LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Friday,
December 13, 1991
The House met at 10 a.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
TABLING OF
REPORTS
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to table the 1990‑91 Annual Report of the Manitoba Farm Mediation
Board.
INTRODUCTION
OF BILLS
Bill 20‑The
Municipal Assessment Amendment Act
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Rural Development): Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Family Services and the
honourable member for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer), that Bill 20, The Municipal
Assessment Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'evaluation municipale, be
introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme), that Bill 35, The City of
His
Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor, having been advised of the contents of
this bill, recommends it to the House. I
would like to table that message.
Motion presented.
Mr. Ernst: This bill is the bill necessary for the
remedial action to deal with the City of
It
is my intention to ask leave of the House on Monday, immediately following
Question Period, to have the Throne Speech Debate suspended so we can have
second reading of Bill 35. Assuming Bill 35 then passes second reading, we will
ask leave of the House on Monday evening to have a committee sit concurrently
with the House and to hear public representations with respect to Bill 35 and
again on Tuesday morning, if it is deemed necessary to have additional time to
hear representations. Following that, on
Tuesday, immediately following Question Period, we will again ask leave of the
House in order to suspend the Throne Speech Debate for a period of time in
order to deal with third reading and Royal Assent for the bill.
Point of
Order
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): On a
point of order, because he did touch briefly on some House business and I would
just ask for clarification for our purposes.
That is‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member is asking for some clarification. First we will dispense of first reading and
then we will get the clarification.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: First reading of Bill 35, it is agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
Point of
Order
Mr. Lamoureux: I would ask the minister for clarification, we
understand now that the printed form of the English version would be made
available for all those who are interested for today, is that correct?
Mr. Ernst: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not. I have undertaken to meet with the critics of
both the opposition parties to discuss a draft of the bill. The final bill information is not yet
available. I will be discussing it
immediately following the closure of the House today with the opposition
critics appropriate methods of dealing with the concerns that have been raised
to me by those critics.
* (1005)
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable minister
for the clarification.
Bill 38‑The
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), that Bill 38, The
Manitoba Evidence Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la preuve au
Motion agreed to.
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
Also
this morning, from the Teulon Collegiate, we have thirty Grade 11
students. They are 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 welcome you here this morning.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Child
Poverty
Government
Initiatives
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, this morning we received
shocking news really, news that I think should be a concern for all members of
this Chamber.
The
National Welfare Council of Canada has just reviewed child poverty in our
country and has determined in its statistics that
The
committee goes on to recommend‑‑the committee presented to Ottawa‑‑recommends
a number of improvements and actions that are also available to provinces to
take to alleviate child poverty, talking about education, talking about child
care programs, talking about housing programs, talking about employment
programs.
I would
ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon) what action is his government going to take to
change the situation where
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Doer) is quite right in quoting the study.
The reality is that among other things the study noted that worst off
are Native children; half live in poverty.
As
the member is well aware, the proportion of Native children in
* (1010)
We
all are concerned with that problem.
That is why the study, I might say, is primarily focused at federal
issues because the issue of poverty with respect to Native children has to be
primarily addressed by the federal government, with their primary
responsibility for Native children and for the economic well‑being of the
Native people of this country.
We
will indeed work co‑operatively with the federal government and all
levels of government on any programs, whether they be education, whether they
be social programs, health care programs, any programs designed to eradicate
poverty with respect to the children of our province.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, many of the programs that the
report deals with deals with areas under provincial jurisdiction, under
jurisdiction of areas of this Premier (Mr. Filmon): Housing, child care, employment, education,
the whole infrastructure in our province that ministers across the way are
responsible for, so I asked a very specific question. I did not ask the Premier to explain the
statistics. I understand that there is a
joint challenge for all of us. What I
asked the Premier is, what action are we going to take in this House? Yesterday we had the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) saying the solution to our problems is to cut social programs and to
control social costs in our province when we have numbers showing the child
poverty rate is the worst in
My
question to the Premier: What action is
his government going to take in these areas under provincial jurisdiction, many
of which are listed in the report?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we will examine the
report and examine all avenues for our involvement in it, but he makes my point
when he talks about housing, when he talks about education as they apply to
Natives. The primary area of funding and
responsibility is from the federal government, and that is why the matter
cannot be looked at in isolation without knowing the background for it. I mean, if one were to just take statistics
and use them indiscriminately without understanding what is behind them, then
one could not solve the problem.
I
am just asking the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), in the spirit of co‑operation
that he espouses, to allow us to look in depth at the problem and to seek co‑operation
and help where it is not only necessary but where it is vital to the solution
of the problem.
Mr. Doer: First of all, Mr. Speaker, poverty is across
all of
Every day we have been bringing out economic
indicators of lack of job opportunities.
Today again we have a 13 percent decline in the value of manufacturing
shipments in
What specific action is this Premier (Mr.
Filmon) and this government going to take so that the situation where we are 10
out of 10 can be changed and we can start improving the lot of all Manitobans
facing poverty in our province?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, again the Leader of the
Opposition makes my point for me. He is
wanting to allege that things are worse in
We
are not suggesting that there are not needs to address the problems that are
out there. I will say this, that we are
increasing social allowance rates; we are increasing programs, and I might say
we are not doing what the NDP did when they were in government and one year
they increased social allowance rates only 2 percent. Shocking, absolutely shocking. At a time when their own revenues were rising
at double digit rates, they increased welfare 2 percent‑‑shocking.
Those are the kinds of things that build up
over many, many years and we are attempting to look at it in the broadest
possible context, with the interests of the children at heart. We will examine
every possible avenue to improve the situation, the unfortunate situation that
many of our children find themselves in.
Food Banks
Increased
Use
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, there is ample evidence that the
recession is over, the depression has begun.
* (1015)
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): The
member is well aware that we announced some new initiatives recently to do with
the allowances for social allowance recipients.
We have increased allowances by 3.6 percent on the basic needs and
created a new program in very difficult times to give additional funding to the
disabled. The food banks are a reality
and in many communities this is work that people do through their churches and
through organizations at this time of the year.
It is sad that we have food banks, and I note in
We
will work with our social allowance recipients and continue to enhance our
programs, and again I am pleased that the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale)
has supported us on the tax credit initiative in his speech last year.
Social
Assistance
Rate
Increase
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, why did the Minister of Family
Services raise social assistance rates by 3.6 percent when the average for the
year, for the consumer price index over 12 months, was 5.3 percent? Why does the minister allow the poor to fall
further and further behind so that social assistance is no longer the program
of last resort?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, we looked at the year over year cost of living from October of 1990‑91,
and the increase in the cost of living was 3.6 percent. I dare say I expect the cost of living in the
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Family
Services announce changes and improvements to the Manitoba benefits because
there are areas in which we are the worst in
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Mr. Gilleshammer: The member is aware that historically changes
in the rates have been announced at this time of the year and, again, I am
pleased that even in these difficult times we were able to raise the rates by
3.6 percent. I would readily concede to
the member there are other issues that we work on within the department and
that come before the department from time to time and, hopefully, in ensuing months
we will be able to make further announcements with regard to social allowance
recipients.
Again, as is evidenced across this country, it
is difficult for some provinces to find the funds to raise those rates.
* (1020)
First
Ministers' Conference
Government
Agenda
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I would caution the First
Minister about suggesting that poverty is a Native problem because it is a
problem that crosses and affects, I think, most people in this province or
certainly a majority of people in this province.
The
effects of it are felt in every part of the province as the existence of these
new food banks shows. I would ask the
First Minister (Mr. Filmon) this. It was
Ken Battle from the National Welfare Council at a workshop I was at recently
who, himself, said that we have to raise the economy, that we have to get the
economy going if we are going to address these issues.
The
Premier (Mr. Filmon) has been invited to a First Ministers' conference, and I
would like to know what specific recommendations he is going to take to that
conference?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, firstly, I would suggest to the
member for Osborne that I have not said that poverty is a problem confined only
to Native people. I quoted from the
report on the study that said, worst off are Native children, half live in
poverty. I have said that there are
many, many people who live in poverty in this province. We regret that whether it applies to one or
to any number and regardless of race or background or culture or whatever have
you, we have to address it as a problem throughout the economy and throughout
society.
Yes, indeed, we are very happy that the Prime
Minister has accepted the recommendation that I have made, as well as other
First Ministers that he have a First Ministers' conference on the economy.
Mr.
Speaker, among other things, we will be talking with the Prime Minister about
the need to look globally at the problems that face us in
It
would be the worst thing, I think, for various provinces and various regions to
be going at the problems that we face as an economy on different tacks and, in
fact, being counterproductive and conflicting in the solutions that we
pursue. That is one of the things, a co‑ordination
of economic policy initiatives to work together and a desire to work together,
so that all of us are pursuing the resolution of a problem that is affecting
all provinces and all regions.
Mr. Alcock: Will the First Minister be taking to
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, since yesterday was just the
first confirmation and I have not received it from the Prime Minister, I have
received it essentially through media, we have heard a potential date. ‑(interjection)‑
As a matter of fact, he did call yesterday, and I was unavailable. I expect that I will be hearing from him
today.
Mr.
Speaker, there will be a variety of recommendations. I might say First Ministers in the past, in
fact the last two Premiers' conferences carried forth the kind of
recommendation that the member for Osborne‑‑increasing, in fact I
believe we talked about doubling our commitment to R&D as one of the
commitments for the 1990s, getting us into the area that we, as a province, are
committed to with the new Economic Innovation and Technology Council that we
have formed is aimed at directly that particular initiative, to increase our
emphasis on research and development and the development of industries and job
creation in the higher technology areas for our province. We believe that that applies across the
country.
Economic
Growth
Investment
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Does the First Minister believe that it is
time for a significant increase in investment in this province to bring us out
of this depression?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, indeed we
do and indeed that is what the announcement by Medix about two weeks ago
involves, an investment in the medical product field that commercializes some
inventions and developments that have come out of our medical and scientific
community in
That is precisely what is involved in the
Apotex announcement in which Apotex is bringing the manufacture of chemicals,
prime quality chemicals, for the pharmaceutical industry, a new plant with an
initial investment of $20 million and a total investment of $50 million to
* (1025)
Economic
Growth
Employment
Creation Strategy
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): I have a question for the Premier. The Royal Bank is warning that the recession
is not over and could continue into late 1992.
Mayor Norrie of
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Brandon
East for his question. I might say that
we too read economic forecasts from a whole variety of sources. Although we believe
Despite the fact that the entire country is in
a recession,
We
are doing as well as can be expected under the circumstances, but more
particularly
Antirecession
Task Force
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister
answered the question. I would hope he
would reconsider.
Would the Premier be prepared to establish an
antirecession task force to explore ways and means to fight the current
recession given that economists and forecasting agencies are predicting a
continuation of the recession? I note
now department store sales in
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, this is the ultimate all‑party
committee for looking at the problems of the
* (1030)
Mr.
Speaker, we on this side want to work in a positive and co‑operative
fashion. We are out there consulting
with people from all sectors of the economy and society. We have gone on cabinet tours during the past
three months to various areas of the province, to the North, to the central, to
the southern
Mr. Leonard Evans: Is the Premier prepared to work together
consultatively right now with business, labour and other parties, to prepare a
position to go to
Mr. Filmon: I am scheduled to meet with and speak with
the Chamber of Commerce next week. We
have met within the last few weeks with the Union of Manitoba
Municipalities. We have met with various
other groups. We are meeting with the
Manitoba Federation of Labour, I believe, within the next 10 days, Mr. Speaker. We are going to be working with all groups in
society, with all sectors in society to seek a common resolution to the
problems that face us. It is going to
take all of us working together to get ourselves out of the recession in a
healthy fashion.
Mr.
Speaker, I will just repeat again that driving up taxes to the second highest
level in
Repap
Manitoba Inc.
Employment
Creation
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
My
question is to the minister responsible for Repap: When can the people of
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I might remind the member for
In
this recession, Mr. Speaker, not only are Repap's employment levels higher than
they were when Manfor was being run by the NDP, but we do not have a $32‑million
bill to be paid for by the taxpayers of this province.
Environmental
Assessment
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
To
the same minister. Why can this
government not get its act together with the federal government and get on with
the environmental review that has been promised but not acted on? That is what
has to happen, and Repap is hiding behind the environmental review.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I might just say for the
edification of the member for
I
might say, Mr. Speaker, as well, that we are very anxious to have the
environmental assessment and review proceed on Repap's next phase of the
project. The member for
Contract
Obligations
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Will the Premier tell the House when the
government is going to insist that Repap fulfills its commitments of a permanent
chipper, of a maintenance facility, of jobs to
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that
Repap is awaiting opportunities to go before a full environmental assessment
and review. Repap, like every other pulp
and paper company in
It
is very parallel to the situation that farmers are facing and, despite those
circumstances, the taxpayer has not had to pick up a nickel of it, Repap is
absorbing those losses. Unlike the
situation that occurred when the NDP were running Manfor and they lost $32
million in one year of taxpayers money, Mr. Speaker.
Conawapa
Dam Project
Legal
Opinion
Mr. James Carr
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister
responsible for Manitoba Hydro. All week
the minister has mused aloud about the wisdom of signing a power deal between
Hon. Harold Neufeld
(Minister responsible for The
The
Order‑in‑Council substantially allows the Ontario Hydro to enter
into an agreement with
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have asked and are
awaiting a reply from our solicitors whether or not the second Order‑in‑Council
was indeed necessary.
Surplus
Power
Mr. James Carr
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, since the date of the Order‑in‑Council
is prior to the date of the contract signed between Manitoba Hydro and Ontario
Hydro, the minister may well want to ask for legal opinion on that subject.
Mr.
Speaker, since the latest projections are now that
Hon. Harold Neufeld
(Minister responsible for The
Public
Utilities Board
Review
Mr. James Carr
(Crescentwood): Since the economic model given to the Public
Utilities Board by Manitoba Hydro assumed that there would be a need in
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Mr. Carr: ‑‑does the minister not now
believe that the situation is sufficiently different to go back to the Public
Utilities Board all over again?
Hon. Harold Neufeld
(Minister responsible for The
Government
Reports
Environment
Friendly Products
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, I took as notice a question
yesterday on the environmental report that had been prepared. I would like to inform the House and the
member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), who asked the question, that indeed the
environmental report was done on recycled paper; however, it was glossy
recycled paper.
The
reason for that was because the Queen's Printer did not have in stock enough
nonglossy recycled paper. I understand
all of that stock is there now and every report that has been done since June
of 1991 has been on recycled paper. In
the future, if we indeed have enough nonglossy recycled paper, all reports will
be printed on that.
* (1040)
Western
Canadian Wildlife Service
Oak Hammock Marsh Report
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, this government is making
international news. It is too bad it is
because they are being criticized for paving over wetlands with their
environmentally backward project at Oak Hammock Marsh with Ducks Unlimited.
A
number of us who are opposed to the project and the waste of $4 million of
public money have been urging the federal Minister of Environment to get
involved and finally he has. My question
is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
Does he have the report presented to the
Minister of Environment by the Western Canadian Wildlife Service? Has he asked for the report? Is he aware of this report? Will he table the report in the House?
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, no.
Oak Hammock Conservation
Centre Environmental Assessments
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): I would urge the minister to inquire about‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member kindly put your
question now, please.
Ms. Cerilli: ‑‑the environmental impact
assessment by the federal government on this project, will the Premier withhold
the over $2 million in
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): The member for Radisson continues to ignore
the fact that this project was the subject of a very extensive environmental assessment
and review process before the Clean Environment Commission. This project got a more thorough review than
any project that was ever done under a New Democratic administration.
They did projects like Limestone without any
environmental assessment and public review process. They were prepared to issue licences. Repap, at The Pas when it was in its former
incarnation at Manfor, they allowed it to pollute the ground. We have spent millions of dollars cleaning it
up. They never had an environmental
assessment and review process.
Despite all of that, we have gone for the full
environmental assessment and review.
Based on that third party objective review at which every one of the
criticisms she has attempted to place on that project in this House, every one
of the criticisms was placed on the table, was considered and yet the project
was approved.
I
believe the process should prevail. It
should not be politically motivated by anybody in this House, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. Cerilli: I would like to table a copy of what this
government's money is going to: plastic
wrap on DU propaganda.
My
final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: How
can this government maintain‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Save your question.
Point of
Order
Hon. Darren Praznik (Acting
Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I
believe the rules of the House are clear that supplementary questions are to be
used to clarify the initial answer of the minister to whom a first question was
addressed. Obviously, there has been a great deal of latitude taken in this
case by the member for Radisson.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member was just going to put
her question.
The
honourable acting government House leader does not have a point of order.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition
House Leader): On a new point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I
would also ask if you would remind the ministers, particularly the First
Minister (Mr. Filmon), of Beauchesne's Citation 417, one of the key aspects of
which says that answers should not provoke debate. The Premier seems to be engaging in not
answering questions engaging in debate, and one would expect that opposition
members will respond and try and clarify some of that. What is happening is we are having a
continuing abuse from the Premier and from ministers‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
I would like to remind the honourable opposition House leader that a
point of order should be raised at the time the infraction did occur. The honourable opposition House leader did
not have a point of order.
* * *
The
honourable member for Radisson, put your question now, please.
Government
Credibility
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
government.
How
can this government maintain any environmental credibility when they are
bulldozing ahead with this project when there is injunction in the courts and
when there are dozens of environmental groups opposed to the project?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): I guess that a New Democrat should ask how
could the New Democratic Party of Manitoba have any environmental credibility
when they would go forward with the largest project ever developed in the
history of this province, Limestone, with no public environmental assessment
and review process, that they would operate without an environmental licence
Manfor at The Pas at a time when it was dumping oil, when it was bunker sea oil
into the ground, when it was polluting good soil, when it was polluting‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
There is a point of order going to be raised.
Point of
Order
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Similar to the point
I raised earlier and I am raising at this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, in regard
to answers being brief and relating to the question raised and not involving
debate, the Premier is once again clearly violating our sections of Beauchesne
in terms of answers. I am asking you to
call him to order and answer the very specific questions asked by the member.
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised, I would like to
remind the honourable First Minister, brevity both in question and in answers
is of great importance.
The
honourable First Minister to finish his response.
* * *
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, my response is about credibility
of governments on environmental issues.
I am talking about the total lack of credibility of the New Democratic
Party when it was in government, and it proceeded to allow government‑owned
Crown corporations to pollute the ground and the environment without ever
giving it an environmental licence or review.
It is that kind of lack of credibility that has got us into the
difficulties we are in. We gave it a
full environmental assessment and review in the process that was set up by the
New Democratic legislation and with an arm's length review panel.
Call
Management System
Ms. Becky Barrett (
My
question, Mr. Speaker, is: Will the
Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System now intervene as he has
the authority to do and urge Manitoba Telephone System to withdraw its
application for CMS in light of this overwhelmingly negative response?
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister responsible for the administration of The
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
Nonpolitical Statements
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, do I have leave to make a
nonpolitical statement?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Wolseley have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
Leave? It is agreed.
Ms. Friesen: I would like to congratulate, on behalf of
this side of the House, the
Mr.
Speaker, citation indexes are only one way of measuring research excellence,
but they do reflect well the professional recognition accorded to the
* (1050)
I
would like to congratulate the medical faculty and to commend the university
for its continued commitment to research under difficult circumstances. It is vitally important that we all recognize
that medical researchers and their teachers are not created overnight. What we rejoice in today across this province
and in this House is the fruit of the commitment by all governments across
* * *
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make a
nonpolitical statement?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for The Maples have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
Leave? It is agreed.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, it is a great day for the people
of
I
would like to join with the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) in wishing them
all the best and say please keep up the good work. The people of
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
THRONE
SPEECH DEBATE
Mr. Speaker: The adjourned debate, sixth day of debate, on
the proposed motion of the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) for an
address to His Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor in answer to his speech at
the opening of the session and the proposed motion of the honourable Leader of
the Opposition (Mr. Doer) and amendment thereto, open.
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate that other honourable members wish to participate in this
traditional and important debate. I will
refrain from taking the full time available to me.
I
begin in the traditional manner. I thank
the honourable members all for making that wise decision that we assemble in
this pre‑Christmas session in the hope that we can so order our time that
perhaps we can conduct the fullness of our business prior to the event of
summer coming upon us. It seems that the
last few years, we have found ourselves debating issues in the heat of
midsummer when so many Manitobans, quite frankly, have other matters that they
are concerned with. I applaud the House
leaders and members of all groups within the Chamber that we have made this
decision to come together in this pre‑Christmas session to begin getting
things on a more orderly track.
Mr.
Speaker, I of course offer you my congratulations on once again assuming your
responsibilities as Speaker of this Chamber, along with that the table
officers, new pages you have assembled.
I am particularly pleased, for I think the first time in a long time
that I can remember, that we supply to the House from the Interlake several of
the youngsters who are going to be helping us through this session. I particularly take note of them and
congratulate them. I of course realize
that I will have to be on some special order to behave myself in a manner more
fitting because they are indeed reporting right back to my own constituency.
Other members have indicated and made comment
about the really mind‑boggling events that have happened in the global
situation. I will not dwell on them too
long but to simply point out that it has in effect had a change on
I
make that comparison only to spur on all of us about the important tasks that
we face; the tremendous responsibilities that face our Leaders and our Premier
(Mr. Filmon). I think that Manitoba‑‑and
certainly I hear this in the limited travel that I have done in the country in
attending to official businesses at ministerial conferences in British Columbia
or Ontario, the fact that we have chosen a particular path that has been able
for us here in Manitoba to speak with a fair degree of unanimity is not lost on
the rest of the country.
I
applaud again all members of the House, particularly those members who have
worked diligently on that particular committee, its chairman and all of us, for
having been able to take that particular route.
It would serve us well. I know
that there will be stresses and strains put on that unity as we begin to study
some of the more final proposals that may emerge from the overall efforts at
Constitution making, but it would serve us well if we could maintain that
unity. I may be asking too much. The
lure, the temptation of politicking is, of course, always there, but for what
it is worth I applaud the efforts to date.
I
think it would be extremely worthwhile for all of us to continue along that
path. There would be maybe some short‑term
gains made politically but not really acting in the long‑term interests
of the country if we, in our
If
we can find unanimity in approaching the Constitutional questions here in
Honourable members opposite, you know my
socialist friends, and that is why they are socialists, they never see. They cannot really stand any good news. They are humourless people. They have to pick on the throne speech
authors because we made passing note about the fact that we Manitobans all were
thrilled, all enjoyed the spirit of the Grey Cup Week, but socialists in their
typical dour outlook on life cannot have any fun any time. That is what marks you. You can never take a moment off. However, I digress from what I am wanting to
say. You know, I get mad at that when
people talk like that about me.
* (1100)
Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate honourable members, except when they have as we had today
in the Question Period something negative to say about a project. I want to tell you, as I said in the closing
debates on Bill 38 when last we met, within a year's time the Ramsar people
from
The
North American Ornithologist Society, which got duped into signing a hasty
letter of criticism about it, have already apologized, have written Ducks
Unlimited Canada expressing apology saying that they were in fact duped. There were a couple of hucksters that came to
them. They were busy with other matters
and without paying proper attention, they allowed themselves to pass a
resolution in
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not have‑‑as
usual the socialists never keep their promises.
The honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) indicated she was going
to table a particular document. Mr.
Clerk, was that not the case? She just
wanted to wave that for the television cameras.
She did not really want to do that.
So I do not have it, because I could use it. I could use that folder that you have
received in the latest edition to the Conservator, the Ducks Unlimited Canada
paper, which gives you a very, very graphic description of what is happening at
Oak Hammock Marsh. It points out the
first big lie, the first big lie. You
see socialists always succeed because they lie, and when you lie often enough,
loud enough, people start believing it.
The
first big lie is that we are building an office tower in the middle of a
marsh. Look at that handout. It is not in the middle of the marsh. It is on the western extremity where Ducks
Unlimited had purchased an additional quarter section of 160 acres. Mr. Speaker, there is not one square foot of
wetland, not one square inch of wetland, not one square metre of wetland, is
being given up because of this project, unlike the member saying that we are
paving over wetlands. In fact, Oak
Hammock Marsh, because of the project has grown by 156 acres.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the second big lie is, of
course, if I were to ask anybody and I do not blame anybody, but if I was to
ask those students watching us right now, do you think it is appropriate to
build an office tower in the middle of the marsh? Everybody, myself included,
would say of course it is not appropriate, because that augurs up a vision of a
glass tower, steel tower 20 or 30 stories, in the middle of the marsh. Well, we know from the first lie that it is
not in the middle of the marsh, but we are not building that kind of an office
tower. We are building an administrative
building that will house wetland specialists, water control engineers, bird
specialists. These are the people who
invest millions of dollars in reclaiming wetlands in an environmentally sound
building that will have native grass on the roof. Mr. Speaker, birds, migratory birds, ducks
and geese will be landing and nesting right on top of this building and you,
when you fly over the building, you will not see it.
Within six months of its operation, Oak
Hammock Marsh Interpretative Centre will be acclaimed internationally as one of
the great educational centres where our young people can learn more about
wildlife, where our tourists can come and visit us and applaud us, and we will
preserve. More importantly, the ducks
and the geese, they will keep coming in ever‑growing numbers as they are
right now. Hundreds of thousands of
birds come and use that beautiful facility, and they will continue doing
so. Well, enough of that.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to say something though to my honourable friends, the
opposition. They do not like my efforts
as Minister of Natural Resources to try to do something about cutting down on
the poaching, cutting down on the illegal sale of animal parts. They do not
mind if thieves and murderers shoot bears like "Big Duke" in
I
asked this Legislature last July to give me some authority, give the Department
of Natural Resources some authority to stop the obscene and the offensive
practice of the selling of animal parts.
Every Liberal member, every New Democratic Party member, voted against
that. You want to shoot. You want to kill more Big Dukes. You want to see our wildlife poached. You are not prepared to see my officers who
are out there trying to stop this action, because you want to play the little
business of politics. You want to play
these little politics. Believe me‑‑
(Mr. Penner, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
Some Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Jack Penner): Order, please.
I am having great difficulty hearing the speaker.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Acting Speaker, in response to the very
many letters that I receive, and those I know other members receive, people are
expressing legitimate concern or outrage when they read of some of the things
that happen in the woods, the illegal poaching and killing of our deer, of our
elk, of our bears. I write them back
saying that thanks to the support that the Conservative members of this
government gave me last July, I am now in the final stages of drafting
legislation that can control the sale of animal parts in
I
could not do that. The department did
not have that authority before. I needed
that change to The Wildlife Act that was passed last July under Bill 38, but I
also remind them that I had to do that with the vigorous opposition of the
Liberal Party and the vigorous opposition of the New Democratic Party. You opposed me every step of the way. You voted against it formally twice in this
Chamber. So do not talk to me about your
concern about our deer. Do not talk to
me about your concern about our black bear.
It is only the Conservative Party because true to our title, we are
conservatives, we conserve. We are the
ones who will conserve the wildlife in the
I
do thank my colleagues, all of them, for having the courage. It was a difficult bill. It was one of the last bills, if honourable
members will recall, that was dealt with, but it has given us the authority to
do that. With that, we are expanding the
enforcement efforts as was mentioned in the throne speech with some additional
help, our resource officers. You know, I
have called it different things. The
technical name is a mobile‑enhanced enforcement unit that will be
supplied with all the latest resources that we have to help us cut down on
illegal taking of game. That includes
the use of decoys. It does not, Mr.
Acting Speaker, as has been reported in some media, include the arming of the
officers with sidearms. There is a
policy question that has been brought to my attention on a number of
issues. I know that the officers have
approached the different caucuses and expressed their concerns, but I take this
opportunity to make clear that at this point that is not in the works.
I
regret that the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) says in a kind of
a patronizing way that while stopping poaching is a nice idea, Mr. Storie says
in this particular media report, but he says efforts could be directed
elsewhere. In my view we have other
problems more important. I am aware that
the Minister of Education and Training (Mr. Derkach) has big problems on his
desk every day. I am aware the Minister
of Health (Mr. Orchard) has even bigger problems on his desk every day. I am aware that my colleague the Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) has big problems on his desk, not to speak
of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General (Mr. McCrae) or the Minister of
Environment (Mr. Cummings) or the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay).
My
particular department, the Department of Natural Resources has its particular
responsibilities and its particular mandate. One of them surely is that we do
the best job possible in enforcing the wildlife regulations that we pass from
time to time in this Chamber. We do that
to ensure that not only we but the generation coming after us and their
children coming after them will enjoy nature, will enjoy wildlife throughout
the length and breadth of this province.
That is why again my party, my government is prepared to do something
about it.
The
NDP's official spokesperson, the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) says there
really ought to be better things that the government should be doing, should be
occupying their time. Again, what a callous disregard for some of the important
things that my department does. It shows
the complete and overall attention that the honourable members opposite focus
on the issues. They only address the issues
of my department when they can make an environmental issue to attack this
government. They only address issues of
my department when they think they can express some latent anti‑Americanism
because they do not like Ducks Unlimited, and it has some American partners
with it. That is why they attack
it. They are not attacking it on
resource‑based issues, not at all.
* (1110)
I
have every enthusiasm as we embark on the affairs of state for the next
year. There are a number of issues that
will loom large. I am excited about the
successful start‑up of one of the most exciting resource recovery
programs ever instituted in the province.
It is principally centred on the southwestern region. It is called the
North American Waterfowl Management Plan, where we as a government are
targeting upwards to half a million prime acres in agro‑Manitoba in that
beautiful Minnedosa, Shoal Lake, Virden, Killarney country that is so famed as
being "the duck factory" where thousands upon thousands and millions
of ducks use it as the summer breeding grounds.
That area is under attack from ever‑encroaching
agriculture, in some cases from improper land use, in some cases just not
caring enough about the importance of maintaining the potholes and the
surrounding few acres of habitat for wildlife.
This very ambitious program calling for an
expenditure of some $134 millions of dollars over the next 15 years, this is a
long term program. There will be a
Minister of Natural Resources, of what description I do not know, but 10 years
from now, 12 years from now, we will truly be able to say that what was started
last year and is starting will have made a difference, would have made that
environment a greener environment, a cleaner environment, a more hospitable
environment for our wildlife and wildlife of all description.
Wildlife is focused on waterfowl. Any time you put together a habitat and leave
it in its natural state, you are encouraging, you are providing a home, an
environment for all kinds of wildlife.
That is what is happening in the southwestern part of the province, Mr.
Acting Speaker, a tremendous initiative that I would invite honourable members
from time to time, once they get past their immediate hangups about trying to
hurt my department or hurt this minister in a political sense, ask some
reasonable questions, delve into what the department's functions are really and
truly all about and what we are trying to accomplish because it is important to
the welfare of all of us.
If
we can enhance the environment for our ducks, for our geese, for our deer, for
all our wildlife, we are doing it at the same time for ourselves. What is most encouraging about this is the
tremendous co‑operation we are receiving from Agriculture, officially
from the Department of Agriculture, the agriculture people themselves,
individual farmers on the landscape, PFRA, Agriculture Canada, all working
together on this massive project.
That says a great deal about the evolution,
about the maturity that has happened, because all too often the two found
themselves on opposing sides and all too often for a good reason. It ought not to fall fully and squarely on
the individual farmer's shoulders or on Agriculture's shoulders, the cost of
the maintenance of some of the hoped‑for increased wildlife populations,
be they waterfowl or otherwise.
Proper and reasonable and acceptable
compensation programs have to be in place, so if indeed in a given year,
because of the way the harvest comes off, there is substantial crop damage by
waterfowls or by big game that the government is in fact in a position to
compensate the farmer then. These are
the kinds of things that are happening on the landscape. They are encouraging. They are exciting. They auger well for the decade of the '90s
that we can, in a very fundamental way, improve and change for the better the
natural environment in this instance of that part of the province of Manitoba.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, there is one other issue.
My colleague, I know, the honourable member for
In
Canada there is no better land base, with the odd exception of a small parcel
of land in southern Ontario, that it rivals for special crop production, for
vegetable production, in heat units, in the type of soil, in the number of
frost‑free days and all of these kinds of things that are important kinds
of basics for our diversified agriculture.
What is missing throughout the region is just
that little topping off of dependability of water in many instances.
It
is missing right now to those thriving communities that compose of what we call
the Pembina triangle country, communities such as Carman, Morden, Winkler,
Altona, Morris, Letellier, St. Jean, all along the net in that area. They have requested and have put before the
government, after just about two years of diligent work based on years and
thousands and thousands, if not millions, of dollars worth of study, a proposal
that calls for the diversion of some additional waters from the
Mr.
Acting Speaker, I appreciate the concern that my colleague from
The
government has yet to make any decisions on this question. Long before government's make decisions, the
environmental process will, of course, be full and extensive in terms of
precisely what the proposals will be. I
have mentioned this only in passing, that I expect that to take up a
considerable amount of the energies of my department as we move on into spring
and summer and wrestle with this very important issue.
I
suspect that my time is just about coming to an end. I did want to, in fact, indicate the‑‑one
would have thought that with what is happening internationally that my friends,
in the NDP at least, would have come, maybe reluctantly, to the realities of
economic life on this planet Earth.
I
could understand that as long as there was the facade of a successful and
strong Soviet Union operating under the‑‑with totally ignoring the
market economy, that there was some intellectual underpinning for that position
but to have it expressed so succinctly by my delightful friend‑‑Mr.
Acting Speaker, I want to take that back.
That may not be a politically correct term, it may even be interpreted
as sexist. I did not mean it that way. I am talking about the honourable member for
Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) and her contribution, which was a classic. I have read all of it. It was a classic expression of the power
struggles.
In
this case, it is hard to identify just who was the oppressor and who was the
oppressee. One could argue, as my friend
the member for Portage said, a pretty good case could be made that the union
bosses do a pretty good fair share of oppressing when they represent the entire
union, and when they do not allow proposals to be voted on at large by
memberships and things like that. That
is a pretty powerful expression, but she was on another tact. She bought into the whole feminist argument,
but what caught my attention is, and I know this is‑‑well, I have
to be careful because the Prime Minister has just been censored for using
language in the House. How can I say
it? The word, Mr. Acting Speaker, if I
whisper it, the word "profit" is just an anathema to the socialists. They cannot stand the word
"profit," and nobody expresses it better than the honourable member
for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) when she said it is the kind of basically
profiteering economic policy that tries to put profit ahead of meeting the
demands and the security of the workers‑‑something like that.
* (1120)
That is the trouble. When will they learn without profit there are
no jobs, the economy does not work; without profit there is no medicare;
without profit there are no universities; without profit there is no health
care. Now, Mr. Acting Speaker, I could
not argue this so forcibly because up until this very time, up until these last
few years, at tremendous cost, oh, Lord, the cost. That cost that was spawned by Marx and
Engels, that political ideology of communism was tried for 70 years.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, all the religious wars of mankind, all the big wars of mankind,
all the natural disasters of mankind, have not inflicted upon mankind the
disaster, the brutality of 70 years of communism, by their own admission. Up to 14 million people of the
Mr.
Acting Speaker, a few years ago when references like that were made in this
House the journalists, my favourites, the Frances Russells of this world, they
would call that red smearing. We cannot
say that anymore anyway because it was not a smear. What was said was true, what was said is now
open to us all. We see it everyday on
our television cameras. And why did the
system fail? I will not get into great
political debates about why the system is failing here, but it should be easily
understood because it simply could not deliver the basic human needs. It does not put food on the shelves, it did
not provide education, and we know now that it did not provide a good health
care. There was health care for the
wealthy, there was health care for the few party of . . . , but there was no
genuine health care; the system has failed.
We
have people, Mr. Acting Speaker, in 1991 who will still ignore all of that and
decry the fact that profit is needed in our economy to continue that it be
driven properly and that it be driven in the right direction. Without that motive, there may well be
another ideology spawned, another Marx and Engels will come together in a tea
house in
Mr.
Acting Speaker, that is, of course, the fundamental difference between their
side and our side. They honestly
believe, as their socialist friends believe, that we can through legislation,
through laws, fundamentally alter mankind, change the character. I have never made such an arrogant assumption
for myself and in the main, nor does the Conservative Party.
What we believe we have to do is so order the
affairs of our society that we be fair, that the rules and regulations that we
pass from time to time are fair and provide a measure of justice, that we
provide the opportunity. We cannot
mandate, we cannot legislate it.
Honourable members opposite do not believe
that. They believe they can legislate
morality. They believe they can
legislate and fundamentally alter mankind's character. That is the socialist concept. That is not
mine, and so we will have that difference all the time.
In
fact, I have even greater problems that I have not resolved despite my going on
25, 26 years in politics. I have never
quite been able to resolve what my position as an elected member is here. It ought to be easier, because we are elected
by our people in our districts and our ridings so personal thoughts should not
intervene. I may have very strong
religious convictions of one kind or another, but surely my first
responsibility is to reflect the wishes of the people who elected me.
I
have trouble sometimes with respect to party discipline. Again, what is my
first responsibility, to the people who elected me or to the party that I am
part of or even to the cabinet that I am part of?
Mr.
Acting Speaker, you and I know what cabinet discipline means and what needs to
be done to maintain that cabinet stability.
I am not suggesting that I am about to do something that will alter
that. I just say that it represents an
ongoing problem to me, and I have never satisfactorily answered that question
as to what it is that should be the primary priority position of an elected
member.
I
understand representative government. I
also understand that when governments and members in two many instances fail to
reflect the views of the people who elect them, that in my judgment is what
creates growing cynicism and growing lack of trust in the people and the
governments that they elect. If over a
prolonged period of time, it is amply demonstrated by scientific polling that
70 or 80 percent of the people in
Why
does that happen? That is because
individual members place their individual concepts and beliefs ahead of the
people's. Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, we
do it at risk. I am sure we all have to
do it from time to time, but I say that we do so at risk to our institutions
and to ourselves over a period of time if we ignore those particular wishes of
our constituents.
I
say my honourable friends opposite who want to ignore the history that is being
written in big bold letters internationally across this world, help us to make
a better economy, help us to become more competitive in this world, but do not
hide your head in the sand in believing that competitiveness, market‑driven
economy are just a figment of imagination of this Conservative government.
There is today no other way, no other
way. Let us not talk about
collectivism. Let us not talk about
throwing out the profit motive. Let us
not talk about throwing out the need for the economics to drive the
economy. There is no other way. That is being demonstrated not just here but
throughout the world that we live in.
Mr. Acting Speaker, it is being demonstrated and being accepted.
* (1130)
I
have some empathy for that, because I am sure that today, throughout eastern
Europe and in the Soviet Union themselves, there are people who with all their
hearts intellectually believed, were trained throughout their schooling,
throughout their secondary university education, belived with all their heart
that they had indeed found a better way, that the revolution that was sparked
in 1917 by Lenin was indeed a better way.
For them to have to acknowledge as they are acknowledging now, whether
it is by active members like Boris Yeltsin, the leader . . . , who were after
all lifelong communists, lifelong antifree marketage, trained and educated from
kindergarten through to university in that philosophy. They have to face up to the fact that it is
not one that can be relied upon to work.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, I have not made‑‑although the temptation has always
been there when you hear some of the musings and mutterings that come from the
other side. I have always appreciated
the difference between a social democrat or the New Democratic Party and the
Communist Party. Although I must tell
you right in this Chamber that division was not always that clear. It was not always that clear.
This New Democratic Party member, this still
counts among its membership members who up until recently were quite happy to
be associated with the Communist Party of Canada. This democratic party has an Attorney General
who ran for the Communist Party of Canada in a federal election. I would have a great deal more respect for
that gentleman, I can have respect for that gentleman, if today he would say he
would undo the words that he spoke in this Chamber when he said that he had no
reason to change his politics; he had been taught them at his mother's and
father's knees who were long‑time communist supporters of the Stalinist
type.
If
he would today say, I am wrong, I am wrong, what I learned at my mother's and
father's knees was wrong, it was wrong, then I would have a little bit of respect
for the former Attorney General of this province. I would have a little bit more faith in what
is being taught in the University of Manitoba, particularly in the economics
class, if I did not sit here in that chair and listen to the now Dean of Economics,
Cy Gonick, tell us what was wrong with Russian communism was that it did not go
as far as Mao's communism, China. ‑(interjection)‑
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
They are still teaching that. They are still teaching it. I would stop this tomorrow. There would be no need of this except that my
dear friend the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), in this throne speech in
1991, decries the fact that we are market‑driven, decries the fact that
the word "profit" still comes out of our lips from time to time. It is not me; check her speech‑‑the
terrible profit‑driven economy.
Mr.
Speaker, if we have that kind of basic misunderstanding, then we will continue
to talk past each other. If you do not
understand what it is our Premier (Mr. Filmon), what it is our Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness), what we are trying to do. If you do not even understand that, in the
final analysis, will be the deciding factor when a major project like Conawapa
goes ahead. If there is a profit there,
in this case a profit to the people of
I
thank the honourable members for their attention.
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
He
has asked us to look at the issues, the problems before us from a collective,
objective point of view and not a personal anecdotal approach. He has asked us to look at our problems in
the context of the international scene.
He has asked us not to rule out the importance of a viable economy, a
mixed economic approach and a spirit of competitiveness in our society today.
I
want to indicate at the outset that we take all three points very
seriously. We approach this debate and
the current crisis before Manitobans from an objective point of view. Yes, we bring a history, a philosophy, a
background in addressing solutions to those problems. They are not based on personal agendas, and
they are not based on anecdotal approaches to our legislative work.
Mr.
Speaker, we recognize that our concerns and the problems facing Manitobans
today must be looked at in the context of what is happening
internationally. We do so without
beginning from a very confined, blinkered, ideological approach that what is
happening internationally is all good and the way of the future, which is
clearly the premise behind the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns)
comments and, indeed, behind the Speech from the Throne.
Mr.
Speaker, let me clearly put on the record something that has been said time and
time again. Members on this side of the
House, in the New Democratic Party, have always advanced the notion of a mixed
economy, have not dismissed the entrepreneurial spirit in this province and
have worked very hard to ensure an active and diverse business community, and
have particularly singled out the devastating impact of federal and provincial
Conservative policies on the small business sector, the retail activity in this
province and, indeed, across this country.
Our
approach differs from the present government in terms of role of
government. It is our belief that
government has a very clearly defined role to play. It is not a question of a hands‑off
approach as members in the Conservative government of this province and, indeed,
the federal government of Canada are inclined to do and something which has
characterized their approach to decision making over the last six or more
years.
It
is our belief that government's first and foremost priority must be to act, to
show leadership, to redress inequities.
Our first job as legislators is to voice the concerns of the weak, the
powerless, the most vulnerable members in our society.
I
believe that approach to government is what has inspired most of us to enter
politics, regardless of our political differences. However, this country, this province has been
dominated by an ideology which has put aside that fundamental responsibility
and has focused entirely, to use the words of the Minister of Natural Resources
(Mr. Enns), competitiveness, the profit mode, management, market economy, the
free market approach to the extent where those who are most weak, who are
vulnerable, who are powerless in our society today have no voice to their
government, the government they elected to do precisely that.
* (1140)
Mr.
Speaker, every day we are reminded all too painfully of the consequences of
that decision, a decision by this government here in
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
Today to be faced with this recent study by
the National Council of Welfare, the most horrible finding that just about one
in every four children in the province of Manitoba is living in poverty; that,
Madam Deputy Speaker, coupled with the other recent statistics indicating the
high unemployment rate here in Manitoba with Winnipeg being, I believe, the
second highest in terms of major centres in this country; those facts combined
with the emerging news of new food banks springing up everywhere in all parts,
not just in our urban centres, but throughout rural and northern Manitoba, I
cannot believe that members opposite in the Conservative Party are not moved to
reconsider some of their policies and directions based on the impact of their
hands‑off economic policy in their own rural communities.
I
cannot believe that they can sit passively by while food banks spring up in
Beausejour, in Selkirk, in Flin Flon, in Steinbach and so on. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Health
(Mr. Orchard) asked the question, do we want them to close these food
banks? We want this government to carry
out its responsibilities and initiate policies and programs and legislation
that will in fact address the poverty in all parts of our society, the economic
devastation in our farm communities, the increasing number of people and
families who are falling below the poverty line and losing all hope of taking advantage
of these economic opportunities that are supposedly going to come some day
whenever this hands‑off approach of this government reaps its fruit and
its rewards.
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, that approach has
been in effect for a good number of years, for certainly the three years that
this government has been in office and for longer than that if one considers
the over six years of Brian Mulroney hands‑off policies to our
increasingly difficult situation in Canada.
If the statistics do not mean anything to members across the way, if the
fact that over 22 percent of children live in poverty does not matter to them;
if the springing up of food banks all over this province, particularly in rural
Manitoba does not phase them; if the fact that over 10 percent of our
population is officially unemployed, which does not consider for one minute the
thousands and thousands of Manitobans who do not appear on those rolls because
they have given up, because there is no work to be had, no training
opportunities to take advantage of, then surely the impact in very human,
personal ways makes a difference to this government. Surely they are getting the calls, the cries
for help from their constituents as we, on this side of the House, are.
I
do not know about members opposite, but I have a feeling of helplessness, of
despair when I am approached by citizens in trouble and have no answers. I was called not too long ago by a
constituent whose first name is Harry, who had worked for 17 years in the steel
fabrication industry. He was laid
off. He is a proud individual, who said
to me‑‑and I might add, Madam Deputy Speaker, a family person; a
wife who had a little bit of part‑time work but not enough to make ends
meet; two kids, young children, in school with many needs and demands for their
own development, physical and emotional and mental well‑being.
He
tried everywhere. He went to every
related industry in the province and said that he was prepared to take less
wages than he had been making. He sought
out counselling. He looked for training
opportunities, could find nothing.
Because of his pride and his years and years of working hard and
providing for his family he felt that he could not turn to social assistance
and experience a feeling, a belief, that is not unlike thousands and thousands
of other Manitobans who would rather be working with dignity and enjoying some
security than turning to city or provincial governments for assistance.
That feeling led him to the conclusion that
the only option for him was to leave his family, leave his wife and his kids,
pick up without any planning and move to
Madam Deputy Speaker, I tried to advise him
that it was not his personal problem that had caused the situation. He had not brought about this horrible
circumstance, that in fact it was a systemic problem, that in fact it was a
result of government inaction on economic policy, that in fact he had a
responsibility to try to meet the needs of his family, and if the only way to
do that was to turn to assistance for a time, then he should do so. He should
not feel humility, degradation and lack of dignity by turning to social
assistance because of the passive, hands‑off approach of governments of
the day.
* (1150)
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Natural
Resources (Mr. Enns) talked a lot about our responsibility in terms of the
economy and competitiveness, stimulation, getting things moving, without paying
any attention to the human realities of a policy that puts all of their focus,
all of its attention in that direction without regard for human life, need and
dignity. That is a major transgression.
A
second is that this government has chosen to use false economics to make its
case. This government and the Mulroney
government has a brilliant strategy.
Together these two governments for the last six years or more have
concocted the figures, have worked them over, have put thousands and thousands
and millions of dollars into public relations campaigns to convince Canadians
that our problems, our national debt, our deficit financing is all a result of
excessive government spending in the areas of social policy. That is a lie, that is a very big lie. It has no basis in fact, and it is causing, I
am told, misery and harm to our society today.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): This is the big conspiracy.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Health
(Mr. Orchard) sarcastically jumps in and suggests that this is a big
conspiracy. I would suggest to him and
others that they take some time to do some research and get themselves up‑to‑date
with current economic thinking.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would refer the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) to a journal that I am sure he will not just
dismiss as left‑wing propaganda and ask him to consider it
seriously. That is the June 1991 issue
of the Canadian Economic Observer, a very good analysis of spending patterns in
this country since 1975.
That study concludes expenditures on social
programs did not contribute significantly to the growth of government spending
relative to GDP. Another quote, social
program spending has not increased relative to GDP over the last 16 years.
This study, Madam Deputy Speaker, does
identify some of the areas where one can account for the increase in spending
on the part of the federal government.
They particularly single out the fact that over those some 16 years,
corporations benefitted from accelerated depreciation, lower income tax rates
and write‑offs for inventories.
Exemptions to the old federal sales tax were introduced, and the
Department of Finance estimated in 1979 that the cumulated effect of these
changes and others was to lower federal revenues by $14.2 billion.
So,
Madam Deputy Speaker, the first thing I have asked this government to do is to
consider the impact on human lives of their policies. The second thing I have asked them to do is
to consider the economic facts, the truth of federal government spending and
the reasons behind our national debt situation and to stop once and for all
blaming social, health and education programs for the present mess that this
country is in.
That is a red herring, a scapegoat, a myth,
about reality in this country. It is
time that those notions were put to rest and this government woke up to the
realities of the current situation, because if it does not, this government
will not address one in four children living in poverty. It will not address over 10 percent
unemployment. It will not address
declining quality education and it will not address the looming crisis in our
health care system.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we do not have all the
answers or the solutions to the new economic problems facing us now and looming
on the horizon. We do not, as a party,
have up‑to‑date economic policies to address this current unfolding
international situation that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns)
speaks of, which has caused such devastation to our own economy. I speak
specifically of the loss of over 260,000 jobs since the Free Trade Agreement
was brought into effect.
We
have long‑term solutions and a general sense of direction to end some of
those devastating policies, to try as hard as possible to stop the continuation
of such policies and to come in the way of the extension of the Free Trade
Agreement with
There is a sign that this government is at
least waking up to some of the statistics and some of the devastating impact of
federal policies for the
Just a couple of weeks ago, the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) indicated he was alarmed and indicated he had just woken
up to a scenario that has been unfolding over a number of years, which this
government has chosen either to ignore or not to believe. We are not sure which it is. The fact of the matter is the Minister of
Finance did just wake up to that fact even though the Minister of Health has
certainly had all the information before him for a good number of months. ‑(interjection)‑
As
an example, since the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) seems to
question when his colleague the Minister of Finance woke up on the question of
federal financing for health and post‑secondary education, I quote from
the Free Press of November 29 when the Minister of Finance said: "We're alarmed . . . I mean originally
Bill C‑20 was sold as giving effect to their budgetary decisions to cap
growth on assistance.
"I can tell you I'd be absolutely alarmed
and I am alarmed as I gain a greater understanding that this bill might give
those powers to the federal government."
That is a response on November 29 to legislation that was introduced in
June‑‑six months earlier. I
realize six months ago, when that legislation came out, the Minister of
Health's department was not even keeping tabs on that and had to be reminded
and told that federal legislation was introduced.
We
hoped on the basis of that information being provided to the Minister of Health
he would have done his homework, informed his colleagues of the devastating
impact of continuing federal policies on health care financing.
* (1200)
This issue is not new, as I said, it has been
with us for years. It was certainly with
us before 1989 and the 1989 First Ministers' Conference, when the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) of this province said to the Prime Minister of Canada that on health
services and health care financing your government has taken some promising
steps, and that is after the 1985 and 1988 changes and cuts to federal
transfers to the provinces under the EPF act.
So
we are having a little trouble, Madam Deputy Speaker, understanding exactly the
position of this government on that issue and seek some clarification, and hope
that for once this government will stand up to the federal government and show
that it is serious about preserving medicare, because to date we have no
evidence to believe that is the case.
Now
whether it is because this government is reluctant to appear to be in conflict
with their federal cousins, or whether it is because this government is acting
in complicity with a federal agenda of disentanglement, a concept I might
indicate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) gave his name to. ‑(interjection)‑
The motive does not matter, the fact of the matter is that in a few short years
medicare will be a memory and this government, by its inaction, by its agenda
in complicity with the federal government's erosion of medicare, is
responsible.
Make no mistake that this government is
responsible for the erosion of our most treasured national program, a program,
more than any other program, which gives Canadians reason to be proud and feel
that there is a distinct Canadian identity, a program which binds this country
together in the face of all other difficulties, conflict and constitutional
crisis.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not know the
motives of this government for its silence and its inaction on our most
treasured national program medicare, but I do know that if action does not
begin now and this government is not prepared to take on this situation
seriously, then we will see the death of medicare and we will see the end to a
program that has guaranteed access to quality health care as a right, not a
privilege.
It
is interesting when one looks at the Speech from the Throne and puts health
care in that context. That Speech from
the Throne mentions a number of anniversaries ‑(interjection)‑
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Health
is clearly agitated. Something I have
said has caused him to be disturbed. I hope it is the impact of federal cuts to
health care and it is the fact that medicare in this country, as we know it
today, is in trouble.
The
Speech from the Throne makes mention of a number of anniversaries, of special
occasions, of commemorative events. It
is noteworthy that the Speech from the Throne makes not a mention of the 30th
Anniversary of medicare in this country today.
In fact, the Speech from the Throne does not even mention the word
medicare or the federal cuts or the whole issue of financing of health and post‑secondary
education even though we are in the middle of a crisis.
Even worse, health care constitutes about
three or four short paragraphs in a very lengthy document. Despite the fact that health care makes up
more than one‑third of the provincial budget, there is no hint of a plan
of action to deal with this serious crisis.
There is no sign that this government has a vision.
Madam
Deputy Speaker, we have been raising this issue of medicare and quality health
care, universal access to medical services for the last two years on a
consistent, persistent basis, so persistent and so repetitive that the Premier
of this province has suggested that we are‑‑and he has made this
very personal, that I am Chicken Little.
The
Minister of Health has questioned the fact that this has been a major issue in
Question Period and Estimates. I want
him and others to know that the reason for that focus comes out of great worry
and concern and comes out of the strong Canadian tradition that health care is
a right, not a privilege. It comes out
of the well‑established perspective that the best health care services
which are available are something to which people are entitled by virtue of
belonging to a civilized country.
It
also comes, Madam Deputy Speaker, out of a worry about the future of this
country and a belief that medicare is a unifying force, something that binds us
together, something that gives us hope for the future.
I
had hoped, given some of the recent words of this government about federal
policies and some of the expressed concerns about cuts in transfer payments,
which this government knows will now mean the end of health care financing for
this province at the turn of the century, this government would have taken its
concerns to Ottawa in a public way, that it had taken advantage of the few
opportunities that are available to any individual, any organization and indeed
any government for trying to express that opposition and to seek change.
* (1210)
Madam Deputy Speaker, in our parliamentary
tradition one such option is to make presentation, to make submissions, to
appear before committees responsible for legislation. That certainly was the case for Bill C‑20. That bill, which not only extends the freeze
to health care and transfer payments, also makes the suggestion that has
alarmed our Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) here in this province, that this
government will attempt to preserve national standards by withholding money
from other cash transfers to provinces, whether that is assistance to farmers,
whether that is inner‑city programming and whether that is in fact Canada
assistance or equalization dollars.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
I
think that fact has alarmed this government and has caused some worry and
concern, but it did not show that concern by taking advantage of one of the
only opportunities for making the case.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, it would have made a difference.
My
trip to
Finally, a single Conservative member wandered
into the caucus, into the committee room, clearly there to try to suggest
something which is now probably a belief in the minds of all Canadians that
this provincial government supports federal cuts to health care and the
disentanglement concept when it comes to health care.
They drew that conclusion, Mr. Speaker, on the
basis of the fact that I was the only representative from
I
am concerned that at the time Americans are finally coming to the realization
that our system in
I
had the opportunity to visit some centres in the
I
wanted to just conclude my remarks by passing on some of that information and
hoping that it will make a difference.
These are some of the stories I was told. I heard of an individual who actually had to
choose between buying necessary groceries and taking a sick child to a
doctor. I heard from hundreds of
individuals who live in daily fear of having an accident or becoming sick.
I
want to ask the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and others to imagine being a
nurse and having to turn people away from an emergency ward. I want to ask them to imagine coming up with
$150,000 in cash for a liver transplant, and to conclude by saying, let us not
lose the best health care system in the world; let us work together to preserve
medicare.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it 12:30?
Some Honourable Members:
No.
Mr. Speaker: No, okay.
Mr. Bob Rose (
I
should say 56 for, of course, Mr. Speaker, you do not have the opportunity. However, your contribution is unique and it
is equally important. I doubt whether
any of the rest of the MLAs could preside with the same combination of humour
and dignity and fairness as you bring, and I congratulate you for mastery of a
very difficult task.
Despite some obvious differences among our
members, I still remain convinced that all of us do have the well‑being
of our citizens at heart, and that these differences are not so much in
ultimate goals but in the path that leads to those goals.
While the focal point of this debate is the
throne speech, I do enjoy the opportunity to debate and to react to the
thoughts expressed by other members.
While partisan politics, I suppose, discourage ready acceptance of
another point of view, and while many people do think that the debate itself is
a waste of time and trees, who knows what point of view may be altered slightly
or what softening of our hard‑line position may take place as a result of
these debates having in the long term an effect upon our citizens.
I
would first like to comment on the honourable member for
I
look to my seat mate, the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau),
and cannot imagine how anyone of the opposite sex at least would not find him
cuddly. I admit that I was, just
momentarily at least, my male ego was slightly bruised at the thought that
perhaps someone might find the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), for
example, more cuddly than I. I can
conclude, and I think she made the point very clear, that she was referring to
the actions of the present government not we newly elected MLAs.
It
was an interesting observation I thought, because just 15 months ago, on the
campaign trail, I heard the minority government described in a host of
different ways, but never cuddly.
A
few years ago we built a garage on the side of our house. The garage that was
there before was a well‑built garage, but it was inadequate and in the
way of the proposed new garage. We
wanted it in the same place, hence requiring removal before the new project
could begin.
One
day after seeding, my sons and I, with the help of a couple of other young
ambitious fellows, set about to tear down the old garage. Our tools were simple, a sledge hammer and a
chain saw. Our task was fun. It required little thought except what of
value might be saved. Our satisfaction
was substantial when by night we had levelled the structure and were left with
a vacant area.
The
next step, building the new garage, was a different experience. The crew was less enthusiastic, plans were
necessary, decisions had to be made, and inevitably mistakes were made, some of
them irreversible. Tradesmen had to be
employed for the finer aspects. We
became at the mercy of the butterfly‑like habits of tradesmen, lighting
only long enough to attract your attention before flitting off to some other
location. The result was almost a year
to completion. In fact, it was longer if
my spouse had not decided that my good intentions never were going to get the
painting done and hired someone else to do it.
An Honourable Member: How long did it take to tear it down?
Mr. Rose: The tearing down was fast. It was fun.
It was satisfying, but only momentarily.
The building part was slow, frustrating and fraught with error. Despite the gnawing annoyance of mistakes
made, the satisfaction is lasting because we are secure in the knowledge that
not only will we benefit from our new garage, but so will future generations
and those who follow us.
What has this long boring story got to do with
the throne speech, you might ask? Well,
nothing, except that the debate the last few days brought the experience to
mind how much easier it is to tear down than it is to build. Builders make mistakes, destroyers make none,
but let there be no mistake, the satisfaction of an empty space contributing
nothing is fleeting. The satisfaction of building, however imperfect, is long
lasting and of value.
I
congratulate the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) for what I am
sure he considers a victory with the cancellation of The Pines project. I feel sorry for him as well for the
satisfaction will be short lived. There can
be no satisfaction in pointing to a vacant lot and saying, you know, there once
was a service club who wanted to build a housing project for their neighbours,
a project that would have created employment and enjoyment. I worked diligently with my sledge hammer and
my chain saw, and they finally gave up.
Is that not a beautiful vacant lot?
Certainly one of the great philosophical
differences in this Chamber is how to finance our common goal of a better
* (1220)
Our
government is criticized, even ridiculed, for trying to include all our citizens
in the slow and arduous building of our economy, even though no matter what
governments do it is ultimately the citizens who pay because they are the only
source of revenue that a government has.
Our
government is criticized for trying to instill a positive attitude, even though
we know there will always be negative people.
I am reminded of a friend who lived in a tiny trailer in the first years
of marriage and they installed a new refrigerator in extremely tight and
cramped quarters. How many people did it
take to put it in, I asked. Three, he
replied‑‑myself, one of my friends and my father saying, it will
never go, it will never go.
Perhaps if the challenge is not big enough of
getting your economy going again with the excellent suggestions that our
government is embarked upon, if that is not enough already perhaps we do need
the opposition saying, it will never work, it will never work.
What is offered as an alternative? What tools are mentioned in their
constructive criticism‑‑usually two, the sledge hammer of high
taxes and the chain saw of unserviceable debt.
We know with those two tools and given enough time we can reduce the
entire province to a vacant lot.
I
point, Mr. Speaker, to cross‑border shopping as an obvious tax revolt among
our citizens. We know how much cross‑border
shopping does for our
By
the year 2001 the average per person debt servicing cost will be $5,000, by the
year 2011, $50,000. Let there be no
doubt this is no trick arithmetic.
Investment houses advertise to young people that a small monthly
investment will build to a million‑dollar‑plus retirement nest egg,
quite true. Similarly small monthly
borrowings will accumulate to a million‑dollar‑plus debt. It has the same features as a geometric
progression. It can happen.
I
do not suppose even the strongest Tory supporter could have believed only 10
years ago that six years of sledge hammers and chain saws in Manitoba could
have raised our debt servicing costs 1,000 percent.
I
take this very seriously, Mr. Speaker.
There is not room left for rhetoric.
Like all members of the Chamber I recognize the responsibility given to
me by the electors. Even if I do not
have to look the electors in the eye 20 years from now I hope to have some
grandchildren around to look in the eye.
I hope to be able to look those 20‑year‑olds in the eye and
say, my legacy to you is not a vacant lot or a $50,000 annual interest charge
but rather an opportunity to continue the long and slow and arduous task of
building while living within your means.
From time to time different opposition
speakers conclude their gloomy predictions by saying, I hope that I am wrong
for the sake of
I
hope there is a great source of untapped wealth out there hidden in corporate
tax havens or in the sock of some profiteering rascals, but I do not think
there is. Statistics do not show
it. Experience does not show it.
The
member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), in her mostly thoughtful contribution to the
throne speech, longed for a fairer tax system as a solution to all our
woes. It seems odd that when her
colleagues had the opportunity they went after corporations, individual
entrepreneurs and everybody else in sight with a tax on jobs. That certainly put the corporations in their
proper place. The only problem was that
job creators, like corporations and like entrepreneurs, began to think that
their proper place was anywhere else but in
Repeating over and over and over that the
other guy should be paying more taxes is and always has been the politics of
envy. It is and always will be good for nothing but a few votes at election
time.
While we are on the subject of corporations,
Mr. Speaker, I note the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), in his
contribution to the throne speech, took time out from creating vacant lots to
read into the record selected statistics of Canadian companies, their profits,
their contributions to the federal PCs and their Canadian tax
contributions. He neglected to point out
that so‑called tax breaks to corporations are generally recognition by
the government of extra contributions to society, such things as research and
development or job creation or on‑the‑job training, et cetera.
The
inference of course is that if you donate to the PC Party, you do not pay
taxes. I will not even dignify that with
a comment. Let us look at the major
contributors to the NDP as did the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) so
factually, so eloquently and so tellingly.
The figures are in Hansard. I
will not repeat them here. They leave no
doubt, if there ever was any, about union support for the NDP, not necessarily
the support of union members, because they do not often get the choice of where
their hard‑earned union dues are directed when it comes to donations to
political parties but rather the support of the union bosses.
I suppose
that is easy to understand because both the union and their political arm seem
to believe that whatever they want is rightfully theirs even if it requires the
sledge hammer of taxes on somebody else or the chain saw of debt on our
children.
I know,
Mr. Speaker, the honourable member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Connery) put on
the record PSAC president Daryl Bean's definition of a scab as I believe did
also the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine). It has the need for contingent, thoughtful
consideration of us all, not for the purposes of union bashing, not for the
purposes of taking advantage of the public's general impatience with strikes,
but rather to bring us all to the awareness of the need for a thorough
examination of our labour‑management relationships in this country.
Stripped
of all its extraneous material, the simple sin of three grandmothers with a
desire to work, and an expression of concern over intimidation to their
president was responded to by Mr. Bean‑‑and I will not add the
quotation, because it has already been on the record twice.
There
is room to work on that quotation. There
is all kinds of room for witty remarks or rhetoric aimed at the opposition.
Just as members of this Chamber joined earlier in the session in common cause
against violence in our society, so I think we need to join together to examine
our institutions and their relationships that apparently caused a national
leader to respond so reprehensibly.
* (1230)
Yesterday,
we had a thoughtful presentation from the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock). I think among other things he was pointing
out a need for us as legislators, and in a larger sense our citizens, to put
aside ideology and thoroughly examine our advantages and disadvantages and
goals and relationships.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for
The
hour being 12:30 p.m., this House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until
1:30 p.m. Monday.