LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Friday, December 4, 1992
The House met at 10 a.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Maureen Klippenstein,Sandi Kauenhofen, Maureen Johnston and others, urging thegovernment
of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed
the petition of the honourablemember for The Maples (Mr. Cheema). It complies with theprivileges and the
practices of the House and complies with therules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have thepetition
read?
To the Legislature of the
WHEREAS each year smoke from stubble burning descends
uponthe
WHEREAS the Parents Support Group of Children with Asthma
haslong criticized the harmful effects of stubble burning; and
WHEREAS the smoke caused from stubble burning is not
healthyfor the general public and tends to aggravate the problems ofasthma
sufferers and people with chronic lung problems; and
WHEREAS alternative practices to stubble burning arenecessitated
by the fact that the smoke can place some people inlife‑threatening
situations; and
WHEREAS the 1987 Clean Environment Commission Report onPublic
Hearings, "Investigation of Smoke Problems fromAgriculture Crop Residue
and Peatland Burning," contained therecommendation that a review of the
crop residue burningsituation be conducted in five years' time, including are‑examination
of the necessity for legislated regulatory control.
THEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the
LegislativeAssembly will urge the government of
*
(1005)
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
AND
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for the Status
ofWomen): This Sunday, December 6, marks the third
anniversary ofthe tragic day when 14 women students were gunned down at theEcole
polytechnique in
Once again, we extend our condolences and our sympathy to
thefamilies and friends of the women who lost their lives in thatsenseless
violent attack. We mourn the loss of
these young womenand of all those women in
Mr. Speaker, our government has taken strong steps
towardsdealing with violence against women and will continue to do so.Some
recent initiatives that have been taken are the unanimousadoption by this
Legislature of a resolution declaring
Regretfully, Mr. Speaker, unhealthy and destructive
attitudescannot be altered through government intervention alone. We allhave a role to play in raising
awareness and changing attitudes.I ask all members of the House and all of the
people of Manitobato work together with our government to make the changes thatwill
allow all women to live free of fear and violence.
The anniversary of the
Ms. Becky Barrett (
I think it is important for us to realize that while we
willnever not grieve and not remember the women who died on that dayand the
impact that it hopefully has had on all of our lives, thetime for grieving in
its active form is past and the time foraction on behalf of all of us is well
underway. We all haveparticipated and
understand the white ribbon campaign that hasbeen undertaken last year and this
year, Men Against ViolenceAgainst Women.
I think we all agree that this is a very positivefirst step to be
undertaken.
I would like to echo the call of the minister and make it
alittle more specific. I think that the
actions of women's groupsand women individually and women's initiatives have
gone a longway toward educating the population and toward making some stepstoward
ending this scourge of male violence against women. Ithink it is now time for all of us men and
women to urge the menin our society to take an even more active role as
individuals,as members of groups, as members of churches, as members ofsocial
organizations, as well as members of government, to beginto reflect on and take
positive action against this problem,which is in its largest component male
violence against women.
*
(1010)
I think it is time for us to work together, but it is
alsotime for us to have men taking even more initiatives in theirdaily lives
and in all of their public and private roles to endthis horrible scourge, as I
have said, in actions against half ofour society.
As the President‑elect of the
So I am urging all members of the House, in all of theirlives,
to carry on this action so that we can at some point inour future pause and
remark about December 6 and the positivethings that have come out of that awful
day. Thank you.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.Speaker, on December 6 three years ago, 14
women were gunned downbecause they were women, and that was the only
explanation,because they were women, and because a man in a societydetermined
that somehow or other the rights of women had becometoo enlarged, had become
too powerful, and that he could not copeor exist in a society where women could
share in some sense ofequity with the men of that society. It is really what violenceis so often about;
it is about power, about how one individual,be he male or female, can in an act
of violence say, I amsuperior to another human being. That is the fundamentalattitude that we have
to change in our society, that we must beable to relate to individuals not in a
power sense but in a humansense and an individual sense.
I join the minister in inviting everyone here as well asothers
to attend the memorial service on Sunday night, and Iparticularly ask the men
to attend, because it is your signalthat is so much more important than my
signal or the minister'ssignal or the member for
* * *
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, Iwould like to table the 1991‑92
Annual Report of the Departmentof Environment.
*
(1015)
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 9‑The Winter
Roads (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and
Transportation):Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Northern Affairsand responsible
for Native Affairs (Mr. Downey), that Bill 9, TheWinter Roads (Miscellaneous
Amendments) Act (Loi sur les routesd'hiver‑‑modifications de
diverses dispositions legislatives), beintroduced and that the same now be
received and read a firsttime.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 10‑The Farm
Lands Ownership Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, Iwould like to move, seconded by
the Minister of Natural Resources(Mr. Enns), that Bill 10, The Farm Lands
Ownership Amendment andConsequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur
lapropriete agricole et apportant des modifications correlatives ad'autres
lois), be introduced and that the same be now receivedand read a first
time. (Recommended by His Honour the
LieutenantGovernor.)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table His Honour's message.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 202‑The
Residential Tenancies Amendment Act
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded bythe member for
Motion presented.
Mr. Martindale: Mr.
Speaker, the purport of this bill is toenable tenants to organize themselves
into tenants' organizationswithout fear of intimidation or harassment by
landlords. Manytenants do not know their
rights or responsibilities andtherefore are at a disadvantage compared to
landlords who canafford to hire lawyers.
The bill will make it easier for tenants to organize,
whetherit is to band together to fight a rent increase, or to requestrepairs or
heat, or any of the other numerous problems thattenants face for which the
solidarity of a tenants' organizationis advantageous.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 8‑The
Insurance Amendment Act
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Consumer and CorporateAffairs): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
ofFamily Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), that Bill 8, The InsuranceAmendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur les assurances, beintroduced and that the same be now
received and read a firsttime.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to
Oral Questions, may I direct the attentionof honourable members to the gallery,
where we have with us thismorning, from the
On behalf of honourable members, I would like to welcome
youhere this morning.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Federal Mini Budget
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker,unfortunately, a Tory is a Tory
is a Tory; economic failure iseconomic failure is economic failure. Unfortunately, today wesee in
Mr. Speaker, in 1988 this government said, and the
Premiersaid, it is an election promise, that he only had to pick up thephone
and talk to the Prime Minister and federal‑provincialmatters would be
resolved. He lectured us in the House,
and Ihave Hansard quote after Hansard quote about how they would havemore
positive relationships with the federal government becauseTories could deal
with Tories better than the former government.We do not see a new core area
agreement; we do not see the kindof ERDA agreement that was negotiated prior to
this governmentcoming into office, and we see many items of federal‑provincialrelations
that were negotiated in '87‑‑for example, the diseaselab‑‑without
any results at all.
Can we hear today from the Deputy Premier what results ofthose
discussions between the federal Conservatives and theprovincial Conservatives,
what concrete results have we got fromtheir meetings that took place
yesterday? We do not want to hearthe
rhetoric anymore; we want to hear the bottom line results.
*
(1020)
Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, let me at theoutset say that one
of the most positive outcomes of the meetingthat took place, not by telephone
yesterday but directly, thatour Premier took to the Prime Minister of Canada,
was the totaldissatisfaction of he and his government with the manner in whichwe
were treated in the economic statement the day before as itrelated to Manitoba‑‑not
by telephone but directly‑‑as did manymembers of his caucus take
directly to the members of Parliamentthe same message of how disappointed we
were in the treatment asto how
I ask members opposite:
What have they done to contact theirmembers of Parliament who represent
Unemployment Rate
Provincial Comparisons
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I wouldlike to thank the Deputy
Premier for that challenge, because ourcaucus in Parliament this week called on
the federal Conservativegovernment to resign and call a federal election. Have you donethe same? When you were breaking bread, when all your
supporterswere breaking bread with their supporters, I wonder if you didthe
same thing last night. I doubt it; I
doubt it very much,because you have the same do‑nothing economic
policies. Theyhave the same do‑nothing
policies in this province as they havewith the federal Conservative government
in
I would like to ask the Deputy Premier, why has
Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, unfortunatelythe member does not
tell the full story. The unemployment
ratehas not increased in
There are more people who are feeling positive aboutthemselves,
who are feeling positive about the job opportunitiesin
*
(1025)
Manufacturing Industry
Employment Decline
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Well, Mr. Seaker, hecannot tell us any specific
projects that they have negotiated orhad an agreement with yesterday. They cannot explain why theunemployment rate
right now is the highest it has ever been inthe
I would like to ask another question of the Deputy
Premier,and I am sure he will not answer this question either.
Why have we gone from 63,000 manufacturing jobs in
Manitobain 1988, when the former government left office, why have wedecreased
by 23 percent in November of 1992, down to 49,000manufacturing jobs?
Where are the productive jobs in our economy that thisgovernment
promised? Why are they failing just like
theirfederal cousins are failing in terms of economic performance inthis
province?
Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): The member wants to talkabout manufacturing
and manufacturing opportunities in
Let us remember what the old‑think of the New
DemocraticParty is, the old‑think, that you tax people higher, take theirmoney
to do what, Mr. Speaker? Jobs? The Leader of the NewDemocratic Party himself
was the biggest critic of the NewDemocratic policy as it related to the apple‑polishing
jobs thatwere created under the previous administration.
This government believes in creating real jobs throughprivate
investment in manufacturing, through public investmentwhich continues to lead
the country in public investment, and itwill continue under programs of my
colleagues of the TreasuryBranch and the leadership of Premier Filmon and this
government.
Government Position
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): In the last throne speech therevival of the
In this throne speech, the rocket range was not evenmentioned,
and the people in the North were shocked to hearthat. The port was only slightly mentioned in the
throne speech.
My question is to the Deputy Premier: Why was the rocketrange omitted in the throne
speech, and has the province decidedit is no longer a priority for their
government?
Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, let me assurethe member who
asked the question‑‑I guess would have liked tohave run in
Churchill but the former member chased him out ofthere, and it appears now we
may see a shift within the ridingsof which some of the members opposite‑‑this
could be hisnomination ploy as it deals with the rocket range.
This government has fully committed to support any
efforts todevelopment or the redevelopment of the rocket range inChurchill. A commitment has been made in financing to
supportthe economic development board of Churchill, to further look fora market
opportunity for the usage of that rocket range.
Thisgovernment is fully committed to the further development ofopportunities
in the
Funding Commitment
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, the commitmenthas been made and
will be lived up to, to support the community.That was a meeting which my
colleagues and I participated in.There are other developments which the Premier
(Mr. Filmon)yesterday raised with the Prime Minister as they relate toChurchill
to further enhance the port utilization.
Mr. Hickes: Mr.
Speaker, when will this government commit morethan press releases to supporting
the
Mr. Downey: Again,
Mr. Speaker, there is a process that has tobe gone through, and when the
process is completed, then in factthe funds will flow to live up to that commitment.
*
(1030)
Infrastructure Renewal
Government Initiatives
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.Speaker, we were delighted that the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) finallygot angry with the Prime Minister. That has got to be some goodnews, that he
finally can admit that the phone line ispermanently disconnected. That did not, of course, stop some ofthe Tory
members from attending a dinner last night which putdollars into the coffers of
the federal Tories to fight the nextelection campaign. So we wonder how much sophistry is in all ofthis
official anger that is being expressed, but there is a muchmore critical issue
here.
The critical issue is that apparently the Premier got
angrywith the Prime Minister for not putting new dollars ininfrastructure into
the
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Firstly, Mr.Speaker, I would not want to
divulge budgetary decisions. Themember
knows fully well, because indeed she has voted against ourbudget for the last
four years, we are the only province in
This government so strongly believes that one areagovernments
cannot cut back is in capital expenditure areas. Wehave been true to our word, and
consequently $100 millioncontinues to be spent in the highways program.
One of the difficulties that we have had with the
NationalHighways Program, because we were held at such a high base, oneof the
difficulties that we have had in the discussion of tryingto get through to the federal
government, that we have been heldin a negative position vis‑a‑vis
other provinces which haveslashed their capital spending. So my answer to the minister isno province in
Employment Creation
StrategyImplementation
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.Speaker, they cannot have it both
ways. They thought they couldin
opposition, by the way; one of their members actually saidthey could. The reality is they cannot. They cannot complainabout the federal
government not putting any money intoinfrastructure in the
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, againthe Leader of the Liberal
Party has it wrong. Eleven thousandmore
people are employed in
We will continue to try and hold those levels of
spending,Mr. Speaker, because we fully realize that that is probably thelast
area that one government should attack.
I would hope then,when we do, if we are successful in holding those
levels, thatthe Leader of the third party will support the budget, becausethat has
been the essence of our efforts over the last four years.
Unemployment Rate
Provincial Comparisons
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.Speaker, we cannot support a budget this
year, as we did notsupport it last year and the year before, because it is
patentlyfailing the needs of the people of this province. He likes tocompare August of '92 to November
of '92. Let us compareNovembers. Let us compare November of 1987, when
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker,unfortunately, the Leader of the
third party, who has never donethis in the past, is beginning to follow some of
the shallowlogic of her critic, the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock). Themember uses 1987 as a base. Three provinces in all of the 10across
I do know one thing, Mr. Speaker, that the member
oppositehas seen fit not to support one of the taxation reductions inthis
province, and I say to her, if she wants to go back to 1987,this government is
prepared to go back and compare figures to1987.
In the same fashion that six other provinces in Canadahave not been able
to maintain their population, I would say toher, we are part of that same
group.
Fishing Industry
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
We have heard much about the desperate situation thatfishermen
are facing with difficult economic situation.
Lastweek I wrote a letter to the Minister of Natural Resourcesregarding
the desperate situation on
I want to ask the Minister of Natural Resources whether
he isprepared to meet with these fishermen, whether he has, and whatis he going
to do to address this desperate situation?
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, Icertainly would want to
indicate to the honourable member
I cannot put fish back into
In fact, the past summer season showed some fairlyinteresting
and encouraging harvests for these same fishermen,but, Mr. Speaker, I will
agree to meet with the representativesof the fishermen of
Ms. Wowchuk: I look
forward to that because they have beenwaiting to hear from him, but I am
surprised that the ministerwould say he cannot do anything about putting stocks
back in.There was commitment to put stocks back in. This year no stockwas put back in.
CEDF Interest Rate
Moratorium
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Hon. James Downey (Minister responsible for and charged with
theadministration of The Communities Economic Development FundAct): Mr. Speaker, let me assure the member that my
colleaguethe Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) has done his utmostin
working with the fishermen of that particular area to try toenhance the fish
stocks to relieve some of the difficulties.
Itis my knowledge there has been some positive results from thework that
has been done by my colleague.
It would be my intention to take a look at the
difficultiesthat are being created because of this situation, but I cannotmake
a commitment that I can get involved in any way in theoperations of a Crown
corporation which is separate fromgovernment.
I can take a look at it, Mr. Speaker, but cannotassure her that anything
can be done about the interest ratesthat are charged.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr.
Speaker, by the time they decide to look at it,it is going to be too late for
these people. They are going
Fishing Industry
Market Development
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): The honourablemember raises an issue that has
long been a difficulty for theinland fisheries here in
My advice is that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) did speak
directlyand certainly to offshore markets such as in
I know that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation hasworked
diligently in this area, regrettably they have not‑‑theyhave had
some successes, but they have been spotty successes.Those are not the kind of
situations that fishermen can depend onand certainly pay off their debts with,
but I do not take issuewith the member's comments. They are a challenge for both theFreshwater
Fish Marketing Corporation and for me as Minister ofNatural Resources.
*
(1040)
The Green Plan
Funding Reduction
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, the federalgovernment under the
Conservatives is offloading itsresponsibility for environment restoration and
protection. It iscutting programs to
fund initiatives. It is ignoring its
legalresponsibility to do environmental impact assessments, plus, thefederal
Conservatives and the Liberals are prepared to give awayour sovereignty over
our natural resources and environment byagreeing to the NAFTA agreement. We are still waiting for thisgovernment's
position on NAFTA which will ensure we have theability to conserve our
resources.
My question is for the Minister of Environment: Does theMinister of Environment support the
federal strategy announcedtwo days ago to spend $4.4 billion on military
helicopters andcut $60 million from The Green Plan, and if not, what is thisminister
prepared to do about this misplaced priority?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): There was an awfullot of innuendo and I am
not so sure how much fact in thatquestion.
The environmental responsibilities that we undertakeprovincially to look
after our environment, our naturalresources, we have no intention of straying
away from ourresponsibility and making sure that we adequately do the job thatis
required and expected of us by the people of this province.
Atomic Energy of
Environmental Grant
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): How much money is being lost to
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, interms of environmental
assessment, particularly, which isprobably the most critical part of that
multidimensionalquestion, I can assure you that we will continue to be doing
thejob as is expected of us. To my
knowledge there is no change inthe way we will be dealing with environmental
protection from aprovincial and national basis.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr.
Speaker, can the minister tell the House ifAtomic Energy of Canada Ltd. has had
any budget cuts and what thegrant of $25,000 from this government to AECL is
for, under theauspices of an environmental grant?
Mr. Cummings: Mr.
Speaker, I think I could answer that question,but I might be taking a bit of a
guess. I will research thequestion and
bring the answer back to the House.
Unemployed Help Centres
Funding
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): The heartlessness of the PrimeMinister is
sometimes matched by his cousins here, the honourablemembers across the way.
Mr. Speaker, three years ago, the Minister of Family
Services(Mr. Gilleshammer) eliminated funding for the CommunityUnemployed Help
Centres which helped people cut through red tapein acquiring their unemployment
insurance. This government hasalso
reduced accessibility to Legal Aid.
My question for the Minister of Family Services is: With thedraconian changes to unemployment
insurance benefits, what doesthis minister and the government plan to do to
assist people whoare unemployed, assist them in ensuring that they get therightful
claim, or is he going to allow them to go on socialassistance?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr.Speaker, as you are well aware, our
department is responsible forthat safety net which provides basic support to
individuals whohave no other means of support.
We have consistently raised thatamount of money on an annual basis to
match the increase in thecost of living.
At the same time, within our Department ofFamily Services and within
that division within our department,we spend some $12 million a year to put
forth programs forunemployed people who are on social assistance. We will continueto do that.
Our success rate, through the Single Parent Job Access
andthrough the Gateway program and through the HROCs, has beenfairly
substantial in moving people from social assistance intoemployment.
Ms. Gray: Mr.
Speaker, the minister has just indicated that heis quite prepared to have
people go on social assistance and thenthey may try to get them jobs after.
My question for the minister is: Will he act today toreinstate funding to Community
Unemployed Help Centres throughout
Mr. Gilleshammer: I can
assure the member that we make many,many efforts to be sure that people do not
go on socialassistance. We have had a
tremendous increase, not in theprovincial rolls of social assistance but in the
municipal rolls,the employables. We will
continue to operate with those programsto provide training. As well, other departments withingovernment
are providing training through education, throughlabour and other programs to
work with unemployed Manitobans toget them back to work.
Unemployment Insurance Reform
Impact on Women
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, with a final supplemetary to the
Minister responsible for the Status of Women(Mrs. Mitchelson): Can the minister tell us today, given thatwomen
are very much affected by these unemployment insurancechanges, has she
presented a brief to her cabinet colleagues andlobbied so that there will be
some support services for womenhere in
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for the Status
ofWomen): Mr. Speaker, we indeed are very concerned
about theplight of women who are unemployed in the province. We makeevery effort, and we have made efforts
and special announcementsjust in the very recent past to help women who are on
socialassistance to gain better access to the work force with allowingthem to
keep the Pharmacard that they have while they are onsocial assistance, as they
enter the work force and as they moveinto training to help them get back into
the work force.
So, Mr. Speaker, we have initiatives that we have justannounced. There will be more initiatives in the future,
and wewill work very hard with the women of
*
(1050)
Manitoba Public
Insurance Corporation
Agents' Fees
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I am very pleased to rise bypopular
demand. I have a question this morning
for the ministerresponsible for Autopac.
Yesterday the minister said several times in this House
thathe would not want to limit or cap increases in Autopac agencyfees because
the compensation package was now being renegotiatedwith the agents.
My question is: If
that is the case, why did MPIC include aproposal to limit commission increases
to 3 percent in itsoriginal submission to the Public Utilities Board and as
referredto on page 21 of the Public Utilities Board order? ObviouslyAutopac was prepared to limit the
increases to 3 percent until itwas overruled by cabinet.
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the administration
ofThe Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, itwas a regulatory proposal, a
change in the regulations. Theprocess
that was in place is as I have said, and the decision wasthat we would wait and
see that process through.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr.
Speaker, how can the minister justifyoverruling Autopac's decision to limit
agency fee increases to 3percent when last week social service agencies,
hospitals, schoolboards and other organizations received letters from this samegovernment
saying they should expect no increase next year, oreven a cut?
Mr. Cummings: Mr.
Speaker, contrary to the way the previousadministration did business, this is a
very open and transparentprocess. As a
matter of fact, the PUB, in its response to theapplication of the corporation,
indicated that as part of itsresponse and as part of its application next year,
it willdemonstrate how it is that it will be mitigating any changes thatwould
be as a result of this rate.
Mr. Leonard Evans: In this
coming year, when a lot of people areasked to take a little less, will this
minister explain to thepeople of
Why should agents get a 10 percent increase in
commissionswhen health, education and social service agencies are gettingnothing?
Mr. Cummings: Mr.
Speaker, the rates did not change. This
is incontrast, and I am sure one of the reasons the member is soupset‑‑I
thought he was going to hurt himself the other day whenhe got up to ask the
question‑‑is that they very clearly gotthemselves in a situation
where they were behind the scenesmanipulating what was going on in the
corporation. This is atransparent and
public process, and very clearly everything is onthe table in terms of any
changes that corporations think about.
Chris Davis
Wheelchair Purchase
Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis (
Mr. Speaker, Chris has had on loan from the company
involvedthis specialized wheelchair.
That wheelchair will be shipped at5 p.m. today out of the province,
meaning that Chris' delay interms of release into the community will go on for
many moremonths and cost thousands of more dollars.
I would like to ask the Minister of Health who has takenresponsibility
for health care reform, if he will show hiscommitment to that reform initiative
and ensure that thewheelchair is purchased today and not shipped out of this
country.
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I, as youcan well appreciate, do
not have all the details as described bymy honourable friend. I am prepared to take them from myhonourable
friend, make sure that they are as presented and takewhat action I may be able
to today.
Housing Placement
Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis (
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I gave ananswer to the first
part of my honourable friend's question.
Thesecond part of my honourable friend's question is a much longerprocess
which this government, in co‑operation with FamilyServices and the
ministry of Housing, has been proactivelyworking on‑‑resolution of
those very special placement facilitiesfor Manitobans in that circumstance.
For my honourable friend to leave the impression that
thisgovernment has done nothing belies the fact, because in fact thisgovernment
is the first one in the history of the province, forinstance, to have a self‑managed
care project for disadvantagedManitobans, disabled Manitobans to live
independently in thecommunity under their own support and their own guidance
andtheir own management. So my
honourable friend ought not to saythis government does nothing. We have done substantial amountsin advancing
the cause of those issues, those programs, thosepolicies, and to say we have
not sort of does a disservice tothose professionals out there actively working
on delivery ofthose kinds of programs.
Mental Health Care
System
Reform Implementation
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is forthe Minister
of Health.
This government has been talking about the reform of
mentalhealth since 1988. So far progress
has been very slow. Theminister told
this House in May of this year the action plan willbe produced, fundamental
health reform, by June. That deadlinehas
passed.
Mr. Speaker, in January of this year, a press release
fromthe minister said the reform would be implemented later thisyear, another
deadline about to expire.
Can the minister tell this House when we will see the
resultsof the mental health reform?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker,commencing in 1993, a number of
initiatives have emanated fromsuggestions, a study of the issue by regional
mental healthcouncils and analyzed by the ministry, analyzed by our provincialadvisory
council on mental health reform and given, if I can putit in this language, a
stamp of approval for proceeding intoimplementation.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my honourable friend's concern
thatit has taken a substantial amount of time, but we have beendeliberate in
that, in that we have tried to involve our regionalmental health councils which
have been made up, Sir, ofcaregivers, government personnel, consumers of mental
healthservices as well as family members.
That process has been a veryexcellent one, but it has not been one that
we have had theability to nudge to quick completion, Sir.
Mr. Speaker, I simply say to my honourable friend that
theprocess has integrity and will proceed in the next calendar year.
Acute Care Services
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, when the deadlinesare set, the
expectations are raised and the people expectanswers. Our simple question again is: When will we see acutecare services for
children, also promised by the minister thisyear?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Well, I am unable toanswer with specifics
with a general question like that, but thereform package includes a number of
initiatives. For instance,in Westman
region, one of the focuses put by the Westman MentalRegional Health Council was
a suggestion of reallocation ofcurrent resource into the provision of enhanced
adolescentservices. Possibly that is
what my honourable friend is alludingto, and that is part of the proposal
emanating from the Brandonand Westman Regional Mental Health Council.
Mr. Speaker: The time
for Oral Questions has expired.
*
(1100)
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): May I have leave to make anonpolitical
statement? [agreed]
I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate theManitoba
Eco‑Network on the wonderful work they are doinggenerally and
specifically about their Green Guide to
I will just say briefly that this is a guide to teach
peoplein
It also deals with a few larger community issues aroundWinnipeg
that are of concern to us all. As part
of mynonpolitical statement and to show the nonpartisan nature of mysentiments,
I am going to present to the honourable Minister ofEnvironment, Mr. Cummings, a
copy of the book as also a signal ofthe Christmas spirit and a sense that all
of us have to takeresponsibility for ensuring that we restore and protect ourenvironment. Thank you very much.
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, may Imake a nonpolitical
statement? [agreed]
Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of Christmas and co‑operation,
Iappreciate the remarks that the Environment critic from the NDPhas just
made. I appreciate the work, obviously,
that has goneinto that publication, and I look forward to reading it.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
THRONE SPEECH DEBATE
(Sixth Day of Debate)
Mr. Speaker: On the
proposed motion of the honourable member forSeine River (Mrs. Dacquay) for an
Address to the honourable theAdministrator in answer to his speech at the
opening of thesession, and the proposed motion of the honourable Leader of theOpposition
(Mr. Doer) in amendment thereto‑‑[interjection] I havealready
recognized the honourable member for Burrows (Mr.Martindale). Order, please. I will clarify this at once. Thehonourable member for
Mr. Bob Rose (
Mr. Speaker: That
matter has been dealt with and voted on.
Mr. Rose: May I
then have 40 minutes on the new matter?
Mr. Speaker: That
will be on a new one, all right, but I willrecognize you later. I have already recognized the honourablemember
for Burrows‑‑
Order, please. For
the honourable Madam Minister'sinformation, it is not to complete his
speech. He has completedhis speech
yesterday on the subamendment. We are
dealing with anew matter at this time.
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, as I begin, I wouldlike to
congratulate the new members in the House, the member forPortage la Prairie
(Mr. Pallister) and also the returned memberfor Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) and welcome
them as other membershave done. We look
forward to working and co‑operating withthem. I would also like to recognize and welcome
the Pages andto say, as others have done, how impressed I have been,especially
when they called out our names for a recorded vote anddid a perfect job. Their memories are really quite amazing.
I regret that we have lost two members since we were lasthere‑‑the
member for
We will also miss the member for Rupertsland and hiscontribution
to debate and his contribution to the leadership ofaboriginal issues in
I believe there has been a sea change in opinions andattitudes
in our society in the last two years on aboriginalrights issues, and I think
that the change has been a positiveone, whereby more and more Canadians are
willing to recognizethat we need to entrench the inherent right to self‑government
inthe Constitution. It is regrettable
that that was not done thisyear, but we know that we and aboriginal people will
not give upon this goal and that negotiations will continue and eventuallythey
will achieve their goal and will become self‑governing inways in which
they define and ways which are negotiated betweenprovincial governments and
aboriginal people and the federalgovernment and aboriginal First Nations.
Today many members are wearing the white ribbon as part
ofthe white ribbon campaign. We heard
two speeches on that topictoday. It is
an important occasion and I would like to point outthat a federal member of
Parliament, Dawn Black, the M.P. for NewWestminster‑Burnaby, successfully
piloted Bill C‑202 through theHouse of Commons and into law. Bill C‑202 established December 6as a
national day of remembrance and action on violence againstwomen.
I think we all know now that December 6 was the day in
1989when 14 young women were so tragically killed in
I think the significance of the white ribbon campaign by
anational organization of Men Against Violence Against Women isthat this is the
first time that men have taken a significantrole in declaring themselves
against violence against women. Wehope
that continues and picks up support over the years so thateventually violence
against women is completely eliminated.
The throne speech this year was a rather interestingdocument,
more for what it did not say than what it does say. Infact, some of the statements are rather
sweeping rhetoric. Thegovernment talks
about the winds of change sweeping the globe.Well, what are those winds of
change? Well, those winds ofchange
include the collapse of financial empires like
The member for
*
(1110)
The government talks in their throne speech about meetingchallenges,
and indeed I think we are all aware of the challengesexcept that the government
did not talk about them in veryspecific terms in their throne speech. The challenge really isthe large numbers of
unemployed and the fact that we are in arecession, but this government does not
want to use the word"recession" or to talk about the thousands and
thousands ofManitobans who are unemployed.
The real challenge is to get themback into the paid labour force again,
and we see a real lack ofideas and initiatives on the part of this government
inaccomplishing that.
They did say that Manitobans want a strong economy, and Ithink
that is another euphemism for the fact that what Manitobanswant is jobs. They talk about supporting vital human
servicesupon which we all rely. Well,
they talk about it, but they donot do it.
There is a gap between their rhetoric and theiraction. In fact, I used the word
"hypocrisy" in Question Periodthe other day, because when one says
one thing and does another,those actions are hypocritical. I think the best example of thisis Bill 70 of
the last session, the amendment to The SocialAllowances Act whereby the
The minister said that this was not going to happen. We madecertain allegations about what the
effect of the bill would be,and the minister denied that that would be the
effect. He saidthat we were alarmists,
but now we know, because the regulationshave been announced, that we were
right, that when theregulations were announced, it was true. The province wasstandardizing social
assistance rates, which had a positiveeffect for a few municipalities who were
forced to raise theirsocial assistance rates, but the largest effect was a
negativeeffect because, when social assistance rates were standardizedfor the
City of Winnipeg, the result was that those rates weremuch lower, especially
for families, in fact, in some categories,depending on the family size, as much
as $3,000 a year lower.
The Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) knowsthat,
and he chose to ignore it. In fact, he
denied that thatwould be the effect of his bill in the last session, but now
thatthe regulations are announced we know that the City of Winnipegis faced
with a very difficult choice of either reducing socialassistance rates in some
cases by up to $3,000 a family per yearif they had to follow the provincial
rates or to raise propertytaxes in order to pay the extra cost.
This is a very difficult decision for the City of
The government in its throne speech talked about their
plansfor economic renewal. The problem
we have is that it is an oldplan reannounced.
There is almost nothing new. We
think thatthis is irresponsible given that last year in 1991 the provinceof
In the throne speech the government talks about the
internalreform of government. Well, they
have done that in theDepartment of Housing and it has been a disaster. Not only didthey dissolve 98 public housing
authorities and their boards andfire 600 unpaid board members, but they
reorganized the staff.In fact, I think the sole purpose of the reorganization
was tolay off staff to save money. The
government will not admitthat. The
Minister of Housing (Mr. Ernst) claimed that theywould save $3 million but has
never been specific about how theywould save that $3 million. We commend them for trying to save$3 million
but not at the expense of laying off staff.
I can tell the minister that the staff in the Department
ofHousing are very unhappy. In fact, I
have been told by numerouspeople in Manitoba Housing, including people at the
senior level,that staff morale is the worst it has ever been in the Departmentof
Housing. I get phone calls and I get
letters from people whoare extremely unhappy and I cannot blame them. The hiringprocess was a disaster, in my
opinion. People were asked toapply for
new positions, no one's position was safe or secureexcept, I suppose, senior
management, and many of those peopledid not know until Friday afternoon whether
or not they had aposition to go to on Monday, and if they did, whether it would
bea new position. There were great
difficulties in rehiring peoplefor new positions and in laying off people. There have beennumerous complaints about
favouritism in hiring.
My belief is that the government used this as an
opportunityto cherry pick, to hire the people that they liked and get rid ofpeople
that they did not like. This, I believe,
is a most unfairway to treat employees.
The result is that we have people whoare suing the government for
wrongful dismissal. We have peoplewho
are still there but who have launched grievances, and I havebeen told that the government
is trying to renegotiate the unioncontract.
One of the things that they are trying to take out ofthe union contract
is provisions regarding sexual harassment.They are already in the union
contract and now they are trying toget rid of them. I think that is a disgrace. On the one hand wehave a cabinet minister
standing up and talking about endingviolence against women, on the other hand
we have the Departmentof Housing taking protection against sexual harassment
out of theunion contract. I think that
is contradictory.
In this Throne Speech Debate the government announced
thatthe Manitoba Trading Corporation would be activated andrefocused. We did a little research on this and
discovered thatit was actually founded by the Schreyer government, so they werereinventing
something that already existed. It is
difficult toget excited about announcements of things that already exist.
The government once again announced the Crocus Fund anddescribed
it, wrongly I believe, as newly established.
In factit was being negotiated by the NDP government in 1988, and it hasbeen
announced in every throne speech since.
I think if thegovernment is serious about this kind of activity, and
theyshould be‑‑we support the Crocus Fund‑‑then they
should look atthe Manitoba Federation of Labour annual brief to the Manitobagovernment
dated December 1992.
The MFL says, this entity‑‑that is the Crocus
Fund‑‑typifieswhat can come of joint action and co‑operation
when a commitmentis made to work towards a mutually beneficial goal. Developing astrong labour legislation fabric
will benefit working people intheir communities and there needs to be
simultaneous developmentin other areas.
MFL has some recommendations which, I think, are ofparticular
interest to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik).They recommend a formal
commitment by government and business toan industrial strategy that results in
full employment, anindustrial strategy with sufficient resources to allow for
thedevelopment of specific sectoral programs, a labour forcetraining program
that would incorporate pre‑job, on‑the‑job andjob‑change
education, training and retraining initiatives and theintegration of employment‑oriented
initiatives such as pay equityand the redesign of existing legislation such as
The EmploymentStandards Act, so that they are complementary of, and aresupported
by the overall industrial relations strategy.
So there is much more, in addition to the Crocus Fund,
thatthis Minister of Labour could work on if he was interested and ifhe was
willing to co‑operate with labour rather than just thisTory government's
business cronies. For example, we have
beenrecommending that this government have an economic summit andthat they
bring together all the partners:
government andbusiness and labour.
*
(1120)
Recently the government had a meeting to which a very
smallnumber of labour people were invited.
It was not to talk aboutcommon concerns and initiatives, it was to go
and listen tospeeches rather than to brainstorm and to create new ideas.
If this government is really serious about economicinitiatives,
they would co‑operate with labour instead of leavinglabour out and only
co‑operating with their business friends.What we need is a new
partnership that includes all three, notjust two of the three partners.
In the throne speech this government talks about
investmentin infrastructure and talks about capital expenditures butnowhere in
this document do they talk about investment inpeople. It is totally lacking.
They are cutting courses in community colleges. They areattacking people who are also a
resource. I think the governmenthas a
focus which is way too narrow. It
includes business as anarea for investment but leaves out people as an area forinvestment.
It is my belief, and our belief, that if this governmentwould
invest in people, for example putting more money intoeducation rather than
cutting the Education budget by $17 millionand putting more money into training
and retraining programs,that investment would pay off in the future down the
road.
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Where would we get themoney from, Rev?
Mr. Martindale: The member
for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau)asks, where would we get the money? Well, let me give anexample. The City of
So when people talk to me and they say, what is thisgovernment
doing about job creation, I say, well, the City ofWinnipeg asked them to take
people off social assistance and putthem to work and this government said
no. They would not createas many
positions as were asked for, and they are paying peopleto stay home and paying
them more money to sit home and collectsocial assistance than to work on the
Dutch Elm Disease controlprogram. [interjection] If the minister believes that
my factsare wrong I would be happy to correct the record, because I gotthis
information from a senior official in the social servicesdepartment of the City
of
In the throne speech, this government talks about health
careindustries. If this government was
really interested inconsumers and keeping people's costs down, they would have
beenopposed to the federal government extending patent protection forthe drug
companies that produce patent drugs and would havesupported consumers and
supported the generic drug industry whichwant to keep costs down for consumers.
This government talks about competition in long distancetelephone
services. What this really means is
higher domesticphone rates and layoffs for civil servants, hundreds of
employeesat MTS are going to be forced to take early retirement or will bewithout
a job altogether.
This government talks about tourism and says that they
planto introduce Sunday shopping on a trial basis. Well, we aregetting phone calls about
that. We are the only party that isgoing
to oppose the Sunday shopping legislation.
There are, Ibelieve, two major reasons for opposing this. One is that wesupport the view of those
people who want a day of rest for a dayof worship. We know that this is having an adverse effect
onindividuals who are being forced to work on Sunday and whotherefore are having
to make a very tough choice in tougheconomic times about whether they are going
to go to worship onSunday morning or whether they are going to work because
theiremployer forces them to work.
I have already had one phone call from somebody at
I have read the government's bill and it talks about
choiceand how employees can refuse to work hours on Sunday, but it isnot
realistic and it is not enforceable. The
real fact is thatpeople do not have a choice because if they turn down the
hoursthey will not be given additional hours.
So we are going tooppose the Sunday shopping legislation because it
denies theopportunity for people to spend time together as families one daya
week and it forces people to work or to receive less hours.
We are also opposed to the fact that it is going to beretroactive
legislation. This legislation will
probably be oneof the last bills to pass in this session, probably late in Juneor
July or August, depending on how long we are here, and it willbe retroactive to
November. It is going to be at least sixmonths
retroactive if not eight or nine months retroactive.Because we are opposed to
this legislation, we are opposed to itsretroactivity.
We will have much more to say about Sunday shoppinglegislation. In fact, I had a phone call just this morning
fromone of my constituents who said that there are three people inher family,
all of whom are working and they do not want to beforced to work on
Sunday. They believe that when they are,
it iscausing a strain in family relationships.
I think that issomething this government should be concerned about.
In fact, this government likes to talk about family
values,they like to think of themselves as the protector of familyvalues but
through this legislation they are attacking the veryvalues that they claim to
promote. I look forward to hearing thedebate
from the minister. [interjection] The memberfor‑‑somewhere, one of
those yellow dog ridings in southernManitoba.
We look forward to hearing their arguments because wewill have
opportunity to rebut them. Their
constituents aregoing to agree with us, not with them. I think those ruralmembers are in a very
tough position, because the merchants intheir towns are opposed to this as well
as their constituents.The business community in many of those instances are
opposed tothis legislation as well as churches and individuals who do notwant
to work on Sunday.
This government continues to brag about the fact that
theyhave not raised taxes in, I believe, five budgets. Well, if theyare simply talking about income
taxes, on the surface it appearsthat is true, but when you examine it, it is
quite clear that itis not true. Every
time the federal government raises incometaxes, our provincial income taxes go
up automatically, so therehave been increases in provincial income taxes. In addition,this government is offloading to
the City of Winnipeg, they areoffloading to boards of education and the result
is thatmunicipalities, school boards and cities are raising theirproperty taxes
and user fees and all kinds of other taxes.
It is not accurate and it is not true to say that theConservative
government has not raised taxes. In
fact, theyhave. They have just been
sneaky about it and they have done itthrough the back door because they do not
have the guts to do itthrough the front door.
When they are raising taxes byoffloading to property taxpayers or
ratepayers, they are raisingtaxes in the most regressive way because it is not
based on theability to pay. It is only
based on the property that one owns.
Under Education and Training in the throne speech thegovernment
talks about offering options to parents forflexibility in choosing the public
school best suited to theneeds of their child.
We will be waiting to see if there islegislation to outline this. We have some concerns about it, butwe will
wait and see exactly what they say.
*
(1130)
We are concerned about the overall trend and trends of
thisgovernment, because what we see is that they are providing moreand more
support to elite private schools and inadequatelyfunding public education. Recently I had occasion to read theprospectus
for
I would like to ask why do they not cater to all
students.Well, there is a very obvious answer to that question and that isthat
all students cannot afford to go to St. John's‑Ravenscourt.Only the
children of rich parents can afford to go to St.John's‑Ravenscourt.
These schools are not accepting students who are slowlearners. I would wonder if they are accepting
handicappedstudents. I would wonder if
they accept any students who do notfit into their mold of being university
bound. So not only arethey elite
according to how much it costs to attend them, forexample, it is about $7,500 a
year now to attend St.John's-Ravenscourt, but they are also elite because they
onlyaccept certain kinds of students, those students who are boundfor
university.
If they accepted all kinds of students, then they might
havea better case for having public funding.
Since they do not andsince they are not forced to but since they are not
accountableto this government, then we have a very serious concern about theelitist
nature of these private schools.
Another issue that I am sure the Minister of Education
andTraining (Mrs. Vodrey) is well aware of is the end of choice ofcourses at
the Grade 10 level beginning with English.
In fact, Iam on an area advisory council of parents, the Sisler-RosserAdvisory
Council, and we would like to get the Minister ofEducation to come out to one
of the high schools in northWinnipeg and defend her policy, because all of the
parentswithout any exceptions on that advisory council are opposed tothis
policy. We believe that it is going to
be extended to othersubjects and to Grade 11.
We would like to know why the Minister of Education is
doingthis. I have not heard the
rationale, but I would like to knowwhat it is and whether or not it is
defensible.
An Honourable Member: What are
they doing?
Mr. Martindale: My
colleague asks, what are they doing?
Well,my understanding is that in the past, there has always been achoice
of three levels of courses in, for example, Grade 10English. Now this government is going to take away
those choicesand offer one level of English for all Grade 10 students, whetherthose
students are heading for university or whether they aregoing to be in the job
force in a year or two.
We believe that is the wrong direction to go. I would liketo hear the rationale. I would like to hear the minister defendher
policy. I know that many, many parents
in north Winnipegwould like to hear her defend that policy as well. It is a veryhot issue out in the community,
and this government should payattention to it and should either change the
policy or modify itor rethink it before going ahead.
The government talks about quality health care for
For example, in their department they are having staff
laidoff. In spite of that, they are
dealing with seriousovercrowding. In
fact, there are patients from other units andother wards on their ward because
of overcrowding, so thisindividual is saying, how can you possibly lay off
staff, when weare already seriously overcrowded? It does not make sense. Somepatients from some hospitals are going to
be sent to otherhospitals. The doctors
are saying, how can that happen? We donot
have admitting privileges there. I
suppose those patientsare going to be forced to change doctors. I think we are goingto have a lot of very
unhappy senior citizens if that choice istaken away from people.
This government talks about health promotion, illnessprevention
and disability postponement. We agree
that those aregood things to be talking about and they should be doingsomething
about it. If they wanted to put some
action behindtheir words, what they would do would be to proclaim theantisniff
bill which was unanimously passed, I believe, in 1989,and yet it has been
waiting and waiting and waiting and nothingis happening.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) refuses to proclaim it.It
is sitting on his desk gathering dust and nothing is beingdone. This week, very tragically, we had another
death inWinnipeg from someone who was apparently sniffing.
So the tragedy of young people who die from substance
abusecontinues, and as a doctor from the Health Sciences pointed out,sniffing
is a very difficult problem to treat medically.
I knowfrom having been involved in the antisniff coalition that thereare
almost no treatment facilities for adolescents who abusesolvents and other
sniff products.
So we would like to see some action from this
government. Webelieve in health
promotion. We believe in illness
preventionand disability postponement.
One way of doing that in fact, notjust promoting wellness but preventing
deaths, would be toproclaim the antisniff legislation and stop the tragedy of
peopledying from inhaling sniff products.
The Throne Speech Debate talks about strengthening andsupporting
The City of Winnipeg welfare rolls increased by 42
percentfrom June 1991 to June 1992, a 148 percent rise from 1983, andManitoba
has the highest provincial child poverty rate in Canada,but they just do not
talk about what the problem is, they alsotalk about solutions.
They say, and I quote, what is the solution? As necessary asthey have been made, food
banks are not the solution. They are asymptom
of the underlying problem. Unemployment
is the one majorcause of hunger and poverty.
We must focus our efforts on jobcreation and commit ourselves to
providing meaningfulemployment. We urge
the Filmon government to adopt a policy offull employment.
This is what the community coalition on unemployment ispromoting. While this government continues to offload
expensesto the City of
In the Winnipeg Free Press of November 25, 1992, a
headlinesays, parents run food bank in school.
This school is
In the Free Press of several months ago we have
headlines:small town pride makes people balk at food bank use. We have astory about a new food bank opening
in
In fact, I must make a phone call to an individual, I
believefrom Steinbach, who came into
We believe, and I think Canadians believe, that socialassistance
is a support program of last resort, that it is thereto support people when
they are in a time of need. In fact, theCanada
Assistance Plan, federal legislation, says that Canadians'basic needs for food,
shelter and clothing shall be met.
We believe that should be happening through the socialassistance
system and not through charity and band‑aid solutionssuch as food
banks. I have participated in one of
those outletsfor many years and I believe that occasionally it is necessary toget
people through a crisis, but we do not believe that foodbanks are a permanent
solution to the problem of hunger. Theunderlying
problem is inadequate income and the solution to thatis not food banks but to
provide adequate income so people canbuy what they need.
*
(1140)
Fortunately, there are some changes going on in thecommunity,
for example, at Anishinabe food club they have decidedto make what I think is a
fundamental change and a good change.We are glad to see it coming, and that is
that, instead ofhanding out so much food from Winnipeg Harvest, they are going
toform a food buyers' club and they are going to buy food in bulkfrom Neechi
Foods Community Store, the aboriginal food store onDufferin Avenue. They are going to help people to save money
bybuying in bulk and reduce people's dependency on the free handoutof food
banks.
In fact, the inadequacy of the food banks is illustrated
bythis woman, I believe from Steinbach, who was referred to thefood bank at
Iles des Chenes and came away with four dozendonuts. I believe it is a single parent with four
children. Itshows the total inadequacy
of food banks as a solution to theproblem of hunger and the inadequacy of
income.
It is my hope that other churches and agencies in the
innercity, and I have already talked to North End Community Ministrystaff, will
follow the example of Anishinabe and will encouragepeople to form food buyers'
clubs, some of which alreadyexist‑‑for example, the St. Matthews‑Maryland
CommunityMinistry‑‑and will help people to buy food in bulk and to
spendtheir money at the beginning of the month on buying food so thatat the end
of the month they are not forced to go to food banks.It is an excellent
alternative and it is one which all of usshould be assisting and promoting.
The throne speech talks about the office of Children'sAdvocate. This is legislation that we passed during the
lastsession; however, we still have a problem with this legislationand with the
office of the Children's Advocate because thisoffice is not independent. The new person will report to theMinister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) rather than to theLegislature. I believe that we will be introducing a
privatemember's bill to amend the current legislation so that thisChildren's
Advocate will be independent and will report directlyto the Legislature.
The throne speech talks about co‑management
programs withFirst Nations to assist in protecting wildlife populations inManitoba. I believe this is a good idea and one that
needs to bepursued with all First Nations in the
Frequently people talk to me about aboriginal rights and
theybring up areas that are contentious and problematic in thecurrent context,
but when you explain to them some of thesolutions such as co‑management
agreements, people are quitehappy to hear about that. They have not been forced onmunicipalities or
First Nations. My understanding is that
theyhave been negotiated, that they have been mutually acceptable toboth sides
and that where they are in existence, they are workingwell. I certainly hope that is the case. We need more of thosebecause I believe that
is the kind of solution that the publicare looking for and the kind of solution
that is workable.
The government talks about a strong and prosperous
future.They believe that competition brings progress and growth. Iregret that this government believes that
only competition bringsprogress and growth.
We in this party have always believed thatthere is another way, and we
believe a better way, and that isthe route of co‑operation. The example that I used was our callfor an
economic summit that involves all partners in thisprovince, not just government
and business but also includeslabour, because all of us want progress and
growth for thisprovince. There are many
ways to achieve it, not just one way.
The problem with this government is that when they talk
aboutgrowth and development, they have a limited vision. All they seeis economic growth and
development. We think they should
broadentheir focus and include growth and development of people as anatural
resource.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we believe that this thronespeech
is quite inadequate. It consists of
inadequate promises.It is bankrupt of ideas.
It says nothing about the AboriginalJustice Inquiry report and does not
take into account the realneeds and problems of Manitobans, especially those
who areunemployed. Therefore I will be
supporting my Leader's amendmentto this throne speech. I hope that the Liberal Party willsupport it
as well, since we supported their amendment.
We lookforward to continuing debate on the throne speech. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: The
honourable member's time has expired.
Mr. Ben Sveinson (La Verendrye): I would like to extend mycongratulations to
you on the resumption of your duties of yourhigh office. You will no doubt continue to preserve order
anddecorum in this Assembly. I would
also like to congratulate mycolleague the honourable member for
I would also like to welcome my new colleague, Mr. BrianPallister,
from
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to welcome the new Pages.Trevor
Rudge's grandparents, Jock and Joan Tod, of course, arevery good friends of
mine and live within my constituency in thearea of
I would also like to mention that I feel fortunate to
workwith the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) ashis
legislative assistant. It has been and I
am sure it willcontinue to be a super experience.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I represent the constituents of LaVerendrye. The constituency of La Verendrye is extremely
diversein its people and its economy. It
ranges from agriculturalproduction in the central region to tourism in the
east. Theagricultural sector of La
Verendrye has undergone some extensivechanges over the last number of years.
One of the most significant has been in hog production.After
much research and development, we now produce hogs withmuch leaner meat
contributing to healthier meat for Manitobans,Canadians and indeed for export.
Our hogs are of such a high standard, they are frequentlysought
by markets throughout the world. This is
a tribute toboth the constituents of La Verendrye and to
Part of the constituency I represent also includes, as I
havementioned,
If I just might mention, in the wintertime now we seefunctions
or things happening out in that area, and I justmention the Can‑Am
International Trail which indeed brings manytourists from the United States,
Ontario and other parts of thecountry into our province. It starts this year in West Hawk Lakeand will
end in Roseau, but the day before it starts off in WestHawk Lake they will be
having a tour of the Whiteshell, anorganized tour for anybody who wishes to see
our trailsthroughout the Whiteshell, see the beautiful countryside. Alsothe day after the ride ends in
*
(1150)
Madam Deputy Speaker, our province is known for hostingworld‑class
events, and this summer I had the pleasure ofattending and opening the Canadian
round of world motorcycletrials in Rennie.
As I have said, it was a world‑class eventattended by tourists and
participants from around the world. Theevent
exposed
I talked to many of the contestants after they had
competedand I talked to judges also, and they told me that the route thatwe had
set out in the Whiteshell was indeed the toughest coursein the world. After the ride the participants, you could
see,definitely knew it was.
Unfortunately we had a lot of rain thatday, and although it might not
have bothered the participants alot, it cut down on the numbers of people who
were there to watchit. We still had a
very substantial number of people there, butit would have been, I am sure, a
lot better.
People, Madam Deputy Speaker, have always been our
greatestresource. Construction of the
The route was
Madam Deputy Speaker, I listened with great attention to
thethrone speech last Thursday as did all of my colleagues on thisside of the
House. From the comments made by the
other side, Iam not sure what they in fact were paying attention to.
As a representative from rural
The Town of
I would just like to mention a few projects that were
ongoingin my constituency this past year.
Fresh water is a veryvaluable thing these days throughout the world and
especially onthe North American continent.
We have been working with a groupin the municipality of Whitemouth in
putting in a water line fromSeven Sisters to Whitemouth, with co‑operation
and funding fromboth provincial and federal governments and then indeed themunicipal
government.
I have also another water line that we are working on to
getgoing and that is driven by the municipality of Ritchot.Actually this water
line will do two very important things,something that we have been working on
for a number of years andeven the previous government was faced with this
problem, andthat was the flooding around the New Bothwell springs. Thiswater line will indeed correct that and
give fresh water,beautiful water to a community and communities that in the
futureneed it. The spin-off, of course,
from that is jobs. It isreally a nice
thing to see when you can, in fact, not justcorrect one problem but complete
another thing.
Also, Madam Deputy Speaker, the provincial government,through
its combined commitment with Ayerst Organics Ltd. and thefederal government,
has contributed to the creation of over 1,000jobs in construction, farm
operations and directly relatedindustries.
What have the NDP got to offer Manitobans? Honestly, we havenot heard anything, and this
is indeed the start of the fourthsession. [interjection] It would be hard to explain
to thatmember, but I will do my best in the next few minutes.
Obviously more of the same NDP mismanagement that mycolleague
from Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) pointed out a few days ago inthis Assembly. Their theory, spend, spend, spend. Madam DeputySpeaker, somewhere there has to
be a stop. We collect so muchmoney, and
it will cover certain particular things.
The Jobs Fund, a fund that Mr. Doer wants to reinstate, areturn
to the fiasco of the Jobs Fund would in fact jeopardizethe province's credit
rating. As we are well aware, one of theways
in which a government's economic development strategy ismeasured is by
provincial credit rating. In 1984,
Standard andPoor's credit agency reduced
In 1985, the province's overall performance was reviewed
byMoody's Investors Service and Manitoba's credit rating was againdowngraded,
this time to a minus 1, which by the way, probablycost Manitoba an additional
$7 million on that year's borrowingrequirements.
In July of 1986, the province was placed on a credit
watch byStandard and Poor's again because of the anticipated deficit,Madam
Deputy Speaker. Can
In listening to a number of the opposition members
speakingto the throne speech, they keep on mentioning that we have beenin
government for four to five years. We
have been there, yes,but is it not funny how we forget what fiscal changes can
be donewhen you are sitting with a minority government? Fiscaldirection that has been developed now
would never have beenpassed or had a chance to mature under a minority
government.Never. So when you say five
years, say it in a truthful fashionif you possibly could.
*
(1200)
Another means of helping strengthen the rural economy inmaintaining
its viability is through some of ourdecentralization. The government of
The town of
The additional wages and spinoff from the jobs will be
verybeneficial to the town and the surrounding area. This is anotherexample of the government's
commitment to the decentralizationprogram.
More than 500 government positions have beendecentralized to date. The decentralization initiative bringsservices
closer to Manitobans who use them. I
believe, MadamDeputy Speaker, that rural communities must be maintained andrural
community living enhanced. My government
is committed tothis belief. My
government believes in rural Manitobans, butindeed we believe in all
Manitobans.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there was reference in the thronespeech
to the government's implementation of measures to controland dispose of
hazardous waste. It was also stated that
thehazardous waste management centre in the R.M. of Montcalm is nowproceeding. This is another way that the government of
Manitobais showing its commitment to the environment. This is ourposition, but what of the
NDP's? The NDP's record in terms ofhazardous
waste is nothing but dismal; in fact, I have heard itdescribed as an absolute
disaster. In 1983, more than a yearafter
a promised cleanup, Weston area boulevards still containdangerous levels of
lead. The dispute: Who should pay thebill? Who should pay for the cleanup, the
provincial or themunicipal governments?
I could also mention the Repap, but then we have heard itmentioned
so many times in this House and, like many otherthings, the NDP have never answered
to it.
The NDP, Madam Deputy Speaker, claim that the environment
istheir main priority, in fact, a priority over economicdevelopment, as the
Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) statedduring the May 1989 Throne Speech
Debate. It seems to me thatthe
environment is not a priority to them, and the example I havejust stated shows
the NDP's policies are wrought withinconsistencies.
However, there is one thing that we can be assured of andthat
is the consistent record of the NDP with respect to thedeficit. It rose consistently under the NDP, leaving
thegovernment of
Madam Deputy Speaker, the NDP increased taxes at least 15times. I heard 17 the other day. Just saying 17 times, it isquick, eh? Let us just take a fast look. In 1982, theyincreased personal income tax,
increased the insurance premiumstax, increased the bank corporate tax rate and
introduced apayroll tax.
In 1983, they increased personal taxes again, increasedcorporate
income taxes and increased provincial sales taxes.
In 1984, they increased corporate income tax. In 1985,increased personal income taxes yet
again.
In 1986, they increased personal income taxes, increased
bankcorporate capital tax and increased corporate capital tax oninvestment.
In 1987, they increased personal income taxes, increased
thepayroll tax, increased the corporate income taxes, increased theprovincial
sales taxes, introduced a land transfer tax, andintroduced a corporate capital
tax surcharge. Among the taxescreated,
and I have mentioned an increase, was the payroll tax.
Now, it does not make sense to create a tax that punishes
thecreation of jobs. I know that Mr.
Doer has heard this beforebut, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is of the utmost
importance that wenot forget from whence we came. I guess we have heard it saidbefore, and we
talk about it on Remembrance Day, lest we forget,and I say it today, lest we
forget.
The Progressive Conservative Party under the guidance andleadership
of the Honourable Gary Filmon has by far outperformedthe record of the NDP.
The deficit for 1988‑89 was $141.3 million, $142.4
million in1989‑90, under our government.
The deficit increased in '90‑91,and in '91‑92 and will
increase for '92‑93. However the
deficitis still lower in real terms than it was 10 years ago. Ourgovernment remains committed to
Manitobans. There have been noincreases
in personal income taxes during this government's timein office. The efficiency and good management of our
limitedfinancial resources by the Premier and our government will laythe
groundwork for building a stronger tomorrow.
The NDP on theother hand actually decry the importance of efficiency and
goodmanagement. In March of 1988, the
president of the Manitoba NDPstated: We
are the party that will do things for people ratherthan insisting on some
concept of efficiency or good managementwhich is vague at best.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Mr. Speaker, our government's use of efficiency and goodmanagement
has been anything but vague and has enabled thegovernment to proceed in a
direction that is beneficial to allManitobans.
* (1210)
Mr. Speaker, our government is composed of individuals
fromall walks of life. The backgrounds
of the members on this sideof the House are varied, and it brings me to
something that hasbeen said a number of times since we came back into this
Chamberjust a few days ago. After three
sessions of watching anopposition party, I guess it is infighting within their
party andyou can see a very disorganized party.
I figured that afterthree sessions we would come back to this Assembly
and we wouldsee perhaps a little bit of regrouping. Perhaps we would seesome very sharp questions
to our ministers and to our government.
However, what we have seen are unsubstantiated
accusationsand comments. I would just
like to draw your attention to acomment made by the member for Radisson (Ms.
Cerilli). Veryinteresting. I would like the members from the oppositionbenches
and all members and Manitobans to listen very closely.This is the honourable
Marianne Cerilli for Radisson who isspeaking here, and I quote: I hate to say it, but when I lookacross at
the benches opposite, I see a bunch of old white guys.
Mr. Speaker, is it not interesting how the members in theopposition
benches sit there and they laugh with glee, withabsolute glee? It is definitely a racist, sexist and there
isage discrimination there, but they laugh with glee. It alsoshows a complete lack of‑‑[interjection]‑‑elderly
people by theopposition benches. [interjection] That is possible.
She also goes on to say that this is the impression that
I amfaced with on a daily basis. I know
that there are members onthe opposite side who are representative of the female
gender,but the percentage of women on that side of the House‑‑continuesand
then she kind of faded off somewhere. I
am not sure what shewas doing.
What she was insinuating though was that in fact there
was alarger percentage of the female gender on that side of theAssembly as
compared to ours, which is totally false once again.Totally false.
She goes on to say:
I do not believe that their caucus trulyrepresents the diversity of our
society because we do, I thinkshe says, more accurately represent the diversity
in our society.
Now, I have to point out to you the background of some of
ourmembers, and she can compare it to the ranks of her members inher side of
the House. But let me say this, I do not
knock thebackground of any member in this Assembly. It is obvious thatshe does.
Let us just take a look.
We have an economist; we have anauctioneer; we have farmers; we have
lawyers; we have teachers;principals, school board trustees, business people,
formercouncillors and mayors, homemakers, real estate salesmen,insurance
agents, court reporter, nurses, psychologist, stewardand vice‑president
of a union, chartered accountant. We
have adoctor too; we have chartered accountants, car salesmen.
We have engineers; we have ranchers, meat inspectors, auniversity
professor, labour people, market gardeners, mechanics,sugar beet farmers, private
investigators, artist, writer andauthor, pilots, historians, university degrees
of variousdisciplines, and Mr. Speaker, we have five, very finerepresentatives
on our side of the House who represent indeed thefemales of our society, and I
am very, very proud of them.
Accusations such as these are becoming commonplace from
theNDP ranks. They do not know that the
people of
An Honourable Member: Do
your job and make sure they do notforget.
Mr. Sveinson: I will
not let them forget. After showing youjust
how diverse the backgrounds of all our members are, it showsthat we indeed do
represent Manitobans from all walks of life.In other words, our government is
very representative of thepeople of
Enough comments about the silliness from across the
way. Iwould just like to say a few words
on‑‑
An Honourable Member: You
really misrepresented us.
Mr. Sveinson: Yes, yes
indeed. There are a number of thingsthat
I believe we in society have to do. We
must remember whenwe are talking about government, and I mean people of
Things that we can do:
It has been mentioned by our memberfor Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld), pride,
pride in our work, pride inour people, pride in our country, pride in our
province, in ourtowns, our cities, our areas.
It is very important because weare losing. We are losing jobs and we must ask why. Well, it isvery simple. It is very simple why‑‑
An Honourable Member: Free
trade.
Mr. Sveinson: The
member over here says free trade. It
justshows the understanding the member has.
The fact is that we losejobs because we are not competitive on the open
market and we dohave to remain competitive.
It has to be. It is not justhappening
here. It is not just happening in
Attempts to instill or bring back pride to Canadians andpeople
within our areas is very important.
Also, ourcommunities, instead of crying, crying for government to lookafter
all problems, all problems from home and, in fact in thecommunities, has to be
a thing that, we have to take ownershipfor problems, some problems in fact
relating to alcohol, drug andsubstance abuse is one.
I travelled all over
Mr. Speaker, a healthy country, a healthy province is acountry
or province with a working society. By
that, I mean weall have to contribute.
Social assistance recipients who arehealthy should be in fact expected
to contribute in some way forthe money they receive. Handicapped people even should beexpected to
do whatever wherever they possibly can contribute.Many do already. If a job is not possible, perhaps work in acommunity
centre, in some way helping out, would be the answer.Everybody contributing
where they can.
*
(1220)
I would like all of you to come with me one day to DawsonTrail
Opportunities in Ste. Anne. At Dawson
Trail they work withpeople with mental disabilities and are involved in our
communityliving program. I would like
you to see these people come in.They come in because they have a place and a
purpose. They havework to do. They have work crews. They have a cafe there thatthey actually
serve meals in. They work in there,
right in Ste.Anne. It is called Dawson
Trail Opportunities‑‑super, superpeople, very loving people. When you come in there, you wouldjust as
likely get a hug instead of a cup of coffee first.[interjection]
Yes, I do too.
They have a store in the back, again, whichthey work in. It is a lot of secondhand clothes but very
goodsecondhand clothes. Much of it is
made use of whether it is soldor sometimes given to needy people within a
community. So theydo both, but they do
super work. Also, it is nothing to see
themon the street, cleaning the sidewalks, or they are hired by townsand
municipalities to go out around garbage dumps to clean up.They are working
people with a purpose.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that it is easier said than done,
but wehave to contribute, all of us have to contribute. If we lookaround the world, wars,
destruction, hunger should be enoughincentive to make us work today in our
society harder than wehave ever worked before.
I would just like to say that when we look at the deficitthat
we have in
We will have to expect possibly a little bit less in
areassometimes in the future, but just think, after we are finishedpaying the
mortgage, in years to come, we can then turn aroundonce again perhaps and elect
an NDP government just to remind usof the pain that we have gone through. I also would compare itto a child first
learning that if you touch a hot stove, it isgoing to burn you and then a long
time later going back just totry it once more just to confirm whether it did
burn you or not.Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. George Hickes (Point
I would like to at this time congratulate the newly
electedmember for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) and the newly elected memberfor
I would also like to welcome the new Pages who are here
withus in this session and to welcome the new Clerk of Committees whowe have
sitting at the table.
Before I get into my speech, I had it all prepared and
laidout how I was going to speak, but after hearing the formerspeaker, I cannot
believe a political party that has five membersfrom the affirmative action
group bragging about theiraccomplishments.
There are five out of 30. We over
here have 20members, and as of the 1990 election, the election of September11,
we achieved exactly 50 percent. We have
five women; weelected four aboriginal members, and we elected one visibleminority.
When we talk about the affirmative action guidelines,
followthe affirmative action guidelines, when you want to increase yournumbers,
what you do and what our party proved that works, is yourun affirmative action
candidates in winable ridings notsacrificial lambs. That way you keep the numbers, because youneed
a fair representation of all people living in
I heard whoever chaired your elections state that there
aresome ridings that we could run a yellow dog in and we would win.Well, if you
really want aboriginal members or visibleminorities, maybe run some of those
groups in those kinds ofridings. When
you stand there and brag about five women in acaucus of 30, I think you better
go back and do a little bit ofthinking.
When you are trying to achieve goals, the only way youwill achieve those
goals is by making sure that the group ofpeople who are underrepresented in not
only
I hope that in the next federal election, we will see
moreaboriginal people running for all parties and the parties make aneffort to
recruit aboriginal people to run. That
is the only waythat we will achieve those goals. I would just like to put thaton record.
I would like to speak a little bit about the constituents
ofPoint
Now, when we see the opening of 175 food banks in
I was saddened when I was reading the paper the other
day,just about a week ago, when they were talking about opening up afood bank
in
Because a food bank is not the answer. It is to try and getpeople employed. That is the only answer. The more people wehave working, the more
dollars that the government will havethrough taxes, the more money the
businesses will have tohopefully hire more employees, but we need to have an
economicstrategy that will create jobs.
When I heard the throne speech, I did not really hear any
ofthat and we talk about people going backwards. If you look atjust the City of
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please. When this matter is again beforethe
House, the honourable member for Point Douglas will have 33minutes remaining.
The hour being 12:30, this House now adjourns and standsadjourned
until 1:30 p.m., Monday.