LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
OF
Friday, May 7, 1993
The House met at 10 a.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Mr. Speaker:
I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr.
Maloway). 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 (William Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out
the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker:
I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr.
Lathlin). 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 fisheries are a vital resource
industry in rural and northern
WHEREAS there are over 800 commercial
fishermen netting some 12 million pounds of fish each year on
WHEREAS the high costs of supplies and
shipping fish to market are putting ever more pressures on the commercial
fishing industry in this province; and
WHEREAS the provincial government reduced
the Northern Fishermen's Freight Subsidy Assistance Program for commercial
fishing by over $90,000 in 1991; and
WHEREAS this subsidy is vital to the
survival of the commercial fishing industry; and
WHEREAS restoring the Freight Subsidy to the
level of previous years would make fishing in northern
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker:
I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Clif
Evans). 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 fisheries are a vital resource
industry in rural and northern
WHEREAS there are over 800 commercial
fishermen netting some 12 million pounds of fish each year on
WHEREAS the high costs of supplies and
shipping fish to market are putting ever more pressures on the commercial
fishing industry in this province; and
WHEREAS the provincial government reduced
the Northern Fishermen's Freight Subsidy Assistance Program for commercial
fishing by over $90,000 in 1991; and
WHEREAS this subsidy is vital to the
survival of the commercial fishing industry; and
WHEREAS restoring the Freight Subsidy to
the level of previous years would make fishing in northern
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker:
I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Leonard
Evans). It complies with the privileges
and 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
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out
the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker:
Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members
to the gallery, where we have with us this morning from the Teulon Collegiate
sixty‑six Grade 11 students under the direction of Mr. Ed Masters. This school is located in the constituency of
the honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer).
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this morning.
* (1005)
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Federal Environmental
Review
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier
(Mr. Filmon).
Today, 30 environmental organizations are
joining together to call on the federal government to have a federal
environmental assessment of the
We are now in receipt of a letter, which I
will table in the House, from Jean Charest, the federal Environment minister,
who now says that this decision to have the federal environmental assessment
will go to the minister responsible for the decision‑making authority,
the present Minister of Agriculture.
Now, the present Minister of Agriculture
is a
I would now like to call on the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) to take a leadership position on behalf of all Manitobans, all
Manitobans who are in a dispute on this issue, Mr. Speaker, and call on the
federal government to join the provincial government so we can have a basin‑wide
federal‑provincial review of the
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of
Environment): Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that
the federal guidelines and the process under which they make a decision is one
where they have a screening process to decide whether or not federal
responsibility is being correctly dealt with.
They make a decision based on the
guidelines that have been in place for quite some time, and let me tell you,
Mr. Speaker, they have to take the responsibility for whichever way they decide
to deal with this program.
They will be looking at the process that
Federal Environmental
Review
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it has been documented with the
federal government with the Rafferty‑Alameda project that initially when
Tom McMillan indicated they would have a federal environmental assessment, that
was cancelled due to political pressure from Grant Devine from the Conservative
Party, Premier of
The same suspicions are here now in
The way to solve this, Mr. Speaker, is for
the Premier to take a leadership position and stop the fight between
* (1010)
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite is not clear on the way the
process works. He should know that the
federal government, in its screening process, places the onus on PFRA which is
the arm that would be responsible for this kind of work. They are, of course, under the federal
Minister of Agriculture. That is why the
decision comes under his jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, this matter will be handled by
the book. From our perspective, we will
apply absolutely no political pressure to keep them out. We encourage them to carry out their process
and to ensure that they abide by it to the letter. We have said that time and time and time
again. The entire process will be
carried out as it should be in conjunction with our legislation and as it
should be in conjunction with federal legislation, to the letter.
We will not conduct ourselves, Mr.
Speaker, like the New Democrats did‑‑because they wanted to force
through the development of the Limestone Generating Station‑‑when
they did not have any public hearing process, any complete environmental
assessment or review process. That will
never happen under this administration.
Mr. Doer:
I find it rather curious for a former Minister of Environment to talk
about the lack of environmental assessments in the '80s. Perhaps if the Premier had passed an
environment act when he was minister, there would have been the same kinds of
assessments that are required under The Environment Act that the New Democratic
Party passed in the '80s.
Federal Environmental
Review
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I have a document from the
federal Department of Fisheries that talks about an analysis of the proposed
It also goes on to say that there is a
risk in terms of the water flow for this river which is not considered by the
present environmental assessment of the project. It goes on to talk about the impact on fish,
on water flows: The degradation of water
quality could be an important factor in the future viability of this proposal.
It goes on to say that the project will
alter, significantly, the water flow in many river systems, and the Department
of Fisheries believes that the assessment does not fully identify and assess
the potential impacts on fisheries in that river system, and it does not
provide the best information in terms of that material.
I would like to ask the Premier (Mr.
Filmon), in light of the fact that Charlie Mayer is now responsible for
proposing to have an independent federal assessment in his own backyard and
that we have all these communities disagreeing about the process right now,
will the Premier go further than just encourage the process of a federal‑provincial
basin‑wide review? Will he ask the
federal government directly in writing to join and have a federal‑provincial
review as our provincial legislation allows and as the people of
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of
Environment): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition
likes to choose his quotes rather selectively.
Let me read from the letter that he just tabled. It says: "Under the EARP Guidelines Order, the
Minister with the decision‑making authority for a proposal must ensure
that the environmental implications of the proposal have been assessed before
any irrevocable decisions are made."
The federal government will make that
evaluation. They will decide whether or not
they want to come in on a federal EARP or whether they believe, as it says in
the third paragraph following that, as to whether or not any potential adverse
effects can be mitigated.
They will make their decision. They will be responsible for it, and pending
that decision, we will make sure that our policy and our assessment is clear,
open to the public and, without question, make a decision that is based on the
facts.
Economic Growth
Employment Decline
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
It seemed as though the
Mr. Speaker, this is the largest increase
in the unemployment rate of any of the Canadian provinces. At the same time, our labour force has
dropped from March, while the Canadian labour force has increased.
Will this minister now acknowledge that
* (1015)
Hon. Clayton Mannes (Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the member
for Brandon East was able to move up on the roster, his Friday morning
roster. Quite often he is left to the
end by the Leader.
I would like to indicate to the member
that, as last month, he did not bring forward a question at the time when the
numbers, of course, were very encouraging and very supportive of government
policy. Today, he, of course, likes to
again bring the selective numbers forward.
I would cite for him, and I know he knows this,
that
Now, in the subsequent question, I am sure
the member will want to ask about manufacturing, and we will also share some
decent news with respect to manufacturing growth, given, Mr. Speaker, the
proper time frame. Again, selective
quoting of statistics, month over month, is for the opposition to do, but let
us put it over some decent trend of time.
Mr. Leonard Evans:
Mr. Speaker, it seems that the answer is based on very selective
statistics, as well. The fact is the
economy is stagnating.
My question to the minister is: Will the minister acknowledge that we are
again losing jobs in this province? We
lost 8,000 jobs between April and the previous month of March. The fact is we
are going backwards.
So are you going to continue to ignore
this matter, or are you going to take some action?
Mr. Manness:
Mr. Speaker, the action has been taken in the budget. As the Premier (Mr. Filmon) indicated the
other day, the Conference Board of Canada and other people recognize that through
the budgetary moves and the taxation moves in this province, rather than
attacking disposable income in the pockets of people, we have chosen
deliberately to leave a greater portion of people's earnings for the area of
disposable income. Indeed, we are
receiving acclaim for that across the land.
So I say to the member, you cannot have it
both ways. I know in opposition, he
likes to have it both ways, but the reality is you cannot, and we are leaving,
through our taxation measures, a larger proportion of the public earning
ability with Manitobans.
Mr. Speaker, that is auguring well. Our retail sales tax vis‑a‑vis
other provinces, although not increasing at significant amounts, still in
comparative terms, it is relatively well positioned.
Mr. Leonard Evans:
Mr. Speaker, this government‑‑we have fewer people working
today than when they were elected. There
are fewer jobs today than when they were elected.
Let us talk about the number of
unemployed. Why is the number of
unemployed increasing in this province, up from 5,000 from March to April? We are up to 51,000 seasonally adjusted. We
are up to 55,000 on an actual basis. We
have more people unemployed than we should have.
So, again, I ask this government to ask
this minister: Will he re‑examine
his policies, take some action and give a little hope to those thousands upon
thousands of Manitobans, including young people‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
member has put his question.
Mr. Manness:
Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed, again, that the member resorts to
selective statistics.
Why can the member not recognize that
Mr. Speaker, the member refuses‑‑he
is a doomer and gloomer, and he refuses to dwell on the positive. He just wants to wallow away in negative
news, and I say to him, he is doing a disservice indeed to all Manitobans and
certainly to the youth in our galleries today.
* (1020)
James Philip Bridson
Investigation Update
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
A very serious tragic circumstance has
gripped the community of Flin Flon. It
continues to in our province, and as we all are aware by this point, it has
already claimed the lives of two and threatens another two. There is an ongoing investigation which I
know the Minister of Justice has been involved in and is aware of.
I am wondering if the Minister of Justice
today can tell members the progress of that investigation which has caused very
serious concerns throughout that community and indeed the province. I wonder if the minister has an update for
members of the House at this time.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of
Justice and Attorney General): The honourable member is certainly correct when he refers
to the tragic nature of the circumstances in this situation in the Flin Flon
area. Our first thought, of course, is
to the grief, the horror and the shock that the families involved and the
community involved in this tragedy must surely be feeling, and I am sure the
honourable member and all honourable members would join me in extending
sympathy to all of those who are so deeply affected by this incident.
In terms of an update, basically the
investigation is ongoing. A search is
still being conducted, and I have nothing further than that at this point to
report.
Mr. Edwards:
Of course, we look forward to further information and hopefully the
successful conclusion of that investigation.
James Philip Bridson
Education Department
Involvement
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James):
My further question is for the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker.
As I know the minister will be aware, and
others in this House perhaps, this family, the Bridson family in Flin Flon, has
a long history of relationship with government officials and, in particular,
the Minister of Education. I know that
the minister did her best over a considerable period of time to deal with this
situation.
My question for the Minister of Education
is: Did she confer with the Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) in the course of this investigation and this
dealing with this family to determine whether or not that department or other
departments could have taken a more proactive approach? I simply ask that because we have had other
tragedies in this province, and oftentimes have had government involved for a
long time, and then it results in a tragic incident.
I wonder if the minister can give us an
update as to what was done with this situation and, in particular, in
relationship to the Department of Family Services.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of
Education and Training): I join with my colleague the
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) and, I know, the members of this House in
expressing sympathy to the people of Flin Flon and to the young people who are
today trying to deal with the tragedy and the loss in their community and are
trying very hard to understand the issues that are affecting them.
We are looking at the matter, and I will
be more prepared to discuss this when some of the issues in the Flin Flon area
have been brought to a conclusion.
Government Departments
Service Co-ordination
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James):
Well, Mr. Speaker, finally, for the Minister of Family Services
then: There has been a lot of discussion
in these last few years about co‑ordinating services within government to
deal with these types of situations.
There has yet to be a report issued, and there is a committee, I believe‑‑Family
Services, Education, Justice and Health are involved in that.
When can the people of this province
expect a report on the co‑ordination of services? We have a lengthy relationship with this
family. I am wondering if there is some
indication as to when government might be able to pull these together in a more
effective way which has been promised for some time now.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister
of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I think we have an investigation
ongoing in this community. I think it is
not responsible to speculate and discuss this case at this particular time.
I would say that on the issue of co‑ordination,
our work on that is ongoing.
Community Trauma
Support
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying I appreciate the comments of the
Attorney General and the expressions of sympathy from both himself and the
Minister of Education with regard to the incident in Flin Flon early Thursday
morning.
Members in this Chamber, I think,
appreciate the difficult circumstances that exist in Flin Flon and the surrounding
communities as a result of economic circumstances and economic difficulties, as
well as the pressure that this brings to bear on families. Mr. Speaker, this tragedy is just that, a
tragedy, and no one may ever know the exact determinants, the root causes of
this tragedy.
Mr. Speaker, we have to look forward, and
it is not the time to begin making recriminations with respect to this
incident. However, we do know that the community of Flin Flon is in
crisis. The mayor and other community
leaders have been asking for assistance in dealing with the next 12 to 18
months.
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer).
Will the minister now agree to co‑ordinate the activities within
his department, within the Mental Health Division of the Minister of Health's
(Mr. Orchard) department, perhaps bring other resources to bear, to ensure that
existing personnel in the school division in Flin Flon, in the community, are
prepared to deal with what is going to be a traumatic aftermath to this event,
but also to deal with the next 18 months of trauma for the community as it
adjusts to the new reality of fewer jobs and difficult circumstances?
* (1025)
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, if I might assist my honourable
friend with the legitimate concerns he expresses on behalf of the community of
Flin Flon facing such an obvious tragic set of circumstances, I might indicate
that within my ministry, we are preparing and making efforts to assist the
community through my Mental Health Division.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time
my ministry has been involved in such a community event, and we will attempt to
provide the kind of support to the community, to the school system in Flin
Flon, so that the difficulties faced by that community will not be faced alone,
that we will provide them with support from within the Mental Health Division.
Community Trauma
Support
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):
Mr. Speaker, my subsequent question is to the Minister of Education.
I know‑‑and I want to thank
the minister's staff for already responding to the incident in Flin Flon and
allocating a staff person to the community.
My question would be, however:
Will the minister also consider the trauma that has been inflicted on
the elementary school and the junior high school which is adjacent to this
family housing complex, as well as the students who are affected in the
collegiate, who knew the victims?
Mr. Speaker, will the minister be prepared
to send a team of counsellors and child psychologists, early childhood
specialists, to Flin Flon to deal with what will be several months of trauma
and adjustment for the students, the staff and the families in the community of
Flin Flon?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of
Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with
the principals of both schools this morning and have had an opportunity to talk
with them about the needs of some of the young people in the school, and also
the staff. We have already sent, as the
member has said, a member of our Child Care Branch into Flin Flon, who is
currently now working with both schools.
I did speak with the principals who also
spoke about the community support team which they are currently working
with. We will most certainly have a look
at the needs of the young people in those schools in the coming months.
Family Dispute
Services
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):
My final question is to the Minister of Family Services with respect to
the issue of maintaining some services to the families and the community with
respect to abuse and potential abuse, sexual abuse, other abuse that appears to
be a continuing problem in the region.
Will the Minister of Family Services be
allocating additional support through the department's Family Dispute Services
to the community of Flin Flon, as well?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister
of Family Services): My senior staff have been in touch with the
regional office there and will be lending any support that we can to assist in
the situation along with staff from the Mental Health Division and the
Department of Education.
* (1030)
Ostomy Program
User Fees
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):
Mr. Speaker, last year in a letter the Minister of Health sent to the
Ostomy Association, he stated, and I quote:
This program is unique in
Not any more, Mr. Speaker, not since this
government introduced user fees on the ostomy program.
Will this minister reconsider his decision
to charge user fees on the ostomy and the other supply program?‑‑because
these people have no choice in their illness, and they have no choice but to
have these supplies.
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, the decision, as I have
explained earlier to my honourable friend, was to have those Manitobans who
have been availing themselves of ostomy supplies internally to now contribute
half the cost of their supplies up to a maximum of $300 per year.
In arriving at that decision, as I have
explained earlier to my honourable friend, it makes us quite consistent and
probably at least as supportive as other provinces with which we made
comparisons. I think we are favourably
positioned. Although it is requiring a
contribution from these individuals, it still positions us as having one of the
more generous programs in this area of support in western
Mr. Chomiak:
My supplementary to the minister:
Mr. Speaker, we have user fees on northern transportation. We have user fees on supplies. We have user fees. Even the association wrote back to the
minister indicating that these are user fees.
Will the minister not reconsider his tax
on the sick? Will he not reconsider that
these people have no choice? The money
could easily come from Connie Curran's $3.9 million.
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Speaker, from the luxury of opposition, New Democrats decry
decisions that governments make when they are not New Democratic
governments. However, from the reality
of government, New Democrats in
Now my honourable friend is wanting, of
course, to make out that New Democrats in opposition in
The example of that, Sir, is evident in
Mr. Chomiak:
Mr. Speaker, will the minister commit to reinstate this program if we
commit that we will fire Connie Curran and her $3.9‑million contract to
pay for the minister's tax on the sick?
Mr. Orchard:
Well, again, Mr. Speaker, when my honourable friend has the luxury from
opposition of finding fault with every single decision of this government,
would my honourable friend care to consider at some point in time as the new
critic for Health, setting out the policies of the New Democrats should they
ever, God forbid, govern this province, would my honourable friend, in one
simple sentence at one simple time in the next six months, care to tell us what
he is in favour of instead of always what he is against?‑‑because
what he is against in this province, Sir, New Democrats in
Emergency Room
Physicians
Patient Safety
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
We are into the 10th day of the strike by
EMOs, Mr. Speaker, and patients are very concerned and we are all very
concerned that the quality of health care may have been compromised over the
past 10 days.
I will ask the minister: Can the Minister of Health tell us if there
has been a major disaster for the last 10 days?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, no. As I have indicated to my honourable friend,
that despite the constraints of emergency services not being available for a
three‑day period of time at Grace while they were moving to the newly
opened emergency area and that Seven Oaks had not provided services, the 24‑hour
service available at
The system, clearly, is coping but one has
to understand, as I have said before, that in circumstances where you have a
strike and withdrawal of services, those remaining who are providing services
naturally are under increased demand and level of service requirement, and some
of the less urgent individuals presenting at emergencies may have to wait a
longer period of time.
That is less than optimal. That is why we hoped to have this
circumstance resolved. That is why we
have called in a mediator to try and bring a resolution.
Negotiations
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples):
Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Health give us an update about the
negotiations between the EMOs and the government of
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): I think probably as we speak, the hospitals
and the MMA are using the skills of Mr. Wally Fox‑Decent to try to
resolve the issue. I understand that
they are still in the process of discussion, and I have no progress
reports. They have decided, as part of
the process, that they would not engage in any statements, and I think that
would be an appropriate thing for me to likewise comply with.
Patient Safety
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples):
Mr. Speaker, we are approaching another weekend. Can the Minister of Health tell the people of
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that the planning
and the contingencies that are being put in place for the weekend may well not
be required. In other words, I am
hopeful that we can achieve a resolution even today.
In the event that may not be achievable,
Sir, I indicated in an earlier answer that
Repap Manitoba Inc.
Negotiations
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas):
Mr. Speaker, my question will be directed to the First Minister.
Mr. Speaker, four years ago, the Premier
and his government announced a takeover of Manfor, promising some 500 new jobs
for The Pas and a billion dollars of new investment. Neither of those promises have yet to
materialize.
A year ago, the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) announced that the original development plan was going to have to be
restructured, and a deadline of summer and then September of 1992 was then struck. That deadline passed, as did others, Mr.
Speaker.
Last October, the Minister of Finance
announced again that negotiations were not proceeding on schedule, and he was
getting frustrated but he was now going to get very aggressive on these
negotiations. Since then we have heard
less on those negotiations.
Mr. Speaker, could I ask the First
Minister to again advise the House today as to the status of those
negotiations?
* (1040)
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, the member for The Pas, who has never really taken a
position as to whether or not he wants to have the ownership of that pulp and
paper mill and lumber operation under the hands of Repap‑‑I might
say that his predecessor did support that, the former New Democratic member for
The Pas.
Mr. Speaker, I might say that the member
opposite, I know, may take a very narrow perspective on this, but members on
this side of the House have to be able to watch what is happening in the pulp
and paper industry throughout
In fact, they are closing down pulp and
paper operations right across
If he is suggesting alternatively that the
government of
If he wants to have the jobs preserved for
The Pas‑‑
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House
Leader): Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne is very clear that
answers to questions should relate to the matter raised and be brief. All I am hearing from the Premier is: if the member is saying this, if the member
is saying that.
The member is asking a very
straightforward question. What is the
status of the negotiations? I would ask
you to bring the Premier to order.
* * *
Mr. Speaker:
The honourable First Minister, to finish his response.
Mr. Filmon:
If it had been a straightforward question, it would not have required
three minutes of preamble.
The fact of the matter is if he is
suggesting that we take it back and own it and operate it as the New Democrats
did, it cost the taxpayer as much as $30 million a year to run it when the New
Democrats were owning and operating that.
We do not‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
Redevelopment
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas):
Mr. Speaker, I know the Premier is a little bit sensitive on the issue
of Repap because it represents a lot of broken promises‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. I will remind the
honourable member this is not a time for debate. The honourable member for The Pas, with his
question, please.
Mr. Lathlin:
Mr. Speaker, my last question to the First Minister is: The mill manager, Paul Richards, it is his
last day in The Pas today. He is going
to
How much longer will the residents of The
Pas and the surrounding areas have to wait before they start seeing some
results of this redevelopment plan and that stability he instilled in the minds
of those people who are living in The Pas?
How much longer do we have to wait?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, I am not at all sensitive about this issue. I just want to ensure that the member for The
Pas has a lesson in what is going on in the pulp and paper industry in
I think it would help him in his
discussions with his constituents if he had a little understanding of what is
going on in the pulp and paper industry in
I can assure him that this government will
continue to work with Repap to ensure that not only do we have the things there
that we do have, but that Repap has invested in the total cleanup of the
environmental pollution and damage that was done under the New Democrats. That has been cleaned up. Millions have been invested in that.
Not only have they improved the operations
and made them safer, and made them, in fact, more productive, Mr. Speaker, but
we know that in the future, if we continue to have negotiation with them, with
the turnaround of the pulp and paper prices in
Intertribal Christian
Communications
PST Collection
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Premier.
I would like to table a letter from a Mr.
Tim Nielsen, who is the general director of a nonprofit organization called
Intertribal Christian Communications at
Now, this nonprofit mails 25,000 magazines
a month to subscribers, and they received circular 9353 from the Taxation
department on April 28, giving them only three days notice of the 7 percent PST
that had to be collected on their subscriptions. Also, this amounts to a
$10,000 tax increase‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
member, with his question. Time is
extremely short.
Mr. Maloway:
In addition to that, they had to pay PST‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Question, please.
Mr. Maloway:
Could the minister tell the House why circular 9353 was not even printed
until April 19 and was not received by this business until April 28, three days
before?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to take that as notice on behalf of the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness).
Mr. Maloway:
Mr. Speaker, since most periodicals need at least a month's notice about
tax changes in order to raise their rates, why did the minister make the tax
effective May 1? Why did he force them
to absorb the 7 percent for the first month?
Mr. Filmon:
Mr. Speaker, I will take that as notice, as well, on behalf of the
Minister of Finance.
Mr. Maloway:
Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is that on May 1, leases of aircraft
are now exempt, while baby bottles‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. I have half a
minute left. The honourable member for
Elmwood, kindly put your question now, please.
Question.
Mr. Maloway:
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the minister: How fair is this? How many new small businesses will now have
to fill out these new tax forms?
Mr. Filmon:
I will take that, as well, as notice on behalf of the Minister of
Finance.
Mr. Speaker:
The time for Oral Questions has expired.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy
Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would ask if you
could please call for continuation of debate on second reading, Bill 28, and
then the bills for debate on second reading as they appear on the Order Paper.
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 28‑The
Mr. Speaker:
On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage
and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson), Bill 28, The Manitoba Intercultural Council
Repeal Act; Loi abrogeant la Loi sur le Conseil interculturel du
An Honourable Member:
Stand.
Mr. Speaker:
Is there leave that that matter remain standing? [agreed]
Prior to recognizing the honourable member
for
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly
summarize the order of my comments and then get straight into the meat of the
discussion, or the debate, I should say.
I would like to speak first on the
background of The Manitoba Intercultural Council Act as it relates to the
history of
Then I am going to spend a fair bit of
time on the accomplishments of the Manitoba Intercultural Council in its 10‑year
history. I think it is very important
that those accomplishments be put on the record in some detail, because it puts
a background and a framework around the debate about the repeal of The Manitoba
Intercultural Council Act.
I would like then to talk about the
accomplishments of the Manitoba Intercultural Council in two main
sections. The Manitoba Intercultural
Council Act has been in existence for 10 years.
It sort of nicely divides itself into five years under the New
Democratic Party and five years under the Conservative Party. In researching the accomplishments and the
achievements of the Manitoba Intercultural Council in its 10‑year
history, it was very interesting, Mr. Speaker, to see that there is a major
difference in the calibre and the quality of the co‑operation between the
government and the MIC, in the first five years as related to the second five
years. I will be spending a bit of time
on that, because I think it also reflects very much on the background and the
discussions about Bill 28.
* (1050)
Then, Mr. Speaker, I will be spending time
on the current situation that we are dealing with, a more recent history, in
particular, the Blair report, and how it has had an impact on the Manitoba
Intercultural Council, ethnocultural relations between groups and the
government in this province and how it has led directly to Bill 28.
Then I will be concluding my remarks at
some point in the future with, where do we go from here and what our
recommendations would be in this context.
Mr. Speaker, with those brief introductory
remarks, I will begin my speech on The Manitoba Intercultural Council Repeal
Act, Bill 28.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is any
surprise to any member in this House, nor should it be to actually any
Manitoban, that
They have come to
The aboriginal peoples, to the best of our
knowledge‑‑and regrettably, our history of the aboriginal
settlement and time in
Mr. Speaker,
I started off by saying that many people
have come to this province and this country for good and sufficient
reasons. That is correct, but I think
that we need to take a step back and look originally at the earlier history of
the contact between the aboriginal peoples in
It also, though, frames our discussion in
our history about the whole concept of multiculturalism. In effect, and I guess in as succinct a terms
as possible, Bill 50, The Manitoba Intercultural Council Act, which was brought
forward by the NDP Government in 1983 establishing the Manitoba Intercultural
Council, is one vision of multiculturalism in this province. It is one vision of how the government and
the ethnocultural communities deal with each other in this province.
At the other end, 10 years later, we have
Bill 28, The
I would like to begin again, Mr. Speaker,
by commenting fairly extensively from the green paper for discussion put
forward by the task force on multiculturalism in
The reason I am going to comment quite
extensively from this report is that I think it encapsulates much of the
history and much of the background and framework that will provide the basis
for our debate on this bill.
In the introduction of the green paper, it
says, and I quote: Multiculturalism
meaning that
In effect, that discusses the history of
Back to multiculturalism as a policy, an
officially acknowledged policy rather than the reality, the report goes on to
say that attempts to formulate multicultural policy, which parenthetically is
very recent in our history, was preceded by a history of official
ethnocentrism, prejudice, racism and discrimination, especially towards people
who are perceived to be incapable of being assimilated. Now this is the sad part of our history, Mr.
Speaker, and it is certainly not a history that has not been shared by all of
North America, but in the context of
European migration to
In the last 25 years, we have seen a major
change in the country of birth of immigrants to
The reality is that
* (1100)
Up until the last 25 years, however, our
official policy on immigration has been very biased. It has not been a policy that accurately or
adequately reflected the nature of the immigration waves that have come into
our country; nor was it a policy that acknowledged the positive benefits of the
new Canadians to our communities; nor was it a policy that welcomed them with
open arms. As a matter of fact, Mr.
Speaker, our official immigration policy up until the last few years has been
exactly the opposite. As stated before,
it has been full of prejudice, racism and discrimination.
Until about 25 years ago, government
policy was clearly biased to favour those who were seen to be more easily
assimilated into the dominant British and French groups. I do not think there is any‑‑or
there should not be any quarrel with that statement.
In the late '50s‑‑and I
parenthetically was astonished to read this, and horrified, but not surprised I
guess‑‑immigration officials‑‑now this is Canadian
immigration officials‑‑were still defending exclusionary measures
against visible peoples on "scientific grounds." It was seriously argued, for example, that
blacks must be excluded because it was scientifically proven that they were
unable to survive in cold climates. I do
believe it is an example of how far we have come in the last 25 years, Mr.
Speaker, that virtually all Manitobans would see that statement for the racist
and discriminatory comment that it is. I
would say virtually all Manitobans, because there do remain individuals and
groups in our province who are unable or unwilling to allow all peoples to live
in harmony or attempt to have all peoples to live in harmony in our province
and in our country.
Similar scientific arguments were offered
to exclude Chinese, Japanese, South Asians and even Jews. As I have spoken of before, our treatment of
the aboriginal peoples is something that is repugnant and disgusting and
something of which we must all be very ashamed.
The whole concept of assimilation, which
is another way of saying the melting pot concept, is one that has led to major
problems in the
Because of the nature of the waves of
immigration in Canada and the political and social and economic history of
Our laws, our politics, our social mores,
our religions, our economic and financial institutions have all been framed by
the British and the common law and the northern European experience. That is
reality, Mr. Speaker, and it is one that has had problems over the centuries.
Another major group that has been
horrendously affected by this whole concept of assimilation is the aboriginal
community. Our treatment of the aboriginal community sort of covers the range
of negative behaviours that we as dominant‑culture Canadians have visited
upon our minorities. It has been, in
smaller instances perhaps, the kinds of behaviours that have been outlined and
have taken place with other visible minorities as they have come through.
Denial of citizenship, denial of voting rights,
denial of legal redress, denial of land ownership, denial of parental rights
and mechanisms of protest are the kinds of things that we as a dominant society
and culture have visited upon our aboriginal peoples and, in some ways, we have
not allowed those basic rights of natural justice to be held and to be
exercised by our other immigrant groups as they have come into
It is not just physical and racial
characteristics that have, up until the very recent past, framed our
discriminatory practices when it comes to the multicultural reality of our
society. Treatment of central, eastern
and southern Europeans also has shown that linguistic and cultural
characteristics were also of concern to Canadian immigration officials and also
have led to, in the past, discrimination.
There was legislation in the 1890s that
was put forward to "manage" the new arrivals who were coming from the
Up until very recently our official
policies and certainly our unofficial attitudes and behaviours have denied the
multicultural reality that Canadians have lived with since the aboriginal
people first set foot on Canadian soil.
We have always been a multicultural society. However, that was defined and it has changed
its definitions over the centuries and the millennia. We have always been a multicultural society,
and we have always reflected that multicultural reality in our laws and our
attitudes, but up until recently, it was a society of assimilation and a
society that stated very clearly that only the British or French experience was
to be valued and all others were to be subsumed or assimilated into the
dominant cultures.
We all know the history of our aboriginal
problems in the
Late in the 19th Century and certainly
into the early 20th Century and into the 1920s after the First World War,
* (1110)
The downside to that whole process was,
again, that because the dominant culture in
It was not just the financial and economic
dominance of the British system in
Education, the schools, had an enormous
impact on the cultural and socio and economic fabric of
We have seen a depopulation of our rural
and northern parts of our province that is as a direct result of Conservative
ideology and actions, but that is another topic that we will get into in
another forum.
But schools, Mr. Speaker, have played an
important and almost dominant role in our culture in
The earlier parts of our history in
We all in western civilization went
through a dreadful period in the 1930s with the Depression. Our immigration figures went down, but then
after World War II we started into a new phase of multiculturalism and
immigration and thinking about how we dealt with the peoples who made up our
country.
Actually, after World War II there were
some positive changes that took place.
There were some more positive elements in our environment that would
allow for the preservation and maybe even the enhancement of ethnocultural
concerns, a bit of a movement away from assimilation and towards an official
recognition that
One of these things was the UN Declaration
of Human Rights, which I believe took place in 1948. Now, many of the UN declarations are
wonderful principles and, if we lived by the major tenets of any one of these
declarations from the United Nations our world would be a far better place to
live in. Unfortunately, we can judge our actual lives and policies and laws and
cultures more in the absence of following these declarations than in the
observance of them. At any rate, there
was a UN declaration on human rights in the late '40s which did make statements
about the rights of individuals and the rights of individuals to maintain their
cultural heritages.
I am referring to the green paper for
discussion from the task force on multiculturalism in
A third component was the independence
movements following the breakup of the British Empire, and this took place a
great deal in the continent of
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
* (1120)
A couple of other elements that were
closer to home, Mr. Acting Speaker, in this postwar period leading up to the
late '60s were the civil rights movement in the
The blacks in the
This was something that was very difficult
for the
At any rate, the civil rights movements
started to break down some of these barriers and attitudes. Laws were changed. The civil rights legislation of 1964 in the
The re‑emergence, Mr. Acting
Speaker, another element of feminism, and I say re‑emergence because
there was a strong feminist movement in
In the '60s and the '70s in
At least, again, as in the civil rights
movement and as in some of the other statements that I made earlier, these
kinds of movements started people thinking about the whole issue of racism, of prejudice,
of sexism, of all of these kinds of negative things. It started people thinking about their own
attitudes. It started people thinking
about the impact that these negative attitudes had not only on their personal
lives, on others' lives, but on the social and economic fabric of our
country. I think we are starting to
realize, at least we pay lip service to, the importance of not having these
kinds of negative attitudes to our society.
Also in the last 25 years we have seen an
increased political activity among ethnocultural groups. Increased political activity‑‑I
know that there have been some comments, particularly in light of the fact that
Stephen Juba just passed away recently.
In the discussion of his life and the impact he had on the city of
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
I think that is a very interesting
juxtaposition of what 30 years can do in that 30 years ago someone of Ukrainian
background could be seen as an outsider, and today that has changed so that one
of the most powerful ethnocultural communities in this province are those from
the Ukrainian community. It is an
evolving situation.
I would like to remind, particularly the
member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld), that I have unlimited time. This is an important issue that we are
debating and the‑‑[interjection]
Well, if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) would like to make a motion that
the Rules of the House be changed so that there is no such thing as unlimited
time, then let him get up and say that.
It is one of the major tenets of our parliamentary system that one
person in a debate on issues has unlimited time.
I know what I am saying is not going to be
received very positively by members of the government benches, because what I
am going to say, not only in my introductory remarks but all the way through my
comments, is not going to reflect very positively on the actions, the attitudes
and the behaviour of the government. But
that is the choice that you as a government have made. The other side of making difficult choices,
as the government keeps talking about, is that you have to listen to the impact
of those difficult choices on the people of
* (1130)
Mr. Speaker, as I stated in my opening
introductory remarks, the reason I am taking more than 40 minutes to debate and
discuss Bill 28 is that I believe it is important to put on the record, in one
place, some of the background, some of the history not only of the Manitoba
Intercultural Council itself but the background and the history that led to the
MIC Act being put in place in 1983, the history that has gone on in this last
decade and the implications that is going to have for the multicultural
community of this province.
I am not putting these comments on record
and I am not speaking longer than 40 minutes because I like hearing myself
speak. I am doing it because the issues
are important to all Manitobans, and I will ask that the Minister of Finance,
if he is uninterested in this issue, has certainly options that he can use to
deal with this disinterest.
Mr. Speaker, in the last 25 years much has
happened that has been framed by our history that has led to our current
situation in the
In 1971, the federal government announced
a policy on multiculturalism. As I
stated at the beginning of my remarks, we have always been a multicultural
country and province but, until 1971, we did not officially reflect that fact
in our policies, particularly the federal government. That official recognition of
It is also one of the major differences
between our country and the
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
In the 1960s, as well, Mr. Acting Speaker,
The fact that
The third phase in effect‑‑and
since then, since the late '60s, the early '70s, we have been dealing in the
country and in the province with the multicultural fact, with the fact that
immigration has been expanded and opened more.
I will go into the specifics of that kind of thing and the impact it has
had on
We have gone through the assimilation
phase. We have acknowledged for the last
20 years that
We need to make sure that the philosophies
and principles of multiculturalism are flexible enough to be able to deal with
the realities of the 1990s. That is
something that is a challenge that faces governments and societies always, to
make sure that the philosophies and the policies are flexible, are living and
breathing organisms rather than something that is static.
I think, frankly, to a large extent
certainly the debates over multiculturalism have been lively, and the issues
that have been raised by policies on multiculturalism have had the positive
effect of bringing into public and into the open the range of opinions and
views on this issue as we as a society and as a government try to grapple with
the new realities. So I think that is a
very positive thing.
It is a challenge, and it is very
difficult. We are trying to deal with
this concept of multiculturalism in very difficult times, so I think it is good
that we are at least bringing the issues up front. We are not putting them under the carpet, and
we are attempting to open a dialogue or maintain a dialogue that needs to be
ongoing.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the multicultural
concept has not only been dealt with in a Canadian context but certainly as
well in a
I would like to spend a bit of time
discussing this document because it puts into more of a Manitoba context the
issues that led up to the tabling and the passage of Bill 50 in 1983, The
Manitoba Intercultural Council Act. So I
will speak fairly extensively from this document.
* (1140)
As I stated earlier, the comment that
elicited some negative response from members opposite was the fact that in
1956, Stephen Juba was seen as a foreigner, was seen as not of us, was seen as
an outsider and had a stunning victory in 1956 when he became mayor of the city
of
In 1969, another pivotal momentous event
occurred in the
Not only that, Mr. Acting Speaker, but in
the first throne speech or the throne speech of March 1970, the government of
the day for the first time iterated these multicultural concepts. The throne
speech in 1970 said, and I quote: In
enhancing the character of Canadian citizenship and nationhood, it is my
government's intention to assist the different minority parties in the
This was 23 years ago. It was prior to the federal government's
statement that
In 1971, the throne speech noted the
government's " . . . policy of respect and encouragement for the rich
cultural heritage of
Similar declarations have appeared in
virtually every other Speech from the Throne since 1970, at least the Speeches
from the Throne of the New Democratic Party governments.
I would certainly be the first to admit
that Speeches from the Throne and the statements contained therein do not necessarily
mean anything. They are statements of
principle, but they are only statements of principle and statements of
attitude. They are nothing if they are
not followed up and implemented with legislative and policy action.
The government of the day, the government
that was in power from 1969 to 1977, did follow up those statements of
principle, those statements of attitude, those statements of ideology with
action. I am going to outline for the members opposite and for the people
of
Following the throne speech of March of
1970, the government did enact or did bring forward a Manitoba Mosaic Congress,
which was held in October of 1970.
Knowing the time frame of how long things take to actually be
implemented in government of whatever political stripe, I think it is
remarkable that this congress took place in such a short period of time after
its first statement in March of '70.
It was the first gathering of its kind in
It was a recognition of the fact that we
were in a multicultural society. We
needed to reflect, we needed to acknowledge that fact and get together to talk
about how we implemented that reality in our cultural lives, in our educational
lives, in our health care, in our social service provisions, in our financial
workings, in all aspects of our working as a society and as a province
together. The
The principles that underlay this mosaic,
I think, are worthy of reflection and of sharing with the members today. First was the principle that government
action should proceed only after community consultation. You cannot impose, particularly when you are
dealing with issues that are as broad and as deep and as diverse as those that
are involved in multicultural issues. No
government, no one single group should be able to impose actions upon this
community. That principle has been‑‑it
has either been honoured or not honoured, but it has certainly been reflective
in the deliberations that have gone on in the last 23 years.
Secondly, the 1970 Mosaic Congress
recognized and asserted the obligation of all governments to support
multicultural endeavours as an appropriate social expenditure. Now this also was a brand new idea, certainly
as it relates to the multicultural community in our province and in our
country.
We have evolved over the centuries as a
society understanding that we have the responsibility to provide for the basic
necessities of life for our citizens.
Those include health, the right to decent housing, hopefully the right
to be able to hold a job, and food, those kinds of things. Those basic rights have been in some cases
expanded and in some cases contracted, but society has recognized that we do
have as a society a responsibility to ensure that basic needs of all of our
constituents are met.
This second principle out of the Mosaic
Congress in October of 1970 expands that basic principle to include the fact
that multicultural endeavours, however they are going to be defined, are also
an appropriate use of social expenditure.
By social expenditure, I am taking that to mean that governments at
municipal levels, provincial levels and federal levels have an obligation to
ensure that there are resources available so that the continuation of the
cultural heritage, the concept, the principle of multiculturalism can find
actualization. This is an enormously
important principle that had never been articulated before.
* (1150)
These two principles, that government
action must only proceed from community consultation and that government has an
obligation to provide resources and assistance to enhance the concept of
multiculturalism, have remained the basic underpinnings of the ethnocultural
communities' expectations of government and, as well, have been either honoured
in the observance or in the breach by succeeding governments. So there are two very important things that
came out of this 1970 Mosaic Congress.
Not only were these two principles elucidated
in 1970, but there were some recommendations that were made out of this Mosaic
Congress which were also very important and which also have implications for
our deliberations today. The first one
that I would like to speak to was requests for various initiatives by the
government to add a multicultural component to several existing programs. This is the beginning of the implementation
of the principle that multiculturalism is important and should be assisted
wherever possible. If you assume that,
if you take that as a given, as a principle that you are going to live by, then
you need to actually implement it if you are going to follow through, so you
have to have the government accepting the fact that they need to make sure that
their existing programs have a multicultural focus to them.
We are still, Mr. Acting Speaker, dealing
with that particular issue today. We are
still dealing with and grappling with how we actually make sure that our health
care system, our social services system, our education system, our justice
system reflect the multicultural reality of our province. The only way we can actually do that is by
the service delivery system reflecting that.
We have been discussing in this House in a number of areas for decades
now how we implement that principle.
Another recommendation that came out of
the cultural mosaic of 1970 that goes back to both the principle of community
consultation and the principle of multicultural endeavours being in and of
themselves supportable is that there be financial and/or other forms of support
to the ethnic voluntary organizations which sponsor and maintain cultural
projects and programs of activity.
Again, it is the implementation of the principles that were agreed to.
If you are going to support a concept of
multiculturalism, you have to support it not just verbally, not just with
statements in the House or that kind of thing, but you have to actually put in
place programs or assist the community to work with the government and with
each other to implement programs. That goes back to the principle of
consultation.
The multicultural community and its
component parts know what it is that they need.
The elements of the multicultural community may not always agree one way
or the other, but together, as individual groups, as individual people and as a
multicultural component of our society, those needs have to be reflected and
have to be listened to and responded to, to the best of the government's
ability.
The third general recommendation, and one
which in the context of the deliberations in Bill 28 is perhaps the most
important today, is that there be a cultural council of
The government of the day listened to the
Cultural Mosaic Congress and implemented and acted on many of those
recommendations. I will not for a moment
suggest that they or any other government then or since then has completely or
totally satisfactorily responded to or implemented recommendations coming from
the multicultural community. Some very
important things did come out of that congress.
It did not just sit as a report on the shelf and gather dust.
In 1972, the ministerial advisory
committee on multiculturalism was established.
Again, we are talking over 20 years ago, at the very beginning of
governmental recognition of the importance of multiculturalism. So these are seminal historic things that
took place.
There were 15 members of this committee
appointed by Order‑in‑Council.
Its role was to take an active role in developing multicultural programs
for government. So again it goes back to
the principle that you cannot impose programs on the community. You have to work co‑operatively with
the community and act on, to the best of your ability, advice and suggestions
from the community. That was the role of
this advisory committee.
Largely as a result of this committee,
several important things happened. There
was a program of project and operating grants for ethnocultural organizations
introduced. For the first time there was
a recognition, not only in principle but through grants and actual money being
flowed, of the principle that cultural organizations needed government
assistance and help in order to survive and expand and become more robust.
A second element that the government
followed as far as recommendations from the Ministerial Advisory Committee on
Multiculturalism was that linguistic support grants for heritage language
supplementary schools were established.
Again, this is 21‑22 years ago.
We still have programs that deal with heritage language support in our
school system.
Parenthetically, Mr. Acting Speaker, we
will, when we get into Estimates, discuss the extent of those grants and
whether we think it is a satisfactory level or not, but the principle is still
being maintained that you not only have support, financial and otherwise, to
ethnocultural organizations, but you also recognize as we have also recognized
as a government for over 20 years the importance of maintaining heritage
language programs in the school system and in the community as a whole as a
resource to enable the individuals and second‑, and third‑ and
fourth‑generation individuals to maintain the connection with their
heritage languages.
This goes back again to the fact that we
are a multicultural society. We are not
an assimilative society, as the
* (1200)
The large cultural events, the large cross‑country
events that are celebrated in the
The Department of Education during the
1970s established the Bureau de l'education Francaise‑‑excuse my
accent‑‑and the Native Education branch, again, as a recognition
that in order to foster and strengthen our multicultural heritage, we needed to
put in place programs and recognize through programs and financial support our
bilingual heritage with the French and English languages and also our
aboriginal heritage which, as I have stated in my earlier remarks, was sadly
lacking prior to that.
In 1972, there was an act which
established the Franco‑Manitoban Cultural Centre, something that has been
of vast importance in enriching our cultural heritage and our cultural
understanding in
This Human Rights Act which‑‑I
was surprised we had not had one earlier than 1974‑‑has not been in
effect for very long. It is less than 20
years, although it is getting closer to 20 years. This also, The Human Rights Act of 1974, was
a reflection of the need for government to codify the concepts of
multiculturalism, to have in place standards of behaviour and standards of
performance and standards by which we could measure our positive progress and
our negative actions as they relate to human rights, of which multiculturalism
is the basic component.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to inject
at this point a small partisan aside, if I may.
After having spent a fair bit of time discussing the actions of the
Schreyer government in four years, the first four years of the Schreyer
government saw an enormous amount of activity as regard the establishment of
the principle and programs of multiculturalism.
When this government says that New Democrat governments have done
virtually nothing or very little for multiculturalism, they are not sharing
with the people of
There was much that was done, and I think
one of the remarkable things about what took place in that four‑year
period or five‑year period is that it was new. It was not building on a base; it was
creating the base. It was creating the
base that successive governments have used as a benchmark, sometimes
successfully, many times not successfully.
But it is remarkable the amount of work that was done in a very short
period of time, creating something that has served us as a guide since then and
has also served the rest of
According to the Manitoba Intercultural
Council report which I have been quoting from, Policy and Initiatives of the
Government of Manitoba from 1970 to 1987, things did not remain as positive as
they had started out in the early and mid‑70s. I am going to quote a whole paragraph from
this document.
It starts by saying: Between 1978 and 1981, multiculturalism as an
organized activity of government seemed to be grinding slowly to a halt. After 1977, the ministerial advisory
committee on multiculturalism lapsed into inactivity as appointments expired
and were not renewed. At a time of concerted
budget reduction, multicultural and linguistic support grants were systematically
reduced to a mere fraction of the levels in 1977. There developed a sense among
ethnocultural communities that multiculturalism had ceased to be important to
the government and perhaps even that the government had grown antithetical to
the very notion of a multicultural society‑‑end quote.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I quoted that
paragraph directly from that MIC document because I did not want to be accused
of being overtly partisan in my comments.
But it is interesting that the years from
1977 to 1981, where this document is talking about the diminution of
multicultural programs and policies in the
I am going to show by the end of my
remarks that the changes that have taken place in the last five years are a
continuation of the policy that was begun in 1977 and 1981 by the then‑Premier
of the province, Mr. Sterling Lyon.
A change in government took place again in
1981, and again, not coincidentally, there was a change in the attitude and the
focus of multiculturalism in this province.
The MIC paper says that there was a resurgence of the ethnic community
in the electoral process in the election of 1981, and I will take that
statement from this document.
I myself am not personally familiar enough
with the voting patterns in that election to either agree or disagree with it,
but the Manitoba Intercultural Council firmly believed that part of the results
of the 1981 election were as a direct result of the ethnocultural community in
the province of Manitoba saying we do not like the focus that the Sterling Lyon
government was taking, we do not like the fact that they are appearing to put
less emphasis on multiculturalism, and we are going to try and ensure that a
government is put in place which will respond to the multicultural needs of the
community in Manitoba.
Mr. Acting Speaker, due to whatever
causes, and there were many causes for the government change in 1981, the
effect of that government change was to change the multicultural policy back to
what it had been from 1969 to 1977, with the understanding that‑‑when
the 1981 election occurred, we were in the midst of a very serious recession, a
very short, in comparison to the current recession, recession, but a very deep,
serious recession. So there were many,
many financial constraints on the government of the time, but, unlike other
governments, that government, to the best of its ability, put its money where
its mouth was. They made policies, they
consulted and they changed the face of the multicultural policy in the
Right after the 1981 election, the two
principles that had framed the Manitoba Mosaic Congress of 1970 were reasserted
again over a decade later, and that was funding levels for multicultural and
linguistic grants were soon restored to the levels that they had been in 1977,
and the government committed itself to community consultation through the
establishment of a community‑elected multicultural council. We are now getting closer to the
establishment of the Manitoba Intercultural Council.
The basic principles of the Manitoba
Mosaic Congress in 1970 had been implemented, or at least they had begun to be
implemented, in the Schreyer years. They
were put on the back shelf, on the back burner.
They were ignored during the Sterling Lyon years, and when the Howard
Pawley government came back into power in 1981, they began again to reassert
the principles of the
* (1210)
I guess a question could be asked, Mr.
Acting Speaker, as to where we might be as a society and where the
Later on in my remarks I will ask the same
question about the current situation in the
So we have now come to the election in
1981, when the New Democratic Party was returned to power and reaffirmed its
commitment to the concepts of multiculturalism as they had been established by
the Manitoba Multicultural Mosaic Conference of 1970.
I would like now to go into what happened
between October 1981 and 1983 when The Manitoba Intercultural Act, Bill 50, was
enacted, in the manner of governments, very quickly, comparatively speaking,
particularly, as I have stated, when the government was dealing with a very
deep recession and was also dealing with four years of inactivity and decline
in the concepts of multiculturalism and the programs of multiculturalism.
I am going to back up just a bit, Mr.
Acting Speaker. We have come to 1981 in
our deliberations as far as the background of the MIC act. I think we need to go back again and look a
little more globally as to what is going on in our society today, what was
happening in the late '70s and the early '80s, in this context, not just the
economic but some of the political and social and cultural things that were
framing our society and framing the government's actions when it came into
power again in 1981.
In 1969 there was expansion in the
immigration policies. There was the recognition of official bilingualism and
official multiculturalism on the part of the federal government. So the '70s were not only economically but
socially and culturally an expansionary time, and that was seen no more
effectively than in the
We have established that we are a
multicultural society, but what does that mean?
How is it defined? What are the
programs that we need to put into place?
How do we actualize the concept of multiculturalism? You have to look at it in a different context
in every year and certainly in every decade or every half decade‑‑changes. How do we shape a nation which has an
overarching set of values, goals and attitudes that all of its components can
agree to, and how do we structure that so that it is not just words but it is
actuality? How do you have on the one
hand a set of overarching goals and objectives that everyone can agree to, on
the other hand recognizing and acknowledging the fact that we are a
multicultural society with all the diversity that that entails?
It is far easier to agree on things if
everyone comes from the same viewpoint.
Just a more localized example, any government is elected and the
majority or all of the people who are elected in that government come from
basically the same philosophical viewpoint, with enormous differences within
that context.
The current government, for example, has a
philosophical approach and a way of looking at the world and a way of looking
at the government's role in the world which is very different from our
discussion, from our way of looking at the world.
So generally speaking, the people on the
government side, whichever government is in power, generally agree one with
another. Their ability to set goals and
objectives is far easier among themselves than it is to have the two bookends,
if you will, of the political ideology in the
We are very much narrower in the items
that we can agree with, government and opposition, Conservative and New
Democrat, than we are within each political party. That is in agreement, that is accepted, that
is understood. Even within our own
community, if you want to call the government a community and the opposition a
community, there are differences of opinion.
You may all agree on an overarching goal,
but how you reach that goal may not be completely understood or accepted within
your group. So it is easier if you come
from the same background to come up with overarching philosophies. It is less easy if you come from different
backgrounds.
What I am trying to say in a very long‑winded
and circuitous manner is that Canadians and Manitobans have set themselves a
very difficult task and, parenthetically, my task may just have gotten slightly
more difficult too.
What Canadians and Manitobans are
struggling with and all parties are struggling with is how you put together an
overarching set of principles and guidelines that can encompass everybody in
the country or the province while, at the same time, recognizing the enormous
diversity of our multicultural mosaic. This is something that we have been
dealing with for the last 500 years, but it is really coming to the fore in
these days.
It is not only tensions between different
groups, but it is tensions, as I have stated earlier, intergroup. The multicultural community is just as
diffuse and diverse as any other part of our society. I think what tends to be forgotten is that it
is as diverse as it is.
We have multicultural community groups
that have been here for hundreds of years.
The Franco‑Manitoban cultural groups have been in the
There are ethnocultural groups that are
just starting in the
So these tensions are tensions that are
challenging for us but also provide an enormous amount of creativity. We need, Mr. Acting Speaker, to learn to live
with that tension. I know we have talked
a lot about creative tension and challenges and opportunities, but the reality
is, as long as we agree that we are a country that is multicultural in scope,
we are going to have to learn to live with those differences and use those
differences and build on those differences.
That is where an organization such as the Manitoba Intercultural Council
is so important.
We have seen in many instances in our country
and in our province the fact that we sometimes are successful in this creative
tension and often we are not.
* (1220)
With those brief comments on the sort of
general problems and challenges that are facing us today, and faced us all the
way through, and faced us certainly in 1981, 1982 and 1983, we are now coming
to the point of the implementation of the introduction and passage of Bill 50,
The Manitoba Intercultural Council Act, which was presented and introduced for
second reading on April 21, 1983.
Mr. Acting Speaker, it is again very
interesting that in a year and half from the election‑‑actually
less than a year and a half from the election‑‑of 1981, November
17, 1981, to the introduction of Bill 50‑‑this is a very short
period of time to do such an enormous amount of work.
I would like now to briefly go through
what the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation at the time, the
Honourable Eugene Kostyra, stated in his opening remarks about Bill 50, The MIC
Act, and the process that was undertaken by the government of the day leading
up to that introduction of that legislation, that landmark piece of
legislation.
Again, Mr. Acting Speaker, later in my
comments, I will be comparing that process with the process that has gone on,
or not gone on, preceding the introduction of Bill 28, The Manitoba
Intercultural Council Repeal Act.
I would like to read from Mr. Kostyra's
comments as he outlines the principles and role of the Manitoba Intercultural
Council: The purpose of The
Intercultural Council Act is to create an arm's‑length agency to make
recommendations and to provide information and advice to the Manitoba
government on all ethnocultural matters relating to the province, not just
narrowly defined ethnocultural matters, but all ethnocultural matters relating
to the province, including education, human rights, immigrant settlement, media
communication and cultural heritage.
The council membership will include
Manitobans from ethnocultural groups throughout the province.
Now, this introductory paragraph goes back
to the principles of the Manitoba Mosaic Congress of October 1970 which says
that policies cannot be implemented without prior consultation with the people
affected, with the communities. This is
reflected in the make‑up of the Intercultural Council and its terms of
reference, that it shall advise and provide information to the government so
that the government is not implementing policies, is not putting forward or
taking away programs based on their ideas, but that the government will reflect
the input from the intercultural community.
Bill 50 was a result of a year's worth of
consultation. Mr. Acting Speaker, the
word "consultation" has been demeaned by this current
government. This current government has
talked about its constant communication and consultation. We could go through a number of examples
where this government in effect has not consulted, but focusing more narrowly
on the consultation process that was undertaken by the Pawley government in the
year and a half between their election and the introduction of this bill, this
was true public consultation. The
government of the day should pay attention to this, because this is the kind of
consultative process that should be undertaken by this government, and it
virtually has never been the case.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the MIC bill is a
result of the report of the interim liaison committee on multiculturalism
appointed in May of 1982. So less than
six months after the election of the Pawley government, there was in place an interim
liaison committee on multiculturalism.
After nine months of consultation, extensive study of the practices in
other provinces and community consultation‑‑I mean, this government
does not even know what other governments are doing in multiculturalism or any
other area. They do not consult with
their colleagues in other provinces.
They do not have any idea what is going on in the rest of the country.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
In 1982 the Pawley government consulted
not only extensively throughout the province, but with other
jurisdictions. Do you know why they did
that, Mr. Speaker? Because they knew
that they did not have all the answers.
They knew that they had the principles that had framed the Schreyer
government policies on multiculturalism as enshrined in the Manitoba Mosaic
Conference of 1970. They knew that the
four years of the Sterling Lyon government had decimated those principles and
those programs. They knew that they wanted to, they were committed on principle
to re‑establishing multiculturalism in this province, and they knew that
they needed to consult, and meaningfully consult.
So they went to other provinces, and they
went throughout this province. They did
not consult through focus groups. As a
matter of fact, they had 37 written and 55 oral presentations from rural and
urban
Later in my comments, I will be comparing
the consultative process that led to The Manitoba Intercultural Council Act
with the lack of consultative process that has led to Bill 28, The Manitoba
Intercultural Council Repeal Act. I
think it is important that we juxtapose those two processes. The two major objectives and functions of the
Manitoba Intercultural Council, I will be dealing with as time permits.
Mr. Speaker, I think at this point it is
not inappropriate to sort of recapitulate my comments to date. What I have attempted to do is to put in
context the Canadian and Manitoba historical perspective and background that
was in place when The Manitoba Intercultural Council Act was first introduced
in April of 1983, and not only to put it into context, but to show objectively
the difference in philosophy, principle and implementation between the New
Democrat governments of Mr. Schreyer and Mr. Pawley, and the Tory governments,
first, of Sterling Lyon and, in my later comments, the government of Mr.
Filmon. So I have set the stage and look
forward to continuation of this process and this discussion. I look forward to expanding on this process.
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The hour being
12:30, when this matter is again before the House, this matter will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for
The hour being 12:30, this House is now
adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. Monday.