LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday,
April 29, 1992
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): I must inform the House of the unavoidable
absence of Mr. Speaker and, therefore, in accordance with the statutes, I would
ask the Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Dacquay) to take the Chair. PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
Madam Deputy Speaker
(Louise Dacquay): I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), and 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?
The petition of the undersigned citizens
of the
The
The citizens of
The
The administration of the hospital has
been forced to take drastic measures including the elimination of the
Palliative Care Unit and gynecological wards, along with the layoff of over 30
staff, mainly licensed practical nurses, to cope with a funding shortfall of
over $1.3 million; and
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
* * *
I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), and 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?
The petition of the undersigned citizens
of the
WHEREAS the Human Resources Opportunity
Office has operated in Selkirk for over 21 years providing training for the
unemployed and people re‑entering the labour force; and
WHEREAS during the past 10 years alone
over 1,000 trainees have gone through the program gaining valuable skills and
training; and
WHEREAS upwards of 80 percent of the
training centre's recent graduates have found employment; and
WHEREAS without consultation the program
was cut in the 1992 provincial budget forcing the centre to close; and
WHEREAS there is a growing need for this
program in Selkirk and the program has the support of the town of
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
* (1335)
TABLING OF
REPORTS
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I would like to table the 1990‑91 Annual Report for the
Department of Rural Development.
I would also like to table the
Supplementary Information for Legislative Review for the 1992‑1993
Departmental Expenditure Estimates.
Introduction
of Guests
Madam Deputy Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw
the attention of all members of the House to the public gallery, where we have
with us this afternoon seventeen Grade 9 students from
Also with us this afternoon, we have 10
visitors in the public gallery from
Additionally, we have forty Grade 5
students from
On behalf of all honourable members, I
welcome you this afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
GRIP
Program
Coverage
Levels ‑ Risk Area 12
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): A year ago, confusion reigned supreme in this
province with regard to GRIP that was just being introduced by this government,
and the government was panicking at that time as to the sign‑up levels
that would happen.
The minister promised, with regard to Risk
Area No. 12, that he would deal with the concerns that they were raising,
specific concerns that district Risk Area No. 12 was raising with regard to the
soil classification and coverage levels that were being offered in that
particular area. On June 7, and again on
June 19, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) confirmed in writing that he
would implement any recommendations that were made by the committee that was
set up to review soil classifications and coverage levels in Area 12, and he
would implement them for the 1991 coverage year.
Then on April 23, 1992, this year, the
trust that these producers had in this government and this minister was broken
when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) told the producers from Area 12 that
there will be no changes in the 1991 coverage levels regardless of the report
by that committee. There would be no
changes.
I want to ask this Minister of Finance why
he chose to undercut the written commitment by his colleague, the Minister of
Agriculture with regard to legitimate coverage changes for 1991 in Risk Area
12.
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Madam Deputy Speaker,
I want to tell the member that we recognized a year ago that there was some
difficulty there. I set in place a
committee with two farmers, and I asked those farmers to give me some names as
nomination. I picked two people from
that list. I asked them to go through
and try to identify on some scientific basis some reason that I could go
forward to the federal partner and ask for consideration for 1991. I also asked that committee to report by the
fall of 1991.
That committee has been working over a
course of time. They have used some
scientific information generated by a university professor. I have written to the federal minister back
in June of last year and again this month of this year asking him to consider
the information from that committee relative to 1991. On both occasions, the
federal minister has said no to me.
The committee has yet to submit its final
report. I understand they have
information to gather, and the committee is to review it one more time before
it comes to me. That is where it is at. We have set the committee in place. They worked to establish that the methodology
used by crop insurance coverages in Risk Area 12 versus 32 soils was really
different than what they had in place. I
have asked the federal minister for his consideration, and in both cases he has
said no.
GRIP
Program
Coverage
Levels ‑ Risk Area 12
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Madam Deputy Speaker, we know what the
difference is. We know that the
difference is $10 per acre, and the committee has made its findings known. The minister does not have to wait for a
final report. It is $10 per acre, it is
up to $7,500 for a farmer of 750 acres.
I asked the Minister of Finance: Who are these farmers supposed to
believe? The Minister of Finance, who is
rebutting the statements made by his Minister of Agriculture, or are they
supposed to believe the Minister of Agriculture when he says that he will
honour the recommendations of that committee?
* (1340)
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): I am not rebutting
anybody's statements. I indicated to the
meeting on Monday evening that indeed we had notice of a letter from the
federal government overtop of the signature of Mr. McKnight that indicated they
would not consider retroactivity. That
was the essence of the statement that was made.
Indeed the member seems to have had that information shared with him,
because it is the essence of the question that he has put.
GRIP
Program
Coverage
Levels ‑ Risk Area 12
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Madam Deputy Speaker, clearly, this government
is giving two sides to the same story.
They are not coming clean with the producers of
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Madam Deputy Speaker,
crop insurance has been in place in
I recognize the difficulty in Risk Area
12; that is why I appointed a Soils Review Committee. I also identified that there are a number of
other problems with the overall Crop Insurance Program in this province, and
that is why nine producers and one professor emeritus from the
Yes, there are some changes. There are some methodologies that need to be
looked at. We recognize that, but we
want the players in the game, the producers, to be part of the process of
making the recommendations.
Northern
Flood Agreements
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, my question is to the
Premier.
Yesterday and today there are news reports
dealing with the fact that a tentative settlement with the
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Premier
rightly said he was appalled and shocked at the amount of money that was in the
tentative agreement. I would ask the
Premier: What action is the government
going to take about that amount of money that I think most Manitobans would
want to see going to the community, not to one individual lawyer?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Madam Deputy Speaker, indeed I think all of
us are outraged at the prospect that a contingency fee should be paid to any
consultant on behalf of the Indian bands that would siphon off literally one‑sixth
of the money paid by government legitimately to the interest and the benefit of
the citizens of one of those northern flood communities or, in this case,
We are outraged at the thought that an
individual should be paid this amount, and the matter of course, when it was
brought to our attention, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) indicated that
outrage and that concern that the people who should benefit from such a
settlement would not benefit from such a settlement.
Regrettably, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is
one of the things that is a product of local community governance, that is, the
governance of the
* (1345)
Mr. Doer: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Premier (Mr.
Downey) today and last night referred the issue to the Law Society of
The Deputy Premier yesterday said that he
had not approved the tentative agreement.
When one considers the fact that both Manitoba Hydro and the local
community governance reports back to the Minister of Northern Affairs and to
the Minister of Hydro who are in fact the same person, the Deputy Premier (Mr.
Downey)‑‑he stated yesterday in media reports and again this
morning on radio and other reports, Madam Deputy Speaker, TV reports, that he
is able to do something with this agreement, that he has not approved it yet.
Would the Premier advise us whether they
will be approving this agreement, or will they be requiring a reinvestment of
the money that is going to the lawyer, to the community, as it is intended?
Mr. Filmon: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have expressed on
many occasions that this government wants the money that comes out of the
various negotiations to go to the people, to those Indian bands and their
residents, and I have said this publicly.
We have said in the course of any negotiations that there will not be
high fees paid to consultants, to lawyers, to people on behalf of the bands.
I would say that as part of the self‑government
approach that the bands continue to bring with them consultants whom they are
paying very high amounts of money to. In
this particular case, the community of
I might say that indeed the offer has not
been finalized, and the agreement has not been finalized. The offer is subject to a particular clause
that is within the offer that says, quote:
No portion of these settlement proceeds shall be used to pay a
contingency fee except to a barrister and solicitor entitled to practise in and
for the
So, in fact, the kind of scenario that was
portrayed in the news report would not legitimately be able to be done. We are examining all of the aspects of this
and attempting to determine whether or not, in accordance with the material
that has been prepared for a potential settlement, we can assure ourselves as
well as the residents of the community that these fees will not indeed be paid
to expensive consultants and lawyers, but rather go to the benefit of the
community.
Mr. Doer: Madam Deputy Speaker, on May 30, 1991, the
former minister said the same thing in the House about, quote: I am disgusted at the amount of money going
to particular consultants and lawyers.
I recognize it is a delicate balance. It is a delicate balance on the issue of self‑governance‑‑even
though this is not an aboriginal community, it is a local government district‑‑and
the negotiations.
However, the minister said yesterday that
management of Northern Affairs and management of Hydro were involved in the
negotiations, and he was not aware of those negotiations and the particulars in
them.
Given the fact that the previous minister
has expressed his outrage at this kind of issue, and given the fact the Premier
has expressed it and the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) yesterday, how are we
going to get a system in place so that those kinds of considerations can be
considered in the negotiations which the government in this case is on both
sides of the table with the community to be reporting back to the Minister of
Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), so that we can have a balanced approach with the
primary goal of having those funds go legitimately to the community members who
are directly affected by the flooding?
Mr. Filmon: Surely the member for Concordia is not
suggesting that negotiations be handled by ministers only. There has to be staff involved in the
negotiations. There have to be experts.
There has to be those who can provide the financial and legal background that
is needed to enter into an agreement.
Because we‑‑the former
minister, the current minister, the Premier, this government‑‑did
not want to have this sort of thing happen, we insisted on this kind of clause
in there, and the clause states very clearly, no fee determined as a percentage
of the final settlement proceeds shall be paid without court approval. It further identifies the fact that this sort
of thing cannot happen as part of the agreement.
We are going to ensure that the terms that
we have insisted on to protect the community and to protect the taxpayer are
indeed followed, and that would be in accordance with our wishes as a
government and with our policy as a government and indeed in accordance with
what I think the people of
* (1350)
GRIP Program
Coverage
Levels ‑ Risk Area 12
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Many farmers in Risk
Area 12 joined the GRIP program on the condition that a soils review committee
would be struck and that retroactive increase in coverage would be available to
them for 1991, if the committee decided they were eligible. The Minister of Agriculture signed his name
to that commitment. The committee met
and determined that Area 12 farmers were eligible for a $10 increase in
coverage. Now the Minister of
Agriculture has broken his word to the farmers whom he is supposed to
represent.
Can the Minister of Agriculture tell the
House why farmers should have any faith in his ability to represent them when
he has broken faith with them on the GRIP program?
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Madam Deputy
Speaker, I would like to remind the member that the GRIP program in the
The average per acre payment across the
entire province is about $43 to $44 an acre.
In Risk Area 12, on the class 12 soils, it is about $51 an acre. On the class 32 soils, it is an average of
about $49 an acre, so that is absolutely significant support to the farm
community.
The direction I gave to the committee I
set up to review the inequities that appear to exist in Risk Area 12 was that
if the federal minister, if it was appropriate and reasonable that we could
make adjustments, we would.
I had asked the committee to report as of
the fall of 1991. They are just finalizing that report at this time, Madam
Deputy Speaker. I have worked hard on
their behalf to attempt to get the other partner to agree that there was a
problem we should address for 1991.
Unfortunately, I can only report at this time that the answer, to this
point, to me has been, no.
Mr. Gaudry: Can the minister explain why he is asking
these very same farmers to enter into negotiations for retroactive coverage for
the 1992 crop year when he has just broken the very same promise to the very
same farmers? On what grounds should
they trust his word this time?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to remind
the member that the agricultural budget contains $58 million for GRIP support
and that member voted against it. That
same member voted against it.
Mr. Gaudry: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a letter from
Mr. Richard Vermette, whose letter will be tabled, who withdrew his contract
from the GRIP program and then rejoined when the minister promised a
retroactive increase. Now he is locked
into a five‑year contract on the basis of the minister's broken promise.
Can the minister justify his breaking
faith with Mr. Vermette and many others like him?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Deputy Speaker, I set up a process for
them to analyze it. There have been
numerous meetings and scientific information analyzed by the committee with
farmer representation on it. They have
yet to come to a final conclusion. I
understand that they have their documents written, but the committee has to see
it one more time before it is going to get to me.
But, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I said
earlier, that report was to have been in by the fall of 1991. I have attempted on two occasions, in June of
last year and up to April of this year, to get the federal minister's
concurrence that he would abide by the information that is in the document that
is to come forward. So far,
unfortunately, he has said no.
Licensed
Practical Nurses
Government
Support
Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis
(
We know that this profession, this group
of individuals, has been on pins and needles for the last number of months
about their future, about their jobs, about their livelihood. I would like to ask the minister in light of
this report: Is he prepared today to end
the uncertainty for this valuable nursing profession, state unequivocally that
this government supports this profession and give us a timetable for the recommendations
of this report?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Despite my honourable
friend's question, this government has never said anything or offered anything
but support to LPNs in our health care system.
We have offered the same support to
diploma‑trained registered nurses in the system of health care delivery
in
So my honourable friend's inflection that
we do not support one trained discipline in nursing is wrong, Madam Deputy
Speaker.
* (1355)
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(St. Johns): Madam Deputy Speaker, considering that it was
his decision and his government's decision around education opportunities for
licensed practical nurses which caused this task force report in the first
place and caused the concern in the community, will the minister and his
colleagues lift the moratorium at the
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, that is exactly why we
have initiated studies, and when they are available to government we make
decisions flowing from them.
My honourable friend participated at a
press conference in December with great concerns about licensed practical
nursing training in St. Boniface Hospital, that it was going to close and not
be available. Licensed practical nursing
training is ongoing as we speak at the St. Boniface General Hospital.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this government
intends to work diligently and carefully in assuring that training programs are
available for the nurses that we need of varying professional disciplines and
competence in training programs for the delivery of health care in the
St.
Boniface Hospital
School of
Licensed Practical Nursing
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Madam Deputy Speaker,
I will even go one step further and I will indicate to my honourable friend
that we have a process in place involving a province‑wide review of the
employers of the varying nursing professionals which will indicate to us the
current employment mix within all of our facilities and give us the best
projection they can as to what they anticipate their nursing staff mix to be
five years down the road.
On the basis of that report, not only will
we be able to guide the educational programs that are available in the province
of
Decentralization
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Madam
Deputy Speaker, on April 23, I took a question as notice from the member for
Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) regarding decentralization numbers in Selkirk as compared
to those that were promised initially.
I can indicate that when we initiated the
decentralization move we indicated that we would decentralize some 34 positions
to the community of Selkirk. Since that
time, a great deal of work and consideration has been given to civil servants,
and also a great deal of work has been done with the community.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to
report today that indeed we have decentralized more than the 34 positions we
promised. We have decentralized 41
positions to the community of Selkirk.
Glass
Recycling
Contract
Consultations
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Madam Deputy Speaker, this government recently
had a choice in practising sustainable development. It could have prevented a million and a half
pounds of plate glass from entering the landfill as has occurred for the last
10 years, or it could continue to use small, short‑term monetary savings
as the sole concern or consideration for decision making. Once again, the government turns its back on
sustainable development and opts to give business to
My question is for the Minister of
Environment.
Was the Minister of Environment consulted
on this tendered contract for recycled plate glass before it was issued, and
what was his position on this issue?
* (1400)
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): First of all, Madam
Deputy Speaker, I think it should be made very clear that there was a
significant variance in the tenders. The
Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) took into consideration
the taxpayers of this province and made a decision.
There are a number of factors that are not
being brought to the fore in relationship to this glass market, however. It would appear that by various
manipulations, the province of
Impact on
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): For the same minister: Why was the fact that this is the only plate
glass recycling operation in
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Madam Deputy
Speaker, obviously, I think the member is suggesting that we would come forward
with a subsidy in order to allow this person to continue with his process.
As the Minister of Highways and
Transportation (Mr. Driedger) said yesterday, we are actively involved today in
regulations that will be dealing with beverage containers in this province, a
large portion of which is going to be glass.
So we recognize that we are virtually going to be dealing with mountains
of glass in the not‑too‑distant future.
The Minister of Highways and the
Department of Environment will be seeking solutions. Some of those solutions will be in
conjunction with the Department of Highways, as a matter of fact, Madam Deputy
Speaker.
Tender
Process Review
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Will the minister have all contracts tendered
by this government reviewed from an environmental benefit and sustainability
point of view so that they learn from this mistake and it does not happen in
the future?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Madam Deputy Speaker,
I would have to check the veracity of this information, but it is my
understanding that there has been an increasing desire on the part of the plant
to refuse
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not need to confirm
with the member opposite. I know that
What we need is some western Canadian
acceptance of responsibility in this area.
Economic
Growth
Housing
Starts
Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne):
Madam Deputy Speaker, as I continue to ask the
Minister of Finance why his economic development policies for this province
have failed so miserably over the last four years, he responds by blaming it on
the former government or more recently blaming it on the recession. I would like to ask him one very specific
question.
Over the last four years housing starts in
this country, in
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy
Speaker, I am happy that the member has seen fit to ask the question.
He must be aware, I am sure, that
Mr. Alcock: Madam Deputy Speaker, when I find something
about the minister's policy to applaud, I shall.
My question for the minister is very
clear. Four years, five budgets, his
policies, why are we falling at a rate twice that of
Mr. Manness: The member is going to have to be a little
clearer. He says we are falling. I do not know what he is talking about. I know, with respect to‑‑and I
will give him the number.
I will talk about manufacturing
shipments. I will talk about
employment. I will talk about capital
investment. I will talk about bankruptcies
in this province vis‑a‑vis other provinces. If he wants me to go
into detail‑‑if you will give me the time, I will be able to
present the case statistically, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we are amongst the
highest, in the top two or three in
The course that we are following is the
correct one. It is based on sound
management. It is based on not allowing
the deficit to run wild like the Liberals would have us do. It is based on trying to hold taxes in
control like the Liberals would not want us to do, and I am saying to you the
course is the correct one.
Mr. Alcock: Five questions, five indicators, he has yet
to refute one of them. I will indeed ask
the minister the questions about bankruptcies and about capital investment and
about building permits. By every
criteria, this province is worse off today than it was in 1988 under this
Finance minister.
I want to ask him a simple question. Explain to this House why we fell at a rate
twice that of the national average under this minister. Why did we fall‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The question has been put.
Mr. Manness: I have never ever believed that I, as one
individual, indeed as this government, had that much power with respect to
economic matters, with respect to housing starts, that we could control
ultimately statistics. [interjection]
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have the Leader of
the NDP chirping across the floor about deficits. He would know about deficits. He sat in a
cabinet that recorded the highest deficits of all time, so he would know fully
well the issue of deficits.
The member talks about housing
starts. He selectively wants to move
into one very important area of economic activity. As I have said, this is a stable province
with respect to economic activity. This
government has tried to do everything it can to provide an opportunity for
businesses and employment growth based on competitive factors. We have done everything we can to try and
hold the tax line. We have done everything
we can to try and help reduce cost of production so that indeed the province
and the entrepreneurs in the province will come forward and prosper.
The member obviously likes to believe,
believes that all wealth starts with the creation of house building. He is wrong. He does not understand where the
wealth chain begins.
Dutch Elm
Disease Program
Provincial
Funding
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Madam Deputy Speaker,
the Minister of Natural Resources has finally responded to the hundreds of letters
and petitions that he has received on the Dutch elm disease issue. He has chosen to do this by reannouncing a
grant of $147,000 from the Department of Urban Affairs to the city for its
integrated management program of surveillance and pruning and replacement.
Madam Deputy Speaker, when you add this to
the $350,000 already announced, we still have a 29 percent decrease from the
former funding level of $700,000. Will
the minister explain to the House how a 29 percent decrease in funding for the integrated
management program will help us maintain the goal of a managed loss rate of
less than 2 percent?
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I appreciate that the honourable member reminded us all that it
is that managed loss rate of 2 percent that is at issue here. On my review with my forestry officials, I am
assured that this rate of loss can be maintained, but I appreciate that my
socialist friends have trouble with the concepts of growth and renewal.
What my review did discover was that we
were not replacing the trees, and we were losing in numbers. At a 2 percent loss, in 36 years, half of our
elm trees are lost. Where is the greening
that we are concerned about in our city?
I was pleased to announce‑‑and I am thankful for the amount
of support that I received from my government‑‑an additional
$200,000 to ensure that new trees, young trees will replace that 2 percent that
we are losing admittedly in this city.
Together with the $147,000, that makes up
the $700,000 that we talked about.
Surely, the issue was‑‑if you want to be fair, then you
should never be talking about a reduction to $350,000. It was $450,000.
Ms. Friesen: Madam Deputy Speaker, will the minister
confirm that the $200,000 for the new program of replacement of private elms
represents 28 percent of the total amount from the province, and that this 28
percent will not be available for the attack on the major problem for both the
city and in fact the entire province of the prevention and removal of dead and
diseased trees‑‑[interjection]
The issue is the management of public
lands and wildlife. I cannot understand
why the member for
* (1410)
Madam Deputy
Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Mr. Enns: Madam Deputy Speaker, I really want to respond
to this in as rational and reasonable a manner as I can. It is an important issue to all of us. We have been fighting Dutch elm disease for
several decades.
Throughout the Schreyer years of the '70s,
it was deemed that $180,000 was a reasonable level from the provincial
government. That was changed by myself during the
Point of
Order
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, I
know that the dean of the Legislature would not want to put incorrect
information on this on the record.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member have a point of
order?
Mr. Plohman: Clearly, there was 350,000‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for Dauphin does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over facts.
* * *
Ms. Friesen: Madam Deputy Speaker, the point is that the
past funding levels, in fact, maintained the loss rate at less than 2
percent. Now, he has reduced it. How does he expect it to be maintained at
that? Will the minister acknowledge that
the issue we now face‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The question has been put. The
member is entitled to one question. The
question has been put.
Mr. Enns: Madam Deputy Speaker, it has been suggested to
me‑‑and I read the papers, too‑‑that politics may have
something to say in this affair. I want
to assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to assure honourable members
opposite, that I pay foresters, professional foresters, good money to give me
advice on these matters, and the advice they give me is that the optimum management
level is 2 percent removal.
My critic agrees with me, on the opposite
side of the House. I am telling her that is the level we are going to maintain
it at. Now, if she does not want to
believe me, let her speak to me next year about it.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
NONPOLITICAL
STATEMENTS
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): I wonder if I have leave to make a
nonpolitical statement. [Agreed]
Madam Deputy Speaker, tomorrow, Thursday,
April 30, corresponding to the 26th day of Nissan of the Hebrew calendar year
5752, marks the beginning of Holocaust Awareness Week. The Holocaust is recognized as a monstrous
outrage against humanity involving a deliberate and senseless attempt at the
systematic extermination of an entire people.
In common with Jews around the world, our
Jewish community will be mourning and honouring the memory of the more than six
million Jewish men, women and children who perished in the ghettoes,
concentration camps and gas chambers in those days of the Nazi nightmare.
It should be noted that the Nazi death
camps were not only a Jewish problem. A
total of 11 million innocent, noncombatant civilians were killed by the Nazis,
but the largest single group by far comprised of six million Jewish victims,
representing fully one‑third of the Jewish population of the world.
As the renowned author and Nobel Peace
Prize winner Elie Wiesel points out, not all the victims of the Holocaust were
Jews, but all Jews were victims.
Holocaust Awareness Week pays solemn
tribute to the victims of this unparalleled attempt to destroy a people, as
well as to the indomitable will of a people to overcome tragedy and survive.
Regardless of religion or background, it
is our responsibility, as people who believe in the concepts of freedom,
equality and the worth of the individual, to remember the tragedy and lessons
of the Holocaust by keeping the memory of the six million alive. It is also our responsibility to do all in
our power to see that it never happens again.
I know the members of the House will want
to join with our Jewish citizens and with people of good will everywhere in
keeping alive and honouring the memory of the six million martyred victims
during Holocaust Awareness Week.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable Leader of the Opposition
have leave? [Agreed]
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): I would like to join with the Premier and all
members of this Legislature in speaking on behalf of the Holocaust Awareness
Week, as outlined by the Premier today.
The tragedies of that incident in our
history, that huge issue in our history, the absolute inhumanity that went on
in our world in the last hundred years, I believe, binds us all together in
this very, very important week outlined by the Premier, indeed, not only this
important week, but in our whole lives on the issue of racism, hatred and
genocide that took place in this century.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as a young child and
as a person studying history, one could not believe that these events took
place with human beings on the face of this Earth. One cannot understand what conditions led to
this genocide that took place. One could not even understand the role of
When I read back in history and hear about
the plea of many people in eastern Europe and in central
I want to join with the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) today on his comments on the Holocaust Awareness Week and the millions
of families that did not survive it and the millions of others that did survive
it with the emotional scars that will last, not just their lifetime, but must
last on to the next century and on to the next century after that.
We must all learn in this awareness week of our collective responsibility for how that happened in our world. I think we have to, in this Holocaust Awareness Week, rededicate ourselves against genocide, hatred, racism, i