LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday, June 10, 1992
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Mr.
Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I beg to
present the petition of Doug Burnett, Della Burnett, Jean Burnett and others
requesting the government consider reviewing the funding of the
Mr.
Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable Leader of the Second Opposition (Mrs. Carstairs). 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 residents of
the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the Kimelman Report (1983), the
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry (1991) and the Suche Report (1992) recommended that
the province establish such an office reporting directly to the Legislative
Assembly of Manitoba, in a manner similar to that of the Office of the
Ombudsman; and
WHEREAS pursuant to the Child and Family
Services Act Standards, the agency worker is to be the advocate for a child in care;
and
WHEREAS there is a major concern that child
welfare workers, due to their vested interest as employees within the service system,
cannot perform an independent advocacy role; and
WHEREAS pure advocacy will only be obtained
through an independent and external agency; and
WHEREAS the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) has unsatisfactorily dealt with complaints lodged against child welfare
agencies; and now
THEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that
the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans).
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
The
The citizens of
The
The administration of the hospital has been
forced to take drastic measures including the elimination of the Palliative
Care Unit and gynecological wards, along with the layoff of over 30 staff,
mainly licensed practical nurses, to cope with a funding shortfall of over $1.3
million; and
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that
the Legislature of the
* * *
I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member for
The petition of the undersigned residents of
the
WHEREAS the Manitoba Heritage Federation has
received and processed nearly 1,200 grant applications and awarded and monitored
almost 700 grants; and
WHEREAS 300 different organizations in 98
different communities representing every region of the province have received
grants through the efforts of the Manitoba Heritage Federation; and
WHEREAS the government has taken away the
granting authority of the Manitoba Heritage Federation and now plans to control
the distribution of heritage grants; and
WHEREAS this action appears to represent the
politicization of the heritage granting process; and
WHEREAS it is unclear as to what the
government's real commitment is to funding heritage in the province; and
WHEREAS the Board of the Heritage Federation
is composed of urban and rural members which represents a wealth of heritage experience
from all over the province; and
WHEREAS this move will have a critical impact
on the heritage community throughout the province
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that
the Legislative Assembly of
* (1335)
* * *
I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), 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 the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry was
launched in April of 1988 to conduct an examination of the relationship between
the justice system and aboriginal people; and
The AJI delivered its report in August of 1991
and concluded that the justice system has been a massive failure for aboriginal
people; and
The AJI report endorsed the inherent right of
aboriginal self‑government and the right of aboriginal communities to establish
an aboriginal justice system; and
The Canadian Bar Association, The Law Reform
Commission of
On January 28, 1992, five months after
releasing the report, the provincial government announced it was not prepared
to proceed with the majority of the recommendations; and
Despite the All‑Party Task Force Report
which endorsed aboriginal self‑government, the provincial government now
rejects a separate and parallel justice system, an Aboriginal Justice Commission
and many other key recommendations which are solely within provincial
jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that
the Legislature of the
* * *
I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), and it complies with the privileges and practices
of the House and complies with the rules.
Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?
The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the Dutch elm disease control program
is of primary importance to the protection of the city's many elm trees; and
WHEREAS the Minister of Natural Resources
himself stated that, "It is vital that we continue our active fight
against Dutch elm disease in
WHEREAS, despite that verbal commitment, the
government of
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that
the government of
As in duty bound your petitioners will ever
pray.
* (1340)
PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL
COMMITTEES
Mr.
Jack Penner (Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and
Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I would like to present the
Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural
Resources.
Mr.
Clerk (William Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Public Utilities
and Natural Resources presents the following as its Sixth Report.
Your Committee met on Tuesday, June 9, 1992,
at 10 a.m. in Room 255 of the
Your Committee heard representation on Bill
53, The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur la manutention et le transport des marchandises dangereuses,
as follows:
Mr. Wayne Neily,
Your Committee has considered:
Bill 10, The Manitoba Hydro Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur l'Hydro‑Manitoba
Bill 53, The Dangerous Goods Handling and
Transportation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la manutention et le transport
des marchandises dangereuses
and has agreed to report the same without
amendment.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr.
Penner: I move, seconded by the honourable member for
St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion
agreed to.
Introduction of Guests
Mr.
Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this afternoon
from the
Also this afternoon, from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I would
like to welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Constitutional Proposal
Federal Referendum
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question
is to the First Minister.
Over the last few weeks and escalating today,
the federal government is threatening to "go it alone" in terms of
the Constitution of the country. The
federal government has indeed passed plebiscite legislation last week in the
House of Commons. It is not binding insofar as it is not referendum
legislation, but the plebiscite legislation allows the federal government to unilaterally
set the question. It has absolutely no
spending limits insofar as there are no limits on committees that can be participating
in the debate and also allows for unlimited spending and participation of
provinces.
My question to the Premier is: Does he have a contingency plan on this
possible option of the federal government? Secondly, will he include in any
contingency plan on this issue the possibility of having an all‑party,
nonpartisan approach to any question that would be asked to Manitobans and an
all‑party approach to having town hall factual meetings on any question that
may be put, rather than having a kind of massive advertising campaign and not a
lot of factual information to Manitobans?
* (1345)
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): Well, Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a number
of contradictions in the question of the Leader of the Opposition.
Firstly, of course, he knows that the question
of a referendum is one that was considered by the all‑party Manitoba Legislature
task force on the Constitution, and that task force expressed serious and grave
concerns about the holding of a referendum, about all of the various things
that go into a referendum as to whether or not the question is one that is
clear in the minds of the people who are responding to that referendum, whether
or not the matter becomes a question of a vote on the popularity of the
government of the day, either federally or provincially, whether or not there
is clear and accurate information about the issues that are at stake and all of
that.
All of those things say that referenda are
probably for a whole host of reasons not a very good way of necessarily achieving
major constitutional change that is going to change the way in which this
country is organized and ordered on a constitutional basis for a long time in
the future.
The referendum question is a difficult
one. I know that in the course of even
the last 48 hours I have had some discussions with other First Ministers about
what position I might take as a Premier with respect to a Constitution, whether
or not I believed it was appropriate for First Ministers to go out and campaign
for or against. Of course, the
difficulty with it is that one does not know what the nature of the question
might be. One does not know what the
nature of the proposition might be.
I do say this, that I think that it would be
important for a referendum to be done on a nonpartisan basis, that as much as possible
I would hope that if there were a referendum, that people would be given as
accurate information as possible, and we would try and keep politics out of it,
that if the intention is truly to consult the people, that we would do
everything possible to make that consultation a fair, honest and open
consultation.
Mr.
Doer: Mr. Speaker, I would again offer to the
Premier our participation in a nonpartisan approach to any federal plebiscite that
may be developed, to help to take an all‑party, nonpartisan approach to
factual information, rather than the massive advertising that we may have to
contemplate in the federal government's so‑called strategy.
In the federal legislation that was passed
last week in the House of Commons, there is absolutely no requirement that the federal
government release results by province. In other words, they may say to Canadians, it
is 60 percent this way and 40 percent that way, which may cause great
difficulty for the smaller provinces,
I would ask the Premier, in his consultations
with other Premiers over the last 48 hours, have they discussed that inadequacy
of the federal legislation, and have they proposed anything to the Prime
Minister, or has the Premier talked to the Prime Minister about at least
allowing people in each province to have the results of the plebiscite, so that
we could have a nonmanipulative result in terms of the public knowing exactly
how each of us may or may not have voted across the country?
Mr.
Filmon: Firstly, I have not talked to the Prime
Minister about it.
But again, all the Leader of the Opposition is
doing is pointing out all the reasons why a referendum is not a very exact science
and not a very fair and adequate way of people making decisions.
Obviously, if no information was made
available as to what the views were of the people of this particular province,
then we as a Legislature ultimately have to vote upon and decide upon any proposition
with respect to a constitutional amendment after our own series of public
consultations and discussions. We would
not be able to take any information of value out of that referendum.
There are many, many difficulties with that
prospective answer, and I just say that at this point, I would hope that it does
not come to a national referendum, that whatever matters are going to be
decided upon will be decided upon by virtue of the ongoing consultations that
would lead eventually to a process that we have set forward in the rules of our
Legislature.
Timetable
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): The Premier has indicated
that his first option is to get a proposal that would be put forward in a way
that is consistent with the rules of this Legislature.
I would ask the Premier, we have talked before
about this issue, but certainly it has been a concern of Manitobans that we not
have a fast pace in any discussions. If
there is a proposal that comes forward‑‑and we hope there is; we
hope there is a consensus; I know the Premier and I have talked about this
issue before‑‑would he publicly agree that it would not be a quick,
fast pace into this Legislature, but rather a pace that takes into consideration
the timing of most Manitobans' holidays, which is July, so that they will be
able to look at the merit of this proposal in, again, a very, very
dispassionate and nonquick way?
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): I think this government has demonstrated, Mr. Speaker,
that when we have a requirement for proper and thorough analysis and scrutiny,
public consultation and so on‑‑we talked about it in another form
yesterday with respect to the Clean Environment Commission review of Conawapa and
the transmission lines‑‑we are not going to ramrod something through. That is our bottom line.
We believe that consultation is there for the
purpose of ensuring that the public is consulted and that they are given adequate
time and proper circumstances under which to make their views known.
* (1350)
School Boards
Cabinet Interference
Ms.
Rosann Wowchuk (
On numerous occasions, Mr. Speaker, this
minister has said that school boards are independent bodies and that she is not
prepared to influence decisions which fall under their jurisdiction.
I want to ask the minister: Does she feel that these same guidelines
apply to her cabinet colleagues and that they should not try to influence the
decision making of school boards?
Hon.
Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): The member
really has not been very specific in her question, and in fact the position
remains, as I have stated in this House, school boards do have elected
officials. They are responsible for
their decision making, and I do not see any change.
School Boards
Cabinet Interference
Ms.
Rosann Wowchuk (
Does the Premier feels it is appropriate that
the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) has contacted the chairman of
the Pelly Trail School Division and attempted to influence budgetary and
staffing decisions?
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I will not accept the preamble
of the member's question without further clarification. Obviously, we have had
some experience in this House with people alleging certain things from the
opposition benches. I will certainly
just take her question as advice.
Ms.
Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter,
and I want to ask the Premier if he will investigate this matter, and if he
finds that the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) has interfered in
the board's decision and has applied pressure to the board, will he ask for the
minister's resignation?
Mr.
Filmon: I make it a practice, even with my friends in
the media, not to answer hypothetical questions. I certainly would not answer a hypothetical
question from a member of the Legislature who, from time to time, has not
gotten her facts straight.
Independent Living Program
Statistics
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker,
today, we learned about the inappropriate placement of a teenager in an
independent living situation, a placement that has become all too common for
many youngsters in the
I would like to ask the Minister of Family
Services if he can tell this House today how many youngsters under the age of
18 are in independent living environment situations, and what is the youngest
age of anyone being placed in that kind of a living arrangement in the
Hon.
Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, I do not have that kind of information with me in the House today, but
I would be pleased to ask departmental staff to be in touch with agencies to
compile that sort of information.
I would just remind the honourable member that
the agencies throughout the province are responsible for the placing of young people
in foster situations. In some cases,
with older teenagers, there are a few independent living situations.
I would also caution the member to accept as
fact some of the information which she reads in the newspaper. I think it is important that perhaps a little
more research is done with some of the information the agency is able to
provide. With the limited information in
the paper today, all I would say is that there is further information which
sometimes puts a better light on the situation.
Cost Effectiveness
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):
What is very clear from our research is that there are some youngsters who
have been in stable foster families who, when they turn the age of 16, are told
by the agencies they must leave those foster families and move into independent
living arrangements because it is cost effective for the
Will the Minister of Family Services tell this
House why the interests of the child come second to budgetary considerations of
this department?
* (1355)
Hon.
Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services):
Agencies are given the authority by government to offer child and family
services in the community. We have a
variety of agencies across the province doing that with boards, executive
directors and senior staff who make decisions.
In all of my discussions with any of the
agencies, the prime concern is the best interests of the child. Historically, there have been different
arrangements made with young people who come into care, depending on the
geographical area where the child is located; also, on the experience of that
particular agency.
I am confident in the deliberations by the
board and the carrying out of policy by the very dedicated staff we have in those
agencies, that they have the best interests of the child in mind.
Mrs.
Carstairs: But most of the independent living
arrangements are in the city of
This has become a departmental matter. This is a departmental decision‑making
matter. Can the minister explain to the
House why it is departmental rules that state that there is not funding for 16‑year‑olds
within foster family situations and that some of them have been approached on
their 16th birthday to move out of the foster parent situation and into an
independent living situation?
Mr.
Gilleshammer: Those decisions are made by the agencies which
are involved with those children.
Obviously, the long‑term goal in any situation with children is to
have them living within their own family.
In other cases, they are placed in suitable
foster homes, and we have a few cases where children are in independent living situations
where that decision has been made by the professional staff of the agency.
Workers Compensation Board
Family Entitlements
Mr.
Daryl Reid (Transcona): With the tragic and preventable event that
occurred on April 23, 1992, a family lost a husband, a father and a
provider. This family has endured many
hardships in the over four‑and‑a‑half‑year struggle
with the Workers Compensation Board.
My question is for the minister responsible
for the Workers Compensation Board.
Will the minister indicate for the benefit of
the family what the policy is that will provide for this family's financial security
in the future?
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Minister responsible for and charged with the administration of
The Workers Compensation Act): As the member may be
aware, the particular claimant involved is a claimant who is on the old system
of benefits, not under the new system which was put into place by this
administration effective January 1 of 1992.
I hear members opposite talk about
reduction. I would point out that the
benefit package for claimants, some of the problems that were in the old
package, this government fixed and improved without the support of members
opposite.
I would indicate very clearly, depending on
the results of the Coroner's inquest and determinations of cause related to
this particular incident, that the family involved has the ability to file an
appropriate claim with the WCB which I understand has not been done to date,
and it will have to work itself through the system.
Mr.
Reid: It has been six weeks since the event
occurred, and this family has obviously endured many hardships, including the financial
situation.
When will the family be notified‑‑because
I think it is appropriate‑‑that they will be receiving some
financial security entitlement, or that they are entitled to that from the minister's
department?
Mr.
Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite
should do a little work on how the system works because first of all, it is not
the department. It is an independent
agency. That is No. 1.
Secondly, as I just clearly indicated, the
widow of the individual involved has not filed a claim. She has been in touch with staff of the WCB
who I understand made her aware of that option, and she has not yet chosen to
file. If the member is advising that
individual or assisting them, then I would hope that he would have her pursue
that matter rather than raising it in the House as if it is someone else's
responsibility. She is aware. It is her choice as to whether or not she files
a claim.
I would hope the member would do a little work
and investigate what options are available and advise the person appropriately.
* (1400)
Mr.
Reid: The minister should be aware that the system
is not working, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the same minister. Why should this family have to apply? Why is it not automatic? Why has there been a delay in notifying the
family of any decision or any benefit entitlement?
Mr.
Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member that the original
claim was for an injury. The benefit
entitlements have to do with a fatality under which the family would be able to
apply. The staff from the Compensation
Board were in touch with the family shortly after the incident. The people from the family, the widow
involved, are aware that she has to file a claim for fatality benefits. That claim will have to be adjudicated on the
facts.
I am sure the member opposite is not
suggesting to this House that the Workers Compensation Board or any other agency
can issue benefits, pay benefits, without a proper application made for those
benefits or a proper adjudication. That
is the kind of attitude that got the Workers Compensation Board into the deep trouble
it was in over the years, and it is the kind of problem that
Multicultural Legislation
Consultations
Ms.
Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, the
Manitoba Intercultural Council is intended to be a community‑based, democratically
elected body representative of our multicultural make‑up. They have the legislative mandate to advise
government on policy issues. One would
think it would be the government's link to the community when developing
legislation like the multicultural act.
I want to ask the Minister responsible for
Multiculturalism to give us some assurance that they were properly consulted
and how this could be so when they were still being questioned on their
recommendations on May 30. It was
reported on June 5, and we know that at that time, the act was already printed.
Hon.
Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for Multiculturalism): Mr.
Speaker, in fact, it was my first consultation meeting as a result of the whole
process that was with the Manitoba Intercultural Council on determining what should
be put in the legislation. I met with
all of the other umbrella organizations within the community and indeed with
other members, individuals from many of the ethnic communities.
As a result of those consultations, I know the
whole community and even members opposite knew that our commitment was to
introduce a piece of legislation this session.
So I fully expect that all members of the community, including the
Manitoba Intercultural Council, were aware that there would be legislation brought
in.
Review
Ms.
Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): What is interesting, Mr.
Speaker, is that a number of the recommendations are not found in the act.
My question for the same minister: Why is the Intercultural Council being
reviewed at this time? Why were they
only informed of this review as the minister was announcing the act?
Hon.
Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for Multiculturalism): Mr.
Speaker, as a result of the extensive consultation process that we did and that
I did, as minister, before the act was introduced‑‑and as we went
around the table with all members of the Manitoba Intercultural Council and I asked
them what amendments they would like to see to MIC's act, I got a different
opinion from each and every one of those members around the table.
Mr. Speaker, I also got varied opinions from
many, many members of the community with no consensus whatsoever on what amendments
should be made to The Manitoba Intercultural Council Act.
Therefore, as a result of that, we have
announced that an impartial and very unbiased nonpartisan consultant in fact
would interview members of the community, including MIC, to determine what
amendments we could bring in next session.
Multicultural Legislation
Justification
Ms.
Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, the report
from MIC here is dated June 5. Why are
you bringing in the multicultural act before the review of MIC, and how can you
explain that the recommendations should not be included in the act?
Hon.
Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for Multiculturism): Mr.
Speaker, the
Mr. Speaker, we have lived up to those
commitments, and the community is waiting for a piece of legislation that will
confirm this government's commitment to multiculturalism. I am pleased and proud that we were able to
introduce that, and I would encourage members opposite to support that
legislation and ensure that the community is getting the treatment that it
deserves.
Government's Intention
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, the minister, on a number of
occasions, told myself, as the critic for Multiculturalism, that the act of MIC
was being looked at and in fact indicated to myself when I brought forward
amendments that she was looking at incorporating MIC into the multicultural
act. The minister has not included MIC which is the greatest flaw that this
piece of legislation has.
The minister says that she is going to be
consulting to find out what is going to be happening with MIC. Why has the minister included the
Multicultural Grants Advisory Council in the act when she currently has a
consultant examining the role of MIC which could recommend that MIC have its
funding authority returned?
Point of Order
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, it is my
intention to call this bill for second reading, and it anticipates a
debate. The question is out of order.
I am serving notice, Mr. Speaker, that the
bill will be called today, and therefore the question is out of order.
Mr.
Lamoureux: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, we
in opposition have no idea what the government is going to be calling, and
because they feel‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Some
Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
I had called the honourable member for
Now, the honourable member for
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On the same point of order,
Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne is fairly clear in terms of questions not anticipating
debates scheduled for the day. There is
a different set of rules in terms of the House of Commons from our current
rules.
We do not know when the debate is scheduled on
that bill. I would suggest for that
reason, while the government House leader has a point in terms of the general
rule, this does not apply in this particular case, and questions on the
multiculturalism act would be in order.
Mr.
Speaker: On the point of order raised, I had no
knowledge at the time that the honourable member for
Now we have been informed by the honourable
government House leader that this matter will be before the House this
afternoon. Therefore, the honourable member's question is anticipating a debate
and, therefore, is out of order.
* * *
Mr.
Speaker: The honourable member for
Mr.
Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, four questions have been
asked. The minister‑‑[interjection!
three times. The first three questions of
the‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Is the honourable member for
The honourable member for
Mr.
Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Multiculturalism
is: What is the government's intention
with the
Hon.
Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for Multiculturalism): I
think our intentions are quite clear, and they have been through our term in
office in government. We have made many
positive moves on multiculturalism, in the area of multiculturalism. I could list many that have happened with the
introduction of
With the introduction of the multicultural
act, Mr. Speaker, we have lived up to those four commitments over the last four
years.
* (1410)
Mr.
Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I am only aware of negative
things that this minister has done to the Manitoba Intercultural Council. I do not know what she is talking about.
My question to the minister specifically
is: What positive thing has she done to
MIC?
Mrs.
Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, there was an article in the
paper just last week or so. I think the
Leader of the official opposition's picture was at the top of the article. In fact, it was an article dealing with
combatting racism. There was a direct
quote from Sam Koshy who is the executive director of MIC, and I will share it
with the members opposite because it says that this government is a government
that has done more for multiculturalism than any other government.
Mr.
Lamoureux: The minister makes reference to racism. I ask the minister: How can she make that statement when in fact
when it came to combatting racism, as MIC has said, she has failed‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Mrs.
Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, if the member for
I will share that information with the member
for
Independent Living Program
Accommodation Selection
Ms.
Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, as stated by the Liberal Leader
(Mrs. Carstairs) today, we were all shocked yesterday‑‑or today,
actually‑‑to read about the conditions of a young man who was in an
independent living program of a Winnipeg Child & Family Services
agency. He was forced to live in a filthy
two‑room apartment in conditions that no one of us would like to see
anyone we knew live in.
Today, we learn that while social workers
usually search for accommodations with clients and that often a place is found
with funds available, just as often, these vulnerable young people, who are
attempting to work out their lives, are forced to live in these dreadful
surroundings.
My question to the Minister of Family Services
is: Why are social workers and public
health officials not obligated to go with the young person when they are
searching for accommodation, who are attempting to live independently and are
attempting to‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Hon.
Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): I,
too, had an opportunity to read the article that the member is referring
to. I note that the executive director
of Winnipeg Child & Family Services has indicated that he is going to
review the situation of the independent living arrangement for this particular
child and review it with the social workers involved.
Case Review
Ms.
Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, will the
Minister of Family Services undertake to ensure, in the absence of an independent
reporting‑to‑the‑Legislature Children's Advocate, that the
executive director of Child & Family Services not look only at this single
incident, which is not an isolated incident, but that the director of Child
& Family Services looks at the entire policy and in particular‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has put her question.
Hon.
Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): I
would offer the honourable member the same caution I offered the Leader of the
Second Opposition party (Mrs. Carstairs), that the article in the paper does
not contain all of the detail that relates to this case, and there are other
circumstances that the member would be well apprised to make herself aware of
before she draws those conclusions.
I am glad the member raised the question of
the Child Advocate piece of legislation that is currently before the House.
I would remind her again that we are
consistent with
Where the official is particularly responsible
to a certain department, and I would reference again the Chief Medical Examiner,
the Public Trustee, the Public Utilities Board, that agency or that individual
reports to that department and to that minister.
Ms.
Barrett: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Family
Services please share with the House or explain to the House what possible extenuating
circumstances could lead any young person to be forced to live in a facility
that has a washroom down the hall that is so smelly he cannot stand to live in
it, that there is no security, broken windows and in a situation where the
people who are living around him, from whom he is supposed to take his independent
living models, are people who are forced to live there because there is no‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has put her question. I would like to remind the honourable member
for
Mr.
Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, the legislation that we work under
in this province dealing with social services prohibits us from talking about
individual cases. I would say to the
member that there is enough evidence in the media in recent times that members
should not accept the information that they receive at first blush without
doing a little more investigation.
I would say to the member that in some
circumstances, maybe she would be wise to find out what kind of circumstances
existed when the decisions were made by an agency and what sort of circumstances
exist sometime later. There are very
definite changes that take place from time to time, and I would urge the member
to talk to the staff who are in charge.
Constitutional Proposal
Devolution of Cultural Programs
Ms.
Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship.
Recent accounts of constitutional discussions
suggest that the negotiators are discussing devolution of culture to the provinces. Would the minister explain to the House what
the position of her department and her government is, what position they are
taking at the constitutional table on this issue?
Hon.
Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr.
Speaker, in fact, we have discussed that issue and at the last Conference of
Ministers of Culture and Heritage, it was an issue that I brought forward as
one of great concern to
So it was a concern that I did express at the
time. I think in negotiations, there has
been some talk of some devolution but also in maintaining our major cultural
institutions with a strong central government.
Ms.
Friesen: Mr. Speaker, what steps has the minister taken
to ensure that the regional services of national institutions, such as the
National Film Board and the CBC, will not be cut and that in fact there will be
federal support for
Mrs.
Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, the National Film Board, Telefilm
and Canada Council are in fact national institutions, and there is no talk of
devolution of any of the national institutions.
I know there will be a follow‑up Deputy
Ministers of Culture meeting in the near future to discuss the issues interprovincially,
but we know that the national institutions will remain intact.
* (1420)
Ms.
Friesen: Mr. Speaker, if I could underline to the
minister that my concern is for the regional institutions of those federal offices.
Would the minister table the studies that she
must have commissioned to examine the impact on
Mrs.
Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, I know that
Youth Unemployment Rate
Government Initiatives
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, this is a tough summer for
It is being made worse by the government's
decision in a number of areas not to provide the kind of funding that is needed,
full funding in the case of CareerStart to groups and communities that do not
have their own funds to be able to put into job creation.
My question to the Premier is simple. Will he recognize that it is a tough year for
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, we have put in place a number of
programs, including funding in the CareerStart Program and other vehicles,
Partners with Youth through Rural Development, and many other new areas that
have not been there before.
The reality is, yes, it is a difficult year,
but, yes, many students are finding work, and the major origins of the work
that is available obviously are within the private sector. It is in those areas in which jobs have been
created in the past, opportunities for youth, and opportunities for youth will continue
to be provided. These are areas that we
believe are appropriate.
The fact of the matter is, the government does
not provide all of the job opportunities for youth. It should not be expected to under any
circumstances. We are doing what we believe
is reasonable under the circumstances.
We are providing more money for those job opportunities for youth than
we did in the previous budget, and we believe that this is an appropriate response
to the circumstances that are there.
Mr.
Ashton: Mr. Speaker, the government used to provide
full funding to community groups and to remote northern communities.
Will this government reinstate the full
funding so communities that have no resources, organizations that have no resources
can put some of these students out to work so they can continue their
education, so they can get into the work force?
Will this government recognize the mistake of
their cutbacks previously to these community groups and reinstate that funding?
Mr.
Filmon: Mr. Speaker, what the member for Thompson is
saying is that these organizations are happy to have the employment and the
opportunity for people to work but are not willing to put any of their own
money in it. That says to me that there
is not a responsibility on their part to make priority choices.
If he is saying give people the money and they
will create jobs, that is the old NDP way of make‑work jobs. Nobody is willing to put forward their own
funding to employ people, but they say, sure, if somebody else gives us the
money, then we will find ways of creating all sorts of jobs. Those are the kinds of things that are not
fair to the taxpayer. They say to the taxpayer,
we will throw the money away, because it is somebody else's money, but it is
everybody's money. It is every taxpayer's
money.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, we object
strenuously to New Democrats who will spend wantonly people's money because
they are prepared to raise their taxes.
People in this province have had enough of higher taxes, and they reject
New Democratic ways of spending money and raising taxes.
Mr.
Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Committee Changes
Mr.
Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), that the composition of the Standing
Committee on Privileges and Elections be amended as follows:
Mr.
Edward Helwer (Gimli): I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital
(Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public
Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: The member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh) for
the member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings); the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr.
McAlpine) for the member for Arthur‑Virden (Mr.
I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital
(Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Privileges and
Elections be amended as follows: The
member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) for the member for Roblin‑Russell
(Mr. Derkach); the member for River East (Mrs. Mitchelson) for the member for Steinbach
(Mr. Driedger); the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) for the member for
St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau); the member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) for the
member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae); the member for
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you
call second readings Bills 94, 95 and then 98.
After that time, we will go into adjourned debate on second readings.
Mr.
Speaker: In the order listed?
Mr.
Manness: No.
Mr.
Speaker: Okay.
SECOND
Bill 94‑The Statute Law Amendment
(Taxation) Act 1992
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 94, The Statute Law
Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1992 (Loi de 1992 modifiant diverses dispositions
legislatives en matiere de fiscalite), be now read a second time and be
referred to a committee of this House.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Manness: Bill 94 implements the taxation measures
announced in the 1992
The bill is long and fairly complex. For simplicity, I have regrouped my
discussion of the amendments under five headings. I believe, also, that my staff member did
distribute a copy of the detail associated with a very complex bill this time
around. Those five headings are:
Enhancing Economic Development Opportunities; Environment Protection
Measures; Tightening Tax Enforcement; Cross‑Border Shopping; and
Housekeeping Changes.
The bill implements a new 10 percent
Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit.
Corporations which invest in new manufacturing buildings and equipment
in
Bill 94 also introduces amendments to The
Corporation Capital Tax Act, which will remove capitalized exploration
expenditures from the tax base of exploration companies. The bill also provides for incentives to
encourage the search for new ore bodies and for the development of those
discoveries into new mines, new processing facilities and new jobs. A new mine tax holiday and the enhancement of
exploration expenditures will encourage new investment by the mining industry
without reducing tax revenue from current mines.
Amendments to the motive fuel and gasoline tax
reduce the tax on railway diesel fuel from 13.6 cents to 12.6 cents per litre, and
aviation fuel from 5.8 cents to 5.0 cents per litre respectively. The Retail Sales Tax Act will be amended to provide
an exemption for toll charges associated with a 1‑800 telephone
service. These measures should help
strengthen
In the Budget Address, I noted that work was
proceeding on the extension of environmental protection taxes to tires and disposable
diapers. Mr. Speaker, I will be making
an announcement with respect to greater detail on this issue in some short
period of time. I might note that it is
the government's intention to replace the tire charge under the sales tax with
a similar charge under The Waste Reduction and Prevention Act by July
1993. Any revenues that will come in
from the imposition of this tax will be attributed to the environmental
protection tax account and will assist in funding new measures for
environmental preservation and improvement in
* (1430)
Bill 94 includes general antiavoidance
provisions under The Corporation Capital Tax Act, The Health and Post‑Secondary
Education Tax Levy Act and The Retail Sales Tax Act. The rules under The Health and Post‑Secondary
Education Tax Levy Act have been tightened to prevent abuse.
The bill also sets out procedure for filing
appeals to the independent Tax Appeals Commission established by separate legislation
presently before the Assembly, and I will read second reading of that bill
next, Mr. Speaker.
Amendments to The Gasoline Tax Act, The Motive
Fuel Tax Act, The Tobacco Tax Act, The Revenue Act and The Retail Sales Tax Act
ensure that directors of corporations are accountable for remitting taxes
collected from Manitobans.
Amendments to the new Manitoba Small Business
Tax Reduction are designed to ensure that the reduction benefits are targeted to
genuinely new enterprises in the intended sectors. These amendments are intended to reduce
opportunities for tax avoidance and to ensure that
Beginning August 1, 1992, the insurance
corporations tax will apply to premium income earned by the United Health
corporation, that is, Blue Cross. This
will ensure all providers of insurance services will pay the same tax on
premium income. The change will align
The 1992 Budget Address announced
The bill also includes legislation enabling
Revenue
Finally, Bill 94 also includes provisions that
will enable the province and the federal government to enter similar agreements
for the collection of retail sales taxes at the border. These are important steps towards levelling
the playing field for competitive competition for cross‑border shopping.
Finally, the bill also includes a number of
technical and housekeeping provisions, which are required to ensure that
Mr. Speaker, the bill represents a substantial
improvement in
Mr.
Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the member for
Motion agreed to.
Bill 95‑The Tax Appeals Commission
Act
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson), that
Bill 95 (The Tax Appeals Commission Act; Loi sur la Commission d'appel des
impots et des taxes), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee
of this House.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, Bill 95 implements improvement in
taxpayers' relationships with our government.
It provides for an independent review of contested corporations capital
tax, retail sales tax or payroll tax assessments, to facilitate a fairer and impartial
resolution of the taxpayers concerned.
The process is similar but less formal than the notice of objection
procedures of The Income Tax Act.
Taxpayers will not be required to hire a
lawyer or an accountant to represent their concerns. The Tax Appeals Commissioner may require
information from the taxpayer or from employees of the Taxation Division in
order to properly respond to the taxpayer's appeal. The taxpayer as well as the Taxation Division
could appeal the decision received from the Tax Appeals Commissioner to the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). If
not satisfied with the Minister of Finance's decision, a further appeal could
be made by the taxpayer to the Court of Queen's Bench.
This Tax Appeals Commission reflects our
government's commitment to fairness and to reduce red tape and to develop better
processes to serve the taxpayers of the province. The bill represents a substantial improvement
in
Thank you.
Mr.
Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded
by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that debate be adjourned.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 98‑The
Hon.
Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs.
Vodrey), that Bill 98, The Manitoba Multiculturalism Act (Loi sur le
multiculturalisme au Manitoba) be now read a second time and be referred to a
committee of this House.
Motion
presented.
Mrs.
Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege for
me to rise to speak on the Manitoba Multiculturalism Act.
This legislation is the culmination of two
years of dedicated effort by many individuals.
On May 15 of 1990, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and I announced
Mr. Speaker, with this legislation, we have
fulfilled all four important initiatives.
The first was the designation of a Minister responsible for
Multiculturalism. I had the distinct privilege
of being designated as that minister on May 15 of 1990, and I am proud to
continue doing so. This has afforded me
the opportunity to introduce many positive new initiatives over the past few
years which have found favour and support amongst Manitobans.
Reflecting that multiculturalism is the
responsibility of all departments of government, I am to act as an advocate
within government to ensure that policies and programs throughout government
reflect our multiculturalism policy.
This co‑operative, collaborative approach to implementation of the
multicultural policy was seen in two recent announcements. In February, my colleague the Minister of
Labour (Mr. Praznik) and I announced a unique awareness program launched by the
Employment Standards branch in partnership with the Multiculturalism Secretariat
to better inform ethnocultural communities about employment standard laws in
It gives employers and employees the tools
they need to uphold their rights and responsibilities under the law. On May 11, my colleague the Minister of
Education and Training (Mrs. Vodrey) unveiled the multicultural Education
policy. It reflects our recognition of
the fact that understanding, accepting and building on our cultural and racial
diversity is crucial to our economic, social and community success. This policy will help us meet the educational
needs of all students. It is essential
that our educational system be responsive to the cultural and linguistic
diversity within our schools and post‑secondary institutions.
The second undertaking was the establishment
of a Multiculturalism Secretariat. This
originally found its basis in the report of the
The Multiculturalism Secretariat was
officially opened on August 20, 1990, and is responsible for working throughout
government to identify, prioritize, and implement actions to contribute to the
achievement of the multicultural ideal.
The secretariat works with the community at large to develop and enhance
partnerships between communities and with government.
In the bill before us, Mr. Speaker, there is
specific reference to the secretariat working with the business community, labour
organizations, voluntary and other private organizations to promote respect and
appreciation for our cultural diversity, to encourage full participation by all
Manitobans in all aspects of
Again, multiculturalism is one of our great
strengths as a province, and we must strive to ensure the realization of the full
economic potential that this asset can bring to
The third initiative was the opening of an
outreach office. I was pleased to officially open the Community Access Office
on May 14 of this year. This is an
easily accessible storefront office which provides practical assistance to
groups and individuals in dealing with departments and agencies of government.
* (1440)
Mr. Speaker, The Manitoba Multiculturalism Act
before us today is the fourth initiative we announced just two years ago. The
Manitoba Multiculturalism Act is, and I know all members of the House are
aware, a very important piece of legislation. Through consultations held with
the multicultural umbrella organizations and various individuals, I heard time
and time again that it was most timely and necessary to introduce legislation
that addressed multiculturalism and that the legislation should formally
establish and enshrine our multicultural structures, the Multiculturalism
Grants Advisory Council, the Multiculturalism Secretariat and the Community Access
Office, in a legislative framework.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, much was said
about the Manitoba Intercultural Council and its legislation. A strong consensus emerged that the MIC
needed to be carefully and fully examined as to its role, mandate and
structure. It was also clear, however,
that there was no one answer to these issues, and many suggested that we engage
an external, independent consultant to conduct such a review and report back.
I was pleased, Mr. Speaker, to meet with the
executive of the Manitoba Intercultural Council on Monday of this week, and subsequently
with those whom I had consulted with, to advise them that we have listened to
what was being said, and have appointed a consultant who is mandated to conduct
research and consultations to assess the role, mandate and structure of the Manitoba
Intercultural Council, and make recommendations thereon to me as the minister,
including any necessary amendments to The Manitoba Intercultural Council
Act. The final report is due by October
15 of this year.
Through the work of the consultant, Mr. J. Don
Blair, I look forward to hearing the thoughts and views of a broad cross section
of Manitobans, and to consider such advice and make any necessary amendments to
The MIC Act prior to its next biennial assembly in 1993.
Mr. Speaker, the consultations I held on The
Multiculturalism Act afforded the opportunity to develop consensus on several issues:
To state the recognition of the multicultural
reality of
We must promote the benefits of our cultural
diversity and ensure that all Manitobans become cognizant of the fact that multiculturalism
is all‑inclusive and a source of strength and pride. That we need to strive to ensure that there
is respect for our cultural diversity, respect for ethnocultural communities and
respect for each and every individual regardless of cultural background. That it was essential that the minister be
required to table an annual report with respect to the administration of the
act and the activities of the Multiculturalism Secretariat.
That we should set as a clear focus the
importance of encouraging and fostering partnership and co‑operation
between communities. That we need to
promote our similarities, not dwell on our differences, and to acknowledge that
we do have shared values and aspirations.
Mr. Speaker, the thoughts, ideas and
suggestions expressed concerning this act are reflected in this bill. I would like to take this opportunity to
thank all of those who took the time to meet with me, to share their views and
their suggestions with me. These are
individuals who devote their time so freely to their own community and to the
community at large, to contribute what they can through their dedication and
commitment to multiculturalism and who recognize how their efforts contribute so
much to our quality of life in
Mr. Speaker,
That is why, Mr. Speaker, The Multiculturalism
Act before this House begins with the statement and I quote: "Whereas
That is where the second statement of the act
before this House is, and I quote:
"And whereas the diversity of Manitobans as regards to culture,
religion and racial background is a fundamental characteristic of Manitoban
society which benefits all Manitobans, economically, socially and
culturally."
I believe that if we look to a common
identity, if we can define our society, our province and our country in an all‑inclusive
way, we can do much for Canadian unity.
We have shared values, shared aspirations and shared dreams. Within the broad concept of multiculturalism,
there are, of course, specific policies and programs that have been introduced
and will continue to be developed.
The Premier (Mr. Filmon) and I announced
This ideal of a multicultural society affects
all parts of the community and speaks directly to our collective determination to
meet the challenges of living together in harmony and equality.
* (1450)
As I have stated, Mr. Speaker, a consistent
message was conveyed through our meetings that we need to encourage recognition
and understanding that multiculturalism is for all of us and that we should
promote our similarities. I believe that
our statement of the multicultural ideal captures these themes and truly
reflects the positive view of our strengths as a society that is assured by the
vast majority of people.
We, regardless of our cultural background,
have shared dreams, aspirations and values, and we realize we have shared laws
and responsibilities which serve to further unite us.
As members of this House are also well aware,
This principle embodies the aspects of
cultural retention, promotion and development and the benefits of sharing one's
culture with others. Two particular
areas that would fall within this principle are encouragement for retention of
heritage languages and the development of folk, ethnocultural, artistic activities.
Language is a cornerstone of a culture. The preservation of one's heritage language
is essential in many ways to the retention of one's culture. As we become a more global society, the
ability of Canadians to speak the languages of the world and to know and
understand the cultures of the world will certainly enhance our position as a
nation in every conceivable way.
In recognition of the great importance of
heritage languages to cultural retention and what we see as a tremendous
potential which we should strive to realize, we have made specific reference to
the importance of encouraging the use of such languages in the preamble to The
Multiculturalism Act.
Artistic activities are part of our quality of
life. We are fortunate in
The Manitoba Arts Policy Review recommended
that, for the purposes of funding, all arts activity be evaluated in terms of its
artistic merit and not on the basis of its cultural origin. This recommendation
was supported by the folk arts community and was reflected in a task force
report of the Folk Arts Council of Winnipeg.
The folk or ethnocultural arts community sought to be supported on this
basis of being artists, funded as art, and not being supported by virtue of
being multicultural.
Mr. Speaker, art is art. I am pleased that we have now established an
arts branch within my department, designed to fund all community‑based
arts, including the folk, ethnocultural arts.
It is also declared in this act: to be the policy of the government of
Manitoba to recognize and promote the right of all Manitobans regardless of
culture, religion or racial background to equal access to opportunities to
participate in all aspects of society and to respect the cultural values.
The equality aspect is what could be described
as the human rights or social justice arm of multiculturalism. Each of us has the freedom and opportunity to
express and foster all aspects of our own cultural heritage, our own language,
customs and traditions, and we recognize the right of our neighbours to do just
the same. This openness and acceptance
is fundamental to promoting understanding, mutual respect and harmony among all
ethnocultural communities. Obviously
there are many aspects of equality, many issues that need to be dealt with to ensure
that every individual has the freedom and opportunity to participate equally.
A major issue which has had much needed focus
and attention over the recent past is racism.
We have seen all too clearly that racism exists and how it works. It divides communities and denies equality to
individuals.
It is imperative that we work together as a
united community with one voice to speak out on this issue and to accept responsibility
for developing strategies to stop it. We
must without exception or condition make it clear that racism has no place in
our society. Refusing to take a stand
against racism is accepting it, and we are not prepared to do that.
On March 20 of this year, I announced the
appointment of an anti‑racism co‑ordinator within the Citizenship
division of my department. This position
is responsible for implementation and co‑ordination of anti‑racism
initiatives. Recognizing that changes
must begin within, the Citizenship division, in co‑operation with the
Civil Service Commission, implemented a pilot anti‑racism training
program within my department. It examines
barriers, practices and procedures which are or may be perceived as being
discriminatory, with the goal of developing strategies for change.
Due to the great success of this pilot
project, the Civil Service Commission is making it available to other
departments of government. In December,
I announced a new grant program, the Bridging Cultures Program. Several applications from community organizations
for innovative anti‑racism projects have since been approved for funding.
In March, I released the report of the working
group on Immigrant Credentials and announced steps to implement its recommendations. In particular, the labour market in Immigrant
Credentials Branch of the Citizenship Division was established as of April 1
to, among other things, deal with this vital area. We must reduce and eliminate barriers our new
immigrants face in recognition of their off‑shore credentials, for these
barriers rob them of access to a better future and deprive the community of the
potential benefits of their contributions.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, through the
consultations, I heard time and time again that we need to strive to ensure
that there is respect for our cultural diversity, respect for ethnocultural
communities and respect for each and every individual regardless of cultural
background. Respect is integral to the
attainment of our multicultural ideal, for it is only when we come to truly
respect one another that we come to fully accept each and everyone's right to
equal access to opportunity and participation in all aspects of society. That is why we have clearly and specifically
stated that it is the policy of government to recognize and promote the right
of all Manitobans, regardless of culture, religion, or racial background, to
respect for their cultural values.
It is also declared to be the policy of the
government of
It reflects the necessity of ethnocultural
communities working together, within an ethnocultural community, in partnership
with other ethnocultural communities and with government. We must all share responsibility for solving problems
that confront us. We must work in
partnership if we are to succeed.
Each of us has something to contribute. Multiculturalism embodies a commitment to
work together in an atmosphere of equality and respect within government,
within our own ethnocultural communities and within the entire community, to confront
common concerns and shape a common future.
I look forward to continuing to work with all
Manitobans to meet the challenge of living together in harmony and equality and
to achieve the ideal of a multicultural society based on the principles of
pride, equality and partnership.
I sincerely appreciate, this afternoon, the
opportunity to express and share my thoughts with the Legislature and with our
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Committee Change
Mr.
Edward Helwer (Gimli): I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital
(Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public
Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: the member for
* * *
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): I
rise to speak on this bill. I think you
have been notified earlier that I have passed my Leader's designation on to the
critic for Culture, Heritage and Recreation, so I will be speaking for only 40
minutes on this particular piece of legislation.
I rise to speak on this bill, which is an
important piece of legislation and one which we have been awaiting for a large number
of years. Long before this government,
we had hoped that we would have one from the New Democratic Party when they
were the government of the day, and so we welcome the act.
Unfortunately, we do not welcome the spirit of
the act, because we see so much of what has happened to the multicultural community,
not be treated with the very words that the minister has addressed so
eloquently in her earlier remarks.
* (1500)
She talks about respect; she talks about the
need for equal access to opportunity, and yet that is not what has been the chapter
and verse of multiculturalism under the administration of this minister.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to address firstly
the actions of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) earlier this afternoon which
I found quite remarkable, that after four questions were asked on an act he
rose in this House on a point of order. Obviously feeling that the minister was
in some kind of difficulty, he wished to persuade her, in a way, that he would provide
her with a little breathing space, so she would be under less difficulty.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, for you to
undertake a review of the rules of this particular Chamber, that if, indeed,
the Minister of Finance as the House leader is going to be given the opportunity
to limit Question Period on bill days, then surely it is essential as a rule
change in this Chamber to inform members of the opposition what bills are going
to be debated on those particular days, because we come into this Chamber prepared
to ask our questions without any knowledge of what is going to be on the Order
Paper. We had no prior notification that
the minister was going to introduce this bill on second reading, and I quite frankly
find it a lack of respect for my rights as a member of this Chamber to then be
told that is off limits as far as the government House leader is concerned on
any given day.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to undertake
a review of the rules of this Chamber, so that if we are going to be limited in
the kinds of questions we can ask on Wednesdays and Fridays then we should at
the same time be afforded information from the government House leader as to
what he is going to be raising later on in those periods of time.
As to the multicultural act itself, first of
all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with the reality of why we need a multicultural
act in this province similar in some respects to the multicultural act
available in the country. I would like
to begin by discussing with the members the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
which was the first representation in
Section 15 of the Charter says: Every individual is equal before and under
the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law
without discrimination, and in particular without discrimination based on race,
national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.
Subsection 1 does not preclude any law,
program or activity that has as its objective amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged
individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race,
national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical
disability.
Section 27 of the same Charter goes on to talk
about, and I quote, This charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with
the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of
Canadians. The multicultural heritage of
Canadians and therefore by definition of Manitobans.
You know, Mr. Speaker, we tend to think of
this country so often as a bilingual country because that is what it is in law,
and there is the sense that somehow or other Canada is dominated by people of British
and French origin. Well, that is not
true and has not been true for a very long time in our nation. In the 1986 census, for example, there were
only 6.3 million people of British origin.
There were only 6 million people of French origin. In other words, of the 26 million people who
lived in this country, only 12 million of them could in fact trace their heritage
to either French or English in their ethnic origin. [interjection!
The member has asked, how many there were of
Mennonite origin? Well, in fact, they do
not break down Mennonite origin but they do indicate German origin, and for the
member's benefit there were in the 1986 census some 897,000 people who listed their
ancestry as being German, and we know full well that the vast majority of those
were in fact Mennonites.
Mr. Speaker, so we are in fact no longer a
British and French people. We are a
multiethnic people with many languages coming from many groups. The German people, for example, are the third
largest group in
So multiculturalism is not something that we
can accept as a concept without doing something about it within our society,
and that is exactly what the Charter tried to recognize in 1982 by saying that
this is a part of the dynamic that is
I have been successively dismayed at wording
that leaks out into newspaper stories and certainly was apparent in the Dobbie‑Beaudoin
report that they would like to water down, they would somehow like to see the
word "multicultural" disappear, that we would be a society of many
cultures. Somehow "multiculturalism"
had become some word that people no longer wanted to use, and I congratulate
the minister for having the courage of using it boldly in this particular act
because I think it reflects what is
We have in this act, the minister says, a bill
which denotes and has respect for people and provides for them equal access opportunities. Mr. Speaker, let us look at what the minister
has done as specific actions while she pretends to say she believes in respect,
which means equal access and opportunity for all people. Well, first and foremost, one of her first
actions is to take an organization called the Manitoba Intercultural Council, which
represents on a numbers basis one at least per community, but more for some
communities because there are more members of that community living within
Manitoba, and she takes an organization which used to have funding authority
and she removes that funding authority from them. Unilaterally, without discussions, without
debate, she takes the funding authority from them. I think there are many in the Manitoba Intercultural
Council who would say very clearly that the minister showed no respect for
them, no respect for what they had done in the past, and no respect for their
future work on behalf of the multicultural community in the
The minister then went on to say that she was
showing her respect by the establishment of a Multiculturalism Grants Advisory
Council. Well, of course, the Manitoba
Grants Advisory Council now has the funding authority that used to be held by MIC. MIC represented not government but the ethnic
communities themselves. We have now
taken that granting authority and we have given it to an advisory council, and
who appoints the advisory council? Well,
of course, the minister appoints through Order‑in‑Council the advisory
council, and so the advisory council is not responsible to the multicultural
community, the advisory council is responsible to the minister of the Crown. That
is the way this minister has shown respect for the multicultural community and
the Manitoba Intercultural Council.
* (1510)
The minister then establishes with some
fanfare a Multiculturalism Secretariat.
This is going to be an organization, she says in her legislation, which
shall act under the direction of the minister, and it shall work with officials
of other departments and agencies and work with the community at large and
foster and enhance relationships and work with the business community‑‑all
laudable goals. Nobody can argue with the
goals whatsoever. What does she do? Does she show respect for the multicultural
community by saying, well, we will throw this out by public competition so we
can get the most knowledgeable, the most respected member of the multicultural community
to head the Multiculturalism Secretariat.
No, of course she does not. What
she does is she appoints the Tory candidate for the constituency of Kildonan
whom the people of the constituency of Kildonan indicate they do not want to
have represent them in the Legislature, because they vote for the New Democratic
member in that particular riding. So she
says, well, Mr. Langtry, because you have lost out on this particular Chamber,
we will reward you by making you the head of the secretariat.
In
terms of Mr. Langtry. Mr. Langtry had
been a former president of the Folk Arts Council. He had done very valuable work within the
multicultural community, and I suspect that if he had submitted his name and
had in fact gone through an interviewing process he may well have been given
the job. But then he would have been
given the job with respect. It would have
been recognized that he was the best person for that particular job, that he
was recognized by those who worked in the multicultural community as being an
individual who would represent their interests well within this newly formed secretariat.
No, she did not have respect for, I would
suggest, either this position or indeed the talents of Mr. Langtry, but she
chose instead to politicize the process and once again did not provide the very
equal opportunity access that she talks about as being so important for the
multicultural community.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it did not stop there. The Multiculturalism Secretariat is in place
and the Multiculturalism Secretariat requires a policy analyst.
Well, does Mr. Langtry have an open
competition to choose somebody to be the policy analyst? No.
The newly‑appointed head of the secretariat, who just happens to
be the Tory candidate in the previous election for the constituency of
Kildonan, reaches into his campaign workers and appoints his campaign chair,
one Miss Alice Kirkland to be the policy analyst, again without any competition,
again without any understanding whether she is the best qualified individual
for this particular position.
Again we see no respect, no equal access
opportunity because there are literally hundreds of people who have devoted
countless hours to the multicultural communities in this province, hundreds of
individuals who would be delighted to have had the opportunity to apply for
this position, hundreds of individuals who would have had the qualifications to
have served this position well. Is Miss Kirkland not qualified? I have no idea. She may be eminently qualified in order to
fulfill this position, but the problem is that we will never know whether she
was more qualified than any other applicant because they did not allow any
other applicant to apply.
The minister refused to show the very respect
for equal access to opportunities that she talks about in her piece of legislation. That, unfortunately, is what causes those of
us who would have liked to have participated in this debate without any partisanship
to not to be able to do so, because it has been so politicized by the ministry
that we have no choice but to point out the omissions and offences of the
minister herself and her staff for the very piece of legislation that she is
introducing today.
Mr. Speaker, it does not stop there. The minister talks about the importance of
heritage languages. Well, yes, heritage languages
are extremely important. One of the best
books that I have read in many years that will give us all some understanding of
what this country is truly all about is a book called "The Canadian Family
Tree, Canada's Peoples."
Unfortunately, it was published then by the
multiculturalism directorate in 1982, and from what I have been able to
discover it has not entered into a subsequent printing, but it is a book that I
think should be in every public library and in every school and every classroom
across the nation, because it gives everyone the opportunity to learn in some
detail about individual communities as they have settled in this nation and in
this province.
For example, to pick a group that is well
known in this particular province, it talks about the Icelandic people, and it talks
about the history of
It goes through all the ethnocultural
communities. Well, each one of these
included in this group has their own language. They bring that language with
them to this country. Then they are
faced with a dilemma. They are faced
with a dilemma that has been faced by immigrant families for generations.
(Madam
Deputy Speaker in the Chair)
The first generation, of course, has to
struggle to learn either of
So, for example, if there are large numbers of
German people living in a small community, then it is relatively easy to preserve
the German language as a language of daily life. If, however, you come from
But what we see from this minister while she
talks about the preservation of heritage language, we have also seen that there
is a lack of understanding of the need for those very same people, while
preserving their own language, to also learn the language that is spoken in
this nation. That is why, with some dismay,
we have watched this government cut English as a Second Language program
initiatives.
They used to exist at
So, while we have one part of the equation
being spoken of by the minister today and the need to preserve heritage
languages, we do not see the same kind of support for the other side of the equation,
which is providing these individuals with the very skills that they require in
order to exist in our country, and one of those very fundamental skills is the
ability to speak either English or French, depending on where you live in this nation.
The minister spent some time in her speech
today talking about the need to combat racism, and yet, Madam Deputy Speaker, we
see no real initiatives being taken to deal with racism, which is a factor in
our society and one that the minister agrees with. I was dismayed just some weeks ago to meet
with some young people who had been working that very afternoon in an
antiracism day in the Winnipeg School Division No. 1.
* (1520)
In meeting with these students who attended Kelvin
High School, they indicated that in their meetings with other students from
other schools they were dismayed at the number of incidents youngsters were
reporting of racist attitudes; everything from an example of a phys ed teacher
who told a couple of black children to stand under the basketball hoop because
the black mats that were normally there were not available, and because of
their colour they could represent the mats for that particular phys ed period. That is a blatant form of racism. When we talk to black children, Chinese
children, aboriginal children, we find over and over and over again that they
can report incidents of racism where they have been discriminated against.
I have, in my own experience as a teacher,
watched fellow teachers pass out books of less than decent quality to
aboriginal children with the excuse that they would only throw them around anyway. Well, I can assure, Madam Deputy Speaker,
that I have seen children of all races, creeds, colours and religions throw textbooks
around with impunity, tragically, and that it has nothing whatsoever to do with
their race.
I have watched children expelled, put outside
classes, because the teacher found an excuse to have a reason to expel that
particular child from a class. But, of
course, frequently, it was a child of a visible minority who found their way
sitting outside the door. It was never
that blue‑eyed, white, blond‑haired child who found themselves
expelled from the teaching situation at that particular time.
Racism is very much alive and well. One of the reasons for racism is that there
is not sufficient direction coming from the top. We have asked the minister consistently to
provide within this Chamber a cross‑cultural awareness day for members of
the Legislature. I found it interesting
that they did not seem to have any difficulty doing a gender‑language day‑‑in
fact, several days, giving us options as to when we would like to attend‑‑last
year. But they seem to find themselves
mired in concrete and unable to provide a cross‑cultural day on the issue
of racism.
Yet the minister addresses this as a critical
issue in order for our multicultural community to feel completely at home
within our Canadian dynamic. Well, if
she wants them to feel at home, then I would suggest to her, one way that she
can do that is to make sure that we begin that education process with
legislators in this Chamber and we work its way down.
I have made the suggestion to the Minister of
Education (Mrs. Vodrey) that each and every teacher who graduates, henceforth, should
have at least one course in cross‑cultural education so that teacher does
not go into the classroom with some stereotypical views of what some children
can accomplish and what other children cannot.
It is amazing to me that there seems to be, in the general public, a
perception that Chinese children are going to do very well in school. There seems to be an equal perception that
black children are not going to do very well in school.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I can point, in my own
teaching experience, to Chinese children who did very well; I can also point to
Chinese children who did not do particularly well. I can turn to black children who did very
poorly, but I also can turn to black children with extremely high levels of
academic achievement, and I think we have to rid potential teachers of any kind
of stereotypical knowledge about what those children will bring with them on
their pack as they enter into classrooms.
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a very
simple way of addressing this issue.
Teachers cannot be certified in the
It takes a very, very short act on the part of
the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) to ensure that within our school complexes
we have teachers who are trained cross‑culturally, who can begin to put
into place the anti‑racism modality that we all recognize is so very
important within our society.
I would like to congratulate the Manitoba
Federation of Labour for the excellent work that they have been doing in the workplace
with regard to a fight racism campaign.
They have taken a very solid leadership in this area, but we do not see
the same kind of leadership coming from this government in other workplaces,
even within the Civil Service itself, even within this Legislature, so that we
can combat the very racism that the minister addresses, it being such an
important part of multiculturalism and understanding that the multicultural
dynamic is now part and parcel of the Canadian dynamic.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think it is important
that we point out how we would like to see this act different than the act that
exists at the present time. We would
like to see within this act a secretariat in which it is clearly
indicated: Each and every position of
the Multiculturalism Secretariat will be appointed by the Civil Service
Commission and by an open competition, so that there will be no direct
appointments anywhere in this secretariat by the minister responsible, whether
it is this minister or the minister in any other political party in and of the
future.
We would like to see the Multiculturalism
Grants Advisory Council eliminated. We
have made no doubt about that. We think that
Grants Advisory Council responsibility belongs with the Manitoba Intercultural
Council. It has always belonged with the
Manitoba Intercultural Council. The
minister used an excuse of a lack of appropriate auditing of that department to
drag and curtail its granting authority and to basically take it from them unilaterally.
Well, nobody questioned that their auditing
practices had to be corrected, but if we looked at the Auditor's statements yearly,
many departments of this government would not have any authority to spend any
money. Almost every single one of them gets
a complaint somewhere in the Auditor's report about something they would like
to see cleaned up. That is exactly as it
should be.
The Provincial Auditor should be there yearly,
looking at every single department, finding ways to strengthen auditing principles,
making sure that those auditing principles are 100 percent up to date. That is as it should be, and that is exactly what
the Auditor said about MIC. They said
there were sloppy auditing practices, but when sloppy auditing practices exist
you straighten up, you tighten up those auditing practices. You do not unilaterally remove the granting
authority as was done by this minister.
We are also dismayed that in this act,
contrary to the words which they had given to our critic, the minister had
indicated that within this act there would be the mention and incorporation of
the Manitoba Intercultural Council.
Well, there is no mention of the Manitoba Intercultural Council.
The minister says, they have their own
act. Yes, they do have their own act,
but in essence she has superseded their act by this act. All they have left under this minister's administration
is an advisory role to the minister. She
has taken every other function from them, and yet even in that advisory role
she continues the farce that she has to appoint their chairperson.
The Manitoba Intercultural Council belongs in
the Manitoba Multiculturalism Act as much as the secretariat, as much as the access
office, because then it will be clearly defined as important to this minister
as her own arm, which according to this act she will still have fully within
her disposal to control and appoint her choice of individuals, whether or not
they are qualified and whether or not their qualifications have been appropriately
evaluated.
* (1530)
She goes on to say, well, the Manitoba
Intercultural Council is being investigated or reviewed. She has hired an independent consultant that
will provide that review. She mentions
Mr. Don Blair, who, of course, has been, at least to my knowledge, given an
untendered contract to do this particular investigation, and so we have the
circle complete.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we have David Langtry,
who is the chair of the secretariat, who was appointed by the minister and of course
was the candidate in Kildonan, who appoints Alice Kirkland, who was his
campaign chair in that particular community, and who then appoints Don Blair,
who just happened to be the executive director of the Folk Arts Council when
the same David Langtry was the president of the Folk Arts Council.
It is a very cozy group that is running this
secretariat and, of course, within this cozy group we have not had the very concept
outlined over and over, and she mentioned it I think at least 10 times in her
speech‑‑10 times in her speech and I quote: Respect means equal access opportunity.
There was no access for anybody else to be the
chair of the secretariat except David Langtry; there was no access for anybody else
to be the policy analyst except Alice Kirkland; there was no access for anybody
else in the multicultural community to do this review except for Don
Blair. We have no idea whether these people
would have been the best qualified. They
may have been, and let me say that again, they may well have been the very best
qualified for these three functions. We
will never know that, because the minister did not have the courage to practise
what she preaches in her bill, which is that she will show respect and that her
definition of respect is equal access opportunity.
Her concept of equal access opportunity
is: I will appoint my friends,
preferably if they have been Tory candidates or Tory workers, but I will not
allow anybody else to apply for the position, because I do not have the courage
of my convictions. I do not have the
courage to throw it open to free and open competition to ensure that I get the
very best qualified candidates for this job.
The thing that really angers me the most, the
thing that I find most offensive, is that one of the very characteristics of new
ethnocultural communities is their fear of the political process. They fear it, because they frequently came
from countries where they were intimidated.
They came from countries where they were told what to do by government
officials. They had no choice in the
matter.
Yet what are we teaching them here in this
province? Are we teaching them that they
are to be respected, that their talents will be considered, that they will have
equal opportunity? No, not through this
minister. Through this minister we are
told: If you join the Conservative Party, if you work as a campaign manager, if
you run as a candidate, then you may have equal access opportunity but only
then will you have equal access opportunity. [interjection!
Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister would say,
practise what you preach. Well, some day
we will be given the opportunity to practise what we preach. That is why we fight legislation that is like
this, because what all too frequently happens is that a government will
introduce legislation for their own narrow political purposes. The government that replaces them, and all governments
are eventually defeated, quickly latches on and says, aha, now I can use that
for my narrow political purposes, and then the next government gets elected,
and they say, I will use this for my narrow political purposes.
The tragedy is that nothing ever changes. The only way we can change things is to
ensure that when new legislation is introduced, when new ideas are put forward,
that we fight the politicization of this kind of function within our society.
Madam Deputy Speaker, could you let me know
how much time I have left, please? Thank
you.
We have the narrow political interests of
politicians and political parties put before the broad public interests of the multicultural
community, and that is what is so very sad about this piece of
legislation. This piece of legislation
should have come into this Chamber with fanfare, with universal support, with no
amendments. It should have been one of
those pieces of legislation that every individual could have stood in this
House and said, is this not wonderful; we are finally getting a multicultural
act. It is going to depoliticize the
process. It is going to recognize that
too many people in the multicultural community have not been given equal
opportunity in the past. It would
enshrine the principles of equal opportunity.
Every single thing that this minister has done
in her tenure of her ministry has acted against that. Everything that she has put in this act still
permits her to politicize as much as she wants the entire process of
multiculturalism in the province. So the
Multiculturalism Secretariat will still be politicized. The ACCESS office will still be
politicized. The Grants Advisory Council
will still be politicized, and the tragedy is that the multicultural community
looking to us as legislators to do it differently than those countries of their
origin did will learn to their sadness that we are not going to do it any
differently unless some day there is a Liberal government.
When that happens, let me commit myself right
now, Madam Deputy Speaker, that one of the first acts of this government will
be to amend this act in such a way that it will depoliticize the process. It will depoliticize the ethnocultural communities. It will indeed provide respect. It will indeed show respect for the ethnocultural
communities. [interjection!
Madam Deputy Speaker, we have the Minister of
Labour (Mr. Praznik) chirping in his seat.
Well, you know, I cannot be held responsible for the actions of
others. I can only be held responsible
for my own actions‑‑
An
Honourable Member: And your caucus?
Mrs.
Carstairs: ‑‑and the individuals who sit in
my caucus. Yes, I can do that. In my
caucus and in my leadership we will depoliticize these institutions, and if we
do not depoliticize these institutions under my leadership then I will tender
my resignation as their Leader, because unless somebody in this country and in
this province is prepared to treat multicultural communities with respect, then
we are going to continue to do ad nauseam what we have been doing to them for
generations in this country, and it is wrong, Madam Deputy Speaker.
* (1540)
Madam
Deputy Speaker: The Chair has been advised that the honourable
member for
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (
I found it most interesting towards the end of
her comments that the NDP and the Conservatives were trying to justify the politicization
of the Multicultural Grants Advisory Council, the politicization of other
offices as right. As the Leader of the Liberal
Party said in very clear language, it is wrong.
It does not matter what this government does to try to justify their actions,
it cannot be justified.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there are a number of
issues that I was wanting to address in this very important bill. I was going to make reference to issues that
have come before me in the last couple of years. I know that it really has been a privilege
for me to have been appointed as the multicultural critic for our party,
because I would suggest to you that being the critic in the opposition's case,
or being the Minister responsible for Multiculturalism is, in fact, one of the
best positions that one can be assigned to.
I say that because as the critics and the minister we are given the
opportunity to go out and speak to and listen to so many different ethnic
organizations.
There are literally hundreds in the
Suffice it to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that
I treat the appointment as the multicultural critic of our party very seriously
because of the educational experience it has been for me personally, because I
have been able to get such a better understanding, such a better appreciation
of the different ethnic groups that are out there, of our society, or in
speaking in terms of what makes us Canadians.
I must say from the onset that if at any point
in time the minister would like for me to sit down, what I would classify, prematurely,
I would suggest to her that in fact I would on her request if she accepted a
couple of friendly amendments.
We will be proposing amendments to the
multicultural act. One of the amendments will be with respect to MIC. MIC should be in this act, and I am going to
talk at length about MIC and the reasons why it should be in this particular
act.
There are other concerns that I have that no
doubt are shared with the member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld). We are going to be proposing amendments, and
I hope that the member for Rossmere, in particular, will be voting with his
conscience on this particular amendment that we are thinking of proposing. Because even though he might vote for it for
another reason than I would vote for it personally, or we would vote for it as
a caucus, I am sure that he could not live with his conscience knowing full
well that in fact he voted for that amendment.
So, at any point in time that the minister
indicates to me that she would be receptive and follow up on amendments, I
would be more than happy to be very specific with her in my debate, and if she
accepts those amendments, I would love to see this bill then go into the
committee stage where we can have input from all members of the Chamber and,
most importantly, from all of the different Manitobans that have an impact, and
that is every Manitoban who has an interest and would like to come forward and make
a presentation.
Again, I have to say from the onset that the
bill itself, and I have asked questions during Question Period on a number of occasions
as to is this government going to be bringing forward legislation dealing with
the multicultural act as promised in the throne speech? The government's only response was,
soon. Well, I give the government credit
for introducing the bill and keeping their promise because we in the Liberal
Party wanted the bill. So I give them credit for fulfilling that commitment
from the throne speech, and I can say from the onset again that we will be voting
for this bill.
We are going to be making amendments, as I
say, in hopes that the government will be supporting those amendments because
as we feel that the bill itself goes a long way in making things good in
So what I plan to do is to talk at length
about the Manitoba Intercultural Council because that is going to be the major amendment,
so that everyone inside the Chamber will have some sort of a background as to
what it is that this particular minister is doing to the Manitoba Intercultural
Council.
I intend to talk at length in regards to the
other amendments that we believe are necessary, so once again that it is not
just the minister who is steering this bill past her caucus colleagues without
them knowing that there is a better way, that there are things that we can do
to make this a better piece of legislation, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Well, I wanted to comment on the beginning of
what I thought was going to be my speech, but after hearing what the remarks from
the NDP and the Conservatives were regarding my Leader, I got a bit off my
track. I wanted to talk in terms about
what I did last night.
Last night I participated over in
* (1550)
The
In respect to this particular evening last, it
was most interesting to see one new instrument that most people have not seen. It is called the ang klung. I hope Hansard does not ask me to spell it
because I do not know how to spell it.
Basically, it is a bamboo instrument in which each instrument plays a
note. I believe it was the music teacher that was assigned from the school that
was assigned the responsibility to have some sort of a song with this
particular instrument, and it was the first time that this particular
instructor had ever seen the instrument and was so intrigued about it, was more
than happy to take on the challenge of trying to learn how that instrument
worked.
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, we were pleased to
hear not one but two demonstrations of this particular instrument. It was not the first time I personally got to
hear it, but I had talked to a number of individuals in the audience that heard
it, and there was a consensus that this is just a wonderful instrument and where
has it been, that this is an instrument that we should be hearing more of.
The reason why I bring that up is, a bit later
after that instrument demonstration, the school choir was brought in, and the
school choir had more than just the one instrument. What came across my mind is that there are so
many musical instruments that are out there that everyone knows about. You know, we all hear the guitar, the piano
and the organ and so forth. But there are
instruments out there that we do not, or most do not know anything about.
This is where I bring in the whole question of
the educational component, and what something as symbolic as this particular
instrument did. It gave an appreciation
of one very small but important aspect of some other ethnic group's heritage. As I say, if you went across the group that
gathered to be there for the celebration, I am sure you would find a general
consensus that this is an instrument that we should be seeing in our schools.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been asked on
many occasions what it is to be a Canadian.
That is not a simple question and can be somewhat complicated to give a
one‑sentence answer. But what I
found quite interesting was a while back I had the opportunity to meet over at
the Portuguese centre an ethnic group, the Guyanese community.
At the beginning of their performance what
they did is they posed the same question, in that it was what it was but in a different
sense. They had asked what it was to be
Guyanese. Well, they attempted to answer that question. I was very pleased with what I saw.
What happened was we saw individuals of
different ethnic groups come up on to the stage, all that represent different areas
of the world. [interjection! To the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), I know he
wants to see this bill go to committee, and the bill will go to committee. Our intent is not to prevent the bill from
going to committee. My intent, Madam
Deputy Speaker, is to assist in educating the government in particular as to
the need to improve this bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Health I
hope to personally be able to convince that these amendments are good amendments,
and that in fact, he will support. But I
digress and I trust that in the future I will not be digressing because of heckles
from the government benches, but I will not discourage it. If it means that I can pick up on a point that
I know that they might have possibly missed, I will take that opportunity, because
I know that they are sincere in wanting to find out what it is that would make
this bill better.
Anyway, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was very
pleased with what I saw, and I cannot recall offhand if there were
representatives from the other parties from this Chamber, but I would suggest that
if everyone from this Chamber was, in fact, at that particular event, they too,
like I, no doubt, would have felt that this is something that is most
appropriate to start off an event such as the one that they had.
Then, just the other day I was reading, or was
actually given, a clipping from the Policy Options in regard to multiculturalism
and immigration and key issues that are out there. I wanted to quote from that, and that was
from the November '91, Policy Options, which again attempts at answering the
question, what it is to be a Canadian. I
quote from it, there are three small points:
a Canadianism that is inclusive of all of us; a Canadianism that finds
its roots in the diversity of its people and not in the institutions of two
former colonial powers; a Canadianism that, while given equality of opportunity
to all, both respects and values the unique contributions we bring to the
nation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that too, I thought, was
something that was very appropriate to comment.
There is no doubt in my mind that, if you ask that question, what it is
to be a Canadian, to every citizen, you will find that the answers vary from
every region of the country, you will find that everyone has a definition as to
what they believe a Canadian is.
* (1600)
I looked at the debate that we had in regards
to the whole question about the Constitution, and I know the minister had made reference
to the
Madam Deputy Speaker, we had, like no doubt
all the other caucuses while we were in a minority government, ample debate within
caucus regarding the
One of the suggestions that came out‑‑and
as I say, it originally from the political side came from the former member for
Crescentwood, Mr. Carr, when he talked about the concept of having a Canada
clause in the Constitution. I think that
Mr. Carr has done a big service, a significant service not only to the city of
Winnipeg but to Canada, because this is an issue that he himself pushed very
hard for, not only from within our caucus, because the caucus actually, after
the idea came up, was quick to say this is the way that we need to go, but took
the cause into the debate with the government and the New Democratic Party.
In fact, we saw the task force report with
respect to Meech Lake suggest that what is in fact needed is a Canada clause, a
Canada clause that would recognize our multicultural diversity throughout the
country in all regions; that, yes, Quebec has some distinct characteristics
that other provinces do not have, but, like Quebec, Manitoba has some distinct
characteristics that other provinces do not have, Madam Deputy Speaker, and we
felt that the Canada clause went a long way in addressing the needs of the
multicultural mosaic that in fact we live in.
We feel very strongly on the
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, multiculturalism
is a word that is used time after time after time, and I know when I go out to different
organizations and I talk about multiculturalism, many of them suggest that the
terminology of multiculturalism is used far too often to try to justify what is
going on in the real world, and try to make life easy in the sense that if a controversial
issue comes up, far too often the platitudes of saying, well, we are a
multicultural society and we will do what we can and so forth far too often are
used. In fact, far too often when people
think in terms of multiculturalism they think about the song and dance. You know, I participate in Folklorama, as no
doubt many members of this Chamber participate in, and we appreciate and we
learn a lot about other cultures and the heritage that they bring here that
make up
To say the least, we are talking about
political, we are talking about social, we are talking about economical
integration and, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are a long way from that. Governments
at all levels need to put more emphasis on ensuring that the efforts are
sincere and that we are doing what we can to advance what multiculturalism
really is all about. No doubt all three
political parties have adopted multicultural policies, and I plan to make
reference, I know, to the government's in ours, but the government is in the
fortunate situation in which it can actually implement the policy of their
party. Unfortunately, far too often we
have seen the implementation of their party policy as being wrong. The government has to go back to the
grassroots of its party and come back with policy that is more in tune with the
times. People do not want
multiculturalism used in order to buy votes, in order to manipulate
multicultural groups. I am going to
point out in a very clear fashion how the government‑‑government's
policy in particular, but I assume that it is the Conservative Party's policy
because that is what they are implementing‑‑is wrong. There are, in fact, major flaws‑‑[interjection!
As the government suggests that it should go
to committee, the bill will go to committee.
The bill will go to committee unless the government wishes to withdraw
the bill, and I hope they do not withdraw it now that they have had the courage
to implement it. Madam Deputy Speaker,
it will go, but it will not go until after we have had an opportunity to
express our concerns on this bill. I am
going to go through our concerns for the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay).
* (1610)
You cannot expect a bill that came in for
second reading on Day 83, when there are discussions about concluding the
session 10 days later or 12 days later, to pass, Madam Deputy Speaker. If this
government would have brought in this bill Day 25 or Day 30 of a session‑‑they
have had four years‑‑no doubt the bill would have been in committee
and likely would have received Royal Assent.
But, I guess, to some degree it does not fit their political agenda.
I am pleased that we did not allow this
government to procrastinate any longer on the multicultural bill. I think, had it not been for the Liberal
Party's persistence, this government was hoping to bring forward this bill as
it gets a bit closer to an election. I
like to think that we had some influence in having this bill that we have here
today here because of the pressure of the Liberal Party. That is why I do not give up hope. I believe, if we can drum up enough pressure
on the government on making this islation better legislation, Madam Deputy
Speaker, we will see this government accept the amendments and it can be passed
and we can all be happy with what the direction that multiculturalism is going
in the province of Manitoba, but until we get some sort of an indication, this
bill will continue to go through the process.
It will continue to be debated.
I know that the member for The Maples (Mr.
Cheema) was wanting to be able to speak to this bill. In fact, I know that he was working on a flow
chart in terms of what this government has done. I had asked him if I would be able to use the
flow chart, and towards the end of my speech I likely will be making reference
to that flow chart.
The concerns that we have regarding this bill
are, in fact, sincere. That is why,
contrary to what the government wants, the bill should be debated. It deserves to be debated before it goes to
committee. [interjection! Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the member for
Burrows (Mr. Martindale), I do call it debate. What are some of the real
issues? [interjection! As much as I would love to take on the Minister of
Health (Mr. Orchard) on this particular bill, I would be more than happy, if he
has a question, to allow him leave to ask a question, as long as I did not lose
my spot, or he can wait until I am done speaking, and I would be happy to
answer any questions that the minister has.
Well, the minister from his seat, Madam Deputy
Speaker, talks but he does not want‑‑
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, because
my honourable friend has unlimited time, I know that he would permit a
question, because it will not take away from his unlimited time. So would he allow a question?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Will the honourable member for
Mr.
Lamoureux: I would be more than happy to, Madam Deputy Speaker.
* * *
Mr.
Orchard: Madam Deputy Speaker, my question simply to
my honourable friend who has unlimited time in this debate is: Why is he afraid to let this bill go to
committee to have the people of Manitoba speak to concerns that he perceives,
that I submit he does not perceive accurately?
He is afraid to let this bill go to committee and let the people have
their say. Why is the Liberal Party
afraid to have this legislation go to committee?
Mr.
Lamoureux: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am going to have to digress
again from my speech, but I will answer the question and I will answer it so
that the Minister of Health himself will understand it.
We believe that this bill is flawed. It has a major flaw in the bill. The government wants us to pass this bill on
the day that it receives second reading into committee, a major bill of this
nature. How irresponsible does he think
we are? He might be able to pass that on
the NDP, but he is not going to get it by the real opposition in this
Chamber. We have a right to debate this
issue, and we will debate the issue‑‑
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr.
Doug Martindale (Burrows): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I stood in my place to adjourn debate on this
bill so that we could speak on it, because we think it is an important bill as
well, contrary to what the member for
Madam
Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Burrows does not have
a point of order. It is a dispute over
the facts.
* * *
Mr.
Lamoureux: Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, now the NDP agree
with me. I am pleased to hear that, and
I hope they, too, will be responsible and stand up and speak on this bill too,
because it is important that their positions are clear, and that is another
reason as to why it is important that I speak on the bill before it goes to
committee, because there are amendments that I am going to go into in detail that
we would like to see, and before it goes into committee, because I do not
believe that the minister responsible‑‑
Point of Order
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Madam Deputy Speaker, the
member for
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would like to remind all honourable
members that debate on second reading of the bill is to be explicitly relevant
to the principles of the bill.
* * *
Mr.
Lamoureux: Madam Deputy Speaker, I understand that the Deputy
House Leader (Mr. Praznik) does not necessarily know what it is that he
talks. In fact, I am pointing out major
flaws in the legislation. If the
government would allow me the opportunity to continue so that people who might
want to read what the minister said and the Leader of the Liberal Party said prior
to myself so that the speech will be somewhat intact.
(Mr.
Speaker in the Chair)
So getting back, Mr. Speaker, to the bill
itself in the sense that there are a number of real issues that need to be
addressed, issues in which this government has not been addressing. So when they talk about multiculturalism,
they talk about the wonderful things that they are doing. They create new offices; they create new
funding agencies; they brought forward a policy, what I would classify as a
Conservative Party policy, which we too even have a policy. But, as I pointed out, the government has the
opportunity to bring in government policy.
Mr. Speaker, there are aspects of this
particular bill that we support, and that is why, as I said at the very
beginning of my comments, I said that we were going to be supporting this bill,
but want to see those amendments. This
is one area we believe that we can ensure that the minister does the
responsible thing, that we have some sort of influence on, because if we take a
look at the real issues of multiculturalism, we can see how the government has
failed.
Mr. Speaker, I would go to one of those issues
being racism, Time after time.
* (1620)
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Ms.
Becky Barrett (
Mr.
Speaker: On a point of order?
Ms.
Barrett: No, I would like to ask the member for
Mr.
Speaker: Will the honourable member for
Mr.
Lamoureux: As long as it is clear, Mr. Speaker, that
when I sit down I will be more than happy to answer any questions of any members
at any time, as long as it is well known that I am not giving up my right to
speak.
Ms. Barrett:
I will not take much time at all from the
member for
Mr.
Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question specifically,
but prior to doing that I will suggest to all members, as I suggested, I will
be more than happy to answer any questions you might have, but try to get them
dealing with the bill itself so that I can at least attempt at convincing you
why it is you should be supporting what it is that we are doing. But, now,
having said that, I want to answer the specific question.
I would suggest to the member for Wellington
that what she do, she should sit down with the member for Thompson, her House leader
(Mr. Ashton) and possibly her deputy House leader (Mr. Martindale) and maybe
she will get a better understanding as to why it is not absolutely essential
that we speak to a bill and then allow it to pass the same day it is introduced
for second reading. On the previous
point of order from the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), he stood up to
adjourn debate. That would have not
allowed the bill to go to committee.
Now, "expeditiously" in whose
mind? If the member for Wellington is
saying that expeditiously means that bills that they agree with and that they
do not have amendments to should be passed right away and go through the
system, "just put your comments on the record" is fine, well, I
disagree with that, and I disagreed with that when the NDP stood up on final
offer selection or when they voted in favour of a budget.
Again, I do not mind being interrupted in my
speech. It might make it very tough for
individuals to read, but I would ask that those questions deal specifically
with the amendments that I am asking or just to clarify some of the comments
that I put onto the record.
I am going to revert back to the speech, and
we are dealing with an issue that this government, when it comes to multiculturalism,
has not been able to deal with. That
issue is something that was submitted from MIC.
The minister, I think, knows full well what it is that I might be
referring to. That is the report that
was given to the minister that has combatting racism in
This was within one year. Well, if the minister had it since October of
1990, that would have meant October of 1991.
Well, Mr. Speaker, MIC has given up hope on this government when it comes
to that cross‑cultural awareness program.
In fact, they invited members from this Chamber to attend a day in which
they provided that particular‑‑or a course that would no doubt somewhat
resemble what it is that the MIC had suggested that this government provide for
us.
Mr. Speaker, that is just one of the
recommendations that is here that the minister has absolutely no excuse as to
why this government did not implement that recommendation. You look in terms of dealing with racial
incidents, and again, I quote from the report:
that the Attorney General of the government of Manitoba provide
additional staffing and other resources to the Manitoba Human Rights Commission
in order to deal with the unacceptable backlog of complaints dealing with
racism and assist the commission in providing more effective ongoing public education.
Well, Mr. Speaker, last time I checked, that
in fact was not being done. The list
could go on. How long did we have to
wait in order for the Ku Klux Klan line to be cut off? What type of action did we see from this
government on that?
Racism is a real issue, an issue that this
government has not been addressing. Mr.
Speaker, we talk about the recognition of foreign credentials. The government has brought forward a report in
respect to the recognition of foreign credentials. I notice that one of the major thrusts of
that particular report is suggesting something that we have proposed in this
Chamber as a resolution: the formation
of a data bank. A data bank would go a
long way in resolving at least part of the problem with the whole question of
foreign credentials.
There are systemic barriers that are out there
that governments need to address. I am
not aware of any of those systemic barriers that, in fact, this government is
taking any sort of action on. In fact,
during the Civil Service Estimates, we had one group, Mr. Speaker, actually see
a decline in the make‑up of our Civil Service.
Mr. Speaker, ESL, we had an opportunity here
to expand, to make, to bring forward a program that would allow for individuals
who have not only recently come to Canada, but individuals who have been here
for years, for decades, an opportunity to be able to learn the language. Well, the list goes on, and I am going to make
reference a bit later as to some more of the details. [interjection! To the
Minister of Agriculture: I am not afraid
of any questions. I told him what he can
do if he so chooses if he has any questions.
But I wanted to go with what happened today in Question Period with
respect to this bill.
Mr. Speaker, Manitoba Intercultural Council is
and was expecting to see some sort of support from this government. Today,
after three questions from the member for Rossmere‑‑not Rossmere, I
am sorry‑‑the NDP multicultural critic, from Radisson, stood up and
asked questions of the minister, and then I had the opportunity to follow with
a question. At that point in time the
government House leader stood in his place to tell us that he is going to be
calling that bill.
* (1630)
I guess he was somewhat sensitive because it
was kind of a break in procedure. You do
not generally see government House leaders stand up in Question Period to say
that they are going to be calling a bill for debate, but we welcome that
debate. I would like to think, Mr.
Speaker, that we might have even got the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) to
stand in his place and by asking the question get Bill 98 onto the agenda.
At that point, Mr. Speaker, the break with
tradition, if you like, I was not able to ask the questions in relation to the
bill itself. But there is a reason why I
wanted to ask that question, and that question was in regard to what I made
reference to as a fundamental flaw, as something that the minister has failed
to recognize, and that was the importance of a Manitoba Intercultural Council.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to go over why we feel
that it is so very important that the Manitoba Intercultural Council be a part of
this legislation. The bottom line for
this is that we believe that the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship responsible
for Multiculturalism (Mrs. Mitchelson) does not see the Manitoba Intercultural
Council as having any future in the
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to start off by saying
that it was one of the good things that the New Democratic Party did while they
were in government by bringing forward the act known as The Manitoba
Intercultural Council Act. It was done a
number of years ago. We find that
particular act had some flaws in itself that we wanted to see amended. I give the then‑government credit for
recognizing, at that time, the importance of having an organization such as the
Manitoba Intercultural Council. The reason
why I give them that credit is because I would refer you to many of the
comments that I made at the beginning of my speech, when I talked about what is
being a Canadian, when I expressed some of the things that I have been able to
see as the Multiculturalism critic for the Liberal Party.
I believe that the NDP, at that time, was
trying to do a service by bringing forward a piece of legislation of this nature. I found it very interesting to find out that
the opposition at that time did not support MIC getting together. The reason
why they did not support it is because they felt that all the NDP were trying
to do was to politicize the multicultural community. That is the primary concern that they had
when they were in opposition, that they felt that the New Democratic Party was
trying to politicize the multicultural community.
Mr. Speaker, this government has gone one big
step in that direction, and I guess, given the time that it was introduced, the
Manitoba Intercultural Council, and the things that were being said at the
time, I can understand to a certain degree why it is that they might have been
of that opinion.
I had talked to individuals that were there
since the creation of the Manitoba Intercultural Council, and they told me some
of the inner politics as to why the Conservative Party then opposed the
Manitoba Intercultural Council.
Unfortunately, I do not think their attitude has changed since
then. They opposed it then and they
oppose it now. In the long term, they
want to get rid of the Manitoba Intercultural Council.
Well, I would suggest to you that what this
government is doing in Bill 98, the multicultural act‑‑even if I
were to use their arguments‑‑is a lot more political now than the
government, through their eyes, was being back when the Manitoba Intercultural
Council was being introduced.
I want to tell you why I believe that. I polled the Manitoba Intercultural Council
to talk about what it is that The Manitoba Intercultural Council Act really is,
so that hopefully the government, in particular, will compare the two, compare
what was then brought in, something that I would argue was not political. It
had a couple of flaws in the legislation, which I will point out as I go
through the act, that we felt would have made The Manitoba Intercultural
Council Act even better, but I do not believe that the intent of the government
at that time was as bad as the then‑Conservative opposition made it out
to be.
There might have been some attempt, from the
then minister that introduced the MIC, to have some influence with the Manitoba
Intercultural Council. That is the
reason why we, as the then official opposition and now the real opposition,
brought forward amendments to the multicultural act. I want to go through, as I say, what it is
that the Manitoba Intercultural Council is.
It makes reference in Clause 4(1)‑‑and
this is not the multicultural act; this is The Manitoba Intercultural Act‑‑and
that was that a council should be set up and that it should have or it should
be made up of at least: (a) "one
member elected by each registered ethnocultural group; (b) one member elected
by the registered associations of ethnocultural groups in each of the
Southeast, Interlake, North Central, South Central, Southwest, Parklands and
North regions as those regions are defined by the Manitoba Bureau of
Statistics; (c) one member elected by registered organizations composed of and
serving several ethnocultural groups."
Finally‑‑and I think this is where the government felt that
they were being political; if they felt at that time that they were being
political, they really have to think about what they are doing‑‑and
that was Section 4(1)(d): "one
member appointed by the minister for each two members elected under clauses
(a), (b) and (c)."
Mr. Speaker, that provided the government the
opportunity to be able to have some input, some direct communication from
within MIC. That is something that we
believed was absolutely essential. The
primary reason why we felt that it was better that MIC have the granting
authority, not MGAC, the Manitoba Grants Advisory Council, that was created
from this particular minister, that is fully appointed, politically appointed
from this minister, which now allows the government of the day to politicize
culture or multicultural grants. They
took away from an organization that was handing out the grants, that was apolitical,
and decided to politicize it.
* (1640)
Then the act goes on. I am only going to make reference to three parts
of the MIC Act. In the last two parts
are some things which we believed were flawed.
The reason why we believe that they are flawed is here, it is that we
believe that if the minister, if the government, buys into what we are saying
in terms of the importance of the MIC and decides to incorporate the act‑‑that
the minister or the government does not include the Manitoba Intercultural
Council Act without amendments, because the Manitoba Intercultural Council Act
itself needs amendments.
The act has that "The minister in
consultation with the council executive shall designate from among the members
of the council a presiding member and the members of the council shall elect a
deputy presiding member."
Well, Mr. Speaker, if the government decides
to accept our amendments to allow MIC to be in the act, we would suggest that the
government has recognized‑‑and I give the minister a gold star for
recognizing this‑‑the minister has recognized that this is one of
the flaws of the Manitoba Intercultural Act, that MIC should be able to elect
its presiding officer. So the minister and
I agree on this.
I guess we currently disagree with having the
MIC in the multicultural act, but I am an optimistic person, and hopefully after
she hears everything I have to say about the importance of MIC, she will
consider that a policy change is needed and that this is something that the
minister herself might want to consider.
The final aspect that I wanted to refer to in
terms of the
Well, Mr. Speaker, again, the Minister of
Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson) gets a gold star. She agrees with us that, in fact, the NDP
were wrong in the minister appointing that particular position, that, in fact,
it should be the responsibility of the Manitoba Intercultural Council. I was very pleased to hear the minister
responsible tell me that, to tell me that she supports two of three aspects of
a private member's bill that I had introduced, on behalf of the Liberal Party,
to this Chamber.
In fact, this was a bill that was introduced
more than once into this Chamber, because it was introduced by the former
member for Selkirk, the former member for Seven Oaks. It dealt with those two issues in addition to
the funding issue. I felt that I had
made major grounds. Let me tell you why
I felt that I had made major grounds on the bill that I had introduced, Bill 9.
The minister spoke to it on November 6, 1990.
I am sure that you will be very impressed with what the minister had to
say about the bill introduced from the Liberal Party then. This is what she said, and I quote from
Hansard:
"Mr. Speaker, we also have committed to a
multicultural Act for the
This is what the minister said then. I am getting the feeling that she is starting
to change her mind on it, Mr. Speaker.
But I am hoping she just forgot that she made these comments, and in
fact after me reminding her that she made that particular comment‑‑and
I have one more‑‑that she will reconsider and agree with me once
again, or to confirm her agreement with me, as it says in Hansard.
I go on, Mr. Speaker. "In that context we will deal with some
of the issues that were raised, but we are not about to, as a Government, take
an ad hoc approach to amending legislation, rather than taking a look at the
whole overall picture and doing all of the right things for all of the right
reasons at the right time. That will be
coming forward and we will be addressing any changes to deal with the Manitoba
Intercultural Council in context when the Act is introduced."
Mr. Speaker, that is 100 percent flip‑flop
from the Minister of Culture and Heritage.
She made a commitment to me in private members' hour on November 6,
1990, that she was going to be dealing with the concerns that I raised in a
multicultural act.
The last sentence is: "That will be coming forward and we will
be addressing any changes to deal with the Manitoba Intercultural Council in
context when the Act is introduced."
Well, Mr. Speaker, you cannot get any clearer
than that. She made a commitment and she
failed to live up to that commitment. The minister told me something in which I
had taken her at face value. As a direct
result of what the minister told me, in the next session, even though we
introduced the MIC amendment bill for a number of consecutive sessions, based
on what the minister told me, I recommended to our caucus, because of the good
will demonstrated from the Minister of Culture and Heritage, that we should not
introduce The MIC Amendment Act.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I guess I should
not have taken the minister at her word.
Instead what I did, because the caucus had agreed with me on it, after
hearing what the minister in fact said, I decided to introduce a resolution,
and that resolution dealt with the funding component. The funding component is something that the
minister disagreed with us on. I am
going to go in at length as to why this minister had chosen to disagree with
us, not only now, but you will find that as I go through my speech I will often
make reference to what the minister had in fact done.
But, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk in terms of
that failed commitment. She made the commitment. She broke her commitment. On a recommendation
from my caucus, our caucus had decided not to introduce two of the three
problems that we saw with the Manitoba Intercultural Council and that was the
presiding officer and the executive assistant based on a commitment from this
minister, but because we agreed to disagree on the politicization of multicultural
grants, the minister wanting to politicize it, the Liberals‑‑and I
believe the NDP were with us on that issue‑‑did not want to
politicize it.
So what happened is not wanting to let go of
that issue, it was suggested that what I do is I bring forward a resolution dealing
with it. Being the responsible and
persistent opposition party that we are, that is what we did. We brought forward a resolution to continue
the debate, to remind the minister time after time what she is doing when it
comes to multicultural grants is wrong.
Even though, Mr. Speaker‑‑and I know we are going to go into
the Estimates, hopefully sometime soon‑‑we are going to talk about
it again, it will not be a debate as much as we have the opportunity to ask
questions of each other.
I can tell you right now what the minister is
going to say and I guess, ultimately, I am going to have to agree to, and that is
at the end of the debate the minister will say, well, we have had this debate
on many occasions and the member for Inkster, the Liberal critic, should
realize that on this particular issue we are going to have to agree to disagree
and then leave it at that. In all likelihood,
I will add a few words and unfortunately have to agree to disagree.
* (1650)
Two things should be taken into account. Because we agree to disagree does not mean
that we as a Liberal caucus are going to let the issue die. We are going to continue to fight that issue,
because we believe the government is wrong, the government cannot justify
politicizing the multicultural community by deciding who is going to get the
grants. It is wrong. That is the other thing, the other second
thing that comes out of this, that the minister, even though she says that we
are going to have to agree to disagree, because we do that it does not mean,
and it should not mean in her mind, that she is right.
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that this is
a debate that should occur in the Conservative caucus, because I think that if you
put all the facts on the table and you say what is the reason for us being in
government? Is the reason for us to
manipulate the multicultural community in order so we can get votes in the next
provincial election or is the reason to do what is the proper thing to do in
regard to funding of a multicultural community?
I hope the member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld)
will stand and speak on this particular bill, too. [interjection! I will give the
member for Rossmere a change; you can bank on it, as soon as I am done, because
I have an amendment that I think I am going to get the support from the member
for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld). I am convinced
that he is going to support me on this amendment. He might disagree as to why I am putting the
amendment forward, but I think he is going to agree to it. I hope he is in the Chamber for all of my
speech so that when I eventually get to that area of my debate that I will be
interested in hearing what the minister himself has to say about it, because I
know I have at least one government member onside on one of the amendments that
I am going to be proposing, even though he might be onside for all the wrong
reasons. He should be onside, because I
know he has a conscience, and he could not at least vote for it. He might not be around for the vote possibly
for the amendment. [interjection! The acting government House leader is very sensitive
to this. I would ask him to be patient‑‑
An Honourable
Member: And well he should be.
Mr.
Lamoureux: And well he should be. As I was saying, that the minister by
agreeing to disagree with me does not make her right. The caucus needs to discuss that issue from
within. They need to revisit and to
change. There is something that can happen
to the bill. Hopefully, if I get time on
Friday, I will be able to talk about what it is that we could actually do to ensure
that we can rectify that problem, take it out of the politicization, if you
will.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted also to make mention
that ever since the Conservatives have taken office, that they have taken
actions that have really taken away the powers from MIC. That is why the government has to consider
making a commitment to MIC. The way they
can make that commitment is by including the Manitoba Intercultural Council in
this piece of legislation.
I only made reference to one thing that is
being done by this government that is sending the wrong message to the Manitoba
Intercultural Council. Another thing
that they are doing, Mr. Speaker, is taking away in essence what the
legislation itself has asked for it to do.
That was to be an advisory board to the minister. I made reference to one of the things that
the Manitoba Intercultural Council did in terms of combatting racism. MIC deals with a number of different issues
and brings it to the attention of the minister.
I am going to be going through a number of those because, unfortunately,
I am going to run out of time today.
Point of Order
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, the member for Inkster‑‑I
know has unlimited time‑‑has indicated he was going to run out of opportunity
for his remarks. We would wonder if you
could canvass the House. This side would
be very prepared to give leave to waive private members' hour, so that the
member for
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Is there leave to waive private members'
hour?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Mr.
Speaker: Leave is denied.
Point of Order
Mr.
Praznik: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I gather that the record will show that it
was in fact the member for‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. No, the honourable member does not have a
point of order. Leave has been denied.
* * *
Mr.
Lamoureux: I cannot believe that the government and the
NDP want to waive private members' hour‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr.
Orchard: Mr. Speaker, given that my honourable friend
has unlimited time, I wonder if he might permit another question, a very short
one.
Mr.
Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, first thing, I
will. I want to‑‑[interjection!
I only want to address what the Deputy Government House Leader (Mr. Praznik)
said.
* * *
Mr.
Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the Immigrant Credentials Bill, which
is also a very important multicultural piece of legislation, should be dealt
with. The minister of immigration, or
the minister of citizenship and multiculturalism, should be speaking on that
bill. That is a bill that deals with the
real issue.
If the minister would recognize the fact that
opposition also brings forward good, legitimate debate on issues, Mr. Speaker,
we will other legislation that is passed.
But this government, time after time, refuses to address the real issues
of multiculturalism and does not even speak on private member's bills, in bills
that deal with the issue that we are talking about right now, and that is
multiculturalism.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to challenge the
minister to stand up today and to speak to that bill. If she has any respect for multiculturalism,
she will do just that, and I say shame to the NDP party for acknowledging, for
trying to say that the private members' hour does not deserve the debate on
those issues.
Does that mean the critic for Multiculturalism
does not care what is happening to the Immigrant Credentials Bill, or resolutions
that are introduced that are dealing with multiculturalism, Mr. Speaker? Shame on the NDP! Shame on the government!
I will be given the opportunity on Friday, Mr.
Speaker, to continue my debate, and I will continue my debate in hopes that in
fact what we will see is the government re‑evaluate and rethink their
position and allow for policy changes on this legislation. Because it needs the changes, and I will
continue to speak until at least I have expressed all the concerns that I have
representing the Liberal caucus, irrelevant of what the New Democratic Party
might have in their position on this bill.
They might want MIC to go down the tubes, but the Liberal Party does not
want MIC to go down the tube, and the Liberal Party will fight for the Manitoba
Intercultural‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
The hour being 5 p.m., time for private members' hour.
This matter will remain standing in the name
of the honourable member for
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Point of Order
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): On
that particular point, I think the Liberal Party already has expressed its lack
of desire to continue to debate this issue by waiving private members' hour.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
An
Honourable Member: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. We will deal with this one first. Is the
honourable member for
Some
Honourable Members: Yes.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave to bring that forward at this
time?
Some
Honourable Member: No.
Mr.
Speaker: No.
Point of Order
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order.
ORDER FOR RETURN, ADDRESS FOR PAPERS
REFERRED FOR DEBATE
Mr.
Speaker: On the motion of the honourable member for
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave? [Agreed!
Mr.
Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to be able to put a few thoughts on the record with respect
to this particular order for return requested by my colleague the member for
Some
Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. I have recognized the honourable member for
Brandon East, and I am sure all honourable members would like to give the
courtesy to the honourable member for Brandon East to put his remarks on the
record.
Mr.
Leonard Evans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure if honourable
members wish to carry on their heated debate, they may do so outside of this
Chamber.
I am amazed that the Legislature has to debate
this particular request for information, this particular Address for Papers
asked for by my colleague the member for
I ask myself what happened to open
government. For years, when the
Conservative Party was in opposition, they talked and preached about open
government; we need freedom of information; we should give documents to the
people so the people would be more conversant with the issues of the day. Now that they are in government, we find that
they are not ready to give to the public of
So I ask, Mr. Speaker, what has happened to
open government? I say, if anything is undermining democracy in this country of
ours, it is the secretiveness of parties in office. The secretiveness of parties in office. The secretiveness that this government is
displaying is not to the credit of this government and this issue. There is too much secrecy in government.
While I am not an advocate of an American
system of government, I am not an advocate of the congressional system of government,
certainly there is far more openness in the
I am sure that it should be understood, I
suppose, that if you do not have information then you cannot criticize. So one way to eliminate criticism or to
soften criticism is not to give out information. Perhaps this goes for the senior bureaucracy
as well as for the ministers of the Crown.
But the fact is, in the
In fact, Mr. Speaker, it goes beyond
this. I can think of other examples
where we should have more information for the public so they can judge what the
government of the day is doing. One
example, I believe, is operating information on hospitals. The time has come for the people of Manitoba
to have more details on the operation of our hospitals, more details on revenues,
certainly more details on expenditures, more details on salaries paid to staff,
more details on all kinds of expenditures made by major health care
institutions which collectively spend hundreds of millions of dollars of the
taxpayers' money, and the people of Manitoba cannot even find out just how that
money is being spent, even if they wanted to.
Even if they wanted to make an effort of research, this information is simply
not available.
Now, in this instance, Mr. Speaker, we have a
bill, Bill 91, that has its history back in December of 1989 when the first reading
took place. On February 1, 1990, we had
second reading of Bill 91, and at that time, later that month in February, the member
for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis) was assured of support from the
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), who, at that time, stated, and I am
quoting: As I said, I have been working
with the honourable member for St. Johns, who had the foresight to bring this
matter forward.
So here is the Minister of Justice seemingly
in favour of this legislation.
On March 1, again, in the second reading, the
Minister of Justice says, and I quote:
We have to have legislation like this.
In a matter like this there is all kinds of room for agreement amongst
right‑thinking and caring Manitobans which I trust that all members of
this House are.
From there it goes to committee stage, March
8. Then March 13 we had five
presentations that had been made, all were supportive with the exception of the
Manitoba Medical Association. March 13,
there is clause‑by‑clause discussion. All the proposed amendments
are approved, and upon adoption of the bill, the Minister of Justice again is
very supportive, and I quote: I moved
that motion so that the Department of Health and its minister, whom I have not
had the opportunity to consult with in recent days, so the Department of Health
can do the work necessary to ensure that those who are in the business of distributing
these things on a legal basis are made aware of the new rules. I do give commitment to the honourable member
for
Then, Mr. Speaker, it goes on to third and
final reading. On March 15, it obtains
the final reading by the Legislature.
Then, following that, some months transpire. The summer goes by; the winter comes, and
December 11‑‑of course, this is after the election where this
particular government obtained a majority‑‑in the Question Period,
nevertheless, the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) responds in the affirmative when
asked if he will proclaim the antisniff bill.
* (1710)
December 11 also, the Minister of Health
states, in the Estimates debate, "We anticipate proclamation in January,
and a committee is putting those varied touches to the process of proclamation."
Well, Mr. Speaker, it seems that not only the
Minister of Justice but also the Minister of Health himself was supportive of this
particular legislation and said he was going to put the finishing touches to
proclaim it. He said between the second
and the 31st of January was his commitment.
That was back in 1990. Since then nothing, of course, has happened. On February, 1991, the Minister of Health
indicated that further study was required and that no date for proclamation had
been set. Subsequently in that year, May
1, 1991, the Minister of Health states that amendments may be necessary now to deal
with technical problems with enforcement.
Of course, nothing happens.
(Mr.
Neil Gaudry, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
Nothing happens for the rest of the year, and
by 1992‑‑we are into the year 1992 now‑‑still no
enforcement. With the request of my
colleague the member for
Again I say, what has happened to open
government? What has happened to freedom
of information? What has happened to an openness
that members opposite have said that they were in favour of when they were in
the opposition? Now the shoe is on the other
foot, they are in government, and they do not wish to provide information that
should be forthcoming. It is straightforward. It is a legal opinion. True, they are not required to give a legal
opinion, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) indicated, but I would have
thought that the better part of wisdom and consideration would bring them to
the point that they would table that opinion.
Certainly the bill is not perfect. My colleague from
By all means, we are open on it, because we
have a serious social problem that is affecting the lives of many, many young people
throughout
There are many causes. There are diverse causes of this particular
problem, not the least of which is poverty, just the abject poverty that people
find themselves in causing them to despair, causing them to give up hope. This is a way of escape by this sniffing
process, sniffing of whatever it may be‑‑glue or gasoline or nail
polish or Lysol or whatever the substance may be.
(Mr.
Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
It may be caused by abuse in the home that may
have driven the children to this particular practice, or the home itself may be
broken. They may be from broken
homes. Whatever the reason, the fact is
that this phenomenon is occurring, and it is something that we have to
address. It is not a partisan issue. It
surely should not be an issue of division between left‑wing or right‑wing
opinion among any of the political parties in this province or in this
country. It surely should be a
nonpartisan issue. It is a matter of
calling for some step forward to deal with an issue that is very difficult and
very complex, and no one for one moment has suggested that this bill will
resolve all the problems.
This bill will not stop sniffing, but it is a
step in the right direction. It will
make it much more difficult for this to occur.
For us not to act is to fail the community. The community has asked for this type of
legislation for some years now. They
have asked for legislation. They have
gone to the City of
So not to act, Mr. Acting Speaker, is to fail
this community. It is certainly to fail
the children, the children who are being affected adversely by it, and it is
certainly to fail the front‑line workers, the social workers, and there
are others, people in the churches and community groups that are front‑line
dealing with these children. I say,
inaction is failing these children.
(Mr.
Speaker in the Chair)
Mr. Speaker, as I said, the government does
not have to provide the legal opinion‑‑that may be true‑‑but
it is time for some openness. It is time
to open the books. It is time to put the
information on the table, so all of us can read it and bring about some
conclusions.
Well, I understand I only have a minute left,
but, Mr. Speaker, I just want to put this final thought on the record and that
is, the public generally is cynical about politicians in not keeping
promises. They become very cynical when
they see governments, federal, provincial and indeed at the civic level, when
the people are running for office they make promises or indeed make promises
having been elected, and then they turn around and break those promises. The public becomes indeed very, very cynical
and very distrustful of the whole process.
What they get, therefore, is rhetoric and not action. What we are asking for is action, and what my
colleague the member for
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain standing
in the name of the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik).
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 36‑Core Area Initiative III
Ms.
Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) that
WHEREAS economic conditions in
WHEREAS the Core Area Initiative Agreements I
and II provided major support to vulnerable families and communities during the
last ten years; and
WHEREAS federal resources are vital in the
renewal of the city of
WHEREAS the city is reviewing Plan Winnipeg,
and many of the issues to be addressed will need federal and provincial support
through an agreement such as the Core Area Initiative; and
WHEREAS the involvement and participation of
aboriginal people must be an integral part of the renegotiation of a new Core
Area Initiative Agreement; and
WHEREAS the Minister of Urban Affairs has
taken no initiative on this issue, and has failed to convince the federal
government of the necessity of their involvement in the future of
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative
Assembly of Manitoba urge the Premier to direct the Minister of Urban Affairs to
initiate serious consultations with aboriginal people, the City of Winnipeg and
the federal government and to consider the negotiations for a new agreement an
urgent priority of this government; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly urge
the Minister of Urban Affairs to convey to the federal government, in the strongest
possible terms, the immediate and urgent need for a renewal of the Core Area
Initiative Agreement.
Motion
presented.
Ms.
Friesen: Mr. Speaker, what we are asking for in this resolution
is that the government consider it a matter of urgent priority that they begin
to move in a much more dramatic fashion than they have in the past on a new
Core Area Initiative, and, in particular, it addresses the changes to Winnipeg
and Manitoba in the year since the last two Core Area Initiatives were negotiated,
and that is the increase in the aboriginal population and the needs of that
population and the way in which that population can, in fact, become part of
the urban community of Winnipeg.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this,
but it is something, Mr. Speaker, which I have spoken on a number of times in
the past. I have seen no change in the
government position, no change in government action, certainly in this area.
* (1720)
Last year we brought a private members'
resolution on exactly this issue. We
have spoken of it annually in the Estimates process and listened to the same
tired responses of more than one Minister of Urban Affairs. We have also asked in Question Period regularly
questions on the conditions of aboriginal people in the city of Winnipeg, the
proposals that the government has for an urban aboriginal strategy in Manitoba
and Winnipeg and also, specifically, about the various reports that come from
Ottawa, from City Hall, from time to time, about the potential, sometimes even
the immediate, possibility of a new Core Area Agreement.
But what we see on the other side of the House
is, I think, a very disdainful treatment of this particular subject, on the matter
of urban aboriginal issues. It gets
battered around from the Minister of Native Affairs (Mr. Downey) to the
Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) to the minister for community services. In spite of the responsibility allocated to
the Minister of Native Affairs (Mr. Downey) for this, there seems to be no
willingness on his part to move on the promises that have been made in a number
of throne speeches and to develop the policies that have been proposed in a
very large number of consultations which were held around the province in
previous years on an urban aboriginal strategy.
It seems sometimes as though the government is‑‑well,
it is like dealing with a marshmallow.
You really do not know where to poke next. But in this Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr.
Ernst), we do have a minister who, I will certainly say to his credit, is very
frank. He also seems to be at times what
you might call in a yes‑minister fashion quite courageous.
He went so far in the last Estimates, this
week in fact, to suggest that he expects to see a new Core Area Initiative Agreement,
perhaps sometime in the fall, a framework agreement, then with some public
hearings. I do not think he allocated a time
to it, and I do not, in fact, have Hansard in front of me. I do not think it
has been written yet for the Urban Estimates. So I do not intend to quote him
out of context, but this is what I understood him to say, that he expected a
framework agreement in the fall, public hearings, and then, perhaps in the
spring, a new initiative agreement.
It seemed to me, at the time, that this was on
the part of the federal government, at least if the minister's statements were
correct, that this was an even more cynical than usual attempt to manipulate
public money, public funds and public programs to the interest of the federal
Tory party and that all of this was in fact arranged for the next election
strategy, first of all, what the minister expects to see is a framework agreement
signed in the fall.
This framework agreement process, whereby Tory
ministers trot out the flags and sit behind the green baize tables and announce
framework agreements with aboriginal governments or with urban citizens or with
provincial governments, it is not something we really saw, perhaps, five or six
years ago. It seems to be a new tool of
the Tory spin doctors. It gives them the
chance to put some agenda on the table and call it a press release. To suggest that progress is being made, when,
in fact, all they have done is set the time of a meeting and published an
agenda.
So that is what he expects for the fall. In comparison to this, we see that the City
of
I do not see in the Estimates of the
Department of Urban Affairs a similar kind of commitment, and I did not see in
the words of the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) a similar kind of
commitment to the urgency of the situation in the city of
Well, when the minister is not being
courageous he is being hopeful, and I have heard that one more often from this
minister than I think from any other minister of any other government. He is hopeful about the federal Tories. He is hopeful about a new Core Area
Agreement. He is hopeful that a
framework agreement will be signed. He
is hopeful that we will have some new public hearings. Well, he is hopeful but I wish he were angry
as well.
I wish I could see the commitment and the
anger and the frustration of this provincial government about the way in which they
argue, and we have to take them at their word that they argue that the federal
government is treating the conditions in the city of Winnipeg. So what we expect, if we take again the minister
at his word, is a Core Area Initiative Agreement, perhaps signed, perhaps
shortly before the next federal election, perhaps sometime in the early spring‑‑hopefully.
Then perhaps the deadline will be set for the
money to flow perhaps six months later, a year later, when the government anticipates
that in their stand‑aside policies the economy will somehow miraculously
increase or improve. We wait for those miracles. The minister can be hopeful about miracles,
but I think it requires far more action, far more urgency and far more concern
and, yes again, anger on the part of this government about the conditions in
the city of
In fact, what we have seen, as far as the
people of the inner city of
This particular motion speaks also to the
changes in the city of
The native population of
The representation in the inner city is twice
that of the city as a whole. Forty
percent of the native population lives in the inner city of
The striking thing about these figures, of
course, Mr. Speaker, is that more than half of the native households in
I do not think it would come as a surprise to
any member in this House that in recent years, since 1986 in fact, many of those
households have sunk into deeper and deeper poverty.
* (1730)
In the inner city, the increase is from 7 to
10 households for native households who live in poverty as compared to 4 in 10 non‑native
households.
The educational statistics are also
striking. By 1986, out of the 2,315
natives who had reached university, only 610 or one in four graduated. Again, when you take the area of the inner city
of
Where, in 1986, a 7.7 percent unemployment
rate was there for the general population, native unemployment runs at more
than 20 percent. Again, in the years
since 1986, with the rapid increase in unemployment in the city of
There have been a number of studies which have
looked at the family composition in the inner city of Winnipeg, and again particularly
amongst native families the number of children who are living in poverty, the
number of children who are in single‑parent families and are suffering
the educational and the nutritional and community difficulties that come with
that particular situation has also increased.
Yet for three years this government is
prepared to see no new programs, no new interest in the city of Winnipeg, no
new energy, no new focusing of energies and monies and programs for those people
who are clearly the most in need in our city.
In fact, what we have seen and what we are
going to see is the capping of social assistance rates. We have seen the loss of parent‑child
centres which were most important to single‑parent families in my riding
particularly.
We have seen the growing waiting lists for job
training opportunities. We have seen the
loss of community‑based training opportunities, such as, for example, the
one that was conducted at the North End Ministry, training for cashiers,
training opportunities where there was a very high proportion of people who
were finding employment from those. Yet
this government is prepared to let another year slip by before any kind of
energy and incentives are offered to people in the inner city of
I am concerned particularly, Mr. Speaker,
because at about the time this hopeful and courageous and frank minister
expects to have a federal input into Core Area Initiative, we also see a federal
government which is prepared to abandon any constitutional interest or
opportunities in urban affairs. It seems
to me that we might be heading for a Catch‑22 situation, where a
provincial minister says, all right, next year we expect to have a Core Area
Initiative, and the federal government will by then have abandoned any interest
in housing or urban affairs and will simply be washing its hands of the whole
area and saying that is entirely a provincial responsibility.
I brought this to the attention of the
Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst), and he pooh‑poohs this as perhaps
a hopeful and courageous minister might.
But it seems to me a very real possibility, Mr. Speaker, and one which
does not bode well for the future of the people of the inner city. I urge the provincial government to take very
clear‑‑to accept some very clear responsibilities in this area,
because they might indeed have the entire responsibility within the next 12
months.
We are, perhaps in the words of the Minister
of Urban Affairs, hopeful for a new Core Area Initiative, Mr. Speaker. All
Manitobans are, I will emphasize that.
We have seen what the federal contributions have done for the cities of
Mrs.
Louise Dacquay (
I think he would be very disappointed,
however, with the fact that she indicated that there should be more anger,
because I do not think that this particular minister would react with anger. I
do want to reiterate, however, what our Minister of Urban Affairs has been
doing, and state unequivocally that this government does recognize the
significant benefit that both the former two Core Area Initiative Agreements
were able to provide to the City of Winnipeg and, in particular, to the high
needs and the communities in Winnipeg's inner core.
This government is also aware of the need for intergovernmental
co‑operation in addressing the urban revitalization and the economic
development needs of
It is for that very reason that our Minister
of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) has been attempting on an ongoing basis to
negotiate a new urban redevelopment agreement with the Honourable Jake Epp and
His Worship Mayor Norrie.
I would like to remind the honourable member
that conditions have changed and circumstances have changed since the two
former Core Area Agreements were signed.
The new agreement must be able to respond to the economic, the physical,
and the social needs of
There is another area that our government feels
quite strongly about, and that is the development of the
There are also economic factors and questions
arising from same that are debated in Question Period every day in this House, and
that is our unemployment. We have
concerns about the employment and the fact that we need training measures that
will address and have to be designed to take into account the new profile of
those requiring training and the emerging labour‑force trends.
* (1740)
Although the aboriginal community, as I
indicated earlier, was indeed a beneficiary of the two previous agreements, a
new agreement has to continue to target programs and funding to this segment of
our population. We also know, as I
indicated earlier, that the priorities and the financial circumstances of all
three levels of government have changed since the initial agreements were signed,
and we are intent on developing an agreement that will maximize the benefits
that were derived from the first two agreements and also the benefits that can
be derived from intergovernmental co‑operation and also co‑ordination.
I just want to also put on the record some of
the significant impact the former two Core Area Agreements had on conditions in
the inner city. Over 2,800 jobs and
7,000 person years of construction work were created under the previous
agreements, and we know that employment is the key to addressing many of the negative
conditions that affect core area residents.
Over 2,100 individuals were trained through the previous agreements, and
80 percent of those individuals became gainfully employed. This training once again was targeted to high‑needs
inner‑city residents, and I specifically, when I served on City of
Additionally, over 400 community and
neighbourhood revitalization projects, primarily sponsored by local community groups,
were funded. These projects enhanced
both the physical resources, and they also provided innovative services to inner‑city
residents, primarily in the core area.
Over 1,250 units of housing were built and
7,000 units received repairs. This, once
again, greatly improved living conditions in the core area. As the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms.
Friesen) has indicated, the two initial Core Area Agreements were intended to
serve and meet some of the needs of the aboriginal community. This aboriginal community was the beneficiary
of the second Core Area Initiative agreement.
There were 107 projects primarily targeted to aboriginals under Core II and
the total funding that was committed to those programs was $4.9 million.
As I indicated earlier, both urban and
economic redevelopment of
I want to remind the honourable member, and I
think she is very aware, that indeed the conditions and priorities have changed,
not just by one level of government, but by all levels of government. It is taking perhaps a little longer than one
would be hopeful of, but we still are hopeful.
I think the honourable member used that term
throughout her debate, and I recall specifically that she indicated she too was
hopeful that a third Core Area Agreement indeed would be realized.
I read through her resolution and in the
second and third "WHEREAS" clauses, they are indicative of the need
to have a complete and a thorough discussion by all three levels of government
to ensure that a comprehensive Core Area III agreement is realized. I want to reassure the honourable member that
negotiations are ongoing.
This province has been in discussion with the
City of
Therefore, I move, seconded by the honourable
member for Emerson (Mr. Penner):
THAT the resolution be amended by deleting all
the words following the first "WHEREAS" and replacing them with the following:
the Core Area Initiative Agreements I and II
provided major support to vulnerable families and communities during the last ten
years; and
WHEREAS federal resources are vital in the
renewal of the City of
WHEREAS the needs of urban aboriginal people
must be addressed in any new tripartite agreement; and
WHEREAS the urban redevelopment and economic
renewal of
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative
Assembly of Manitoba support the continuing efforts of the Minister of Urban Affairs
and the
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, and I will just speak a few
minutes in order to give the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) an opportunity
to respond to one more, rather self‑serving amendment by the government
on a private member's resolution.
But I do want to say a couple of things about
this, because I was around when the first Core was created. I remember some of the discussions that took
place as people thought through what we can be doing to build an initiative in
the core area of this city that will allow the residents of the core area and
the businesses in the core area to take control of their own futures and to build
a level of economic development into this obviously difficult and impoverished
region of the city.
I think it is to the everlasting credit of
Lloyd Axworthy that he had the vision to see the needs and to structure a process
and an approach broadly supported by the former government that led to the
creation of the original Core Area Agreement.
I think at that time both the federal government‑‑or all
three, the federal government, the City and the former New Democratic Party
government realized that government could not go in and, simply by pouring
money into social programs in the core area, solve the problems. That was never the intention of the Core Area
Agreement.
The intention was to seed. Because it was a riskier area of the city in
which to invest, it was to use the leverage available from government to fund
projects and to encourage the private sector to join in with the public sector
in the redevelopment of the core area of this city.
At the same time, they realized that there was
a need to address some of the fundamental social problems if people were going
to be able to take advantage of some of the new economic activities that may be
created under the Core. That led to some
of the very innovative programs, and the core became a testing place for a
variety of very innovative social programs.
That did create problems for the provincial
government because, at the end of one, two, two and a half, or three years of
funding from the Core, a new idea may have emerged, been tested, been proven to
be successful, without sufficient foresight on the part of the provincial
government to assume the responsibility for the ongoing operation of the
program. There were all sorts of
examples of collisions that occurred as these programs ran out of funds.
* (1750)
But I think processes were put in place that
began to address that. The thing that
surprises me, though, is that we are now more than 10 years past those initial
discussions. We have spent a long
time. We have a new government
federally, and we have a new government provincially at the controls, if you
like, of this particular process.
(Mr.
Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
The real question is: What has happened since? Where are their new ideas? Where are their new initiatives? The fact is that there are not any. What is surprising, more than anything else,
about the action that has been taken by the current provincial government, and
certainly by the federal government, is that the very actions they have taken
have been counter to the principles of the Core.
This provincial government is not investing in
the city of
It was an opportunity or an attempt to use
that resource strategically. If I have
any major criticism of the actions of this government and the Minister of Urban
Affairs (Mr. Ernst), this cabinet, and then certainly the federal government,
it is they seem to have no understanding of how you would use government as an
instrument to produce renewal in the core.
I do not think they have to use the Core as
the only way to do that. What I would
challenge them to do is to come forward with their new ideas. What we are getting is a retreading of an idea
that Lloyd Axworthy had over 10 years ago.
Maybe it is time for them‑‑if there are changing conditions
and financial priorities, as the former speaker pointed out, maybe it is time that
we stepped aside from the Core and we saw them put on the table what their real
priorities are, because our image of their real priorities is to further the
disinvestment in the city of Winnipeg, to reduce the level of investment in the
core area of the city despite the fact they give lip service to recognizing the
very serious problems that exist there.
I, unfortunately, cannot support the amendment
that has been put forward despite the fact that it does speak in its final form
of attempting to negotiate a new tripartite agreement, and it does recognize
the fact that the needs of urban aboriginal people must be addressed, but I
think the original motion is a far stronger motion and a far more accurate
reflection of what has and has not taken place.
I would urge the House not to support the amendment but to return to the
original resolution, which would certainly have my support.
Thank you very much.
Ms.
Friesen: Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to speak on
the amendment that the member for
It was interesting to hear in her speech, in
her reply to my original motion, and to note the many areas, in fact, which we
do agree on. We agree, I think, upon the
impact that the Core Area Initiatives have had upon the city of
We agree, I think, upon the way in which the
concentration of finances and energies and policy direction of three levels of government
have made an impact in one urban area.
We do not yet have a Los Angeles or a St. Louis or a Chicago situation
in the city of Winnipeg, because over the last 10 years we have been able to
create a situation where people felt there was some hope, where they felt that
some training was going to be offered; that some ESL programs would be
available to them if they waited long enough; that not all policy and
government direction was taking place in the suburbs; that the gap perhaps was
not growing between rich and poor and between suburban and core area people as
fast as it was in some other areas of North America. So it was interesting to note, I think, the
areas in which we did see some agreement that the Core Area Initiatives have
had some impact upon the city of
I agree also with the member for Osborne (Mr.
Alcock). I think we should recognize
that Lloyd Axworthy had a very important initiative when he developed the original
ideas for the Core Area Initiative, and it has had a substantial impact upon the
city of
But I notice in the member's amendment that,
in fact, there are a couple of things which I would have to disagree with. The first of these is, of course, that the
government has chosen to eliminate the section of my motion which indicated the
desirability of working with aboriginal people, of consulting with aboriginal
people, and bringing them in, one would say in the future, as aboriginal
governments, into an agreement of all levels of government for the future of
the city of Winnipeg. I think that is a
very interesting omission. It seems to
indicate to me that the government has not yet accepted the idea of aboriginal
governments and that they will be dealing in the very near future with
aboriginal governments in
(Mr.
Speaker in the Chair)
It seems to me in the very short time that is
left of this government, perhaps 18 months, perhaps a year, that they are going
to have to come to terms with that issue, and they should begin with the city
of Winnipeg where we have an aboriginal leadership trained through ACCESS
programs who have become teachers and social workers, an aboriginal leadership,
I think, which has won recognition right across this country. It seems to me important, Mr. Speaker, that
the government begins to come to terms with that, to accept that that is going
to happen, and it will happen here, and they should begin with bringing
aboriginal people into the creation of a new Core Area Agreement.
The second part of this resolution, of course
which I find difficult, is the suggestion that we support the continuing efforts
of the
An
Honourable Member: What efforts?
Ms.
Friesen: Well obviously, what efforts? Is there any money in this year's budget for
a new Core Area Agreement? There is not.
What are the dates of the meetings? I have asked the minister that many times in
Question Period and again in Estimates this week. What meetings have taken place with the federal
government? What was the agenda? Who was at the table? How many times have
those meetings occurred over the last year? Is it four times, or three times?‑‑or
as I in fact really believe, there has only been one meeting which has ever
discussed any indication of a new Core Area Agreement.
How can we support continuing activities of
such a limited impact upon the formation of any kind of new agreement? Meanwhile,
Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing is a change in the conditions of the people of
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for
Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) will have nine minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House now adjourns
and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Thursday).