LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday, March 25, 1992
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I beg to
present the petition of Craig Gill, Vern Ducharme, Ramona Bias and others
requesting the government show its strong commitment to dealing with child
abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign.
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Cindy Rebillard, Judy Trout, Candace Saunders and others requesting the
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) call upon the Parliament of Canada to amend
the Criminal Code to prevent the release of individuals where there is
substantial likelihood of further family violence.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Judith Clayden, Margaret Church, Sandra Skeoch and others requesting the
government show its strong commitment to dealing with child abuse by
considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign.
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Karen Green, John Rempel, Herman Holschen and others requesting the government
to show its strong commitment to dealing with child abuse by considering
restoring the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign.
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member. It complies with the
privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules (by
leave). Is it the will of the House to
have the petition read?
The petition of the undersigned citizens
of the
THAT the bail review provisions in the
Criminal Code of
The problem of conjugal and family
violence is a matter of grave concern for all Canadians and requires a
multifaceted approach to ensure that those at risk, particularly women and
children, be protected from further harm.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
* *
*
I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member, and it complies with the privileges and practices of the
House and complies with the rules (by leave).
Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?
The petition of the undersigned citizens
of the
THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by
all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world;
and
It is the responsibility of the government
to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and
Programs like the Fight Back Against Child
Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with crime;
and
The decision to terminate the Fight Back
Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good citizens to
help abused children.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
* (1335)
I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member, 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
THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by
all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world;
and
It is the responsibility of the government
to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and
Programs like the Fight Back Against Child
Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with crime;
and
The decision to terminate the Fight Back
Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good citizens to
help abused children.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member, 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
THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by
all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world;
and
It is the responsibility of the government
to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and
Programs like the Fight Back Against Child
Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with crime;
and
The decision to terminate the Fight Back
Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good citizens to
help abused children.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
*
* *
I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member, 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
THAT locally controlled public housing
with elected and appointed board members encourages democratic and accountable
decision making; and
Many housing authority boards included
tenants on the board of directors; and
Volunteers serving on boards made
worthwhile contributions to local housing authorities by serving their tenants,
their community and in saving taxpayers' money; and
With no consultation, the provincial
government fired 600 volunteer board members, abolished 98 local housing
authorities, laid off staff and centralized purchasing and administration;
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): Mr.
Speaker, I beg to present the Second Report of the Standing Committee on
Municipal Affairs.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Your Standing Committee
on Municipal Affairs presents the following as its Second Report.
Your committee met on Tuesday, March 24,
1992, at 10 a.m. in Room 255 of the
Dr. Arnold Naimark, Chairperson of the
Board, and Mr. Kent Smith, General Manager, provided such information as was
requested by members of the committee with respect to the annual report and
business of the North Portage Development Corporation.
Your committee reports that it has
considered the March 31, 1991, Annual Report of and matters pertaining to the
North Portage Development Corporation.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mrs. Dacquay: I move, seconded by the honourable member for
Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Subsection 43(1)
of The Fatality Inquiries Act, I am tabling the Fatality Inquiries report for
the year 1991.
* (1340)
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 70‑The Social Allowances Amendment
and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), that Bill 70, The
Social Allowances Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la
Loi sur l'aide sociale et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres
lois), be introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time.
His Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor,
having been advised of the contents of this bill, recommends it to the
House. I would like to table the
message.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 68‑The Public Trustee Amendment, Trustee
Amendment
and Child and Family Services Amendment Act
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 68, The
Public Trustee Amendment, Trustee Amendment and Child and Family Services
Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur le curateur public, la Loi sur les
fiduciaires et la Loi sur les services a l'enfant a la famille), be introduced
and that the same be now received and read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 71‑The Retirement Plan Beneficiaries Act
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), that Bill 71, The Retirement Plan
Beneficiaries Act (Loi sur les beneficiaires des regimes de retraite), be
introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Department of Government Services
RCMP Investigation‑Leasing Branch
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we have been raising questions
about the leasing arrangements with 280 Broadway for a number of months
now. Today we have the information provided
in the warrant made public by the RCMP.
The information confirms that it is indeed the director of leasing
contract and expenditure control of the Manitoba Department of Government
Services who is involved in the investigation by the RCMP. We are very concerned about answers we
received in this House from the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme)
last week wherein the Minister of Government Services stated that the
department had no relationship in terms of this investigation, no relation to
the landlord.
Mr. Speaker, information filed with the
RCMP indicates that a million dollars was provided to the company 72398 of two
partners, Mr. Shenkarow and Mr. Kozminski.
That money in turn was paid to Bachman and Associates, which in fact is
a company that is owned partially by Mr. Bachman and also by Mr.
Shenkarow. So clearly there is a
contradiction in the information that was provided by the government.
Would the Deputy Premier now confirm that
in fact the landlord was involved in receipt of money, was involved in the
receipt of the contract and did in turn flow money that eventually is in
investigation with the RCMP warrant that was tabled in the information today?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker,
I would take that question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Government
Services (Mr. Ducharme) to ensure that a full and complete answer is provided
to the member for the question asked.
Internal Audit‑Leasing Branch
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we are also very concerned on
information contained within the audit that the date of cancellation of the
original tender, according to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), was January 21, 1991. The Premier stated in this House in April of
1991 that Treasury Board had nothing to do with the cancellation of the
tendering. It was the Department of
Government Services that had cancelled the open‑tendering process and
went ahead with the closed‑tendering process.
The RCMP in their affidavit and
information in the warrant today state that the dates under investigation for
the director of leasing of Government Services include dates of January 1,
1991, to December 11, 1991.
Given that the date of January 21 was the
date on which the Premier alleges Government Services cancelled the open‑tendering
process, can the government advise us of what steps they have taken in terms of
the investigation of the leasing arrangement with the director and the two
parties who received the lease from the government?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Minister of Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, again I will take the question as notice on behalf of the minister to
provide the appropriate information.
* (1345)
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, again the government stated, in
questions we had last week in the Legislature, that the irregularities, the so‑called
irregularities which we had to raise in this House based on the RCMP raid two
weeks ago, were not communicated publicly by the government. The so‑called irregularities, the
information they are looking at includes tendering documents and other
documents pertaining to the original lease agreement.
Could the government advise us how they
could possibly say that that had nothing to do with the original landlords and
the original decision on 280 Broadway?
Mr. Ernst: Again, Mr. Speaker, I will take the question
as notice.
North American Free Trade Agreement
Government Action
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, members of
this Chamber and perhaps Manitobans were surprised to learn in 1988, when we
were discussing the Free Trade Agreement with the
Yesterday we found out that the Deputy
Premier (Mr. Downey) has not read any of the documents relating to the North
American free trade agreement. In
addition, yesterday, the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) added another condition to
the list of six conditions he now has tabled publicly under which he would
support a North American free trade agreement.
My question to the Deputy Premier is: If the government proceeds, as it is apparent
it is intending to do, to sign this agreement before an election some time late
in 1993, how is the opposition that this government says it will proclaim, if
these conditions are met, to manifest itself?
What is the government going to do if the federal government continues
to ignore the warnings of the Premier and members on this side?
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, as the member has made reference
to me not having read the free trade agreement, it would be very difficult to
read it when I in fact have not had a copy of it, which I indicated as well.
The additional comments and questions that
the member has raised deal with the further involvement in any free trade
agreement. We have clearly put our
position forward as to the conditions that have to be met before there is any
consideration of support by this government.
Mr. Storie: Well, Mr. Speaker, mindlessly opposing
something without laying out a concrete plan of action so the people of
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Provincial Jurisdiction
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, my question is again to the
Deputy Premier.
Can the minister explain why he has not
taken time to read the documents that the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) says are available to him, which explain the apparent
giving away of provincial jurisdiction over trucking, energy policy, industrial
development policy and health care? Can he explain why he has not read the
document when those provincial jurisdictions are at risk under this agreement?
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, the member well knows that there
are different ministerial responsibilities within government. What I indicated to him is that I have not
read the trade agreement that is being proposed because I have not seen a copy
of it. He makes reference to the fact
that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) has it. I am
not debating that. What I am telling him
is that I have not read it because I have not seen it.
Election Call
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, one final question to the Deputy
Premier.
Will the Deputy Premier undertake today
for the people of
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of this
government to act responsibly as it relates to trade within
* (1350)
Judicial System
Court Transcription Service
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Justice. On January 4, 1991, 14
months ago, a memo from the minister's department said with respect to the new
court reporter machines being brought in, and I quote: "Every new system requires a start‑up
period.
"We should have a smoother, more
efficient system in place shortly. It is
clear that a new system could be developed that would lower overall costs while
retaining the benefits of such advanced systems. We will be striving to achieve this goal over
the next year."
I want to table a copy of that memo, Mr.
Speaker. It has now been more than a
year since that memo and since the minister made that commitment. Thanks to the minister's actions, it now
takes weeks instead of days in northern
My question, Mr. Speaker, is: Will the minister today table evidence, if he
has it, to substantiate his claim that court reporter machines instead of
people in northern
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I
will bring the specifics of the matter raised by the honourable member today to
the attention of officials in my department and ascertain if there is any truth
to the preamble of the honourable member's question, and if there is, deal with
the matter, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, again for the Minister of Justice.
Can the minister explain why on March 19,
last Thursday, in Thompson, Judge Howell, when he asked to see a transcript of
a preliminary hearing in a sexual assault case, had to be told that the machine
had not been working in
Mr. McCrae: I remind the honourable member that there were
tape recordings of court trials in
Mr. Edwards: The fact is that northerners are receiving, at
the hands of this minister, second‑class justice.
Mr. Speaker, can the minister further tell
members why Judge Gregoire had to send a plane back to Thompson from Oxford
House to get a new machine because the one they brought broke, and why two
weeks ago at a trial on a charge of drunken driving, a matter dear to this
minister's heart, not one but two monitors broke, meaning that one trial
started at 4:30 p.m. and the other at 8:30 p.m., resulting in all staff getting
overtime pay after sitting for a day while waiting for the third machine to
arrive?
Where was the smoother more efficient system,
Mr. Speaker, and why is this minister unaware of the regular‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Mr. McCrae: I appreciate the honourable member is
attempting to be helpful, Mr. Speaker, and help us to ensure that whatever
wrinkles there are in the system are ironed out. I am sure that the honourable member will
also want to be helpful in asking his colleagues in the bar to co‑operate
and not carry forward on threats to slow down the justice system.
Home Care Program
Privatization
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Each day we hear this government saying
they are increasing spending in home care.
I find this statement very questionable in light of a letter that has
been sent to a family of a client receiving home care, a letter which I would
like to table.
The letter states that household
maintenance will be cut, and I quote:
"Would you then be able to help your mother find someone to hire
privately to assist?"
In light of this letter, Mr. Speaker, I
want to ask the minister: Is he
privatizing the home care service, thus those who have money will be able to
have service and the poor will continue to suffer or end up in hospitals?
* (1355)
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Unequivocally, no, Mr. Speaker.
Service Reduction
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I want to ask the minister: Does he feel that cleanliness is not part of
staying healthy? How can he allow his
staff to take away services, such vital services, from our seniors,
particularly people‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. There is a question.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated to my
honourable friend when she raised this issue some month ago, and last week and
probably next week and probably the week after, there is a process of
reassessment in the Continuing Care Program.
That process of reassessment has been part of the program since 1974
through successive governments that have administered the program. That reassessment is undertaken by
professionals. They make the judgment as
to whether services are appropriate, need to be increased or can be decreased.
Based on that professional assessment,
services are either maintained, increased or decreased. In the areas where they are decreased, my
honourable friends receive letters. In
the areas where they are increased or maintained, my honourable friend does not
receive any letters.
Mr. Speaker, the application of
reassessment of the principles and policies of the program have remained
consistent through four successive governments since 1974.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, the letter says‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has tabled the
letter. The honourable member, kindly
put your question, please.
Ms. Wowchuk: To the same minister: Has he changed the mandate for delivery of
home care services? Has housekeeping
service, which was an essential part of the health care environment up until
now, been removed, and has the mandate of his department been changed for the
delivery of home care service?
Mr. Orchard: Again, Mr. Speaker, no. That is what I told my honourable friend in
conversation last week. That is
identically the policy that my honourable friend had since 1974. Let me even further explain for my honourable
friend because my honourable friend fails to understand the policies put in
place in 1974. I do not need to remind
you who was government in 1974.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, in 1985 the
government in power, and I need not remind you who that was, established a
program called Support Services to Seniors which funded in the communities the
salaried cost of a volunteer co‑ordinator. That volunteer co‑ordinator was to work
with community organizations, groups and volunteers to establish housecleaning
services, home maintenance services, laundry services that the individuals in
the community could access rather than have those services always provided by
the taxpayers, a policy of the NDP that we happen to agree with.
Endangered Spaces
Tall Grass Prairie Program
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) made a
promise in the last election to spend some $250,000 to protect
My question is for the Minister of Natural
Resources. Is the 20‑hectare site
near Regent and
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, I am aware of the site that the honourable member refers to. It is being actively considered as part of
the overall acquisition of tall grass prairie sites in our Endangered Spaces
Program, and hopefully, something can be arranged. I understand that there are still some
negotiations that have to take place with the city administration with respect
to proceeding with that at this time.
Ms. Cerilli: I thank the minister for that answer.
Considering this program to purchase 640
acres when there is only a month left, can the minister inform the House how
much of this area has been set aside to be purchased?
Mr. Enns: I am assuming that she is now talking about
the overall commitment of 640 acres.
Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable
members would appreciate that it is difficult to be precise. We are working with organizations such as the
Manitoba Naturalists Society. We were
able to acquire some substantial acreage in the southeast portion of the
province, in that of my honourable friend from Emerson.
It is my hope and certainly my commitment
and that of this government that we live up to the commitments made. Whether we will be able to do that
categorically on calendar dates is not entirely in my hands. It also calls upon the co‑operation of
nongovernmental agencies, landowners and/or other jurisdictions, as is the
specific site that she mentioned in the Transcona region.
* (1400)
Endangered Spaces
Tall Grass Prairie Program
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): My final supplementary on the same issue is
for the Minister of Environment.
Will the Minister of Environment make a
commitment to have the Clean Environment Commission, not another body, conduct
a full environment assessment on any construction by the city to put a
thoroughfare through the Regent and
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I am
aware of that site and aware of the issue that surrounds the protection of that
historic prairie grass, but I do not believe that at this juncture I am
convinced that bringing the Clean Environment Commission in would be beneficial
to the process. I am not eliminating any
possibilities, but at this point, that is not my intent.
Rent Regulations
Enforcement
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
A few weeks ago we raised the issue of
tenants paying higher rent than normally allowed by the law. The minister said that she could do nothing
because the illegal increase was implemented under the former landlord. There are two parties who have been
victimized, the new tenants and the new landlord. Can the minister tell this House why she
sides with the previous landlord, why she is abandoning the tenants and also
the new landlord, and why is she not upholding her own law?
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for The Maples
for the question. As the member knows,
and we have discussed this before, the problem with this particular situation
is the interpretation of a section of the act which indicates that for a two‑year
period prior to a change in ownership, the new owner can be held responsible
for actions taken, but prior to that period, he cannot.
Legal opinion that we have obtained on
this issue indicates that there is nothing further that can be done.
Legal Opinion Request
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, can the minister table the legal
opinion in this House, please?
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I do not have that legal opinion
here with me, but I do believe that the individual who contacted my department
on this issue has been sent a copy of the legal opinion.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell this House
why she would not table the legal opinion?
The minister has known the issue for four weeks. Why will we not have that report so that we
can make a judgment call also?
Mrs. McIntosh: I have not been asked until this point for
the actual legal opinion wording. I have
given the legal opinion; I have explained the legal opinion. I understand that the individual whom the
member is raising the issue for has a copy of the legal opinion and in fact is
a lawyer himself.
Home Care Program
Service Reduction
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Clearly this letter marks a change in
policy, the end to universal access to quality home care services. Mr. Speaker, that is the beginning of the end
of universal medicare services, something that this minister says he supports,
and he is not supporting, a clear indication of this government's true feelings
about medicare.
Why, Mr. Speaker, has this government
suddenly denied people whose medical circumstances have not changed, who are
well on in their years, 80 and 90 years old, who were dependent upon homemaking
services, to stay in their homes and out of costly institutional care? Why has this government changed that policy,
taken away that vital service and told them to go‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, at the risk of my honourable
friend's‑‑what is the phraseology?‑‑shouting and
yelling about an issue, my honourable friend might want to revisit (a) the
policy which founded and underpinned the Continuing Care Program in 1974. My honourable friend will find out, should
she choose to read that policy, two things:
that it has not changed since 1974; and secondly, that the policies
around the application of the home care rules, procedures, have not changed
since 1974 through four successive governments.
Secondly, my honourable friend might want
to research the cabinet papers that were passed, establishing the program
called Support Services to Seniors, while my honourable friend, I believe, was
in the Howard Pawley cabinet making those kinds of decisions. My honourable friend will find that the
Support Services to Seniors program was established through, as I explained in
an earlier answer, funding for the retention of a volunteer co‑ordinator
so that services such as homemaking and other nonmedical services could be
provided through not‑for‑profit service delivery in the community
to help as an additional instrument of independent living for seniors,
established under good policy by my NDP friend, consistently applied today.
-s. Wasylycia-Leis: I would simply like this Minister of Health to
account for this dramatic shift in health care policy where they have now ended
a universally accessible program and expect senior citizens who need this
service to turn to private entrepreneurs to purchase those necessary health
care services.
* (1410)
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of raising my voice and
delivering an inappropriate and alarmist‑motivated answer, I will be calm
as my honourable friend shrilly denounces and announces the end of universal
medicare‑‑such silliness, such abject silliness.
Mr. Speaker, the medical services that my
honourable friend refers to are house cleaning, the very services that in 1984,
1985, when she sat in government, supported a program called Support Services
to Seniors to undertake at not‑for‑profit in the communities. Charging the people who used the program in
1985, when she was in government, for house cleaning has been maintained. We believe that policy initiative of the NDP
in 1984‑85 was a good one, and in fact, we are building on it again this
year.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in this letter to
say‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Is the minister now saying that homemaking
services, once considered an essential part of our home care program,
universally accessible to all regardless of income, or geography, or status in
life, is he now saying that this is the end of that important part of home care
and our health care system and that in fact seniors must turn to private
entrepreneurs and, if they cannot afford it, either will do without, or end up
in expensive, costly institutional care?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, one of the strangest phenomenons
that I have witnessed in the four years I have been Minister of Health is the
convoluted twisting‑and‑turning‑around policy initiatives
that the NDP, when in government, brought in, introduced an alternate mechanism
for home cleaning services, so that the program as supplied by the taxpayers
would not be called on to provide house cleaning services‑‑a
perfectly common‑sense approach to policy development by Howard Pawley,
the NDP and assisted by this member.
Now when the wisdom of their action in
government is being questioned by the critic in opposition, where is the NDP
coming from? I mean, that program of
Support Services to Seniors that is introduced after being researched and
recommended by very, very competent individuals in the ministry of Health, who
are still there‑‑and that policy is one of the best ones in
Now my honourable friends want to turn
their back on good public policy that even they had the common sense to bring
in. I find that shameful.
North American Free Trade Agreement
Impact Agricultural Industry
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Findlay) for
At the same time the federal government is
mouthing lukewarm support, their actions shine through insofar as the North
American free trade agreement when they use the tariffication proposal, which
would be so harmful to Canadian farmers, as the basis for their position on
agriculture. They say tariff
equivalents, and I quote: resulting from
the conversion of nontariff barriers into customs tariff rates shall be reduced
in accordance with the schedules relating to each party, incorporated into the
general agreement on tariffs and trade
That is the position they put forward in
that agreement. That means the end of orderly marketing.
I ask this Deputy Premier what
representation he has made or he intends to make to stop this damaging position
by
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the
provincial Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) and this government have
represented the farm community responsibly as it relates to the issue which the
member raises and will continue to do so.
I can tell you there is constant contact
and consultation with the agricultural community, with the farm community,
which I believe is truly reflecting the interests of
Mr. Plohman: He puts his confidence in Mulroney, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, again let me reiterate for the
members opposite. This government is
continuing to carry out policies and put forward our position in the interests
of the farmers of
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, since the Deputy Premier does not
understand this agreement‑‑he has not read it, by his own admission‑‑will
he just use good common sense and call upon the federal government to end this
damaging process which will do irreparable harm to
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the best
interests of Manitobans will continue to be put forward, unlike the track
record of him and his government when he was in office that devastated this
province, that devastated the agricultural community and devastated the ability
for this province to compete in the international marketplace.
Education System
Transportation Report
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my question
is directed to the Minister of Education.
Can the minister advise whether or not the
bus transportation privatization study, undertaken by the former minister at a
cost of half a million dollars, has been submitted to her? It was scheduled to be submitted by the end
of last month.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, there was in fact a study being done on transportation, and it did
develop a number of issues which it was examining. They have not submitted the
report to me at this time.
Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister indicate whether or not she
has been given any indication when this study will be submitted and whether or
not she will make it public?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, I am encouraging that committee to
do its work very carefully. With
seriousness, I would like to have a report that is going to be very helpful to
my department, to this government, to the people of
Health Care System
Cataract Surgery
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister of Health.
I have a constituent who has been nearly
totally blind since July of 1991 and therefore cannot work or function around
the house, resulting in considerable hardship for himself and his wife. He has been on a waiting list since October
of 1991, and it now seems that he is going to have to wait yet another year,
Mr. Speaker, before he can have his cataracts removed at the
I would like to ask the Minister of
Health: How can we truly say that we
have an accessible universal medicare system if citizens have to wait more than
a year, in this case about a year and a half, for this type of surgery?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my
honourable friend might be interested in knowing‑‑and I do not have
the numbers in front of me, but I will certainly make them available to him‑‑that
in 1987‑88 or thereabouts, and the timing was prior to us coming into
government, I believe the figures are that the government of the day funded
some 2,400 cataract surgeries per year.
Currently, we expect to approach 4,400 cataract surgeries per year. One can acknowledge that is a fairly
significant increase in the cataract surgery program.
Now, Mr. Speaker, individual physicians,
ophthalmologists, maintain their waiting lists, and they prioritize them so
that individuals most urgently in need of the procedure are advanced on the
list. I would be pleased to take the
details of this individual's case for my honourable friend and find out whether
there are specific reasons around this placement on the waiting list, Sir.
Mr. Evans: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister‑‑I
appreciate his offer. What are people on
modest incomes in this province supposed to do when they cannot afford to pay
the thousands of dollars that are usually required in these private clinics and,
as in this case, where the family income is $600 a month?
* (1420)
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why we have
medicare where there are no costs for those procedures. If my honourable friend wishes to provide me
with the details of this particular individual circumstance, I will be more
than pleased to investigate it and provide my honourable friend and his
constituent with whatever information I can ascertain around the circumstances
that he brings to the House.
North American Free Trade Agreement
Information Tabling Request
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy
Premier again.
Earlier this morning, the Deputy Premier
acknowledged that he had not read the North American free trade agreement even
though the draft agreements are available in the Minister of Industry, Trade
and Tourism's (Mr. Stefanson) office.
My question to the Deputy Premier is: Will he now access those documents and have
some of the front bench read them and perhaps as a courtesy also provide all of
the documents that this government has on the North American free trade
agreement, provide them to members of the opposition, both parties on this
side, so that at least we may be well informed about the implications of this agreement?
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, this
particular issue is being handled by the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism. I can assure him that the
minister will comment, answer his questions on his return to this Legislative
Assembly and answer any of the questions that he has to deal with at that time.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
Nonpolitical Statements
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): May I
have leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable minister have leave to
make a nonpolitical statement?
Leave? Agreed.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, over the past few days, we have
seen several honourable members in the Chamber rise to congratulate teams and
individuals for achieving national and provincial championship status.
Today, Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to
congratulate two hockey teams from my constituency for achieving the provincial
championship status. First of all, I
would like to congratulate the Russell‑Roblin Barley Kings Bantam team
and their coaching staff, I might say, for winning the provincial gold medal in
their category in Lundar.
Secondly, I would like to congratulate the
Russell Peewee hockey team and their coaches for winning the provincial
championship status in their category.
Mr. Speaker, this has been an excellent
year in hockey in my community, and we have had three provincial championship
teams. I would like to congratulate all the coaching staff, the players and
indeed the constituency and the community for their effort, their commitment
and indeed this noteworthy accomplishment. Thank you very much.
*
* *
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Might I have leave to
make a nonpolitical statement?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable minister have leave to
make a nonpolitical statement?
Leave? Agreed.
Mr. Ashton: Today is a significant day for Greeks
throughout the world. It marks the
anniversary of the independence of
Mr. Speaker: As long as the honourable member provides
translation.
Mr. Ashton: I am sure the Minister of Urban Affairs will
be listening intently.
[Greek
spoken]
[Translation]
Today is a significant
day for Greeks throughout the world. It marks the anniversary of the
independence of
Last Saturday, I was
pleased to join with Minister Jim Ernst, Councillor Peter Diamant, president of
the Greek community of
On behalf of all members
of the Legislature, I would like to recognize the importance of today which
represents so much about the freedom and independence of
[English]
Mr.
Speaker, in English, long live the 25th of March, 1821. Long live the Greeks of
the world.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the honourable member for
Thompson to provide translation to Hansard.
You will provide translation to Hansard, please, later? Thank you.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Urban Affairs): May I have leave for a nonpolitical statement?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable minister have leave to
make a nonpolitical statement?
Leave? Agreed.
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, firstly, I want to offer my
congratulations to the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) on a stirring speech.
On Saturday evening last, Mr. Speaker, in
celebration with the Greek community of March 25, the liberation of
*
* *
Mr. Jack Penner
(Emerson): Might I have leave to make a nonpolitical
statement?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Emerson have
leave?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr. Speaker: Leave.
It is agreed.
Mr. Penner: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to
rise in the House today to congratulate a team of girls, a basketball team that
is home to the smallest school district in this province, namely, the
This is, I believe, quite an outstanding
accomplishment for this school. There
are only 17 girls in this school, and eight of them make up the basketball
team. I think these girls, their
principal and the school need to be congratulated for having the heart to play,
first of all, to form a team and having the courage to go out and compete and
win the AA championship in the
* (1430)
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, with reference to Orders of the Day, we would like, I understand, to
continue with Interim Supply. If that is
completed during the time for regular business, then we would ask to call for
second reading of Bill 64 and followed for continuation of debate on second
reading in this order: Bills 53, 12, 14
and 48.
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 67‑The Interim Appropriation Act, 1992
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), Bill 67, The Interim Appropriation Act,
1992, Loi de 1992 portant affectation anticipee de credits, standing in the
name of the honourable member for
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
I want to start off, because I only have a
very short period of time this afternoon, with the letter that was sent to me
from the Manitoba Intercultural Council, or that was faxed to me. I wanted for the Minister of Culture,
Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson) more so to take it as notice, so
that when we enter into the committee stage of Interim Supply that I will be
asking extensively regarding some of the questions in regard to what actions
the minister is taking on this particular report.
I wanted to cite very quickly the one
paragraph, Mr. Speaker, because it basically says a lot in terms of what I
tried to raise yesterday in the House.
It reads, MIC in the letter to the Honourable Bonnie Mitchelson,
Minister responsible for Multicultural Affairs, encourage her to do everything
in her power to help MLAs become more sensitive to all segments and cultural
groups in
Mr. Speaker, what that does is it
reinforces the need inside this Chamber to have that cross‑cultural made
available for every member of this Legislative Chamber. That is how I wanted to end off my speech on
Interim Supply and encourage the minister to think between now and whenever we
do go into the committee stage as to when she would bring forward that cross‑cultural
course for the MLAs in this Chamber.
I would encourage her to in fact bring
forward a date as opposed to have to put it off indefinitely or leaving an open‑ended
situation in which it could be two, three, four, five, six months or who knows
when. I really encourage the minister to
come forward with a day set for the MLAs of this Chamber.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate
in this debate. I have a very serious
concern and I want to share it with the members of this House, in keeping in
the spirit with the budget and the people.
The dignity of an individual and a person,
whether that person is an MLA or an ordinary person in this province of ours, I
think that is the issue here. Whatever
we do in this House, whatever the government does, that message has to be to
help people whether financially to continue with their lives and also to make
sure that their dignity and their rights are protected. Mr. Speaker, we are
here to protect people, not to undermine any specific group or any specific
person.
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on the budget,
and I made it very clear that there are a lot of good things in this budget,
many good things. I was very
disappointed, and I thought that if I do not speak then it could be taken that
I am complying with what the member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) has said in this
House. When we talk about the freedom of speech, the freedom of right, I think
we have to make sure that my freedom of speech does not cause a pain for others
who cannot defend for themselves. Mr.
Speaker, that is the issue, whether we can talk about the budget of this
government or as the elected officials in this House. I am not accusing a particular party
here. I want to make it very clear.
The Premier (Mr. Filmon) made it very
clear that is not the policy of this administration, but as a symbol we are
sending signals which are not positive, and they are not positive in the sense
that they are harming individuals emotionally and not making them productive citizens
of this province. I think that is the
issue, whether we are going to treat people equally, whether we are going to
treat them as mere symbols or we are going to give them the real rights, and
the real rights must have some meaning attached to that.
Mr. Speaker, I was very disappointed. One can draw a lot of conclusions if you are
making a statement once. It could be a
slip of the tongue or it could be simply a mistake, but when you repeat over a
period of time and when you do it on a voluntary basis there has to be
something which is underneath which is causing such a disruption in an
individual's mind, that person can become not very realistic.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay,
Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
If a particular member in this House wants
to have those things put on the record and wants to defend those kinds of
things, I think that individual, whether of any party, they should tell the
voters at that time. I do not think we
can take a privileged position and attack people, and not only one group but
attack even the basis of our society, the equality on the basis of sex even,
Madam Deputy Speaker. That has even been
attacked in this budget. I was very sad. That is why I am replying, otherwise I would
have not.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if you do not raise
your concerns‑‑whether that will change an individual we do not
know, but at least if we can convince that person without an argument, that we
can tell that person, please, whatever you say you should have total background
information. We cannot focus on one area
and say, well, that is my belief and I am going to impose on somebody else.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the province is
different than what an individual member thinks. It is not a question of colour and race. It is a question of people of all races and
all colours and all backgrounds and all beliefs and all philosophies. If the government or a member of the
government or an individual member is going to send those signals, they are not
making best use of people in this province.
It is very dangerous.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been in this
House for almost four years, and the kind of respect and the kind of
understanding I have with all the members is unheard‑‑it is a very
good understanding. I want to continue
that kind of understanding, and convince, if somebody has not changed I can try
and sit down with that person and try to explain.
The Minister of Culture, Heritage and
Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson) has done exceptionally well. If you go outside the community, the message
is very, very positive. I want to be
very clear on those things. I am not
accusing any particular party here. I am
just simply making a case that there must be some kind of mechanism that people
who are not in this Chamber they have the right to come and ask a particular
individual why that kind of freedom of speech is having implications on
somebody who cannot defend herself or himself.
Attacking the major policy of his own government in terms of affirmative
action or pay equity, saying it is one of the stupidest things in the whole
world, that is a bizarre statement, because that does not fly with the common
sense of individuals.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is very, very
frightening when people in this House are making these kinds of
statements. It was not that somebody was
forcing somebody's arm or twisting somebody's arm, it was done on a voluntary
basis. That even makes it worse.
Madam Deputy Speaker, many members of this
House have been to many ethnic organizations' committee meetings. They have been well received. They are given their due respect. They are doing whatever is possible within
their means, but when one person does certain things, I think it does not send
the right message. For me to just accept
it and not say anything, I think I would be showing a weakness, and I do not
want to do that. I want to make it very
clear that this government should tell its members that that kind of behaviour
is not acceptable.
Some editorial board will write that
freedom of speech is well in this country, but any freedom of speech which is
going to be freedom of pain for somebody else is not freedom of speech.
* (1440)
Madam Deputy Speaker, the kind of work the
ethnic organizations have done and the ethnic backgrounds like Ukrainians,
Jews, you name it, every ethnic background, every person is ethnic other than
the aboriginal people of this country.
So that means that the member is attacking even the existence of each
and every member? That is not the case.
I think each and every individual, I do
not think there is a question of colour anymore, it is a question of a person
making sure that you are not attacking the person on a basis which may or may
not be under his control. I do not think
we have the right to change how an individual lives, as long as people are
following the laws of this land.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is very, very sad
that I have to speak on this issue today.
I think every member was talking on our behalf. It is not only me here, we are talking about
1.13 million people, people who watch the TV and have a look at that kind of
message that was given outside the House about the button. The message was, I do not care about the
button, it is up all in here.
That kind of image on students is very
dangerous. They want to learn good
things, and if we are going to set the standard as an elected official, whether
through the budget or our bills, our laws have to be set in the tone of individual
rights. I must say that whenever I go
and meet with all individuals, and I am not working for a specific group, we
all work for each and every person. I
think if we continue to do that, I think we will do a good service, and we can
make the best use of each and every person to their best capability.
People in this province are not going to
disappear. They are going to be
here. As long as we can continue to work
with them, all of them, we can achieve what is the goal of this government, and
the goal is a very noble one. The goal
is to have a prosperous and peaceful life.
How can that kind of life be achieved if we have this kind of statement,
which is causing us damage?
If somebody was saying outside this House
on the street or in their house, we can say, well, maybe the person is not well
informed, but a minister of Crown, who was a minister of Crown, and then a
member of this House, has said those things‑‑very, very sad.
I had a private discussion with him, Madam
Deputy Speaker, tried to convince him, but I am not going to quote some private
discussion because that is not fair. I
will say what I have read on the record, what I have seen on the TV, and
whatever message has gone across. It is
very sad, very dangerous, and I think people should realize that this kind of
behaviour will not be tolerated. I do
not think we can try to differentiate individuals on the basis of a specific
direction. You have to give whatever‑‑as
a government you can try to provide atmosphere.
Nobody is asking for handouts.
Nobody is asking to give them jobs, and he said that we are putting
individuals on affirmative action who are not qualified. That simply is nonsense. That is not true.
People who get jobs on those kinds of
policies, they have to work harder because they have even justified even though
normally they do not and they should not.
That is very wrong, and I am so glad that member is not a minister of
this Crown.
Madam Deputy Speaker in my four‑year
term I have never raised an issue about any minister, because I know all of
them. They are the best we can have in
this province. They are giving the best
time of their life to build this province, but even if one person does
something it does reflect, the same as with a family. If one member of the family is doing
something wrong it reflects on the whole family. We are talking about the whole society. We are not talking about one person.
That is why when in the 1990
I think we should forget about what is
going to happen to a specific group, whether the uniform of the RCMP has changed
or not. I do not want to go into that
history, because I do not know the history fully, but members should know that
the people with the turban did serve in the Second World War hand in hand with
the army of this country. They did. That issue was very well explained. It was very well solved by members raising
this issue in this House.
In trying to feed on the emotion of
poverty and economic despair we see today, if you want to fuel any kind of
anger, when they are down, kick them.
No, we have so many unemployed people, and when you tell them something
like this, you are giving them a wrong direction. Telling them, go and attack these
people. Ask them the question, why are
you working, why am I not working? It is
basically a divide‑and‑rule policy, and I hope that that is not the
intention of that member.
It is very sad that in four years' time we
cannot convince each other that people are equal. It is very simple, you do not need a 50
percent vote to win. You can go outside
and work for the 34 percent of the people and win. But that is not the issue. When you come into this House, you work for
each and every person.
I know at my heart that I have never,
never raised an issue when it is not required, when it is not justifiable. I have done it on a nonpolitical basis, and
will continue to do so. That is not my
nature because I think people in this House, on the government side, as I have
said, are decent individuals.
No question about that. They have families, they have values, they
are working for all of us, and they work very hard. That is why I have said
many times that it is a shame to see that these people who have given their
life, and when people who do not understand the type of job, they raise
questions, because we are giving them platform to do exactly what they want to
do.
Madam Deputy Speaker, what is the
conscience of our country or your country or my country or somebody else's
country? It is basically a country of
people. If you cannot make happy the
individual who lives in the country, how can you call it a country? What is happening with the Constitution? These kinds of remarks do not help us at all.
You are taking advantage of poor,
innocent, uneducated and now unemployed, and the economic poverty. You go on TV and make your remarks. The only party that can do it may be the
Reform Party. That kind of attitude does
exist, but now they are also learning, they are changing, because they know
that to get their way, the way they want to go, they still need a consensus.
I know every party's policies are changing
and that is positive, if we can change even them. But, if anybody thinks that any one of the
members, including this side or that side, is going to accept behaviour like this,
I think we are dreaming. I mean,
individuals read these things; people are not stupid; they understand. They may not say something, but eventually
they will come after you because you are not doing your job properly.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is why I said
in the beginning of my budget speech last week that government has done a
number of good things. But, to keep the
confidence of people, they have to have the actual moral confidence rather than
the electoral confidence which is a very, very delicate.
Democracy is very delicate. One can abuse it very easily. I think this is abuse of democracy when you
are talking about the freedom of speech, but at the same time trying to do harm
to people when they are not here to defend themselves. Why do they not go outside and accuse
somebody in the gatherings, and do it on the election platform? Then people can make an informed choice. Then it is a different thing.
* (1450)
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of
Justice (Mr. McCrae) and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) said in 1988 and in a very
decent way, we will accept. We were so
happy, so were the NDP Leader, Mr. Doer, and, of course, Mrs. Carstairs. It was a very positive, uniform approach to a
very delicate issue, and in a very delicate time. Now things are changing back because we see
the Reform Party is preaching something which an individual may like. Why do they not join the Reform Party and
drum for themselves rather than sit in this House and do something and say
something which is not true to their own philosophy, whether you are a party
member or you are a member of this House or you are not?
If you are going to vote for the budget,
then say it, that you are voting for the budget, on all the aspects of the
budget. I said that I liked a few things in the budget, and I would like to see
more things, but when I read these comments, on a voluntary basis‑‑I
am not accusing anyone, any party. I
want to make that very clear. I have
said it many times. I am not going to
make poltiical hay out of this nonsense, but I want to express my wishes. I want to express in a very meaningful way
that this kind of behaviour is not acceptable.
I am not raising a specific policy of the
government in terms of what you are doing financially. I am talking about a moral obligation of the
provincial government. If the member
does not like it, then he should say so.
It is very, very sad that rather than to
work in a consensus, we are working in opposite directions. These kinds of things are going to come in
that debate on the Constitution in a few months. We are all going to talk about those
things. Then I think we will see whether
all of us are working for all people or working for a special group of
people. It is not that easy.
I said from the beginning that, as a
member of a visible minority, the kind of reception I got in this House is
unmatchable in this country. I said it
and I will say it all the time. What I
am saying simply is, I want to make sure that people would notice that if
something goes wrong, we must raise our voice, otherwise we are accepting those
things. Whether we can change it or not,
that is a different question, because what we can change‑‑our
children, we can teach them, but if they are going to watch this kind of
behaviour, it will not change.
When you go in the schools and when we see
schools coming here in this building, and you see the make‑up of the
schools,
To say every time, well, I worked hard‑‑well,
who does not work hard? Tell me, Madam
Deputy Speaker. Everyone works hard and
to the best of their capabilities. Some
individuals have a good environment, some may not, but we have the
responsibility to provide the adequate environment from a provincial level, and
I think providing the moral rights and the good environment is a part of
growing in a community and in the nation.
I do not think one can separate a person from the growth of an economy
or an individual or a healthy environment.
All these things are all mixed together.
The person is in the middle and everything affects that person. So I was disappointed not only with the
comment, but also the editorial that freedom of speech is alive.
Madam Deputy Speaker, today when the MIC
had issued a press release and asking us to learn, and do we not learn? We learn all throughout life. We learn about each and every aspect of
life. Why can we not learn about basic
human nature and basic behaviour? That
is unbelievable.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I sincerely hope the
government will have a good talk with the member about pay equity, about
affirmative action and also about the quality of life they want to provide for
all people. I just want to know, how
much time do I have left? [interjection]
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have attended some
functions with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik). The Minister of Labour is one of the best
speakers when he goes into ethnic communities, and everyone knows it. So I would ask him to do something and teach
the members of his caucus and try to convince them in a meaningful way and
explain to them about his roots, the roots of everyone.
Like today, the member for Thompson (Mr.
Ashton) spoke in the Greek language, a very positive thing. Every day we stand up in this House in nonpolitical
statements to cater towards what we feel is right, but when it comes to the
real sense, I think we have to convey the real message.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that we can
continue as members of this Assembly to build on the best among people and
achieve what is best for all of us, best for the taxpayers. But if you are going to be very selective on
the basis of your own preconceived ideas, I think you are failing everyone in
this House. I do not think anyone really
feels proud when they have to answer those questions. Because people who are members of this House
who have to represent the city ridings have to face more questions because the
mix is different. Naturally, there is
more exposure there, but I am sure the members in the rural communities have to
face the same problems.
I will tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, we
have friends, each and every Canadian, I represent all of them, 12,000, 14,000,
the same as I think everyone does. But
it is very sad when we see that kind of behaviour is being tolerated, and I
hope that the next time in the election of Rossmere somebody will stand up and
say to that individual, you put your things on the record right now. If you are going to run on my banner, on my
party's banner, then you follow my philosophy, otherwise, get out. I think that is the time we would like to see
that.
I think now is the 10‑member
majority, one‑member majority, we understand. We do not want to precipitate things, and we
do not want the advantage also because it is a very difficult time for
people. We have to make sure they get
the best. I will not and no one else in
this House will tolerate childish, irresponsible behaviour and in the name of
freedom of speech, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Thank you.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 67. Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Deputy
Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy Speaker,
I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), that Madam
Deputy Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a
Committee of the Whole to consider and report of Bill 67, The Interim
Appropriation Act, 1992.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider and report of Bill 67, The
Interim Appropriation Act, 1992 (Loi de 1992 portant affectation anticipee de
credits) for third reading, with the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs.
Dacquay) in the Chair.
* (1500)
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Bill 67‑The Interim Appropriation Act, 1992
Madam Chairperson: Order, please.
Will the Committee of the Whole please come order to consider Bill 67,
The Interim Appropriation Act, 1992 (Loi de 1992 portant affectation anticipee
de credits).
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Minister of Finance): Madam Chairperson,
Bill 67, The Interim Appropriation Act, 1992, is required to provide interim
spending, commitment and borrowing authority for the 1992‑93 fiscal year
retroactive to April 1, pending approval of The Interim Appropriation Act,
1992.
Bill 67 differs slightly from the 1991
Interim Appropriation Act with the insertion of clauses to provide government
with the authority to pay accrued liabilities and to provide transfer authority
from the aboriginal justice initiatives and the internal reform work force
adjustment and general salary increases appropriations.
The amount of interim spending authority
requested in Section 2 of Bill 67 is approximately 30 percent of the total
amount of $5,058,392,500 to be voted in The Appropriation Act 1992 which equals
$1,517,517,750. This amount is expected
to last until approximately the end of July 1992.
Section 3(1) Commitments for Future Years
provides for $120 million representing 30 percent of the '92‑93 forward
commitment authority of $400 million to be included in The Appropriation
Act. The authority for future years
commitments provides for the commitment of expenditures to ensure completion of
projects or fulfilling of contracts initiated prior to or during the fiscal
year ending March 31, 1993. Expenditures
for these commitments may not be made in the fiscal year ending March 1993
unless additional spending authority is required.
Section 3(2) Voting of Funds in Subsequent
Years provides that the estimated amount of expenditures which are committed
under sub (1) shall be included in the Estimates of the fiscal year in which
the actual expenditures are to be made.
Section 4 dealing with Authority to Pay
Liabilities provides government with the authority to make payments totalling
$196,556,452 exactly for liabilities accrued and then paid as at March 31,
1992. This includes $37.6 million for
Section 5, this section is self‑explanatory
and permits expenditures up to the full amount of each individual item to be
voted in the 1992‑93 Main Estimates, even though total expenditures
authorized by Bill 67 are only a portion of those requirements.
Section 6 stipulates that once the main
Appropriation Act is passed, any funds expended or committed under the
authority of this Interim Act will be deemed to have been made under the
authority of the main act, with the exception of Sections 4 and 15 which are
not affected by this clause.
Section 7 provides the departments, in
order to render services or provide materials, supplies or property to other
departments that are cost‑recoverable, may make the required expenditures
in anticipation of recovering the costs from the other departments.
Section 8 allows for the transfer of the
appropriate departments of any part or all of the money to be authorized for
expenditure under the Canada‑Manitoba Enabling Vote.
Section 9(1) provides that money
authorized under this act for expenditure in respect of an agreement with the
government of
Section 9(2) provides authority to expend
money on projects in anticipation of federal cost sharing even though such cost
sharing may not be realized.
Section 10 provides for the transfer to
the departments of any part or all of the authority to provide it under
aboriginal justice initiatives.
Section 11 provides for the transfer to
departments of any or part of all of the authority to provide it under
decentralization.
Section 12 provides for the delivery of
environmental innovations funded programming through any of the departments of
government and the proper recording of these expenditures under service
heading, Environmental Innovations Fund.
Section 13 allows for the transfer to
departments of government any part or all of the authority required for
internal reform and costs associated with work force adjustment and general
salary increases.
Section 14 is a standard section which
requires no further explanation.
Section 15 is included in the bill to enable
the government to borrow money in the '92‑93 fiscal year prior to the
approval of the '92 Appropriation Act.
This section provides authority to raise money by way of loan or loans
up to $300 million as may be considered necessary for making any required
payments out of the Consolidated Fund.
Unlike the expenditure authority provided
by this Interim Supply bill, the authority to borrow is not replaced when the
main Appropriation Act is passed.
With these comments, Madam Chairperson, I commend the bill to the
members of the committee and will endeavour to answer any questions they may
have.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Inkster): Madam Chairperson, I have a number of
questions that I would like to get on the record, and possibly I will start off
with the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) and then follow to the Minister of
Culture, Heritage, and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson).
The question really is one of the issues
that came up while we were in a break, the rural bonds office. It is located out in Altona. There was some concern in terms of why it is
an individual former executive, an EA of the government, one of the
governmental ministers was sent to that particular office. Now I would ask the Deputy Premier to explain
to the House why it is that individual was sent to that office?
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Madam Chairperson, first of all, the
individual he refers to was the executive assistant to the Minister of Rural
Development. It is Alan Petoff that the
individual is referring to. He was very
qualified; he played a very intricate part in the development of the Rural Grow
Bond Program.
The need to have that individual for
continuity purposes and for getting the program off the ground, his experience
and knowledge in the development of the program was essential, and that is why
the individual was given that responsibility.
It was done openly; it was done by Order‑in‑Council. There was no intention but to fully disclose
what activity was taking place, and I will try and anticipate the next
question, and that is, will the position which he occupies be open for
competition? The answer to that, Madam
Chairperson, is yes.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, what the Deputy Premier has
done, I believe, is a mistake. I do not
believe that the deputy minister really had a need to have an EA transferred
over to the bonds office, and I look in terms of the number of positions that
were created, one of which the EA is filling, and there were four of those
positions, three of those four positions were in fact transferred over from the
Civil Service.
I would ask the minister if in fact the
Deputy Premier felt that there was no one within the Civil Service that was
capable of doing what the EA was assigned to do.
Mr. Downey: Madam Chairperson, let me again express to the
member that because this is a brand new program in the province of Manitoba,
second in Canada, the Rural Grow Bond Program, because this individual as an
executive assistant to me in my office in the development of this program had a
lot of the detail and a lot of the knowledge that was obtained from the
Saskatchewan program in the building of this program, to not have that
individual go with that program for ease of delivery in the interests of
getting the program up and running to help rural Manitoba get on with the
program, that was the reason why it was done.
It was not done underhandedly without public knowledge. As I said, it
was done by Order‑in‑Council which are registered and public
documents.
* (1510)
He may disagree, but in disagreeing what
he is actually disagreeing with is the support and help that rural
If the member wanted to say to me that you
had to find someone else within the department who did not have any knowledge
at all of the Grow Bond program, that individual would have to be brought up to
speed. There well may have been and well
may be somebody who is qualified within the department. They will have the opportunity when this goes
before competition to apply for that job.
That is a timing factor more than anything else. It is not an intent to do anything but get
the program up and running as soon as possible, to use a person who had
demonstrated his capabilities. If there
are other individuals within the department or within the Civil Service
anywhere, they are quite capable and can feel free to apply for that job when
it comes before open public competition.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, what the minister or the
Deputy Premier is really saying is that every minister of this government, if
they bring in any sort of a program or initiative whatsoever, they can take
their EA and have their EA be one of the staffpersons on site or wherever that
location might be or whatever position it is and then go ahead and hire another
EA What it is to me is that the minister has found a loophole‑‑
An Honourable Member: It is not a loophole.
Mr. Lamoureux: ‑‑a loophole in the sense that the
Civil Service has the competence to be able to fill that particular position,
but because the minister was wanting to have someone in that particular office
that would be able to inform the minister, possibly of the political optics of
individual requests for the bonds, we do not know.
We have tried in the Liberal Party to
ensure that the Civil Service is respected.
This is one opportunity here, Madam Chairperson, that I am going to ask
the Deputy Premier to show his confidence in the Civil Service and make a
commitment today to having that position open for competition effective
immediately, and that that position will be filled through the Civil Service,
and the EA will not have anything to do with the hiring of the future
candidate.
I would ask the Deputy Premier (Mr.
Downey) to say today to the civil servants of this province, and particularly
to the Civil Service Commission, that he has full confidence in the commission
to fill those types of vacancies.
Mr. Downey: Madam Chairperson, I have no intention of
doing anything but what I have previously said on the record as to the open
competition for that job. Any individual
within the Civil Service or anywhere may apply for that job. It was done in the interests of time, getting
the program up and running.
I really take strong exception that the
member for
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, I can assure the Deputy
Premier (Mr. Downey) that he is nowhere near as shocked as I was when I first
heard that an EA was filling a position of this nature, a position that should
have been filled from the Civil Service.
I can assure him of that.
I would ask the Deputy Premier: When is he going to be opening it for
competition? Are we talking a week, are
we talking a month, are we talking a year?
When is the government planning on opening this particular position for
open competition?
Mr. Downey: Madam Chairperson, that will be done within
the operations, the decisions of the department and the deputy minister who has
the administrative responsibility. I can
assure him that it will be carried out.
As to when, I cannot make a commitment at this time.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, in fact, the Deputy Premier
(Mr. Downey) can make a commitment.
Somehow the EA got appointed over to that board. Somehow the minister can allow for an open
competition. I do not believe the Civil
Service Commission would oppose the Deputy Premier saying that we are going to
take back the EA, and that we are going to allow you to have the open
competition. I do not believe that is in
fact the case.
I would ask the Deputy Premier if he feels
it is essential to have an EA, or other EAs of other ministers doing the same
type of thing, of going out through different offices, whether it is Natural
Resources, whether it is Culture, Heritage, whatever the department. Is there any line that can be crossed that is
going a bit too far in the appointment of EAs?
Mr. Downey: Madam Chairperson, not wanting to excite the
members of the official opposition, I am not sure where they would draw that
particular line in seeing some of the past experiences of their
administration. I say to the member for
An Honourable Member: And noted.
Mr. Downey: ‑‑and noted. That is correct. Again, I can assure him that the program
which he is referring to and the hiring of that individual was done in the
interests of the program, in job creation, and the whole activity as it related
to the development of Rural Grow Bonds.
If he is saying that he wanted to someway
put in jeopardy that program, put in jeopardy rural economic employment, then
let him stand up and say so. That is
really where he is coming from. I mean
that seriously.
This was done, not in the interests of
putting an individual because he was an EA in a position within the Civil
Service; he was put there, as I said, to get on with the job. There is a process that has to be gone
through as it relates to the full‑time hiring, and it will be done, Madam
Chairperson. I am saying to the member,
it will be done when it can be done through the normal process. There is not any intention to do anything
but.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, the Liberal Party was
fairly clear when the government had in fact announced the program, and we
commended the government for doing it. I
believe all three political parties want to see economic activity in rural
Unless the Deputy Premier wants to respond
to that, I will move on to the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship.
Mr. Downey: I indicated the process that had been gone
through. I appreciate that the Liberal Party did in fact support the program,
and I will acknowledge that, because I think it is a good program. As far as the employing of an individual in
that program, it was done, as I said, up front, openly. There was not any intention to do anything
but publicly express what we were doing.
When the hiring decision is made to make public an open competition, I
will as well advise the member opposite.
* (1520)
Mr. Lamoureux: I thank the Deputy Premier, and I anxiously
await that letter indicating that it has been opened for competition. I can
only hope that I receive that letter very soon, very soon being sometime within
two weeks would be nice.
Madam Chairperson, I will move on to the
Minister of Culture and Heritage. There
are a couple of major issues that I have before me in that particular
area. One is in regard to the Manitoba
Heritage Federation. The other one is in
regard to racism. Both of them are
equally important.
I want to start off with something which
has come up just recently through the budget, when the budget was in fact being
announced, and I want to go over, Madam Chairperson, some of the concerns that
were expressed to myself.
Earlier this week, I had received a phone
call from some representatives of the Manitoba Heritage Federation. They had indicated to myself that 24 hours
prior to the budget being introduced inside the Chamber, they were given a
telephone call and requested to come down to the Legislature. Well, because the notice was 24 hours, not
very many board members were able to make it at 2:30 in the afternoon on that
particular day.
Madam Chairperson, while we were inside
here listening to the budget being presented, we had the president and I
believe it was the general manager of the Heritage Federation walking into the
deputy minister's office and on their way in were handed an envelope. Inside that envelope was a letter that told
them that they no longer have the funding authority, that they are no longer
responsible for the funding distribution of monies coming into the department.
Madam Chairperson, they were very upset to
receive no notice, to walk into a meeting and be told that no longer are they
distributing the funds and were not even given the explanation as to why they
were not responsible for distributing the funds. They were able to surmise and
come up with what they believe is the reason.
We talked about it over the telephone with a couple of individuals, as I
say, from the Heritage Federation, and the speculation was‑‑and I
raised it to the minister‑‑the reason why it was taken away was
because of the administrative cost.
Madam Chairperson, the minister had
entered into an agreement with the Manitoba Heritage Federation two years ago,
and part of that agreement had the administrative costs, and the minister did
not say anything or the minister's staff people did not say anything that was
wrong. They did not say that your
administrative cost is way too high, if you do not get it down we are going to
cut it, cut you off. They did not give
any indication whatsoever.
Then over that time period, between the
agreement being signed and all the way up to the 24‑hour notice as we
were listening to the budget, not once was it raised formally to the board that
the administrative costs were too high.
The government did not even attempt, Madam Chairperson, to try to raise
their concern with the board to try to find out if in fact something could be
done about it.
Madam Chairperson, the minister will no
doubt have to acknowledge that whoever administers the program there is going
to be an administrative cost. She will
try to argue that the administrative costs being done through her department is
not as high as the administrative costs from the board. Well, she does not know that for fact,
because she did not approach the board to find out if in fact they could reduce
their cost.
My question to the minister is: How does she justify treating the hundreds of
volunteers who donate thousands of volunteer hours throughout the
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Madam Chairperson, I will indicate, yes, we
did sign an agreement with the Heritage Federation a couple of years ago, and
within that agreement there was stipulated administrative costs. If we looked at the agreement I think‑‑and
with all due respect to the member for Inkster and his new‑found
knowledge about the heritage community and the Heritage Federation, I want to
indicate that if he looked at the agreement and examined the agreement he might
note that they were in violation of the agreement that they had because their
administrative costs were higher than what was stipulated in the agreement that
they should be.
The Heritage Federation had also written
to me and indicated that they were contemplating hiring another staff person,
which of course would have made their administrative costs that much higher
again. Within the contract there is a 90‑day
notice given to any umbrella organization that the contract will be terminated
and, indeed, on budget day staff met with the Heritage Federation and gave the
90‑day notice that the agreement would be terminated.
Mr. Lamoureux: I want to address both aspects of the answer.
First she comments on this newfound knowledge.
Well, I can assure the minister that the heritage of this province means
a lot to everyone who sits inside this Chamber.
She refers to the Estimates process and
the number of hours, which is limited.
She will find that we put more hours in Culture, and Heritage and
Citizenship last year than we have ever put in in the history of this Chamber.
Madam Chairperson, if it was an unlimited
number of hours that we could ask in Estimates, I would have been more than
happy to have asked more questions. At
the time, there were other issues that had to be addressed, but I can assure
the minister that had she raised this back then, there would have been a lot
more hours of debate. In fact, we might
have exceeded 60 hours of debate during the Estimates process.
In regard to her latter comment, she talks
about, well, they did not raise that they overextended or they were in
violation of their agreement. What that
tells me, Madam Chairperson, is their treatment of organizations. Why did they take the funding formula away
from MIC? Because they were unable to
sit down and come up with some type of a compromise, come up with some sort of
an agreement as to how the monies could have been allocated.
I would ask the minister: Did she bring it to the light of the board at
any point in time in a formal way, that they were in violation of the agreement
and that if they do not stick to the agreement that the funding will be taken
away from them? Did she ever raise to
the board in any formal way the administrative costs?
Mrs. Mitchelson: A contract is a contract and an agreement is
an agreement. The agreement was
discussed in detail with members of the Manitoba Heritage Federation when it
was signed. They were fully aware of
what the contract and what the agreement said.
Clearly, they knew they were in violation,
and we can agree to disagree, and the member can bring forward his point of
view, but ultimately it will have to be the entire heritage community with the
many, many volunteers out there that will determine whether in fact this
government is dealing with the heritage community in the right and proper
fashion. I believe that through the
consultation process that has been set up, which I might say will include the
Heritage Federation, we will be determining, and in fact the heritage community
will be the judges of whether this government under a new structure will be
delivering a service that they agree with to that community.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, when the minister says, an
agreement is an agreement is an agreement, that principle seems to apply to
only some ministers. When we asked
questions about the Repap agreement, I guess an agreement is not an agreement
for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness).
I asked the question specifically to the
minister: Did she or any member of her
departmental staff raise at any point in time formally to the board that their
administrative costs were too high?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I can state that I did not
speak to them directly, but I would have to check with my staff. They are not
here and at my access right at this moment, so I can certainly ask my staff who
in fact dealt with the Heritage Federation over the overexpenditure and get back
with that information.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, I will look for some
clarification now in terms of what is going to be happening. I would ask the minister to confirm that it
is the department that is going to be responsible for administrating the
request.
* (1530)
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I have made a commitment to
the heritage community that there will be broad consultation. It will be including the heritage council,
the major heritage organizations, the Manitoba Heritage Federation and all
those that are involved in ensuring that the community is well served through
the grant process. In fact, when we have
met and when we have discussed, an announcement will be made on the structure that
will deliver heritage grants for the future in the
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, I am encouraged that the
minister has not made a final decision on this.
That is maybe a shred of light, and she might reconsider possibly what
she is doing to the Manitoba Heritage Federation.
What I would ask the minister, ultimately
is she going to be making the decision on who receives which grants? Who is going to be making the decisions?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, it will be volunteers
within the heritage community that will be making those decisions.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, I would ask the minister,
will she will assure this Chamber that if it is going to be heritage groups or
these new volunteers, if she will make a commitment to the Chamber that they
will not be a politically appointed board?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I will make the commitment
that the people who will be representative of the heritage community and have a
commitment to the heritage community will be people who will be making the
decisions. I cannot make any further
commitment until I consult with the community on what their desires and wishes
are.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, I would ask the minister,
because this is very serious. What she
did for MIC was that board was elected from a number of different ethnic groups
and the minister did have some input in terms of the appointments. The funding
was taken away from MIC and given to a politically appointed board. Now, the perception from the different ethnic
groups is that it is a political group.
I am asking the minister, is this what her
intentions are for this new decision‑making body?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I regret that I have to
differ with the member for
I would like to ask the member for Inkster
(Mr. Lamoureux) if he has specifics and allegations‑‑because it is
very serious, the issue that he is bringing forward‑‑if he has
allegations that would indicate that there is political interference in the
process of awarding grants to the multicultural community through the
Multicultural Grants Advisory Council, I would like him to state in this House
and publicly whom he has heard from and what he has heard, because I have not
heard anything from the community, except that in fact they are being well
served through the Multicultural Grants Advisory Council. If he has some allegations to make, because
he is seriously bringing forward to this House an allegation of political
interference, I would like him to substantiate those or withdraw those remarks
and apologize.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, I would ask the
minister: Can she tell this House that
none of the decisions have been appealed that MGAC has made?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, yes, there is an appeal
process in place now, and there was not an appeal process in place when MIC was
handing out grants. People were told
they received no grant, and they had no way to even appeal that decision. If there is an appeal, it goes back to the
board; and, if more information is brought to light that would indicate or
warrant a grant, then that grant is provided.
I believe in an appeal process, unlike what was in place previously.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, now I am going to ask the
same question of the minister. Why does
the minister not table for us‑‑the allegations that she put on the
record are just as equally as serious, when she said MIC was distributing the
funds inappropriately. Why does she not
table the letters that she had that said there were complaints, or does she
have any letters from groups that said that what MIC was doing was wrong? Does she have the letters?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, what I just indicated now
was that there was no appeal process in place.
There was not an appeal process in place under the mechanism that MIC
used, and I can substantiate that for the member.
What I have said is‑‑and I am
very serious, because he is bringing forward very serious allegations. If in fact he has information that can
substantiate those allegations, I believe it is incumbent upon him as a member
of this Legislature and as a person that is out there representing the people
of Manitoba that in common decency he should bring those allegations forward so
that they can be examined and they can be rectified if there are allegations.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, it is incumbent upon me to
bring forward information that I believe is in the best interest of the
constituents that I represent. The
constituents that I represent, I believe, feel very strongly about what this
minister in particular is doing to the granting bodies of the
Now, the minister has herself said that
there have been some appeals. How many
appeals have there been?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, that information I can get
very easily, the number of appeals. I do
not have that detailed information in front of me. That is normally a question that would be
asked during the Estimates process when all the detail is there in my book so
that I can provide that information. I
am not opposed to providing that kind of public information on how many appeals
there in fact have been.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, I am going to move on and ask
the minister, now that she has taken away the funding responsibility from the
Manitoba Heritage Federation, what purpose, or what role, does she see it
playing now?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, in fact it will be up to the
Heritage Federation to determine where they fit into the structure of the
heritage community.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, I find it is very unfortunate
that the minister did not take the time in her first three and a half years,
four years to review what it is she is going to be doing.
If the minister was really wanting to
assist those volunteers, or give direction to the volunteers, what she would have
done is that she would have come up with a plan instead of taking away and then
saying, I will come up with the plan later after I do the consulting.
What the minister should have done is she
should have consulted with the different groups, because those groups might
have said, let us leave it the way it is.
Let us let the Heritage Federation be responsible for the distribution
of the funds and the decision‑making process and let the department do
the administrative costs.
She does not know what is going to come
out of these consultations. The minister
has got it backwards. I would hope that
what the minister said, that her decision has not been made, is in fact the
case so that the Heritage Federation is given serious consideration.
I want to move on to the question of
racism. I made a reference to two very
serious issues that were up and going at this time. The other day I had asked the minister a
question regarding MIC's Combatting Racism, a report that was in October of
1990, which the minister was given.
One of the recommendations had that the
government of
* (1540)
Mrs. Mitchelson: As I have indicated before, Madam
Chairperson, I did ask the Manitoba Intercultural Council to give me
recommendations on how the government of this province might assist in
combatting racism.
There were many recommendations that came
forward which had different implications for many different departments
throughout government. We have been
analyzing those recommendations. In the
meantime, we have not been standing still.
We have been announcing positive initiatives which I think will go a
long way towards the area of attempting to eliminate racism.
We know that it is not an easy task and
there are barriers to overcome in all segments of society, but I do know that
some of the programs that we have put in place, like the Bridging Cultures
Program, and I think I indicated that I was at St. John's High School on Friday
afternoon last, where the youth at St. John's were putting on a power play that
was extremely effective in how to intervene in instances where we in our day‑to‑day
lives experience racism or activities, that are not only perceived to be, are
racist in nature.
Funding was provided for that forum to the
Manitoba Multicultural Resource Centre along with
There are other activities that are going
on, and yes, one of the recommendations was in fact a day for legislators. They are talking city councillors and school
trustees also. I think throughout the
I think our record is clear as a
government on our stand on racism, on our stand on multiculturalism. I would hope that the member for
One of the things that we did do was
second a person over to the Manitoba Federation of Labour, because they too
realize that there is racism within the workplace throughout the province. We seconded a person over there for a two‑year
term that developed modules on how to deal with racism. We have received those modules, and we have
the Citizenship Branch within my department working very aggressively on
putting into place a pilot project to test one of those modules to see how well
it will work.
We are testing it or piloting it in the
Department of Culture. We will evaluate
that module, and then we will look at where it might be utilized throughout the
Legislature, throughout City Hall, throughout the school divisions, throughout
the community and throughout other government departments. That is a part of our process. We have made the first step, and once we
evaluate that pilot in the Department of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship we
will be looking at where we go with it after that.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, the minister has done some
good things in terms of combatting racism, but there are some other areas in
which she has been somewhat slow to react to.
One of those things I have brought up time after time, and somehow she
is able to evade making some sort of a commitment to it. It is not that tough of a commitment that we
are actually asking for. I think what
the minister needs to look at is just what has been happening over the last
couple of days inside this Chamber.
The member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema)
stood up today and gave, I thought, a very good speech on racism that dealt in
part with racism, something that he holds very close to his heart because it is
such a sensitive issue that was raised over the last few days. Like the member for The Maples, I too feel
that it is absolutely essential that the minister take some action wherever she
can. There is an area in which she can
work on or make a commitment to, that she does not necessarily have to come up
with excuses as to why we cannot have it.
What I am referring to, of course, is the
question I have asked about eight or nine, maybe possibly even 10 times over
the last year and a half, and that is that cross‑cultural day. What I found interesting today, Madam
Chairperson, and I will table, not table, I will send a copy of it over to the
minister, but I am sure she has likely received it. It is dated March 25, and it is a news
release.
It comes from an organization that the
Minister of Culture, Heritage, and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson) has said that
this group, MIC, is now an advisory body, and we will listen to what the
advisory body is telling us.
Madam Chairperson, I am maybe speaking on
behalf, and I am sure she would agree with me that MIC is an apolitical
organization. If she does not, I hope
she will put that on the record when she responds, but I am sure she will agree
it is an apolitical organization.
Madam Chairperson, what I will ask is that
the minister do what MIC has issued today in a news release. This comes from Sam Koshy, the executive
secretary, for further information, and it was issued from Ron Schuler whom the
minister has met with on numerous occasions, as I have, and no doubt the NDP
critic.
Instead of reading the whole letter, what
I am going to read is one, possibly two paragraphs:
MIC in a letter to the Honourable Bonnie
Mitchelson, Minister responsible for Multicultural Affairs, encourage her to do
everything in her power to help MLAs become more sensitive to all segments and
cultural groups in the
Madam Chairperson, this is something that
the minister can do. She does not have
to wait. She has had the report now for
a year and a half. Will she now listen
to the MIC news release as she has committed herself to do in the past? When she took away the funding
responsibility, she said that they would play an advisory role. Will she listen to the advice that is being
given from MIC and announce now, when we can have that cross‑cultural
day, or at the very least, say it is going to be within two weeks?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, the member for
Indeed, I indicated that it took two years
for someone working with the Manitoba Federation of Labour to develop some
modules. I have to say that those
modules needed some reworking when they came to government before. In fact, we could look at implementing and
piloting them within my own department.
I have indicated that is in the process.
I think that with MIC we have developed a
good working relationship over the last number of years, and I look forward to
continuing that. I do not think that you
would find many members of the community that would question this government's
commitment to multiculturalism, and this government's and our Premier's and my
commitment to combatting racism. We will
do whatever is in our power to try to implement programs throughout government
that are sensitive to the cultural needs of all.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, once again the minister
has been able to, well, somewhat successfully evade making some type of an
announcement, but we hope, I hope, that we will see an announcement.
She made reference to multiculturalism and
the commitment that the government has to multiculturalism.
When we do go into the Estimates process,
I will have a number of questions regarding multiculturalism. [interjection]
Well, one of the government backbenchers has asked me if I am going to be
asking to cut out the funding to MGAC.
Madam Chairperson, had the member really
been here and possibly listened‑‑I should not say, he might have
been here, I cannot say he was absent‑‑but had the member paid
attention to what I had said the other day on Interim Supply, is that the
government is very good at manipulating the figures. What they do is, they do have the authority
to be able to allocate additional monies to any line that they so choose.
The government has the authority‑‑
An Honourable Member: You bet.
* (1550)
Mr. Lamoureux: The minister says, you bet. He is the only minister that will actually
admit to it that I am aware of.
So to answer the question from the Conservative
backbencher, the motion that I moved last year was a very good motion. Had a number of the backbenchers listened to
the explanation of that particular motion, they would have likely supported it.
I am sure a number of them do not care for
the government manipulating the multicultural community. As I say, I am going to have ample
opportunity to discuss that at length when we go into the Estimates, and I do
have a number of other questions for different ministers, but I know other
people want to ask questions.
I did want to ask just a couple of very
brief questions to the minister, because I had received a phone call the other
day regarding the Outreach Office. I
would ask the minister how the Outreach Office was selected, this particular
Outreach Office.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, what we wanted was an
Outreach Office that would be in the core area of the city of
I would imagine that at the Outreach Office
there will be a lot of new immigrants coming forward seeking information about
government or immigration issues. It
seemed like the kind of location that we wanted.
There were several that were looked at,
and it was deemed to be the most appropriate space for use as an Outreach
Office. That is how it was chosen.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, the minister knows that we
support actually the Outreach Office and we would like to see it very
accessible to the groups that would use it.
The minister can take it as notice and get back to me if she so chooses,
unless, of course, she knows it right now.
Did her department make the decision as to the office location, or did
it go to Government Services, and the request just making it a visible location
and really had nothing to do with her department?
Mrs. Mitchelson: The Department of Government Services was
notified that we were looking for space.
I think they came up with different locations that were open and
available‑‑and I am recollecting, because this was a while back,
too, when they were looking for space‑‑but I know that Government
Services was involved, they identified locations. I think it was a combination of Government
Services and the Department of Culture that looked at the space and looked at
what the requirements might be for a two‑person office and chose that one
as the ideal location.
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): I understand that there are some time
constraints on the minister, so I will begin my questioning and we will see
what transpires from there. Perhaps I
will have a chance to question the minister at a later date.
I wanted to ask some questions about the
Heritage Federation. There is a great
deal of discomfort out there. I think
all parties have had calls from people who see their funds in jeopardy and are
also very unsure about the process at the moment, particularly over the next
three months.
One question, however, I think that
concerns everybody in heritage organizations is the amount of lottery money
that has in the past been given to the Heritage Federation to distribute, which
I understand is about 3 percent of lottery monies altogether. I think what people are looking for first and
foremost in a very uncertain situation is a commitment from the government that
that same percentage of lottery monies will be available for heritage
purposes. So that is my question to the
minister, can she give that assurance now?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I can unequivocally state to the heritage
community that we are not looking to take away funding from the heritage
community as a result of this process.
In fact, there should be more money as a result of less administrative
costs going to the grassroots heritage community than there has been
previously.
We do not allocate a certain percentage of
the pie anymore as a result of the needs assessment. In fact, we have casino revenues that are
going to health care. That is a new
initiative. We have video lottery
terminal revenues that are all part of Lotteries revenues that are going to
rural economic development. We have
money now that is going to conservation, different initiatives. In fact, what has happened with the signing
of agreements with umbrella organizations is that we look at their funding, and
within the agreement it might be a zero‑percent increase one year, or a
three percent depending on what revenues are available. The pie is bigger as such, and it is not a
certain percentage of the pie that is distributed now, because we have made
commitments to health care and to rural economic development.
Ms. Friesen: I think people are very concerned when they
see a reduction in that line from $700,000 to $400,000. I think they want some assurance that that
money, which the minister argues was used for administration‑‑although
I think there are certainly some questions on the other side of that, because
the Heritage Federation believes that it used additional monies from its
reserve pool for administration as well, and it is not simply that marginal a
difference there.
So I think that the question is: Can the heritage community be assured in the
coming year that that gap, that $300,000‑‑I do not have the figures
in front of me unfortunately‑‑is also going to be used for
heritage, and that we are not simply looking at a $400,000 amount for heritage
for the coming year?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Absolutely, and if we look at what happened
to the Manitoba Sports Federation last year, when they had a reserve of some
$12 million or $14 million sitting that they had in the pot, what we said to
them was that they were to use their reserves up, and in the same amount of
funding that they would have normally been allocated, and then they were
reinstated.
What has happened is, the Heritage
Federation has a fairly major reserve of money sitting. I know they have made commitments. Many commitments that the Heritage Federation
has made will in fact be honoured through the process and the community will in
fact receive as much, or as I said, if not more as a result of less
administrative cost. So the, I believe
it was, $712,000 will be available to the community.
Ms. Friesen: I shall make this the last question then,
Madam Chairperson, because I know the minister has to go.
The second principle, I think, that all
people in the heritage community are concerned about is the principle of peer
review of grants. I know the minister
has spoken in response to the member for
Volunteers do not necessarily translate
into peer evaluation. The principle of
peer evaluation is very important. I think it has taken the Heritage Federation
a fair amount of time to get to that stage as well, and it is a system that, I
think, has certainly been recognized as working well over the last few
years. I would like the minister's
response and preferably some commitment to that principle of peer evaluation.
* (1600)
Mrs. Mitchelson: Absolutely, and I think it is essential that
that kind of process be looked at.
Because it is the community, that understands heritage and understands
the needs, that should be looking at the projects that come forward. That was one of the issues that I have been
starting to discuss with the community, and I can make that commitment.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): My
questions will be to the Minister of Native Affairs (Mr. Downey).
I would like to talk about the process
that was underway for, I understand, some seven or eight months with regard to
the Abinochi Zhawayndakozihwin Project, the preschool project.
Can the minister tell the House just
exactly how the decision was made to enter into the study? Which departments were to be involved in the
formulation of the study? What results
came about as a result of a number of meetings which, I understood, took place?
Hon. James Downey
(Minister responsible for Native Affairs): Madam Chairperson, if I understand the
question correctly, is the process as it developed up until now, who was
involved in the process of dealing with it.
First of all, the request came forward to
carry on with Abinochi preschool language program following the end of the Core
Area Agreement, which it was funded under.
The request came forward to me as the Minister responsible for Native
Affairs and consideration was given and basically agreed to, approved a $64,000
grant to finish out last year's programming.
At that same time, there was an agreement to put together a working
committee of the Department of Native Affairs, the Department of Education, and
I am not just sure which other departments were involved. At least there were those two
departments. There may have been the
Department of Culture, Heritage and Recreation, but I will get that information
for the member. At least there were two
departments that worked together‑‑I am sorry, Family Services‑‑for
the Department of Education, Native Affairs and Family Services, to try to see
what might be able to be accomplished.
As the member is aware, she has the documentation that was filed by the
member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) yesterday.
It was determined that at that time there
would not be any additional funding from the Department of Native Affairs as I
have expressed.
Mrs. Carstairs: It is my understanding that in fact this
particular program was in operation some years before Core Area actually came
into being, that it was at first funded by parents and originally acted as a
drop‑in centre with everybody putting whatever monies they could in order
to keep it ongoing. It then received
some funding for Secretary of State, then received some Core Area Initiative
funding, always did receive some grants from Culture, Heritage and Recreation
because they were dealing with a heritage language. It was receiving some $7,000 a year as part
of the heritage language grant that is given to many organizations that are in
fact engaged in teaching heritage languages.
When it became clear that the Core Area Initiative was no longer going
to be able to supply money, that the group met with the Minister of Native
Affairs who purported that it was important to sit down and has been quoted by
some of the members who met with me as saying that, quote: if we have to change policies, we will in
order to get this things back on stream.
Now, the group feels that they had a
genuine commitment from the minister that this would be not only engaged in a
working process, but that the government would do everything in their power to
see if they could not find dollars in Family Services and dollars in Education
and dollars in Culture, Heritage and dollars in Native Affairs in order to make
this thing work. They went through this
working process, I understand, for some eight months, meeting at least once a
month, and came up with a report which certainly recommended that this be
proceeded with. What impacted at that
point, that the minister pulled money away and said that there will be no money
for this program even though the government gave some $80,000 last year to this
program?
Mr. Downey: No, Madam Chairperson, I would like to
correct the member. What I indicated to
her earlier was‑‑and pre the 1985 period under Core Area I cannot
comment. I am not aware of how it was
funded, in fact carried out. I can say
that last year we did meet, I did say that I was able to get support for
funding for 64,000 to complete last year.
In doing so, I said that we would establish or we would develop a
committee which worked with the departments of Family Services and Education,
which truly, if there is going to be a funding program, should come from either
of those departments and/or maybe the Department of Heritage.
As I am not a program funding department,
I did not have the capability of putting in place long‑term funding. It is not the purpose of the Native Affairs
Secretariat to do that. It is a co‑ordinating
jurisdiction. So both the departments of
Family Services and Education came forward and indicated, as she is aware, that
they did not have the capability of doing it.
I am prepared to table two letters, Madam
Chairperson. One was October 29, 1991,
which was sent by the Minister of Education, the Honourable Len Derkach and
myself at that time, and I will just read the last paragraph: We regret to inform you that no provincial
funding will be allocated for your organization. We wish you success in your efforts to
establish a funding base.
That was in October. On June 3 of 1991 there was a letter that
went from the Deputy Minister of Finance, and I will read the final paragraph
on it and I will table it: I regret to
inform you that the recommendations of the Abinochi working group for the
establishment of a new provincial funding source were not accepted. Accordingly, I must advise you that there was
no new funding allocation approved for your organization for the fiscal year of
1991‑92.
Madam Chairperson, let me say this
genuinely, that I think that the program has served an excellent purpose, and I
am not against the program and the development of cultural language
programs. I say that, and the government
is not. What I found myself in was a
position of not being able to continue funding it for one organization, because
I am not a funding department for programs.
Now, if the Department of Education‑‑and let me just go
back. I am sure this will be helpful to
the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen). I
did not get a chance yesterday to comment on her speech, but I think it is important
that I do. The Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) may want to respond to this
as well.
There were some 29 legislative reform
hearings throughout the province over the last several months, to ask what
possibly the Department of Education should look at as far as additional programming
is concerned. Neither the member for
Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) nor the member for Wolseley made presentation to
those legislative hearings. No one spoke
on behalf of the inclusion of a preschool language program. This, I believe, would have been an
opportunity for one of those members to come forward and do so, if there was a
process established that could have accomplished that, but there was silence
from the members opposite.
I guess I am a little disappointed that
now they are coming forward in the last hour, and I apologize to the member for
not answering their questions at this time.
That to me would have been the appropriate place to bring support
forward for the Abinochi language program, so that the process that was put in
place could have been followed through and could have been dealt with.
As much as I am sympathetic, I did not
have the capability to continue funding the program, as I had indicated I could
not do, but would work to try and encourage the other departments to do so.
* (1610)
I am not an educator. I leave it to the Departments of Education or
Family Services to see if there is some way this program could fit within their
mandate. I honestly, quite frankly,
could not carry out continued funding with the mandate which my department has.
Mrs. Carstairs: Let me make two points on what the minister
has just said. First and foremost, I
think most members of the Legislature do not think that public processes of
going across the province to try and generate what the public wants on a
particular issue are things that should be controlled and manipulated by
members of this Chamber, no matter what side they are on.
I think that I personally, and I would
like to think other members do too, that when you go on a road show of any kind
in order to generate public opinion, that you do not want to hear from members
of the Legislature, whom you hear from on a pretty regular basis, but you want
to hear from the public in their communities, whom you do not hear from. So to say that we should be trying to do both
I think is misleading the process to some degree.
The other issue that I want to deal with
here is in terms of the fact that you do not have the ability to fund. Well, that is like saying that the Minister
of I, T and T does not have any money to put into the business faculty at the
I do not disagree with his doing that,
because I think we needed to upgrade that particular faculty, and this was one
way of doing it, but the same thing applies here to your administration. Whether it comes from your line or Education
or whatever line of the budget it comes from, last year there was $64,000 in a
direct grant from your department and there was another $16,000 from the
Department of Education. If there was
$80,000 last year to support this kind of initiative, why was there no monies
left to support that kind of initiative during this fiscal year?
Mr. Downey: Because, Madam Chairperson, it was a decision
of government that there were not funds available, that we were not going to be
continuing to fund it in this particular manner, that in fact it is an
educational program. If there is
justification for it through the Department of Education, then that is where it
should have been funded.
As the member knows, this is an ad hoc
program. I do not believe that it is
fair to, in an ad hoc way, lead people to believe that they can continue on, on
that basis. What we try to do is get a
judgment from people who are in the education field within the Department of Education
as to an ability to put in place a long‑term funding program.
I do apologize, I know there is a
sensitivity. It was not any way of
trying to take a shot at anybody by expressing the fact that there were
legislative hearings. People could have
been encouraged‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please.
Mr. Downey: No, I am serious. I am not speaking in a negative way about
trying to develop something for these individuals, but I guess the question is
a matter of priorities. We did not have
the capability of continuing to fund it under that way. I cannot express it in any other way.
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, let me put it another way. Obviously there must have been, and I would
like to think, a genuine interest in maintaining this program or else the
government would not have spent $80,000 to investigate through a working group
ways in which this particular program could be funded.
I would like to think we just did not put
$80,000 down the drain. So having spent
$80,000, the working report signed by his director of Native Affairs indicates
that not only is this a good program, not only is this a valuable program, but
it is a program which should be continued.
It says it is recommended that the four ministries represented by the
working group fully endorse the principle of aboriginal language learning at
the preschool level and commend Abinochi program for their leadership.
It is recommended that provincial funding
be provided at the level of $102,000‑plus; it is recommended that long‑term
funding be channeled through the Department of Northern Affairs; it is
recommended that an interdepartmental committee be established with
representatives from the other departments, and it is recommended that a five‑year
funding agreement, available on a renewal basis, be negotiated. Now, presumably this government was part of
this working group. How did the working
group come up with this wonderful report which would see this program still in
operation instead of observing its closure in the last few days? What changed?
What is in this report that the government does not agree with?
Mr. Downey: Nothing is really changed, but I did spell
out a year ago when this was being assessed and there was a clear communication
that the funds would not be available in the normal manner. I say this.
What has not changed is the economic condition of this province and our
ability to spend money, and we have had to prioritize. Our revenues are flat. We have maintained and frozen the taxes of
the people of
I say this genuinely. I mean there are a lot of preschool language
programs that I am sure the government could expand into in a great way if we
had the resources to do it. It is the
realization that we do not have the capability of doing it.
Mrs. Carstairs: Then I can only assume that a priority was
taken to have an economic secretariat with a new staff line of $466,000, but
there was to be no money for a group of preschoolers who were getting
aboriginal heritage language, because this minister did not have as much
bargaining room at the table as the Minister of I, T and T.
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Madam Chairperson, I also have a few
questions on the Abinochi preschool program.
We hear the government constantly talking about partnership, sharing, co‑operation
with people, trust, priorities of this government, and we even have the
Attorney General using "real programs for real people." I think that is what this program is, a real
program and it is about real people.
I would like to ask the minister, in
response to the letter that he received, which was hand delivered to his office
or to him, when they have been seeking a meeting with him since July of 1991,
they have not been able to have a simple little meeting, and here the
government is going on co‑operation, partnership and sharing. I thought that is what meetings were all
about.
Mr. Downey: Madam Chairperson, I have checked and I
cannot determine from my checking that we have had the kinds of requests that
the member is referring to. There may
have been phone calls that have come in that I had not been aware of. There may have been other requests, but I am
not aware of any written letter of meeting request. If there has been, I apologize for not. It is not my intention not to meet. I found it most productive.
In fact, I can tell the member that last
year the meetings that were carried out between my office, the Minister of
Family Services and the Minister of Education did produce support for the
program for last year. I think it is a
little unfair his criticism about us not wanting to meet. We did carry it on for an additional year
which, if the decision had been taken last year, would have ended last
year. That is where it is at. We did show our faith and our commitment in
trying to support the program for the completion of last year.
Let me ask the members how they would have
seen this when it was developed under the Core Area Initiative? Why did the previous administration not put
in place, when they developed the Core Area Initiative, and say that we expect
that this should be developed into a long‑term educational program within
the Department of Education? Was there
any indication when this program was established and started that some day
there would have to be a decision point as to whether or not it could be
continued within full provincial responsibility?
It was a cost‑shared agreement
between three governments‑‑federal, provincial and municipal‑‑of
which three parties supported it. It
came to an end. Did they expect at that
time, I ask the members of the former government, it would be the provincial
government's full responsibility? It is
tough choices that have to be made when we are dealing with tough economic
conditions. I am not trying to deprive
anyone from carrying on their culture, their language. In fact, I am strongly supportive of it, but
again, what capability does the province have to do it with when we have flat
revenues, tough decisions to make? We
have demands in health care. We have
demands in Family Services. We have
continual demands on us. Again, by not funding it, we are not depriving those
individuals from carrying on with their education and their language.
* (1620)
There must be other ways in which
individuals can continue the support of those language programs, and again I
would suggest that if members have suggestions where they think that monies
from within the Department of Native Affairs or northern development could be
taken, they want to take it from the recreational program from the North‑‑
An Honourable Member: No, they want us to take it from private
schools.
Mr. Downey: Again, the member hollers private schools.
That is an education department
programming agreement that is already in place.
So I am searching for some answers from the members opposite as to where
within the Department of Native Affairs do they suggest that some of the core
funding for some of the organizations should be redirected. Is that what they are suggesting, that we
should take money from the Assembly of Chiefs?
Where should it come from? Again, they have not got any quick solutions
other than to spend more money.
Mr. Hickes: That was a very nice, long, roundabout way of
saying, no, we will not support it. He
says, where will we get the money? One
question I have that has been very disturbing in my mind, because I never got
an answer the other day was, he says, where will we find the money?
One of the solutions could be
So I asked the minister, did he take this
to cabinet? If he did, what was the
response? He refers to the Education
minister, the Family Services minister‑‑tell the people who stopped
this program. So the people will know
who to talk to.
Mr. Downey: Madam Chairperson, I can understand the
member opposite not understanding how the process works. What I have said is that the government, the
committee, the process within government indicated a year ago, both in June,
from the Department of Education, and in October from the Department of
Northern and Native Affairs, that there would be no funding available as was
done in the past.
The opposition members are expecting us to
pick up what had been a cost shared with the federal government, the cost
shared with the provincial government, to carry on this programming. The next
argument they come forward in criticism is that we are picking up offloading
from the federal government.
I guess what we are talking about is how
much of an expansion of preschool education do you want the province to pick
up? I guess that is the question. When you fund one preschool program, such as
is being recommended by the members opposite, how many other Native or other
languages do the members believe it is our responsibility to pick up?
Madam Chairperson, I guess it is not a
matter of saying that it is not important.
It is important. It is important
that those individuals carry on their language, but it is important the
provincial government prioritize how we expend our money as well. What I am saying is, we do not have the
capability to carry on that program.
Mr. Hickes: Madam Chairperson, I would just like to ask
the minister, the letter he just tabled by the Deputy Minister of
Education. It states very clearly in
that letter that he tabled: accordingly,
I must advise that there was no new funding allocation approved for your
organization for the fiscal year 1991 and 1992.
The reason this just came up is because
the funding just ran out for 1991‑92, and it says here there will be no
money available for '91‑92, but the minister found $64,000 to contradict
what the deputy minister has written in this letter. It says very clearly,
funding allocation approved for your organization for the fiscal year '91‑92. So they got the money for '91‑92. Now they are asking for a continuation of
that funding, which is highly recommended, for the year '92‑93, and that
is what we are talking about. So when
his deputy minister, according to the recommendations‑‑I would like
to ask the minister and go through these recommendations and get the minister's
response. If he supports these, will he
bring these to cabinet?
It is recommended that the four ministers
represented by this working group fully endorse the principles of Abinochi
language learning at the preschool level and commend the Abinochi preschool
program for the leadership of this issue.
Does the minister agree with that statement?
Mr. Downey: Madam Chairperson, let me put it this
way. The member can go through all of
these questions and I can deal with them.
I guess in the interest of time, we have basically put our position
forward. We support, in a broad sense of
the way, the continuation of education of Native language. We do not have the capability to carry it on
with a complete 100 percent provincial funding that was given to us after a
Core Area Agreement ended. We did extend it to try and find additional
funding. As I said, we could have ended
it last year. We did not have to go
forward with the additional $64,000 to continue the program to try and find
another way of funding it.
Again, what I am trying to get through to
the member is, we have to put priorities on the expenditures of taxpayers'
money. The members today in Question Period, Madam Chairperson, stand and ask
us for more money for home care, more money for health care, more money for
everything. It is a matter of making
tough decisions, and I guess I ask the question: Is it a priority of the members opposite to
put a preschool educational program ahead of some the other things that they
are requesting? I would hope they would
be straightforward enough to say, yes, they want to put this program ahead of
some of the other essential services in the health care field or in the
aboriginal field. I ask them to come
forward.
Mr. Hickes: Madam Chairperson, I would like to ask the
minister, when he states that he has not committed his government to the
funding of 1992‑93. This letter
states right here from the parents of the Abinochi preschool program, and it
says, underlined, at that time you committed your government to fund our
program. It is underlined. Then if you go to the deputy minister of his
own department, and if you read No. 5:
It is recommended that a five‑year funding agreement, available on
a renewable basis, be negotiated and implemented to honour the long‑term
commitment of the Manitoba government to Abinochi. To me it is very, very clear.
The parents of Abinochi have said that the
minister is committed. The deputy
minister says the government has committed.
Well, who is telling the truth, I guess I would have to ask.
Mr. Downey: Madam Chairperson, if the member would put
into complete context the paragraph that he is referring to, where they have
underlined that I have committed to fund the program, this letter was written
in October of 1990. Following that there
was a commitment lived up to that was made at that meeting, and that was a
$64,000 commitment, as I understand it.
To my knowledge the only commitment that was made on a long‑term
basis was that we would establish a working committee that could see if we
could find a program within government that could give it long‑term
support.
The decision has been taken and
communicated to the Abinochi support group that there was not a capability of
carrying it on. Again, I know it is a tough decision, but it is a decision that
was essential and has been made. I know
the member will continue to push for this, and he is quite free to do so. But unless, I say this without raising any
false hopes, the Department of Education or the Department of Family Services
or Culture and Heritage could develop a new program in conjunction with the
federal government, in conjunction with some other way, I cannot see the
provincial government taking on 100 percent responsibility for this preschool
program.
* (1630)
Mr. Hickes: I just have one final question that I would
like to ask the minister. Will he now
agree to meet with the parents of Abinochi to give them a full explanation on
what is really happening and bring forward the proposal for Abinochi to his
cabinet for the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) and the Minister of Family
Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) to have the opportunity of assisting aboriginal
people? I am sure that every one here
recognizes the importance of this program to preserve the language and culture
of aboriginal people.
Mr. Downey: Madam Chairperson, I am quite prepared to
meet with the organization. I can assure
him that the discussion will be not unlike what he will relay to them from
Hansard that we are going to be produced from this meeting.
As far as further discussions are
concerned, if the Minister of Education or the Minister of Family Services or
the Minister of Culture and Heritage (Mrs. Mitchelson) have a program or a way
in which they see that they could support this program, I am not going to close
the door on that particular department, or any of those departments. What I am saying is I do not have the
capability within the Northern and Native Affairs portfolio at this time to
give any additional support, and I would be less than responsible if I were to mislead
and to encourage them that there in fact was.
I said last year what I would do, and that
is one thing I have found dealing with any group in society whether it is our
Native community, or whether it is our non‑Native community. If you can do something, then you say you
can, and you do it. If you cannot, you
should be honest and up front to say that you cannot, and that is what I try to
maintain. If there was some belief that
I was able to put some long‑term funding in place, then I apologize, but
as I read the letter, and as I read our commitment, it was for the funding of
last year, the $64,000.
Mr. Hickes: Just to respond to the minister's remarks, if
that commitment was not there or was misunderstood, would the minister agree to
have a meeting with the parents to clear all the misunderstanding up, to meet
with the parents personally?
Mr. Downey: I have no difficulty with that, Madam
Chairperson.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Madam Chairperson, I have questions for the
Minister of Housing (Mr. Ernst), the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs
(Mrs. McIntosh) and the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer).
The Minister of Housing knows that I am
still very concerned, and we on this side are still very concerned with the
decision to abolish 98 local Housing Authorities and form the new Manitoba
Housing Authority. We have said before
that this decision has taken away local control of public housing, it has taken
away local input and responsibility, and the result will be less of a feeling
of local responsibility for public housing, especially in small communities in
rural Manitoba.
I have some concerns and some questions
about the implementation of this decision.
I know that the government has repeatedly said that this decision will
save $3 million, and therefore, I would be interested in knowing how much money
did the government save by firing 600 board members.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Housing): Madam Chairperson, that is a silly question
and really does not deserve an answer. Obviously, when you have volunteer board
members that are not paid, you do not save any money, nor was it ever explained
publicly or otherwise, or ever suggested publicly or otherwise that the
dissolution of volunteer housing boards across the province would have saved a
dime.
However, Madam Chairperson, I can tell you
that, for instance, we have over a period of time accomplished a number of
savings. Let me give you just two or
three examples of that. Previously, for instance in Selkirk, painting costs for
suites in Selkirk ranged under the administration of the former Housing
Authority approximately $1,200 to $1,500 per unit. By August of 1991, approximately six months
after the dissolution of the former boards and assuming at least part control
and not total control because the operations of the authority still functioned
administratively very much as they had before, but just for the couple of
incidents, we brought those costs down to about $850 per unit which would have
saved $72,000 for the Selkirk Housing Authority alone, one single Housing
Authority.
So that by implementing common practices
across the province, we see a number of areas of savings that can be engendered
through this process. I think my
honourable friend, you know, has perhaps a philosophical hangup, but I can tell
you that once the Manitoba Housing Authority begins to function fully, once the
social housing advisory group operations are in place in communities across the
province where they desire them, they will now have an opportunity, I think,
for significant input from the local community level. Tenant associations are encouraged under the
Manitoba Housing Authority. We have, in
fact, in every district office a tenant relations officer whose job it will be
to liaise with tenants, to assist them in forming tenant associations, to
liaise with social housing advisory groups, and to generally do the things
that, while may have been done on an involuntary or voluntary basis in the
past, will be formalized under the MHA.
I think quite frankly that it is going to be a better system for the
tenants.
Madam Chairperson, we as a government, we
as a Legislature, have to worry about how we are going to maintain a housing
stock that in large part is 20 years old and more, and the fact that it is
deteriorating, and the fact that dollars are short, the fact that CMHC has cut
back in its operations. We have to come
up with the money to keep these places in reasonable repair.
Madam Chairperson, it is in all of our
interests. It is in the tenants'
interest, it is in the government's interest, in the Legislature's interest,
and in the taxpayers' interest that we try and maximize the benefits that we
can out of the operation, to keep the stock in good condition, and then to be
able to have the money available to accomplish those objectives.
Mr. Martindale: I am pleased to hear that the government
estimates that they are going to save $72,000 in Selkirk alone. One of the
concerns that tenants in Selkirk have is that with the new system tenants are
being asked to vacate units so that a contractor can paint a whole row of units
or a large number of units, and they felt that this was inconveniencing tenants
and unfair in some cases. I am wondering
if the minister has any information and if he is willing to comment on that.
Mr. Ernst: If the member is referring to the Alfred
Block in Selkirk, the matter raised by the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) the
other day, that is exactly the case.
It is not just a simple matter of
painting. The place is a disaster. What happened was that the Selkirk Housing
Authority administration under the former manager chose, because of a large
number of units in Selkirk, to take all of the problem tenants and put them in
one building. Because of that, there was
significant damage inflicted upon the building.
There were a number of problems which I will not go into, Madam
Chairperson, at this point, but if the member wishes, I will be pleased to do
that in private.
Nonetheless, the place is significantly in
poor repair, although structurally sound.
We are vacating the entire building so that work can be undertaken to
bring these units back into reasonable condition. We are taking the existing tenants and
relocating them in other units elsewhere in the community in order to
accomplish that objective.
* (1640)
Mr. Martindale: If I can comment just very briefly on the
tenant relations officer, as a former tenant organizer I look forward to this
new system and hope that it will be successful, and that everywhere that
tenants want to have a social housing advisory group that they will be enabled
to do so through the new tenant relations officers.
Could the minister tell the House how much
the government thinks that they will save by firing a number of part‑time
staff?
Mr. Ernst: The resolution, Madam Chairperson, of the
Manitoba Housing Authority in terms of staffing, there were a number of areas
of duplication. There were people that
were underutilized in terms of the job situations that they have, so there will
be some dislocation. The expectation is
that overall there will be 40 less full‑time equivalent positions in the
overall scheme of things than there were under the MHA and that between 75 and
100 people perhaps will be impacted.
You have to appreciate that under some
housing authorities, a number of housing authorities, there were staff who for
instance worked an hour a day or worked one day a week or worked two hours
every second day and things of that nature.
There were a great number of staff who it was not a full‑time job
for them. They could not make a living
at doing that, it was a supplementary situation for them, for which we are
appreciative of the work that they have done.
The fact of the matter is, Madam
Chairperson, that there will be, in addition to the current full‑time
staff, contact persons or others in the community who will be available for
contract work. They will not be full‑time
employees of the Manitoba Housing Authority, but they will be contract
employees to the Manitoba Housing Authority, so in every community there will
be one of those people, for virtually every building there will be one of those
people, so there will always be local input related to particular building for
immediate contact emergency‑type situations.
Mr. Martindale: It is my understanding that the union has a
tentative agreement with the government, and because of this they did not go to
the Labour Board and that union members will be voting whether to accept or
reject this agreement that has been worked out and that Manitoba Housing will
have the opportunity to decide whether they want to accept it or not. Could the minister indicate when the
government will decide and when that information will be made public?
Mr. Ernst: Madam Deputy Speaker, we have been having
ongoing discussions with the‑‑there were five, I believe, unions
altogether dealing with their previous housing authorities, plus about half of
the staff were in fact nonunionized. We
have been discussing these matters with the unions involved for some period of
time. There is now an agreement that has
been ratified I believe Monday evening by the MGEA and the Operating Engineers
Union, who are the two successor unions to the previous group. Now that that
has been ratified and we have an agreement, we will be dealing with that matter
shortly.
Mr. Martindale: Right now the employees are experiencing a
great deal of distress because they have to reapply for positions. They do not
know if they will be successful or whether they will have to accept other
positions, possibly at less pay. People
who may be losing their jobs do not know yet if they are losing them, and it
would be my hope that this could be resolved as soon as possible with the least
amount of stress on the employees.
Could the minister indicate when the
department or Manitoba Housing Authority feels that the new positions will be
settled on, so the employees can know when these decisions will be made?
Mr. Ernst: I do not doubt for a minute that it has been
as distressing for the employees. It is
not a desirable situation, one I do not think anyone would have gone out and
sought to have this kind of process; however, such as it is, the process is
there and it had to be gone through. Now
that we have resolution with respect to the collective bargaining agents and an
agreement in terms of who is excluded, who is not, who has successive rights,
who does not, who has seniority rights and who does not, and appropriate
policies surrounding that, we will be proceeding forthwith with bulletining and
filling of these positions.
We intend to provide round‑the‑clock
virtual interviews and so on. They are
going to go five or six days a week so that these positions can be filled. We anticipate that most of the existing staff
who wish to be employed with the MHA will likely be included. There will be some dislocation, there is no
question. So the sooner that is known,
the sooner the whole affair can be put to bed, the better I think for everybody
concerned. We are going to attempt to do
that as quickly as we can.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to thank the minister for those
responses. Now, I would like to move on
to the issue of co‑op housing and the changes in the most recent federal
budget.
Would the minister be willing to share
with me the correspondence that he had with either the federal minister
responsible for Housing or the Minister of Finance? I would be interested in knowing exactly what
the concerns were that were passed on to the federal government, and also if
the minister has any idea of how this will affect Manitoba in terms of fewer
dollars coming to Manitoba, the number of units that will not be coming to
Manitoba and the number of jobs that were probably lost as the result of no
construction activity for federally funded co‑op housing?
Mr. Ernst: Technically, you should rule the question out
of order, because it deals with another level of government. In the interest of time and co‑operation,
I am prepared to say that certainly when the Estimates of the Department of
Housing come up we can have a detailed discussion with the member opposite
regarding some of the questions that he has asked, because I cannot at this
point answer them.
I can say though that through the council
of Housing ministers, we are presently attempting to have a meeting with Elmer
MacKay, the minister responsible from the federal side, the minister
responsible for CMHC, because all of us collectively across the country are
unhappy not just with the co‑op housing program cancellation, but the
fact that the 3 percent cap on CMHC funding overall is going to impact our
province significantly in the future. So
we are attempting to organize an emergency meeting with the minister.
The chairman this year is the minister
from
Mr. Martindale: I look forward to continuing this discussion
in Estimates. Since we are running out
of time, I would like to move to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs
(Mrs. McIntosh).
My basic question is where is the new
Residential Tenancies Act? When is it
going to be proclaimed? I would be
interested in knowing what the problem is, what the holdup is.
It is my impression that part of the
problem results from changes that were made between Bill 42 and Bill 13. When we asked one of the previous Ministers
of Housing where certain things were in Bill 13 that were taken out of Bill 42,
one of the previous minsters said, well, it will be in the regulations, which I
interpreted as a well‑trust‑me kind of answer.
I am wanting to know from the minister who
is now responsible for that act if drafting the regulations is a problem,
because it has been said that the department is on the 10th draft of the
regulation. Could the minister tell us
when the bill is going to be proclaimed and what the problem is? Is the problem the regulations and, if so, is
it because of things that were taken out of Bill 42?
* (1650)
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister
of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam
Chairperson, first of all, there is no problem, there is no delay. My statement has always been that the act we
hope to have proclaimed at late spring, early summer 1992, which remains our
deadline, which remains our target. You
know, I cannot say it will be exactly the first day of summer, or the last day
of spring, but in around that area is my target date. All of the things we had
in line to do are proceeding along the time line we were expecting them to be
on at this point.
Yes, they were on draft 10 when I became
minister. I cannot speak as to what
happened before I was minister in terms of what the minister said about the
first draft of the bill and Bill 13. I can tell you that from the time I have
come, our target date was late spring, early summer '92.
The regulations have taken a long time to
draft. I do not know if they are
addressing the things that you were expecting them to address. I do know that they are addressing the things
that I have been told by interest groups and by individuals who said, I am
really worried about such and such, will the regulations address that? All of those points have been taken into
consideration.
The regulations, of course, have to go for
drafting. Right now there is a lot of
drafting being done for bills that are in the House, and they, of course, take
precedence over other drafting.
The deadline for receiving applications
for the commissioner is now passed, and those applications have come in. We have ordered 106 chairs for the courtrooms
that we will be setting up. We have to
do some moving around of duties and responsibilities because, as you know, we
will be having court functions now which we did not have before. The staff is being trained. They have to be trained in some of these new
functions, some of the new information that they have to put out to the
public. The procedures manual, I am not
sure if it is ready now, but it is in the stages of being completed.
Once we have the commissioner in place,
then the commissioner, him or herself, depending upon which gender it is, will
then be assisting us with the final stages of putting together those last
details that have to be put in place before we can proceed to be a court,
really, in a sense, which we were not before.
Mr. Martindale: I thank the minister for her answers, and I
have three short snappers for the Minister of Family Services.
Could the minister confirm that money
allocated to CRISP, the Child Related Income Support Program, has decreased
every year in recent years?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): I do not
have the budget details, and I think we are going into Estimates. Maybe even tomorrow we can get into that, but
I know that some of the income supplements have changed as salaries have gone
up and needs have changed. Certainly the
55 Plus program, the volume has gone down as pensions kick in and other income
comes into play. I think we can get into
that in the Estimates process when we get to that budget line.
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): I have a couple of quick
questions to the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey). Perhaps we could start, although I recognize
we have only a few minutes, but we could get into it now and finish it tomorrow
maybe.
An Honourable Member: Maybe leave those until private members'
hour.
Mr. Alcock: If the Chairperson wishes to ask if there is
leave, she could do so.
An Honourable Member: You cannot.
You have to wait until we are back in the Chamber.
Mr. Alcock: Okay, we cannot, so maybe I can ask my
question then.
I wonder if the Minister of Education
could start by explaining to me the difference between the announcement in the
budget of $2.5 million in new programs at our community colleges and the
existence of only $1,164,000 in total additional funding to those same three
colleges?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Some of
the details I will have to provide to the honourable member during the course
of the Estimates process, but in terms of the additions at the community
colleges, I am sure he understands at this point that we have been able to add
a number of new courses to the community colleges and, in addition to adding
the new courses, we have also expanded some courses which are currently ongoing
at this time.
Mr. Alcock: I thank the minister for that rather brief
answer. Perhaps though‑‑the budget was fairly clear. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) said
there would be $2.5 million in new programs, and I am wondering if the Minister
of Education can tell us which programs those are? Which are the new ones that add up to that
$2.5 million?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am certainly happy to
provide the names of some of the new programs at the various colleges if the member
would like a listing.
We have, at
I am certainly pleased to provide additional
new programming at the other two colleges if the member would find that
helpful.
Mr. Alcock: Madam Chairperson, I would indeed find that
helpful.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, other new programs at
At
Mr. Alcock: Thank you very much.
In the $1,164,000 in increased funding for
those three facilities, is any of that money to go for salary increases or
operating expenditure increases?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, as I said, I am more than
happy to go into the details in the Estimates process.
I will also remind him that I am a new
minister, however, I can tell him that some of the increases certainly were for
new programming. There were other
increases in terms of expansion, and as the member knows also, we have college
governance. We are in the process of
working with an implementation team for college governance, and there is some
staff training which is necessary in order for those community colleges to
progress into college governance which we are aiming for on April 1, 1993, and
so there is also some funding for staff training.
Mr. Alcock: Madam Chairperson, I think, given the
lateness of the time, perhaps I will just lay out some of the areas that I
would be interested in talking about tomorrow, so the minister can prepare for
tomorrow's discussion. In the Estimates
that were tabled in the House there is, as I had mentioned, about $1,164,000 in
total new funding to the three colleges.
The minister has indicated a great many expenditures against that.
Presumably there are contractual increases, or salary increases because of
merit increases and the new contract.
Presumably there are some noncontrollable operating cost increases,
electricity and heat and those kinds of things, and the minister has mentioned
other things like the new governance program, staff training and all of those
kinds of issues that will draw upon those funds. In addition, the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) has announced $2.5 million in new programs.
Given that we have increased expenditures,
what I would like to get from the minister is an idea of what portion of that
$1,164,000 will be eaten up by salary increases, merit increases, the new
training she has referenced, organizational changes, et cetera, and then try to
get a handle on exactly where this $2.5 million is, and then try to identify
what programs are being cut or reduced as a result of the need to fund the $2.5
million in new programs that the Finance minister has promised us.
Do we still have time remaining?
[interjection] Well, no, the Speaker can ask for that. I am told by the Chairperson that she cannot
request that, it has to be done by the Speaker.
Is that correct? Would you like
to move to that now?
Madam Chairperson: The hour being 5 p.m., it is time for private
members' hour. Call in the Speaker.
* (1700)
IN SESSION
House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I wonder
if there might be will to waive private members' hour today so we can continue
on with Committee of Supply dealing with Interim Supply and so that the member
for Osborne can have his questions answered that he so succinctly put earlier?
Mr. Speaker: Is there the willingness of the House to
waive private members' hour?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Leave is denied.
Committee Report
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): Mr.
Speaker, the Committee of the Whole reports progress on Bill 67 and asks leave
to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member
for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., it is time for private
members' hour.
ORDERS FOR RETURN, ADDRESSES FOR PAPERS REFERRED FOR DEBATE
Mr. Speaker: Standing in the name of the honourable member
for
THAT an Address for Papers do issue
praying for:
The text of the formal opinion requested
from the Department of Justice by Health department officials on whether there
is anything that would interfere with enforcement of The Public Health
Amendment Act, Statutes of Manitoba Chapter 62 (formerly Bill 91), also known
as the antisniffing legislation.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: Standing in the name of the member for
Burrows (Mr. Martindale), who has eight minutes remaining.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): When I left off last time, I was talking about
some research that I did back about 1984 in preparation for a speech I made for
a national conference on sniffing at the Fort Garry Hotel. What I was looking at in the studies was
whether there was a correlation between socioeconomic conditions and sniffing.
One of the problems with this particular
issue in our community is that I think there is a public perception that this
problem is an inner‑city problem, a problem of poor children, or a
problem only of aboriginal people in the city and on reserves.
The result of my studies of sniffing show
that is not the case, that about half of the studies show a correlation between
socioeconomic conditions and sniffing, and about half show that there is no
correlation between socioeconomic conditions and sniffing. There was one study that showed a correlation
between high income and sniffing. That
study, amazingly enough, was done in
We know from newspaper accounts from time
to time that it is not just children on reserves and children in the inner city
that die from sniffing. In fact, I
remember during the time that the antisniff coalition in
So when we are asking for this legislation
to finally be proclaimed, it is not because we are only concerned about our
constituents, not that we are only concerned about inner‑city residents
and reserve residents, but because this problem affects people everywhere in
the province of Manitoba. We want this
protection for all young people in the province, not just people in certain
geographic areas. So it is, and should
be, the concern of all members of this Legislature.
We know that the government supported this
bill. They had to support it for it to
become law. They promised it and then
they have delayed it, and we are still waiting.
We have been waiting a long time for them to do something about it.
It was given first reading on December 15,
1989. On February 1, 1990, it was
introduced for second reading. It was
spoken to on February 6 and March 1, 1990; March 8 and March 13 it went to
committee stage; March 13 was clause‑by‑clause; March 15, third and
final reading; but we are still waiting for proclamation.
On December 11, there were questions in
Question Period, and in February 1991 the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard)
indicated that further study was required and that no date had been set for
proclamation. On May 1, 1991, the
Minister of Health stated that amendments may be necessary to deal with
technical problems with enforcement, but I do not think we have had any clear
guidance or indication of what those technical problems are. On March 3, 1992, the minister was asked to
table a legal opinion on enforcement of the bill and refused. We have been very critical of the numerous
delays in proclaiming this bill.
In fact, there are some parallels with the
war on drugs, the alleged war on drugs, by this government. There was a committee chaired by a member,
who was a member of the upper benches, now a cabinet minister, and that report
was completed and handed to the minister.
In fact, I have heard that it was published last July or August, and
apparently it is sitting on the desk of the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard). We would be interested in
knowing where this report is. We are
looking forward to seeing those recommendations from that committee that toured
the province.
So we have a parallel, in the same area
actually. In one case, alcohol and
drugs, in this area, in sniffing. We are
still waiting for that report, and we are waiting for the antisniff legislation
to be proclaimed.
All we can say is that we are very
disappointed in the Minister of Health.
We are very disappointed in the nonaction of this government, and we
would hope that by debating this every Wednesday or every opportunity that we
get that it might spur the government to do something instead of sitting and
doing nothing.
While they sit and do nothing, the lives
of young people are endangered. Between
the time that the bill is passed and that it is proclaimed, it is likely that
young people either have died or will die.
I do not think that I would want to be responsible for that if I thought
that those deaths could be prevented. We
believe that this legislation will prevent deaths. That is one of the reasons why we are
supporting it and anxious to see it proclaimed.
So we will be looking forward to hearing
from the Minister of Health in debate and see if he has anything at all to say,
and if so, what he has to say, and if he can indicate to the House when this
bill will be proclaimed, so that we do not have any more stalling or
delaying. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
* (1710)
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau
(St. Norbert): The Order for Papers that the NDP has asked
for, Mr. Speaker‑‑I could not knock them for working towards the
goals that they are reaching for. I
supported exactly, I would say, almost a parallel legislation when I was at
City Council.
Mr. Speaker, the antisniffing legislation,
I could not speak against it. You are
right, it is positive legislation. The
problem is, it is not enforceable. We
passed legislation‑‑well, not legislation, we passed a by‑law
at City Council, the parallel legislation to this, and when it went to the
courts, it was found that it could not be enforced. [interjection] I am sure the
honourable member can put what he wants to put on the record after me. I do not think he is trying to take up my
time. I am more than happy to allow him
to come back at a later time.
All I am saying is, I supported the by‑law
when we were at the city, Mr. Speaker. I
spoke in favour of it. It is important
that we, as a community, try to protect our young people and all those who are
dealing with drugs and sniff and all the rest of it.
How that legislation is put in place is
another question. I think the time has
come that you do not just draft legislation for the sake of drafting
legislation. I think when you draft
legislation and you do not put thought behind that legislation, you run into
exactly this type of problem. This type
of problem, Mr. Speaker, is that you could not enforce it at a later date. I do not feel that you are gaining any ground
when you go to the courts and have your legislation being challenged, and you
are being turned into a negative response.
An Honourable Member: Proclaim it.
Let somebody challenge it.
Mr. Laurendeau: The honourable member says proclaim it, let
it be challenged. That is the philosophy
of the opposition, proclaim it and let it be challenged. It is really going to do a lot of benefit,
Mr. Speaker, a lot of benefit to go into the courts and have a legislation
challenged.
Why do we not do it up right, Mr.
Speaker? Do what is right for the public
and see that proper legislation is not only drafted, but the regulations are
enforceable. That is what is
necessary. The necessary thing here‑‑and
I am sure that is what the NDP want‑‑is protection for our children
and protection for the public. So, yes,
I am in favour of the legislation, but let us see that the regulations that are
in place with the legislation can be enforced in a court of law. Once that has been put in place, I am sure
that this government will see that this type of legislation is put in place.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): I am very glad to be
able to have the opportunity to speak on this bill, and I was very glad to hear
the defence of the government offered by the member for St. Norbert (Mr.
Laurendeau) as to why this bill has not been proclaimed.
His defence, it seemed to me, was based
upon the argument that this was not an enforceable law. Now, I assume‑‑was the member for
St. Norbert in the House at the time when this was voted in? Apparently, he was not in the House, and so
he did not vote for this, although he does claim that he voted for something
similar in the city during the 1970s, but certainly‑‑
Mr. Laurendeau: Seventies.
I am not that old, Jean.
Ms. Friesen: Oh, sorry.
Eighties?
Mr. Laurendeau: Nineties.
Ms. Friesen: Nineties, you are a nineties guy. After all this, I did not know that. My apologies to the member for St. Norbert.
He is arguing that this is not an
enforceable bill, and although he, himself, did not vote for it, the members of
his government and his cabinet did indeed vote for it. They voted for it after attending, as I
understand it, committee hearings where a number of community groups spoke in
favour of it. In fact, I understand that
there was only one group which did not speak in favour of it and that was the
Manitoba Medical Association.
It was not a legal body who spoke against
it. It was not a legal opinion that was
offered that this law was unenforceable. Indeed, I understand that at the
committee hearings, lawyers did appear and did compare it to the city by‑laws
and did say that it was comparable, but in fact it avoided the problems that
the city by‑law had presented. The
lawyers did argue at the committee hearings, and one would have to assume that
the government which voted for this bill heard those arguments, took them into
account when they made their final disposition on this bill. So the argument of the member for St. Norbert
(Mr. Laurendeau) that this is not an enforceable bill seems to me to be based
upon very spurious kinds of arguments, and, in fact, run directly in face of
the kind of evidence and the kind of arguments which were presented at the
committee hearings in
Now, perhaps the member for St. Norbert
does have an alternative legal opinion.
That is always the possibility, indeed, that there is more than one
legal opinion on this bill. I know that members of this House have for the last
two years been asking for other legal opinions, and if they do exist then we
would be very keen, I think very anxious to read them. The member for
An Honourable Member: Well, I do not think it is a reasonable and
rational bill.
Ms. Friesen: You would have to think that does argue
against the fact that this is a reasonable and rational government. Speaking in this House where all members are
indeed honourable, we would have to assume that there are some honourable
members on the other side who do have an alternative legal opinion. So I would ask the government at this stage
to put that on the table if they believe sincerely, as the member for St.
Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) has said, that this is not an enforceable bill. If they believe that this follows exactly the
pattern of the City of
In the absence of any evidence, after
repeated questionings in this House, it seems to me that it is a disregard of
the legitimacy of this House to argue on the one hand from the back benches
that this is unenforceable and from the front benches to refuse to put any
legal opinion on the record. I think
that my constituents, indeed, who have been very anxious to see this bill
passed would be interested to know of this.
I certainly will be communicating this to them in my next letters and
when I meet people on the doorstep.
There are some areas of my constituency
where this has been an issue for many years, and indeed I know that some of my
constituents were very much involved in the presentations at the committee
hearing and in working with the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis)
when she put this bill forward. Indeed,
the very first call that I had as a new member for Wolseley in this House was
from somebody who phoned me and said, where is that antisniff bill? He continued to phone me on a regular basis
for six months. He moved then to another
riding, and I assume that he is dealing with his member still in that way. It was the very first item that I had to deal
with.
I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that I found it
very difficult to understand why a government and a cabinet which has voted en
masse, solidly, no absentees, no people who voted against it, a solid vote for
a bill now refuses and puts the legitimacy of this House, the legitimacy of the
democratic process into question, refuses without providing any evidence,
refuses to proclaim this bill which has been passed democratically by this
House. So I continued my investigations
into this on behalf of my constituent.
In fact, he was not the only one, because I have had a number of calls
since, particularly from the pharmacists, the pharmacists on Broadway and the
pharmacists in other parts of my constituency who were very interested from the
beginning in the passage of this bill, and very keen to ensure that the
restrictions to people under the age of 18 could in fact be carried out. It was something that they certainly wanted
to do themselves. They see every day on
Broadway some of the damage that these kinds of solvents and other drug abuse‑‑the
toll that they can take upon people.
They were very keen in fact to see this bill passed and to ensure that
they could act upon it.
I have had to tell them in letters and in
other communications that, yes, this bill was passed by this Legislature. Yes, this was a bill that was passed by this
government. Yes, this was a bill that
was voted for by this cabinet, but, no, this bill has not been proclaimed. There is no evidence to suggest that there is
any reason for this, no legal opinion.
Every time the member for
* (1720)
I do not think the government should think
that this bill and their absence of action on this has gone underground,
because it has not. Every member on this
side who has constituents who are concerned about this are sending out this information
as often and as frequently as we can.
In my constituency, as well, there is an
antisniff coalition which operates at the moment with the assistance of
Klinic. This is a group of people in the
area around
They have been very effective in clearing
the shelves of one of the local grocery stores of this kind of sniff, and
working with the local community police to make some kind of changes to the
area around
I think that is another thing that I would
like to remind the government of at this stage.
On the one hand, you cannot simply deny the proclamation of this bill
and leave people in limbo, because it is not as though you are expanding the
number of opportunities for treatment.
There are many more people, many waiting lists, much longer waiting
lists, in fact, for this kind of treatment than for many others.
I think the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard) and the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) must be very
well aware of this, of the very limited opportunities that we have not only in
Winnipeg, but in the province generally, for the long‑term treatment
which is necessary for people who are now, or have been in the past, solvent
abusers.
So the treatment issues, I think, are very
important to people in the constituency.
They were concerned about the people who would be moved on from that
part‑‑people who were hungry, who were cold, who used sniff often,
in fact, to escape from the very terrible lives that many of them lead. Where were they being pushed to?
There were no homes for them to go
to. There were no treatment centres that
were empty, and that equally concerned the people whom I spoke to. It is not just in that part of the
constituency of Wolseley, but it is also obviously a problem in
It is not just in the inner city as
well. I suppose if I had given attention
to this issue before I came into the Legislature, it was with the very tragic
events that the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) mentioned‑‑the
two young students in St. James who essentially went on a spree, and it was the
only time they ever took sniff. It was
the first time, and for one of them it was the last time.
That, Mr. Speaker, I think to me, and to
many of the people in that part of the city and perhaps elsewhere as well, the
tragedy of that is the one mistake that somebody made. It was so easily accessible to him. It was a summer night, they had nothing else
to do, they took it as a lark, and one of them died.
It is something which for many people‑‑not
just in this city, but in the northern reserves particularly, and in other
northern communities‑‑it has been a one‑chance event that
people have died. We have an issue, for
example, recently in Norway House where a woman died. Now I do not know if it was just from a
single event, but certainly what strikes me very much is in many ways it is
very much like AIDS.
I tell my own children, time after time‑‑we
have a kind of code word for it in our own house about AIDS. There is no second chance. If you can get that idea across to young
children. There are not many elements of the issue of AIDS and of things like
sniff that you can get across to them, that they have no second chance.
That to me is one of the tragedies of this
bill, that we have a chance here to take these goods off the shelves. We have a chance to protect children, to
protect those who are under 18, who on one summer night, just like those two
young boys in St. James, might again take it into their heads to have a spree,
and which, for them, there will be no second chance.
So I appeal to the government again. I think I appeal in vain, but I will do it
again. I cannot understand the disregard
for democracy, the disregard for this House, of a government which has passed a
bill, which has heard it in committee, which has heard the legal opinions
presented in committee, which knows the tragedy of those children in St. James
or the woman in Norway House, which does not bring in another bill, offers us
no other alternatives, which knows that there are waiting lists for the long‑term
abusers of solvents and sniff.
Given all of those circumstances which
have been presented to the government time after time after time in this House,
yet they are taking it upon their shoulders to do nothing and not to proclaim
this bill.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): I am
pleased to have a chance to address this issue.
I think there are some important lessons that can be learned from how we
pass legislation in this House. It is an
example where in very short order we got agreement on the fact that we had a
social problem that we had to address but that the research and the background
work that is required to go into that resolution and into that legislation was
not there.
As a result, even though we all had the
good intentions of addressing this problem, we did not take the time to really
study the manner in which we were going to address that through the
resolution. As a result, we passed a
resolution that we agreed to, I think, in theory, but in real practical terms
are unable to bring it forward and have it enforced.
I think the lesson we need to learn here
is that when we are doing reform and changes in social issues that they need to
be well thought out and well researched and well documented and brought forward
through Legislative Council and take the time to think out all of the ramifications
of that legislation.
I know the member for Burrows (Mr.
Martindale) would agree that there are times when he has gotten up to speak on
an issue where he was very much in favour of it. I would reference some changes in social
allowances that we were able to speak on in the last session where, I have not
read his words recently, but I recall his saying that he was wholeheartedly in
favour of this, it is something that the government should have done a long
time ago, and he was also going to encourage the federal government to make the
same changes.
* (1730)
I accepted his praise and his, I thought,
well‑thought‑out suggestions at that time as representing the
thinking of the New Democratic Party at that time, and then when those changes
came about, he said: I reserve the right
to change my mind, I do not feel that way anymore.
Because there were some vocal groups in
society who said, you know, we do not like this, he very quickly decided that
he did not like it. It makes me wonder
sometimes whether there is much thought put into those comments and just what
he really believes.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, we have another
occasion here where we did not have a well‑thought‑out, well‑researched
resolution, and as a result it has been deemed unenforceable. It does not take away from the issue.
We would join with opposition members,
particularly in working with the troubled youth we have in society to find
solutions to drug and alcohol issues, and the issues where young people are sniffing
glue or gasoline or other solvents. I
think that there is a genuine desire on all our parts to find workable
solutions that we can put into place.
I can tell you from my background in the
school systems that these issues do not just appear in Burrows and Wolseley and
on northern reserves. These are issues
that are troubling all Manitobans and all levels of society. We have to find workable solutions and ways
which we can train our teachers and our social workers and our members of the
clergy who work with young people, the people who work at the YMCA and YWCA to
work with young people to have them find other alternatives, other lifestyles,
and to deal with the real issues out there, even though I am sure we accept the
intentions of this resolution that was very positive. Again, we see where there is not the proper
research, the proper documentation, the proper thought put into it, because we
want to solve a problem so badly, we accepted that resolution.
You know, I listen to the rhetoric of my
honourable friend from Burrows (Mr. Martindale) and others, and hear the
rhetoric that is there now. As one of my
honourable colleagues has pointed out from the comfort of opposition, come
forward with all sorts of solutions to problems that were not tackled in the
many years that they were in government in the 1980s and 1970s.
I am reminded of a couple of areas in my
own department, the shelter system that we have put in place. I mean, all the rhetoric was there during the
1980s, but there was no funding, all of the good thinking about resolving
problems in the communities and building shelters and having outreach workers,
but there was no funding. As a result,
when we came into government, we had a very unstable situation with people
wanting to do good work, but not having the resources, the financial resources
or the tools to do that, and believe me, it takes time and it takes commitment,
and it takes the will of government to put those resources into place to
address those problems.
I am proud of the efforts this government
has made and the Department of Family Services has made to put into place the
funding to stabilize a shelter system to deal with some very vulnerable people
within the province. Again, I point out
to honourable members opposite that a lot of planning, a lot of thinking has to
go into that, but ultimately the commitment of financial resources.
We have seen, you know, a number of areas
where members opposite in the comfort of opposition bring forward ideas, and my
honourable friend from Burrows (Mr. Martindale), who tells me that his working
life has been devoted to working on poverty issues. We have seen in the last few months more
reform of social allowances, for instance, than ever took place since the
1960s. Not only have we been able to put
a financial commitment in place to alter upward the social allowance amounts by
3.6 percent when other jurisdictions, notably our neighbour to the east, in
Ontario, are only putting very limited resources into social allowances.
We have also made reforms with liquid
assets and created a new program in very difficult times, a program which
recognizes the special needs of the disabled community. I can tell you that the rhetoric that we hear
from opposition benches on some of these social issues was not matched by any
action during the 1980s or the 1970s. I
can tell you that all of these programs take a lot of work, a lot of planning
and a lot of thought before we bring them forward and we do have the resources
to actually put the programs into place.
So, again, I would reference that this resolution is an example where‑‑a
good idea.
I remember the member for St. Johns (Ms.
Wasylycia‑Leis) bringing her bag full of solvent cans into the
Legislature and rattling them to the top of her desk, and the Speaker, quite
rightly so, having to call her to order.
It became a very emotional issue, and I guess we all got caught up in
the emotion of the time in supporting a resolution like this, because truly all
of us want to find a solution to it.
Truly, we want our young people to live worthwhile lives and to grow up
to be meaningful adults and have careers and raise families the way we all have
those good intentions.
Again, we see the rhetoric of the
opposition, and I think maybe even a sense of guilt that there are a number of
things that they know should have been done during the 1970s and 1980s that
they are now seeing come to fruition by a government that cares for people, a
government who is prepared to not only match the rhetoric but also to put the
resources in there. I can tell you that
the people of
An Honourable Member: Oh, especially in daycare.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, the honourable member wants to talk
about daycare. You know, we see the
government of
We see other provinces that do not have
those spaces, that do not have the financial resources committed to a program
like we do in
An Honourable Member: Well I do not know about that. It is slipping.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, it was not more than a few weeks ago that
members opposite decided to put out their pretend budget and make the choices,
before government put out their budget and looked at the resources, and planned
with the unlimited resources that opposition have when they sort of put
together a pretend budget. What kind of
resources did they devote to Family Services?
Some 5 percent. Some $20 million
less than the government of the day brings down in their budget.
I challenge the member for Burrows (Mr.
Martindale) and other members to tell me where they would have spent $20
million less. I have yet to hear any suggestions where that took place. Now, I know that, in their pretend budget, in
their dream budget, this is what their vision was, to increase Family Services
by 5 percent. We virtually doubled that.
Members opposite like to pretend that it
all goes to social allowances. But there
are a number of new initiatives announced in the budget. I have yet to hear the
member for Burrows and others compliment the government on the resources that
we are finding for the family dispute area, for the new initiatives in the
rehab and community living, for other new programs that we are going to
announce.
I would guess that maybe there might be
some rethinking done as far as candidates for upcoming by‑elections go,
because their best thinking that was put to work on this budget fell far short
of what government was able to offer as resources.
* (1740)
(Mr.
Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
So I say to you again, Mr. Acting Speaker,
that we not only are prepared to tackle the difficult social issues that
confront government, through the Family Services department and other
departments, in Health and Education, but have put resources into those
departments that far outstrip the resources that were there before or even the
wish list that members opposite came up with in their pretend budget.
Now, the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen)
referenced waiting lists for treatment.
Certainly that is a reality. I
know within my department, when we look at the child welfare area and we want
to enhance the treatment centres‑‑whether they be the Marymounds or
the MacDonald Youth Services, Children's Home or some of the private treatment
centres, certainly we have got a long way to go. We need more reforms there. We need more resources there. We need more
training there for the individuals who are working in those areas.
But I can tell you that I am disappointed
that there are never reforms of the system, ideas and suggestions that come
forward from across the way, other than, spend more money there. When we have
proceeded with some changes in the manner in which child welfare is delivered
in the city of Winnipeg‑‑a system that is working well, I might add‑‑we
also announced a number of other reforms that were long, long overdue.
I would reference the child advocate,
which was an idea first brought forward in, I think, 1983 by Judge
Kimelman. Was there any action on
that? Was there any attempt on the part
of government in 1983 or years afterwards to accept that, to adopt a child
advocate? Other provinces have since
done so.
Again, I ask you, Mr. Acting Speaker, did
government act on that? Was that a
reform that the government of the day was prepared to accept? The answer was no. So I am pleased we were able to announce that
reform last June when we made some other changes. Again, I ask members opposite‑‑
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Order, please.
The honourable member's time has expired.
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): This is a particularly important issue, and it
is one that our caucus and our colleagues have been working on for a number of
years. As the evidence shows, my
colleague the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis) had endeavoured
to put in the required research and effort that was needed to bring in a bill,
then to have it accepted by all members of this House, all parties, all sides
of this House, as an important bill that should be passed. Then to be procrastinated upon by this
government is just inconceivable. It is
extremely inconsistent on their part, and it is very difficult to rationalize
why they are procrastinating on such an important issue.
The Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) has just stood up and spent most of his time talking about how
thoughtful you have to be in doing these things, as if there was no
thought. It prompts us to ask what kind
of a mad moment the government must have experienced when they chose to, in
this fit of madness, actually vote for the bill, this thoughtless bill. Where
were they? Why did they support this
thoughtless bill if it was so bad? Where
was their thinking at the time? Why were
they not able to think through the process to identify those areas that were
thoughtless and had to be improved, and even bring in amendments, or say that
we cannot support this because it is not enforceable, or it does not have the
provisions that are required? They were
nowhere to be found at that time. They
said this is important.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) stood
up and said, I commend the member, on numerous occasions, this is very helpful.
It is not the be all and end all, but it is very helpful. Let us pass this bill. They did pass the bill just over two years
ago, and there is no action following.
So the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) really has no basis for making those comments. He proceeds to give a lecture about the
things the members of the opposition want in their pretend budget, as he says,
when it is not even the opposition who put forward that budget. Certainly, the minister is speaking about
something that has nothing to do with the issue we are looking at today in
terms of the request by Order for Return for some rationale by this government
for the decision they have made to reject an Order for Return asking for reasons
that this is not enforceable, some explanation by the government, so that we
could understand why they cannot proclaim this bill. What makes it so
difficult?
If you look through this bill, there is a
definition section, as is common in most bills.
It defines what is an intoxicating substance, and I do not think there
is anything difficult with that on the part of the government to enforce in
terms of the definitions. It seems
fairly straightforward and clear as to what constitutes an intoxicating substance. Then it talks about the prohibition: You cannot buy or sell this if you are under
the age of 18. It is clear, enforceable. What is the difficulty?
Then it lists some exceptions which are
quite easy to define dealing with a person under 18 purchasing on behalf of
their parent or some other guardian who has given them written consent. It goes through a few other situations where
if you are buying an intoxicating substance as part of a kit, if you are doing
a model airplane or something like that, that would be an exception and so
on. So it lists a few fairly
straightforward exceptions. There is no
difficulty there with the enforceability.
So the government has failed to demonstrate in their speeches, in their
response, in any way that there is a difficulty in this area of the bill.
They then talk about the issue of displays
and how it can be displayed. You cannot
have self‑service display. That is
easy to deal with. They talk about the
labelling of these products, clearly labelled as to the fact that they are an
intoxicating substance. That is not
difficult. If they are not labelled,
there is a violation there. You can give
a warning. Any new law takes time to
introduce to the public. They need to
have time to adjust.
Just like with seat belts, there was not a
lot of tickets given the first period of enforcement, there were warnings
given. The police officers endeavoured
to co‑operate with the government and with the public in that regard as
part of an education process, and there could be a period of some warnings
given during the initial period of enforcement that the bill is in place. Then following that, there could be charges
being laid.
You have a natural and logical process
that we would see that could be put in place for this instead of waiting two
years, and they have not even brought in a bill. They have not brought in a replacement. They have not brought any suggestions for
improving it. We have nothing. We could have had a bill that could have been
proclaimed two years ago, could have gradually been enforced. Now we would have a strictly enforceable bill
at this point in time, and if some amendments had to be brought in as a result
of experience, that even could have been done by this government with two or
three sittings of the House since that time.
So there is really no logical explanation,
no reasonable explanation by this government.
In fact, they are not able to explain their actions other than the fact
that they have had a fundamental change of heart on this issue. They are choosing to look the other way. Why are they choosing to look the other
way? Why are they choosing to ignore a
serious problem in society that we all see in our communities, that we all
face? Why would they turn their backs on something so serious? That is a very difficult question to answer
when they in fact supported the bill when it was introduced and voted on in
this House.
* (1750)
What has happened to change them? Have they been lobbied by some sections of
the business community who have said:
No, we do not want to stop making money on teenagers buying these
substances. We make a lot of bucks on
this.
Is that the reason? Well, I just asked the question. I am certainly not implying that is the
case. I am asking the question. I am searching. I am searching to find out why it is that
they have had this fundamental change when they are dealing with a solution to
a difficult problem, a very serious problem in society.
Is it the law enforcement officers? Are they asking that this be shifted aside,
that this not be proclaimed? Are the law
enforcement agencies saying that? Is
that a fact? We have not had that
explanation from the government. They do
not want to explain at all why they are not.
The Acting Speaker, who spoke earlier on this bill, said that he
supported it, but he said it is not enforceable. I wonder if he knows something about why it
is not enforceable, because no one said and the member for St. Norbert (Mr.
Laurendeau) when he spoke did not even say that. He did not even say that. He did not tell us why it was not
enforceable. He just said it is not
enforceable.
Was he taking the word of the Minister of
Health (Mr. Orchard)? Was he taking the
word of the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer)? Why did he repeat that? Was he just plagiarizing something that had
been told to him by others, or has he researched it to find out that it is
unenforceable?
You know, there are a lot of questions
that have to be answered, and I think the answers lie with the member for
Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld). Possibly he will
be able, since he is no longer in cabinet, to provide those answers, to shed
some light, to speak openly about why the government does not want to support
this bill, why they will not even give us reasons for not proclaiming the bill.
What is it that we are missing here? Where is the explanation, or is there nothing
logical but basically a change of heart, a callous disregard for the people who
are suffering as a result of sniff being available to young people in
society? Is that all we can say?
The Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings)
is listening here. He, I am sure, is
concerned. The Environment minister must
be concerned about the impact on young people in his community. He knows that it exists, that this problem
exists. Why is he turning his back? Is
it because they have not written him enough letters or phoned him enough? Why is it that he will not speak up to the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) and say, this bill must be proclaimed, I will not stand by and
ignore this serious problem in our society?
(Mr. Speaker in the
Chair)
Others have told us about this serious
problem, and I went through this bill, and I went through the major sections,
and I could find nowhere in the bill that it was unenforceable. Now, why will the government not come clean
with the public and with the opposition here in this House and the other
members and explain in detail?
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), I am
sure, would like to do that. Has he got
the research? Has he been provided with
the answers and would he stand up in this House and explain why? I am sure he
likes to be forthright in providing answers. We need that information. Let that minister stand up the next time this
comes up in the House and explain in detail.
He may even have a couple of minutes yet in this sitting where he could
explain that.
You know we are in a recession that is
driven by policies of Conservative governments in
Individuals who have tried only a few
times, once or twice, this experience and have lost their lives or lost their
future as a result of being affected, their brains being affected by the impact
of sniff‑‑how can we let this go on when we have the solution at
hand? How can we ignore that kind of a
problem?
I appeal to the government, please come
forward with your explanations and your solutions. Do not let this drag on now for more than two
years. If there really is no reason, other
than some lobbying by somebody who does not want to see this bill, who might
lose some profits because of it, then that is not sufficient reason and the
government has a right and responsibility to stand up and say that was the
reason. We are not going to use that
reason as a reason for not proclaiming this bill. We are going to move forward because we know
it is right, we know it is necessary, and we know that those people who are
impacted by it need the help now.
I ask them to in fact move forward. I request that they would bring forward all
information they have at their disposal to satisfy the concerns that have been
raised by my colleague the member for
Mr. Gerry McAlpine
(Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Speaker, I am really
pleased to speak on this bill. It is a
very serious concern, and all members on this side of the House recognize the
importance of legislation, if legislation is the answer.
I travelled around the province with
regard to abuse of substances and talked to a lot of people over the course of
several months. The message we were
hearing was not that legislation was the only answer. I think that too often these pieces of
legislation come into play without serious thought given to them before they
are put into law.
When we look at the bill, the purpose of
the bill is to prevent the solvent abuse among young people. As I have indicated, I do not think anyone in
government or in this Chamber wants to protect the people who are abusing this
kind of substance by sniffing as a way of life.
We realize how serious it is. I
heard in our travels last winter travelling the province, it is not something
that is foreign to any particular area; it is not foreign to any particular
class of people. It is a serious issue
among all members of the community in the
It is not only in
This was recognized by this government
after it was implemented after hearings, and the honourable Attorney General
(Mr. McCrae) indicated, shortly after it was passed in this Legislature, that
there were problems with certain sections that should be dealt with in
committee and should be thought through.
Upon the review of the bill, the
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House,
the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek will have 12 minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House now
adjourns and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Thursday).