!
Mr. Clerk: The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS there have been
substantial cuts to materials in the Great Library; and
WHEREAS more cuts to
materials are planned; and
WHEREAS the Department
of Justice plans to lay off three staff members of the Great Library at the end
of March 1993; and
WHEREAS such cuts to
staffing will reduce the level of service and the hours of operation;
WHEREFORE your
petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have
reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Hickes). It complies with the privileges and the
practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed!
Mr. Clerk: The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS the United
Nations has declared 1993 the International Year of the World's Indigenous
People with the theme, "Indigenous People:
a new partnership"; and
WHEREAS the provincial
government has totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and
WHEREAS the provincial
government has stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and
WHEREAS the elimination
of all funding to friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as
well as the services and programs provided, such as: assistance to the elderly, the homeless,
youth programming, the socially disadvantaged, families in crisis, education,
recreation and cultural programming, housing relocation, fine options,
counselling, court assistance, advocacy;
WHEREFORE your
petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of
* (1335)
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a
communique from the Energy and Mines ministers' meeting held last week at the
prospectors' and developers' meeting, a communique of all the stakeholders
involved in the Whitehorse Mining Initiative.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 25‑The Public
Schools Amendment Act (4)
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), that Bill 25, The Public Schools Amendment Act
(4); Loi no 4 modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles publiques, be introduced and that
the same be now received and read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 24‑The
Taxicab Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and
Transportation): I
move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst), that Bill 24, The
Taxicab Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur
les taxis et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), be
introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 23‑‑The
Retail Businesses
Amendment and Payment of
Wages Amendment Act
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism): Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Government Services (Mr.
Ducharme), that Bill 23, The Retail Businesses
Motion agreed to.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Student Social Allowance
Program
Impact Study Tabling
Request
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First
Minister.
In 1988 the Premier spoke in this House about the tragedy of a
person lacking the skills necessary to compete in today's dynamic
marketplace. The Premier, of course, was
talking about education and training.
The Premier has
continued that theme in words, if not in deeds, through to the Speech from the
Throne this year, where he clearly states that education and training is the
key to unlock opportunities for people in
I would like the Premier
to table any study he has indicating the long‑term cost benefit to the
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, the program that
the member opposite is speaking of is a program that is not provided by any
other provincial government in
Point of Order
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I would hope the Premier would
have better research to know that no such comment was made by the member for
Kildonan. If the Premier is going to
make shots like that from the House, he should have the dignity to confirm them
before he does so.
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member does not
have a point of order. It is a dispute
over the facts.
* * *
* (1340)
Mr. Filmon: Mr.
Speaker, I withdraw that categorically.
The fact of the matter is that it was the member for Burrows (Mr.
Martindale) who made that statement‑‑the other colleague. Wrong New Democrat but same philosophy.
The fact of the matter
is that in other provinces, in times when this program was not available in
Mr. Doer: Mr.
Speaker, the only one increasing welfare in this province is this Premier and
his policies. Honestly, it is not all
the fault of this government. There is a
dynamic across
Funding Reduction Impact
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): A further question to the Premier on long‑term
costs versus short‑term savings.
The government has
announced a 10 percent cut in the money going to a number of social agencies,
including the Main Street Project, Mr. Speaker.
We are informed that the Main Street Project cut of 10 percent will mean
that people now in detox centres, 80 percent of the people in detox centres for
six months, will no longer have availability of that facility, which will mean
that those people will go to the AFM, which has been cut, and they will end up
in hospitals or potentially in more severe restrictions, in our prison system.
I would like to ask the
Premier: How cost beneficial is the
decision of the government to cut back 10 percent to the Main Street Project,
and what will be the long‑term impact on people ending up in hospitals
and higher‑cost institutions, let alone not getting the recovery and the
treatment programs to get back on their feet?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): In response to the postamble of the Leader of
the Opposition, if it is an ideological decision, why is it that New Democrats
and Liberals in office in nine other provinces are not providing the same
programming, Mr. Speaker? Why have they made exactly the same analysis? They do not provide this kind of support for
students on welfare.
With respect to the
second part of his question, that is under the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer). I will let him answer the
specifics of that.
Children's Dental
Program
Funding Reduction Impact
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): The Premier may be able to change Sunday
shopping laws, he may be able to change this law, he may be able to rip up this
agreement with the Sports Federation, but he is not yet the Speaker in this
House to refer questions back and forth the way he cavalierly does in this
Chamber.
A final question to the
Premier. Since he did not give us the
study on the long‑term impact on social allowance cutbacks and he did not
answer the question on the long‑term impacts, the Premier will be the one
hopefully co‑ordinating between the Department of Family Services and the
Department of Health.
Another question to the
Premier. Last year the government cut
back access for the 13‑ and 14‑year‑olds in the Children's
Dental Program across rural
I would like to ask the
Premier: Does he have any study dealing
with the impact of his cutbacks last year on the Children's Dental Program, and
what policy areas does he have in place for the decisions they are going to
communicate to the staff tomorrow at budget time, at 1:30, running the
Children's Dental Program in the
* (1345)
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I was not cavalierly offering to
have the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) provide
information. I was wanting to do so out
of a sincere desire to have the question answered. The Leader of the Opposition, as he is wont
to do, offers extraneous comments on half a dozen different items as part of
his preamble, most of which are inaccurate, and I have to address the
inaccuracies. His lack of credibility has to be demonstrated, so I respond to
him in that respect.
Mr. Speaker, I can just
tell him that with respect to the Children's Dental Program, he will have an
opportunity to examine any and all decisions that are made on any and all items
in this budget, but I point out to him that in
I know that he has the
great benefit of not looking at reality.
As a member of the opposition, he can just be irresponsible day after
day and, as he did today when asked by a reporter, say, I have no suggestions
to offer; I have no alternatives to offer; all I want to do is criticize.
We know where he is
coming from, Mr. Speaker. That kind of
lack of responsibility is why he remains the Leader of the Opposition.
APM Management
Consultants
Travel Expenses
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of
Health.
Another unfortunate
reality today is the minister has confirmed the Department of Health has signed
a $3.9‑million contract, or more, if the Canadian dollar should happen to
go down, to a U.S.‑based consultant who makes health care reform sound
like a fast food franchise. Why, in
addition to the $3.9 million, plus more if the Canadian dollar goes down, is
the government forcing St. Boniface Hospital and the Health Sciences Centre to
pay the expenses which could be up to $800,000, that is, the expenses of these
consultants to fly into
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, let me deal with the issue of
the consultant and the tabling of the contract.
As I indicated, should we undertake a contract with APM, we would make
full and complete information available, which was done this morning.
Mr. Speaker, a number of
inaccuracies have already come to light from my honourable friend's previous
questioning. I do not want to go into
all of those inaccuracies, but let us not allow my honourable friend to leave
the impression that this contract with APM is not supported by St. Boniface
Hospital and Health Sciences Centre.
Those two institutions and their respective boards urged and have been
urging the government for some eight weeks to get on with completion of a
contract which we announced today.
The reason why we have
undertaken this contract is threefold.
It represents an opportunity for those two hospitals to maintain their
current level of patient services and care delivery. Secondly, it will enable caregivers to spend
more of their precious time delivering hands‑on care to patients. Mr. Speaker, as a benefit, there can be
significant savings to both of those institutions.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr.
Speaker, my supplementary to the minister:
In addition to the $3.9‑million fee, could not St. Boniface
Hospital and Health Sciences Centre use that perhaps additional $800,000 in
expenses that they are going to pay for air travel, lodging, local
transportation, meals and other miscellaneous expenses, could they not use that
$800,000 potential for patient care, to deliver patient services to patients
rather than expenses for
* (1350)
Mr. Orchard: Well, I
take it, Mr. Speaker, although my honourable friend has not been direct enough
in his preamble or his questions to say whether he agrees or disagrees with the
engagement of this consultant firm‑‑I am not certain where he
stands there‑‑let me remind my honourable friend that the two
hospitals in question, St. Boniface and Health Sciences Centre, for a number of
weeks now, have been very much urging this government to engage the consultant
because they want to meet what they see as decreasing financial resources with
the ability, Sir, to maintain the current volume of patient services, which is
part and parcel of this agreement to increase the amount of opportunity and
time that caregivers, nurses and other staff spend with actual patient care
delivery and at the same time save precious tax resources.
The hospitals are doing
that because they care about preserving patient care and medicare in the
Tender Process
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, yes, and we saw that the two hospital
presidents, no nurses, no one else from the hospitals were at that press
conference this morning.
They were supposed to
have a plan and now they have brought in their consultant to try‑‑will
the minister perhaps table the tender notice for all of the other consulting
firms and Canadian firms that were asked to do this project?
Will he tender one
scintilla of evidence that this contract was offered to other individuals,
other consulting firms, and not to the one U.S.‑based firm that does not
even have a Canadian base or Canadian education person on their staff, if their
prospectus can be believed?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we undertook exactly that kind of
discussion with a number of our major Canadian consultant firms. Also, I regret my honourable friend does not
consider the presidents of Health Sciences Centre and St. Boniface, the board
chairs of those two respective institutions, and the vice‑presidents of
medicine of those respective institutions to be nonentities, because they were
at the press conference this morning to support and to encourage government to
undertake this firm and their engagement in consulting.
Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian firms have had an opportunity of some four months to propose any initiative
that they wish. Let me tell my
honourable friend a simple fact, and this was confirmed by the CEOs of our
major hospitals. There is no Canadian
consulting presence which has the experience in restructuring health care that
APM does. We have been told by Canadian
consulting firms that should they have been engaged, they would have contracted
with American expertise, quite probably the same ones we engaged directly, Sir,
because such expertise does not exist in‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please.
Student Social Allowance
Program
Success Rate
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker,
The Premier, earlier in
this afternoon session, said that student social allowances were not provided
anywhere else in
Can the Premier of this
province provide this House with a breakdown of the success, or lack of
success, on academic performance of those students who are on student social
assistance?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the so‑called
statistics on poverty rates‑‑
An Honourable
Member: So‑called?
Mr. Filmon: Well, Statistics Canada admits to the
following information: For instance, the
low‑income cutoffs or poverty‑line figures are arbitrary national
guidelines. Because of this, the low‑income
estimates assume that a family of four persons living in
In fact, if you will
look further into the statistics, you will find that the average income of all
With respect to the‑‑
An Honourable Member: Are you saying there is no poverty in
Mr. Filmon: I am not
saying that at all‑‑
Some Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please.
* (1355)
Mr. Filmon: Mr.
Speaker, none of us would like to have anybody living in poverty in any
province, and we certainly do not want to have people living in poverty in this
province, but to use the arbitrary figures that do not paint a representative
picture, that are not related to the cost of living in this province vis‑a‑vis
other provinces, is not an accurate figure.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker,
with respect to the student welfare program, I have said before, that is a
program that has been found to be unaffordable by all the other provinces in
Post-Secondary Education
Accessibility
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the Premier makes reference to
"so‑called statistics," arbitrary statistics, but they are the
statistics by which every single province, including
Can the Premier tell the
House how we are going to encourage more people to go on to post‑secondary
education institutions when we are cutting young people by the thousand who
would get the benefit of the education necessary to make them eligible to go
into post‑secondary education?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): The educational opportunities continue to be
there. What is needed, of course, is for
them to find alternate means of ensuring that they can support themselves. Mr. Speaker, in the past, those people have
lived with their families while they continued to go to school. In the past, they have found part‑time
work. In the past, they have found
opportunities within their circle of support, that is, the community, and that
is what is done in nine other provinces today.
Student Social Allowance
Program
Success Rate
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, obviously the Premier does not
live in the world that the rest of us live in, because we know that these very
young people who are on social allowances in many cases are supporting
families. They could go back to
families? They are the heads of
families. Many of these others, quite
frankly, have not got alternative means because they lack the very education to
even get a job at McDonald's.
Can the Premier tell us,
other than going back to their families, what other alternate methods, policies
and initiatives does he have for these people?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I cannot afford to live in the
world of the Leader of the Liberal Party.
I acknowledge that. The fact of
the matter is that no other province in
Social Assistance
CRISP Benefit
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Conservative
government of this province is heartless, uncaring, callous, unfair and
rapacious. What is the proof of these
statements? The proof is the cuts to
foster family rates, the increase in child care rates, the elimination of the
student social allowance program and the elimination of the funding to MAPO and
friendship centres and many, many other programs.
How can the Minister of
Family Services, in good conscience, be part of a government that today signed
a contract with a consultant for $3.9 million and at the same time has
eliminated CRISP as a benefit that people on social assistance in the city of
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member has put
his question.
* (1400)
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member for
Burrows to look at the comments that his Leader made in today's paper when
asked what he would do if he was in government
He said: I do not know; I cannot tell
you.
Yet out on the steps day
after day, he tells every group, yes, we would reinstate that, we would do
this, we would do everything, but he does not say how he is going to get that
money.
I would also ask him to
look at the governments in
Income Tax Refunds
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Family Services
did not answer the question about why CRISP was eliminated as a benefit.
Why has the Minister of Family
Services decided to claw back income tax rebates for people on city assistance
when this is targeting people on social assistance who have earned income from
employment? Why do they have to forego
getting this revenue when anyone else who works is entitled to these
benefits? Why is he targeting city
social assistance recipients?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, the member is terribly
mistaken. By standardizing the rules and
regulations by which social allowances is put forth in Manitoba, CRISP has
never been recognized as part of the social allowance program for provincial
recipients and now will not be recognized by the City of Winnipeg.
As far as income tax,
the social allowance program is the source of income of last resort. While we do exempt a number of tax credits,
child tax benefits, the GST rebate, we have never exempted the income tax
refund.
Mr. Martindale: Can this
minister explain to social assistance recipients why this change in policy was
made in the middle of the refund season so that some people who got their
cheques before April 1 are allowed to keep this income and people after April 1
are going to have it deducted 100 percent from one cheque? We are talking about families, and we may be
talking amounts of up to $1,000. How can
this minister make this change at this time, in the middle of the refund
season?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr.
Speaker, the member was here for the debate on Bill 70. I am not surprised he did not understand it.
Clearly the bill said that these changes would be brought in on April 1.
The question of the
income tax rebate, the province has always regarded that as additional revenue
to recipients.
Student Social Allowance
Program
Funding Reinstatement
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
This program makes it
possible for a significant number of Manitobans to go to school, to get a
better job, to get off welfare. Some of
these people do not have homes to go back to. Some of these people are parents
themselves, and without this program, they will be still on welfare but not
getting an education.
I want to ask the
Premier: Given that that is the focus of
the program, will he now agree to reconsider this devastating decision and
reinstate the student social allowance program?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member for
Recipient Survey
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
I would like to ask the
Premier then if he would make a commitment to this House and to Manitobans, if
before finally cutting this program, he would survey all existing participants
of the student social allowance program to see how many are parents, how many
are single parents, how many have no other homes to go back to and give them
the option of having the benefit of this program so that they can break the
welfare cycle.
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, it does not take any courage to
do as the opposition members do, to go out and tell every group that comes to
this Legislature, we would give you more, we would pay more, we would give you
more money, and then not have the courage to face up to the taxpayer and say,
we would raise your taxes, just like they did for six and a half years when
they were government, increase the personal taxes, the personal income taxes
139 percent over a space of six and a half years. They do not have that kind of courage.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: It is the
taxpayers of this province who support breaking the welfare cycle and putting
people back to work.
The
Out-Migration Statistics
Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier: How many more young people, in addition to
the 23,000 who have already left Manitoba under this government since 1988, is
this government prepared to see leave Manitoba before acting to create
opportunities for young people instead of cutting them off from all available
opportunities?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): As usual, the member has her facts dead
wrong. That is absolutely a false
statement about the 23,000. [interjection! That is right, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is well over half of
the decline, in fact 61 percent of it, is the direct result of the aging of the
post‑war baby boom generation, so they do not appear in the statistics
because they have now moved beyond the 25‑year‑old bracket. There is an old saying, a little knowledge is
a dangerous thing, and the member for
Home Care Program
Equipment/Supply Costs
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Health.
Last week we learned
that the government is going to cut programs with supplies such as walkers and
crutches. These programs are very vital
to keep patients in their homes.
Can the Minister of
Health tell this House how, by cutting these programs, he is going to justify
the community‑based health care system?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, that question was posed
speculatively some 10 days ago, and I indicated that with patience one should
await the budget tomorrow and have an accurate assessment of what sort of
program changes may be part of the budget as they impact on the Ministry of
Health and across government in general.
From time to time, some of the speculation is not particularly productive
in terms of engendering understanding of the challenges government faces today
in creating budgets which do not impose undue tax hardships on the citizens of
this province, maintain a balance of services and keep our deficit down.
Mr. Cheema: Mr.
Speaker, can the minister then tell this House if he is saying that they are
not going to cut this program? Can he
say very clearly that tomorrow's budget will not cut any Home Care programs?
Mr. Orchard: Mr.
Speaker, what I am saying is that the budget details tomorrow will reveal the
size of the Home Care budget, and I think my honourable friend might be
somewhat surprised at the size of the Home Care budget.
Children's Dental
Program Elimination
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Health tell
this House if the provincial children's program is going to be cut tomorrow
also?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, again, I would just impose upon
my honourable friend for the patience to await the budget tomorrow. It will put to rest a lot of speculation
around a number of initiatives that various writers and speculators have said
are part of tomorrow's budget.
* (1410)
Rural Development
Corporations
Funding
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I want to ask the
Minister of Rural Development how he can justify the 10 percent cut, reduction
in funding, to RDCs, the very organizations that promote economic development
in rural
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Mr. Speaker, of course, the member knows full
well that over the course of the last number of years, our government has
indeed promoted economic development in rural
I can simply refer to
several of the programs that have been initiated under this government. Whether it is the Grow Bonds program, which
the opposition was not very enthused about, or the Rural Economic Development
Initiative program, which the opposition was not in favour of at all, the
Community Choices program, have indeed been tools that rural communities have
been able to use to build upon the strength of their communities.
I have to say that even
through the decentralization process, we have been able to move jobs out to
rural
Continuation
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
In light of the fact
that people across the province are concerned about the long‑term
viability of organizations geared towards economic development‑‑in
fact the previous member for Portage la Prairie was very concerned about what
this government was doing‑‑can the Minister of Rural Development
assure us that RDCs will continue to operate in rural Manitoba and that we will
have economic development under this government rather than just draining out
money‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member has put
her question.
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Mr. Speaker, there is no intention to
eliminate RDCs. As a matter of fact, we
will still continue to fund RDCs, but like any other organization, RDCs,
whether there are other organizations that function within our province, have
had to live up to the reality that indeed this province is undergoing a serious
financial situation, and indeed they have to commit some of their resources to
the common solution, if you like, for economic renewal and revival in this
province.
Funding
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Mr. Speaker, indeed our commitment is very
solid to rural
The member for Dauphin
(Mr. Plohman) speaks from his seat about some of the initiatives that have been
embarked on. I refer to one of the
largest, and that is the Ayerst Organics support that we were able to give
through Rural Economic Development and some thousand jobs that we created as a
result of that.
Mr. Speaker, when you
look at the Grow Bonds initiatives that have been embarked on, again a creation
of some 115 jobs in rural Manitoba‑‑we have already approved many
rural economic development initiatives through REDI which are going to create
jobs in rural
Children's Dental
Program
Status
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of
the Minister of Health who can maybe reconfirm that they have a commitment to
rural
Can the Minister of
Health confirm that this meeting is scheduled and that an excellent program for
preventative health care is about to be either eliminated or to be seriously
curtailed?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, this is approximately the fourth
time that I have asked honourable friends opposite to bear with some patience
for the budget tomorrow. My honourable
friend will have answers to any and all questions that he may wish to pose.
Let me digress slightly
and reiterate to my honourable friend the member for
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr.
Speaker, the development of the
My question for the
Minister of Health: Why does his
government even consider cutting back a preventative program which will reduce
additional costs in the future and therefore can be less costly to society in
the long run? Why is the government
being so shortsighted in downgrading‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member has put
his question.
Mr. Orchard: Mr.
Speaker, my honourable friend, I think, mentioned the word
"shame." The only shame I am
ever aware of that was associated with Brandon General Hospital is the shame
that my honourable friend endured when he went underground when the government
he sat in forced the closure of acute care beds at Brandon General Hospital
without consultation, without discussion, without backup of community
services. That is the kind of shame my
honourable friend ought to refer to.
Mr. Leonard Evans: The
minister has no answer so he speaks nonsense, absolute nonsense.
Mr. Speaker, my question
is to the Minister of Health, who is supposed to be so concerned about
preventative health care in rural
Mr. Orchard: Mr.
Speaker, I do not know how to give my friend an opportunity to defend where he
was in that three‑month period of absence when the hospital beds were
closed by the NDP in
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne is very clear that
ministers do not have to answer questions.
We know that happens on a regular basis, but the member for Brandon East
has asked a question about a very important program, the Children's Dental
Program. If this minister does not have
an answer, he should maybe not only sit down‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable opposition House
leader does not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Orchard: Mr.
Speaker, I just wish the member for Thompson had the courage to ask me some
questions about health care improvements in his city, things that he could not
achieve when he was a backbencher in the NDP.
Mr. Speaker, any time my
honourable friend the member for Brandon East wants to talk about provision of
health care services in rural
Mr. Speaker: Time for
Oral Questions has expired.
Nonpolitical Statements
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): May I have leave for a nonpolitical statement?
Mr. Speaker: Does the
honourable minister have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed!
Mr. Findlay: Mr.
Speaker, it gives me a great degree of pride and pleasure to have the
opportunity to rise and ask all members of this House to wish very strong,
warm, hearty congratulations to
Mr. Speaker, the
citizens of
Mr. Speaker, I would ask
all members of this House to join with me in congratulating
Mr. Speaker: Does the
honourable member for Brandon East have leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
[agreed!
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): It gives me great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to
join with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) in congratulating everyone
associated with the Royal Winter Fair held in
As the minister
indicated, it indeed is a massive volunteer co‑operative effort in the
community and does all of
I was particularly
impressed, as I am sure the members opposite were, with the participants who
came from all over
Mr. Speaker, I know
there has been development under this government of the Keystone Centre, but I
am proud of the fact that we built the Keystone Centre back in '70‑71. It was the greatest thing to ever be put in
the city of
* (1420)
Mr. Speaker: Does the
honourable member for St. Boniface have leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
[agreed!
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my
colleagues here in the Legislature in wishing well, again, and congratulate
The friendship that they
have shown in hospitality‑‑the hospitality is great and the
friendship that they have shown over the years, and the mayor has always
welcomed us there and welcomes everybody.
Like I say, it was a pleasure. I
will look forward to being there again next year. The volunteers, we have to congratulate,
because they are the ones who are responsible for putting up such a great show
and the talent that comes out of there.
Again, congratulations to the people of
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you call second readings,
Bills 17 and 18.
SECOND
Bill 17‑The Crown
Lands Amendment Act
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): I am delighted to move, seconded by the
honourable Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Downey), that Bill 17,
The Crown Lands Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les terres domaniales,
be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Enns: Mr.
Speaker, this although not a very large bill in terms of the number of clauses
involved, but these amendments to The Crown Lands Act are truly of
significance. For all those who have an
ongoing concern about our natural environment, what this is, is really a ground‑breaking
amendment to the real property legislation of this province, will enable
certain covenants‑‑wildlife and conservation covenants‑‑to
travel with the titles. This is, at this
point, confined to Crown lands.
Honourable members will
be aware, former ministers will be aware, from time to time Crown lands, if
they meet the criteria as set down by the different classification procedures
that are in place and have been in place for many years, can and are sold to
private Manitobans, but very often, there are specific physical features about
the land that ought to be in place and continue to be in place; that is, land
that is not suitable for breaking, land that is providing a valuable habitat
for various forms of wildlife, land that forms part of a wildlife corridor.
While there is no reason why this land cannot be sold to private property
holders in
There has been no
vehicle in place that could ensure that would take place. There was no way that a covenant could be
legally attached to the title that not only bound the initial purchaser of that
Crown land, but that would in fact travel with the title from purchaser to
purchaser.
I might say, Mr.
Speaker, other jurisdictions, particularly some in the East where there is
little or no Crown land or public or federal land, as in the case of the United
States, various wildlife and naturalist organizations have encouraged
governments to entertain this kind of legislation to preserve remaining
habitat.
I would like to‑‑although
this is not inherent in this bill, I serve notice that, in my view, it would be
an appropriate amendment to make available to private lands that have similar
features worthwhile preserving for natural habitat reasons and/or for specific
wildlife reasons.
We have instances where
people who now wish in their wills to leave land‑‑a particular 40
acres or a particular quarter section that they in their lifetime have
husbanded in such a way that the natural resources of that piece of land were
retained, that the provision it provided for habitat cover for various species
of wildlife be maintained‑‑so that it be passed on to future
generations, but there is no legal way.
There is no legal way that can be done.
I am suggesting to my
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) that in the future a similar amendment, a
similar change to the current Real Property Act be considered so that could be
done. Right now what happens all too often is that a person who has the kind of
land I am describing and wishing for it to be maintained in its natural state
will often come to government and say to my department, the Department of
Natural Resources, will you take on ownership of this land.
Mr. Speaker, honourable
members, I wish to acknowledge the former administration did indeed set up a
Manitoba Habitant Heritage Corporation partially for that reason, so that under
the jurisdiction of this Crown agency, Manitobans wishing to bequeath, but more
importantly wishing to ensure that land that had a particular value in its
natural state could continue in this way for future generations, and that the
benefits to wildlife resources and our department would derive from that if the
land remained undeveloped, untouched and not altered from its natural state.
Mr. Speaker, that is
something I hope that perhaps I will be able to provide to the Legislature for
consideration at some future date.
* (1430)
What I can do and what I
am doing by this bill is addressing that area that I have immediate legislative
responsibility for, and that is Crown lands.
So it is not too difficult to ask members of this Legislature to consider
these amendments as they relate to when the province, when the government sells
Crown lands, that it is possible, when the various experts within the
department make a case, that certain features of that land, the natural state
of that land, be preserved for the different reasons that I have mentioned,
that that in fact be so noted on the title and that that covenant then forever
travels with the title. Indeed if in
some future generations that land is purchased, there is a well noted caveat on
the land title documents that alerts the prospective purchaser of the fact that
this land, while it may be purchased, it may be repurchased many times over in
the future, but the natural habitat, the natural land cover must be preserved
in its natural state.
It is progressive
legislation, Mr. Speaker. It is the kind
of legislation that, together with other progressive legislation I have been
able to introduce in this House, such as The Endangered Species Act, worries
about the well‑being of those wildlife species that are threatened with
ongoing development on our landscape. It
forms part of the overall tools and mechanisms that government can bring to
bear to halt the continuing decline and loss of habitat that is so important
for the wildlife resources of this province.
I would suggest to the
honourable members opposite that they acquaint themselves with these
amendments. I know that organizations
such as the Manitoba Naturalists' Society and others, the Wilderness Caucus
groups by and large support this kind of legislation. They may not support it in its exact wording,
but it is the kind of legislation that I would like to think does not have all
that great deal of partisan politics attached to it. Surely in this Chamber, whether we are New
Democrats or Liberals or Conservatives, we have some understanding, some hope
to pass on our wildlife resources to future generations yet unborn.
I look that on this
particular bill, we will have unanimous support for the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, before adjourning debate, I just
wonder if I could ask a question for clarification of the minister, if that is
agreeable?
Mr. Speaker: Is there
leave of the House to allow the honourable member for Thompson to ask the honourable
minister a question for clarification?
There is leave. [agreed!
Mr. Ashton: Mr.
Speaker, I just wanted to ask the minister, and I appreciate his comments, if
there are any restrictions on the type of covenant that can be transferred
under this particular legislation, or whether it can apply to any and all
covenants respecting the use of the land for wildlife or habitat purposes.
Mr. Enns: The
actual legislation‑‑I am prohibited in our rules, Mr. Speaker, to deal
clause by clause with the legislation.
We are dealing in second reading in the principle of the bill. The honourable member will see in the clause
of the bill that it refers to an agreement that when the seller and the
purchaser enter into a sale of a particular piece of property, an agreement be
arrived at, and it is within that agreement that variations pertinent to that
piece of land would be noted. It is that
agreement that becomes the covenant that would travel with that.
In some cases, it will
be a prohibition against any breaking of the land, for instance, the taking
down of any trees in that area. In
another case, it may be a case of not impeding a natural drainage or natural
creek to flow through the land, and the agreement may specifically refer to not
being able to put a dam or some obstruction in the normal watercourse. So it is not restrictive in that sense. It will be a question of the agreement
spelling out the unique resource features of that specific piece of land that
the government‑‑in this instance, the Crown agency‑‑wishes
to protect and wishes to ensure its protection in succeeding sales to future
generations of prospective buyers.
Mr. Ashton: Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), that debate
be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 18‑The
Corporations Amendment Act
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), that Bill 18, The Corporations
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les corporations, be now read a second
time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr.
Speaker, the suggested amendments would require all trust and loan corporations
doing business in
This legislation will
not result in needless duplication of regulatory activity as we will continue
to rely upon the incorporating jurisdiction to act as the primary
regulator. At the present time there are
some provinces which have adopted what is called the equals approach which does
result in duplication of activities, particularly in regard to audits. This has highlighted the need for
harmonization which
As you are aware, Mr.
Speaker, over the past several years, the provinces and the federal government
have been working towards a harmonized reregulation of financial institutions,
and this bill is one of the first steps in this province in attaining that goal
of harmonization. The enactment of this
bill will not dramatically change the practices of the trust and loan division
but will formalize the requirement for extraprovincial trust and loan
corporations. We have always, here in
The current legislation
does not provide for a level playing field under which all trust and loan
corporations doing business in the provinces play by. At the present time, extraprovincial
corporations are not required to directly report to the trust and loan division
of the department nor to pay a fee to the province. The proposed legislation will change that and
provide for the equal treatment of all trust and loan corporations doing
business in the province. At the present
time, all companies operating in the province are required to have deposit
insurance through the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, CDIC, and this
provision will not change.
This legislation will
not change this relationship, and in fact, because this legislation moves us
into the direction of greater harmonization, it will probably strengthen the
feasibility of maintaining this co‑operative effort. This is of great benefit to
If we were not to change
our legislation, it is entirely within the realm of possibility that we might
not be able to maintain this relationship with the Federal Superintendent of
Financial Institutions because that office would be required to report under
two distinctly different pieces of legislation.
In short, Mr. Speaker,
the basic purpose of the bill is to require that trust and loan corporations be
authorized to do business in the province, to require them to pay an annual
fee, to require trust and loan corporations operating in the province to file
financial and other statements as required, and is phase one of a two‑step
process which will ultimately result in harmonization of these procedures
across the country.
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker. I look forward to my critics'
comments on this issue.
* (1440)
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The
honourable acting government House leader, what are your intentions, sir?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting Government House Leader): Would you please call Bill 2 and Bill 3?
Mr. Speaker: Prior to
proceeding with Bill 2 and Bill 3, I just happen to notice that on the Order
Paper, we have debate on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness), which I believe is redundant at this point in time.
I am wondering, would
there be leave of the House to have this motion taken off the Order Paper, or
is it the will of the House to leave it on the Order Paper? [interjection! It
is the motion of the honourable Minister of Finance about notwithstanding Rule
65(6.1).
Is there a willingness
on the part of the members just to help clean up the Order Paper?
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I think it is redundant. Just for information, I know there may be
some confusion, but we have already tabled the Estimates' order list, so it is
redundant. I suggest we do, by leave,
delete it from the Order Paper.
Mr. Speaker: There is
a willingness on the part of members then?
That is agreed? [agreed!
I would like to thank
honourable members.
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).
Some Honourable Members: Stand.
Mr. Speaker:
Stand? Is there leave that this
matter remain standing? [agreed!
Honourable acting
government House leader, what are your intentions now, sir?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting Government House Leader): Would you call Bill 20, please.
Bill 20‑The Social
Allowances Regulation Validation Act
Mr. Speaker: On the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), Bill 20,
The Social Allowances Regulation Validation Act; Loi validant un reglement
d'application de la Loi sur l'aide sociale, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed!
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, before I delve into the purpose
and intent of this bill, I would like to go back to some statements that were
made by the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) in Question Period
today.
In fact, I thought that
this bill would probably stand in the name of the Minister of Family Services,
but I guess because it is a very technical amendment, for some reason, it is
standing in the name of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General (Mr.
McCrae).
However, today, in
response to my question, of course, the minister did not answer my question; in
fact, he gave misleading information.
When I asked about the CRISP benefit being disallowed as a benefit for
people on city social assistance, he referred to the policy of the provincial
social assistance system. Of course, I
am already familiar with the policy regarding the provincial social assistance
system, and that is that people can receive the benefit, but it is deducted
dollar for dollar from their cheques, so most people do not bother applying.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
The situation with the
City of
One of the substantial
changes that was made was that the City of
Ever since that time,
the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty Organization and other groups have been
lobbying the provincial government, unsuccessfully, to allow people on
provincial assistance to receive the Child Related Income Support Program
benefit. The province has consistently
said no, because it is a program that is targeted for low‑income but
working people, and so they were unwilling to change that rule.
Now, because of the
standardization of social assistance rates under Bill 70 in the last session,
the differences in benefits have basically been eliminated, and so the people
on city that were eligible for provincial programs no longer are. That was the
intent of my question.
My question was: Why has the government changed that, knowing
that
So I am very
disappointed, first of all, that the government has made this change in policy
and, secondly, that the minister did not have the decency to answer the
question properly and defend this policy decision that he made.
Secondly, we asked the
minister about changes to income tax refunds and what people are allowed to
keep and what they are not allowed to keep.
Well, I did my research before I asked this question. I always do my research before I ask
questions. In fact, I always know what
the answer is before I ask the question.
It is pretty hard to get
a straight answer out of a minister who distorts what you say and when you ask
about income tax refunds talks about the CRISP benefit, and when you know that
some kinds of income are exempt and others are not and you know what the
differences are, and the minister knows that I know what the differences are,
why can he not just answer the question and defend his policy? I am going to be‑‑[interjection!
As my honourable friend from Dauphin says, that would be asking too much from
the minister.
Tomorrow morning when I
get Hansard on line, I will be checking his answer for accuracy, because I
think he distorted the intent of the question in his distorted answer, because
I believe that my sources of information were correct. I was talking to staff of the City of
If that is the case,
then the City of
If that is the case, why
did they not get six months notice? Why did they not get three months
notice? Why did they not get a months
notice? What I am told by the front line
staff is that they do not even have the new regulations. So the front line staff are going to their
supervisors and asking their supervisors, what are the new rules? The supervisors apparently have some
information and that information contradicts what the Minister of Family
Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) said in the House today in response to my question.
So when we read that
answer, we will be seeking clarification either in Question Period or in
Estimates, if we ever get to Estimates, or in Budget Debate or in Question
Period. We get another chance to try to
get this minister to clarify his answers.
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): Check with Ecclesiastes, Chapter 10, Verse 2.
Mr. Martindale: Well,
the Minister of Natural Resources wants to quote Scriptures. I happen to have read the Scripture. I am waiting for the member for Rossmere (Mr.
Neufeld). I understand the member for
Rossmere is going to address this in his Budget Debate, and I am waiting for
that moment. I am going to consult the
commentaries. You will just have to be
patient and wait until after the member for Rossmere speaks, and then I will
give the rebuttal to the interpretation of the member for Rossmere.
I think it is not quite
as simple as the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) would like to
think. I am sure that, since it is from
the Book of Ecclesiastes, it has a much deeper meaning than the surface meaning
that he would like to give to that passage.
[interjection! There are many good things in the Bible. There are many things in the book that you
probably do not agree with, Mr. Deputy Premier, but that is not the purpose of
this debate today. We will get into
Biblical interpretation on your Sunday shopping bills. I think it is the kind of passage that your
members would like to ignore.
* (1450)
In Bill 20, The Social
Allowances Regulation Validation Act, the Minister of Justice and Attorney
General (Mr. McCrae) refers to kinds of income which are exempt, for example,
Manitoba cost of living and property tax credits, the federal child tax benefit
and the federal goods and services tax credit.
Those are the kinds of income that have been exempt and will continue to
be exempt and which I was aware of when I asked my question today.
My understanding is that
what I was asking the minister about today was income from employment, rebates
from employment income that people are no longer eligible to receive. The Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) did not answer my question, as he usually does not, but we will
read what he said in Hansard and we will go after him again.
There does appear, however,
to be a change as a result of Bill 20 and a change that concerns me, because it
says that amendments to the regulations will ensure that income from exempt
sources will be excluded from a recipient's income when determining eligibility
for social allowance benefits in the month it is received. I am waiting to see the actual regulation,
because my suspicion is that it will be only for one month that it is exempted
and, after that, it will be considered income.
In fact, in his remarks,
the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) said that this will be at the discretion
of the director of social allowance for a period not exceeding 12 months from
receipt of the exempt income. So what
does discretion mean? Will there be discretion in some cases and not in others? Will the discretion be up to one month, even
though 12 months is allowed? I am
looking forward to getting a copy of the regulations for Bill 20.
In fact, the sooner that
the minister can provide that to me, the better, because I would like to study
the regulations and compare those with the remarks of the Minister of
Justice. I know it was introduced by the
Minister of Justice, but I think it properly falls under the responsibility of
the Minister of Family Services since this has to do with social allowances.
I think that the
possible effect of this bill change could be that when people get income, even
though it is exempt income, after a month they are going to be forced to spend
it. Now why would you want to force
people to spend income that is exempt? The only reason that I can think of is
that if people do not spend it, you can deduct it from their next cheque. Why would you want to deduct a legitimate
income that people are currently allowed to keep when‑‑[interjection!
Which side am I on? The member for
Steinbach (Mr. Driedger) asks which side am I on? I am on the side of people who are already
incredibly poor, many of them constituents of mine in Burrows constituency, but
many more, I am sorry to say, in the constituencies of Wolseley and Broadway
and Point Douglas.
These are the people who
are the most vulnerable in our society, as we keep pointing out over and over,
and the ones who can least afford to lose more.
And what is this government doing?
It is changing the rules so that they lose income that now they are
eligible for. The rates would have gone
down if the City of
So if you look at
corporation tax revenue from 1989 to 1993, it has declined from $201 million to
$103 million, a decline of $100 million dollars. What has happened to personal tax
revenue? It has increased from $1.3
billion to $1.24 billion, and as a percentage it has increased from 39 percent
to 46.7 percent. If you compare
similarly the corporations and their percentages, the tax burden that they
shared, unequitably I would say, has decreased from 8.4 percent to 4.0 percent.
So when the member for
Steinbach (Mr. Driedger) asked me what side am I on, I am on the side of my
constituents who believe that they are paying enough. In the case of social assistance recipients
they should at least be entitled to continue to get what they are getting now
without being punished and having monies taken away from them, there should be
some fairness, and that corporations should be required to pay their fair
share.
When the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness) is asked about this and is asked why they do not hire more people
to go after corporations that are behind in their taxes owing to the provincial
government, he says, oh, I know you want me to hire more staff to go after
that, but I am not going to do it.
There are similar
arguments made in the House of Commons in
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
The member for Steinbach
(Mr. Driedger) asked which side I am on?
I would like to point out that I am not the only one who is on the side
of the poor. If the minister would care
to read‑‑and I am sure he probably has read the editorial in the
Saturday Free Press of April 3‑‑the headline is,
I have been getting
phone calls from these people, and I can tell you what the effect will be.
[interjection! The minister must have an office at the front of the
building. He saw me signing them
up. Of course, he saw them signing
petitions on my back, literally on my back.
They were very eager to sign those petitions and tell this government
what they think of cutting the student social allowance program.
What is going to happen
to these people? The minister is
unwilling to admit this in Question Period, but what is going to happen is they
will no longer be able to stay in school.
They will apply for city welfare because they are deemed employable, and
they will not be allowed to go to school while they are on city welfare because
those are the rules.
When you are on city
welfare you are considered employable, and you must be available for work, and
you must be searching for work. As for
the cost, it is really just an offloading from the province to the city because
the monthly allowance that these students are getting, I am told, is $30 less
than what they would get on social assistance.
So these are people who
are motivated. These are people who want
to go to school. These are people who
want to get an education. These are
people who want to get ahead, these are people who want a job and a career‑‑and
they are willing to take a sacrifice of $30 a month, of less income in order to
be part of the student social allowance program. Is that not correct, Mr. Minister, that the
basic allowance is $30 less on student social allowance?
I think it is much
better to have young people going to school and studying to further their job
possibilities and further their possibility of getting a career than to not be
in the educational system and to be on municipal social assistance. Now you can
say, well, they could get a job; in fact, that is what the minister said today. How many jobs are there out there when the
unemployment rate in the city of
The minister suggested
get a part‑time job and put yourself through school. I would suggest that a minimum wage, which is
what most of these students would be able to get, nothing more‑‑they
cannot afford to put themselves through school on minimum wage, especially if
they are going to work the kind of hours they need to be self‑supporting.
[interjection! The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh)
says from her seat, some of us did it.
That is true. I am one of the
ones who did it because I worked part time when I was in high school. The difference is that I was living at
home. I was not living on my own and
providing all my own income, and when I was in university, many of us worked
part time to go through university.
The difference is that
these students‑‑[interjection! The member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman)
points out that wages were relatively higher than what they are. It was more feasible to pay your way through
than it is now and‑‑[interjection! Well, I do not know when you
went to school, 20 years ago, 30 years ago. For myself, it was in the early
1970s that I was going to university and working and putting myself through
university for a number of years. I
think times have changed and‑‑[interjection!‑‑same year
as the minister, that is fine.
The difference is that
these people are living in an economy at a time when unemployment is at 12
percent, when these are the least educated people and the least likely to get
decent, good‑paying jobs to put themselves through school. [interjection!
The minister says the taxpayers are burdened as they have never been
before. The difference is, I believe,
the taxpayers would rather pay people to go to school, would rather pay people
to be in employment and training programs than to pay them to stay at home and
collect social assistance.
* (1500)
That is the choice that
we have with these kinds of programs. It
is either pay people to stay at home or pay them to go to school. I believe that the majority of taxpayers
would rather see those young people stay in school, and certainly those young
people would rather be in school than at home doing nothing if that is the
alternative. I believe that
realistically that is the alternative for most of them.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I am
looking forward to Family Services Estimates, and I regret that we have not
been into them yet.
An Honourable Member: So
are we.
Mr. Martindale: The
government has been looking forward to Estimates too. In fact, I think the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) miscalculated, the government House leader miscalculated, because they
did not really expect that we would not be able to get into Family Services and
Highways Estimates. There was a slight miscalculation there, something that was
kind of beyond his control, I guess. I
think it is significant that he has regretted it ever since.
I think he wishes that
we were in Estimates rather than having to drag this out through Question
Period for a couple of weeks and Question Period during budget time and delay
getting into Family Services Estimates.
Meanwhile, all those cuts are out there.
We are getting the phone calls and we are getting the letters. People are rallying in front of the steps of
the Legislature to protest these outrageous cuts.
An Honourable Member:
You
should recognize there are two sides to every issue, sometimes three or four.
Mr. Martindale: The
Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), from his seat, says that we should recognize there
are difficult decisions, to paraphrase him.
I would agree that there are difficult decisions to be made. In fact, our Leader has said, tough decisions
need to be made. We agree with that.
[interjection! The member for Concordia (Mr. Doer).
The government repeats
over and over again that everyone has to share the pain. Well, tomorrow we will find out if that is
really true or not. For the present
time, what we see are cutbacks and reductions in funding to organizations which
cannot afford and should not be eliminated.
There are some that we
have not defended. I have not heard
anybody, either inside this Chamber or outside in the media defending, for
example, the Manitoba Association of School Trustees and the Manitoba
Association of School Superintendents. None of us have been defending those two
organizations. [interjection! The minister says what about teachers? There have been people who belong to those
groups who have been defending their own organizations. I would grant you that. I would say we have not been defending those
particular cuts.
Out of the 56
organizations that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) withdrew all the
funding from, we have been defending half a dozen. We have been defending the Foster Family
Association, the Manitoba Child Care Association, the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty
Organization, and the Indian‑Metis friendship centres.
In fact, there have been
four organizations and kinds of organizations that have gotten most of the
attention, because we believe they are the ones whose funding should have been
kept on, and it would have been fair and equitable if they lost 10 percent, or
whatever it is‑‑we find out tomorrow‑‑that all
organizations are probably losing, that they should have shared the pain with
everybody else but not been eliminated.
If the government was looking to eliminate, they should have looked
elsewhere. [interjection!
The member for Transcona
(Mr. Reid) reminds me about corporations.
I have said several times in Budget Debate that I would like to see this
Minister of Finance go after the federal government to close some of the
loopholes at the federal level. One good place to start would be the federal
trust tax breaks. We know it was a former Liberal government that put in a 21‑year
rule so that private family trusts were not taxed for 21 years. Now the federal
Conservative government is perpetuating that huge tax loophole. How much money are we talking about? Well, we do not know. The federal government either does not know
or is not telling us. How many of them
are there?‑‑22,000 of them. [interjection!
Perhaps the government
House leader does not want to hear about this, but the Phyllis Bronfman private
family trust rose in value from $15 million to $70 million dollars between 1942
and 1969, and estimates of the total amount vary from $40 billion to $70
billion. So here is an estimate of $40
billion to $70 billion that is not being taxed at all.
So as these government
members are saying, where are we going to get the money? How are we going to pay this? Well, I would like to hear them say just for
once, well, we intend to sit down with the federal Minister of Finance and ask
them to close some of these loopholes, the corporate tax loopholes and the
family trust loophole and capture some of that revenue and share it with the
provinces. [interjection!
Well, the Deputy Premier
(Mr. Downey) asks a very good question.
How much money is there? Well, if
the Deputy Premier would like to read Linda McQuaig's excellent book Behind Closed
Doors, he would find out what some of these tax loopholes were costing in terms
of expenditures. I believe the book was
published about 1986 and most of her figures are 1984, and we are talking
billions of dollars. We are talking
approximately $25 billion. We are
talking enough money to almost wipe out the deficit in 1984 at the federal
level. So the money is there, but the
willingness is not. For example, the top
five tax loopholes at the federal level cost about $6 billion. One of them is the entertainment tax
deduction‑‑$1.1 billion.
I actually talked to a
business friend about this tax gift to business people, and I said, do you use
this tax? He said, well, I used to. I used to buy subscription tickets to Jets
games. I used to buy four subscription
seats to every Jets game, but he stopped using it. Instead, what does he do? He takes his wife out for dinner once in a
while. Well, I do not think that is a
legitimate use of the business entertainment deduction. [interjection! Well,
the minister will always use the fact that it employs people. Well, so do the 56 organizations that you
eliminated funding to employ people, lots of them.
What we are doing is, we
are putting together a list of how many people those 56 organizations employed. That is quite helpful research, to know the
effects of this government's policy, to know how many people are being laid
off, because when people are working, surprise, surprise, they are paying
income taxes. When they are not working,
many of these people are going to be collecting social assistance. I know some of these people who are losing
their jobs at the friendship centre and Manitoba Anti‑Poverty
Organization, and I doubt very much that they are going to find alternative
employment.
Actually, Mr. Acting
Speaker, we are really quite grateful to the government for bringing in Family
Services Estimates so early, because what we are doing is, we are receiving a
lot of phone calls. We are receiving a
lot of letters, and very poignant letters, I must say, on a daily basis on the
effects of these cutbacks. These are not
people from the inner city. People from the inner city sign petitions. They phone their MLAs. People from the suburbs, in my limited
experience, are much more likely to write letters. These letters are extremely eloquent.
In fact, I am going to
have to look this up, because I wish I knew which constituency this letter was
from. The address is
The letter is regarding
the cut of the $100,000 grant to the Association of Community Living Manitoba
and this person writes to me, actually writes to the Minister of Family
Services and sent a copy to the Leader of the Liberal Party and to myself and
to the Association of Community Living.
This letter is about the cut to the grant and how it affects their
family and how their family has benefited because they have a son who is 11
years old and is autistic, and talks about the very helpful services being
provided by the Association for Community Living.
I received another
letter today regarding the same organization.
I am going to be asking the minister, how did he respond to this
individual, and what do you say when someone writes about the very helpful
service that is being provided by the Association for Community Living? What do you say to this individual who is
writing to you as the minister?
* (1510)
Mr. Acting Speaker, we
are really quite grateful that the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) announced the cut in funding to 56 organizations and that the
government House leader tabled the Family Services Estimates, because it means
that we have had a chance to study them, and it means that organizations out
there have received letters saying that their fees are going up or the rates
are being cut or that there is no funding to the organization, so now people
are responding.
We are getting the
letters and we are getting the phone calls about the effects on people. We are not getting phone calls from the
Manitoba Association of School Superintendents, I can tell you that. I have not had any phone calls from teachers
or trustees. What we are getting is
people who are on student social allowance saying: What am I going to do? How am I going to stay in school? I cannot go home.
It is the Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) who is suggesting that some of these young
people go home, not myself, as the Premier (Mr. Filmon) indicated in Question
Period today. We will get out Hansard
and we will find where the Minister of Family Services said it on the record
that these young people should go and live at home. [interjection!
The minister is
referring to something I said on CJOB, I believe. I am sorry that I did not hear it. I know I taped it on Friday. That may be true to a very small number of
people, that some of them may be able to go home. But what I am told is that the vast majority
are not able to go home, that many of them cannot go home, that some of them
come from abusive home situations and it would be inappropriate for them to go
home. So I would hope that the minister
would not be urging these young people to go home.
We know what is going to
happen. We know that they are going to
end up on municipal assistance in the city of
Everyone in this House,
I believe, is waiting for the economy to recover, waiting for employment to pick
up again. I believe that is the desire
of all of us regardless of party and the desire of all Manitobans, that we want
to see the economy recover, we want to see people employed, we want to get
people off social assistance.
When that happens, when
the jobs come back, we need people who are trained, we need people who are
educated, and we need people who are employable. If we do not have that, then some of those
jobs are not going to be filled, or they are not going to be filled with people
who are as well qualified or as well trained as they should be, and that is a
shame.
Many organizations have
now contacted us and told us what the effects are on individuals in their
organization. The foster family
association, for example, are saying that they are not going to accept any more
children as part of their protest, and the minister says, well, we will find
foster families for those people. I do
not believe that they will be very successful in that, especially since they
are giving less money to Winnipeg Child and Family Service agency, so they are
going to end up in group homes.
In fact, they are going
to cost the government more money because parents are now getting a per diem‑‑I
do not have the figures in front of me, but it is much less than what it would
cost in a group home. A group home in
Yes, the Liberal Family
Services critic says, ask what it costs in St. Amant Centre, and, of course, it
is much, much greater than even a group home.
The child in foster care is $16.23 a day, and the Foster Family Association
says what about the children who are ending up in hotels and motels. They estimate that cost is at least $220 a
day when you add up motel, food, child care salary and caregivers' food, $220
per day.
In fact, Mr. Acting
Speaker, I do not think that the government has thought through many of these
changes. I do not think that they are
well thought out at all. In fact, many
of the things that they are doing contradict some of the good things that the
minister has said. For example, the
minister said on foster parenting on October 18, 1990: "It has been said that foster parents
are the backbone of the Child and Family Services system and I believe this to
be true."
He also said: "This is also a time to salute the work
of the Manitoba Foster Family Association which maintains a high level of
excellence in the delivery of service and support to foster parents through
training and education (ing) parents."
On May 9, 1992, on
training, the minister said: "We'll
make every effort to work with the Manitoba Foster Family Association to see
that training is provided."
So what did he do? They were receiving $18.23 a day for a child
under 10 and $19.14 for a child 10 to 18, and the minister reduced that to
$16.23 and $17.14 a day, and the association budget of $308,000 was wiped
out. I talked to people who had been
involved with the Foster Family Association, and they said it provided a very
valuable service to them.
One of the things that I
was unaware of was that many, many people who volunteer to be foster parents
are charged‑‑there are allegations of abuse. Where do they turn? I mean they are being investigated by the
Child and Family Services agency. They
do not want to turn to the same agency for support and advice that is
investigating them, and so in the past they turned to the Foster Family
Association. Now that association may
well be gone because of this cut.
Those parents said to me
that, if it was not for the Foster Family Association, they never would have
survived the allegations of abuse. The
numbers are going up and up every year.
It is becoming a thankless job.
Why would someone want, unless they had a very big heart and they were
very, very generous, to take a foster child and then to be accused of abusing a
child as a result of being a foster family?
I think society owes them a great debt, and at the very least we owe
them enough money to provide adequately for the children that they are
fostering and not to cut back on it. [interjection! The member says, they had
enough.
The Foster Family
Association was renegotiating a new contract, and they had a paper all ready to
sign. They were waiting for the
government to sign, and what happened?
They did not sign the new deal.
They reneged on all the negotiations and are giving the families less
money.
An Honourable Member: How much is enough? How much should be given?
Mr. Martindale: Mr.
Acting Speaker, I am asked, how much is enough?
Well, as far as I know, many of these organizations were satisfied with
the rates that they were getting or they were negotiating for new rates, and
what happened was they got a reduction.
They may have been saying this is not enough, but they would at least
liked to have been consulted instead of which they had the rug pulled out from
under them.
Mr. Acting Speaker,
there are many issues in the area of social allowances that I could get
into. I am sorry that I did not have
Hansard, so I could go into more detail on the minister's answers in Question
Period today, because I think he did not answer my questions. I will have another chance later to address
that.
I would like to conclude
now my remarks on Bill 20. Thank you.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Is the House ready for the question?
* (1520)
* * *
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Acting Speaker, it is not my intention to
disrupt the discussion and debate on Bill 20.
What I am seeking now is leave of the House to speak on another bill,
particularly Bill 22, which is The Public Sector Reduced Work Week and
Compensation Management Act. If I were allowed to speak on it, then I would
suggest we come back to Bill 20.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Would the House leader have leave to introduce
second reading to Bill 22?
Some Honourable Members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): No.
Leave is denied.
* * *
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Acting Speaker, we are prepared to speak
on Bill 20, which has been through the Order Paper on the proper process. I think it is important that we do follow due
process in this House on this bill and indeed on other bills, whether it be
Bill 22, which we indeed will get to, a bill which I had the opportunity to
very briefly look at earlier.
I would point out, Mr.
Acting Speaker, one of the reasons that we have our processes in this House in
terms of proper notice, proper order being given, is the fact that we, as
legislators, have to have the ability to analyze legislation at the various
different stages. We are dealing now
with second reading. There are a couple
of important steps that take place before second reading: first reading, which gives the opportunity to
government, following having put the item on the Notice Paper, to give clear
evidence of what it is doing; also the distribution of the bill, to give
members of the Legislature the chance to peruse the bill.
I would note, Mr. Acting
Speaker, that we had the opportunity to peruse this bill, and that is
important. The same thing with Bill
22. When we have had the proper
opportunity, under our rules, to have proper consideration, we will indeed
debate that particular bill. [interjection!
I appreciate the member
for
I appreciated, on the
previous bill today, the courtesy the minister showed to the members of the
House by asking questions on second reading, something that up until recently I
never assumed was anything other than the right of members. Whether it is a right or a courtesy, Mr.
Acting Speaker, that is, I think, greatly appreciated. [interjection!
I appreciate the
comments from the dean of the House, the most experienced member, on the
importance of parliamentary procedure, which indeed is where we are at in terms
of Bill 20.
An Honourable Member: Where
are we at?
Mr. Ashton: Well, we
are at the position of dealing with The Social Allowances Regulation Validation
Act. It was introduced by the Minister
of Justice (Mr. McCrae) on March 25, and I had the opportunity to read his
brief introductory comments in which the Minister of Justice said: The intent of this legislation is to clarify
regulations under The Social Allowances Act, and pointed out that policies
enshrined in the regulations had been adhered to in practice since the 1970s
and this legislation would ensure the regulations are clearly defined and
consistently interpreted.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the
amendments to regulations ensure that income from exempt sources will be
excluded from a recipient's income when determining eligibility for social
allowances in the month that the benefits are received.
That is a direct
statement from the minister. I think it
is important to put on the record to understand the clear intent of this bill,
the principle of this bill, which is what we are dealing with on second
reading.
Indeed, the regulations
also provide for an extension of the grace period at the discretion of the
director of social allowances for a period not exceeding 12 months in receipt
of exempt income.
The legislation has the
effect of applying the amended regulations under The Social Allowances Act
retroactively. Its intent is to ensure
that decisions made when administering The Social Allowances Act prior to the
amendment of the regulations are validated as long as they meet the criteria of
the amended regulations.
Well, Mr. Acting
Speaker, it is interesting to note that once again we are dealing with
retroactive legislation. I have made
comments on the record on a number of other bills. The farce of Sunday shopping where we have a
bill that was introduced that will not be probably dealt with for a
considerable period of time that now has been subsumed by Sunday shopping‑‑the
sequel. We have got the sequel even
before the original movie had a chance to run in the theatres. This is making a farce out of our democratic
system.
We are going to be
having hearings on bills that have retroactive impact. What rights does that give to members of the
Legislature? What rights does that give
to us if we decide to vote against say this bill, a retroactive bill, or bills
in regard to Sunday shopping or any other retroactive matter?
We are ending up in a situation
where this government on issue after issue is in the position increasingly of
bringing in retroactive legislation‑‑the retroactive government,
the retrogressive‑retroactive government.
Dealing again in terms
of this bill, the principles very clearly outlined in terms of the introductory
comments brought in by the minister himself, and I appreciated the comments of
the minister. He pointed out very
clearly this is a retroactive bill. I
ask the question to members of this House whether it is in keeping with the
role of this Legislature to determine whether a bill is passed or not; whether
it is in keeping with the role of this Legislature which has, under the
parliamentary tradition, the rights under first, second and third readings, the
committee stage, where we have the unique distinction of being the only
province in Canada which has public hearings on every bill‑‑a
public significance, every bill.
I ask, is it appropriate
that we also now are dealing increasingly with retroactive legislation, the
retroactive government's retrogressive‑retroactive government? I raise that because that is the first
principle I think that has to be raised in terms of debate.
I want to deal with the
second principle. As I outlined just a
few minutes ago, the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) said that the powers
enshrined in these regulations has been adhered to in practice since the 1970s.
Well, let us talk about
some of the practices in social allowances since the 1970s, Mr. Acting Speaker,
and the fact that here, on the one hand, this government is saying that it is
adhering to practices that have been in place since the 1970s. Let us look at
what they are doing in terms of social allowances. Are they adhering to the practices and the
principles that have been in place in this province for the last two
decades? I ask that question, because
the answer is no. Whether it be in terms of student social allowances, whether
it be in terms of the cuts that are now taking place in terms of the City of
Winnipeg recipients, any recipients in this province who are receiving more
benefits, additional recognition of the hardships they face, we are now finding
the true agenda of this government.
You know, let us look at
the bottom line here, Mr. Acting Speaker.
This government says that it is broke.
It says that it does not have the funds.
Indeed, they have run up a high deficit or record deficit in this
province. [interjection! But it is interesting, as the member for Burrows (Mr.
Martindale) points out, the interesting thing is it depends on who they are
dealing with. Some groups are told we do
not have the money. Some groups are
told, well, maybe we have some money after all.
There is a whole pattern that is developing in this province.
Let us look at who in
this province is being hardest hit by this government. Have we seen a wholesale cut in terms of
corporate grants?
* (1530)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Order, please.
Could I ask the honourable member to remain a little bit relevant to the
bill which is before us, and that happens to be Bill 20, The Social Allowances
Regulation Validation Act.
Mr. Ashton: Mr.
Acting Speaker, I appreciate your putting your earphone on and I am sure you
will hear me many times, as I have done up to now, make specific reference to
Bill 20. I will point out the
inconsistencies of this government that brings in an item of legislation that
says they are being consistent with practices that have been place since the
1970s, when daily we are seeing that this government is cutting in terms of
welfare and social assistance, cutting the poorest in our society on a daily
basis, and that is something that is as relevant as anything can be in this
Legislature. I appreciate your comments
and I would hope that members opposite will understand the relevancy of
pointing out the fact that they are cutting the poorest in our society.
I ask the question
again. Where, Mr. Acting Speaker, is the
pain that is being felt by the corporate friends of the Conservatives? Where is the pain? Are they cutting the grants for payroll taxes‑‑
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Order, please. I would refer all honourable members to Rule
30 which states: Speeches shall be
directly relevant to the question under consideration or to the motion or
amendment that the member is speaking, intends to move, or the point of order.
I would appreciate the
assistance of all honourable members by complying with the principles and the
Rules cited. Additionally, I would wish to draw to the attention of the
honourable members the provisions of Rule 39 which sets out steps which can be
taken when members persist in irrelevance or repetition.
Mr. Ashton: Mr.
Acting Speaker, the cuts that are taking place in terms of social assistance
and what this government is doing is directly relevant. I am making specific reference to comments
that were made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae). If it was relevant for the Minister of
Justice, it is relevant indeed. I appreciate your warnings, but the Minister of
Justice said this government has been consistent on social assistance since the
1970s. That is not true. That is what I am proving right now in my
comments.
They have not followed
the principles that have been placed in terms of social assistance in this
province. We have, in this province
currently, the highest rates of child poverty and the highest rates of poverty
of any province. That is relevant
because quite frankly if anybody understands what is going on outside of this
building, that is the most relevant thing the fact we have got so many people
in such a difficult situation in this province right now.
I heard today the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) say, well, Mr. Acting Speaker, that is all relative, the
so‑called statistics. We do not have
a problem with poverty, quoting the Fraser Institute.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I
want to deal with the question of poverty as it relates to social assistance in
this particular bill because the Premier does a disservice to this House when
he suggests that there is anything in the statistics that is misleading that
underestimates the amount of poverty. If
the Premier would care to check with Statistics Canada, he will find that the
low‑income cutoffs are applied in urban communities, are applied to rural
communities, but not to reserves. There
is no measurement of poverty on reserves in this province.
I want to transpose that
with another thing that the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) should deal with in
terms of the reality of this province.
The recent statistics from Stats Canada census statistics, which in
themselves have always underestimated the number of aboriginal people, showed a
dramatic increase in the aboriginal population and the fact that we have the
highest aboriginal population as a percent of population in the country.
I ask you to transpose
those two figures. The Premier (Mr.
Filmon) says, these are only so‑called statistics. There is not the problem with poverty in this
province that people think there is.
An Honourable Member: Not if
you redefine it.
Mr. Ashton: He is
trying to redefine poverty out of existence. Mr. Acting Speaker, that is what
right‑wing governments have done since they have ever been elected. There was no problem with poverty in the
Middle Ages in
I remember the efforts
of the Ronald Reagans and the Margaret Thatchers to redefine poverty out of
existence. We have had federal
Conservative members of the House of Commons say, we have got to redefine poverty
so it does not exist anymore on the books.
Well, the fact is poverty is a reality.
I would say the current
statistics in
Let us not talk on
cyclical, circular terms about redefining poverty out of existence. If the Premier, and if this government, does
not think that poverty exists, perhaps the Premier should get out of this
building. He does not seem to wish to do
it when anybody is critical of his policies.
I was at a demonstration
today on social allowances. I talked to
the people that had been directly victimized by this government, but you know‑‑
An Honourable Member: Did you
carry a placard, too?
Mr. Ashton: Mr.
Acting Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) said, did I carry a
placard, too? Well, I did not carry a
placard, but I support them 100 percent.
I ask, when he has to talk to his people, his constituents in Brandon
West, and talk to some of the students who have been cut off student
allowances, whether he will say whether he supports them or opposes them. It will be interesting to see that.
The reality is the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) today did not have the time to come out of his office to
talk to the students on social allowance.
Is it any wonder the Premier does not know what he is talking about when
it comes to social allowance in this province?
I am not saying that one has to have been on welfare or social
assistance oneself to understand, but I think it is fairly reasonable to
suggest that if one has not been through that‑‑perhaps, the Premier
has not, we can assume that‑‑it is not too much to expect he might
talk to some people who have gone through it, that are going through that now
and face the people whom he was dealing with today.
I remember when Sterling
Lyon was Premier, when people came to the steps of this Legislature, he had the
courtesy not only to go and speak to them, but to meet with representatives of
the organization in his office afterwards.
I know that, because I was president of my student union at the time. When we protested against Tory policies in education,
we met with Sterling Lyon, and Sterling Lyon spoke to us. I ask, Mr. Acting Speaker, is this
progress? Is this the reality of the
1990s that Premiers hide behind media handlers, hide behind scripted news
conferences, that they do not get out, do not talk to people, talk to the
people who are being directly affected by their cuts, by their policies, by
their decisions.
I do not think that is
acceptable in this province to have lectures in this House from people who do
not know what is going on out there and do not even have the courtesy to speak
to people who have come to this Legislature, the Manitoba Legislature, to
express their concerns. I realize it is
a lot easier to hide in the bunker, to hide in the office. The reality is, though, people are hurting
out there. They are being hurt by this
government's decisions and, on social allowances, never been more obvious.
As I said, look at this
statement in Bill 20, that they are just adhering in practice to what has been
going on. Since the 1970s, there has
only been one government the last 10, 15 years that has cut in terms of
programming, in terms of social assistance.
It is this government. You know,
Mr. Acting Speaker, this group of Conservatives is beginning to make Sterling
Lyon look like a moderate. Well, maybe I
should not go quite that far. Let me
rephrase that. I have heard people say
Sterling Lyon was not this bad. He was
bad for people in poverty, but was not this bad. This government has slashed social assistance
for students, and it is slashing assistance because of its so‑called
standardization of welfare rates across the province for people in the city of
I want to deal with the
reality of what is going on out there.
You know, in my office I have received many calls from people who have
had difficulty even qualifying for existing social allowance programs,
particularly the student social assistance program. I can pinpoint. I can arrange for the First Minister (Mr.
Filmon) to meet with some of my constituents.
I want to explain to
you, Mr. Acting Speaker, the scenario that happens to young people, young
adults, many of them single parents who are faced with a tough choice. I will give you an example. I have talked to one constituent, a single
mother, a teen‑aged mother‑‑by the way, this government is
also cutting funding for the Committee on Unplanned Pregnancy. I think that is relevant in talking about
this issue.
I ask you to put
yourself in her situation. She
approached me and she said, I cannot go back home; there is no home for me to
go back to; I cannot get any assistance from my parents; they do not want to
know me; I want to go back to school.
This is exactly what she said to me.
* (1540)
Mr. Acting Speaker, why
did she want to go back to school?‑‑because she wanted to break out
of the welfare cycle. She wanted to be able to finish her high school
education. She wanted to get training,
something, anything, because she wanted to make sure that she was not
permanently on welfare with a child to support, unable to enter the
workforce. She came to me in terms of
assistance.
I can outline dozens of
cases in my own constituency where people have come and really found themselves
in a twilight zone, young people, young adults, receiving no assistance
whatsoever from their parents, not receiving assistance from government
programs and trying to get an education, often with a child to support.
An Honourable Member: Do
you want to meet some who have done it?
Mr. Ashton: Mr.
Acting Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh)
says, want to meet some who have done it.
Maybe the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs would like to meet
some of the ones who have done it, thanks to the student social assistance
program and the support of teachers and friends. Perhaps the minister‑‑[interjection!
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Order, please.
Could I ask the honourable members to keep it down just a little
bit. The honourable member for Thompson
has been almost relevant to this point, and I would like him to continue.
Mr. Ashton: Relevancy
indeed, Mr. Acting Speaker, and I thank you.
I wish that the minister
and I wish the Premier (Mr. Filmon) would take the time‑‑[interjection!
In fact, I wish the minister would participate in debate on some of these
issues instead of debating from her seat.
It is a lot easier to sit there.
I know I debate from my seat as well, but I also debate from my feet,
Mr. Acting Speaker, something the minister might want to learn from.
I am more than willing
to listen to what the minister says in terms of social assistance in this
province, the same minister who is quite happy to see antipoverty groups, friendship
centres and the Flin Flon crisis centre cut but not the Consumers' Association
because that is different. [interjection! Well, the minister says that is
different.
If she can explain to me
how fair it is for them to be so selective in cutting some and not the others,
I wait for those comments. She will have
the chance. On this bill she will have
the chance to debate.
Indeed, one may wonder
that perhaps this is a message to groups in this province that they better have
their executive directors run for the Conservatives in elections. That is their one way of ensuring that
funding is not cut, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Point of Order
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Acting Speaker, on a point of order, I
believe it is against the rules of the House to put inaccurate information on
the record. With that, I would like to
ask the honourable member to remove his false statement from the record.
No executive director of
any association, the Consumers' Association does not have any executive
director running for office for any political party that I am aware of.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Order, please.
The honourable minister did not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Ashton: Indeed, I
would be more than willing to let the minister speak at any time. I am anxious to hear where she stands on the
gross unfairness of this government and the way it has slashed antipoverty
groups, aboriginal friendship centres, has slashed welfare assistance for the
poor, the student social assistance program.
I look forward to her comments, and comments of Conservative members,
because there is a reality out there.
You can try and redefine
it anyway you want, Mr. Acting Speaker, but there are increasingly people in
this province who are falling into the welfare trap, not because they do not
want to work, not because they are not trying their best, and I found it quite
frankly offensive earlier today when the Premier (Mr. Filmon) was talking about
people should go back to their families and go work at McDonald's.
This is not the
Some of the most
motivated individuals I have ever seen have been students that I have talked to
who have said, Mr. Acting Speaker, they do not want to be on social
assistance. They want to get
training. They want to get a job. They want a future for their families.
I quite frankly find it
offensive when the Premier gets up and suggests that they should somehow be
able to go back to families that in many cases are not functional, in many
cases families that do not exist. You
are talking about children as well because you are dealing with single parents,
expecting them to be able to do that, expecting single parents who are
penalized by the current welfare structure if they do get a part‑time
job, if they are on social assistance, single parents that if they have been
working cannot collect unemployment insurance because if they are taking school
they are not eligible for unemployment insurance. Do they not understand the system that is out
there? Do they not understand the system? [interjection!
You know, quite frankly,
I am just amazed that a minister such as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) could be saying the kinds of things she is saying from
her seat, Mr. Acting Speaker, not dealing with the reality that is facing those
people. The shame is from this minister
who from her seat goes on repeating the line given by the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
in terms of social assistance‑‑[interjection! Perhaps the member
would care sometime to put her views on the record about where she stands in
terms of social assistance and the fairness of a government that penalizes
young people who are trying to get ahead and get off the welfare trap. See if she has the courtesy to stand on her
feet and say whether she supports that particular policy. In fact, she can speak right after I complete
my comments. I look forward to it.
I look forward to the
comments of others, as well, because I suspect that when it gets down to
actually standing in their place many of them will not do so. I have been in this House for 11 years. I have never seen government members so
reluctant to speak in support of their own initiatives as members of this
government.
Now, that may be
understandable, Mr. Acting Speaker, but it is frustrating when we are dealing
with shadow members of the government. They hide in the bunker. They hide behind the media handlers in terms
of social assistance cuts, but we do not hear a debate in this House. We do not hear them say why they think that
social assistance cuts should take place, why student social assistance
programs should be cut.
Why are they so afraid
to debate their policies? Well, indeed
we look forward to seeing their comments on these particular actions, because
the bottom line is they do not make sense.
They do not make sense. What
sense does it make to cut a program that is providing an incentive for students
to continue their studies, many of whom would not be able to do so
otherwise? What kind of more incentive
do they want? By being under the student
social assistance program they are receiving less than they would if they were
sitting at home on social assistance.
Mr. Acting Speaker, why
is this government which has in place these millions of dollars in terms of
payroll tax rebates which have ended up in companies such as Tuxedo Taxi, that
fiasco, why is it this government does not see fit to look at those particular
grants, the Stadium Fords, the Tuxedo Taxis?
Why is it that everybody has to feel the pain except there are a few
significant exceptions? How come
whenever we hear from the Tory Finance minister, we all have to share the pain,
we look around and we see some people doing quite well out of this government,
doing quite well, whether it be in terms of the new introduction by the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard)?
* (1550)
It is interesting, he is
talking about having casino funding now going to an American consultant for
$3.9 million. Compare that, the lotto we
have now $3.9‑million jackpot for an American consultant, with how that
money could have been spent in terms of social assistance programs that put
people to work, Mr. Acting Speaker, that give them an incentive for training,
$3.9 million out of the casino. That is
okay to write a cheque for $3.9 million to an American consultant but, on the
other hand, we are looking at cuts in terms of social assistance in this
province. I mean, is that fairness?
We are seeing there is a
new kind of oxymoron being developed in this House. We have seen all the ones before. The ultimate is always Progressive
Conservative. We are seeing it in, well,
industrial part is probably another one, but now we are seeing a new
oxymoron. It is called Tory
fairness. The Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) gets up and says everybody is going to share the pain. Everybody is feeling the pain. This is only fair.
Well, how come social
assistance recipients feel the pain? How come this program in terms of social
assistance has been cut? How come, Mr.
Acting Speaker, that the CRISP payments for City of Winnipeg social assistance
recipients, that is being cut, but how come there are so many that just happen
to be friends of this government that are not feeling the pain? Well, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr.
Downey) probably has more friends than most in the Conservative caucus, being
the practitioner of the art of patronage that he is. I know that the Minister of Northern Affairs
is hoping to get his place in patronage heaven, the Senate, so I do not think
even he would criticize me for making that description.
Mr. Acting Speaker, how
can the Conservative government justify what it is doing in terms of those so‑called
fairness policies when it is cutting social assistance? Well, let us look at the reality. The reality is very clear. The reality is that we need incentives. We need more incentives for students and
social assistance. The student social
assistance program is probably the best incentive that was put in place.
[interjection!
Well, the Minister of
Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) talks about incentives. Has he really taken the time to sit down with
people and talk to them in terms of what the situation is in their communities?
[interjection! Well, indeed, we have other so‑called Tory incentives,
Tory fairness here, but perhaps the Minister of Northern Affairs would like to
talk to some of the northern students who did not have the opportunity to come
down here today and protest at the Legislature.
Perhaps when the minister comes to Thompson next time he will do more
than go speak to a Tory fundraiser or a Tory constituency association meeting.
I realize that maybe
some of my fellow residents of Thompson or supporters of the Conservative Party
may not have experienced the pain of having their training allowance, their
student social assistance, cut, but perhaps if the minister would do more than
just go to those fundraisers, Mr. Acting Speaker, the bottom line is perhaps
the minister might learn something from the situation those people are going
through.
The students in my
community, in northern communities who are going through tough decisions, a lot
of times single parents themselves who are making, I think, what we should be
encouraging in terms of a decision. They
are saying yes to education, or at least they have been with the student social
assistance program. Perhaps he would like to talk to the teachers and the
principal at R.D. Parker Collegiate because it is interesting how priorities
have a way of being communicated to people.
I got a call today from
a teacher in a high school. She received
a letter from the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) that apparently has been
sent to every teacher across the province.
Mr. Acting Speaker, she calculated that was a $6,000 expenditure. She was incensed by the fact that this
government that talks about shortage of revenues had the money to send out a
$6,000 propaganda letter to all the teachers in this province.
She asked the question‑‑she
said in the R.D. Parker Collegiate in Thompson for the last three weeks
handicapped students have been unable to attend classes because there is an
elevator broken down because of a lack of maintenance budgets. It would cost
$6,000 to get a chair lift that would go up the stairs as a backup.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
Six thousand dollars is
exactly the amount that this minister has spent on sending out a letter of
propaganda after the fact in terms of the cuts that are taking place saying
that they want feedback from the government.
I will tell you what the feedback was from that teacher. The feedback was: Do not send out propaganda letters; use that
money, the $6,000, for the education system. [interjection! Mr. Acting Speaker,
the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) talks from his seat about how
much increase that teacher wants.
I will tell you what the
minister should understand. The teacher
wants that money, the $6,000 and whatever other PR dollars the government has
budgeted to try and sell its policies.
She wants that to go toward education and not the kind of propaganda we
are seeing coming out of the Minister of Education's office. That is why I speak in terms of this.
The bottom line is this
government does not have a sense of fairness.
This government is cutting those who do not traditionally support it
either geographically or socioeconomically.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the fact is with this government I do not think it
is any accident that in so many of the constituencies the members represent,
they have analyzed‑‑well, friendship centres, 10 out of the 11 of
them are in NDP constituencies. I guess
the member for
I do not think it is any
accident that most of the poor in this province are not exactly represented by
Conservative MLAs. I think even they would find, and I bet you even in the
Premier's (Mr. Filmon) own constituency, he would probably find social
assistance recipients and students who are being affected by his cuts. You know, if he was not quite so blind, even
in his own constituency he would find them.
We are finding that
increasingly, Mr. Acting Speaker. I
think the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) actually is the inspiration
for this government. You know, we
remember when he was honest enough to say a few years ago that he felt that
northerners did not know how to vote right.
I think the entire Conservative government has adopted that
philosophy. If people do not "know
how to vote right", they get cut off.
I think they probably
sat down and figured out that some of the targets do not vote, period. The visa students were an easy target; they
do not vote. I think they probably sat
down and calculated that 10 out of the 11 friendship centres are in NDP seats
so they are an easy target. MAPO represents
a lot of the poor in this province, many of whom live in the north end of
Winnipeg, not exactly a stronghold for the Conservatives, so they are being
cut, and social assistance recipients, well, we all know that the Conservatives
have traditionally had difficulty in terms of the concerns expressed by people,
the poor, so they are an easy target as well.
You know, Mr. Acting
Speaker, I guess what I found interesting was the reaction today from some of
the young people, the young people I spoke to on the steps of the Legislature.
What I think is going to happen is this.
If this government expects to be able to make the cut, retreat back into
the bunker after the budget process is all done and then have those people go
away, they are wrong. Those young people
today, young adults, courageous young adults who want to continue their
education, I believe will become politicized by this, not strictly in a
partisan sense, but you know I talked to a lot of people in the last couple of
weeks who are saying they are going to remember this, and they are going to
remember it not just in the next few months but the next time they have the
opportunity to tell this government what they think of its actions.
I will predict, Mr.
Acting Speaker, that out of the ashes of some of the programs that have been
cut, out of the ashes of some of the organizations that have been decimated by
this government, there will arise a newly politicized group of Manitobans who
are, like the people today, saying they are not going to take it from this
government anymore, and that is the key when we are dealing with the realities
of this province.
* (1600)
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
People are facing tough
times and social assistance recipients are facing the toughest and it is about
time this government understood that it cannot define poverty away. Poverty
exists, people are hurting, and either they change their policies, Mr. Acting
Speaker, or those very same people that they will not talk to when they come to
the steps of this Legislature will change this government.
Thank you, Mr. Acting
Speaker.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
Listening today to some of
the catcalls, some of the heckling, some of the interjections from across the
way from members of the Conservative Party, I become very worried about the
future for Manitobans. I become very
worried about what this government may have up its sleeve with respect to
social allowances in general.
What I heard today were
clear signs of a government so ideologically blinded that it is not able to
understand the roots of poverty, the sources of people being on social
assistance, the reasons for unemployment and their desires to be not on social
assistance, not on unemployment insurance, not living in poverty, but living
lives where they are able to use their talents, able to make a contribution to
society, able to make ends meet for themselves and their children.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting
Speaker, in the Chair)
Mr. Acting Speaker, I
heard today hints of the suggestion that people on social assistance are there
because they have no ambition, because they have no goals, because they have no
desire to work in the labour force, because they want to be freeloaders. That is so out of touch with reality that it
makes me wonder just how reasoned this government can be when it comes to
public policy in the areas of social policy and economic policy.
I do not get too many
constituents calling me and suggesting they want to stay on social
welfare. I do not get too many
constituents calling me and saying they are happy being on social
assistance. I get in fact the opposite‑‑people
feeling isolated, people feeling stigmatized, people feeling helpless, people
feeling hopeless, because they had no choice but to turn to social assistance
in order to survive, in order to ensure that they could provide for their
families.
Mr. Acting Speaker, a
little while ago in this House I recounted the story of a middle‑aged man
who had worked for many, many years in the trades for a company that closed
down. A man in his late 40s or early
50s, married, with a couple of kids, tried every possibility for a job,
searched out every avenue, applied for every possible job imaginable in the
province of Manitoba, but to no avail.
That constituent, that individual was so worried and too proud to turn
to social assistance that he looked at the only other alternative available to
him and that was to leave his family, leave his home and go to another province
in search of a job.
I tried to persuade that
person that it was not his fault that he was out of a job after contributing so
much to this society. I tried to suggest
to him that his priority should be to meet the needs of his family, and if that
meant being on social assistance for a time, then so be it. But because of the kind of propaganda and
negative statements as we have heard today in the House, this person could not
bring himself to apply for social assistance and instead chose to leave his
family in search of a job. Follow the
rainbow even if there was no job at the end of the rainbow.
Surely members of this
government can understand the roots of unemployment and reliance on social
assistance. Surely they are capable of
not lumping all individuals together and suggesting that people are generally
lazy and freeloaders. Surely they can
understand that people do not want to be on social assistance, do not choose to
be on social assistance, but find themselves with no other alternative but to
turn to social assistance for a period in their life.
I heard some comments
today that astounded me and many others across the way on this side of the
Chamber, comments that suggested to me members across the way are caught in a
time war or locked into a mindset where they cannot see the reality of today's
society, where they cannot understand the complexity of human life today, where
they cannot imagine situations that differ from their own upbringing. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) suggested that because she was raised in a one‑room
house with no running water and was still able to get all the education she
needed and find a job that everyone else in this society should be able to do
the same.
Mr. Acting Speaker, it
does not make sense to develop public policy on the basis of personal
idiosyncratic background. It makes sense
to look at the reality of society today and the root causes of poverty and
unemployment and reliance on social assistance and to plan accordingly. All of us, every one of us can stand up in
this house and talk about our own personal experience and how we made it,
because let us face it, we have all made it.
We have all had the good fortune in life to be able to get an education,
to be able to go to school, to be able to get university, to be able to pursue
a political career. Well, to make the
conclusion that others should be able to do the same regardless of their
background, regardless of their circumstances in life, is so astounding as to
just cause incredulity on the part of Manitobans.
Mr. Acting Speaker, by
making those kind of generalizations, by suggesting that if people just work
hard they can make it, this government is doing a great disservice to the
people of Manitoba and is destroying the hope of any kind of a prosperous
future for this province.
* (1610)
I wish members across
the way, members of the Conservative government, had been outside today to look
into the faces of students who rely on student social allowance. I wish they had seen the look on those faces,
on the faces of students who are not slacking off, who are not lazy, but are
trying for a second chance in life, who have come to the realization that they
need a basic education in order to get off welfare in order to get a better
job.
I wish members across
the way had seen the diversity of that crowd outside on the front steps of the
Legislature today, had seen the number of new Canadians, had seen the ethnic diversity
of the crowd outside, had seen the range of age groups among those students and
realized the kind of drive that these people have, the kind of determination
they have to correct mistakes they made in the past and are giving it
everything they have got now. All they
are asking for is a little backing. They
are not asking for a handout. They are
prepared to sacrifice. They are prepared
to work hard. They are all fighting for
top grades. They all have dreams to go on to university or get a good job, but
they need a little backing, a little support from the government to make it
possible, and just about every one of the cases of the people outside the steps
of the Legislature today, they will not be able to fulfill those dreams because
of this government's callous and cruel cutback and the elimination of the
student social allowance program.
Mr. Acting Speaker, one
of those individuals, Shirley Neufeld, who took a great deal of responsibility
in this regard and initiated activities to try to focus this government, to try
to bring to this government's attention to the seriousness of its cutback,
approached the Premier (Mr. Filmon) after Question Period and explained her
situation. She said, she is 23, she is
married, her husband is 24. They have a
one‑and‑a‑half‑year‑old daughter. They have made the decision to go back to
school to get educated, so they could get good jobs, so they can provide for
their daughter, so their daughter has a future.
And they said to the Premier, what are we now to do? What are our chances now of fulfilling this
dream?
What did the Premier
say? He said, one of them should stay at
home, and one should go to work or go to school. I first asked the Premier and this government
how they can impose their value system on others and make those kinds of
judgment calls and take away the dream and aspirations of one of those
individuals. I also asked the Premier and this government how they can justify
promoting a solution that in fact guarantees a family to live in poverty for
the rest of its life.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the
facts speak for themselves on that matter.
It is absolutely clear and unquestionable that that family is doomed to
poverty if it follows the advice of the Premier and this government.
[interjection! The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) says not true. I ask him to consider some of the more recent
statistics about poverty and families and look, for example, at the
statistics. I am not going to talk now
about single‑earner families, because we know that single‑parent
families have a much higher rate of living below the poverty line than two‑earner
families.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting
Speaker, in the Chair)
I want to just start
with two‑earner families and point the Minister of Natural Resources to a
very recent report by the National Council of Welfare produced in the fall of
1992 entitled Poverty Profile, where it provides the poverty rates for families
with two spouses under the age of 65. I
point the minister to the statistics for
Mr. Acting Speaker,
I know that members
across the way come from areas where they may not see and hear from the numbers
of constituents as we are hearing from around the issue of student social allowance.
I know and realize and
appreciate that there is a higher concentration of people who live below the
poverty line who rely on social assistance, who are on unemployment insurance,
living in the inner city of Winnipeg, in the north part of Winnipeg, and that
some of the members across the way may not come in contact on a face‑to‑face
basis with the feelings of these individuals.
I do not know how to
impress upon members across the way what it feels like to not have any answers
when those constituents come knocking at our doors. These days, Mr. Acting Speaker, it is very
hard for MLAs, at least on this side of the House, to be able to offer
solutions and point constituents in a certain direction, to deal with the fact
that they have just been laid off, to deal with the fact that they have just
had their student social allowance eliminated, to deal with the fact that they
cannot find housing, to deal with the fact that they cannot provide for their
families, to deal with the fact that they are in such a state of despair that
one is not sure what they are capable of doing to themselves.
Mr. Acting Speaker, if
we feel helpless as MLAs who have resources to draw on, who know to some extent
the ins and outs of government and we cannot help these individuals, can anyone
imagine what those individuals themselves feel, just how hopeless they feel,
just how vulnerable they feel, just how powerless they feel?
* (1620)
It is to the point now
where we are hearing from constituents who not only do not have hope for the
future, more and more, especially young people, do not have any concept of
future. That was something that became
very apparent in the recent Church and Community Inquiry into Unemployment
where, after three days of presentations, panelists could not believe the depth
of despair that people were feeling, that in fact some people have no concept
of future because of the current situation facing them and their families.
The people who depend on
student social allowance had some idea of how to break through those feelings
of despair and hopelessness. They had
some idea about what it would take to get off welfare, to end dependency, to
end poverty. They had a pretty good idea
of what it would take, how much work they would have to do, what kind of
sacrifices were involved, and they were prepared to take those steps; when
along comes this government, pulls the rug right out from under them, cuts them
off at the pass, only ensuring people's dependency on welfare.
Today, the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) tried to suggest in fact that he was concerned about people working and
that we could not in these difficult times sustain, as he put it, this welfare
program.
This government is doing
just the opposite of what it says it wants to do. It is ensuring people stay on
welfare without going to school, without getting any training, without any
prospects down the road of being able to get off of welfare and break that
cycle of dependency.
So we have been trying
to make the case to this government that it makes good economic sense, it makes
perfect sense if one is concerned about the future viability of this province
and getting people back to work to allow this program to continue, make it possible
for these hard‑working, dedicated students with a dream to be able to
pursue that dream, get off welfare, get a job.
Mr. Acting Speaker, we
had many calls, letters, petitions on this issue. We have not heard the end of it yet. I hope in the coming days that we will be
able to somehow convey the sense from these individuals, what they are feeling,
and convince the government to change its mind.
I want to put a few of
those messages on record today in the hope that this government may be able to
see that it makes good economic policy and it is only right from a human
perspective to reverse its decision on the student social allowance program.
Let me add that this
government has yet to tell us what in fact it hopes to save by cutting the
student social allowance program and whether there will not be a much bigger
cost down the road. I am not talking
about a cost to society because of a generation of people who have not been
able to break out of welfare or get a job, I am talking about the more immediate
cost of what it will mean to transfer these people, for these people to be
transferred to city assistance and to put in place employment readiness
programs. There are some estimates that
this move of cutting off these 1,000 recipients of student social allowance is
going to end up costing all three levels of government some $8 million.
I hope that the
government has done its research. I hope
that the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) has informed his
colleagues of the economic ramifications of this decision, and I hope they do
some quick looking at those numbers and that research, if it has been done, in
the next 24 hours to try and save this program before it is too late.
Mr. Acting Speaker, if
the economic reasons do not make a difference to this government, let me try
with the words of some of these students to see if that will make a difference.
I want to read them one
letter. Quoting from one part of that
letter, it says the following: I am a
student at the Winnipeg Adult Education Centre.
I have been in
That is one letter, Mr.
Acting Speaker.
Here is an excerpt from
another: If the government is going to
cut back on student social allowance, I am one person who will be most
definitely and deeply affected. I would
not be able to continue my education, and that would be a great disappointment.
I left my home, my family and my friends just to come to the city and fulfill
my dream, and with one stroke of the pen the government has destroyed the
chance of living my dream, and I do not know what I will do if I cannot finish
my education. I cannot help thinking,
hoping and praying that some way, somehow I did not come all this way just for
it to end here.
From another letter, Mr.
Acting Speaker: 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. I still have to go for at least
one more term to finish my Grade 12. It
always seems when something really good is happening the government is always
screwing it up. Cutting student social
allowance is really a stupid move. Also,
shutting places like the Winnipeg Human Resources Opportunity Centre is also
another stupid thing, because places like this is where most students coming
out of school get training and work experience of various jobs.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Mr. Speaker, let me read
just a couple more excerpts: This is
like a backwards Robin Hood story. Take
from the poor, give to the rich. First
you want to take the libraries away and now you want to discourage adults to
better themselves. I am absolutely
disgusted in the way our situation is being handled. I am 23 years old. I have been out of school for seven years.
Now I finally get up the courage to go back, and now you are turning your back
on all of us.
Another, Mr. Speaker: I attend Winnipeg Adult Education Centre and
I get support from the student allowance program to do so. I am single and basically depend 100 percent
on myself. My parents are retired
seniors and I do not get any support financially from them. I am very concerned about the cuts that will
be effective this coming fall regarding the student allowance program. The cut will no longer provide me with the
financial ability that helps me to continue my education.
Another, Mr.
Speaker: A lot of single parents are
going to suffer because they will not be able to afford daycare, will not be
able to finish their grades, so they could have a better future for their
children.
* (1630)
Another, Mr.
Speaker: I disagree with the government
cutting back on student assistance. This
will affect us greatly. It is hard
enough to work part time and attend school full time. We are expected to work full time and carry a
full course load. It would affect our
grades and stress levels. If you cut
student social allowances, less students would attend school.
What happens? More people out of work. More people on welfare. We are beginning a vicious circle. We have to stop this somewhere.
Yet another, Mr.
Speaker: The slashing of funding to the
student social allowances affects a lot of people in situations similar to
myself. I am a single parent who has
been waitressing for the last 13 years to support my children. Now I would like a career, and slashing these
funds may make this impossible, so now I have not much to look forward to
toward ensuring a comfortable future for myself and my children. It is unfair that education is only going to
be for the wealthy and elite.
There are more, Mr.
Speaker, more examples of the kinds of students who benefit from the student
social allowance program and are living testimony of just how wrong this
government is when it suggests there are other options for these students to
turn to.
I do not know if members
were listening to how many of these students are not able to go back to their
home, to the families where they were raised.
How many? Not one in this bunch
that I read. Not one. They are all in this situation because they
have had a difficult background. They
have had problems. They admit they have
had problems. They are trying to get a
second chance in life.
They either have aging
parents who live in one‑room apartments or houses and have no room to
take in another whole family with children and pets, or they are not allowed,
they are not welcome back in their families, because they have been turned
away, because they have been shut aside.
I have heard a lot of
recitations of the Bible this afternoon from members across the way. I hope, if they remember anything, maybe they
will remember the prodigal son and maybe they will show some humaneness around
this issue and the seriousness of the elimination of the student allowance
program.
In just about every one
of these letters I have read, these students show that they either cannot go
back to their home or they are parents themselves, many of them single parents,
some of them part of two‑earner families.
They have no other choices. They have no other options.
The Minister of Family
Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) kept saying, there are other options. We tried to find out. We tried to check with his department. What options?
Could we get an answer? No. What did we get? First of all, by checking into the
department, we get nowhere of course, because with the policy of this
government everything goes through the minister's office, no one can provide
basic information.
So we get a call back
from the minister's office. Do we get
any information? Oh, yes, we get one
suggestion. We get told that some of
these individuals could get help through the Student Loan Program. Well, incredible. This government, their offices are not even
familiar enough with those programs to realize that people trying to get their
grade school education, their Grade 12 education, are not eligible for student
loan assistance.
Mr. Speaker, there are
no other options except sacrificing a family or throwing away dreams and
aspirations. Those are the options. There are no other programs to turn to. There are no other options. I tell the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.
Enns), the options for the family of Shirley Neufeld and her husband are to try
to go to school and get jobs, which means they have no time left for their one‑and‑a‑half‑year‑old
daughter, or their options are for one of them to give up their dreams and
aspirations and to ensure that that family has a lifetime of poverty.
I thought this
government cared about family. I thought
I have heard this government talk over and over again about keeping the family
together. All they have suggested
through these and other measures are programs to bring the family to the brink,
to break up families, to cause difficulties, to create such enormous problems
that there is no way around them except for breakup and inadequate time and
support and resources for their children. Those are the options that are
available for the students on student social allowance without such a program.
So what this government
has said, it is prepared‑‑it condones two things. No. 1, it is better for people to be on
welfare and doing nothing to prepare for a better day. It is better to be on welfare, just
collecting welfare and not going to school, not taking training and not seeking
employment. That is what this government
is saying. Stay on welfare. Sit around and do not do anything else. Do not better yourself. Do not educate yourself. Do not try for a better day when you can make
a difference to the economy and you can pay back the little that this program
means in terms of the overall government budget. That is one thing it is
condoning.
The other thing it is
condoning is that families‑‑more stress, pressure, difficulties for
families are acceptable. Do not try to
reduce the pressures and stress. Do not
try to eliminate unnecessary obstacles and barriers, but heap it on them. Make them pay, because as they all say, they
got themselves into this predicament.
They decided to have children; they can figure it out. Government has no role to play in terms of
making it more possible to be responsible parents and pursue other objectives
like going to school or contributing to the labour force, contributing to the
economy. So that is where we end up with
this government. Some choices, some
economic plan.
It sounds to me, Mr.
Speaker, like a big waste of taxpayers' dollars. I believe, as I said earlier in Question
Period, taxpayers of this province would be delighted to know that their money,
their hard‑earned dollars were going to programs that actually help
people break the cycle of dependency, get off welfare, get an education, get a
job. I do not get too many taxpayers
calling me and saying, that is a waste of money. In fact, the citizens in our communities have
a broader outlook than this government has itself. They have a much greater sense of justice and
fairness than members of the Conservative Party. They have an appreciation for
sharing resources if it is going to make a difference, for acting co‑operatively,
for showing some fairness and justice to all citizens, and that, I think, is
the message that this Conservative government should start listening to and
listening to today.
* (1640)
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this
legislation because it is a change in this particular piece of legislation
which gives the authority to this government to make some decisions and make
some changes which are fundamentally wrong, which will fundamentally hurt those
who are already among the most vulnerable citizens of the province of Manitoba.
We have watched with
interest the announcements of this government over the past few weeks. Each time we look at an announcement and we
analyze it, we find that the criterion of the government seems to be, how can
we take and remove dignity from members of the public? We see it very specifically in student social
allowances, and I think it is important for the government to examine who these
people are who are collecting student social allowance. If one were to do a profile of them, who are
they?
Well, they are often in
their young twenties. They are
frequently not white. They often, for a
variety of reasons, have been school dropouts, and we know that statistically
in
I think it is important
to examine what are some of those reasons.
Some of those young people were abused sexually or physically. They were removed from their family. That in turn often led to enormous pressures
psychologically for them. They found
themselves being moved to foster homes or group homes, often with one, two or
three or four or five sometimes, schools. They lost contact with friends, their
peer group. They lost contact with
teachers who might have had a special affection or warmth or found that young
person particularly challenging and therefore interesting. As a result, they found themselves after
weeks and months falling further and further behind.
So they then decide that
the only option open to them since they are no longer in a group with somewhat
a reflection of their age‑‑maybe they are now 18 but their
classmates would be in Grade 9 or Grade 10 and would only be 15 or 16 years of
age. So they drop out.
They try desperately to
find employment. If they get any it is
minimum wage, frequently very insecure.
They work for a few weeks and find themselves laid off. They work for a few more weeks; they find
themselves laid off. They are usually,
as a result, ineligible for UIC because they never worked enough weeks in order
to qualify. They turn to social
assistance.
Then one day they wake
up and they say, there has got to be a better way. There has got to be a better life for me
somewhere in this province and in this country.
So they make the decision that they will go back to school, because they
look at television ads, very expensive television ads, which say you have got
to have a high school education.
So they make that
critical decision. They go back to
school and they find themselves in this province on a program which is unique,
no question about that, called the student social allowance.
Now there are many
members of the government side that seem to be of the opinion that these young
people get more money for being on student social allowance than they would get
by being on regular social allowance, and that is not true. They in fact get less money by being on
student social allowance, but they decide that rather than be on welfare,
regular social assistance, they will bite the bullet. They will take a little bit less, but they
will avail themselves of the opportunity to go back to school.
So they go back, often
at the Adult Education Centre. They
gradually upgrade from Grade 9 to Grade 10, from Grade 10 to Grade 11, from
Grade 11 to Grade 12. They are not
eligible for student loans because they do not have a high school diploma.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
They know that their
alternative is not a job. They have
tried that route, and when they tried that route they found themselves unable
to become employed. So being unable to
be employed they have found the one avenue of hope, and they have gone on
student social allowance.
It is interesting to
talk to those who are involved in instructing these young people, because they
are often very excited about the quality of the student that they have. Many of the instructors have come from high
school environments in which a great percentage of the students care and want
to succeed, but there is always that 20 or 30 percent who quite frankly are
putting in time within the high school structure.
All of a sudden, they
find themselves with this group of students who are extremely keen. They are there not because their parents say
they have to go to school, they are there not because they are under the age of
16 so the law requires them to go to school, they are in school because they
want to be there. They want to go to school.
They have made that choice within themselves that they will be there
because they desire to be there and they will try as hard as they possibly can
to achieve that high school diploma so that new avenues of opportunities open
up to them.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it
does not matter what statistical evidence you examine these days with regard to
our changing world. It quickly becomes
apparent that there are few jobs for those who do not have a high school
education and that that will become not less but more as the years
progress. It is estimated that there
will be no jobs for those without a high school education by the turn of the
century. Some estimates indicate that
even now fewer than 20 percent of the jobs will accept those who have less than
a high school education.
So what we are doing
with these people when we tell them to go back on social allowance, because
that is what we are indeed telling them, is that not only will they go back on
social allowance now, but they may be on social allowance in perpetuity, that
this may become a new class of people, those who will go from cradle to grave
living on the social assistance system.
That is not good for any
of us. It is not good for them, because
I am firmly convinced that every one of us in our society needs work to give
structure to our lives, but it is also not of value to whichever party forms
government, because people who live on social assistance cannot make a
contribution to the government. They do
not earn enough money through social assistance to pay income taxes, so there
is no revenue generation, other than through sales taxes, for a provincial
government from someone who spends their lifetime living on social assistance.
* (1650)
All political
philosophies, no matter what they are, on the right or the left or in between,
have to accept that it is essential when and wherever possible to put people to
work because, if they are not at work, they simply cannot make an economic
contribution to society, i.e., the government.
When we decide that
individuals can no longer get student social allowance, we are in fact I think
saying to those young people, we do not ever want you to make that
contribution. The Premier (Mr. Filmon)
would suggest it is not that way. The
Premier would suggest that they can continue with their schooling, that there
are alternatives out there for them.
Well, that alternative
is not social assistance because if they are on city welfare they cannot go to
school because they have to be willing, ready and able to look for a job,
provided that they are in fact employable, as designated by the city
welfare. The only reason they would have
social welfare from the city would be if they are employable. So that is a conundrum. They cannot go to
school while on social allowance, so they are supposed to stay home and do
nothing.
The Premier suggested
they could go back and live with their families. Well, for some that might be a possibility,
but it is not a realistic possibility for many of them because if, in living
with that parent, they have been in an abusive relationship, surely as a
society and as a government we are not suggesting that they would move back
into an abusive situation.
They were removed from
that abusive situation by the same government that is now suggesting they go
back to that abusive situation. It
hardly makes much logical sense.
So for those who have been
physically and sexually assaulted that is not an option, but it is also not an
option for a lot of young people who have turned 18, because in order to go
back home there has to be an agreement on the part of the parents that they
will take them back home, and regrettably, there are lots of parents out there
who do not want their children back home and who will not allow them to move
back in.
Since the youngster is
over the age of 18 and there is no parental responsibility to protect that
child economically or any other way, there is no way you can compel that family
to take that young person back home. So
if the parent says, no, I am sorry, Johnny, Mary or Sally, I do not want you
back home, that is that option gone.
Another option perhaps
is to find employment. Well, there is a
lot of unemployment out there. There are
a lot of people desperate to find work.
There are a lot of people with skills and training far beyond those who
are presently trying to upgrade their high school education who cannot find
jobs. How is it anticipated by this
government that these people will find jobs?
In speaking with Tom
Denton, who is the head of the International Centre and a well‑known
member of the government's party, his concern is for those people who come to
this country as refugees whose qualifications are not recognized, who have to
provide upgrading for themselves because otherwise they simply will not be able
to find employment. Who do they turn to? They do not have families in the
country. They do not have those who can
provide them with financial supports.
They are refugees. They have come from
They come to this
country without speaking English. They
come to this country with nothing going for them except their desire to
succeed. One of the things that they do
first off is to try and enhance their education, to get a Canadian‑recognized
high school diploma so that they can become active participating members of the
Canadian and
If you were out looking
at the rally today, there were individuals there from
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Unfortunately, with the
cuts in student social allowance, that has all been eliminated, and for what
purpose? If all of these people turn on
social assistance, it will not have cost the government any less money. Indeed, it will have ended up costing them
more money because they get more money on social assistance. So you have saved not one penny of money, but
what you have done is to have eliminated hope.
You have chosen to take away people's dreams. You have taken away their aspirations.
You know it was
interesting, Mr. Speaker, because the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) was out on the steps of the Legislature today and he was briefly
talking about his own experiences. He
talked about how he worked part time and how he put himself through university. He did not talk about the fact, however, that
he came from a family that was supportive of what it was he was trying to do.
Like most students, like
most people I assume in this Chamber, I worked as I went through
university. I think we all did, but I
always had that rock‑bottom knowledge that my parents were going to be
there to support me if everything else failed, if the bottom went out from my
ability to earn money that I was not going to have to starve. I was fortunate. I was able to live at home and go to
university that way. Much tougher on
many of our members who were educated in rural communities and had to leave
their home in order to come into the city to get that education.
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please. This matter will stand in the
name of the honourable member for
* (1700)
PRIVATE MEMBERS'
BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker: The hour
being 5 p.m., time for Private Members' Business.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 14‑Emerson
Visitor Centre
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): I move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the
honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson),
WHEREAS tourism is an
integral part of
WHEREAS many visitors to
WHEREAS a new visitor
centre was opened in Emerson this year; and
WHEREAS this $640,000
was spent on a tourism information centre will make a lasting impression on
visitors entering our province as the facility features a bold, colourful
design, with a 5 metre high wagon wheel symbolizing Manitoba's pioneer
heritage; and
WHEREAS the
participation and enthusiasm of the people of Emerson was an important factor
in making the visitor centre a reality; and
WHEREAS partnerships
between government and the community help make our province more attractive to
visitors and help promote our tourism industry.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba welcome the opening of the Emerson
Visitor Centre and commend the people of Emerson on their contribution in this
very prominent tourist attraction.
Motion presented.
Mr. Penner: Mr.
Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure today to rise and commend the
people of Emerson and all of the people in Manitoba for contributing to the co‑operation
that was needed to establish a visitor centre in co‑operation with the
federal government in building an attractive centre, such as the building that
was built at Emerson, Manitoba.
Tourism, after all, is
one of the largest industries of this province as well as the rest of
Having visited this
specific centre, I am convinced that the many tourism attractions that we have
in the southern part of this province are seldom ever visited by tourists as
such, especially those who come to Manitoba from the south, can now stop here
and receive direction and the information required that will cause them to want
to visit many of our smaller communities.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
We have a tremendous
resource in many of our rural parts of
In my view, it will do
two things. It will create a much
greater awareness of the cultural ethnic backgrounds and the nature of this
province and a realization that the huge diversity of peoples who have stopped
here in Manitoba, when this province was first settled, adds to not only our
lives, but adds to all other people who want to stop here and visit.
That reflects largely
upon the diversity of industry and the nature of many of the industries that we
have in this province, and the diversity of the industries that we have in this
province, because it is people who have migrated here or immigrated here from
other parts of the world who cause different views and perspectives to be
brought and different needs to be identified, that other people in the world
might use our resources, be they manufactured or otherwise, that we can in fact
encourage industrial diversification, that we can encourage exports of things
that we produce and that we are better at producing than most others are and
that we can encourage people to travel here to see what we have and what we can
build and how we can enhance the productivity of our people.
The hospitality industry
is an industry that has been in the doldrums over the last number of
years. We did something that other
governments had simply refused to take a look at. We provided some incentives for the rural
hospitality industry to stay there and increase their revenues by such things
as allowing the entertainment industry to be expanded in that area, which, of
course, stopped some people from travelling south to visit such places as the
Shooting Star Casino and those kinds of things.
I think it has done that. It has
enhanced many of the small hotels and motels in rural
I think the tourism
centre that has been built at the border crossing at Emerson will certainly
enhance that opportunity, because we are going to be able to tell people that
we have towns such as Gardenton, Vassar, Vita, Sprague, Plum Coulee, Horndean,
Manitou, Pilot Mound and all those kinds of small communities that we have in
southern Manitoba bordering the U.S. that many a traveller might not know
exist.
The ethnic foods that
these people make‑‑these Ukrainian, Mennonite, Anglo‑Saxon
people who have settled there‑‑will lend to the enjoyment of the
traveller. If we have people who staff
these tourism centres who are able to tell people about the huge diversity that
we have in our ethnic background, it will certainly enhance those travellers'
enjoyment.
There are other things
that we have that I think the centre will direct attention to, and that is of
course the new Forks centre that has been built in the city of
When you travel beyond
the city of Winnipeg to the northern parts, whether it be the Interlake or
whether it be the western part of our province, the Riding Mountain area, or
even beyond that into the northern parts of this province into the Churchill
area or anywhere in between, Flin Flon, The Pas, we have tremendous, tremendous
resources that few people ever are directed to and pointed to and say, you
know, visit that part of our province.
We should as a province do more to advertise and enhance than we have up
until now. It is this kind of
recognition of the previous tourism agreement that we had with the federal
government that will enhance our ability to generate that traffic, I believe,
and that will allow us to expand our tourism industry, whether they are fishing
lodges in northern Manitoba, whether they are ski hills in the Riding Mountain
area or whether they are in fact just leisurely drive throughs by people that
have never seen Manitoba.
* (1710)
Therefore, Madam Deputy
Speaker, I would ask that the members of this Legislature join me‑‑I
am not sure how much time I have left‑‑but join me in
congratulating specifically the federal government for having the resources to
share with us to put together the kind of agreements we need, and to start
redirecting the emphasis towards co‑operation and negotiate more of these
kinds of agreements that we can jointly fund to create more of these kinds of
tourism interest‑type ventures in this province as well as some of the
other western provinces.
We know that the
agricultural community in this province has come through some very, very
serious times. We know that things are
getting better because of the emphasis that has been placed on the need to keep
on producing food in this province as well as the rest of the province. We must congratulate our Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) for the tremendous effort that he has put in to
ensure that our agricultural community will survive until the turnaround comes,
and it is coming. We have all seen that
the commodity prices are changing. It is
being redirected, and the prices of our commodities are increasing. Therefore, it will enhance our ability for
those rural communities to survive.
However, diversification
of the rural communities is something that we can continually keep on adding
to, and the tourism sector I think has some tremendous opportunities. Many of our rural farm families are looking
at how they can join with some of their neighbours and friends in developing
the bed and breakfast type places whereby you could encourage people that have
never seen a farm operation to stay on farms and enjoy a week or two with them
to work on farms, and therefore it might even help to offset some of the costs
and labour on the farm during those times.
But there are some members in this place that would not know anything
about that.
I would encourage even
members of this Legislature that have probably never been on a farm or near a
farm to do that, to travel out to rural Manitoba and to spend some time with
their country cousins, and to get some dirt under their nails and help us
increase the tourism traffic. Maybe they
could even spend a few dollars in some of our rural communities to enjoy some
of the theatre. There is some excellent
live theatre in some of these small communities. That might interest some of these members. If
that does not satisfy them, I would suggest that they go out there and ride the
horses, milk the cows, feed the goats and truly enjoy a great time vacationing
in rural
Thank you, Madam Deputy
Speaker.
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to join with my
colleague in speaking to this resolution.
The mover of the resolution has certainly put forward a resolution that
we can support and, I think, amend and improve upon as well. I would propose to do that. However, before I do so I would like to take
this opportunity to speak about some of the tourism agreements that have made
possible projects such as this $640,000 tourist information centre that the
member for Emerson has discussed in his opening remarks. [interjection!
Steinbach? The member for Steinbach is
also responsible for Emerson, and he has brought forward a resolution that
actually just taps the government on the back a little bit.
Of course, that is about
the extent of the resolutions that we get from the members opposite, and I have
to indicate that they have done that on a number of occasions. They are also providing some accolades to
some of their constituents, and that is certainly an acceptable practice, I
guess, in this Legislature and one that many of us as MLAs do at various times.
I want to say, though,
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is unfortunate that this government and this federal
government have been unable to renew the ERDA agreements that were established
under the previous New Democratic government, along with the, at the time,
Liberal federal government that was in place in Canada.
The ERDA agreements were
an excellent format which provided economic and regional development in the
Tourism was one of
them. The agreement was for over $30
million for tourism development in the province over a five‑year
period. That ERDA agreement was for
major projects in
It was identified as a
major area as a result of tourism destination studies that were undertaken in
the late '70s and early '80s. As a matter
of fact, the studies were undertaken under the previous Conservative
government. I give them credit for
undertaking those studies and the establishment of Destination Manitoba.
It was following that
that the New Democratic government negotiated these agreements with the federal
Trudeau government of the day. As a
result, it was not just tourism that was identified, it was forestry, it was
transportation. We had the Churchill
agreement, the transportation development agreement and the new technology‑‑the
bus agreement that was put in place, a $50‑million agreement. There were a large number of agreements, the
information technology agreement, telecommunications agreement.
We did have a large
number of agreements in place that made possible the expenditure of federal
dollars in a cost‑sharing way in this
I think clearly this
government has failed. I think it is not
a matter of whether I believe it or think it, it is a matter of historical
fact. This government has failed over
its five years in office to work constructively with the federal government to
achieve anything close to what was achieved by the former New Democratic
government in this province.
It is ironic, because it
was the Conservatives who said, oh, well, you need to have a Conservative
government in
* (1720)
When they did come into
office, we saw very poor communication between the federal and provincial
governments. It deteriorated over the
years to the point where the Premier (Mr. Filmon) did not even show up for
dinner with the Prime Minister at a fundraising dinner last fall.
We have to think that
this was a contrived situation, because the Premier did not want to be seen
dining next to the Prime Minister and certainly did not want his picture taken
with the Prime Minister as he did so enthusiastically a few years previous.
The situation is, and it
is a matter of fact, that the deterioration that took place with the relations
between the federal and provincial governments was unprecedented. That is why this Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard) was unable to negotiate any federal‑provincial agreements in his
area or any of his colleagues were unable to negotiate agreements to follow
upon the ERDA agreements that were put in place, those ERDA agreements which
gave rise to such needed projects as the tourism information centre that is located
at Emerson. [interjection!
See, the minister
forgets what we are talking about here.
It was precisely because of the great working relationship that the
previous New Democratic government put in place that we were able to negotiate
these agreements that provided these kinds of benefits prior to the Mulroney
government coming into office.
We have to say that
during our experience with Mulroney and the CF‑18 fiasco we had a great
deal of difficulty working with him, because he was only interested in servicing
his constituents in
Of course, as I said
earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker, when I was interrupted by the Minister of Health
(Mr. Orchard), clearly this government has failed to deal constructively with
the federal government to make
We can look at each of
those categories where those agreements were in place, identified as strengths
for
We had a matter of a $5
million tourism agreement, for example.
That is the extent of their tourism agreement, to follow on a $30
million agreement that was in place by the previous government. So you can see that this government has been
unable to follow through.
Therefore, I believe
they should be including that kind of reference in their resolution that they
brought forward, to make this completely contextual. To put things in the proper context, it is
necessary to make reference to the fact that the government has been unable to
continue on that constructive, working relationship with the federal government
to develop
Tourism is only one of
the areas, but it is the one that is being focused on in this resolution;
therefore, we believe that it is necessary to also include a reference to that
when we discuss this resolution.
I want to indicate,
before I move that amendment, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I do applaud the
people of Emerson for taking the initiative to put forward the proposal for a
tourism information centre. I think it
is important that
I think that it is a
major oversight if the government, in making reference to this centre and this
development, neglects to point out that they have been unable to provide the
kind of leadership in tourism in this province since that time. Not only have they not provided leadership in
terms of federal‑provincial agreements, they have cut back on Tourism
Manitoba, on the funding that was provided to regional organizations
throughout, for TIAM throughout Manitoba, disbanded that whole organization.
There are no longer regional tourism organizations throughout this
province. One of their first acts when
they came into government was to disband this organization, to discontinue the
funding, and that is what has happened to the support for local initiative in
tourism.
It is a dismal failure
under this government and I think that the numbers would indicate a substantial
drop‑off in tourism in this province over the years this Conservative
government has been in place. We believe
that the tourism figures would indicate the worst figures in over 30 years, and
I think it is a direct result of the lack of attention and priority placed on
tourism by this government. It has
become worse every year since this government came into office, so we think it
is important that this resolution be placed in that context, and that this is a
result, this tourism initiative, this information centre, of the agreements put
in place by the previous government, and there should be recognition of the
negotiation that did take place.
So I want to move, Madam
Deputy Speaker, that Resolution 14 be amended by adding after the last WHEREAS:
and WHEREAS the previous
Manitoba‑Canada Tourism Agreement under ERDA provided over $30 million
for tourism projects in
WHEREAS it is
unfortunate the government of
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
that this Legislature request the federal and provincial governments to
negotiate a tourism agreement at a similar level to the the ERDA tourism
agreement which expired in 1990.
Seconded by the member
for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
Point of Order
Mr. Plohman: On a
point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
An Honourable Member: You cannot
have a point of order on an amendment.
Mr. Plohman: No, just
a point of clarification. I want to just
point out that I added‑‑
Some Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Plohman: Madam
Deputy Speaker, I have added in handwriting some clarification to the printed
one so that you can see that it follows the first BE IT RESOLVED.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order,
please. I have reviewed the amendment,
and the amendment appears to be in order.
* * *
* (1730)
Madam Deputy Speaker: It has
been moved by the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), seconded by the
honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid),
THAT Resolution 14 be
amended by adding after the last WHEREAS
and WHEREAS the previous
Manitoba‑Canada Tourism Agreement under ERDA provided over $30 million
for tourism projects in
WHEREAS it is
unfortunate the government of
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
that this Legislature request the federal and provincial governments to
negotiate a tourism agreement at a similar level to the ERDA Tourism Agreement
which expired in 1990.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is really
unfortunate, I think, that we cannot use private members' hour in a more
positive way. I find it amusing that
members of the government are going yea, yea, since they are the ones who are
most likely to abuse private members' hour, but never mind.
In this particular case
it seems to me that it was a very simple resolution put forward by the member
for Emerson (Mr. Penner). Obviously he
has had a tourist centre that has been built in his constituency, and I do not
think in this case it was because it was his constituency. It happens to be the most frequent access
from the
I think it is a
reasonable thing, and I think it is also true that some of the plans and some
of the ideas were in place before they became the government. So you know everybody can congratulate
themselves for having put this wonderful deal together and have left it at
that. No, we now have a straightforward
resolution from the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) and we have the politics
involved by the New Democratic Party in order to, I would suggest,
unfortunately negate the purpose and function of private members' hour, and
that is my point. Not that it is not the
Liberal Party that does not make these things into political things on occasion
as well, and it is not‑‑the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) would
like to promote this as being holier than thou.
It is not the point. The point
is, should we not as a group of 57 legislators decide that private members'
hour has a little bit better purpose than what it is we usually denigrate it
into, and I do not exclude the Liberal Party from the denigration, just to keep
the honourable member for Dauphin happy.
It is a positive
achievement. It has been an unfortunate
thing that
When I was a child in
So I have never been to
the border crossing at Emerson. Although I have been in the community of
Emerson, I have not been to the border crossing. I have never crossed the border there, but I
think it is important that tourists feel welcome when they come into this
province and, if this new tourism centre is going to provide that opportunity
for them to feel welcome and is also, as the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner)
indicated, going to provide them with very valuable information about the
wonderful opportunities for the enjoyment of this province, then it will be all
that it is hoped it will be.
If we can make
information available to them on museums, on cultural activities, on
restaurants and hotels and the beauty of this province from north to south,
from east to west, if we can keep tourists in the province, rather than just
being an entry and then a very quick exit as they go to another province, then
the tourism centre will be of great value.
I hope that it turns out
to be everything that the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) wants it to be,
because all of us in this Chamber should be very supportive of any initiative
which enhances our economic viability.
Tourism is a very important part of that. We only have to look at the
I do not know what it is
statistically for P.E.I., but I suspect it would be very, very close to No. 1
or No. 2, because they have seen the value of attracting people from outside of
this country, as well as from other provinces in this country, to spend their
money in those provinces. If this is a
first step forward so that we are going to also do that in
Thank you, Madam Deputy
Speaker.
* (1740)
Mr. Ben Sveinson (La Verendrye): Madam Deputy Speaker, members of the Assembly,
I would like to join with the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) in congratulating‑‑[interjection!
That would be a very commendable thing for any person to put their name forward
to run for‑‑[interjection! Even that. Yes, for the federal nomination in any party,
I would commend those people for that too.
However, right now, I am
into commending those people of Emerson and indeed the federal and provincial
governments for the work that has gone into creating this Emerson tourist
information centre.
I think that we will all
agree that it does not matter whether you are applying for a job or if you are
trying‑‑that first impression of people wanting to sell you something
or in fact you selling yourself is something that is very, very important. So, in fact, this tourism centre at Emerson
is indeed‑‑I am told, although I have not seen it, I have talked to
a number of people who have‑‑it is that first impression, a symbol
if you will, to people coming into this country as to what is here.
The warmth that is shown
by the people of Emerson is very similar to a tourism centre that I have out
just on this side of the
Now the enjoyment can
come in many different ways from fishing to skiing which you can indeed do in
my beautiful little constituency of La Verendrye in and around West Hawk‑Falcon
area, to the ballet and the symphony within
We have in the northern
part of
Now I never had the
opportunity, Madam Deputy Speaker, when I was a kid to do a lot of skiing. In fact, no, I will not even tell you the
kind of skiing that I did, but at any rate‑‑[interjection!
Pardon. When I was a kid we did a little
bit of skiing and a lot of people might, well, what the heck, they will kid me
about it anyway. We did some skiing,
would you believe, behind horses. [interjection! Yes, we did. Yes.
It was fun.
It was absolutely a
fantastic amount of fun behind horses, a nice riding horse and going down the
road and you can go in and out of the ditches and so on. It was fun.
We did graduate to some things that were a little bit faster after that,
but we did not have that many hills in the area I grew up in, and, indeed, we
had to go into other things.
However, Madam Deputy
Speaker, I would just like to touch on a number of other things within my
area. We have fish hatcheries out in the
So there are many things
within our province, and just to touch on a number of other things, we have of
course the Whiteshell, which falls within my constituency. We have many lakes. You have heard about the 100,000 lakes, Madam
Deputy Speaker, I am sure I have a good part of them in my constituency. We can go from West Hawk‑Falcon, Indian
Bay, Star Lake, Caddy Lake, Cross Lake, Nora Lake, War Eagle, Turtle Lake,
Brereton Lake, Eleanor, Nutimik, Numao, Margaret, Horseshoe, Crowduck, many,
many different lakes of which there is camping at some. There are boating and swimming areas. You can stop in at West Hawk or in the Big
Whiteshell. There is swimming and
fishing. It is incredible the tourism
draw that we have in this province, incredible.
When we talk about this
tourism centre, and I would ask the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) to join us
in that. When we are the first line or
when we are working with the people who are the first line to the people coming
into this province to make a good impression, to shake a hand, to give a smile,
it is nice to be able to point out a number of these things. I am sure the member for Dauphin was
listening closely to a number of the things that I was mentioning.
There is another centre
at
* (1750)
Mr. Plohman: Put your
money where your mouth is.
Mr. Sveinson: Well,
see, the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) kind of put his finger on something
here, and again it is money. It seems always to be that from the opposition
benches, where, in fact, they are always‑‑money, money, money,
spend it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as
I said, our people in this province are the No. 1 people of the world in
putting forward their wares. It was
mentioned by the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) the different foods throughout
our different ethnic groups throughout the province. It is absolutely fantastic. In my rounds in my constituency, again out in
the East Braintree area, usually when I go through, I stop in, and I pick up a
couple of dozen perogies, just fantastic, potato and cheese. It is just fantastic. You know, I will never leave any part of my
constituency‑‑after having stopped at some of their homes, I will
never leave there hungry, never.
An Honourable Member: And it looks like it, too.
Mr. Sveinson: I should
do up my coat? I am not blaming the
couple of pounds that I put on, Madam Deputy Speaker, on my constituents. I ate those perogies and fish, pickerel
fillets‑‑oh, just something else.
Those you can get in my constituency and also in a lot of other parts of
Madam Deputy Speaker, do
I have much more time left? Two minutes.
The beaver was a very,
very fun‑filled thing. Actually, I
do come from up north, around Ashern, Moosehorn. In fact, the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman)
and I did go to school in Moosehorn. We
actually went to the same school. Many
of the friends of the member for Dauphin are indeed also my friends, and
although we do kid across the way the odd time, we do come from the same area.
At any rate, this beaver
that this Natural Resources officer did capture came from the Gypsumville area.
[interjection! No. He brought him from northern
Madam Deputy Speaker,
thanks for this time.
Mr. Jack Reimer (Niakwa): Madam Deputy Speaker, before I talk too long
on the amendment that was brought forth by the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner),
I have to relate that I, too, in my constituency‑‑even though I do
have an urban area and an urban riding, one of the concerns in my riding was
beavers, believe it or not, on the Seine River.
Some Honourable Members:
No.
Mr. Reimer: Yes,
honest, the amount of beavers have increased in
They are cutting down
trees in my area. In fact, one of my
constituents lives right on the
Just to get back to the
amendment that was brought forth by the member for Emerson regarding the
Emerson tourist booth. Indeed, it is a great pleasure and an honour to talk on
this because tourism, as everybody knows, is a very, very vital and a very
important part of
I am not sure of the
exact numbers, but I know that it is in the hundreds of millions of dollars
that are spent here annually in
We are all very familiar
with the Morden Corn and Apple Festival, the Threshermen's
In fact, I remember at
Dugald there is the Wellington boot contest.
Altona, the Sunflower Festival, a very big event attended by people from
all over
So there are summer
festivals that just go on and on here in
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order,
please. When this matter is next before
the House, the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) will have 10 minutes
remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., I
am leaving the Chair and will return at 8 p.m. this evening.