LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday,
March 23, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Sharon Hagen, Bernice Tardiff, Stanley Tardiff and others, requesting the
Family Services minister (Mr. Gilleshammer) consider restoring funding for the
friendship centres in
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Harry Huebner, Marilyn Peters Kliewer, Adolf Ens and others, requesting the
Family Services minister (Mr. Gilleshammer) consider restoring funding for the
friendship centres in
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Ivan Hagen, Douglas Ladany, Debbie Hagen and others, requesting the Family
Services minister (Mr. Gilleshammer) consider restoring funding for the
friendship centres in
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Dewar). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS the United Nations has declared
1993 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme,
"Indigenous People: a new
partnership" and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and
WHEREAS the elimination of all funding to
friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as the services
and programs provided, such as:
assistance to the elderly, the homeless, youth programming, the socially
disadvantaged, families in crisis, education, recreation and cultural
programming, housing relocation, fine options, counselling, court assistance,
advocacy;
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House, and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the provincial government has
without notice or legal approval allowed wide open Sunday shopping; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has not consulted
Manitobans before implementing wide open Sunday shopping; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has not
held public hearings on wide open Sunday shopping.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly be pleased to request the Attorney General to uphold the
current law concerning Sunday shopping until public hearings are held and the
Legislature approves changes to the law.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member (Mr. Hickes). 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?
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the United Nations has declared
1993 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme,
"Indigenous People: a new
partnership"; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and
WHEREAS the elimination of all funding to
friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as the services
and programs provided, such as:
assistance to the elderly, the homeless, youth programming, the socially
disadvantaged, families in crisis, education, recreation and cultural
programming, housing relocation, fine options, counselling, court assistance,
advocacy;
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* (1335)
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw
the attention of honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have
with us today Major General Tom Defay who is a Commander of the Land Force
Western Area from
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you all here this afternoon.
Also with us this afternoon, seated in the
Speaker's Gallery, we have the Honourable Hubert Humphrey, the Attorney General
for the State of
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon, sir.
Seated in the public gallery this
afternoon, we have 24 adult visitors from the Kirkness Adult Learning
Centre. They are under the direction of
Lenore Wiebe and Laurel Johnson.
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Student
Social Allowance Program
Funding
Elimination Impact
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First
Minister.
Mr. Speaker, former Premier Duff Roblin,
speaking to the MAST convention over the weekend, made some very profound
statements about the need for education and the need for training. He spoke of the goal of having all students
in
Yet the government is cutting back on
student social assistance. It says, on
the one hand, these students can stay with their parents. We find out that is not true for 900 to
1,000. They say, on the other hand,
there are other alternatives, and then we find out that they are not eligible
for educational opportunities under municipal social assistance.
I would like to ask the Premier: What are the long‑term costs of the
decisions his government has made to cut back on opportunities for student
social assistance and long‑term careers for these 1,000 people?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, as in many things, this province
has to choose‑‑[interjection] The member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli)
obviously wants to answer the question for her Leader.
An Honourable Member: She would probably do a better job.
Mr. Filmon: Well, then, I will let her, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Premier: They have talked for a long time about long‑term
planning, long‑term budgeting and long‑term decision making. Yet we believe the government is proceeding
in a mean and shortsighted way for the students on social assistance.
I would like to ask the Premier to table
the savings he believes he will have, which are of course passed on to the city
of
* (1340)
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, as I started to say earlier,
every government in this country is facing difficult choices. The article that is in today's paper about
the credit rating watch that is on for every province in
As a result of that, the job that is being
done by every single province in
So, Mr. Speaker, very difficult choices
have to be made about what things can be afforded and what things cannot. When we look at something like student social
allowances, we find that no other province in
We have had to make those difficult
choices. We have said, look, if this is
a program that cannot be afforded by any other province in
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, many of the innovative programs
that have been established in
Look at home care which was started in
Maybe this is the very cost‑effective
program you should be keeping, as the only province in
Let us use leadership, not followship,
like this Premier.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): I have a final supplementary question dealing
with long‑term costs.
Mr. Speaker, over last week's period of
time when the decision was communicated to foster parents and foster families
across
Mr. Speaker, you will not save any
money. You will not provide any
emotional care with these kind of programs.
Will the Premier go back and negotiate and
deal in partnership with the foster parents and the foster parents'
association? It does not only make good
emotional sense for our children, it makes good economic sense for our future.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, tax and spend is all that the
New Democrats want us to do. In response‑‑[interjection]
No, the Leader of the Opposition is not correct when he says that people want
higher taxes and people are willing to have more government money spent.
The fact of the matter is, with respect to
his earlier preamble, that that program of student social allowances was in
place for more than a decade. No other
province picked it up because they did have alternatives for those people,
alternatives with families, with friends, with part‑time jobs, many other
alternatives that have seen people throughout our society find the way to fund
their education. In those circumstances,
they found ways to ensure that they funded their education, and they do in all
the other provinces.
With respect to his second question, Mr.
Speaker, this government, together with the foster parents, entered into an
agreement that saw, over the past five years, foster parent rates in
I regret the attitude that is being taken
by the foster parents' association, but we will indeed find foster care because
there are many, many Manitobans who love and care for children and who will
continue to provide that service for the funding that is available.
* (1345)
School
Divisions
Clinician
Funding
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education has
said repeatedly that education is a priority.
She said that in the throne speech in December. The Premier said that education is the key
that unlocks a world of opportunity and a future of economic growth and
prosperity.
The Minister of Education says that
special needs kids are a priority. Yet,
when we asked her in this House on March 9 how then she could justify the
laying off and cutting of 60 to 70 speech therapists, hearing clinicians, behavioural
psychologists who provide services for special needs kids, she said: But we are enhancing the services; we are
doing more; it will allow the school divisions to hire more clinicians than
previously through our department.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask this
minister: Is she saying in this House
that it is going to cost the Department of Education, her department, more for
special needs kids through the hiring of clinicians as a result of this
change? Is that what she is telling the
House?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, the hiring of clinicians will now be the responsibility of local
school divisions. The amount of money
available to hire those clinicians flows through the funding formula by virtue
of a formula. When that is then put
forward to school divisions, it does allow for the hiring of more clinicians
than, in fact, were hired by the Department of Education. That flows through the funding formula.
Mr. Plohman: Well, Mr. Speaker, it sounds like a classic
case of double talk. The information
that we have is that the total savings to the department will be $3.8 million
and the cost will be $2.835 million, based on 63 clinicians times $45,000.
I want to ask the minister whether in fact
she is now going to acknowledge that she is saving close to $1 million on the
backs of special needs kids in this province.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, again, I do not believe the
member has the numbers of clinicians appropriate in the preamble that he
gave. In addition, we are looking for
the services of clinicians to be provided within the local school
division. We also know that a number of
those clinicians have already received job offers from school divisions, and so
we fully expect this service to be delivered in a way that provides the local
needs to be met and to be determined by school divisions on behalf of the
special needs child and that child's family.
Mr. Plohman: So the minister is saying that she is indeed
saving a million dollars on the backs of special needs kids.
I want to ask this minister then: Will she now be prepared, since she is
spending over $2 million on exclusionary elite schools such as
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, we do believe that we are
recognizing the priority needs of special needs young people in this
province. The member is not familiar
enough with the funding formula to understand, in addition, that we flow
special needs funding for Level I, Level II and Level III needs students
through our funding formula. We raised
that amount of money by 42 percent last year.
In addition, this year one of the changes to our funding formula was to
include at the Level II and the Level III the emotionally and behaviourally
disordered young people and also those young people who are hearing
impaired. We have taken several concrete
steps to enhance the services to special needs young people.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I think that the
member might like to rethink his statement in suggesting that our independent
schools do not have special needs young people because we have just recently
met with those school divisions. They
most certainly do.
* (1350)
Video
Lottery Terminals
Revenue
Reinvestment
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
My question to the Premier, quite simply,
is: Why did the Premier and this
government break its promise and not give back the money that is being taken
out of the rural communities?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the member for
No promise has been broken to rural
Mr. Lamoureux: This government made a commitment to return
the monies that were being generated through the VLTs in rural
My question to the Premier is: Will he give assurances to the rural
municipalities that 25 percent of the revenues that are being generated will be
returned to those municipalities, because this way we have some sort of
assurances that the VLT revenues are in fact‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, this provincial government is
making commitments to rural
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): The Southern Development Initiative.
Mr. Filmon: The Southern Development Initiative‑‑thank
you very much from the member for Thompson.
All of those things are millions and
millions, hundreds of millions, in fact, billions of dollars being spent in
rural
The City
of
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
My question to the government is: Will the government, at the very least, sit
down with the City of
* (1355)
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, now, of course, we have the
difficulty of the Liberal Party trying to go out of a rural
Transcona‑Springfield
School Division
Funding Formula
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, on March 10, the Minister of
Education said that her funding formula and Bill 16 are fair and equitable to
school divisions. Today the Transcona‑Springfield
School Division trustees met with the Minister of Education and told her, and I
quote: The new educational formula
introduced last year has fundamental flaws, and the supplementary component
does not provide equality of opportunity for the pupils of the province because
it fails to compensate for the gross variation in per‑pupil assessment
across the province.
Can this Minister of Education explain to
the House, the trustees and the parents in the Transcona‑Springfield School
Division, how her statements that this formula is fair and equitable to the
school division equates and balances with what the trustees told her today?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, I did have the opportunity to meet with the Transcona‑Springfield
School Division today. We had a very
long and a very good discussion where we did review the brief. In that brief, I pointed out to the Transcona‑Springfield
School Division that the past formula had really not been fair. Most school divisions across this province
understood that it was not fair, including Transcona‑Springfield, and
that through the old formula they did receive a certain amount of money through
the supplementary.
What I did go over with them today is that
the new funding formula does not provide as much to the supplementary portion
because it does provide greater equity in the front‑end portion, where it
does look at the assessment. As we apply
a uniform mill rate across all school divisions, then it does take into account
exactly how much that mill rate will use, and the funding formula then balances
off the issue in that way.
I did explain that to Transcona‑Springfield
today. The member might not understand.
Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, the formula was so fair it has
taken this minister a two‑year phase‑in; if it is so fair I am sure
she can understand that it would not take that long.
Can this minister explain, Mr. Speaker,
because she committed to the trustees today to review the inequities in the funding
formula and to adjust the funding to the Transcona‑Springfield School
Division to recognize at long last the large rural component, when can the
division expect an answer from the minister specifically addressing the
concerns and making this funding formula fair support for the school division
of Transcona‑Springfield?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, the member was not at the
meeting, so let me tell him exactly what I said. I did say to him that this funding formula
was a dynamic formula. It has been discussed
as that since it was first introduced last year. Last year we had the Education Finance
Advisory Committee working on the funding formula, what their role was, to take
the concerns of school divisions and then look at those concerns and see if they
could be integrated fairly into the funding formula.
In this year, we were able to do
that. We took six priorities that were
recommended by that committee, and we did adjust the formula. My commitment to Transcona‑Springfield
today was that that committee will continue its work, that the concerns they
have raised, which were not accepted last year by that committee, they are free
to raise them again this year. Perhaps
this year, with more experience of other school divisions, will be a year to
consider those concerns.
* (1400)
Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, by this minister's own formula,
it is going to cost the school division $23 per home this year, something that
the division can ill afford.
How can this Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Findlay), who represents an area, part of the Transcona‑Springfield
School Division, stand idly by while his colleague the Minister of Education
(Mrs. Vodrey) guts dollars from school programs in his own community?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, let me just remind the member
that last year his school division benefited by 6 percent. They have a very large increase as a result
of this new funding formula that brought benefits to Transcona‑Springfield. This year, through the changes in the
transportation portion of the school funding formula, Transcona‑Springfield
benefited again.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Yesterday, the MIC executive stated that
we support the retention of The MIC Act and appropriate funding to ensure the
survival of the MIC and its role in the community.
Will the minister make a commitment to the
people of Manitoba today that she will not introduce an act to repeal The
Manitoba Intercultural Council Act in this session of the Legislature?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister responsible for Multiculturalism):
Mr. Speaker, the only government that ever emasculated the
When we took over as government, I had a
very angry organization on my hands as a direct result of what that member for
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, yes, it is wonderful if the
government cannot answer a question; it reduces itself to personal attacks on
members of the House. I await the
Estimates of this department with great glee, because we will prove the
inaccuracy of the statements of the Minister responsible for Multiculturalism.
Will the Minister responsible for
Multiculturalism and, today anyway, the Minister responsible for The
Multiculturalism Act, The Manitoba Intercultural Council Act, guarantee to the
people of
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, indeed, the records will show,
from the annual reports of the Manitoba Intercultural Council back in 1988,
that the member for
Mr. Speaker, we commissioned Don Blair to examine
the role and the mandate of the Manitoba Intercultural Council. He held broad, extensive consultations and
did a questionnaire throughout the community.
His main recommendation, and the recommendation that we have accepted as
government, is indeed to repeal the legislation and to turn the organization
over to the community that it serves, and we will do that.
Conference
Cancellation
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister responsible for Multiculturalism): Mr. Speaker, I do not accept any of the
preamble of the member opposite because indeed government appoints only one
member to every two members elected by the community, so there is still a
majority of people on the Manitoba Intercultural Council who are elected from
the community and community representatives.
I do not know where she is coming from
again because in fact the minister does not dictate to the Manitoba
Intercultural Council when to have a biennial assembly. The council determines that, sets the date
and holds their own assembly.
School
Divisions
Wage
Freeze‑‑Teaching Staff
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, on March 1 in this House, the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) suggested that if every teacher in this province were to
take a pay cut, all of the teachers could still be employed and the quality of
services maintained. He went on to suggest that everybody else has had to have
freezes and reductions and that teachers of the province should be no different.
We have the Minister of Education, on the
other hand, who is telling MAST that a wage freeze is not an option with this
government.
My question to the Minister of Education
is: What is the government's policy on
this issue?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): From the
time of the funding announcement in Education, I did refer to school divisions
as employers, and school divisions as employers do have the right to negotiate
with their own employees if a wage freeze is what they would like to do. That is still their option as employers.
We as a government have made our position
clear. At this time, we are recommending
that they also may in addition like to look at, or they may rather like to look
at, what we are doing with our employees, which is a workweek reduction. We have said to school divisions, as another
option as employers, that they might look at a version of the workweek
reduction with their employees.
Ms. Gray: Well, the position of this government is
still not clear on that issue.
Education
System
Professional
Development Days
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): A supplementary question to the Minister
responsible for Education. Can the
minister tell us, what is the policy of this government in regard to
professional development days for teachers?
Do they support the fact that teachers should take professional
development days and take them with no pay?
What is the policy?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): We did
recommend to school divisions that they might look at a version of the workweek
reduction with their own employees, and some of those days that they might like
to look at are the in‑service days.
That will be up to divisions to look at that.
We as a government, Mr. Speaker, continue
to support professional development through our funding formula and to make
available the kind of support to schools that we know is necessary.
Ms. Gray: This minister suggested that educators and
teachers should take a page from the government in terms of what they are doing
with their employees.
Civil
Service
Deputy
Minister Seminar Costs
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): My final supplementary for the Minister of
Education is‑‑and I would like to table page 27 from the Annual Report
of the Civil Service Commission, where it indicates that a new seminar program
was implemented for deputy ministers.
These short and topical seminars provided deputies with an opportunity,
not only to learn from the experts in management, but to exchange ideas amongst
themselves which could improve operating effectiveness.
My question for the Minister of Education
is: Were those seminars for deputy
ministers paid for through the Civil Service Commission? Did those deputy ministers receive salaries
on the days they attended?
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has put her question.
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister responsible for The Civil Service Act): Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to answer
that question because I think, quite frankly, if members of the Liberal Party
have not quite woken up and realized it, that every area of government
expenditure, every way we have done things in the past has to be re‑examined. Yes, in the past those were paid for by the
Civil Service Commission.
There is a new budget coming and
Education, Civil Service Commission, everyone has to undergo the same
review. I say to the members opposite,
wait and see what happens for next year.
Transcona‑Springfield
School Division
Funding
Formula
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, this government's latest
economic policy and attack on the public school system is unfairly penalizing
students and their families in Transcona‑Springfield.
How does the Minister of Education explain
the disparity in class size in comparing Transcona‑Springfield School
Division, which has more students per teacher, with other school divisions,
when the Transcona‑Springfield School Division is being one of the
hardest hit under this education funding policy?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): I will
remind the member again that the new education funding formula provided a
benefit to Transcona School Division last year, and as a result of that benefit
Transcona School Division did determine their own budget. They then made their decisions which would
affect their special requirement.
I think it is also important for me to
recognize the hard work of the Transcona‑Springfield School
Division. I recognize that. I spoke to them about that today, and I
recognize the hard work of all the school divisions across this province.
* (1410)
School
Divisions
Funding Formula
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): For the same minister‑‑will this
government commit to study the impact of this new funding policy on student
retention so that next year at budget time we can see that the effect of
cutting in Education will increase class size which will in effect cause more
students to drop out of school?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): The member
is trying to tie together a number of events.
In making the funding formula in the funding announcement we also said
to school divisions that there were decisions to be made, and we asked that
those decisions not affect students in the classroom and not affect programs.
We do, on a regular basis, monitor the
effect of the funding formula across the province. We also try to take into account the concerns
that divisions bring to us as they affect the divisions by the application.
We have asked the assistance of our
advisory committee, which is a representative group made up of trustees,
teachers and superintendents across this province, to assist us to make that
funding formula the most effective formula it can be, but, I would also say,
attempt to make it fair, because the old way was not fair.
Ms. Cerilli: Does this minister understand that the policy
of reducing the base funding in neighbourhoods of modest homes and less ability
to generate revenue will mean loss of resources to that neighbourhood? Can she explain her definition of how that is
fair and how that is in keeping with the policy‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has put her question.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, again, where the assessment is low
the funding formula then does provide a greater amount to that particular
school division. That is what I was
saying to the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) earlier as well.
In the past it was an inequitable, more ad
hoc way to fund through supplementary funding.
Now we attempt to fund that through the main part of the funding formula
to ensure fairness to all the school divisions across this province.
Selkirk
Friendship Centre
Invitation
to Premier
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Yesterday the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) confirmed to all those who
watched Question Period that neither of them have any idea what a friendship
centre is and what goes on in friendship centres here in this province.
In light of this, and following up on the
request made yesterday by my colleague the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), I
would like to ask the Premier and the Minister of Family Services to visit the
Selkirk Friendship Centre which this year is celebrating its 25th anniversary.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that there was
a question there.
Funding
Elimination Justification
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I have a question.
Why did this Premier cut the funding to
the friendship centres before the government even investigated what the
friendship centres provide in this province?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): The preamble to the question is not accurate.
Selkirk
Friendship Centre
Alternative Programs
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk):
Mr. Speaker, the friendship centre in Selkirk
provides counselling services on domestic violence, suicide prevention, crisis
management.
What preparation has the Minister of
Family Services made to cover the loss of these counselling services in Selkirk?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, as was indicated earlier in the week, government provides these
services in the communities. The
friendship centres have a multiuse purpose around that and are able to enhance
those services.
I am aware, from looking at the annual
reports of many of the friendship centres, of the variety of things they
do. Probably the one in Thompson is the
most successful in that they have a very large budget and have the Northern Inn
and restaurant in Thompson as part of that.
There are quite a variety of services that are provided across there.
[interjection]
I would point out to the member for
Thompson (Mr. Ashton), we are responsible for 5 percent of the budget in the
Thompson Friendship Centre, and I am sure they will manage quite nicely with
the other 95 percent.
Sunday
Shopping
Legislation
Withdrawal
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Industry, Trade and Tourism.
As I just released a survey that I held in
my constituency of St. Boniface, it is now obvious that Manitobans are not in
favour of unrestricted Sunday shopping.
Out of the total of 1,146 replies in the survey, 723 or 63.8 percent
said no, they were not in favour of unrestricted Sunday shopping, while 417,
36.38 percent, said yes. [interjection] You had a chance to ask your question.
In light of the results of this survey
that show clearly people's opposition to Sunday shopping, in light of the
communique released on March 17, 1993, in which the Association of
Mr. Speaker: Your question, please.
Mr. Gaudry: Could the minister enlighten this House by
accepting today to withdraw the proposed amendments to The Retail Businesses
Holiday Closing Act presently before this House?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, in response to the
honourable member's question, the short answer is no. As he well knows, this is a trial period that
expires on April 5. The bill has passed
second reading and will be at committee hearings shortly.
Public
Hearings‑‑Rural
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Will the minister consider holding public
hearings on the issue, unlike the federal Conservatives who push so many things
down the throats of Canadians and Manitobans?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, in response to a similar
question some time ago from members of the opposition, we indicated that this
bill, not unlike all legislation before this House, will follow the same
process and procedure and will be at committee hearings held here in this
building in which all Manitobans who have interest in a particular piece of
legislation can either attend in person or send a submission in by writing.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
Nonpolitical Statements
Hon. James McCrae (Minister
of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I would seek the leave of the House
to make a nonpolitical statement.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable minister have leave to
make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. McCrae: If I could have the attention of honourable
members, I have a very important message, Mr. Speaker. I do not know how many honourable members
know yet, but the May issue of Chatelaine magazine will, for the second time,
name the city of
The honourable Leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Doer)‑‑and this is not political‑‑may be referred
to again in Chatelaine, but as far as I know he has only been referred to once
and the city of
Mr. Speaker, I am sure this designation by
the Chatelaine magazine has a lot to do with the community spirit that is
demonstrated very often in the city of
We are going to be hosting the World
Championship Curling in 1995. We hope to
be hosting the Canada Games again in 1997.
We have fine educational institutions in
* (1420)
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Leader of the Opposition
have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise and
congratulate the community and the people of
I also heard the other day that Chatelaine
had designated
Mr. Speaker, I think it is terrific that
I just was in
We wish the people of
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Leader of the second
opposition party have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to also join with the Attorney General (Mr. McCrae) and
also with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) in congratulating the city of
I was there last Friday, as I am sure the
Attorney General knows. Once again, as I
came down that hill and up again over the bridge, I was struck by the attractiveness
of the community and by the many amenities that that community has to
offer. The people who live there
obviously live there in a spirit of great community, and that is reflected in
their tremendous sense of volunteerism.
I think we should also reflect on the fact
that there are many other pretty little towns and pretty other communities in
this province. If there were similar
categories with smaller numbers and towns, per se, perhaps they also would
qualify, because this is a very beautiful province, and all of us who live here
recognize that.
Committee
Change
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing
Committee on Economic Development be amended as follows: the member for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) for the
member for
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
Agreed and so ordered.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would
you call the Supply motion on page 5 of the Order Paper.
DEBATE ON
PROPOSED MOTIONS
Mr. Speaker: On the motion of the honourable Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness), that this House, at this sitting, will resolve itself
into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty,
standing in the name of the honourable Leader of the second opposition party.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased again to speak on the Supply motion, to move the motion
that we consider Supply in this House and this motion which, of course, brings
into force and effect the establishment of the Supply committee.
As I have tried to explain over the last
few days, one has to examine carefully why it is that the government wishes to
go into Supply at this particular point in time.
We have clearly stated to the Minister of
Finance, who is also the House leader, if he wishes to use this motion only to
go into Interim Supply in order to ensure that the government has the dollars
it requires to make its commitments to civil servants and to other agencies,
that we are quite willing and able to go into an Interim Supply, but we would
require certain guarantees from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), the
House leader for the government, if we were to do that. We would require very clearly that this
Interim Supply motion, which is what he would like to debate, would not be used
as a means to facilitate the going into Estimates in this Chamber.
We are opposed to the discussion of
Estimates in the province of
As I have indicated in the past, the
reason for our unwillingness to do that is because we do not feel that our
roles as critics would be appropriately met if indeed we are dealing with an
individual department in isolation of other departments, knowing that we do not
have the information available to compare and to contrast the expenditures of
other government departments.
Mr. Speaker, I have in the past indicated
to this Chamber that the basis for our objection is steeped in the history of
Parliament and its whole tradition which has come to us from the parliamentary
system. But I think it is fair to say
that it is also part and parcel of any democratic process anywhere.
If one looks at the democratic system in
the
I think it is important for the members to
recognize that, although in the
Although he presents, in terms of his
budgetary presentation, usually late in January, each year to the joint sitting
of the United State Congress, he then has to do a great deal of negotiation
because he is dealing with a House which is not as disciplined a chamber, I
would suggest to you, as is this particular parliamentary system. Although senators and members of the House of
Representatives in the United States are sometimes elected in a presidential
year, they are not all elected in a presidential year.
Presidents are only elected every four
years; members of the House of Representatives are elected every two years;
members of the Senate are elected every six years; as a result, he has to deal
with individuals in the Senate and in the House of Representatives who may have
no allegiance specifically to him. In other words, some of them were elected in
November when Bill
There is also, of course, within the
Democratic Party, a split‑‑what is often called the Northern
Democrats and the Southern Democrats, and frequently Southern Democrats are
considered to be more Republican than some of the Northern Republicans. So the President of the
But that is the whole point. There is not automatic approval. There are rules and regulations which that,
another democracy, has to abide by in order for the parliamentary process to
function, but also for the so‑called presidential process to
function. That is all that we are asking
from this particular government at this particular point in time, that process
be respected, that our rights as MLAs be respected, that our rights to do
things according to well‑known and
well‑respected procedures of this Chamber be respected. And if we have an indication from the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) that those procedures will indeed be
followed, as they have been followed in the past, then we will move with dispatch
to giving the Minister of Finance what it is that he wishes to have on the
Order Paper which is, of course, Interim Supply. If he does not want to move with dispatch
into Interim Supply, then I will continue to speak on this motion until such
time as the minister and the House leader for the New Democratic Party and the
House leader for the Liberal Party can come up with a legitimate solution.
* (1430)
Last week, Mr. Speaker, I spent a great
deal of time talking about the evolution of the parliamentary system and
because, obviously, the lesson was not sufficiently well learned, I decided
that today I would go back and delve a little bit further into the development
of democratic traditions and responsibilities.
I think if we are going to look clearly at the democracy that we value
in terms of the Canadian parliamentary system, then it is appropriate that we
go back to looking at the situation in
Just as one can easily compare the principles
of democratic system within the need for the granting of Supply, one sees that
even in the foremost evolutions of our original democracy that in
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
I want to read from a book written by
Roehm, Buske, Webster and Wesley called The Record of Mankind. "Among the gifts
"The centre of Athenian democracy was
the Assembly, which consisted of all male citizens who had reached twenty years
of age. It met on the slopes of a hill
called the Pnyx. The meetings were
frequently disorderly and very trying to the speakers."
Well, I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, that
is obviously clear that tradition has not been lost in this Chamber. The meetings of this Chamber are frequently
disorderly and frequently very trying to the speakers.
"Voting was by show of hands, except
in cases concerning individuals, when the ballot was used." Like in this Chamber where we do not use a
ballot, we tend on a recorded vote to stand at our places, and we are counted
again, a direct connection between the Athenian democratic system and what goes
on in this particular Chamber.
To quote again: "Many officers and magistrates assisted
the Assembly. Among these, the Ten
Generals held the leading place. They guided the discussions of the Assembly
and carried out the orders of that body.
Since the office of general was elective, it was open to men of ability
and influence. Pericles served sixteen
years in succession as one of the Ten Generals.
"The courts were composed of citizens
selected by lot. Any citizen might
present himself as a candidate. A court
was both judge and jury. It decided by
majority vote, and from its decision there was no appeal. Trials of public officers and disputes
between the cities of the empire, besides all ordinary legal business, came
before these bodies.
"Democracy, then, developed to a high
degree in ancient
"
Unfortunately, the city‑states were
not adequately represented, but what the Athenian government did was to present
to the world, a form of government which has been copied, in many ways, and in
many experiments. But, in all of the
copying that they have done, one principle and one principle alone has been
maintained, and that is the right of duly elected representatives to
participate in votes of Supply, votes that would determine whether a government
would or would not be given the money that it needed in order to function.
That is the purpose of the motion before
us at the present time. Without the
ability to obtain Supply, a government cannot function. Governments that have not been able to get Supply
have found themselves defeated in this Chamber, and as a result, have caused an
election. That is critical to our
understanding of the democratic process and our understanding of what is taking
place in this Chamber at the present time when the government of the day would
try and limit the opportunities and limit the abilities of the opposition
parties to participate as fully as they can in the making of rights and laws in
the
It was this Athenian democratic system
that was imported into
Again, quoting from the book entitled The
Record of Mankind with respect to how
"In the early 1700's,
"In the countries or shires only
certain landowners could vote. In the
towns or boroughs only a handful of well‑to‑do people could
vote. There were even some boroughs
where a rich man, generally a nobleman, had the privilege of appointing a
representative. For that reason, he was
said to carry the borough in his pocket and his district was called a pocket
borough. At the time in the
* (1440)
"Elections to the House of Commons
were also undemocratic because of the unequal population of the election districts.
These districts had been set up in the late Middle Ages. Each shire and each borough, regardless of
its population, sent two representatives.
Since the Middle Ages, however, many of the medieval towns had
disappeared and nothing remained of them but a house or two, a green mound, a
park or a ruined wall. Yet, such a town
still had representatives in Parliament who were appointed by the man owning
the site. Such places were called
'rotten boroughs.' On the other hand,
the towns that had grown up since the Middle Ages had no representation. Outstanding examples were towns that had
become busy manufacturing centres because of the industrial revolution. Among them were the flourishing cities of
"Restrictions on the right to vote
and inequalities in representation would have been sufficient reasons for a
reform movement. In addition, however,
the elections were accompanied by dishonest practices. Because voting was not secret but public,
individual voters were frequently bribed or intimidated. Rotten boroughs and
pocket boroughs were often sold outright to the highest bidder.
"Efforts to improve these conditions
began in the 18th Century, but for a long time they accomplished nothing. Sober people alarmed by the revolution in
The events which followed showed how the
parliamentary system works in
"The Reform Act corrected some of the
worst evils in the system of electing representatives to the House of
Commons. In the first place, the act did
away with the most rotten and pocket boroughs.
This left a large number of seats through towns and countries which had
too few representatives or none at all.
In the second place, the act gave the franchise a right to vote to all
men in the towns who owned or rented houses worth $50 a year and to those who
rented land of certain value in the country. These two provisions of the act
were important steps in bringing political democracy to
"The Reform Act brought about a great
change in British politics. The
revolution of 1688‑1689 had transferred the chief power from the king to
the upper class or landed aristocracy. The parliamentary revolution of 1832
shifted the power to the middle class of merchants, manufacturers and
professional men, the class corresponding to the French bourgeoisie. Henceforth, for many years, the middle class
ruled
I want to stop there for just a moment,
Madam Deputy Speaker, because I think that is a significant statement. Their action meant that for the future,
There was no orderly reform in this
particular motion by the Minister of Finance, the House leader for the
government of the day when he decided that he would do something which in his
own words was unparliamentary and unprecedented. He knew that he was doing something which was
not orderly. He knew he was doing
something which had never been done before, and rather than try and obtain some
means by which such activity could take place, he chose himself to move such a
motion in the Chamber, thereby violating all of the concepts of the evolution
of a system and means for orderly reform.
This party to which I am the Leader and
will remain the Leader until the 5th of June when we will meet together and
select a new Leader‑‑that process leaves me here as the Leader of
the party having to make decisions as to whether I will allow the government of
the day in this province to circumvent the orderly process of rules which is so
very much a part of our parliamentary tradition.
Let me continue with The Record of
Mankind.
"Even after the passage of the Reform
Act of 1832, only about one ninth of the grown men in
That is, Madam Deputy Speaker, not unlike
what we experienced last week, and the horror of it on television when we
watched people with, for the most part, very good motivation storming the
British Columbia Legislature, and losing their cause because of their violent
actions. That is the sad part about it.
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Niakwa): Tree huggers.
Mrs. Carstairs: It is very sad that the member for Niakwa
(Mr. Reimer) would use the expression "tree huggers" with such
disdain, because the concept of being a tree hugger and the concept of being a
tree lover is not one which anyone should consider in a disdainful way. Because without trees our entire ecological
system would be out of balance, and for those who believe in the preservation
of trees, there should be no public condemnation. What there should be, for all those who are
interested in pursuing any movement, is the lesson that I thought all of us had
learned from Mahatma Gandhi and later from Martin Luther King, that you can be
far more successful in nonviolent processes by which you achieve change than
you can be through violent ones, because violence in itself breeds violence,
but, more importantly, it loses you supporters.
I think that the whole environmental
movement in British
We have had candlelight ceremonies here to
celebrate memorial days like the
* (1450)
That is exactly what the vast majority of
those people, who the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) treats which such disdain
and calls them tree huggers, were doing.
Unfortunately, it was a small minority who chose to act in a violent way
and in that way hurt the entire evolution.
That is what happened to the Chartists in
the period of the 1840s because they certainly had ideas which were ahead of
their time, but ideas that we certainly would not today consider revolutionary
in any way, shape or form. I mean which
one of us in this House would consider that universal suffrage was a bad
concept? All of us have it. All of us are grateful for having it.
Who in this Chamber would argue against
equal electoral districts? Who in this
Chamber would argue against the secret ballot?
These may have been radical reforms in the 1840s, but they certainly are
not radical today. They have, in fact,
at least in our system of government, received wide acceptance.
But the Chartists lost ground during the
1840s, as I said earlier, because some of the Chartists staged violent
uprisings. Let me quote again from The Record of Mankind, and it is referring
to the Chartists.
"It made a temporary comeback in the
revolutionary year of 1848, when a huge procession was planned to deliver a
monster petition to Parliament. The
government prohibited the parade, and it was found that the petition contained
many forged signatures. The resulting
ridicule put an end to Chartism, but almost all the Chartists' demands have
since become a part of English law.
"The death of the Chartist movement
did not end political unrest. The
outcome of the American War between the States"‑‑sometimes
called the American Civil War‑‑"was regarded by many
Englishmen as a triumph for democracy.
It encouraged their demands for popular sovereignty. It seemed absurd that the British workingmen
should be denied the vote when it was about to be granted to former slaves in
the
"William Ewart Gladstone, the son of
a Liverpool merchant of Scottish birth, had been educated at aristocratic Eton
and
"To many he seemed the 'rising hope
of the stern, unbending Tories.' His
advancement was rapid, for he had wealth, family influence and attractive
personality, wide knowledge of both books and men, enormous energy, and great
oratorical ability. All things considered, no Englishman of Gladstone's
generation equaled him as a public speaker.
He was an impressive figure, whether in the House of Commons or on the
platform. In time he disappointed his
political backers by joining the Liberal Party. It was as a Liberal that
I must digress for a moment here to say
that, of course, every now and then we are delighted that Tories come to their
senses and join the Liberal Party as Mr. Gladstone chose to do.
Let me now look at The Record of Mankind
once again: "Benjamin Disraeli belonged to a converted Jewish family of
"In 1866 Gladstone, then Liberal
leader of the House of Commons and the prime minister, introduced a bill providing
for further extension of the right to vote.
"Popular demonstrations throughout
the country convinced Disraeli that an extension of the right to vote could no
longer be delayed. With
"In the next election, after the
Reform Act of 1867, the Liberal party returned to power with
I think it is important, before I leave
Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli, to read from perhaps one of the foremost
writers on democracy, of course none other than Winston Churchill, who was
himself a Prime Minister in
When it appeared in 1945 that the war was
coming to an end‑‑it had already, in essence, come to an end in
We talked a minute ago, and just before I
begin to read from Winston Churchill I must talk about the Reform Act and the
introduction of the secret ballot. I
would not want the Pages in the room to think that the secret ballot was as
well protected throughout even the earlier parts of this century as the book
would let you believe.
I will recount to you a story which my
husband experienced in 1950. He was a
young man when he went to university. He
was only 16, having just turned 16 in July of 1949. He went off to university. That year there was an election in the
province of
His landlord‑‑he was living in
a rooming house at the time‑‑asked him if he wanted to work on the
Liberal campaign. My husband, who had
never been involved in politics and did not know much about politics, said,
well, yes, he would work on the Liberal campaign. It became more appealing when he was told
that he would be paid $20 for the day.
Being 16 and already somewhat of an
entrepreneurial spirit, he decided that $15 or $20 was a good way to make some
money. He had to find out what he was
supposed to do. The concept was the
following: The polls opened in the
morning and the first Liberal person who entered the polling station took his
ballot, did not mark that ballot, dropped the ballot outside and passed it on.
It was my husband's job to pick up somebody, drive them to the poll, mark that
ballot he now had in his hand which was blank with an X by the Liberal
candidate and pass it to the person whom they had picked up. That person went in, picked up a fresh
ballot, dropped the X‑marked ballot in the ballot box and then brought
out the clean ballot.
If they brought out the clean ballot, they
got a bottle of Scotch in the case of a man, or they got a box of chocolates if
they were a woman. If, of course, they
did not bring out a clean ballot, they got nothing. So they brought out the clean ballot and the
process continued. The next person who
was picked up would be given the X Liberal‑marked ballot. They would deposit that ballot in the voting
box and bring out of the polling station a clean ballot. My husband would then put the X by the
Liberal, give the individual a bottle of Scotch or a box of chocolates, and the
process continued all day.
*
(1500)
Lest members of the Chamber think that
just because we passed a secret ballot act back in the last century, secret
ballots were in essence not well protected in this country until we ourselves
went through electoral reform. Now it is
very difficult for those things to happen in Canada but they certainly went
on. I think the Atlantic provinces had
more of a history of this, quite frankly, than the western provinces tended to
have. Certainly, it was not a fait
accompli just because Gladstone adopted the Australian ballot.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am reading now
from Winston S. Churchill's book, A History of the English‑Speaking
Peoples, Volume IV, The Great Democracies.
We now enter upon a long‑connected and progressive period in
British history, the prime ministerships of Gladstone and Disraeli. These two great parliamentarians in
alternation ruled the land from 1868 and 1865.
For nearly 20 years, no one effectively disputed their leadership and
until Disraeli died in 1881, the political scene was dominated by a personal
duel on a grand scale. Both men were at
the height of their powers, and their skill in oratory and debate gripped and
focused public attention on the proceedings of the House of Commons.
Every thrust and parry was discussed
throughout the country. The political differences between them were no wider
than is usual in a two‑party system, but what gave the conflict its edge
and produced a deep‑rooted antagonism was their utter dissimilarity in
character and temperament. Posterity
will do justice to that unprincipled maniac Gladstone, wrote Disraeli in
private‑‑extraordinary mixture of envy, vindictiveness, hypocrisy
and superstition and with one commanding characteristic, whether preaching,
praying, speechifying or scribbling, never a gentleman.
Gladstone's judgment on his rival was no
less sharp. His doctrine was false, but
the man more false than his doctrine. He
demoralized public opinion, bargained with diseased appetites, stimulated passions,
prejudices and selfish desires that they might maintain his influence. He weakened the Crown by approving its
unconstitutional leanings and the Constitution by offering any price for
democratic popularity.
Thus they faced each other across the
dispatch boxes of the House of Commons, Gladstone's commanding voice, his hawk‑like
eyes, his great power to move the emotions against Disraeli's romantic air and
polished, flexible eloquence. When
Gladstone became Prime Minister in 1868, he was deemed a careful and
parsimonious administrator who had become a sound, Liberal reformer, but this
was only one side of his genius.
What gradually made him the most
controversial figure of the century was his gift of rousing moral indignation
both in himself and in the electorate.
In two great crusades, on the Balkans and on Ireland, his dominant theme
was that conscience and the moral law must govern political decisions. Such demand strenuously voiced was open to
the charge of hypocrisy when, as so often happened, Gladstone's policy
obviously coincided with the well‑being of the Liberal Party, but the
charge was false. The spirit of the
preacher breathed in Gladstone's speeches.
He was willing to break his party rather than to deny his conscience.
Soon after his conversion to home rule for Ireland, he said to his lieutenant,
Sir William Harcourt, I am prepared to go forward without anybody. It was a spirit which was to mismanage men
and split the Liberals, but it won him a place in the hearts of his followers
of which Britain had never seen the like.
To face Gladstone, Disraeli needed all the
courage and quickness of wit with which he had been so generously endowed. Many
Tories disliked and distrusted his reforming views, but he handled his
colleagues with a rare skill. He has
never been surpassed in the art of party management. In all his attitudes there was a degree of
cynicism. In his makeup there was not a
trace of moral fervor. Large sections of
the working class were held to church, Crown, empire and aristocracy by
practical interests which could be turned to party advantage, or so he saw
it. He never became wholly assimilated
to English ways of life and preserved to his death the detachment which had led
him as a young man to make his own analysis of English society. It was this which probably enabled him to
diagnose and assess the deeper political currents of his age. Long handicapped by his own party, he led it
in the end to an electoral triumph and achieved for a period the power he had
always desired.
Nothing created more bitterness between
them than Gladstone's conviction that Disraeli had captured the Queen for the
Conservative Party and endangered the Constitution by an unscrupulous use of
his personal charm.
When Gladstone became Prime Minister,
Victoria was still in mourning and semiretirement for Prince Albert, who had
died in 1861. She deeply resented his
attempts to bring the monarchy back into public life, attempts which culminated
in a well‑intentioned scheme to make her eldest son the viceroy of
Ireland. Gladstone, though always
respectful, was incapable of infusing any warmth into his relationship with
her. She once said, according to report,
that he addressed her like a public meeting.
Disraeli did not make the same
mistake. The principles of the English
Constitution, he declared, do not contemplate the absence of personal influence
on the part of the sovereign and, if they did, the principles of human nature
would prevent the fulfillment of such a theory.
He wrote to the Queen constantly. He wooed her from the loneliness and
apathy which engulfed her after Albert's death, and flattered her desires to
share in the formulation of policy.
At the height of the eastern crisis in May
1877, he ended a report on the various views of the cabinet with the following
words: The policy is that of your
Majesty and which will be introduced and enforced to the utmost by the Prime
Minister.
Victoria found this irresistible. She complained that Gladstone, when in
office, never told her anything. Had he
done so after 1880 it might have been transmitted to the Conservative opposition. From then on, she was not friendly to her
Liberal governments. She disliked
Gladstone and detested the growing radicalism of the party. But, in fact, little harm was done. Gladstone
was careful to keep the person of the Queen out of political discussion, and
none of their disagreements was known to the public. He grumbled that the Queen is enough to kill
any man, but he served her patiently, if not with understanding.
In any case, the development of popular
government based on popular election was bound to diminish the personal power
of the Crown. In spite of her occasional
leanings, Victoria remained a constitutional monarch.
Gladstone always said that his cabinet of
1868 to 1874 was one of the best instruments of government that was ever constructed. Driven by his boundless energy, it put into
effect a long‑delayed avalanche of reforms. This was the golden age when liberalism was
still an aggressive, unshackling force, and the doctrine of individualism and
the philosophy of laissez faire were seeking out and destroying the last relics
of 18th century government.
The civil service, the army, the
universities and the law were all attacked, and the grip of the old landed
interest began to crumble. The power of
what James Mill had called the sinister interests shrivelled bit by bit as the
public service was gradually but remorselessly thrown open to talent and
industry. Freedom was the keynote; laissez faire, the method. No undue extension of government authority
was needed, and the middle class at last acquired a share in the political
sphere equal to their economic power.
* (1510)
Gladstone came in on the flood. A decisive electoral victory in a country
ready for reform gave him his opportunity.
The Liberal Party, for a rare moment in equilibrium, was united behind
him. The scale and scope of this policy
directed at a series of obvious abuses was such that radicals, moderate
Liberals and even Whigs were brought together in agreement.
He began with Ireland. My mission, he had said, when the summons
from the Queen reached him at his home in Hawarden, is to pacify Ireland. In spite of bitter opposition and in defiance
of his own early principles, which had been to defend property and the Anglican
faith, he carried in 1869 the disestablishment of the Protestant Church of
Ireland. This was followed next year by
a land act which attempted to protect tenants from unfair eviction, but Ireland
was not so easy to be pacified.
In England, the government found no lack
of work to do. After the electoral reform of 1867, Robert Lowe, now Chancellor
of the Exchequer, had said that we must educate our masters. Voters ought to
know at least how to read and write and have open to them the paths to higher
knowledge; thus, the extension of the franchise and the general liberal belief
and the value of education led to the launching of a national system of primary
schools. This was achieved by W.E.
Forester's Education Act of 1870, blurred though it was, like all education
measures for some decades to come, by sectarian passion in controversy.
At the same time, patrimony was finally
destroyed in the home service. Entrance
to the new administrative class was henceforth possible only through a
competitive examination which placed great emphasis on intellectual
attainment. Ability, not wealth or
family connection, was now the means to advance. In the following year, all religious tests at
Oxford and Cambridge were abolished. The
universities were thrown open to Roman Catholics, Jews, dissenters and young
men of no belief.
The ancient intricacies of the judicial
system, so long a nightmare to litigants and a feeding ground for lawyers, were
simplified and modernized by the fusion of courts of law and equity. The judicature act marked the culmination of
a lengthy process of much needed reform.
For centuries, litigants had often had to sue in two courts at once
about the same matter. Now a single Supreme Court was set up with appropriate
divisions and procedure, and methods of appeal were made uniform. Offices that had survived in the reign of
Edward I were swept away in a complete remodelling. All this was accompanied by a genuinely sound
administration and what was perhaps closest to Gladstone's own heart, a policy
of economy and low taxation.
The sufferings and disgraces of the Crimea
had made it evident that the great Duke of Wellington's practices in the hands
of lesser men had broken down. The
Prussian victories in France administered a shock to military and civilian
opinion. Reforms were long overdue at the war office. They were carried out by Gladstone's
Secretary of State, Edward Cardwell, one of the greatest army reformers. The Commander‑in‑Chief, the Duke
of Cambridge, was opposed to any reform whatsoever, and the first step was
taken when the Queen with considerable reluctance signed an Order‑in‑Council
subordinating him to the Secretary of State.
Flogging was abolished. An enlistment act introduced short service
which would create an efficient reserve.
In 1871 Cardwell went further, and after a hard fight with service
opinion, the purchase of commissions were prohibited. The infantry were rearmed with the Martini‑Henry
(phonetic) rifle and the regimental system was completely reorganized on a
county basis. The War Office was
overhauled, though a general staff was not yet established.
All this was achieved in the space of six
brilliant, crowded years, and then, as so often happens in English history, the
pendulum swung back. Great reforms
offended great interests. The Anglicans were hit by several measures. The nonconformists found little to please
them in the Education Act. The army and
the court resented Cardwell's onslaught.
The working classes were offered little to attract them apart from a
Ballot Act, which allowed them to exercise a newly won franchise in secret and
without intimidation. The settlement for
$15 million of the Alabama dispute with the United States, though sensible, was
disagreeable to a people long fed on a Palmerstonian diet. They began to suspect that Gladstone was half‑hearted
in defending British interests. An
unsuccessful licensing bill prompted by the temperance wing of the Liberal
Party estranged the drink interest and found an alliance between the brewer and
the Conservative Party. Gladstone was
soon to complain that he had been worn down from power in a torrent of gin and
beer.
Disraeli, now at the height of his
oratorical powers, painted this portrait of the ministry: Her Majesty's new ministers proceeded in
their cares like a body of men under the influence of some deleterious
drug. Not satiated with the spoilation
and anarchy of Ireland, they began to attack every institution and every
interest, every class and calling in the country. As time advanced it was not difficult to
perceive that extravagance was being substituted for energy by the
government. The unnatural stimulus was
subsidized. Their paroxysms ended in
prostration. Some took refuge in melancholy, and their eminent chief alternated
between a menace and a sigh. As I sat
opposite the Treasury Bench, the ministers reminded me of one of those marine
landscapes, not very unusual on the coasts of South Africa. You behold a range of exhausted
volcanoes. Not a flame flickers on a
single pallid crest, but the situation is still dangerous. There are occasional earthquakes, and ever
and anon the dark rumbling of the sea.
Nevertheless Gladstone's first government
stands high in British history, but there were few fresh Liberal ideas to
expound when Parliament was dissolved in 1874.
He fought the election on a proposal to abolish the income tax, which
then stood at threepence in the pound, and to the end of his life he always
regretted his failure to achieve this objective. But the country was now against him and he lost. He went into semiretirement believing that
the great reforming work of liberalism had been completed. Most of his Whig friends agreed. The radicals
thought otherwise. All of them were
wrong.
The grand old man was soon to return to
politics and return in a setting and amid a storm which would rend and disrupt
the loyalties and traditions of English public life in a manner far more
drastic than any of them had yet conceived.
While his great adversary devoted his
leisure to felling trees at Hawarden and writing articles about Homer, Disraeli
seized his chance. He had long waited
for supreme power. For 25 years, he had
been the Leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Commons and now he
was over 70. His physique had never been
robust and his last years, made lonely by the death of his wife, were plagued
by gout and other ailments.
Power has come to me too late. There were days when on waking I felt I could
move dynasties and governments, but that has passed away.
But at no time had his problems been
simple. Apart from the interlude of the
Peel ministry of 1841 to 1846, an interlude which had ended in party disaster,
the Tories had been more or less in opposition for close on half a century. Labeled the party of reaction, its members
mocked as the heirs of Eldon Sidmouth and other hard‑shelled, old Tories,
it now had to face a democratic electorate.
The fact that the extension of the
franchise had been sponsored by the Tory Leader made it no less a leap in the
dark for them, but Disraeli had no doubts.
He remained true to the spirit of the young England movement which he
had founded a generation before. He
never believed that the working men of England were radicals or would be
destroyers of the established order.
He saw clearly that although many of the
new electors were attracted by the ideas of tradition, continuity and ordered
social progress, such feelings would never ripen into electoral advantage under
the inert conservatism of his own backbenchers. He had only to win over the electorate,
but also to convert his own party.
Disraeli's campaign began long before
Gladstone fell. He concentrated on
social reform and on a new conception of the empire, and both prongs of attack
struck Gladstone at his weakest points.
The empire had never aroused his interest and, though passionate in
defence of the political rights of the working class, he cared little for their
material claims.
Disraeli on the other hand proclaimed, the
first consideration of a minister should be the health of the people. Liberals
tried to laugh this off as a policy of sewage.
In his first full session after reaching office, Disraeli proceeded to
redeem his pledge. He was fortunate in
his colleagues, among whom the Home Secretary, Richard Cross, was outstanding
in ability.
A Trade Union Act gave the unions almost
complete freedom of action. An Artisans'
Dwelling Act was the first measure to tackle the housing problem. A Sale of Food and Drugs Act and a Public
Health Act at last established sanitary law on a sound footing.
Disraeli succeeded in persuading much of
the Conservative Party not only that the real needs of the electorate,
including healthier conditions of life, better homes and freedom to organize in
the world of industry, but also that the Conservative Party was perfectly well
fitted to provide them.
* (1520)
Well, might Alexander Macdonald, the
miners' leader, declare that the Conservative Party have done more for the
working class in five years than the Liberals have in 50.
Gladstone had provided the administrative
basis for these great developments, but Disraeli took the first considerable
steps in promoting social welfare.
The second part of the new Conservative
program, imperialism, had also been launched before Disraeli came to power.
Gladstone's passion for economy and all things military, his caution in Europe
and his indifference to the empire jarred on a public which was growing ever
more conscious of British imperial glory.
Disraeli's appeal was perfectly tuned to the new mood.
Self‑government, in my opinion, he
said, of the colonies when it was conceded ought to have been conceded as part
of a great policy of imperial consolidation.
It ought to have been accompanied by an imperial tariff, by securities
for the people of England, the enjoyment of the unappropriate lands which
belonged to the sovereign as their trustee, and by a military code which should
have precisely defined the means and the responsibilities by which the colony
should be defended and by which, if necessary, this country should call for aid
from the colonies themselves. It ought
further to have been accompanied by the institution of some representative
council on the metropolis, which would have brought the colonies into constant
and continuous relations with the home government.
All this, however, was omitted, because
those who advised that policy, and I believe their convictions were sincere,
looked upon the colonies of England, looked upon even our connection with
India, as a burden upon this country.
Viewing everything in its financial aspect and totally passing by those
moral and political considerations which make nations great, and by the
influence of which men alone are distinguished from the animals, well, what has
been the result of this attempt during the reign of liberalism for the
disintegration of the empire? It has
entirely failed, but how has it failed?
To the sympathy of the colonies for the
mother country, they have decided that the empire shall not be destroyed and,
in my opinion, no minister in this country will do his duty who neglects an
opportunity of reconstructing as much as possible our colonial empire and of
responding to those distant sympathies which may become the source of
incalculable strength and happiness to this land.
At first, Disraeli was brilliantly
successful. The Suez Canal had been open
for six years, and it transformed to the strategic position of Great
Britain. No longer was the Cape of Good
Hope the key to the route to India and to the Far East. The foreign office had been curiously slow to
appreciate this obvious fact and had missed more than one opportunity to
control the waterway.
In 1875, Disraeli, on behalf of the
British government, bought for 4 million pounds, the shares of the Egyptian
Khedive Ismail in the canal. This Turkish
shatrah (phonetic) was bankrupt, glad to sell.
His holding amounted to nearly half the total issue. The route to India was safeguarded. Possible threat to British naval supremacy
was removed, and of faithful importance for the future, Britain was inexorably
drawn into Egyptian politics.
In the following year, Queen Victoria, to
her great pleasure, was proclaimed empress of India. Such a stroke would never have occurred to Gladstone
or indeed to the next generation of imperialists, but Disraeli's oriental,
almost mystical, approach to empire, his emphasis on imperial symbols, his
belief in the importance of outward display gave his policy an imaginative
colour never achieved by his successors.
His purpose was to make those colonies which he had once condemned as
millstones around our neck sparkle like diamonds. New storms in Europe distracted attention
from this glittering prospect.
In 1876, the eastern question erupted anew. The Crimean War had been mismanaged by the
soldiers, and at the peace, the diplomats had done no better. Most of the Balkans still remained under
Turkish rule, and all attempts to improve the Ottoman administration of
Christian provinces had foundered on the obstinacy of the sultan and the
magnitude of the task. Slavs, Romanians
and Greeks were united in their detestation of the Turk. Revolt offered little hope of permanent
success, and they had long looked to the czar of Russia as their potential liberator.
Here was a fine dilemma for the British
government. The possibility of creating
independent Balkan states, in spite of Canning's example in the small Greek
kingdom, was not yet seriously contemplated.
The nice choice appeared to lie between bolstering Turkish power and
allowing Russian influence to move through the Balkans and into the
Mediterranean by way of Constantinople.
The threat had long been present, and the insurrection which now
occurred confronted Disraeli with the most difficult and dangerous situation
for Great Britain since the Napoleonic Wars.
Rebellion broke out in Bosnia‑Herzegovina, where 40 years later,
an assassin's bullet was to start the First World War.
Germany, Austria and Russia, united in the
League of Three Emperors, proposed that Turkey should be coerced into making
serious reforms. Disraeli and his
foreign secretary, Lord Derby, resisted these plans, arguing that they must end
very soon in the disintegration of Turkey, and to emphasize British support of
Turkey, a fleet was dispatched to the Dardanelles, but these diplomatic
manoeuvres were soon overtaken by the news of terrible Turkish atrocities in
Bulgaria.
Disraeli, handicapped by faulty reports
from his ambassador at Constantinople, who was an admirer of the Turks, failed
to measure the deep stir in public opinion.
In reply to a parliamentary question in July, he took leave to doubt
"whether torture has been practised on a great scale among Oriental
people, who seldom, I believe, resort to torture but generally terminate their
connection with culprits in a more expeditious manner." This tone of persiflage fanned into fierce
and furious activity the profound moral feeling which was always simmering just
below the surface of Gladstone's mind.
In a famous pamphlet, Bulgarian Horrors
and the Question of the East, Gladstone delivered his onslaught on the Turks
and Disraeli's government: Let the Turks
now carry away their abuses in the only possible manner, namely, by carrying
off themselves. Their zaptiahs and their mudurs, their bimbashis (phonetic),
the ubashis (phonetic), their kaymakams and their pashas, one and all, bag and
baggage, shall, I hope, clear out from the provinces they have desolated and
profaned. This thorough riddance, this
most blessed deliverance is the only reparation we can make to the memory of
those heaps on heaps of dead, to the violated purity alike of a matron, of
maiden and of child.
There is not a criminal in a European
gaol, there is not a cannibal in the South Sea Islands whose indignation would
not arise and overboil at the recital of that which has been done, which has
late been examined, but which remains unavenged, which has left behind all the
foul and all the fierce passions that produced it, and which may again spring
up in another more murderous harvest from the soil soaked and reeking with
blood, and the air tainted with every imaginable deed of crime and shame. No government ever has so sinned; none has
proved itself so incorrigible in sin, which is the same so impotent for
reformation.
After this broadside, relations between
the two men became so strained that Lord Beaconsfield, as Disraeli now was,
publicly described Gladstone as worse than any Bulgarian horror.
At the end of the year a conference of the
great powers was held at Constantinople at which Lord Salisbury as the British
representative displayed for the first time his diplomatic talents. Salisbury was the direct descendant of Queen
Elizabeth's great servant, William Cecil, and of James I's minister, Robert Cecil,
whose namesake he was. Over a period of
20 years in both Houses of Parliament, he had been highly critical of his
chief. He had joined Disraeli's
government only after much heart‑searching, but in office gradually the
two men grew together. Salisbury's
caustic, far ranging common sense supplemented Disraeli's darting vision. As Secretary of State for India and later at
the foreign office, Salisbury established himself as the next predestined Tory
leader.
At Constantinople a program of reform for
Turkey was drawn up, but the Turks, sustained in part by a belief that
Salisbury's zeal for reform did not entirely reflect the views of his Prime
Minister and the British Cabinet, rejected it.
The delegates returned to their capitals, and Europe waited for war to
break out between Russia and Turkey.
When it came in the summer of 1877, the mood of the country quickly
changed. Gladstone, whose onslaught on
the Turks had first carried all before it, was now castigated as a pro‑Russian. Feeling rose as month after month, in spite
of heroic Turkish resistance, especially at Plevna (phonetic) in Bulgaria, the
mass of Russian troops removed ponderously toward the Dardanelles.
At last in January 1878 they stood before
the walls of Constantinople. Public
opinion reached fever point. The music
hall song of the hour was: We do not
want to fight, but by jingo if we do, we have got the ships, we have got the
men, we have got the money, too. We
fought the bear before, and while we are Britons true, the Russians shall not
have Constantinople.
In February, after considerable
prevarication, a fleet of British ironclads steamed into the Golden Horn. They lay in the seas of Marmara, opposite the
Russian army for six uneasy months of truce, the whale, as Bismarck said,
facing the elephant.
* (1530)
In March, Turkey and Russia signed the
treaty of San Stefano. Andrassy, the
Austrian foreign minister, in anger called it an orthodox, Slavic sermon. It gave Russia effective control of the
Balkans and was obviously unacceptable to the other great powers. War again seemed likely, and Lord Derby, who
objected to any kind of military preparations, resigned. He was replaced at the foreign office by Lord
Salisbury who immediately set upon summoning a conference of the great powers.
They met at the Congress of Berlin in June
and July. Business was dominated by Andrassy, Beaconsfield, Bismarck and the
Russian minister, Gorchakov, a quartet whose combined diplomatic talents would
have been difficult to match. The result
was that Russia gave up much of what she had momentarily gained at San
Stefano. She kept Russian Bessarabia,
which extended her territories to the mouths of the Danube, but the big
Bulgaria which she had planned to dominate was split into three parts, only one
of which was granted practical independence.
The rest was returned to the sultan.
Austria‑Hungary, as we now call the
Hapsburg Empire, secured in compensation the right to occupy and administer
Bosnia‑Herzegovina. By a separate
Anglo‑Turkish convention, Great Britain received Cyprus and guaranteed
the territorial integrity of Turkey and Asia in return for yet another pledge
by the sultan to introduce proper reforms.
Beaconsfield returned from Britain
claiming that he had brought peace with honour.
He had indeed averted war for the moment. Russia, blocked in the Balkans, turned her
gaze away from Europe to the Far East.
The arrangements at Berlin had been much criticized for laying the trail
to the war of 1914. But the eastern
question as it was then posed before the nations was virtually insoluble. No settlement could have been more than a
temporary one and the Congress of Berlin, in fact, ensured the peace of Europe
for 36 years.
The following weeks saw the zenith of
Beaconsfield's career, but fortune soon ceased to smile upon him. Thrusting policies in South Africa and
Afghanistan led, in 1879, to construction of a British battalion by the Zulus
at Islandhlwana and the massacre of the legation staff at Kabul. These minor disasters, though promptly
avenged, lent fresh point to Gladstone's vehement assault upon the government,
an assault which reached its climax in the autumn of 1879 with the Midlothian
campaign.
Gladstone denounced a bigger risk, that is
to say narrow, restless, blustering and self‑assertive foreign policy.
Appealing to the self‑love and pride of the community, he argued that
Britain should pursue the path of morality and justice, free from the taint of
self‑interest. Her aims should be
self‑government for subject peoples, and the promotion of a true concert
of Europe. His constant theme was the
need for the nation's policy to conform with the moral law. Remember, he said, Adelphi, that the sanctity
of life in the hill villages of Afghanistan among the winter snows is as
inviolable in the eyes of almighty God as can be your own.
This appeal to morality infuriated the
Conservatives, who based their case on the importance of defending and
forwarding British interests and responsibilities wherever they might lie. They
maintained that Beaconsfield policy had raised national power and prestige to
new heights, but the force of Gladstone's oratory was too much for the
exhausted ministry. Moreover, their last
years in office coincided with the onset of an economic depression serious
enough for industry but ruinous for agriculture.
When Beaconsfield dissolved in March 1880,
the electoral result was decisive. The
Queen was forced to accept as Prime Minister for a second time the man whom she
described in a letter to her private secretary, Sir Henry Possenby (phonetic),
as that half mad firebrand who would soon ruin everything.
While the duel between Disraeli and
Gladstone held the centre of the stage, far‑reaching movements were
taking shape below the surface of parliamentary politics. The Reform Act of 1867, in granting the vote
to virtually every adult male resident in a borough, killed the modified 18th
Century regime which had persisted since 1832.
The emergence of a mass electorate called
for a new kind of politics. Sheer
numbers rendered the old techniques ineffective in the large cities. Two things were required, a party policy
which would persuade the electors to vote and an efficient organization to make
sure that they did so.
Of the two leaders, Gladstone was slow to
see the implications of the new age. The
great demagogue was bored by the ordinary everyday business of party. Disraeli, on the other hand, produced both a
policy and an organization. Twelve years
earlier, he had appointed John Gorst as party manager under whose guidance the
Conservative Party was completely overhauled.
The central office was established, and an
network of local associations was set up combined in a national union. The transition was remarkably slow, and
although there were to be storms in the early 1880s, the system created by
Disraeli still remains largely at the present time.
In the Liberal camp, the situation was
very different. Gladstone's coolness and weak hostility prevented the building
of a centralized party organization. The
impulse and impetus came not from the centre but through the provinces.
In 1873, Joseph Chamberlain had become
mayor of Birmingham. Aided by a most able political advisor, Schnardhorst
(phonetic), he built up a party machine which, although based on popular participation,
his enemies quickly condemned as a caucus.
A policy of municipal socialism brought great benefits to Birmingham in
the shape of public utilities, some clearance and other civic amenities.
The movement spread to other towns and
cities, and a national Liberal federation was born. The aim of its promoters was to make the
federation the parliament of the Liberal movement which would work out a
radical program and eventually replace the Whigs by a new set of leaders drawn
from its own ranks. This was a novel
phenomenon. Unlike Chartism and the anti‑corn‑law
league, movements for reform needed no longer to operate on the fringe of a
party. Radicalism was now powerful
enough to make a bid for control.
This change was greatly aided by the clustering
of the parties around opposite social poles, a process well underway by 1880
and which Gladstone recognized in the course of his election campaign. I am sorry, he declared, to say we cannot
reckon upon the aristocracy. We cannot
reckon upon what is called the landed interest.
We cannot reckon upon the clergy of the established church either in
England or in Scotland. We cannot reckon
upon the wealth of the country nor upon the rank of the country. In the main, these powers are against
us. We must set down among our most
determined foes.
At the election, Chamberlain and his
followers put forward a program of reform which was unacceptable to the Whigs
and indeed to Gladstone. Their success
exposed and proclaimed the wide changes which the new franchise had wrought in
the structure of the party system.
Gladstone and Disraeli had done much to
bridge the gap between aristocratic rule and democracy. They both believed that governments should be
active and that the statute books for the years between 1868 and 1876 bulge
with reforming measures. Elections gradually became a judgment of what the
government of the day had accomplished, an assessment of the promises for the
future made by the two parties.
By 1880, they were being fought with
techniques which differ very little from those used today. Gladstone's Midlothian campaign, the first
broad appeal to the people by a potential Prime Minister, underlined the
change. It shocked the Queen that he
should make a speech about foreign policy from a railway carriage window, but
her protest echoed an age that had already passed. This was the way to become the people's
William.
Beaconsfield died a year later. His great task, taken on almost single‑handed,
had been to lead the Conservative Party out of despair for the period of 1846,
to persuade it to face the inevitability of democracy, and to endow it with the
policies that would meet the new conditions.
That he was successful is a remarkable indication of his skill in all
matters related to party. He made the
Conservatives a great force in democratic politics. The large scale two‑party system with
its swing of the pendulum begins with him.
Tory democracy, working men by hundreds of
thousands who voted Conservative, became the dominant factor. The extension of the franchise, which had
hitherto threatened to engulf the past, bore it proudly forward. Whereas the Whigs vanished from the scene,
the Tories, though they were slow to realize it, sprang into renewed life and
power with a fair future before them.
Such was the work of Disraeli for which his name will be duly honoured.
* (1540)
And that, Madam Deputy Speaker, brings us
to the period of 1880.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Alligator pie, alligator pie, if I do not get
some, I think I am going to die.
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, I rather like Alligator Pie, I must
suggest to the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie). It was one of my favourite books that I used
to select to read to my daughter Jennie but I think she took my copy when she
went off to university, so I will have to deny the member for Flin Flon the
pleasure of hearing Alligator Pie read by the member for River Heights.
An Honourable Member: One of the nicest readings we have ever had
in the Legislature.
Mrs. Carstairs: Thank you.
The next election after the Reform Act of
1867, the Liberal Party returned to power with Gladstone as its leader‑‑and
I am now reading, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the purpose of Hansard, from The
Record of Mankind.
In 1872 he secured the passage of a bill
providing for the secret or Australian ballot, but the drive for political
democracy in Great Britain carried over into the present century.
Now we are going to hit the 20th Century.
It now took the form of an attack upon the
House of Lords. That body did not represent the people, and yet it frequently
blocked legislation which public opinion favoured. In 1911, another Liberal, David Lloyd George,
led both the Liberal and the Labour parties in securing passage of the famous Parliament
Act. The Lords agreed to it only when threatened, as in 1832, with being
swamped by a large number of newly created Liberal peers. The Parliament Act
deprived the Upper Chamber of all control of money bills, that is, bills
levying taxes or making appropriations.
The act further provided that any bill passed by the Commons in three
successive sessions should become law after two years even though not approved
by the House of Lords. Thus, by 1911,
the real authority in British government was in the hands of the people's
representatives, the House of Commons.
About the time of the passage of the Third
Reform Act, 1884, a campaign began for votes for women. This demand aroused the anger and ridicule of
Liberals and Conservatives alike. Nevertheless, the supporters of women's
suffrage were persistent. They formed
organizations to promote their cause, debated on the platform and in the
newspapers, and introduced bills into Parliament proposing equal political rights
for women.
The movement made slow progress. A few women impatient with peaceful methods
became militant suffragettes. They broke
up public meetings, smashed shop windows, slashed paintings in art galleries and
committed other outrages to bring their cause prominently before the people.
Then came World War I. The patriotic service of British women in the
hospitals, in munitions factories and on the farms strengthened the cause of
women's suffrage. In 1918‑‑I
digress just a moment to foresay it was 1916 in this province‑‑Parliament
passed the Equal Franchise Act, granting the right to vote to women who were 30
years of age or older. Ten years later,
in 1928, the government made the qualifications for voting the same for both
sexes.
Great Britain had thus abandoned the old
feudal idea that voting is a privilege attached to the ownership of property,
especially land. Voting is now a right
to be enjoyed by every citizen. The will
of the majority of the people guides the actions of Parliament. Politically, Great Britain ranks among the most
democratic of modern countries.
The British Constitution is partly written
and partly unwritten. The written part
consists of such documents as Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, which
represents agreements between king and people, parliamentary statutes such as
the Habeas Corpus Act, the Act of Settlement and various reform acts,
international treaties, including the union with Scotland and the union with
Ireland, and the common law as expressed in court decisions. These various
documents have never been brought together in one complete statement as in the
Constitutions of the United States, France and other modern countries like
Canada.
The unwritten part of the British
Constitution includes a mass of customs followed by both Crown and Parliament. Some of them reach back to medieval times,
but others are more recent, such as those relating to the cabinet. Traditional usages of this sort grow up in
every government. For example, in the
United States, custom gives the two major political parties an important part
in carrying on the government, although the Constitution does not provide for
political parties.
The party system has become part of the
unwritten Constitution. So far as
appearances go, the sovereign of Great Britain is a monarch who rules by divine
right. Whatever the government does,
from the arrest of a criminal to the declaration of war, is done in the name of
the king, or queen, since the accession of Elizabeth II. Coins and proclamations still say that he
rules by the grace of God, dea gratia, or in the case of Queen Elizabeth II,
deo gratia, but the British sovereign now acts only by and with the advice of
his responsible ministers; that is, ministers responsible to the people. He reigns but he does not rule. The sovereign occupies nevertheless a useful
place in the British system of government.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not think there
is a quorum in this Chamber. I would
like to call for a quorum.
Madam Deputy Speaker: A quorum has been requested. I would ask all members present to rise in
their places and ask that the Clerk at the table call out and record the names
of those present.
Point of
Order
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Madam Deputy
Speaker, quorum was called prior to myself, the Minister of Education (Mrs.
Vodrey), the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) and the member for Elmwood (Mr.
Maloway) were inside the Chamber, so I would suggest, when we are counting the
quorum, that members who were not inside this Chamber do the honourable thing
and not participate in the quorum count.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): First of all, Madam
Deputy Speaker, I think this is a rather incredible attempt to raise a point of
order. The member for Inkster (Mr.
Lamoureux) walked out. How would he know
who was in the Chamber and who was not?
Second of all, I point out that it is not appropriate for members to
make reference to absence of members in the House and, third, that we are currently
having a quorum count, as was requested.
We should proceed with that without what was not a legitimate point of
order.
Mrs. Carstairs: Madam Deputy Speaker, I clearly do know who
was in this Chamber at the time that I requested a quorum. At the time that I requested the quorum, the
members identified by the member for Inkster were indeed not in this
Chamber. Now if there is to be quorum in
this House, surely the quorum must reflect the number of people who were in
this Chamber at the moment that quorum was requested, and the moment that
quorum was requested, a number of the people presently sitting in their seats
were not here. I think it is only
appropriate that those people absent themselves from this Chamber for the
quorum count, and I would urge the Deputy Speaker to so direct.
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Northern Affairs): Madam
Deputy Speaker, you have, as we have just heard, said you were about to call
and count as to whether there is a quorum here.
I think you should proceed to do that.
* (1550)
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Deputy Speaker, I would suggest that we
reflect back to another opportunity where there was a quorum called. The Speaker who was in the Chair asked
individuals who were not inside the Chamber at the time that the quorum was
being called exclude themselves from the quorum count. Now the Speaker of this Chamber had that
request that time. I would suggest the
same request should apply for this quorum count also, because it is a part,
again, of the Rules and the tradition of this Chamber. As the current Speaker himself had asked
previously on a quorum count, when the quorum has been called for, the members
in the Chamber are the ones who count, not members who come in after the quorum
count.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Deputy Speaker, I do believe there is a
willingness to continue in terms of this debate, and in fact I do not know what
the logic of the Liberal House leader was in leaving the Chamber. If he does not want to listen to his own Leader's
speech, we are quite prepared and have been doing so for the last six or seven
hours. I would suggest, we might even
want to rethink whether we have a quorum call or not and continue to deal with
the business of the province for the next two hours and 10 minutes.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
If I may have the attention of all members of the House for a moment,
please. I am awaiting the ruling of the
Speaker from the precedent last year before making a ruling both on the point
of order and continuing with the quorum count.
* (1600)
Mr. Downey: Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to speak to the
point of something that I just heard the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs.
Carstairs) say that it was the Tories who broke the quorum, when in fact we were
sitting in the House listening to a speech when in fact the Liberal Leader
caucused with two of her members and instructed them, we believe, to leave the
Assembly‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable minister does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.
Order, please. I am ruling on the point of order. May I have your attention, please.
On June 22, Speaker Rocan ruled: When a quorum count is requested, members are
requested to rise in their places in order to have their names called and
recorded. Therefore, any members present
in the House but not in their places when a quorum count is requested should
return immediately to their places.
In Beauchesne, Citation 282 reads: While the House is being counted, the doors
remain open and members can come in during the whole time occupied by the
counting. Sir John Bourinot,
Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada (4th edition,
1916), page 218.
Therefore, I am ruling that members can
come in while the House is being counted.
The member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) did
not have a point of order. In fact,
according to Citation 281.(2) in Beauchesne: While the count of the House is
taking place, no point of order or question of privilege will be considered by
the Chair. Debates, May 5, 1982, page 17067.
I should not have recognized the
honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), and I apologize to the House for
that.
In any event, a quorum existed by the time
the points of order were raised.
* * *
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
I have not recognized the honourable member.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Deputy Speaker, you have made a ruling,
and I would like to challenge that ruling. This is the time to challenge the ruling.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged.
All those in favour of sustaining the
ruling, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members:
Nay.
Madam Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Lamoureux: Yeas and Nays, Madam Deputy Speaker.
* (1700)
Madam Deputy Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.
Order, please. The question before the House is: Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?
A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as
follows:
Yeas
Ashton, Barrett,
Cerilli, Cummings, Derkach, Dewar, Doer, Downey, Driedger, Ducharme, Ernst,
Evans (Interlake), Findlay, Friesen, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Hickes, Laurendeau,
Maloway, Manness, Martindale, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Neufeld,
Orchard, Pallister, Praznik, Reid, Reimer, Render, Rose, Santos, Stefanson,
Storie, Sveinson, Vodrey.
Nays
Carstairs, Edwards,
Gaudry, Lamoureux.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Yeas 38, Nays 4.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been sustained.
The hour being five o'clock, it is time for
private members' hour.
Committee
Changes
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for
Madam Deputy Speaker: Agreed?
Agreed and so ordered.
Is it the will of the House to call it six
o'clock?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: No.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
PRIVATE
MEMBERS' BUSINESS
DEBATE ON
SECOND READINGS‑‑PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 200‑‑The
Child and Family Services Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable member
for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), Bill 200, The Child and Family Services Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services a l'enfant et a la famille, standing
in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), who has
seven minutes remaining.
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Also standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Child and Family
Services (Mr. Gilleshammer). Stand.
Is there leave that this matter remain
standing in the name of the two honourable members? [agreed]
Bill 203‑‑The
Health Care Records Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis), Bill 203, The Health Care
Records Act; Loi sur les dossiers medicaux, standing in the name of the honourable
member for Emerson (Mr. Penner).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
Bill 205‑‑The
Ombudsman Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), Bill 205, The Ombudsman Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur l'ombudsman, standing in the name of the honourable member
for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed]
SECOND
READINGS‑‑PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Speaker: Are we proceeding with Bill 202? No?
Okay. Are we proceeding with Bill
208? No?
Okay. Proceeding with Bill
209? No?
Okay. How about Bill 211? No?
Okay.
PROPOSED
RESOLUTIONS
Res. 11‑‑Environmental
Initiatives
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau
(St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for
WHEREAS promoting and practising an
environmentally friendly way of life is important to all Manitobans; and
WHEREAS there are many programs currently
in place that help foster environmentally efficient practices such as the 3
R's: reduce, reuse and recycle; and
WHEREAS it is essential to encourage an
energy efficient and environmentally conscious lifestyle through recycling and
conservation of our natural resources;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba encourage all Manitobans to adopt an
environmentally sustainable lifestyle by making the effort to recycle and conserve
our natural resources.
Motion presented.
Mr. Laurendeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is one area that
we, in this House, can all come to an agreement on and that is on the
importance of our environment and our initiatives that we bring forward, not only
as a group within the Legislature, but as individuals on whom rests the true
responsibility of recycling and reducing and encouraging the proper management
of our natural resources throughout the country, not only the country but the
world. It is not only a global effort
that is required today. We also have to bring about the awareness to the
citizens of communities on how important it is to move towards this area.
Within the area of waste, Mr. Speaker, is
the first area I would like to touch on.
In my area, particularly, we have what is going to be the only landfill
in the city of Winnipeg, at the Brady landfill.
Even though it is one of the best in North America and they do have a
lot of the proper initiatives put in place at the landfill, we do have to
expand its use to a lot more than just the 40‑years life that they are
projecting for the facility.
Mr. Speaker, the day we stop calling the
vehicles that come down our highways carrying the waste garbage trucks and
start calling them waste reclamation units‑‑and that is what they
should be because until we start really reclaiming a lot more of the waste that
is going to our landfill, we will have a problem and a lot of concerns. Our children have been lucky that they are
being instructed in the schools and have been able to instruct us as parents on
the importance of recycling and reuse of products. I, myself, learned from my children on a lot
of the important issues around recycling and the preserving of our natural
resources.
Mr. Speaker, where do we go and how do we
put the concepts around the issue?
Governments of the day have to understand that, yes, we have to educate
our children and the general population, but we also have to educate those
industries that are producing the waste.
In some cases, those industries do not want to learn or be
responsible. I feel that by putting in
place these licensing practices and initiating a system to have the waste
producers pay their way and be responsible for the products that they are
producing, it is not only governments, but the population of the country that
ends up gaining from that resource.
Mr. Speaker, the government has been at
the forefront in ensuring that sustainable development is pursued throughout
Manitoba. I have seen a number of initiatives
brought forward by this government. I
have seen initiatives that were brought forward by past governments, and I must
say that I am pleased with a lot of the initiatives that were brought forward
by governments throughout our country to this time.
Mr. Speaker, we do have to move into
another phase. We have to start moving
not only at the education of the masses, but we have to be educating those
industries that are creating it. Why is
it that the newspaper business can create such a large portion of the waste
going to our landfills but not have to put any expense into reclaiming those
products? The packaging industries and
the bottle recycling programs that are in place are good, but are they
capturing enough?
* (1710)
I think it is time we move ahead and start
looking at more innovative ways of capturing some of the waste, and instructing
on a whole all the people of Manitoba. I
think by ourselves here in the Legislature starting to practise more of the environmentally
friendly ways.
I know I have seen the honourable members
with their plastic cups. I do try to
carry mine, but I forget. I do forget to
bring it, and I end up with my other cup here in front of me and I think about
it after. I think that is because I was
not educated along the way.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): What do you mean you were not educated along
the way?
Mr. Laurendeau: On that program, for the honourable member for
St. Boniface. I am glad to see that you are
finally listening, because I saw that when the Liberals were looking through
the little window past there trying to obstruct the way this House operates,
that they could wave friendly gestures, but that is all they could do. I am pleased that they were friendly gestures
that the Liberals wave our way.
Oh, Mr. Speaker, I believe the member for
St. Boniface might have a question.
Point of
Order
Mr. Gaudry: I thought you would listen to what he is saying
because he is not relevant to the resolution he has on the Order Paper today.
The member for St. Norbert is not being
relevant to what he is talking about on the resolution on the Order Paper.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for St. Boniface does
not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for St. Norbert, to
carry on with his remarks.
Mr. Laurendeau: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I thought when I
talked about a Liberal I was always talking about something that was reclaimed
because they usually are recycled to get here.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to stick to the
subject and, if the Liberals would care to listen, it would make it much
easier, but when they try to drag you off the discussion that you are on and
bring you onto the issue which is more important to them. That issue is probably something that is not
relevant to me, so I am not going to attempt to listen to those members, even
though they are running for leadership of their party.
I am going to attempt to stay to the
facts. The facts are, Mr. Speaker, this
resolution is very important. I know
that the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) and the member for Inkster (Mr.
Lamoureux) and the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) will support this
resolution. They know it is very
important to this province that we move and we move in the direction of
educating our children and the rest of the people throughout the communities.
Mr. Speaker, having a landfill in my area
opens my eyes to a lot of the initiatives when I see thousands of waste
recycling units travelling through the highway to basically put away, where the
public can no longer see, a product that could possibly be recycled. We do have to lay that responsibility on the
industries that are producing it and start to be a lot more proactive than we
have in the past.
I know that the honourable member for St.
Boniface is dying to get up and speak on this issue, but I do have a little bit
more time left, and I am going to stay here and just finish putting my thoughts
on the record.
The government has been supporting a broad
range of community activities through the Sustainable Development Innovation
Fund, including projects aimed at increasing individual citizen awareness of
sustainable development.
Mr. Speaker, I could go through a whole
list, but I am not about to sit here and read from my notes, as some members
from the Liberal Party have done over the past two weeks. I could sit and read from a book or read from
papers for three or four hours very easily myself, but as you are aware, there
are rules that prevent us from doing that.
I am not about to abuse the rules and sit here and read and read.
I am glad that the honourable member for
St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) has joined me here to hear this presentation. Maybe at this range, he will be able to
understand a little bit more the concept.
A little bit more understanding from the Liberals is very
appropriate. I have always enjoyed his
company, and I have always enjoyed having him come and visit on this side of
the House. I have always found him to be
a lot more conservative than those members anyway.
I know that all members of this House
understand the issue. All members of this House understand how important it
is. I am waiting and honestly would like
to hear from the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) where he stands on these
issues, seeing as he is probably going to be the next Leader of the Liberal
Party in this province. I am really
looking forward to hearing his views on the environmental issues because as the
Leader of the Liberal Party in this province, he will have a lot of weight on
his shoulders, and as the Leader of the Liberals in this province, I think he
is going to have a lot of effort to go forward.
I know the honourable member for St. James
(Mr. Edwards) is trying hard to get it, but the grassroots will elect the
member for Inkster. It is just the way
it is going to be. He has told me all
about it.
Mr. Speaker, I am waiting with bated
breath to hear the honourable member for Inkster.
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, it gives me some pleasure to
stand and speak to the resolution put forward by the member for St. Norbert
(Mr. Laurendeau). [interjection] Well, quite a bit of pleasure because I
actually read‑‑and what is here I agree with. The problem is what is not here.
This resolution talks about promoting and
practising an environmentally friendly way of life. I completely agree with that. It talks about the many programs currently in
place that help foster environmentally efficient practices. There are many programs. The unfortunate truth is that the government
is not supporting those programs that are doing these things and, secondly, is
not coming up with the programs to achieve the ends they say they want to. That is the problem.
It goes on: WHEREAS it is essential to encourage an
energy efficient and environment conscious lifestyle through recycling and
conservation of our natural resources.
Again, I agree
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba encourage all Manitobans to adopt an
environmentally sustainable lifestyle by making the effort to recycle and
conserve our natural resources.
I could not agree more with that
statement, Mr. Speaker. The unfortunate
reality, however, is that the government of Manitoba, as I have said many
times, certainly knows how to say sustainable development, they know how to
write it, they know how to make it look good on slanty writing, on nice
booklets, glossy pamphlets. Anywhere you can put those words, you put
them. Any speech you can fit them in,
even if you cannot fit them in, you put them in. It is the new jingoism of the 1990s. The Conservatives know that better than
anyone else.
They, more than anyone else, are
responsible for turning that term, I would say by this point, almost into a
term of mockery for the public. The
public just does not believe it any more. They keep hearing people‑‑sustainable
development this, sustainable development that.
Everything has sustainable development laced through the speech, every
Speech from the Throne. Every time
anybody gives anything out they talk about it.
It would not be bad if they knew what it meant. The problem with this government is that
sustainable development has no real meaning for them. They name committees of cabinet, and all
kinds of initiatives are called sustainable development. They understand completely that the polls
show people are interested in this concept and interested in conservation, like
the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), but the truth is actions speak
louder than words.
* (1720)
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately this government
has consistently shown that they are not prepared to take the concept and the
precepts behind sustainable development seriously. That has been borne out throughout their
tenure. Let me just give you one recent
example of that. Mr. Randy Smith, who is
not a well‑known Liberal, I would not say, not a well‑known New
Democrat; no, he is a well‑known Conservative in Brandon and a very
competent lawyer and a nice guy. He was
given the job of sitting on the Clean Environment Commission overseeing the
Abitibi‑Price application to expand their forestry licence into Nopiming
Park. That was a very, very important set of hearings, and do you know
what? He took it seriously. He listened to all the people who came‑‑[interjection]
That was his first problem, as the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux)
says. They did not expect that he would
do that. I do not think they would have
appointed him had they thought he would do that.
He listened to the presentations. The company was represented, had all kinds of
experts there, but the environmental groups did, too. They brought people who spoke about the park,
about sustainable forestry, sustainable development, and that is a perfect
incapsulated case in recent Manitoba history to show what this government's
true intentions are. Because at the end
of the day, Mr. Smith, having heard all of that evidence, being in the absolute
best position of anyone in this province to make that informed decision, being
in the best position having heard all of that evidence, he made a
decision. Do you know what he said? He said the forestry policy of this government
is terrible. It is archaic. It is totally out of sync with public expectation
and what is known today as good environmental practice. He said the province's forestry policy is a
shambles.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you know, that does not
come from a person who has a history of nonpartisanship. That comes from somebody who I think would
want to sympathize with this government, but he just could not. He listened to all of that evidence and he
just could not in good conscience say that.
So he wrote this report.
Now you would think the government getting
that report would say to itself, look, if we were going to get a favourable
report, we would have gotten one from this guy.
So if he is writing this report saying we are not doing a good job at
all, something is really wrong. We know
that he would not have done this unless he really believed it, and he did.
He wrote it in strong terms. It was not a report that skirted the
issues. It laid blame on the Province of
Manitoba for a forestry policy that was not working, was not progressive, was
not in keeping with the principles of sustainable development and simply was
out of sink with what people deserved in this province. That is what he said.
What did the Minister of Environment (Mr.
Cummings) do? Well, he waited a respectable period of time‑‑I think
three or four days‑‑and then it was raised in this House. His response was, well, we are going to grant
the licence anyway. That is what he did,
completely undercutting not just any credibility on forestry, it went beyond
that. This is a point on this issue of
sustainable development as well. What he
did was undercut the committee itself.
The Clean Environment Commission, for the
first time as long as anyone could ever remember, turned someone down,
cold. That is what they did in that
case, and the government's response was not to take them seriously but rather
was to give them the back of their hand and say, no, you have got it
wrong. You were supposed to approve this
thing. You have got it wrong.
They say that to the committee that
listened for weeks to the evidence, looked at this fairly over a period of
time, took time to write the report, crafted a carefully written report. Little did they know that they had to get the
right result as far as the government was concerned, and they did not.
So the Clean Environment Commission was
told, no, you are wrong, and because we have to say something about your
criticisms of our policy, we are going to hold some more public hearings on
forestry.
They pretended to call those new
hearings. There were in fact hearings
already scheduled under the Land and Water Strategy program, Mr. Speaker. In reality, what happened was the whole thing
got swept under the carpet, so the government thought‑‑so they
thought.
Mr. Speaker, that is a very current‑‑that
is by no means the only, and I do not have time to go through the litany of
incidents which prove this‑‑example, a recent example of what this
government actually does in the issue of environmental protection which is a
keystone of sustainable development.
The major problem with this resolution is
not so much what it contains, but what it does not contain. I want to conclude my comments, therefore‑‑and
I want to leave time for other members to speak‑‑by proposing an
amendment, seconded by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux).
I want to add to the resolution the
following additional clause. I think it
is a friendly amendment. It reads as
follows:
AND THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that
the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba condemn the government of Manitoba for
consistently giving only lip service to the concept of sustainable development.
Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that I have
to bring forward that amendment, but I believe it is an amendment which is
warranted, and I would not be making it unless I thought it was warranted.
Thank you.
* (1730)
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed amendment of the honourable
member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), I am having some difficulty with the
relevance of the honourable member's amendment, so therefore I will take the
honourable member's amendment under advisement at this point in time.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Well, Mr. Speaker, I think probably I am
better off speaking to the original resolution.
I think it is a little more straightforward. I have not always agreed with members
opposite, but I think the intent behind this resolution is good.
Mr. Speaker, intent is always a difficult
thing to determine, and certainly over the past couple of weeks, I have had, as
many members in the Chamber have had, some interesting experiences. The fact of
the matter is, in making one's remarks and putting things on the record,
sometimes we are misquoted, sometimes we are misunderstood and sometimes our
intentions are misunderstood. I know, as
anyone in this Chamber‑‑and a recent example is a good one, where
allegations were made about my conduct, and there have been false allegations
made from time to time.
More recently, it was reported quite
wrongly that I had made allegations about other people's conduct, and I want to
say categorically that at no time do I believe or did I ever say that any
members in the Chamber had done anything wrong, Mr. Speaker. I have the utmost
regard for all members.
I regret that my words, perhaps as other
people's words have been twisted in the past, were twisted and used in effect
against me, because I am quite disappointed that that kind of intention was
applied to my words. That is why I say
that this resolution at least is clearer in intention.
I am not sure that the member for St.
James' (Mr. Edwards) additions do anything to clarify it. As I mentioned earlier, sometimes little
additions and little twists here and there of a person's words can create a
great deal of havoc. The member's
additions in this case, I think, are an example of that, where he has twisted
completely the intent of the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I think you were quite right
to take the matter under advisement to make sure that it is consistent with the
rules because we all want to be consistent with the rules.
The fact of the matter is that our critic
for the Environment has some comments about, I guess, the nature of this
resolution, and will want to put on record some clarification, from our
perspective, on the government's handling of what is an important issue. That is waste reduction in our province and
the managing of environmental issues.
As I say, while I appreciate the intent of
this resolution‑‑I think the member for St. Norbert's (Mr.
Laurendeau) heart is in the right place‑‑perhaps, without being
unduly partisan, he should have consulted with the Minister of Environment (Mr.
Cummings) about the government's actions when it comes to the environment,
because they are not always consistent either.
With those few words, Mr. Speaker, I think
the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) has an amendment that she is going to be
introducing, and I simply wanted to add those remarks to the record.
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak
to this resolution. It gives me a much
wanted chance to make some comments about this government's disregard for
matters pertaining to the environment.
This resolution from the member for St.
Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) obviously has not come from the cabinet because I
think it is obvious that this cabinet has the position that they do not even
think the Department of Environment is necessary. We can see that by the way that they have cut
the branch that is going to undertake the waste reduction and recycling
function of this government.
It is interesting, too, to note that the
member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) has not brought in a bill regarding car
safety and MPIC during this session, and has switched to be concerned about the
environment.
We are waiting to have bill that would
address the cuts at MPIC. Perhaps there
might be some interest from the member for St. Norbert about the environmental
initiatives at MPIC, and the fact that MPIC has not been directed by this
government to do all that they could have done to fulfill The Ozone Depleting
Substances Act.
This branch, which is referred to in this
legislation, is the very branch that would have had the relationship with
MPIC. So they could have, in fact, done
all that they could to ensure that ozone‑depleting substances‑‑the
Freon from car air conditioners‑‑are in fact collected in the most
efficient manner.
But, no, this government does not use all
the tools that it has available to it.
When they have some power to deal with garages that are servicing
vehicles through MPIC, they do not move to empower that agency to require the
ozone‑depleting substances to be contained.
We see over and over again, Mr. Speaker,
that this government is all talk and no action on environmental matters and
sustainability. One of the areas that I
have been interested in talking about is forestry, and it was really
interesting this Christmas when we saw the government's disregard and
incomprehension of forestry practices when they were logging right here on the
Legislative grounds. They were cutting
down evergreens for Christmas trees right on the Legislative grounds, and the
attitude was, it was a dead tree. Well,
that tree was viewed by a number of people and the tree was green from top to
bottom.
* (1740)
The attitude that was prevalent in that
action to take down that 40‑ or 50‑year‑old tree is the same
attitude that is practised by this government in its forestry policy, if we can
call it that because this government does not have a forestry policy. It is the attitude that trees have no function
other than in the marketplace. They do
not appreciate that trees in an urban environment are crucial to dealing with
pollution problems, that trees are the lungs of the earth and that those trees
have an important function in creating oxygen for us all to breath in the city.
It is the same attitude that disregards
our call for sustaining the urban elm trees in the city of Winnipeg and where
they have again had to be badgered to give the proper funding so that the urban
forests can be maintained.
One only has to look at the Hazardous
Waste Corporation to see the way that they have neglected to move forward to
build the facility that is going to deal with hazardous waste in this
province. There have been no moves by
this government to move toward sustainable agriculture and to stop encouraging
the overconsumption and overproduction of chemicals in agriculture. We have
seen nothing from this government to move toward organic agriculture.
In terms of wildlife and endangered
species, we have seen moving in the opposite direction when they have changed
The Wildlife Act to encourage development in wildlife management areas. They are nowhere near, Mr. Speaker,
implementing any programs that are going to meet the target to have 50 percent
waste reduction which the Premier (Mr. Filmon) so excitedly said that they were
going to do when he was paddling the canoe in the election. We saw the Premier in the canoe talking about
how they were going to protect the environment.
They are nowhere near going to reach the target.
I would like to see one document from the
Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), as he says they are way ahead of the
target. We have been looking for where
the money is, Mr. Speaker. Where is the
money in the Environmental Innovations Fund that was supposed to go to
innovations in Manitoba? Why are they
spending it on their own government departments, rather than giving it to
organizations that are trying to do environmental education and have conferences
and develop new technologies and to provide programs in the community? But, no, they are spending money collected
from recycled material to subsidize their own government departments,
particularly the Department of Natural Resources and the sustainable
development division, which everybody knows is merely this government giving
more handouts to their engineering buddies and corporate friends in the
auspices of environmental contracts.
Mr. Speaker, the other thing that we have
tried to impress upon this government is if they are really interested in
environmental protection and sustainability, that they would start putting some
money into creating jobs in environmental restoration and environmental
protection rather than cutting those grants to organizations, rather than
cutting the areas in the government in the departments that are responsible for
environmental issues. They are moving in
the opposite direction of sustainability on so many fronts, particularly in
dealing with poverty and ensuring that people have a way of marrying, if you will,
the need for jobs and the need for environmental protection and restoration.
There are so many areas. We have the aqueduct from Shoal Lake that
needs to be maintained. There is a lot
of work that could be created in putting money into fixing up the sewers in
Winnipeg. This government has not
approached, to my knowledge, the federal government at all. There are capital cities across this country
that have gotten money from the federal government to improve their sewer and
water services. This government has
failed in accessing the government money from the federal government that is
available for those projects. They know
it.
It is their buddies in Ottawa who are in
right now. You would think that there
would be some increased improvement in the relationship between the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) of Manitoba and the Prime Minister of this country, but they seem
to have a personality conflict, perhaps, that gets in the way of the progress
of this government and this province in moving towards sustainability and
environmental protection.
I think it is a sad case when the
personality conflicts between the Prime Minister and the Premier of Manitoba
are preventing Manitoba from having its fair share of green plan money and
money from the federal government to improve our sewers and water system, to
improve the aqueduct from Shoal Lake to Winnipeg. That is where there should be jobs created.
We do not need to have the kind of
masquerading, of giving out contracts to rural consultants developing recycling
projects when we know that money is going to Conservative friends, just like
they have done in so many other departments.
Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?
Point of
Order
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, on a
point of order, the member is making some rather serious allegations. I wonder if she would like to substantiate
her charges.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable minister does not have a point
of order. It is a dispute over the
facts.
* * *
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, I have written to the minister,
and I have asked for a complete list of all the individuals and companies that
have gotten grants under the Innovations Fund.
I would ask the minister to table a complete list in‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) clearly put on the record allegations of
impropriety by the minister, suggesting that the Environmental Innovations Fund
provided money to personal friends of the minister and so on. That is a distinct allegation. Either she
should back it up with facts or withdraw and apologize.
Ms. Cerilli: I said that they were friends of the
government, not personal friends of the minister.
The point is, Mr. Speaker‑‑and
I would think that they know who their friends are‑‑
Mr. Speaker: You are still on the point of order.
Ms. Cerilli: I think that they know who their friends are,
Mr. Speaker‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
On the point of order raised, the honourable minister did not have a
point of order. It was a dispute over
the facts.
* * *
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, can you tell me how much time I
have left?
Mr. Speaker: Four and a half minutes.
Ms. Cerilli: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to move a motion to amend the
resolution. I move
THAT the resolution be amended by adding
after the words "efficient practices" the words "being
dismantled since they cut the branch," and in the third WHEREAS by
substituting the words "it has not encouraged" instead of
"essential to encourage," and finally in the THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
after the words "Manitobans" to include "let this government
know how miserably they are failing."
I would like to move that, seconded by the
member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Radisson has moved
an amendment to Resolution 11.
Unfortunately, I may not accept the honourable member's amendment at
this time because the House is already in possession of an amendment moved by the
honourable member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), which I have taken under
advisement. Therefore, unfortunately, I
may not accept the honourable member's amendment.
Is the House ready for the question?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a few
comments to this motion. It seems to me
that the opposition likes to revel in a lot of verbiage without very much
substantiation of their knowledge of the environmental issues in this province.
First of all, we have the Liberal critic
spending a whole lot of time talking about issues that he perceives to have
taken too long to have been handled or perhaps should be handled more
aggressively. On the other hand, we have
the NDP critic standing on her feet suggesting the department is full of
improprieties or that the department or this minister is not taking
responsibility for its actions in the field of waste reduction and in
protection of the environment.
* (1750)
I find it absolutely titillating to think
that the NDP is now complaining about respect for the environment and how the
Progressive Conservative government here in Manitoba is in their opinion
neglecting care and responsibility for the environment when our neighbours to
the west, the Romanow government, it seems to me that they still call
themselves NDP‑‑given their budget, I am not sure that they are
still sticking to the original election promises‑‑but what did they
do about the environment? They did away
with the whole department. They blew
them away. That is how they respect the
environmental protection in Saskatchewan.
Mr. Speaker, the member raised some very
foolish, in my opinion, concerns about what is happening in terms of how this
government has used the funds which are produced from, first of all, the
elimination of the exemption on the diaper tax and put into a sustainable
development fund in order to encourage some innovations and activity around
environmental protection and enhancement.
The member challenged me as to whether or not I was able to produce a
record of the people who had access to funds from that fund. Every single contract or grant that was
awarded under that fund has been tabled in this House, and the member continues
to say that she lacks information. Well,
if she has some information that I do not have she better be tabling her
information, because every dollar that has been spent out of that fund is
accounted for in the House in a report that was tabled here and will be tabled
again this year as a result of the 1992 expenditures‑‑every dollar.
At the same time, we have a number of
regional waste disposal ground initiatives in rural Manitoba that are presently
using funds out of this allocation to do research and design on waste disposal
sites in rural Manitoba. Mr. Speaker,
most of those contracts have been awarded to an organization called Earthbound
Consultants, and if anybody can tell me who the heck owns Earthbound
Consultants then they probably have more personal knowledge about it than I do.
The Department of Environment has had some
very significant successes in terms of initiatives that are bearing fruit today
and will bear fruit throughout the 1993‑94 years in terms of waste
reduction. The members opposite with
great glee jumped up pointing at me saying that the policy branch of the
Department of Environment, that the Waste Reduction and Prevention branch was
gone, with little regard to the fact that they are reorganized back into the
department to implement the very initiatives that they brought forward.
Manitoba is recognized across Canada as being
the leader in The Ozone Depleting Substances Act and implementation of the
regulations that go with that. Other
jurisdictions, in fact, copy our regulations, copy our legislation and,
frankly, it has become very noticeable that other jurisdictions call upon the
expertise that is resident in the Manitoba Department of Environment to give
them advice on the experience that they have had with Ozone Depleting
Substances Act and the regulations that go with that.
The initiatives that we have undertaken regarding
tires, we are one of the few provinces in Canada that will have a clearly
defined plan in place before the summer is over. That Manitoba‑‑and as recently as
a few hours ago I had an opportunity to discuss with representatives from
United States where they are headed and where we may be headed in terms of
dealing with waste tires across the province.
It seems to me that the province of Manitoba is in very good shape
related to other jurisdictions, and the flow of tires back to recycling will
increase dramatically this summer.
Manitoba is also presently the location
for what I think is one of the most innovative and technologically advanced
methods of dealing with used oil, specifically to refer to the organization and
a company known as Enviro‑Oil.
They now have a fully operating plant here in Manitoba, in
Winnipeg. They will likely have a second
one up and going in Virden this summer.
As that capacity to recycle that oil into No. 2 diesel is enhanced, we
will have an opportunity to then take the oil from a number of the communities
around the province who are now establishing their own waste oil collection
sites. In the very near future I can,
without fear of contradiction, say that we will see most of the used oil that
is generated in this province either recycled into No. 2 diesel, as this
company would like to do, or put into other alternative uses that are
environmentally sensitive, and have this waste permanently removed from our
environment.
Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, one of
the issues that tends to tantalize all of us is the return of old newspaper for
recycling. Development of systems in the
province have not left us with a situation where we have huge warehouses full
of newsprint that cannot be moved. The
fact is the market for old newsprint has grown dramatically to the point where
those who are now actively shipping old newsprint are searching for additional
product. That means that the time is
exactly right for us to enhance our collection system so that the volumes of
paper that are needed to supply that market can flow directly to the market
rather than be subsidized at taxpayers' expense. It will be handled at the expense of those
who put the waste into the environment.
I suggest that this is one of the problems
that both opposition parties have, is that they believe that government should
be moving in with large gobs of tax dollars in order to initiate and to drive
recycling programs across the province. The fact is that those recycling
programs can and will be driven by the value of the product. Mr. Speaker‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you call the
Minister of Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) in order. She is shouting things at me, and I am having
a difficult time hearing the Minister of Environment make his presentation
because the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is shouting things
across the House.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised, I would remind
all honourable members, if they want to carry on a private conversation, they
can do so outside the Chamber.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Environment, to
carry on with his remarks.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I have been known to make hour‑long
speeches on this topic, so I have a couple of other items that I would like to
touch on very quickly, that the members opposite seem to be so shortsighted in
the way they look at the advantages that we have in this province and the
technological capabilities that we have.
Two items that are very, very important
that I think will put this province apart from some other regions or certainly
keep us close to the lead is in terms of biological weed control and
bioremediation of certain wastes in the environment.
The fact is that occasionally funds are
taken from the Environmental Innovations Fund into the Department of
Agriculture to manage those types of initiatives, very specific initiatives.
That means that in the long run, if they are successful‑‑and in
many cases they have been successful‑‑we can eliminate the number
of toxic chemicals that are used in weed control, that are used in the control
of infestation of bugs of various natures that attack our fruit, vegetable
crops and a number of our other cereals, where we now have serious problems
with the potential chemical resistance on some weed species.
While this is very low key, and there is
not a lot of pizazz in having people go out and look at a field that has a lot
of bugs in it, the fact is that in the long run, I am a committed believer that
this is the type of work with the type of people whom we have working in this
province that will lead to some very interesting and I believe successful long‑term
results.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House,
the honourable minister will have four minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is now
adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).