LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday,
March 25, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Ms. Wowchuk). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?
[agreed]
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): 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. Dewar). 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? [agreed]
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
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? [agreed]
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)
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Clif Evans) and it complies with the privileges and the
practices of the House and it 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 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
PRESENTING
REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Third
Report of the Standing Committee on Economic Development.
Mr.
Clerk (William Remnant): Your
Standing Committee on Economic Development presents the following as its Third
Report:
Your committee met on Tuesday, March 23,
1993, at 7:30 p.m. in Room 255 of the
Ms. Loretta Clarke, General Manager, and
Mr. Gordon Wakeling, Manager of Finance, provided such information as was
requested with respect to the Annual Report and business of the Communities
Economic Development Fund.
Your committee has considered the Annual
Report of the Communities Development Fund for the year ended March 31, 1992,
and has adopted the same as presented.
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the report of the committee
be received.
Motion agreed to.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Sunday
Shopping
Standing
Committee Referral
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy
Premier (Mr. Downey). We were quite
surprised today to see on the Notice Paper a new bill dealing with The Retail
Businesses
Obviously, they did not mean what they
said in this House and to the people of
I would like to ask the Deputy Premier
(Mr. Downey): Why have we not had the
Sunday shopping hearings? Why has the
government not allowed the public to speak up on this issue? What is the
government going to do in terms of public input before the trial period ends in
a week and a half?
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, this bill will be open to the
public through a legislative hearing process in the Legislature as all other
bills that go through this Legislative Assembly.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the government promised to have
public hearings. I will quote the
minister, the minister's own words on March 2:
"It is expected that the committee dealing with this matter
responsible will be called very shortly."
Why did the government break its word to
the people of
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, there has been no commitment
broken. When legislation is prepared for this Assembly, there is a process
which it goes through in which the public have an opportunity to make full and
complete representation to. The process
has not changed for this bill as it has not changed for any other bill.
* (1340)
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I guess the one thing that has
not changed is the words of this government, this Conservative government, in
this Chamber mean nothing for the people of
Sunday
Shopping
Standing
Committee Referral
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, this government received maximum
co‑operation from the opposition.
We agreed to pass a bill in December to second reading so the public
would have a chance to speak out. We
agreed to co‑operate with the government, because we knew they had no
legislative authority to tell the Crown attorneys of this province not to
prosecute the existing Sunday shopping law which was passed by this Legislature
in 1987.
I would ask the government: Will they give their commitment today to have
public hearings on the bill at second reading stage, that has been passed to
second reading stage by this Legislature; will they allow the public to speak
out before the trial period expires on April 4, or are they going to just
totally disregard the public and the public input in terms of their position on
the opening up of Sunday shopping by the Conservative government?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, we will
not ignore the public, and the public will have a full opportunity to make
representation on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I was planning after Question
Period to enter into dialogue with the opposition House leaders, at which time
I will provide to them the plans around the new bill on Sunday shopping. As a matter of fact, I would ask the Leader
of the Opposition whether or not he would grant leave either today or indeed
tomorrow and certainly Monday the 5th, that we might do a second reading of
that particular bill.
Point of
Order
Mr. Doer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I find it absolutely galling that the
government House leader, after getting full co‑operation from the
opposition to pass a bill in December of this year, would ask us to give him
leave in terms of having public input when he has totally denied the public the
right to speak‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Leader does not have a point
of order.
Home Care
Program
Equipment/Supply
Costs
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, we have been told today that the
government is cutting dramatically the home care equipment program serving
24,000 people, most of them sick, who will now be forced to pay out of their
own pocket for medical necessities like walkers, gauze dressings, bandages,
needles, catheter equipment and forcing people who have had a colostomy as a
result of bowel cancer to pay much of the cost of their own equipment.
Why is this minister making these
changes? How does it fit in with
community‑based health reform?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I know my honourable friend will
patiently await the budget on the 6th of April in which my honourable friend
will understand some of the planned initiatives in my ministry as well as
across government in general. I would
encourage my honourable friend maybe to be a little patient and not to
necessarily try to feed information out that may or may not be part of future
health care initiatives.
* (1345)
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary: Why is this minister doing this? He obviously admits he is, when his own
annual report about the program says, and I quote: The mandate of the program is to support the
care and independent living of physically disabled individuals within their own
community environment.
In addition, when the increase to people
who have bowel cancer of the program is 13.3 percent, according to the
minister's own annual report, why is he cutting that program out?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend is making a
series of allegations from whatever source he may choose. I simply am saying to my honourable friend,
be patient. There is a budgetary process
coming down. But above and beyond all,
let me tell my honourable friend that the ability and the support from
government for people to live independently with assistance from the Continuing
Care Program and other initiatives of the Ministry of Health and other
departments, will continue, Sir, because it is an appropriate response of
government to foster independent living.
Health
Care System
Americanization
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary to the
same minister, and it is quite simple:
Why are we moving from a universal program that helps the elderly, the
sick and the infirm and moving to an American pay‑as‑you‑go
system?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend the critic
for the New Democrats has a very favoured word.
He calls it Americanization with everything that he says. When I welcomed my honourable friend to the
critic portfolio of Health, I had hoped he would tell us what he stands
for. So far, all we have heard is what
he stands against.
At this time in government, I think that
all Canadians, all Manitobans and all elected people are being encouraged to
stand for what they believe in and where they believe the system can go. That crosses political boundaries because in
provinces governed by my honourable friend's political party, they are making
difficult decisions.
I suppose, Sir, it follows on the quote
that my honourable friend might avail himself of that his Leader said in 1988
after he assumed the leadership and the would‑be Premiership of the party
of Howard Pawley: Doer also hinted last
night, after he won the NDP leadership, that the NDP under his leadership may
look at doing away with the universality of some government programs that apply
to all Manitobans, regardless of their income level.
Health
Care System
Nurse-Managed
Clinics
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Health.
The Department of Health is conducting
pilot projects at our Municipal Hospitals with respect to nurse‑managed
clinics.
Mr. Speaker, can the minister give this
House an updated list of all projects, whether they do in fact relate to health
care reform and whether on completion of these projects the minister will be
providing in this House a summary of the findings?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, so that
we are familiar with some of the projects my honourable friend is describing, if
my honourable friend is referring to the transfer of function from the Health
Sciences Centre Emergency over to the Health Action clinic in which nurses will
assume a greater role in terms of management of nonemergency patient care, yes,
we have that proposal under active implementation, Sir. We believe that it is a very effective way of
delivering patient services and care services, utilizing a team approach to
health care delivery issues and attempting to get away from maybe the over‑reliance
on emergency departments for nonemergency services.
Mr. Speaker, that process is well under
discussion now, and the success of that we will share as we have results.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Health tell
this House if there has been any ongoing consultation with the
Mr. Orchard: With
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, I will read my question
again. At the
I am asking the Minister of Health if he
would share with us the results of those nurse‑managed clinics. Can he tell this House whether those clinics
are in fact in keeping with the health care reform policy in
Mr. Orchard: Well, Mr. Speaker, yes, they are part of the
shift that we are attempting to implement, which takes the focus, if I can be
so simplistic as to say, away from a physician‑point‑of‑entry
system that we have today primarily to one which has a broader care provider
team approach, including the ability of nurses to provide increasing amounts of
primary care. That is certainly part of
the envisioned shifts that we are attempting to undertake in this province.
* (1350)
Funding
Elimination Impact
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, in Section 52(e) of The Child
and Family Services Act, it states that, and I quote: "Any person who (e)
interferes with a child who is placed in a foster home or other place, or
interferes with the foster parents of the child in a manner that detracts from
the ability of the foster parents to care for the child; commits an offence
punishable on summary conviction."
Mr. Speaker, the cuts by this government
to the
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, clearly it is the foster parents who provide that care, and while he
is busy reading the act, I would refer him to Article 6(18): "The minister may fix rates payable for
services provided under this act."
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Family
Services admit that through these cuts, he is interfering with the ability of
foster parents to provide care, since the minister has reduced per diems by 10
percent and eliminated the grant for training, education and support to the
Foster Family Association?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, I clearly indicated last week
and this week that the funding that is required for legal services and for
insurance purposes and for the training of foster parents is in place.
Child and
Family Services Agencies
Services
to Foster Families
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, does this minister speak for his
department or does the chief executive officer of Winnipeg Child and Family
Services speak for this department, since Mr. Keith Cooper said: I am concerned about the impact this is going
to have, and I am concerned about how we are going to continue to provide
services with an already stretched staff group?
The implication of the compulsory days off
will be 3,000 less hours that his staff will be able to provide. How will Child and Family Services agencies provide
education and training and support to foster families when they are already
understaffed and their staff are being forced‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, I indicated to the member yesterday in our discussions during Interim
Supply that I have met with the presidents of the agencies, the Western
Manitoba agency, the Central Manitoba agency and the Winnipeg Child and Family
Services agency, as well as their executive directors, and indicated the
changes that we were bringing about and that we would work in partnership with
them to be able to deliver this service.
Universities
Visa
Students‑Differential Fees
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Education.
I want to ask her to clarify for the House
the government policy on differential fees for international students.
The minister's press release of February
25 says, and I quote: Visa students,
except those exempted by existing agreements, will be required to pay a 75
percent premium on tuition to bring
The Premier (Mr. Filmon), as we know, on
Friday said that universities are not forced to introduce these differential
fees, that they can, and I quote: choose
whether or not to do it.
Yesterday, while trying to clarify this in
the House with the minister, the minister said:
"Yes, the universities do have the autonomy to apply this surcharge
to visa students. We announced what the
level would be. If universities wish to
apply a level less than 1.75 or the .75 surcharge . . . they will make that
decision."
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that there is
still a great deal of confusion around this, so I want to give the minister the
chance to confirm to this House that no university in
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, previously there had not been a position or a policy taken by
government on the issue of differential fees for visa students. This year, in making the funding announcement
to universities, we did announce such a policy.
However, there is a recognition that
universities are autonomous bodies.
Therefore, in the letter that was sent to the chairs of the boards,
there were two completely separate paragraphs, one paragraph announcing the 5
percent cap which government did impose upon student tuition fees, and that is
tied to a penalty if universities do exceed that 5 percent cap. However, in a
completely separate paragraph, not tied to a penalty, was the announcement of
differential fees policy.
* (1355)
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly have to read
that because I did not understand it as the minister said it. So I will take the question a step further.
Will the minister assure the House that
should any
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, I have just said to the member that
the contingency and the penalty rests with the 5 percent cap on student
tuition, and there has not been a penalty tied to the imposition of the
differential fee.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, will the minister explain to the
House why she expects international students on fixed grants from their home
country, why does she expect that they will remain in
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, first of all, because
universities across this country do have the ability and do impose differential
fees; however, some universities do not impose them at the graduate level or
some universities do not impose them at the professional faculty level. When the member looks at what is offered at
the
Then, Mr. Speaker, the main reason I think
that people will still attend universities in
Universities
Visa
Students‑Differential Fees
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Education,
now that she has clarified the position on differential fees, could explain to
us the reason for their moving towards this policy.
Was this policy decision by government
something that was requested by
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, in making policy we did look across
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, my question I think needs to be
reframed slightly.
Did a single university in this province
approach the minister and ask her for a policy on differential fees?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, in meetings with the university,
we discuss a wide variety of issues.
Some of those issues are revenue‑producing issues. Some of those are expenditure‑related
issues. Others are matter of policy relating
to decisions that universities themselves will be making. Therefore, we have a wide variety of
discussions with universities representing
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that I am not
asking about a wide variety of issues.
I am asking the minister: Can she table a single piece of
correspondence from any university, a students' union, any group within the
university that is empowered to make such a request, that makes the request
about a differential fees policy? Is
there a single piece of correspondence?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, as the member has spoken about
before, universities do have the power to make this kind of a decision and now
with government having established a policy, we will look to universities to
decide how they will then implement this policy.
Department
of Agriculture
Agricultural
Development and Marketing
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, these
are not the easiest of times financially for this government or any government
of this country.
We are going through a process of
establishing priorities, and the priority in the eyes of the
Yes, marketing is an important mission for
our department and that mission will continue to be carried out. The elements as to why those dollars are
less, we will talk about in the Estimates. I am ready to get into them anytime.
* (1400)
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, this just goes completely against
what the minister has been saying earlier about change.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to remind the member that research in the Faculty of Agriculture is done
at the
The budget of the
Ms. Wowchuk: I apologize to the minister for making a
mistake on
Wild Rice
Research
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
This is supposed to be one of the areas
that people on our lowest income are having additional income from wild rice
production and this government has cut down the research on this. Why does this minister support this kind of a
cut?
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Northern Affairs and responsible for Native Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to the member
that the wild rice industry is extremely important to this province. There has been considerable support given to
the wild rice producers' co‑op in The Pas area, of which there has been
substantial funds advanced through CEDF on a loan program.
I can assure that it is an important
activity, which the research that has been done to this point will not be in
any way jeopardized by the decisions that this government has made.
Racism
Hate Literature Investigation
Ms. Becky Barrett (
An Honourable Member: Garbage.
Ms. Barrett: A piece of garbage‑‑thank you, Mr.
Minister‑‑threatening not only his life, but the life of all black
citizens in
Mr. Williams, who received this missive,
has called upon the Minister of Justice to launch an immediate investigation
not only of this issue, but of the other instances that have happened in this
province recently of other hate literature.
I am asking the Minister of Justice today
if he is planning to initiate an immediate investigation into this latest in a
whole series of horrendous events like this.
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. The garbage that was sent to Mr. Williams is
disgusting in the extreme. It is
contrary to everything we as Canadians and Manitobans stand for and is
obviously the product of a sick mind.
Mr. Speaker, that information, as soon as
it came to my attention, I brought to the attention of the assistant deputy
minister for Public Prosecutions who has made the
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear that the
minister has undertaken that. This is
something that cannot be allowed to continue.
I would just like to ask the minister if
he would undertake to keep this House informed, within of course the rules of
jurisprudence, of the ongoing investigation so that we can all understand what
is happening.
This kind of material jeopardizes all of
us in
I would just ask the minister to keep us
informed of the ongoing investigation.
Mr. McCrae: To the extent that I can do that, I certainly
will, Mr. Speaker.
This is not the first time this particular
complainant has been singled out. The
honourable member's colleague for Radisson has been singled out in the past,
and a reporter for the
Yes, I will do what I can to keep the
honourable member and honourable members informed.
In a way, what happened here makes it all
the more reason why the announcement made today about a bumper sticker program,
why that program is important. It is a
program sponsored by the Canadian police race centre here in
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the importance of a
bumper sticker campaign, the best way to avoid these kinds of incidents happening
in the future is making sure that there is a successful conclusion to these
investigations.
I want to urge the minister and ask the
minister if he will do everything in his power to see that this investigation
comes to a successful conclusion, unlike the last one which was unsuccessful.
Mr. McCrae: My department and the police authorities will
indeed do everything in our power.
The honourable member has to remember,
however, that people who commit criminal‑‑and that is what this is‑‑criminal
activities, do their best to escape detection.
That has been a problem with other investigations where people have
anonymously sent out hate literature.
They do not write their name and address at the bottom and that is the
unfortunate part about it, but we will do everything we can to try to find the
source of this garbage.
* (1410)
National
Transportation Agency
Airline
Merger Hearings
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, on Monday of this week the
National Transportation Agency meetings started in
I want to ask the Minister of Highways and
Transportation: Considering that
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, the member is right that the
hearings have started on the issue with American and Canadian. We have not taken a formal position at these
hearings. However, we have observer
status there. We are monitoring what is
happening so we know exactly what is going on.
The sensitivity of the position for ourselves as Manitobans is that we
have jobs at stake in the amalgamation to some degree. We also have jobs at stake with Gemini. So we are playing an observer role at the
present time.
National
Transportation Agency
Airline
Merger Hearings
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): I take it from that, Mr. Speaker, that we do
have observers at those meetings.
Can the minister tell me, Mr. Speaker,
what policy or what position we will be taking should we have the opportunity
to make a presentation to those hearings, with respect to the Canadian Airlines
International and American Airlines agreement and, as well, the 175 Gemini
jobs? What position are we taking with
respect to those jobs?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, as I responded in this House
not long ago, in terms of the same issue that the honourable member is raising
today, we continue to work with the officials of Gemini. We have met with them. We are in constant communication with them to
be sure that we do everything possible to maintain the presence and maintain
those jobs in
Gemini
Reservations System
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, my final
supplementary to the Minister of Transportation.
Has the minister's department done any
studies to determine, if PWA and American Airlines receive permission from the
NTA and the competition tribunal to terminate the Gemini contract and to sell
25 percent equity to American Airlines, how many Manitoba jobs will be lost as
a result of this agreement being allowed to go forward, Mr. Speaker?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, that is part and parcel of
the kinds of discussion that we have had with Gemini, is obviously taking into
consideration all factors of what might occur.
We are pursuing a series of initiatives in terms of what can be done to
maintain those jobs right here in
Sunday
Shopping
Public
Hearings
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
My question to the government House leader
is: Why did he not have public hearing
on Bill 4? What he has done is he turned
the whole process into a farce, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, a little
bit of revisionist history has been presented by the member in his preamble.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, we said at the
beginning and we continue to say through the process, and we continue to say today,
that Manitobans will have an opportunity to present their views on any issue
dealing with Sunday shopping. The member
may have liked to have had the hearings sooner.
I am here to tell the member that as was promised by the minister, there
were indices. Indeed, there is an
opportunity to look at some quantifiable analysis. That had to be developed and indeed had to be
performed before open hearings would be of meaning.
Legislation
Justification
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the
member is bordering on impugning motives of the government, and I do not think
he would want to do that. He is an
honourable member and would never want to be thought of as that type of
individual.
Mr. Speaker, I will fully explain to the
Liberal House leader, hopefully some time today, as to the course that the government
wishes to take on this whole issue.
Public
Hearings
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
He made reference to requesting
leave. Something that we were not going
to do was give the government House leader leave, because once again, it
demonstrates that he did not have a plan.
Mr. Speaker, will the government House
leader assure the Chamber that in fact we will have the committee hearings on
Bill 23‑‑on Bill 4, my apology‑‑Mr. Speaker? What is his definition of soon, because‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the
Deputy Premier has presented the answer to that question, and I have also in my
reply. There will be full public
hearings. Let me say to the member, our
intention is‑‑and I am troubled that the Liberals would choose not
to grant leave. It was our intention to
try and have second reading on the 5th so that we could‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order, it is not appropriate for the government House leader to revisit the
fact that the opposition parties, after waiting three and a half months for
this government to bring in public hearings on Sunday shopping, are now asking
leave to bring in another bill‑‑Sunday shopping, the sequel. We want the original bill in committee. We are prepared to deal with that‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order.
* * *
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed in the member for
Thompson (Mr. Ashton). As we are
approaching break and another important family time, I am disappointed in his
approach today.
I say to the member that Bill 4 will be
dealt with in a fashion that‑‑[interjection] No, the Leader says it
will be subsumed. No, but we might like
to put into tandem both bills. I can assure that all members and indeed all
members of the public will have an opportunity to make representation on one or
both of the bills if they so choose.
John
Howard Society
Restorative
Restitution Project
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. Speaker, the John Howard Society has
submitted a restorative restitution pilot project to implement community‑based
sentencing to both the federal Solicitor General, the federal Department of
Justice and the provincial Department of Justice. The federal government is willing to match
any funds that the provincial government is willing to put forward to this
pilot project.
I would like to ask the Minister of
Justice if he is prepared to commit the funds for this 18‑month pilot
project as requested most recently in a draft budget by the John Howard
Society.
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, representatives of the
Corrections division of my department and of the John Howard Society have been
discussing the program proposal the honourable member raises in the House
today. My latest report is that those
discussions had not resulted in a proposal to me at that point. It may be that the department is ready to
make a proposal to me which I can then review, and I can bring the honourable
member up to date on the progress of this matter.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
* (1420)
Nonpolitical Statements
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Sport): Mr. Speaker, may I please have leave to make
a nonpolitical statement?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable minister have leave to
make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, building on some comments made
recently in this House by the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), today it gives
me great pleasure to rise before the House and on behalf of the government
extend our congratulations to Winnipeg Jet rookie forward Teemu Selanne. Those of us who follow the Jets and
professional hockey closely have watched Teemu Selanne with amazement
throughout the entire season and as credit to his abilities, one record after
another has come his way. After surpassing
Mike Bossy's record earlier this month for goals in one season by a rookie,
Teemu Selanne on Tuesday recorded two goals and an assist to pass Peter
Stastny's mark of 109 points and establish a new NHL record for points by a
rookie in one season.
With a little more than two weeks left in
the regular season, Mr. Speaker, there is little doubt that Teemu Selanne will
be named the NHL's Calder Trophy winner as the rookie of the year and should
rate serious consideration, as well, as a candidate for the Hart Trophy as the
NHL's most valuable player.
A native of
I would ask all members to join me in recognizing
the remarkable feats of Teemu Selanne in his record‑setting rookie season
and for the contribution he has made to our community and province and to
further extend our best wishes to Teemu and to the
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Kildonan have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I join with the New Democratic
Party to welcome the words of the minister.
Again, the point I want to make is it is Tamu (phonetic) not Teemu.
* * *
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I rise
and ask for leave to make a nonpolitical statement.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Finance have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Manness: Thank you to members of the House. Mr. Speaker, this past weekend March 19 to
21, hockey teams from all across
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would
you call second readings, Bills 19 and 20.
SECOND
Bill 19‑The
Court of Queen's Bench Amendment
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 19, The Court of
Queen's Bench Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi
sur la Cour du Banc de la Reine et apportant des modifications correlatives a
d'autres lois), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of
this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments to The
Queen's Bench Act deal with the payment of post‑judgment interest and the
periodic payment of damages in actions involving personal injury and death. The amendments affecting post‑judgment
interest will replace the Interest Act of Canada, which will be repealed once
These amendments will allow for the
payment of post‑judgment interest at the same rate as the pre‑judgment
interest rate. The rate is currently
based on the rate at which the Bank of Canada makes short‑term advances
to the chartered banks.
The purpose of the legislation dealing
with periodic payments is to give the court the ability to make a judgment that
allows for the payment of damages arising out of a personal injury claim or
death by way of periodic payments as opposed to a lump sum payment. Under the present system, the court could
only award periodic payments with the consent of both parties to a lawsuit.
These amendments will allow the court to make a periodic damage award when an
application is made by one party and the court feels that a periodic payment
system is appropriate.
The benefits of a system of periodic
payments have been recognized by numerous studies outlined in the Manitoba Law
Reform Commission report, as well as by the Supreme Court of
The present system of lump‑sum
awards often results in awards that are inaccurate, especially when a large
portion of an award represents compensation for future losses. These high‑damage awards are often
attributed to the management fees and gross‑ups for future taxation as
part of the lump sum. Periodic payments
help to reduce the size of awards by eliminating these two elements. Reducing the size of awards will also help to
reduce liability insurance premiums in the future.
At the same time, periodic payments will
result in improvements to the accuracy of awards, because the courts will no
longer have to calculate gross‑ups for future taxation liability. This kind of prediction on future returns on
investment and future rates of taxation is very speculative in nature.
I am pleased to note that
Mr. Speaker, with these brief remarks, I
recommend this bill for second reading.
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and speak
today to this bill. I want to have it
noted that I am speaking immediately after the minister has spoken because I
want to indicate early on, and I will be the only speaker for our party on this
bill, that we wholeheartedly support this piece of legislation.
I do look forward to speedy passage of
this legislation, and I recommend it to my colleagues in the New Democratic
Party.
As the minister has said, there is a
problem in the current state of the law in having courts have the ability to
structure settlements over periods of time.
When people are injured, their injuries
cause damage into future years, oftentimes a lifetime. The result of that is that the court at a
fixed date, at a moment in time, a snapshot, has to try to assess what the
damages are going to be for decades into the future. It is a very, very difficult speculative
task. One has to only participate in one of the trials of this nature, as I
have done many times, to understand how difficult it is and how much at the end
of the day it ends up just being a shot in the dark as to what the actual
amounts are.
Judges acknowledge that and have been
asking, and the Supreme Court has made comment, about the need for structured
settlements. This act, by giving judges
the ability to allow for payments over a period of time, works to the benefit
of plaintiffs in those cases as well as the insurance company, the insured public.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see this
bill come forward. There will be some
questions on the specific wording of the bill at the committee stage, but I
think it is important that this piece of legislation, as soon as possible, be
passed in this province, because it is high time that we allowed our courts to
structure settlements for those future damages.
One other point I want to make is that
MPIC has recently come under, of course‑‑and it has in the past‑‑criticism
for having to increase premiums to Manitobans.
The fact is that, as has been pointed out often by MPIC personnel, it is
often attributed to the personal injury claims which are made and are often
contested in the tort system in courts.
I want to just indicate that in my
experience and in my discussions with people at MPIC, learned people at MPIC,
the lawyers in the Legal department, they will tell you, they will tell the
minister that there are all kinds of ways, including this type of legislation,
to provide for more efficient, more effective service without going to a system
where we are reducing the benefits per se, but we are simply getting better at
defining exactly what the damages are.
Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of things
like double indemnity for wage loss, which is often paid in this province.
People who are claiming on insurance claims oftentimes get almost or close to
double their actual wage loss. Why? Because of glitches in the legislation. Because MPIC is not a fund of last
resort. That type of thinking can save
the motoring public in
I just lay that groundwork as a caution to
this government and in particular the minister responsible for MPIC that the
move to no‑fault, the phrase "no‑fault" should not be
seen as a panacea when, in fact, if it is going to mean no benefits, nobody is
going to be happy. The truth is, what we
have to look for when we are looking at MPIC is getting value for the dollar.
What we do not want to have is the motoring public led to believe they are
insured for their full damages and then not even get a percentage of their
actual damages if they are so unfortunate as to be involved in a motor vehicle
accident.
* (1430)
There are all kinds of interesting things
that I think we can do to reduce the cost.
This is an important piece of legislation, I believe, to move towards
the ability for structured settlements.
I only wish that it had been in place earlier. I acknowledge what the minister says. We are moving before most other
jurisdictions, if not all other jurisdictions. That is good, and I look forward
to further discussions at committee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Motion agreed to.
Bill 20‑The
Social Allowances Regulation Validation Act
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I
move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey),
that Bill 20, The Social Allowances Regulation Validation Act (Loi validant un
reglement d'application de la Loi sur l'aide sociale), be now read a second
time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this legislation
is to clarify regulations under The Social Allowances Act. The policies enshrined in these regulations
have been adhered to in practice since the 1970s and this legislation will
ensure that the regulations are clearly defined and consistently interpreted.
The social allowances program regulations
define sources of income and levels of assets which are excluded from
consideration when determining eligibility for benefits under the program. The exclusions apply to payments such as
For the past 20 years the social
allowances program has held that income from these sources is exempt upon
receipt but becomes an asset after a reasonable period of time. The usual guideline for this grace period is
about four months. The Social Allowances
Act and regulations have been interpreted and applied in this fashion. However, following a recent review it was
felt that the regulations should be amended to clearly specify that for social
allowance recipients, income from excluded sources will, after a prescribed
period of time, become an asset to be considered when determining eligibility
for benefits under the program.
The amendments to the regulations will
ensure that income from exempt sources will be excluded from a recipient's
income when determining eligibility for social allowance benefits in the month
it is received. Furthermore, the
regulations provide for an extension to this grace period at the discretion of
the director of social allowance for a period not exceeding twelve months from
receipt of the exempt income.
This legislation has the effect of
applying the amended regulations under The Social Allowances Act
retroactively. The intent of the
legislation is to ensure that decisions made when administering The Social
Allowances Act prior to the amendment of the regulations are validated as long
as they meet the criteria of the amended regulations. In other words, if the amended regulations
had been in force at the time, these decisions would have been approved. This validation is consistent with the way
The Social Allowances Act and regulations have been interpreted and applied
with respect to the treatment of exempt income.
With those brief remarks I will recommend
this bill for second reading, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Motion agreed to.
House
Business
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would
you move the Supply motion as we continue along, the Interim Supply.
I move, seconded by the honourable
Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Downey), that Mr. Speaker do now
leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of
Ways and Means for raising of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a committee to consider of Ways and Means for raising of the Supply
to be granted to Her Majesty with the honourable member for
SUPPLY‑INTERIM
SUPPLY
COMMITTEE
OF WAYS AND MEANS
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Will the Committee of Ways and Means please come
to order.
We have been considering a resolution
respecting the Interim Supply.
Is the committee ready for the question?
Ms. Becky Barrett (
I have a question or two for the Minister
of Family Services, if I may.
The minister has taken a second and maybe
even more devastating swipe at the child care system in the
Madam Chairperson, I found it interesting
that the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) issued a press release
late in the afternoon of the same day that the government announced the
elimination of grants to 56 community organizations. I would imagine the timing of that was very carefully
chosen so that the community was focused mainly on the 56 community cuts. Maybe the minister expected that the broader
community would ignore or not be made aware of the problems that were going to
be as a result of his changes to the child care funding system.
Madam Chairperson, I would like to ask to
begin with a quite specific question of the minister, that is in regard to the
fact that there is a cap being placed on the subsidized spaces in the
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Madam
Chairperson, I want to start by saying that we released the press release after
we tabled the Detailed Estimates here in the House so that members such as
yourself and your colleagues and the members from the third party would have an
opportunity to have those Detailed Estimates, because we thought we were going
into the Estimates process. That was
tabled at around 1:30 in the afternoon.
I am really puzzled as to what time of the day the member would like us
to make announcements.
* (1440)
I remember making one at three o'clock one
day and her Leader and others portrayed it as midnight or in the middle of the
night. If we do it in the morning, then
we get accused of not doing it while the House is open. I would be willing to take some instruction
from my honourable friend to indicate what time these announcements would be
preferable for whatever purposes she has.
There is going to be a cap on the number
of subsidized spaces so that we can maintain our expenditures within that given
budget. We have announced that we would
be withdrawing something like 400 spaces from the system, and we would do it by
attrition.
Ms. Barrett: Madam Chairperson, I would be delighted to
discuss in a different venue with the minister the most appropriate time of the
day to issue a press release. However,
the specific question I have‑‑and the minister has begun to make an
answer to the question about the elimination of subsidized spaces when he states
that it will be through attrition.
My next question on this issue is: A daycare with 50 subsidized spaces, should a
subsidized family leave one of those spaces‑‑and we can discuss the
potential reasons for that family leaving those spaces later. Should a subsidized family leave a single‑‑their
child leave that space in that particular child care centre, will that space
then be lost to that centre? Is the
attrition based by centres or is it going to be spread out throughout the
province? How do those 400 spaces get
eliminated?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Chairperson, we will do it in the
fairest way possible so that we are well aware that we would not want the
impact of that decision to reside on any one or a few centres. I think we will work within the Child and
Family Services in daycare through that office to try to minimize the impact on
both the family and the centres, but we are going to by attrition downsize the
number of subsidized spaces by about 400.
Ms. Barrett: Madam Chairperson, I was able I believe to
hear most of the minister's responses, but not all of the minister's responses
potentially. No, I believe I heard
it. I was actually making a comment more
to the upper benches than I was to the minister. None of the upper benches, of course, were
paying any attention to me, but then‑‑
Madam Chairperson: Does the honourable member for
Ms. Barrett: Yes, Madam Chairperson, the honourable member
for
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. May I please have the co‑operation of
all honourable members to ensure that the honourable member for
Ms. Barrett: Thank you, Madam Chairperson.
My understanding from what I could hear of
the answer the minister gave me is that the minister and his department have
not yet determined the actual implementation of the attrition of those 400
daycare spaces. If my understanding is
correct, I would appreciate a clarification.
If not, could the minister clarify it for me and have me understand
that?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I will certainly try and have you
understand it. We are going to, as I
have indicated, downsize the number of subsidized spaces by some 400. We are going to do it by attrition, and we
are going to work with the daycare providers, whether they be centres or homes,
to try and ensure that we minimize the impact on any one centre or any one
home. Because we have in excess of 400 homes and centres, our plan is to try to
manage it so that the impact of the subsidy reduction does not impact any one
centre or home to any great degree.
Ms. Barrett: Madam Chairperson, I believe that my first
reaction was correct, that the minister does not have a specific formula or
outline that he could share with a particular centre saying, this is how we are
going to implement the attrition. I am
getting calls, as I am sure the minister's office is, as the Child Day Care
division is, as my caucus colleagues are, from child care providers both in
homes and in centres, particularly in centres where there is a high degree of
subsidization. These centres are
legitimately worried about the impact that this attrition and ultimate
elimination of 400 subsidized spaces will have on their centre's ability to
operate, as well as the impact it is going to have on those individuals, but I
would like to focus particularly on those centres.
Centres are getting less and less of their
money from the government through operating grants. They are being asked to rely more and more on
parental fees. The subsidies are going
to be capped. The subsidy amounts are
not expanding, and as a result of the restructuring of the formula two years
ago, centres have no surpluses. They are
to the bones. They have nothing to
shield them from the impact of these reductions.
I would like to make another comment. I see the minister shaking his head when I
commented about centres having no subsidies.
I am not, for a moment, suggesting that all centres in the province have
eliminated all of their surpluses, but many of the centres, over the past two
years, have been forced, by this government's fee restructuring and narrowing
of its operating grant to centres, to put themselves in a financial situation
where they have no additional resources.
They are budgeting based on 100 percent, their centres being fully
occupied all of the time.
When they have the vast majority or all of
their spaces currently subsidized, they cannot afford to lose those spaces.
When they do lose those spaces, they want to know‑‑and I think they
have a legitimate right to know‑‑what the impact is going to be on
their particular centre.
Is there a formula in place where the
government says, 90 percent of our subsidized spaces are in child care centres,
if that happens to be the case, and 10 percent in family daycare, so we are
going to take 90 percent of our reduction or elimination of subsidized centres
from daycares and 10 percent from family daycares? Are they going to say, we have done an
investigation region by region and have decided that 300 spaces will come from
Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Chairperson, just to go back to the
member's initial remarks when she indicated that the grants had decreased to
the centres, of course, she is quite correct, but there has also been a
tremendous increase on the subsidy side so that centres can gain their income
through grants, subsidies and parent fees.
Many of the centres have full fee‑paying parents, and the
restructuring that we did two years ago had a balance to it. As the grants went down, the subsidies went
up, and we determined the daily cost of care and thereby set a parent fee.
* (1450)
There is also an additional dollar a day
that some of the centres charge to clients, as well as the fact that many
centres do some fundraising and also access grants through community services
council and the Community Places grants.
So there is a variety of income, and the
member has to appreciate that each centre board has a variety of decisions to
make. [interjection] Well, I am sort of surprised by the member's reaction
there because there are boards in those centres and they do make
decisions. If it is different from that,
I am sure she will have an opportunity to tell me during her next opportunity
to ask a question.
All of those various sources of income and
all of the expenditures they have, the board has to manage that, and, yes, some
of the centres and some of the parents have called looking for information that
was provided last week on the new fees and changes in daycare. We have been providing that to the
individuals who have been phoning.
As well, I met recently with both the MCCA
and the home‑based organization that looks after daycare homes, and we
have talked about some of the restructuring and some of the changes that were
going to come about. I have indicated to
them, because of a dramatic increase in the amount of dollars that have been
spent on daycare, that certainly this next year would be a pause in the amount
of government dollars going into the daycare area. As a result, we would be freezing the
licensing, and we now have also indicated that we are capping the number of
subsidies.
The latter part of her question was to do
with the distribution of those subsidies that are given to daycare homes,
daycare centres; she also asked a question on the geography of the location of
these centres, whether it would be based on that. We have just passed the changes in the
regulations which will be coming into effect, and what we have been saying to
daycare providers, whether it be daycare homes or daycare centres, is that we
would try our best through the attrition process to minimize the impact on any
one centre or any one home. Of course,
the next part of this process will be that we will also have to use a waiting
list for centres and homes that are going to have clients who want to access
that service and if we are at the maximum.
Of course, as we approach the summer
season, there is often a graduation that takes place as children who are
currently accessing daycare homes or daycare centres will be moving into the
school system. We are going to make
every effort to work with the unions that represent the daycare workers in the
centres to manage the change that is going to take place. It is my hope that any centre will not be
impacted or any home will not be impacted by more than one position.
Ms. Barrett: Madam Chairperson, my reaction, as the
minister spoke about earlier, was it must have been the 40th time, and I am
being very conservative in my estimates here, that the minister has stated in
this House and in Estimates over the past three years that boards, whether they
be of Child and Family Services agencies or child cares or other organizations,
have to manage and have choices to make and have the authority to do so. The
reaction that I have is that, of course, the boards have those decisions to
make and they have in the past made them based on very sound decisions and a
knowledge and understanding of their local situations.
What this government is doing is not only
offloading its responsibility for the funding of the child care system, but it
is also saying that boards have difficult decisions to make when the government
is not giving them the resources with which to make those decisions. Then it points to the board saying, the board
made that decision when we all know, Madam Chairperson, that it is not the
board that is making that ultimate decision. It is the government which says,
there will be no operating grants.
Ultimately, it is going to be a volume‑driven, market‑driven
child care centre. Instead of being the
best in
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in
the Chair)
The minister says that he hopes that
daycare centres and staff will not be unduly hurt by these changes, and he
hopes they will be able to manage the change.
How can a daycare centre manage the change when they do not know how the
change is going to affect them?
Obviously, this government has decided we
need to cut X number of dollars from this line in our budget. Treasury Board has stated you shall do this,
and the government says, the minister says, fine, we will make this
change. We will freeze licensing of
spaces. We will cut back 4 percent,
which seems to be the general operating change in many of these situations. We will cut 4 percent. We will do it by attrition, but we do not
need to worry about planning how we are going to implement that attrition. We will let it happen and then we will do it‑‑a
clear case of total lack of understanding about the implications these changes
have on child care centres and on child care parents.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am wondering how
the member describes an increase in the budget from $26 million to $50 million
as offloading?
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I would be delighted
to answer the question in a general manner because I do not have the specifics
about each year in front of me.
Almost exactly two years ago, April 11 I
believe it might have been, well into the new fiscal year, the Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) made an announcement at three o'clock in the
afternoon after Question Period so that the opposition would not have an
opportunity that day to ask questions about the announcement. He made a major announcement about
restructuring the fees and funding of child care in
An Honourable Member: You are supposed to answer the question.
Ms. Barrett: I am answering it a lot more directly, sir,
than the minister answers my questions.
The impact of the original fee restructuring and the impact of this fee
restructuring and changes to the formula for funding child daycare in the
province of
The change has been from that mix which
recognized a range of funding abilities to a funding formula which places far
more emphasis on the fee component. The
fee component is made up of the fees when parents are eligible for subsidies on
a sliding scale‑‑although we can talk about the unfairness of the
sliding scale as opposed to the fee structure itself‑‑a sliding
scale of subsidies and fees that centres can charge to parents who are not
eligible for any subsidies. The focus is
moved far more to the fees that parents or the government through subsidies are
paying and far less to the operating grant and salary enhancement grant
component.
* (1500)
That, Mr. Acting Chairperson, is the crux
of the offload. It is offloading the
government's responsibility for participating in an active fashion with funding
of child care centres in an operating grant formula, as well as fees, and
putting far more of that funding onto either the subsidy program or to parental
fees.
Now, the other part of the offload is that
when the government made the change in the fee structure, the government increased
the fees for infant care by almost 50 percent and for preschool by almost 20
percent. There was not, Mr. Acting
Chairperson, a concomitant increase in the subsidy formula. So, No. 1, two years ago, we have a major
offload. If your family income was
eligible for a subsidy on April 10, you had virtually no increase in your
family income for the subsidy level on April 11, 1991, except that your fees
went up by 50 percent if you had an infant in care. Now, if that is not an offload, I would like
to know what is.
The second component of the offload is
that the formula, as I have stated before, is geared far more to the parents,
either the subsidized or the unsubsidized fees.
So those are the two components of the offload, and now the government
is capping the number of subsidized spaces at a reduction of 4 percent. What this means is that the government is
saying, we will only pay for X number of subsidized spaces. If you as a daycare or a family daycare
cannot get nonsubsidized, full fee‑paying parents to come into your child
daycare, then you have to find money from elsewhere. That is offloading onto the daycare centres.
The child care system in the
This is the kind of two‑tiered
privatized child care system we are going toward in this province largely
because the
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am still having
some difficulty understanding how a 100 percent increase in funding is an
offloading.
What the member is saying is that the
money, in her mind, is going to the wrong people. The member must realize that a grant is a
subsidy to everyone who accesses that system.
What you are saying is that you want all parents subsidized the same way
through the grant system so that those parents who cannot afford daycare would
not get a subsidy and those who have two incomes that go into the hundreds of
thousands of dollars should get government money for their children to be in
daycare.
The restructuring that we did reduced the
grants but dramatically increased the subsidies so that the money was targeted
for‑‑[interjection] Well, the former member for Ellice wants to get
into the debate, and I am surprised, because I do not think the Liberals have a
position on daycare. I have not heard
anyone from her party ever speak on the daycare issue. The policy I thought that the Liberal Party
was supporting, at least most recently, was that the money should go to people
and that that money should be in subsidies and not in grants.
In fact, I am sure the member for
Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), probably while practising some recreational sports,
might want to speak to somebody who is quite involved in setting up the
position of the government on the daycare position.
Again, the offloading the member for
So that committee, supported by all of the
unions and people involved in the daycare review at that time, worked together
to determine what the actual cost of care was.
Now what we find, of course, is that cost of care is not as high in some
of the rural centres. When the member
was speaking yesterday, I am sure if she had more time she would have got
around to that, that in many of the smaller communities where there are
centres, the centres are actually charging somewhat less than the daily cost of
care and, at the same time, getting less on the subsidy side but managing their
daycares with full attendance.
The member criticizes the fact that we
have frozen the spaces. There are no
longer long waiting lists. In fact, the
MCCA asked us to freeze the spaces last summer, which we did temporarily, and
we are going to do again. I am sure that
we will have an opportunity to hear from the member for Crescentwood, because
we are all really interested to know what the position of the Liberal party is
on daycare.
What the member is saying in criticizing
government for capping the subsidies and freezing the spaces is, it is okay to
overspend your budget. The budget that
we will print this year will be higher, and the member probably has already
checked that, than the budget we printed last year. So there is an increase in the amount
dedicated in the print to daycare. If
spending $45 million, $50 million on daycare is not enough, I am wondering if
the member might be bold enough to say how much we should spend on daycare to
put in place the vision she has. Should
it be $75 million or $100 million? We
have seen that very dramatic increase in that budget line, higher than any
other budget line in this department, higher than any other budget line in
government, and what the member is saying is 100 percent increase over five
budgets is not enough. I am wondering if
she would volunteer to tell us how much it should be.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. Sveinson): The honourable member for
(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)
Ms. Barrett: My concern with the funding for child daycare
has consistently been not with the amount.
There is never going to be a total satisfaction on the part of any
government or any opposition with any budgeted figure. There is always room for more. My concern has never been with the
amount. It is the way the money has been
apportioned, and I am not going to go into another explanation of our concerns
about this.
* (1510)
I wanted to put one small correction on
the record and then get into another area of his changes in the funding for
child daycare. The minister said that
there was‑‑I believe he was referring to the working group when he was
talking about a group that was making recommendations to the minister about the
actual cost of care. I just want to
remind the minister that the working group‑‑many members of that
working group, just like many members of the social assistance group that
advised him on the harmonizing of rates provincially and municipally, came up
with a series of recommendations.
The working group on child daycare never
recommended a 50 percent increase in fees for infant care to be implemented in
one step. They recommended that there be
a recognition of the actual cost of care, Madam Chairperson, the concerns that
have been raised by members of the working group in the last two years and by
family daycares and parents. Because he
has been at enough of those meetings and heard enough of those concerns raised,
the minister knows that this increase took place from one night to the next
day. It was done not phased in but done
immediately with virtually no corresponding increase in the sliding scale for
subsidies.
The next area that I would briefly like to
get into with the minister is his rationalization for the additional $1.40 a
day that daycare centres must charge their subsidized families. I will be brief‑‑two parts. One is the $1.40‑‑where did that
figure come from? Two, what was the
rationalization for making that $1.40 a requirement that daycares must charge
their subsidized parent that rather than giving the daycares the option to
charge or not to charge, as was the earlier practice with the dollar?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Chairperson, I am pleased that the
member for
Our belief and our philosophy is that the
money we dedicate to the daycare line, the majority of it should go into the
subsidies, and as a result the grants are lessened. What the member is saying is that she would
prefer high grants to all of the centres and institutions and homes, and lower
the subsidies. The grant, however, is a subsidy to everyone who accesses daycare. When you have high‑income parents, the
member for
Ms. Barrett: Oh, do not be ridiculous. You know we do not have agreement on that.
Mr. Gilleshammer: You cannot agree to it once and then not
agree to it the next time.
Point of
Order
Ms. Barrett: On a point of order, I would like to ask the
Minister of Family Services, when he is responding to a question, and a comment
is made by any member of the opposition‑‑I am trying to be
parliamentary here, Madam Chairperson, with great difficulty‑‑that
he not put‑‑
An Honourable Member: Do you want some parliamentary words?
Ms. Barrett: Yes, I know a number of unparliamentary words‑‑that
the Minister of Family Services, when he speaks, when he says what a member
from the opposition says, that he accurately reflect what was stated. The Minister of Family Services, for almost
three years has time and time again inaccurately reflected the words and the
statements of not only myself but every other opposition member who has ever
asked him a question.
Madam Chairperson: The honourable member for
* * *
Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Chairperson, if I have misinterpreted
the member, I will read Hansard and just check and see what it is she
said. I was sure there was agreement
that the total budget line was sufficient.
If it is not sufficient, I am sure she will indicate what it should be
and whether it should be $75 million or $100 million.
I would point out in the province next to
us that is governed by the member's fellow travellers they have one‑third
the budget that we have in
The member also indicated that the member
opposite I think‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Family Services to
complete his response.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Thank you, Madam Chairperson, for getting members
opposite under control, because I think this is really important that they
understand that the member is saying that the subsidy scale is not wide
enough. We give subsidies for children
in daycare to people with a net income of almost $60,000. What the member is saying is that upper limit
of the subsidy should be further expanded and that subsidies should be given to
higher income earning families. I can
tell you that is not the vision that we have over here.
The member opposite did make comment on
the development of the actual cost of care.
This was a very important work that came out of the daycare discussions
in '88, '89 and '90 where it was important to determine what the actual cost of
care was for a child. It was determined
that the cost of care for younger children was greater than the cost of care
for some of the older children who are in daycare. It was a very important step in budgeting and
assigning subsidies and grants to determine what that cost of care per child
is. I would remind the member that the
cost of care in daycare for children under two where either the parent or,
through the subsidy process, government is involved, the cost of care for a
child of that age can be over $8,000 or $9,000.
So it is important that we know what that cost of care is when we do our
budget deliberations.
If the member wants to expand the subsidy
scale, that would indeed add more cost to the subsidies as more parents would
be eligible for subsidy and, of course, they would pay less of that parent fee
themselves. So I think while that
subsidy scale may not be perfect, if it has to be changed, probably it should
be shrunk instead of expanded so that the money is truly targeted for those who
have a lower income.
Now the member did ask a couple of questions
there. On the question of the $1.40 a
day, we felt because of the cost of care, because of the cost of the subsidies
and the grants, because our daycare budget has escalated, that we would ask
those parents of children who were being subsidized‑‑some of them
completely, some of them partially‑‑that they would contribute
$1.40 per day towards the cost of that subsidized space. Again, we still will be spending additional
money from what we printed last year.
Again, I have to say I am pleased that the
member has indicated that the budget is sufficient, and if she does have
different ideas of how we should spend that $46 million, $47 million, we would
be pleased to hear how it should be spent.
* (1520)
Ms. Barrett: Madam Chairperson, the minister, in his
answer about the rationalization, has partially answered the question about the
thinking behind the $1.40 a day. I do
not know if I asked it first, but I will ask it this time, why the figure $1.40
was chosen, and secondly, another subsequent question‑‑and he did
not answer why it is now required, rather than allowing the daycares to make
the determination if their family should, or could, be asked to take that extra
$1.40 a day. Thirdly, if the government
is saying, as the minister said, that subsidized parents should be asked to pay
some of the costs or additional costs of the child care fees, additional fees,
why was the decision made that there would not be a sliding scale on that
$1.40?
The impact of that $1.40 increase will be
felt in a negative way by all families who are subsidized. However, it will be felt most negatively by
those families who are currently fully subsidized, but they are going to be
asked to pay the same $1.40 a day extra as a family who gets only a partial
subsidy is going to be asked to pay for.
Again, that appears to me to be a very
regressive move rather than a recognition that families who are fully
subsidized are, by definition, determined by the system to be unable to afford
to pay for child care. So now the
minister is saying, well, yes, we are fully subsidizing them on the one hand,
but on the other hand, we can ask them to pay upwards of another $700 a year
for child care. I do not understand the
rationalization behind that determination.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Madam Chairperson, what the member is saying
is she would have preferred that we had a sliding scale, so that those at the
top end of the subsidy would be paying more and those at the bottom end would
be paying less.
The way the numbers go within the subsidy
range is that the majority of the subsidized parents are at the bottom end of
that range, and I suppose go upward in a pyramid, so those people who are
making a net income, those families, of $50,000 who are still getting subsidy,
would have to pay considerably more to offset the fact of what the member is
saying, that they should be paying less at the bottom end. It would have presented a more cumbersome way
of implementing this cost to the parents.
The $1.40 per day was arrived at by
studying the number of subsidized children whom we were currently responsible
for. We looked at the daily cost of
care, and we wanted to be able to keep that figure low enough, so we felt that
all subsidized parents could participate by paying that $1.40 a day, and, of
course, lower the total amount of budget we dedicate to daycare.
The member has agreed that the $46
million, going on $47 million, was sufficient.
If we have to work within that global figure, certainly there could have
been different ways of doing it, having the additional cost per day higher for
some, but we do have 10,000 subsidized spaces.
The majority of them are at the bottom end. To make an appreciable difference at the top
end, we would have had to put that fee up considerably for those who were at
the top end of the subsidy. That is
really inconsistent with what the member is saying about moving the top end of
the subsidy even further. As a result,
looking at the cost, looking at the income we wanted to minimize the impact on
parents and at the same time give the daycare centres the same income.
I know that the member has aspirations of
being the House leader of the opposition party some day and probably will be
busy studying the Beauchesne to look at the various lists of words that are
acceptable and unacceptable. I know when
she takes over that role from the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) that she
will do just an excellent job.
Point of
Order
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Madam
Chairperson, generally speaking, we have seen opportunity‑‑the
official opposition has had an hour and a half to ask questions, or however
long it has been. We have been waiting
quite patiently. I do not mind if the
member for Wolseley wants to ask questions. She is fully within her rights. I would suggest that the third party does
have some questions too that they would like to get onto the record.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Madam Chairperson, I
would point out that it was the Liberal Party who did not want to get into
Interim Supply. Perhaps if his Leader
had not spoken for seven and a half hours and we had that additional time for
Interim Supply, more members might be able to speak.
Madam Chairperson: The honourable member for
There are no rules outlining the order in
which members speak or question in Ways and Means committee.
* * *
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Madam Chairperson, I just have a few
questions.
I wanted to ask the Deputy Premier about a
government decision which the Minister of Education reminded me yesterday was
not a departmental decision, it was a government decision. I want to ask the Deputy Premier: What is the government's position on differential
fees for universities?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Madam
Chairperson, the decision that was made on behalf of the university funding and
on behalf of the policy of visa fees and the differential fees for visa students
is a government decision.
I am not sure what additional information
I can provide the honourable member with that will assist in the point that she
may be leading to.
Ms. Friesen: Madam Chairperson, my question really
requires a yes or no answer.
Is the government requiring
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, as I have explained,
government has set out a policy regarding differential fees. Now the universities will look at how they
will implement that.
As I have explained, the process of
differential fees for visa students is not tied to the penalty that exceeding
the 5 percent cap is tied to.
Ms. Friesen: Madam Chairperson, can I then use the
minister's own words again and to say, are universities in
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, in explaining and in
answering, I have given the same explanation to the honourable member, and I
will explain it again. Government has
set a policy. Universities have been informed, but we recognize that
universities will be making their own decisions regarding the application of
the differential fee, and I understand that the presidents may also be
discussing this. It is not tied to the
penalty as the 5 percent cap on student tuition is tied.
* (1530)
Ms. Friesen: The minister said the universities will be
making their own decisions about the application of a differential fee. Does
that mean that universities in
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, again, I have said that
the government has set out a policy.
There has not been a policy that has spoken to the differential fees on
visa students, and there has been across
Ms. Friesen: Madam Chairperson, then what I heard the
minister say was that universities will determine how they will apply a fee
which has been set and requiring them to be implemented by the universities.
Again, I want to ask the minister: Is the government requiring universities in
Mrs. Vodrey: The honourable member seems to be seeking
some specific wording to her answer.
What I am doing is offering her the explanation, and it has been the
same each time.
Government has set a policy regarding the
differential fees for visa students.
That was not articulated or in place in the past. We know that other provinces in
Government has initiated and stated the
policy. This policy has been
communicated to the universities, and now the universities, through their
boards of governors, will determine how they will apply it.
Ms. Friesen: Madam Chairperson, as I understand the minister
then, the universities have no leeway on whether or not to apply a fee. They have only the opportunity to decide how
much of a differential fee will be applied.
Is that what the government is saying, yes or no?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, the universities will
decide how they will apply the differential fee as it relates to visa students.
Ms. Friesen: I do thank the minister for that. I think that is clear. It does take us a step further. The universities must then apply a
differential fee. Do I understand the
minister correctly?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, the universities will decide how they
will apply the fee. We have given a
guideline. The universities will
determine how they will apply it.
Ms. Friesen: The government then is requiring universities
in
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, government has stated our
policy regarding a differential fee to apply to visa students. However, we have not tied the application of
that differential fee to the penalty that we have tied exceeding the 5 percent
cap. Where universities exceed the 5
percent cap on student tuition, we have attached a penalty clause. The universities have been informed of that
when the universities received in writing their information regarding the
grants this year from the Universities Grants Commission.
I stated this physical separation even in
the letter when I answered a previous question for that member. In one paragraph, the 5 percent cap was
stated and the penalty should universities exceed the 5 percent cap. In a separate paragraph, universities were
informed of government's policies regarding differential fees for university
students.
Ms. Friesen: Madam Chairperson, the minister is answering
questions which I have not asked. I am
not asking at this stage about the penalty.
I am asking the simple question whether universities in
Universities are very much confused about
what is happening. If you look, for example, at the
I want the minister to say on record that,
yes, this government is requiring universities in
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, the answer to the member
remains the same. Government has set a
policy. The policy has been communicated
to the universities. However, the
application of the differential fee is not tied to the penalty clause as I have
explained to the member. Therefore,
universities will make their decisions.
They will make their decision as to how they apply the fee. Now, the member may now have to approach the
universities and speak to them about how they wish to apply the fee, but they
now have the decision‑making process.
We have communicated with universities, spoken with universities and now
the universities will make their decision.
Ms. Friesen: Madam Chairperson, well, then as I understand
what the minister said yesterday, she has now changed her position. Yesterday,
I said to the minister and I am quoting, I said: "If I am to understand what the minister
is saying now, it is that the universities are under no direction, under no
compunction, there will be no penalty if they do not apply differential fees to
international students," and the minister said that is correct. So what she has said today is somewhat
different. She is saying that there is‑‑[interjection]
So let us follow up with some examples, if
we can perhaps get at the answer that way.
As far as this government is concerned, is it within the policy that the
minister and government have set for the universities now to apply a $1
differential fee; that is, they would be following the path of applying a
differential fee and having the liberty to choose at what level it will be set?
[interjection] I am asking a question.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I have answered the
question several times. The member is
asking me to speculate on what universities might do. I have told her that universities now will decide
how they will apply the differential rate to visa students.
Ms. Friesen: So the only area of choice, of decision making
to the universities is in the level of the fee.
I understand what the minister is saying.
Is it within the context of this
government's policy for the universities to set a $1 differentiation fee for
visa students?
Mrs. Vodrey: The universities, as I have said, will decide
how they wish to apply the differential fee.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Madam Chairperson, what has happened is
the government did make a commitment to rural Manitobans when they introduced
the VLT system. What they did is they
said that the VLT revenues would in fact be returned to rural economic
development. They even came up with a
program known as REDI.
My question to the Deputy Premier is: Why has this government broken its promise
and not allocated all the revenues that are being generated from the VLT
machines back into rural
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Madam Chairperson, I think it is important
that we step back just a little bit further than the position which the would‑be
Leader of the Liberal party is wanting to start from, and that is the
commitment of this government, this Premier (Mr. Filmon) and this party to
rural
* (1540)
I will put on the record many of the
things that this government has done to maintain and to establish for this
country an agricultural‑‑or maintain an established agricultural
base that this country has depended upon for many, many years.
The thousands of dollars in program
funding that have been put in place through the GRIP and NISA program, Madam
Chairperson, cannot be disregarded‑‑the amount of funds that are
continued to be put in place and supported by this Premier and by this
government in decentralization of government services throughout rural
Manitoba, the programs that have been announced a year ago for the mining
industry to support the enhancement of mining activities, for the thousands of
dollars that this government committed to the upgrading of the smelter in Flin
Flon, millions of dollars which in fact will make sure that there is not
environmental difficulty. That has been
ongoing for many years, and it is in fact being upgraded.
I could go on and on as to the commitment
of this government to rural
I have not heard the member stand up and
in any way acknowledge the policies of this government in the introduction of
VLTs, to say, we appreciate the government of Manitoba introducing a program
that would, in fact, support and retain rural hotels throughout Manitoba. Not once have I heard him in a positive way
say that, Madam Chairperson. Not once
have I heard him stand up and give credit to the positive initiatives that have
been introduced by this government, but he comes with the tack that he thinks
he is going to gain some political support for his leadership, political
opportunism, because he picks up on an issue that he thinks is in some way going
to cause the government problems.
I can tell you, I do not think he is on
the right track. Madam Chairperson, there has been a commitment made, and there
have been commitments lived up to as it relates to‑‑I can add a few
more: the rural water program under the
Southern Development Initiative, where there are several millions of dollars
that have been put into the sewer and water; for example, the program in
Brandon where the Department of Rural Development put a million dollars into
the upgrading of the Ayerst program for sewage treatment.
I could continue on, Madam Chairperson,
but I know that members hopefully would like to pass this this afternoon,
hopefully they would so that government could carry on with the business,
rather than continually delay activities of government which cost taxpayers
money.
I believe there has been a commitment made
and a commitment lived up to, as there will continue to be commitments made and
lived up to by this government to rural
The specifics of which he is asking, I
will let the minister responsible further respond to, but I am not going to
stand here, Madam Chairperson, or sit here, or this government is not going to
sit here and take the kind of politicizing, the kind of lack of vision, lack of
acknowledgement of what really has taken place throughout our rural
communities. There is a commitment to
rural
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, I am absolutely amazed
with the bafflegab that I just heard from the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey). He talked about commitments that he made to
rural Manitobans. What is very clear is
that this government broke a commitment.
They made a commitment that the VLT revenues would be returned to rural
The Deputy Premier says, well, we have
programs for the mining industry; we have a rural water commitment. Madam Chairperson, that has nothing to do the
question I asked the Deputy Premier. The
question I asked the Deputy Premier was, why did this government break its
promise to rural Manitobans by not returning the VLT revenues back to rural
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Madam
Chairperson, I am more than happy to stand in response to this question. This is one that has been raised by the
member opposite on a couple of occasions, yet he knows nothing about what is
going on in rural
Let me just, for his edification, explain
what has happened in rural
Madam Chairperson, first of all, with
regard to the VLT revenues that are generated in rural Manitoba, the reason
that the VLTs were introduced into rural Manitoba was twofold; first of all, to
assist in the revitalization, if you like, of the rural hotel industry that was
dying in the province of Manitoba. It was a way for us to assist that industry
to survive in many of the rural communities across this province that were
suffering as a result of the lack of business in those establishments.
I have to tell you that has been a success
story because today we have the rural hotel industry in this province
thriving. I would have to say that there
would have been at least a dozen hotels in this province that may have closed
if we had not taken some action in that regard.
The second purpose of that was to ensure
that we could use some of that money to reinvest in
Madam Chairperson, I have to tell you
that, indeed, communities around this province have taken good advantage of the
REDI program, of the Grow Bond program, of Partners with Youth, of the Green
Team and of the initiatives that have been implemented to assist rural
The member says, you broke faith because
you said all of the money was going to be returned to rural
I have had the opportunity, as Minister of
Rural Development, to visit communities all across this province, and I speak
with people who are out there working and earning hard‑earned dollars and
are paying taxes. If you ask them where
they see priorities for money that this government spends, they will tell you
that they are such issues as health in this province, as education in this
province‑‑[interjection] Yes, as agriculture in this province, as
social services.
I would have to tell this House that if
you were to survey the public in rural Manitoba, I am sure that 70 percent plus
would tell you that the monies generated from these video lottery terminals
should be going to those initiatives and reducing the deficit.
Is that not a tremendous assistance to the
rural inhabitants of our province, to lower the deficit, to indeed put money
into health, to indeed put money into education and into the services that we
may not be able to support if we did not have this kind of revenue generated
from a variety of means?
Now, Madam Chairperson, although the
member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), who is running for leadership in the
Liberal Party, tries to make a point of all of this because he is trying to
garner some support out there in rural Manitoba. He has not laid out any kind of a plan that
his party has for any kind of revenues that would come from video lotteries if
he were the Premier. As a matter of
fact, he says give it back to the municipalities; do not really have a plan but
give it back to the municipalities. They
do not have any priorities. They do not
have any vision for this province; so therefore, his only recourse is to stand
up and attack something that he knows nothing about.
* (1550)
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, the minister did not make
it very clear that this government did break their promise. Now, I want to quote a letter. I will be more than happy to table it after I
go through it. This is what the letter
says‑‑and this is the initiative that I had nothing to do
with. I did not ask for these letters
even though a number of them were sent to me.
This is the first paragraph: Please let this letter serve as notice that
we are extremely upset with the position that the provincial government has
taken in regards to the distribution of revenues generated from the video
lottery terminals in rural
Well, Madam Chairperson, who did this
letter come from? It came from mayors,
it came from reeves. I want to put on
the record who sent these letters: the
Town of Niverville, signed by the council of the Town of Niverville; the Town
of Carman; the Village of Teulon; the Municipality of Bifrost; the Rural
Municipality of Lakeview; the Rural Municipality of Strathclair; the Rural
Municipality of Lawrence; the Rural Municipality of Woodlands; the Local
Government District of Lynn Lake; the district of Altona; the Village of
Arborg; the Village of McCreary; the Rural Municipality of Winchester; the
Rural Municipality of Woodworth; the Rural Municipality of Miniota; the Town of
The Pas; the Village of St. Claude; the Rural Municipality of Langford; the
Rural Municipality of St. Laurent; the Town of Carman; the Rural Municipality
of Gilbert Plains; the Town of Souris; the Rural Municipality of Ste. Rose; the
Rural Municipality of Arthur; the R.M. of Roland; the Town of Niverville; the
Town of Snow Lake, town office‑‑actually the Town of Snow Lake had
another letter that went.
Madam Chairperson, the letters go on. A number of letters from rural Manitobans,
mayors, reeves. Rural
This is a case which clearly demonstrates
that this government does not have a plan in terms of VLTs. It was interesting to hear the minister say
that we do not have a plan in this party.
Well, I can say that I have a plan, or more of a plan, on the whole
issue of gambling which has been tabled, Madam Chairperson, not in this Chamber
but in other forums, on what it is that we believe we should be doing in terms
of gambling. But gambling is another
issue.
What this government did is they brought
in the VLTs and tried to justify bringing in VLTs to rural Manitobans by saying
that all the proceeds that come from the VLTs would be redirected back into the
rural economy. Then they created this
REDI program, and all of those monies were to go back to rural
Madam Chairperson, the government was
quick to say, no, no, that this is not, in fact, the case. When I raised the issue inside the Chamber,
when I asked the Minister of Family Services that particular question, did he
say it? Well, what was the
response? The response was, well, you
know, maybe the Minister of Family Services was not too far off, that we do not
want all of that revenue, as we promised, going back to rural Manitoba, that we
want to use those funds to do other things.
Now they come up with these other things being health care, social
services, deficit.
Madam Chairperson, we are all concerned
about those issues, but the bottom line is that this government made a
commitment to rural
Madam Chairperson, there are
municipalities that have not received a dime from the VLT revenues, not one
dime. They have all contributed to
it. Now, we have provided‑‑[interjection]
The member for
Madam Chairperson, I think the member for
Madam Chairperson, I would suggest to you
that the former member for
The member for
I think the member for
You know, the Minister of Rural
Development (Mr. Derkach) said, well, it is wonderful, the VLTs have brought
life back to the hoteliers. Madam
Chairperson, I do not stand up and I do not give credit for that.
I do not see the government standing up
and talking about some of the negative social costs of the VLTs. I do not see that happening.
What I do see happening is a government
that has broken a promise, a promise that was very clear to rural
Manitobans. That promise was to give
that money back or put that money back into the rural economy.
Again, I know that the minister wants to
answer the question. So I am going to
pose the same question that I asked the Deputy Premier now to the Minister
responsible for Rural Development.
* (1600)
How does the minister justify breaking a
promise to rural Manitobans, because it was very clear that all of the VLT
revenues were to be returned back to rural Manitoba, and he knows that. How does he justify not doing that now today?
Mr. Derkach: Madam Chairperson, it is unfortunate that the
member from
He wants us now to do a thorough
investigation of where gambling is going in this province, but I find it almost
strange‑‑
An Honourable Member: Passing strange.
Mr. Derkach: ‑‑passing strange that on March
18 of 1993 in committee the member for
Madam Chairperson, the member went on a
bit of a tirade about the fact that we have not returned any money to rural
So for his information I would like to put
on record some of the initiatives that have been undertaken as a result of
revenues that have been gained through the VLTs. First of all, we have had a very successful
Grow Bond program initiated in this province, one that many of our investors
and many of our communities are seeing a way in which communities can invest in
projects within their own backyards. I
guess I would have to point to such successful ventures as the Rimer‑Alco
one that was launched in Winkler, whereby we saw, through the initiative of
Grow Bonds, significant dollars invested in that community. Today, Rimer‑Alco
is bringing on new products as a result of that investment, and it is also
saving, as the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) indicates, a large chunk of
money for the government.
Well, Madam Chairperson, that was one
project. If I wanted to describe each
and every one of those projects, I would show the member that rural Manitobans
have found the Grow Bond vehicle a successful way in which they can invest in
projects that will help their communities, not only in investment but also in
the creation of jobs.
Madam Chairperson, I would have to say
that the initiatives under the Grow Bond program have resulted in well over 160
jobs in rural
Under the REDI program, we have launched
about 40 projects, either under the Feasibility Studies program, under the
Project Development Support program or under the infrastructure support
program, and we have returned significant dollars to rural
And that is just the beginning, Madam
Chairperson. The REDI program is one
that you will not find in the
That program focuses on rural economic
development, and it was because of this program that we were able to assist
Ayerst Organics to establish and to expand a plant in
Madam Chairperson, this man says that we
do not have any idea about returning money into rural
Madam Chairperson, there are other
initiatives that are being launched right across this province, and under the infrastructure
program or under any of the REDI programs, any municipality, any community can
access those dollars. They can apply for
them, and based on the criteria that has been established, they can access
dollars for worthy projects in their communities.
Madam Chairperson, we did not say when we
launched the program that we were going to just throw this money at rural
Manitoba and hope that somehow some of it would fall in areas that would
benefit the community. We said that we
would establish programs, and under those established programs, we would return
that money to those communities.
Another successful program, Madam
Chairperson, that I would like to talk about is the Partners with Youth. As a matter of fact, I have to tell you I met
with the western economic development corporation not that long ago and, to my
surprise and to my happiness, the western economic development corporation has
hired a young individual under the Partners with Youth program to assist him in
economic development programs in the Westman area.
This is now happening in other regions of
the province, a good way to share the resources, to provide jobs for young
people in this province, long‑term jobs which will indeed be of benefit
to those individuals and to those communities.
Another very successful program, Madam
Chairperson, one that was criticized, I might say, was the Green Team. Now the Green Team was a program to simply
provide employment for high school students and for young university students
in their own communities. What that
meant was that those students could work in their own communities, could earn
some dollars in their communities, but they would have to work at sustainable
development projects, projects that would be of economic benefit to those
communities and to those areas. Indeed,
these students then did not migrate to the cities where they would be taking
jobs that could otherwise be taken by students in the urban centres.
Secondly, most of them were able to live
in their communities and put away some money for perhaps their tuition and
their much needed class that they are associated with going to university. That
program was very, very successful and, if you ask any of the participating
communities, they would tell you that they would like to see that program
expanded because it was so popular in those areas. As a matter of fact, in a matter of a couple
of weeks the entire program was taken up.
So it is programs of this nature.
We have also assisted very unique
projects, and I would like to talk about a project, almost a cottage industry
type project, which we were able to support.
It was a project whereby a woman who was involved in a farming operation
wanted to do something in terms of adding value to the product that their farm
was growing. Through assistance from
Rural Economic Development Initiative she was able to put together some of her
money and develop a product which is now being sold not only throughout the
province but indeed in other jurisdictions as well. Now that little industry that grew up from a
little farm is employing five people in a small rural community. These are the types of success stories that
are out there, and they are only successful because we have been able to
provide for the communities those kinds of supports which help that little
business or that little industry get off the ground.
* (1610)
Madam Chairperson, I could stand here all
day and talk about the successful initiatives that have resulted because we
have implemented two programs: one, the
Grow Bonds program; and secondly, the Rural Economic Development Initiative
program.
I have to tell you that I look forward to
that member getting more information about the REDI program and about the Grow
Bond program and I would be happy to sit down with him and show him the value
that there is in these programs for rural Manitoba.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, I will go right back to
the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) but, before I do, I want to ask
one question of the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey).
The other day I asked a question of the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) with reference to the 25 percent going towards the rural
municipalities. He implied in his answer
to that question that the reason why they would not want to do something of
this nature is that they do not want to create slush funds for the rural
municipalities.
This is on page 1262. I can quote from it where it is halfway
through, because he did have a bit of a verbal diatribe here: "The issue in the minds of people of
this province is, there is only one set of priorities. When they say that health care, education and
our social safety net are the biggest set of priorities, they do not want us to
set aside 25 percent of the Lotteries funds in a slush fund so that some
municipal governments . . . " and so on.
I am wondering if the Deputy Premier can
expand on that point. Does he believe
that if they gave the 25 percent to the rural municipalities they would be
irresponsible with the money and create slush funds, to coin the phrase that the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) used? Why is this
government really opposing the 25 percent?
Is it, as the Premier is saying, because of a slush fund?
Mr. Downey: Madam Chairperson, let me at the outset say
that in no way in the answer that the Premier has given, or at any time, has he
ever in any way lessened the importance of the leaders throughout rural
Manitoba, those people who are elected to do their jobs in civil governments
representing municipalities. I have
never at any time heard him say anything to that situation; however, I have
heard him praise the work and efforts of those leaders throughout
As it relates to comments from Hansard of
the other day, the Premier has many times, I think, demonstrated where the
government's priorities are: Health,
Education and safety nets through Family Services. That has been demonstrated time and time
again.
There is one other point that should be
put on the record as it relates to not only the municipal people but the
general public. There is one other
policy that should be spelled out that our Premier stands very strong on and
shows tremendous leadership, and that is the ability of this government to
tighten its belt and, at the same time, maintain the essential services in
Health, Education and Family Services, but to be able to freeze the taxes, the
sales tax, the personal income tax that leaves monies in the pockets of every
taxpayer to add to the economic activities of this province.
That is the kind of money that this
Premier (Mr. Filmon) is talking about when he talks about how important it is
to economic generation. Now, as far as
the slush fund comment is concerned, I would ask that the member at his first
opportunity ask the Premier to further elaborate.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Chairperson,
in the Chair)
I can tell you, our Premier has tremendous
commitment to the municipal governments of this province, and that has been
demonstrated time and time again and the co‑operative approach that has
been taken: his leadership in working
with the northern communities, as it related to the devastation of forest
fires; his work and the co‑operation and in fact the recognition that he
gave the municipal leaders at that particular time; the work that has been done
with the Union of Municipalities, as it related to close co‑operation on
decentralization of government works; and the credibility that our Premier has
when it comes to the municipal people.
So I am not in any way taking from the comment that the Premier put on
the record that there is any way that lessens his respect for the municipal
leaders throughout this province.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to just
pick up on that. It is interesting, the
remarks that the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) says, because it is straight from
Hansard. He is referring to the people of
Does the Deputy Premier agree with that
statement?
Mr. Downey: In no way have any comments come from this
government, the leadership of this government that in any way would diminish
the importance of the leadership of the municipal officials in rural Manitoba‑‑in
no way has that happened.
In fact, what the Premier has said in that
statement is that he is committed to making sure that the health, education and
safety nets are there for those people throughout rural Manitoba, which those
people who lead, those people at municipal levels have the what‑with
through the tax revenues that they generate to provide the services, whether it
is in health, whether it is in education or whether it is in family services
and/or whether it is in programs like the farm safety net, the GRIP and NISA
programs. It is this Premier who has
made sure those programs have been put in place supporting his ministers who
have come forward with initiatives.
That is what this Premier has done. That is what this government has done. I am sure that if the member wants further
clarification, that the Premier will be back very shortly to in fact clear that
up for him.
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would very much
like to clear that up because I think that the words speak for themselves. That was in Hansard. Definitely he is implying that he does not
trust the 25 percent for the simple reason it is a slush fund.
My question to the Deputy Premier is: Can he tell the House why 25 percent cannot
go back to the rural municipalities given that they were promised that all the
revenues that were going to be generated from the VLT machines would be going
back to rural
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the Deputy Premier
(Mr. Downey) might deny that that commitment was there, but there are letters‑‑I
am sure I have at least 30 letters from different municipalities saying that
that promise has been broken, that they were promised all of those
revenues. So because they are not
materializing on those VLT revenues, the municipalities have been arguing that
they would like to have 25 percent of the revenues. The government can hopefully put back in the
balance of those percentages, but why is this government not wanting to give
the 25 percent back to the rural municipalities.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in response to the
member's question, again, I would have to say that first of all that money that
is coming from the VLTs is indeed important to not only municipalities, but is
important to us as government and the people of this province. We need to put those scarce revenue dollars
to the best possible use we can.
The member for
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have to tell you
that we will be making a policy statement with regard to what those monies will
be used for. I have to tell you that we
have spent a long time in discussion, in deliberation. I personally have talked to municipalities around
this province, to communities around this province for many, many hours with
regard to the revenues that are going to be coming or are coming to this
province from video lotteries. As I
indicated a moment ago, there will be a general policy statement made as to how
these dollars will be used for the benefit of people in this province.
* (1620)
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister says that
I just want to throw the 25 percent out.
The minister accuses me of just jumping on the municipal bandwagon for
the 25 percent. He says that is what I have done, from his seat. I do not believe what the Premier has said
about a slush fund. I do not believe the
preamble or the comments that the minister himself has just put onto the
record.
I believe that municipalities can spend
money responsibly. [interjection] Well, the minister implies it. The minister implies it by the fact that if
you read what the Premier is saying in terms of does not support the 25 percent
because of other things that he would like to see the money spent on, when the
government did make the commitment that the money would be returned to rural
Manitoba. Now the minister has said
something for the first time that I have not heard before; it is that they will
be coming up with a policy statement. I
ask the minister, when are we going to see the policy statement?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we will be coming
forth with a statement on how lottery dollars are going to be expended in the
very near future. As the member knows, a
budget date has been set, and many of these announcements that have to be made
will be made in and around the time that the budget will be tabled in this
House.
Mr. Lamoureux: I would ask the minister if he has been
consulting with any rural municipalities with respect to this policy statement.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, yes, as a matter of
fact, I have met with organizations, not just municipalities, but I have met
with chambers of commerce. I have met
with individual groups in communities. I
have met with the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities. I have also met with the Union of Manitoba
Municipalities. So I have met with a
variety of groups, their executives, their directors, where we have embarked on
discussions with regard to VLT revenues.
I have basically given them the same message that in a very short time
frame we will be coming forward with a statement on how video lottery revenues
are going to be expended in this province.
Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister indicate that the City of
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have not spoken to
anyone in the City of
Mr. Lamoureux: So the policy statement that is going to be
coming up in and around the same time that the budget is being introduced, that
will just be on the VLTs in rural Manitoba only.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is difficult to
make a policy statement on something that is not in place at this time. As I
have indicated, that is an issue that certainly will be addressed as we
approach the installation of terminals in the city of
Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister indicate if he has met with
the MAUM or UMM at all with respect to the policy?
Mr. Derkach: Well, I meet with UMM and MAUM officials
monthly. We try to meet monthly for a short meeting with their executives. Sometimes it does not quite work out that we
meet on a monthly basis but, during those meetings, on several occasions we
have addressed the whole issue of VLT revenues and also the REDI program, Grow
Bond program and all of those kinds of programs associated with rural economic
development in
(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, I know that I have heard,
or at least I have had one presentation from one of the organizations in which
they made reference to the 25 percent as one of their major concerns or
issues. I am wondering if in fact the
discussion about the 25 percent, if the government has considered that. If they have considered it, maybe he can
somewhat expand so that individuals could at least plan on some of their
budgets. You know, municipalities too
have budgets that have to come forward also.
Mr. Derkach: Well, as I indicated to the member earlier,
this type of information will be made in a general policy statement, and that
is not something that I can speak about at this moment.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, I did want to emphasize to
the government, given that they are going to be having a policy statement with
respect to the VLTs‑‑I know that the Minister for Lotteries has a
meeting that she has to get to right away, so I am just going to ask a couple
of very brief questions with respect to it.
The first question, Madam Chairperson, is
with respect to the study. There is a
study that is being done. I was
wondering if the minister can report to the Chamber as to what the current
status is and what she is anticipating.
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister charged with the administration of The
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, I have heard, and I take
it that the minister has heard of a number of incidents that have occurred in
rural
I would ask the minister if in fact the
department has anything that is tracking what has been going on. I know that there have been some cases, and I
believe we have discussed it previously, about some concerns with some suicides,
to individuals' family breakups, that sort of thing. Is there anything being done to track the
social costs of the VLT machines?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I do know that there are
many Manitobans for one reason or another who do have compulsive, addictive
behaviours of some sort. Very often it
is not just a gambling compulsion. There
are many of us, probably some of us in this room, who have some habits that
might be considered compulsive to some degree.
It is not unlike any other kind of addictive, compulsive behaviour.
We heard instances where certain things
have been attributed to VLTs, like the suicides that were mentioned. I think the chief coroner for the Province of
Manitoba indicated very clearly in his comments that it was rather foolhardy to
think that video lottery terminals alone would have caused a suicide, that
indeed there were probably many other circumstances surrounding that very
unfortunate situation or a couple of incidents that did occur.
I guess the issue of dealing with people
who have any type of addictive behaviour is indeed the recognition by that
individual that they have a problem.
Unless that person does admit there is a problem, or there are
extenuating circumstances where the family notices a major change in habit,
Madam Chairperson, it is extremely difficult to track, because there are people
when they are asked whether they have an addictive behaviour do indicate quite
clearly that they do not. So unless‑‑
An Honourable Member: I do not, but I like to play just the same.
Mrs. Mitchelson: My colleague indicates, too, that many people do
use different forms of gambling or gaming as a form of entertainment. Before government got involved in lotteries
of any sort, we had the horse racing industry.
We have had for many, many years‑‑I have known of card games
and gambling that go on in the basements of homes throughout the
community. Community organizations have
been running bingo activities and events for many, many years.
It is very difficult to determine whether
video lottery terminals alone have an impact on a wide, broad cross section of
the community. I do know there are many
people who do participate in many different forms of gambling activities. So to deal with video lottery terminals in
isolation, I think, is pretty difficult.
* (1630)
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, I know that I am on the
record of calling for a moratorium in terms of the VLTs. I am also on the record of saying the City of
I want to concentrate on why I say the
moratorium, because I believe we need to know or have an idea in terms of the
direction that we want to go, the direction that we want to take the province
with VLTs. No doubt there are many
different forms of gambling that are out there.
It is just a question in terms of‑‑well, we legalize this,
we bring in that, we do this and where is the line? How far do we go before we cross that line,
that imaginary line, if you like?
I am wondering if the minister would be
better off to have some sort of a study complete so that we know what the
social costs are prior to bringing in VLTs into the city of
The VLT machines that are out there right
now in rural Manitoba, the impact that is having on rural Manitobans, the
social costs, government policy could change if we knew what the costs are of
having those VLT machines in rural Manitoba.
We might want to reduce‑‑instead of having dollar VLT slot
machines, we might want to have the 25‑cent slot machines so individuals
cannot lose the same sums of money.
Nickels and quarters is in fact what I would suggest, that the nickel
and quarter machines should be a cap in terms of having them in hotels, because
if you have it in a local hotel and you put in a small number of VLT machines
or restrict to a certain number of VLT machines in rural Manitoba, it will have
an impact. The social cost has to be
followed, tracked, and government needs to act on those studies. It is premature
to be able to implement.
A couple of weeks ago, at the annual
general meeting of our party, I had presented a number of ideas in terms of
gambling, in terms of the direction that I think we should be going, and that
is based, Madam Chairperson, on a lot of talking and a lot of consulting that I
have done with rural Manitobans and individuals who live in the city of
Winnipeg. Before one would implement a
program, you have to know what the costs are going to be, not only the social
costs, the cost to the local community in terms of dollars that are going to be
lost through bingos, through Nevada ticket sales, other nonprofit organizations
that are out there.
I would suggest that the government,
before proceeding ahead with the VLTs in the city of Winnipeg, should know what
those social costs are, and if there are different ways in which we can address‑‑if
it means that we are going to have VLT machines, there are certain things that
we might do to ensure that some of those social costs are minimized. I would ask the minister to comment on that.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, we have had a well thought‑out
plan of implementation of gaming activities throughout
Madam Chairperson, we had then looked at
the next logical step which would be video lottery terminals in the city of
Most of the studies that have been done in
other jurisdictions do indicate that there is a very small component of any
community that indeed has a compulsive or addictive behaviour to gambling and
to gambling machines. We anticipate that
our study in
We will, as a result of the study, when we
find out exactly what problems are associated and what kinds of problems are
indeed here in
As I indicated, what is happening in other
jurisdictions and information that we do have is that it is a small component
of the population that does gamble that truly has an addictive behaviour.
Madam Chairperson, we will continue along
the path that we have indicated. We will
be bringing video lottery terminals into the city of
There are many, many‑‑600,000‑‑people
who live in the city of
Indeed, I think that we have to look at
not necessarily what a mayor and a City Council sitting around a council
chamber in the City of Winnipeg should determine what the priorities are, but
we need to determine for all Winnipeggers, for all Manitobans what their true priorities
are, and we need to channel and focus our scarce resources today in the areas
that are going to most benefit all of the people in the city of Winnipeg and,
indeed, in the province of Manitoba.
They have indicated quite clearly to us,
and I think probably the Liberal Party has heard on many occasions that people,
especially in
Madam Chairperson, I think that what we
have to do is not necessarily listen to the mayor and the city councillors in
the City of
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, I believe it was either
This is the reason why, you know, as I
say, before we continue to expand, we should know what it is that we are doing.
Once you have put in the VLT machines it is going to be very hard‑‑if
government decides tomorrow that no hotel can have more than two VLT machines,
that you cannot have any VLT machine that accepts anything more than a
quarter. If you get any sort of a change
it is going to be that much harder to implement; whereas if we knew in terms of
the direction that the government was wanting to go in advance, then, Madam
Chairperson, I would imagine that there would be a number of things that would
go off a whole lot better.
* (1640)
I have made the assertion in terms of why
this government has tied the VLTs to rural economic development. I have made some assertions as to why they
tied the
The next question that I have I guess
would be more to the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst), unless the Minister
for Lotteries (Mrs. Mitchelson) was wanting to comment on that. I am going to go on to the Minister of Urban
Affairs, Madam Chairperson, as a follow‑up with respect‑‑the
Minister for Lotteries wants to comment first.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, I just wanted to respond
very briefly to the comments that were made about what is happening in the
Maritimes. I always forget whether it is
As a result of some study that they had
undertaken and, indeed, with some consultation with the
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, I will go to the Minister
of Urban Affairs with respect to VLT revenues.
I know that there has been some commotion between the City of
My first question is, has the minister had
any correspondence with the City of
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Urban Affairs): No, Madam Chairperson.
Mr. Lamoureux: Well, I am a bit surprised with that
particular response. I would ask if the
minister responsible is aware of what the City of
Well, with respect to the VLT‑‑just
in case the minister does not know, the City of
Mr. Ernst: Yes, Madam Chairperson.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, the answer was so short
that I did not hear him because other members were talking. Maybe if the minister can respond to it.
Mr. Ernst: The member for
Madam Chairperson, they are, of course,
presuming that at some point, VLTs will be introduced into
I made public statements about this over
the last couple of days. The fact of the
matter is, I think they are either fooling themselves or are attempting to fool
the citizens of
I find that a little puzzling and a little
disturbing that this would occur. We
would all like certain things to happen during the budget process to make that
a little bit easier. The fact of the
matter is, they did not do that. They
did not approach the City of
On top of that, then they had to double up
at the last minute and put in a $4.5 million contingency fund, just in case
they did not get the VLT revenue. So
that I also found a little puzzling.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, even though I do not
support City Council putting it into the budget without consulting with the
minister or at least letting the minister know that this is in fact something
that they want, I can somewhat understand why they would presume it, because
there was a government news release. The
provincial government has indicated that they will be bringing in the VLTs, so
I can understand as to why they would believe that VLT machines would be in the
city of
My question to the minister is with
respect to‑‑if you bring VLT machines into the city of Winnipeg,
much like into rural Manitoba, there are other aspects like, you know,
disposable income‑‑there is only so much in terms of a disposable
income, and if you have more dollars going down a VLT machine, some of those
dollars that are going down there could have been used for other things, such
as local fundraising events, to have individuals being able to participate in
community events. The
I am wondering if the Minister of Urban
Affairs (Mr. Ernst) agrees with that, that there is going to be an additional
cost because of the introduction of the VLTs.
Mrs. Mitchelson: We are working presently as a result of the
veterans' clubs and the legions throughout rural
I think we are finding that, of course,
the break‑open tickets are down.
The revenues are flatter down on break‑open tickets even in the
city of
* (1650)
I do want to indicate that there are many,
many dollars. Studies show that 60 percent of the gaming or gambling dollars
that Manitobans spend are spent outside of the
I am sure that the member for Inkster (Mr.
Lamoureux) would agree with me that, in fact, why should the government of Manitoba
not have access to those revenues so that we can put them back into the
Manitoba community, the Manitoba economy, rather than letting them go to
support South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota?
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, the cost‑‑you
know, we talk about
In fact, even some of the larger ones‑‑you
know, we have seen the hospitals, the foundations and so forth suffering in
terms of ticket sales, that there is additional cost to this. You know, I believe it was the Bombers that
had a $100 lottery ticket and they were unable to sell all their tickets. In previous years they have been more
successful.
Madam Chairperson, if in fact the VLTs
are, at least in part, part of the problem, or if we implement‑‑or
the casinos‑‑what is going to happen is you are going to get the
Bombers, if they require additional monies, they will go to the different
locals of government quite easily. Are
there going to be some costs? I would
ask maybe to the Minister responsible for the Lotteries (Mrs. Mitchelson)
before the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst), but would she agree that
there are some costs that local municipalities or the City of
Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Chairperson, as the mother of an 18‑year‑old
daughter and now a 10‑year‑old son, I have had many, many years of‑‑
An Honourable Member: You are not old enough.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Well, yes, child bride. Anyway, I have gone through many, many years
of community fundraising activities whether it be for gymnastics or whatever my
daughter was involved in up to now, hockey and soccer and obviously different
school activities that do require community support and community
fundraising. I have seen a major change
over the last number of years from the time my daughter was in elementary school
to now my son being in elementary school.
You know, the days of the chocolate bar and that kind of thing are
almost over. Parents are finding, and
children are finding too, that they do not want to keep going back to their
neighbours time after time to sell chocolates which are not necessarily the
most nutritious product.
An Honourable Member: Grandparents always buy.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, and it is either the grandparents or the
immediate neighbours. I am finding that
a lot of parents now are saying to me when they come home asking my child to
sell chocolate bars, I buy all the chocolate bars myself, or just send in the
donation, because it has changed. I
guess the types of fundraising activities have to change on a continual basis,
and you have to have people that are very innovative and creative in finding a
new way to sell a product to generate revenue.
That is not unlike what has happened with
the hospital lotteries that you mentioned earlier. I think we are finding that, you know, the
dream home is no more, I guess, as much a draw to sell lottery tickets as it
has been in the past. Community organizations are having to become more
creative in their marketing strategies, indeed, to generate interest and sale
of lottery dollars and lottery tickets.
We also do know that as times are a little tougher and everyone is
having to tighten their belt a little bit, that sometimes the disposable income
that people have is spent in other ways rather than buying a $100 lottery
ticket. I think the St. Boniface
Hospital has come up with a very innovative new lottery, and it looks like they
are doing fairly well.
But it is incumbent upon those
organizations that are looking towards lottery dollars‑‑and
everyone is looking towards a raffle of some sort or a lottery of some sort to generate
revenue. A lot of thought and energy and
time commitment by volunteers has to go into that kind of activity because the
more people become involved or more organizations become involved in the sale
of lottery tickets or raffles, the more spread around the money becomes, and
they have to fight a little more for the charitable dollar that is available
out there.
There are basically problems and, as I
said, it is up to every community organization to be innovative and creative
and to think of new ways to try to generate that dollar that people are willing
to spend on charitable causes.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, I notice we are quickly
running out of time. Let me ask a
question, because I think that there are valid points that could be made on
both sides of the issue.
I would be curious to know if in fact the
minister would be interested in establishing some form of a task force of
sorts, a relatively inexpensive one, where you just maybe have a member from
each caucus, if you like, and a person from the Lotteries Foundation to go out
and listen to what some of the different communities are in fact saying so that
we can come up with some sort of an overall plan in addressing the whole issue
of gambling.
In a certain way, I do agree with the minister
in the sense that there have been a lot of changes, but I think that there are
a lot of questions that have to be answered.
We are going to agree to disagree on a couple of the points, such as the
25 percent going back to rural
Mrs. Mitchelson: I have to say that those who work at the
Manitoba Lotteries Foundation and indeed myself, as minister responsible, meet
on a regular basis with many members of the community and many community
organizations to try to deal with the issues that have been raised here this
afternoon. You know, ultimately it is
government that has to be held accountable for the decisions that are made, for
the direction that we take, based on the best advice that we get from the
community.
We know on an issue like Lotteries and
generation of Lotteries dollars that there are going to be people on both sides
of the issue, and it does not matter what kind of decision or what kind of an
action government takes. We are not
going to make everyone happy. There are
people who definitely do not agree with any form of gambling or gaming, and
there are those who would like to see it wide open, have us be the
* (1700)
What we have tried to do as a government
is to implement our plan in a very logical way and look at the issues that
arise, the problems that do arise, and deal with those in a very common‑sense
fashion. We will continue to do that
and, as we go along, of course, we have the opportunity through the committee
stage to examine the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation Annual Report, so we can
have that kind of debate in committee among members. I would venture to guess that as we bring in
amendments to The Manitoba Lotteries Foundation Act, that would be an
opportunity then for the public to indeed come forward and present their points
of view.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m. and time for private
members' hour, committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
House
Business
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m. and time for private
members' hour. Before recognizing the
honourable member for
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I wonder
if you might canvass members of the House to see if there is a willingness to
continue with Supplementary Supply, go back into committee to continue
Supplementary Supply and waive private members' hour.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private
members' hour? There appears to be one
dissenting voice. Is there one
dissenting voice? No? For clarification purposes here, is it the
will of the House to waive private members' hour? No?
No, not now. Okay.
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, might I offer a small
compromise? I believe that the member
for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) has a motion which will be before us in private
members' hour. It is the intention, I
think, of our side to deal with it expeditiously, and if that is the case, we
might then return to Supplementary Supply and continue on until six o'clock.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think rather than getting into private
members' hour and then back into Supply to accommodate private members' hour,
would it be acceptable to go into private members' hour say at 5:30? No.
You want to go back into Supply now.
Okay.
Ms. Becky Barrett
(Acting Opposition House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would suggest that a better way to deal with this situation is to
start private members' hour at five o'clock, and should we conclude the Private
Members' Business prior to six o'clock, we can then decide if there is a will
for the House to go back into Committee of Supply.
Mr. Speaker: Okay.
On that recommendation, the only thing I would like to caution the House
is that we would need leave of the House to return to the Supply. So we would need leave to pass the Supply
motion again to go back into Supply.
That is agreed. All right.
PRIVATE
MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m. and time for private
members' hour. In order to facilitate the
workings of the House, are we proceeding at all with debate on second readings,
any public bills? No, we are not
proceeding with any public bills, any at all.
Okay. We will go straight to
resolutions.
PROPOSED
RESOLUTIONS
Res. 13‑Pharmacare
Card
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Health (Mr. Orchard),
WHEREAS seniors make significant
contributions to their communities and the economy throughout their lives; and
WHEREAS many Manitobans, including seniors,
are required to pay for their food and housing as well as other necessities,
including drugs, out of fixed incomes; and
WHEREAS the Pharmacare program in
WHEREAS Manitobans must purchase their
prescribed medications with their own money and then apply for reimbursement of
purchases exceeding the deductible amount; and
WHEREAS Manitobans on fixed incomes may
experience cash flow problems resulting from the purchase of prescribed
medications; and
WHEREAS drug prices are steadily
increasing at a rate at least equal to the rate of inflation; and
WHEREAS people on fixed incomes
experiencing cash flow difficulties may delay or refrain from purchasing
necessary drugs; and
WHEREAS the need to make application for
reimbursement and the time required to process the rebate may cause undue
hardship for people on fixed incomes.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Health to consider adopting
a Pharmacare Card system for Manitobans on fixed incomes which will eliminate
the need to pay for prescribed medications in excess of the Pharmacare
deductible amount; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly
urge the Minister of Health to consider the implementation of a Pharmacare Card
system for all Manitobans.
Motion presented.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to
introduce this resolution for the consideration of this Chamber.
I am grateful that the Minister of Health
(Mr. Orchard) has chosen to second the resolution, because it is so important
to make sure that we spend our dollars very effectively, and it is part of the
health care reform package that the government made a commitment to introduce
the Pharmacare Card system.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the commitment
made by the government and the commitment made by our party for the last five
years, and also I suppose the NDP party was also advocating for the Pharmacare
Card system, and I am hopeful that all the members would agree to pass this
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, it is so essential that not
only in this Chamber we come with criticism to the government, we must offer
the concrete alternatives which are very crucial for the effectiveness of our
health care system. This has been proven
in this House. Many other Houses in this
nation are taking a good look at how the parties can function on a very
fundamental issue such as the health care policy. We are so pleased that at least for the last
two and a half years we have been able to achieve that part. By achieving that, we have been able to do
what is best for all taxpayers of
Mr. Speaker, many other provinces are
having a good look at the health care reform in their own way, but everybody is
giving the example of this province in terms of how the policy is going to
proceed in the long run.
I want to deal with the specifics of the
resolution now.
Many Manitobans, including seniors, are
required to pay for their prescriptions out of fixed incomes. With advances in research, new medications
are arriving on the market. However,
many of these medications are quite costly.
These medications may be beyond the budget of people on fixed
incomes. Drug prices are rising
steadily, at least equal to the rate of inflation.
Mr. Speaker, although the cost of
medications beyond the amount may be reimbursed by the Pharmacare plan, the
realities of month‑to‑month budgeting may make it impossible for a
person to purchase the drugs that he or she needs without sacrificing other
monthly necessities, such as nutritious diet or the payment of the utilities.
Mr. Speaker, as a result, although the person
may like to take the medication, but if they cannot afford on a month‑to‑month
basis, some of those people may not be able to afford the medication. In that way a person may decide to delay the
purchasing of medication to a later date, or the person may decide to ration
medication by not following the correct doses. This can lead to further health
problems or prolong the illness, and that will cost Manitobans more in the long
run.
* (1710)
Mr. Speaker, it is for these reasons that
we are requesting‑‑in fact, the government has agreed, and the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) should be very proud of the fact that he has
been able to second this resolution of ours, which was basically made very
clear during the throne speech.
The Pharmacare card, Mr. Speaker, would be
able to look at the various practical problems of prescribing medication, and
also it can avoid the duplication of some of the medications. The Pharmacare
card can also deal with some of the problems such as double‑dipping.
Mr. Speaker, we will go even further
because ultimately there has to be a smart card which can deal with all the
problems, not only Pharmacare. I think
this will be the first step, and then the government can learn from the experience
or they can bring the smart card as such.
The smart card can deal with all the major components within the health
care system. If the smart card was
issued, say, five years ago, many would argue that government is trying to
restrict health care and that is not the case.
The thinking has totally changed.
As long as we can protect the confidentiality of a patient, we should do
everything possible to make sure the health care dollars are spent very
effectively. If you can have it in a
smart card system which will deal with the three major issues‑‑the
prescription drugs, the medical needs and also the hospital needs‑‑if
you can give a person a specific code number, a PIN number, then that can be
used very effectively without violating patient confidentiality which is very
crucial.
Mr. Speaker, not only will that improve
efficiency, not only will that help seniors and others who are on fixed incomes
so that they do not have to pay money out of their pocket, but it will also
help in the long run to process the applications and cut the time and cut some
of the obstacles that naturally come when you are processing applications on a
day‑to‑day basis. All of
these things put together will help not only individuals on a fixed income, but
everybody who is having access to the medical system.
Mr. Speaker, it is so crucial that, as I
said from the beginning, we deal with the issues of health care in a practical,
in a reasonable‑‑as much as possible in a long‑term point of
view, as much as we should. Ultimately,
if we do not do things right today, they will have a problem in the long
run. We must tell Manitobans that the
changes which are being made today in the health care system are not going to
help this government in the next vote because the results of the good effects
may not show up for four, five years to come.
It is a very, very risky business; it is a risky business in politics,
but not in real life. It will help the
taxpayers in the long run.
We are urging the minister to let the
people of
Mr. Speaker, that kind of information then
is there. It is very helpful. The patients were very comfortable, and it
will make the minister's job very‑‑it will not make the job too
easy, but it will at least make it more comfortable. I think that message has to come across, that
the government is serious as they are, but people have to know the only way we
can do it is if we can disseminate information in a very positive way. We can bring the issues here. We can tell what is wrong, but we should tell
at the same time what is right with the system.
We should tell what the ultimate ways are of improving the system. It is so important because everybody said in
the 1988 campaign, we want a Pharmacare card system.
In 1990, everybody said the same thing,
but actually, in the last throne speech, the government made a commitment in
terms of the implementation of what they have been saying. It is very, very positive, but it is more
positive to see today that the government is going to second this resolution
and make that commitment again. They
want to reinforce it, and our party wants to do the same thing. I am hopeful that members of the NDP would do
the same thing, because that is the only right way. The right way is to work for all Manitobans,
not for a special section of the community.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my comments will be brief, but I
want to say at the outset that I want to thank my honourable friend the member
for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) for again introducing this resolution.
On past occasions, we were certainly
supportive of the principle, and I think it is fair to say that this side of
the House, government, has indicated in the throne speech, as referenced by my
honourable friend, that we are embarking upon the introduction of plastic card
technology to our health care system.
That is why I am pleased to second my
honourable friend's resolution, which I think, Mr. Speaker, is something of an
unusual circumstance in private members' hour.
We normally do not cross political affiliations and have one party
sponsor and have, particularly the government, second the resolution. I think that indicates the kind of co‑operation
that we need in this Chamber to achieve the broad goal of health care reform.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of
points, though, in terms of the introduction of the plastic card technology as
it applies to the Pharmacare program and the wider application that we envision
and that my honourable friend referred to, that being expanding its utilization
across the system for physician billings, optometric billings, even other fee‑for‑service
billings. That has a wider application,
and it is certainly the intent of this government to pursue that as quickly as
possible.
I do want to caution my honourable friends
that this is not an inexpensive proposition.
Introduction of this technology will require fairly significant
investment. It will also, probably at
first, increase our costs of operation until we get the wrinkles out of it, so
I just want to forewarn my honourable friends that this is not a technology
without cost, that there will be program costs involved.
However, the long‑run benefits are
pretty clearly identified, and we think there is an opportunity in Manitoba to
introduce plastic card technology, so that we in effect can probably lead all
Canadian provinces in terms of its introduction across the system and with the
benefits that can ensue from that, from better provision of service and better
identification of services that have been provided to an individual.
All of these are benefits to the health
care system and to those providing services to it. I think that we may have to cross some
policy, and I am not sure of legislative initiatives, to introduce the
technology, and I know that this is understood by the opposition parties. I am signaling and asking for their co‑operation
in that process as we identify sort of the goals we need to establish to bring
this technology, this system of information, to the province of Manitoba.
I want to close, Sir, by saying again, I
congratulate my honourable friend for bringing the resolution in, and I hope
that my honourable friends in the official opposition might see fit to join
with the second opposition party and government in facilitating the
introduction of this technology to the
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): Mr. Speaker, certainly
the official opposition, when it comes to the welfare of senior citizens, will
be willing to consider the implementation of this Pharmacare card which we have
advocated before. [interjection] If the honourable member will review the
record, I have talked about this and how the
As I understand the system, Mr. Speaker,
if a senior citizen on fixed income had a Pharmacare card available to him, he
does not have to come up‑front with the money in order to buy the drug
that he needs. What he will have to pay
is any amount of the drug that is not covered by Pharmacare. That will, of course, become an efficient
system because there will be no need to reclaim the refund of the deductible
later on. It will abolish all parts of
the administrative system. It will
abolish the necessity of putting a deadline whereby the application for the
refund will have to filed, and some seniors have lost their reclaim credits for
the Pharmacare costs. That will no
longer be a problem.
It will simplify the system, because when
a senior citizen comes to a drugstore, all he needs to pay will be any amount
of the cost of the drug that is not covered by Pharmacare. So he pays only that one which is not covered
by the plan, and he waives all the deductible amounts in favour of the
government.
* (1720)
This means that there will be more
efficient government bureaucracy. It
will be issuing cheques to fewer drugstores, the outlets, rather than issuing
cheques to the claimants, the many seniors in this province. That means there will be numerically fewer
numbers of cheques that will have to be issued, and there will be efficiency in
the administration of those refunds to the retailers of drugs.
If we look at the historical background of
this difficulty of Pharmacare, which is a component subsystem of our medicare
system, we can trace the difficulty to when the arrangement between the federal
government and the provincial government was unilaterally changed by the
federal government. We know for a fact
that initially there was this arrangement in the provincial level of government
and the federal level of government by which the federal government at the
start of the system of medicare will pay 50 percent of the costs of
medicare. Then, in 1987, the federal
government amended these arrangements and reduced its contribution to a fixed
percentage of the overall economic performance of
Then the federal government, in 1987,
amended the Patent Act and gave the multinational drug companies, in 1987, a 10‑year
monopoly on the development of new drugs, new products. Finally, in 1992, the law had extended this
monopoly to the multinational drug companies to 20 years.
This had adverse effects on the generic
drug companies which are Canadian owned.
The cost of pharmaceuticals, therefore, had gone up in the level of
costs. There is no more generic
substitute that can be made available at the reduced cost of approximately 30
or 40 percent less than the brand name drug.
The trouble with this change brought about
by Bill C‑91 is that the brand name drug companies will have an exclusive
right to 20 years for any new drugs that they develop, and the costs of those
drugs will of course escalate because they are brand name drugs.
As an example of an illustration of this
rise in the cost of drugs, there was a brand name drug, for example, in the
You could see that this is about a 1,000
percent increase in the cost of the same medication simply because it is now
under the monopoly of a multinational company which is primarily based in the
This is the ultimate cause of our
trouble. What is the effect of this in
the provincial system of our costs of medicare, including Pharmacare, as a
subcomponent of our medical system?
This means that the provincial drug plans
will be forced to raise their deductible, and this has already happened in this
province. The deductible of 80 percent
has been reduced. It means that it will
have to limit the coverage of the kinds of drugs that will be covered by the
insured scheme in the provincial system, and that is already happening
now. We have already taken off some of
the other main drugs from the insured list, and anybody who needs those kinds
of drugs will no longer be covered. That
means they have to pay it from their own pockets.
Mr. Cheema: What does that have to do with the
resolution? Let us pass it and get on
with this.
Mr. Santos: The honourable member for The Maples (Mr.
Cheema) says, what has this to do? I am
trying to explain why the costs of the drugs are escalating because we have
given the drug companies the exclusive right to certain monopoly of certain
drugs.
And the introduction of the Pharmacare
card. What will this help in the control
of the cost of drugs? It will not. What it will only facilitate is that it will
help the senior citizen to be able to acquire those drugs immediately without
coming up with the entire cost to pay for the drug, because with the use of the
Pharmacare card all that they have to pay, as I have stated before, is the
difference that is not covered by the Pharmacare plan.
With this, Mr. Speaker, I commend the
resolution which has the support of the government and that the government in
effect had accepted the introduction of the Pharmacare card in this province
with the official opposition's natural support for the benefit of our senior
citizens. Thank you.
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, as was indicated by the member
for Broadway (Mr. Santos) quite eloquently, we on this side of the House are
quite prepared to support this resolution, having advocated this measure
initially in 1988. We are very pleased
to see that all sides of the House are concurring in this progressive step to
recognize a change in reality, a difference in a program that has existed for
some time and been very successful, but quite obviously requires some changes
insofar as particularly, as the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) indicated, the
requirements and needs of many seniors in our society who are suffering some
fiscal and financial restraint.
Having said that, I can indicate that we
are in support of the resolution and very happy to see that all sides of the
House concur on this very important and significant resolution. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
resolution? [agreed]
House
Business
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Government House Leader: Mr. Speaker, I
wonder if you would please determine if there is leave of the House for me to
again move the Ways and Means motion, so that we may return to the Committee of
Ways and Means.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to allow the
honourable acting government House leader to return to Ways and Means? [agreed]
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and
that the House resolve itself into a committee to consider Ways and Means for
raising of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty
with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair.
* (1730)
SUPPLY‑INTERIM
SUPPLY
COMMITTEE
OF WAYS AND MEANS
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): The Committee of Ways and Means will come to
order to consider the resolution of Ways and Means.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I know that there have been several groups
lobbying the minister and members of government to look at elk ranching. There
is elk ranching going on in other provinces at the present time. There are serious problems with tuberculosis
outbreaks in those provinces, but there are people who still continue to lobby
to have that industry started here in
I want to ask the Minister of Natural
Resources (Mr. Enns) what his government's position is, and what message he is
giving to those people who are lobbying, in particular the venison council, who
are wanting to start elk and deer ranching.
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I can confirm for the honourable member that there are, of
course, ongoing representations made to government on the subject of elk ranching. These representations are understandable
inasmuch that, as the member is aware, this is an activity that is permitted in
most other provinces I believe.
I am not totally up to date on where all
the jurisdictions stand on the matter, but certainly our provinces to the
immediate west, Saskatchewan and Alberta, have developed over the past number
of years, I suppose my cultural friends would say, a significant industry in
the business of raising elk and/or other animals that we would consider to be nondomestic.
The member is also aware, and certainly I
am very much aware, and she alluded to it in her questions, that it is not
without difficulty. There have been some
very serious problems both in
I can report to her that I have not been
led to any conclusion to change the current policy of the government, which is
simply that that is not permitted in
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister alluded to the fact that there
are problems in other provinces with this industry. We hear about the amount of tuberculosis
outbreaks that have been in other provinces.
I want to ask the minister whether or not
his government has done any studies, and whether or not he is prepared to share
those studies with us now as to the consequences of keeping those animals,
particularly elk and deer, in captivity, what the amount of disease is, and
whether they have done any studies on that?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am not aware of any
recent specific study on the subject matter.
I would have to go back into the archives of the department. I suspect there was a reasonable amount of
studying undertaken some seven or eight years ago when, in fact, a trial period
existed where one or two operators were licensed or permitted on a temporary
basis to get into the business of elk ranching.
The member is fully aware of this.
This in fact took place in her constituency up in
The member is also aware that a subsequent
decision by the government of the day to not proceed with the practice of elk
ranching was accompanied with some considerable public outlay of tax dollars
to, in effect, bring that operation to an end, to, in effect, buy out the
licensed operator and bring elk ranching officially to an end in the province
of Manitoba. We, of course, have
monitored and have been recipients of some of the studies and some of the
research data that continues to be produced, particularly from those
jurisdictions that have experienced problems with this, and I refer again
specifically to the health problems associated with it.
There is another kind of overriding reason
why in
A great deal of the income earned by
people who are engaging in this process is in the moving around of breeding
stock. Elk ranchers in
It has always been a position that my
wildlife specialists have told me is possibly one of the‑‑even
greater than the health concerns, is this concern about denigrating the gene
stock that we have in our native elk populations.
Now, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, you of all
people will be aware that there are, as well, other concerns. There are.
There are a legitimate number of people who have no intention of
engaging in elk ranching. There are
people, urban Manitobans and others, and I suppose they could be qualified or
could be put under the term, for instance, under such organizations like the
Manitoba Wildlife Federation and supported by their national organization, the
Canadian Wildlife Federation, which is a substantial group of people who are
concerned about the natural environment, including people who are concerned
about maintaining responsible hunting regulations.
In the main, these organizations,
representing many hundreds of thousands of citizens across this land and in
An Honourable Member: What about
Mr. Enns: My learned colleague from the wilds of
Charleswood (Mr. Ernst), where wildlife abound, correctly points out that there
is this kind of peculiar definition of what constitutes a wild animal and how
we handle it. For instance, there is no
prohibition against bison farming.
* (1740)
There is a somewhat different attitude
toward deer farming, the
To answer her more directly again, this is
where it is at as far as
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister did
raise the whole issue of the game farming, the elk ranching which did take
place in my constituency, and he is well aware that it was a very controversial
issue at that time.
I would hope that if this government was
considering establishing elk ranching again that he would tell the people that
if he is going to do it, he will take it to public hearings so that people can
again have input just as they did the last time. I think it is an important enough issue so
those people who have an interest in it should have a say in what is going on.
I think that we should be very concerned
about the stock here in Manitoba and protecting that breed, that particular
gene pool, and that we do not lose it by having other stock brought into the
province.
It is interesting that the minister is
separating deer farming and elk farming because when we had the presentation
from that particular group, I thought that they were one and the same thing.
The minister has talked about the whole
trial period of those two projects that took part and were cancelled. He said that they cost the public purse a lot
of money, and they did. It was a
tremendous amount of money that was paid out.
I want to ask the minister why those elk
are still being held. Those elk, the
government paid for them, but they are still being held by that same person who
had them before.
This has been brought to the minister's
attention. Why has he not addressed that
whole issue, because it was my understanding that when Mr. Eisner was paid for
those elk, that that was going to be the end of it, but there are still elk in
captivity, and I believe that there are elk even leaving the province from that
particular ranch or farm, whatever you want to call it, and there are products
being taken out to the States.
I want to ask the minister, why then was that
substantial amount of money paid out by the government, and why did nobody take
any action to see that those animals were not removed?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have no reason or
desire not to be absolutely candid with the honourable member for
There are elk being held in captivity in
different parts of the province under permit.
The exact rationale or how that came about I am not fully, you know,
capable of explaining at this time. I
would welcome her questions perhaps at that point in time when we deal with the
Estimates of the department and I have my officials with me, or I can undertake
to provide her with an answer by taking these questions back to my department.
The issues as well are separate. Elk farming is not taking place in the
I drove in. I had not seen my constituent for some
time. I just drove in the yard to pay
him a visit, and he was not in, regrettably, but I drove around a little bit to
look at some of the operations and the animals that he had in the feedlot, and
I was surprised to see this elk roaming around in the middle of these 1,400,
1,500 horses‑‑not in the pens but just in the yard.
Now, I know that my department‑‑it
is permissible to have wild animals including ducks or geese, you know, in
captivity. They are required to inform the Department of Natural Resources.
There has to be a reason for it. They
can have them under permit. I know in my
own community an elderly farmer who made it a practice of picking up geese, you
know, that had been wounded, and raised them on his farm‑‑[interjection]
Nursed them back to health, and some of them would fly off south after they
were well. He does this under permit
from the department. The department
knows that the geese are there. He is
not doing anything illegal.
Now, the issue with the particular elk and
the animals on the Eisner operation and farm, I would have to get the specific
details, but my understanding is some of them were returned to the wild. If that is not the case, then I would have to
ask the member's indulgence to allow me to get the specific information.
I can report to her that I know, and she
is also aware, that is a particularly ongoing kind of controversial case. There was a lawsuit involved in terms of, I
suppose, or I do not know whether it was a former partner or what have you that
called for some animals being traded in payment for the lawsuit. But in any event, I will undertake to provide
a more full, detailed answer to this question when I have an opportunity to ask
my department about the same.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would appreciate
that answer because it is a question that has been brought to my attention
several times, and it is true, it is a very controversial issue. There has been a dispute over who owns the
elk. The minister talks about ducks and
geese kept under permit and really this is quite a different story; these are
large numbers of animals that are being kept, and in fact, it is quite a
different story than just picking up a few ducks and geese that happened to be
hurt along the way. I look forward to
hearing from the minister if he could provide us with that information and what
is happening with that specific case, because in fact if the government did pay
a substantial amount of money to clear up that whole situation to end the trial
period and those animals are still being kept in captivity, the government has
not done its job.
I want to ask the minister, there is an
elk enhancement group in the
I wonder if the minister could elaborate
on what he expects from this money. I
believe it was $15,000 that was provided to this organization, particularly at
a time when we have some very vital programs being cut, when we have the
friendship centre in
* (1750)
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, allow me to put on
the record that the Department of Natural Resources, when I was privileged to
assume its leadership again as minister three short years ago, had a total
budget of $104 million. It, today, has a
budget of $84 million, and I suggest to the honourable member, whom I know
among her other responsibilities in this House, but she is, particularly in
that area of Swan River and the valley, very much aware of the importance that
the functions of the Department of Natural Resources are to her constituency,
as they are indeed to all Manitobans.
I simply suggest to her and to all members
of the House that in terms of ensuring that the important social programming
that she alluded to, whether it is in family services, or in education or
health, to enable those services to continue, up until this year, to enjoy
enhanced budgets of 5 percent and 6 percent and 7 percent, departments like
Natural Resources.
The member knows whereof I speak, because
it was only a few short years ago that she was the official critic for the
official opposition and she‑‑Mr. Deputy Chairperson, you may not
believe this, but she was less than kind to me on several occasions about what
was happening in the Department of Natural Resources, the fact that significant
numbers of layoffs occurred, that there were not enough Natural Resources
officers to control and patrol the poaching activities that take place there.
So I simply say to you, and put on the
record, that this department has not taken a 2 percent cut, it has not taken a
5 percent cut, it has taken a 15 percent to 20 percent cut to enable us to
redirect the resources of the province to those high prioritized areas of this
government. I accept that. I agree with those priorities, but when she
asks me then to‑‑when she focuses in on one particular little
program like the elk enhancement group that we were talking about, that group
has done some very good work in several things.
They have provided feeding stations in the
If I have to do that entirely with my own
staff, understandably, it is considerably more expensive. We get a great deal of volunteer effort from
this group of responsible minded local citizens who are interested in the elk
in particular. They are in some cases
engaging their own aircraft. They are doing this in consultation and with the
wildlife biologists from the department.
I believe it was, I think the figure is
right, $14,000 or $15,000 which, by the way, comes out of the Special
Conservation Fund that I have which my colleague the Minister responsible for
Lotteries (Mrs. Mitchelson) is gracious enough to allow me to have a bit to
work with volunteer organizations throughout the province of Manitoba in
assisting the Department of Natural Resources to carry out its mandate and its
responsibilities with respect to the resources of this province.
In this case it is elk, specifically to
help with a survey, and that certainly is information that is important to
us. It tells us the health of the
herd. It helps establish limits to the
kind of hunting pressure that can or cannot be sustained in that area. It also gives us some forecast of, you know,
if the herd is increasing, and I can report to her the herd is increasing. Our preliminary information is that they are
in pretty good health despite the fact that there has been some pretty heavy
pressure on them in both a legal and an illegal way, but it is important for my
game managers to have this information.
We welcome that support, and we justify it
on the basis that we are in fact getting more information for the dollar spent,
if you like, than if we had to do it all on our own initiative.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I thank the minister
for that answer. I hope also that he
will share the results of that survey with us.
I would be very interested in knowing those numbers and what the impacts
on the elk herd have been by the activities that have been going on in that
area.
I just want to change to a different
subject for a moment. I know we do not
have very much time, but in December the minister attended a meeting in
Winnipegosis. At that time, the Winnipegosis
fishermen raised some very serious issues with him, particularly the low stocks
in the lake and their inability to make a living off that lake because of the
depleting number of fish.
I want to ask the minister whether he has
addressed that issue. In particular, is
there going to be a way that there will be additional stocking of
Mr. Enns: Well, the honourable member is correct. It was a well‑attended meeting by a
large group of the fishermen who have traditionally fished on
The advice tends to be kind of stark. There is active consideration given in the
party as to whether or not further restrictions with respect to fishing on the
lake ought not to be employed, not that we particularly want to do that. It is obvious if the fish are not there or
fishermen are not making ends meet on the slim pickings that are on the lake,
whether or not some further restrictions should be placed in the hopes that
would improve the future production off the lake.
I am examining the stocking profiles of
the lake in the past, which we had some difficulty again and lack of
understanding as to what in fact we were doing, but I will not go into that
right now. The result, quite frankly, is
as disappointing to officials within my department as it is to the fishermen. There was some optimism; there was some hope
that after the closure that was imposed on the lake by the previous
administration, and I believe it was for the duration of some three years,
whether we might have been better off to maybe extend that for an additional
several years, benefit of hindsight, you know, when one can see that.
There is some active consideration being
given to, for instance, closing a season, closing the summer season. I am familiar with the
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
The hour being six o'clock, committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 6 p.m., this House now adjourns
and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Friday).
Erratum
On
Tuesday, March 23, 1993, Vol. No. 32, page 1265, Ms. Marianne Cerilli's first
question should have read: Mr. Speaker,
this government's elitist economic policy and attack on the public school
system is unfairly penalizing students and their families in Transcona‑Springfield.