LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday,
June 2, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Ian McDougall, Lawrence Manoakeesick, Phyllis Wood and others requesting the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) to consider making as a major priority the establishment
of a solvent abuse treatment facility in northern
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Laurie Taylor, Emelia Taylor, Maggie Manoakeesick and others requesting the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) to consider making as a major priority the establishment
of a solvent abuse treatment facility in northern
* * *
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Linda Taylor, Rita Smith, Annette St. Hilaire and others requesting the
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) to consider restoring funding of
the Student Social Allowances Program.
* * *
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Samuel Harper, Abel Mason, William T. Manoakeesick and others requesting the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) to consider making as a major priority the establishment
of a solvent abuse treatment facility in northern
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Dewar). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS there is a very serious solvent
abuse problem in northern
WHEREAS according to the RCMP over 100
crimes in Thompson alone in 1992 were linked to solvent abuse; and
WHEREAS there are no facilities to deal
with solvent abuse victims in northern
WHEREAS for over three years, the
provincial government failed to proclaim the private member's anti‑sniff
bill passed by the Legislature and is now proposing to criminalize minors
buying solvents even though there are no treatment facilities in northern
WHEREAS for nine years, the 25 Chiefs who
comprise the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, supported by medical officials,
police and the area Member of Parliament, have proposed a pilot treatment
project known as the Native Youth Medicine Lodge; and
WHEREAS successive federal Ministers of
Health have failed to respond to this issue with a commitment; and
WHEREAS the
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Ashton). 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: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS there is a very serious solvent
abuse problem in northern
WHEREAS according to the RCMP over 100
crimes in Thompson alone in 1992 were linked to solvent abuse; and
WHEREAS there are no facilities to deal
with solvent abuse victims in northern
WHEREAS for over three years, the
provincial government failed to proclaim the private member's anti‑sniff
bill passed by the Legislature and is now proposing to criminalize minors
buying solvents even though there are no treatment facilities in northern
WHEREAS for nine years, the 25 Chiefs who
comprise the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, supported by medical officials,
police and the area Member of Parliament, have proposed a pilot treatment
project known as the Native Youth Medicine Lodge; and
WHEREAS successive federal Ministers of
Health have failed to respond to this issue with a commitment; and
WHEREAS the
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* (1335)
PRESENTING
REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): Mr.
Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to
report the same and asks leave to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member for
Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us
this afternoon Mr. Gabor Horvath, who is from the Hungarian Embassy.
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon, sir.
Also with us this afternoon, we have from
the
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Bison Fund
Sheraton
Hotel
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy
Premier (Mr. Downey).
In dealing with the Crewson report,
Section 2, page 17, it is indicated that the $2.2‑million investment in
the Sheraton Hotel now appears to be worthless, based upon the receivership
from the bank. We also noted there was
no follow‑up documentation on the files regarding the accountability and
utilization for these funds.
When the Sheraton Hotel went into
receivership, the minister indicated that the provincial government had
approved funds from Bison being utilized for the Lakeview investment in
Sheraton.
Can the minister indicate, what date did
they approve that decision?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition
is correct in that the investment followed the process that we have outlined in
this House on many occasions whereby syndicated fund investments come to the
provincial government to determine the merits of them based on economic
benefits to
I also outlined back in December to this
House that job maintenance and retention is a qualifying criteria within the
federal‑provincial guidelines. It
was on that basis that this investment was approved some time ago. I do not have the exact date before me
today. I will certainly provide that to
the honourable member as soon as I can.
Mr. Doer: On March 26, 1991, the minister told the
public of
Mr. Speaker, the funds that I have raised
just now in terms of the Sheraton Hotel flowed, according to the Crewson
report, in January 1992.
I would like to ask the minister: Was the approval given to the Bison Fund to
fund the Sheraton Hotel‑‑was that decision approved by the
provincial government after March 26 when the minister told us that they would
be having an internal review of all of those investments?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, I outlined to the Leader of the
Opposition that I will obtain the exact date that he is inquiring about. I have also outlined for him on many
occasions‑‑he keeps referring to the government in terms of
approval and so on. He knows how the
approval process works. He knows that it
was done at an administrative level within the Department of Industry, Trade
and Tourism. He knows full well the
process, because it is the same process that was in place starting in 1986 when
he was part of a government that was in place when the program first was
implemented in
I will get him the exact date. He refers to the internal review. I have indicated on previous occasions in
this House that the review back in March of '91 indicated that basically funds
were abiding by the guidelines that exist.
I also indicated in this House that I
subsequently wrote the federal minister in March of 1991 outlining what our
role is in the Immigrant Investor Program.
I have explained it for the Leader of the Opposition many times. He seems to occasionally have difficulty
understanding the role of the provincial government.
We underlined what the role of the federal
government is, what their role should be.
We have consistently worked towards that by dealing with an auditor's
report in 1992, and we continue to press the government to do what they should
be doing‑‑the federal government, Mr. Speaker.
* (1340)
Immigrant
Investor Fund
Internal
Review
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on April 29, 1991, I asked the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) questions on the same matter of the investigation, the so‑called
investigation of all the Immigrant Investor Funds in
Later on in tab 3, page 29 of the brief,
it becomes clear that the provincial government granted some of these approvals
through verbal agreement, and later on goes on to say that sometimes the funds
and the fund approvals from the provincial government were not always in the
files, a file was not always maintained.
Did the minister investigate or was he
alerted to the fact that the files and information were not adequate in his own
department, from the inquiry that he ordered on March 26, 1991? Why were we not
aware at that date, not only of the inadequacies of the investments and the
inadequacies of the files and information‑‑why did we just proceed
with business as usual with the many approvals that this government gave to
many of these funds?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I, too, have read the
questions of the Leader of the Opposition back in April of '91, and his
questions basically revolve around maximizing participation in the fund. He talks about economic opportunities and so
on through the fund. As I outlined
yesterday, nowhere does he ask about compliance mechanisms. Nowhere does he ask about monitoring. Nowhere does he ask about investor
protection, any of the issues that have come to light during 1992. He never asked about those issues. He asked
about maximizing employment opportunities and utilization of the fund.
I have indicated that we did an audit
starting in August of 1992 and made a series of recommendations. We support those recommendations in terms of
building compliance and the monitoring and the proper protections around the
fund. We will continue to press the
federal government to put those in place, Mr. Speaker.
The review done in March of 1991 did not
bring to light internally any of the concerns that we subsequently saw in
August of 1992 in terms of documentation.
We have taken steps to address that internally, as I have outlined to
this House on many occasions before.
Arni
Thorsteinson
CMHC
Agreement
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of
Housing.
Things are, once again, coming up roses
for Arni Thorsteinson. After the
province spent untold money for closing on the properties at 393 Kennedy and
368,
I would like to ask the minister: Will the minister release the details of the
secret deal that has been struck with Mr. Thorsteinson? What were the conditions that he agreed to?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I know not of what the member
speaks.
Mr. Maloway: Mr. Speaker, well, the person in question
himself made a statement quoted in the Free Press stating that in exchange for
the extension, he agreed to certain conditions.
Legal
Action
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): Since this minister is supposedly in charge
of the housing in this province, I would like to ask the minister why it took
so long for the province to move on legal action in this case.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Housing): Mr. Speaker, as we have indicated in the past‑‑and
no doubt the auditor when she has completed her report will indicate‑‑we
have acted at the direction of our insurers, the Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation. We have letters on file
from them giving us comfort to the fact that we should not be proceeding, we
should hold off because they had other issues they were dealing with directly
with the owner of the property in an attempt to find a workout. We have two or
three of those letters of comfort on file, which the auditor will be provided,
and which will be reported on in due course.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, we
were pressing CMHC to foreclose. CMHC
asked us not to and asked us to hold off, pending other issues related to a
workout that they were trying to do with Shelter Corporation.
That was indicated in past discussions in
the House in this regard. It is not
something that is new.
Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, we are acting at
the direction of CMHC, who is the insurer.
They told us, finally, in November of 1992, to proceed with
foreclosure. We did. We in turn took the rents then as mortgagee
in possession.
CMHC
Agreement
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary to the
same minister is: Would he endeavour to
produce the details of this agreement, and could he also check to find out
whether there are any more deals of this type involving this person?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Housing): Mr. Speaker, if the
member for Elmwood has facts, let him table those facts in the House here
today. Let him not make innuendoes and
suggestions about something that I‑‑[interjection] With respect to
those two buildings, Manitoba Housing is mortgagee in possession. We are collecting the rents at the direction
of CMHC. CMHC will pay every single cent
that is owed to us under their insurance program for those two buildings.
* (1345)
Sexual
Abuse
Mental
Health Care Patients
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Health.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Mental Health
Association has released a report this morning which documents many cases of
sexual abuse. It is a clear violation of
the abuse of power and trust. There are
a number of horror stories in this report, and I am sure the minister has
reviewed some of them.
Can the minister tell this House whether
he has seen some of the recommendations?
Will he comply with some of the very important recommendations to make
sure these patients are not being abused in the future?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
received the same report my honourable friend is referring to. We take the survey
and the response to that survey very seriously.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say
that the survey was stimulated because of a reported abuse of a patient in a
mental health facility approximately two and a half or three years ago, and
following investigation of that circumstance, appropriate action I believe was
taken at the time.
Subsequent to that and more important to
that, Sir, in September of 1991, we distributed to all of our mental health
facilities, protocols and guidelines in which they would be guided within their
institution to prevent, to every degree possible, a reoccurence of the
unfortunate circumstance that became a subject of media reports and subsequent
action at the facility.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say
that a number of the recommendations that were made in the report that was
tabled today are in part or in whole contained in the September abuse
guidelines that were circulated in 1991.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear from this report
some of those guidelines are not functioning.
That is why we have this problem.
Can the minister now make a commitment to
have some of the new guidelines put in place to make sure that any person with
a mental illness who is being abused, whether physically or sexually, has
recourse to go and have a special independent body to make sure their views are
heard?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the ability to
conclude, as my honourable friend did in his preamble, that some of the
guidelines are not working according to the results of the survey, and that, of
course, is information that we are very anxious to receive in further
discussions with the Canadian Mental Health Association.
My honourable friend will be aware that
some of those individuals who reported abuse‑‑those circumstances,
as I understand it in a preliminary briefing of the report, go back as far as
30 years ago.
To conclude that some of the guidelines
are currently not being adhered to, I am not certain that we can conclude from
that, but we are very anxious to determine that so that we can take whatever
action would be seen as appropriate to prevent that kind of very, very
inappropriate violation of a trust relationship that one seeking assistance for
mental illness would not expect to receive from professional caregivers.
Sexual
Abuse
Mental
Health Care Patients
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, the basic question here is that
abuse of the power has occurred and the trust has been taken advantage of.
Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Justice
tell us, or can he make a commitment, that he will refer this matter to the
Manitoba Law Reform Commission for review, because that is one of the
recommendations of this report and that will help many victims of this abuse?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): It
is not clear to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Law Reform Commission is in a
position to do anything or use the resources it has to shed any further light
on this matter as it is not an investigative agency but a law reform and
monitoring agency.
However, I can tell the honourable member
that should police authorities be made aware of any allegations of this type,
my department would certainly do everything it could to ensure that these matters
are investigated thoroughly, and should it be possible, prosecutions would go
forward.
* (1350)
Arni
Thorsteinson
Resignation
Request‑Manitoba Hydro
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks we have seen
growing evidence of the business, personal and political connections between a
number of chief Tory fundraisers and the federal and provincial Conservative
governments.
In fact, the activities of Arni
Thorsteinson, the president of the PC Manitoba Fund, have led to the federal Minister
of Public Works, Elmer MacKay, asking for his resignation from the Bank of
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister responsible for
Hon. James Downey
(Minister responsible for The
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, the federal Conservatives are
not exactly known for their great ethics when it comes to patronage. This
government will not even do what the federal Tories are doing.
I would like to ask the minister: Why is it that the federal minister has asked
for the resignation of Mr. Thorsteinson, but this minister and this government
will not ask for the same resignation, for the same withdrawal from Manitoba
Hydro that has already taken place with the Bank of Canada?
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this government
needs to take a lecture from the member opposite, a government that paid one
Mr. Messer and his associates to try and find a potash mine, some $1 million in
a contract, during their term of office, without tender, a direct hand to one
of their political buddies from
Mr. Speaker, as far as the capacity of Mr.
Thorsteinson as a director of the Manitoba Hydro Board, if the member has some
evidence as to why that individual should not sit in that capacity, then let
him be person enough to table it.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, will the minister listen to the
words of the federal minister, who said, under all the circumstances it seems
appropriate that Mr. Thorsteinson tender his resignation?
Why will this government not do the same
thing? Why will it not break the web of
inside contacts with Tory fundraisers with this government, and ask for a clean
slate by asking Mr. Thorsteinson to do the same thing with Manitoba Hydro that
he has done with the Bank of Canada, that is, resign?
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, do I have to repeat for the
member opposite, who certainly does not have any knowledge‑‑we do
not have any greater capacity than he did when it came to political patronage,
and I certainly point out an indication.
Mr. Speaker, as I said to the member, if
he can table some reason why the individual should resign from the Manitoba
Hydro Board, then I am sure the member would consider it, but at this
particular point I have no knowledge of any conflict or any reason why the
individual should be asked to step down from the
Environmental
Information
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, the federal Environment
Assessment division has written with harsh criticism about the inadequate
information provided in the environmental impact statement for the
I would ask the Minister of Natural
Resources how his department has responded to this and what assurances can he
give that the information requested by the federal agencies will be available
before the assessment goes ahead.
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, to answer directly to the question that the member for Radisson poses,
my department and indeed the proponents have responded to the very lengthy and
detailed requirements put forward, (a) in the first instance, by the Department
of Environment, and (b) in the second instance, by the Environment Commission
itself, a lengthy and detailed information package that was requested under our
law by the appropriate agencies here in Manitoba.
I can indicate to the honourable member
that in addition to that, I do not know whether it is by practice or by any
regulation, the chairman of the Clean Environment Commission requested that
information coming from my department be made available some 14 days in advance
so that it could be in the hands of other interested parties appearing before
that commission.
Mr. Speaker, all that is being done, all
that is being complied with as required under
* (1355)
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, how can this government justify
setting hearing dates for this project when all of the information requested
has not been made available and all the issues have not been addressed as
outlined by the federal agencies?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, I simply refuse to get into a
debate with the honourable member on the merits of that particular document, a
document that suggests that the progressive communities of Morden, Carman,
Winkler and Altona are not a growth area in
Now the proponents have put the issue
before the Clean Environment Commission and that is where the matter will be
debated, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, the issue is why is this
government pushing through with this project based on conceptual information
only when the federal agencies are saying there is no point in dealing with an
assessment on a conceptual proposal?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear, with all due
respect to whomever it is in
A proposal has been put forward, Mr.
Speaker. The comments made by the
environmental people out of
Sexual
Abuse
Mental
Health Care Patients
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, we have asked some questions this
afternoon on Women's Voices Shall Be Heard.
I was pleased that the Minister of Health had an opportunity to read
some of the recommendations in this report.
Perhaps the Minister of Health could tell
us‑‑he has indicated that he had protocols put in place within his
department dealing with abuse guidelines.
Can the minister tell this House, since those protocols have been put in
place, what statistics does he have about the number of complaints of potential
abuse cases within his department, within institutions, et cetera? Does he have those statistics today?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, no, I do
not have the specifics. They may be
available but I do not have them. I will
certainly make that inquiry and provide the answer to my honourable friend
tomorrow, but appreciate that is why the division of Mental Health in my
department established those protocols for circulation in 1991. Secondly, I might add, to my honourable
friend in anticipation of her next question, I believe that we will shortly
have similar protocols available for those community‑based mental health
workers, so that we have a consistent policy of assuring that any incidents of
abuse are reported and dealt with expeditiously.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I am actually surprised that the
minister does not have those statistics.
One would think that with a report of this kind indicating statistics,
he would want to, first thing, find out what is going on in his department.
With a supplementary question to the
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae)‑‑the minister responded today in
response to a question from my colleague that, should police authorities be
made aware, then something will be done in each case.
Can the Minister of Justice tell us: Is he prepared to be proactive and take
leadership within his department to actually look at these recommendations, and
if the Law Reform Commission is not the appropriate venue, what will he do as
the Minister of Justice to deal with these very serious allegations in the
report?
* (1400)
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I want to answer this question,
because that is one of the items that we are attempting to clarify in
discussions with the Canadian Mental Health Association, because one of the
very serious allegations‑‑and it is my understanding that the
surveys were filled in approximately 50 weeks ago. They were to be returned in June of 1992.
The report indicates that three
individuals who replied in the survey indicated that they were currently being
abused. What we are trying to determine
is whether the Canadian Mental Health Association, in the construct of that
survey, knows the identity of those individuals so they can forward those names
on to us so we can expedite an appropriate course of action. I am unable to indicate to my honourable
friend if that kind of information is available so we can take immediate
action, Sir.
Sexual
Abuse
Mental
Health Care Patients
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary
question.
The literature in this report not only
deals with specific cases in
My supplementary question is to the
Minister responsible for the Status of Women:
Can she, as minister, take a leadership role to ensure that a number of
her ministerial colleagues get together to look at this report and develop a
plan of action, rather than having her colleagues perhaps spend a lot of time
picking holes in this report?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister responsible for the Status of Women): Mr. Speaker, indeed any statistics that
indicate that women throughout
We will continue to work
expeditiously. We would want to know, in
fact, if there are any cases that are not being addressed and are prepared to
work with the Canadian Mental Health Association or any other advocacy group
that deals with mental illness and abuse to ensure that there is a very prompt
response to any serious allegations that have been made.
Sunday
Shopping
Economic
Results
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, the last few days in this House
where questions have been raised about the relationship between the government
and party fundraisers I think have raised a lot of eyebrows not only in the
city of Winnipeg but in rural
Can the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism tell us why, when he introduced this legislation back in the December 1
version of this legislation, he said Sunday shopping could provide some
positive stimulation to keep our economy growing‑‑can the minister
explain then why Eaton's downtown and The Bay employees are now telling us that
as of June 20, this month, they are going to be closed on Sundays?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, that clearly is a part of
the process that any individual will have the opportunity to make, to make the
choice of whether or not they want to open their business on a Sunday or
whether or not they do not want to open their business. Consumers will have the
choice whether or not they want to shop on a Sunday or not shop on a Sunday or
do other things.
Mr. Speaker, that is clearly a part of the
process. They are being given the
opportunity to do that. The decisions
that will dictate that will be their level of sales over the course of the
week, their cost of doing business, consumer interest and demand and other
initiatives.
We never suggested that each and every
business that has the opportunity to open, will open. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have made it so that
under lease arrangements in different shopping centres and so on, businesses
cannot be forced to open, that businesses will have the individual choice to
decide and consumers will have the individual choice to decide whether or not
to shop.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, the only rational explanation
that this government offered was that this was going to create economic
stimulation. It has failed. The latest statistics from Stats
Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister
of Industry, Trade and Tourism: Given
that even the economic rationale is not working, will the Minister of Industry,
Trade and Tourism now concede that the wishes of the Manitoba Chamber of
Commerce and small businesses should take precedence over his Tory friends?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the member for Flin
Flon is totally inaccurate with his preamble and with his statements in at
least two areas.
He suggested economic reasons were the
only reasons. They never were the only
reasons. We have had debates in this
House about the kinds of reasons why Sunday shopping should potentially be
allowed in
As usual, he is totally inaccurate. I do not know where he gets his statistics,
because the retail sales statistics were just released for the month of March a
few days ago, and
Mr. Storie: It is rather amusing that the minister is so
accurate with his dates when it comes to Sunday shopping information, but he
cannot find the immigrant investor dates.
Mr. Speaker, my question is: If this has been such an unqualified success,
why are small businesses, communities from across rural
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, again, as usual, the member for
Flin Flon‑‑I am not sure he listens to Manitobans, pays attention
to what is happening in our province. We
have always acknowledged, we have been a party that has always acknowledged
that this is an issue that does not have unanimous support of Manitobans. We recognize that difference.
Surveys that have been done by a range of
organizations have recognized that.
Different organizations have had debates on it. The Winnipeg Chamber supports it. The
There are various opinions on Sunday
shopping, we recognize that. The kind of
system we put in place or are recommending, Mr. Speaker, is one that is
virtually identical to every province in western
Sexual
Abuse
Mental
Health Care Patients
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian mental health
committee of the Canadian Mental Health Association, Manitoba Division ought to
be complimented for the report that was released concerning abuse of women, in
particular. Anyone who reads this report
cannot help but be moved by some of the recommendations and stories in the
report.
My concern, Mr. Speaker, in the report, is
that of the women who report in the report, only 25 percent actually reported
the abuse. Of the 25 percent who
reported the abuse, only less than 4 percent actually received satisfaction as
a result of the reported abuse.
My question to the Minister of Health
is: Can the minister advise this House
whether or not protocols can be immediately entered into, not just at health
centres, but with all the professional bodies who are charged with the
responsibility of dealing with and reporting these cases of abuse?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I do not
know whether my honourable friend heard my first response to the second series
of questions from the second official opposition, but I indicated to him at
that time that we were having a second set of protocols, which we hope will be
ready for distribution very shortly to all community‑based mental health
workers. Despite that, which will, in part, answer his question, all
professional organizations have very, very strict internal protocols guiding
professional practice. That is not a new
event. I think that has been there well
in advance of even the earlier reported incident approximately three years ago.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, that still does not answer the
question of why less than 25 percent of women actually reported it and less
than 4 percent received satisfaction with respect to those protocols that are
in place.
My supplementary to the minister is: Will the minister immediately consider the
setting up of perhaps a co‑ordinator or an 800‑line or some other
body or organization that would allow women and all those out there who feel
they are being abused, to have one central body, one central agency to go to,
Mr. Speaker, prior to having to go through the other hoops that they have to go
through concerning abuse?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend might be
aware‑‑it was pointed out to me in terms of the survey that was
sent out some year and a half ago‑‑that they included a list of
resource information, and one resource information was the provincial free,
province‑wide crisis line and phone number.
* (1410)
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I think that also misses the
point in that there is no particular body or agency they can refer specifically
to this.
In my final supplementary to the
minister: Will the minister consider the
recommendation of the Canadian Mental Health division with respect to the
establishment of a separate study or separate body to provide advocacy for
these individuals who are involved in this situation, Mr. Speaker, considering
the widespread abuse that, obviously, this report indicates, or it can
potentially prevent?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I want to offer a caution to my
honourable friend. This is a very
serious matter, but already some of the impressions one would have following
the release of this report is that 82 percent of women who receive assistance
for mental illness are sexually abused.
Sir, that is not accurate. Not
even this report indicates that. What
the report indicated is that out of 111 women who responded, some 89 responded
indicating sexual abuse to varying degrees.
Now that is 89 too many incidents, as I will fully acknowledge.
Mr. Speaker, to leave the impression that
my honourable friend just did, that this kind of abuse is rampant and
widespread amongst caregivers, professional caregivers, does a disservice to
those individuals who work tirelessly and on behalf of those ill
Manitobans. I would caution my
honourable friend not to try and create a circumstance that is not there.
There are a number of sources of
assistance that are in place. Those are
constantly being added to and advanced in terms of the mental health reform
process, and we will continue to do that.
Government
Departments
Service
Co-ordination
Ms. Becky Barrett (
I would like to ask if the Ministers of
Health (Mr. Orchard), Education (Mrs. Vodrey), Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer)
and Justice (Mr. McCrae) have undertaken this comprehensive investigation, and
will the government table today the action plan which outlines each
department's projects and initiatives to deal with this situation?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Yes, the
ministries involved and the ministers involved have taken this very
seriously. I have explained over the
process of Estimates that a steering committee was set up. That steering committee involved our deputy
ministers. It then moved on to a working
group. The working group has completed
its work. The report has gone to the
deputy ministers. The ministers will be
considering the report.
Youth
Violence
City of
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): We are in
regular contact with the Child and Family Services agency in the city of
Child and
Family Services
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): The
primary role of the Child and Family Services agency is to protect children
that are at risk, but they also have community outreach programs and work with
collateral agencies like Rossbrook House,
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I would ask if you would canvass the House to see if
there is a willingness to waive private members' hour.
Mr. Speaker: Is there a will of the House to waive private
members' hour? No, leave is denied.
Mr.
Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I would ask if
you could please call for second reading of Bill 38 as well as Bill 41. I will have further announcements on House
Business following the completion of these two second readings.
SECOND
Planning
Amendment and Summary Convictions Amendment Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), that Bill 38, The City of
Winnipeg Amendment, Municipal Amendment, Planning Amendment and Summary
Convictions Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Ville de Winnipeg, la
Loi sur les municipalites, la Loi sur l'amenagement du territoire et la Loi sur
les poursuites sommaires, be now read a second time and be referred to a
committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce for
second reading Bill 38 to amend The City of Winnipeg Act, The Municipal Act,
The Planning Act and The Summary Convictions Act.
The most significant components of Bill 38
are firstly amendments regarding airport vicinity protection areas and, as
well, amendments regarding the collection of outstanding municipal parking
fines.
This bill also contains substantive
amendments with respect to correcting errors in the legal description of
municipal boundaries, procurement of goods and services by the City of
* (1420)
Mr. Speaker, the remaining amendments in
Bill 38 are generally of a housekeeping nature.
I would like now to take a few minutes to
describe each of the substantive amendments that I have outlined.
Firstly, with respect to airport vicinity
protection areas, in 1989 the government of
In July of 1990, the Advisory Committee
for the Protection of the
The objectives of the airport protection
amendments in this bill are to ensure that
Essentially the legislation will require
the City of
Mr. Speaker, No. 2, to adopt development
by‑laws or zoning provisions, if you like, to regulate land uses in the
airport vicinity in terms of the types of development that are to be permitted,
their height, orientation, noise attenuation standards and so forth must be
addressed.
All of the existing procedures for
amending Plan Winnipeg would apply, that is, public input through a public
meeting and then the referral of those amendments to the province for approval
by the Minister of Urban Affairs. With
respect to development by‑laws to protect the airport vicinity, here
again, public input would be sought through the public meeting process as
outlined under Part 20 of The City of Winnipeg Act.
Since the
After holding a public hearing on
objections made with respect to a proposed by‑law or a plan of
subdivision in the airport vicinity, the Municipal Board would submit its
recommendations to Winnipeg City Council to make a final decision. In the final analysis, Mr. Speaker, it will
be up to the City Council to decide if it wants to reject, approve or approve
with conditions, a proposed by‑law or a plan of subdivision. However, a decision to approve a planning
matter must conform to the recommendations of the Municipal Board. With respect to other objectors, council
could, if it wished, refer these to their board of adjustment for a
recommendation back to council.
Amendments under The Planning Act will
ensure that the South Interlake Planning District, of which the R.M. of Rosser
is a member, amends this development plan and zoning by‑laws in order to
protect the vicinity of
In addition to Rosser, the Minister of
Rural Development plans to request St. Andrews and Selkirk, both in the
Under the proposed amendments, the
province may issue regulations as required to guide local governments in
formulating airport vicinity protection measures.
For example, regulations may be considered
necessary to assist municipalities in defining the boundaries of an airport
vicinity. The amendments on airport
vicinity protection are designed to achieve balance between local government
responsibilities and provincial responsibilities.
Municipalities are to prepare and adopt
land use objectives and zoning by‑laws, while the province's role is to
review and approve the policy framework in development plans and to issue
regulations if necessary to guide municipalities in their undertaking.
As described, the legislation on airport
vicinity protection will allow the public, affected landowners and affected
agencies in governments to have input into the formulation of development plan
policies and zoning regulations.
The City of
Affected municipalities in the
Mr. Speaker, the collection of outstanding
municipal parking fines is another major amendment proposed in this bill.
Some examples of the magnitude of these
outstanding fines are in
Now municipalities have suggested to the
province in the past that renewal of a driver's licence or renewal of a vehicle
registration be withheld until outstanding municipal parking fines are
paid. While these approaches appear to
be straightforward to implement, in fact, there would be significant
administrative cost to the province and the Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation were that the case.
Insurance brokers also would have to
assume a new responsibility in administering a program to refuse renewals or
vehicle registrations when outstanding parking fines were on record.
An alternative solution is being put forward
in this bill. Under the proposed amendments, the City of
The main features are as follows: Firstly, the process for seizure and sale of
a vehicle can only begin if a parking fine remains outstanding after a second
notice of the fine is sent. That is a default notice under The Summary
Convictions Act, and the time period for contesting the fine before a judge has
expired. After the expiry of the time
period, given in a default notice, the municipality may register in The
Personal Property Registry of the province a claim of lien against all or any
vehicle of the owner for the amount of the unpaid parking fine. So, Mr.
Speaker, it may not just be the vehicle that caused the parking fine, but any
vehicle owned by that person.
So if it was, Mr. Speaker, an Eaton's van,
it conceivably could be against all Eaton's vans that the province could move‑‑[interjection]
That too. Once a lien on a vehicle is
registered in The Personal Property Registry, a municipality would advise the
vehicle owner that a lien has been placed on the vehicle for the amount of the
outstanding fine, and that the vehicle henceforward is liable to be seized and
sold in order for the municipality to collect the unpaid parking fine. After giving notice of the registration of a
lien, the vehicle owner still fails to pay the parking fine, the municipality would
at that point be able to seize any vehicle owned by that owner, wherever they
may be found, and could sell them.
* (1430)
Municipal liens on vehicles for unpaid
parking fines take priority over other liens, Mr. Speaker, and interest in the
vehicle with three exceptions. The first
exception is a lien under The Payment of Wages Act which has been registered in
The Personal Property Registry, I think is reasonable; an interest in the
vehicle, secondly, that is registered in The Personal Property Registry and
that secures the purchase price of a vehicle for the purchase of the vehicle,
otherwise known, Mr. Speaker, as a purchase money security interest; thirdly,
lien under The Garage Keepers Act.
So that it is not intended to wipe out the
rights of other lienholders against the vehicle with some limitation, but at
the same time allow municipalities to have an opportunity, at least, to be able
collect their outstanding parking fines.
These three interests must be satisfied in any sale of a vehicle. In other words, a municipality cannot sell a
vehicle unless the sale price is expected to cover the lien or interest which
take priority over the municipal fine.
Subject to fulfilling the liens or
interests identified earlier, Mr. Speaker, the proceeds from the sale of the
vehicle by a municipality would be applied consecutively to the following: Firstly, expenses for seizing, storing and
disposing of the vehicle and the municipalities' municipal costs, the
administrative costs; secondly, recovering the unpaid parking fine; and
thirdly, satisfying subordinate liens or interests under The Personal Property
Registry, and any other persons with an interest if their claim is made in
writing to the municipality before the distribution of the proceeds is
completed.
Any surplus, Mr. Speaker, left over after
that would be paid to the owner, obviously, of the car. Municipalities would pass a by‑law
establishing their administrative costs associated with operating this new
method of collection of unpaid parking fines. These costs would be payable by a
vehicle owner along with the parking fines in order to discharge the lien, or
by any other person who discharges the lien and takes possession of the
vehicle, for example, a financier of a loan on a vehicle. If a vehicle owner with outstanding parking
fines sells the vehicle before paying off the fines that have been registered
as a lien on the vehicle, the lien remains in effect.
Mr. Speaker, a question was raised as to
the timing associated with this process, and how long it would take. So with your indulgence, I would like to
point out to members of the House that it would take 30 days to pay a parking
ticket that was left on a vehicle's windshield.
They have 30 days to pay the parking ticket, a further 30 days given in
a default notice.
In the case of
The total time period before a lien can be
registered against a vehicle then is 78 days in the case of the city of
If the vehicle owner has failed to take
action under the above, 18 days are allotted for issuing, mailing and receiving
a default notice, then notice of registering the lien is sent to the vehicle
owner. If they do not pay the fine in 15
days after that, then the vehicle may be seized and appropriate action taken.
The registration of a lien on a vehicle,
the seizure and the disposition of the vehicle that I have described, Mr.
Speaker, will take place pursuant to the provisions of The Personal Property
Security Act. Therefore, many elements
of the process I have just described you will not find in Bill 38, because a
number of the applicable provisions already exist in The Personal Property
Security Act. For instance, Bill 38
makes no reference to municipalities being empowered to seize vehicles or sell
them or the manner in which the seizure and sale may take place, because The
Personal Property Security Act contains all of these provisions.
What Bill 38 does is enable municipalities
to implement a collection scheme for unpaid parking fines pursuant to the
remedies in The Personal Property Security Act and for dealing with vehicle
owners in default of paying parking fines.
Mr. Speaker, one of the advantages of
requiring the registration of a municipal lien for outstanding parking fines is
that it protects potential vehicle purchasers from buying a car against which
there is an accumulated debt. The
Personal Property Registry is available for all to view.
Legislation for towing and impounding for
unpaid parking fines was discussed previously with the Winnipeg City Council.
The council expressed its general support in writing in October of 1992.
Amendments dealing with the collection of
outstanding municipal fines were also discussed with several other
municipalities, among them Brandon,
The proposed amendments provide
municipalities with a local solution to a local problem and I would like to
remind members that the scheme is not mandatory. It is enabling legislation for municipalities
to use if they so choose.
While I have focused my comments on the
collection of unpaid parking fines for municipalities, the proposed amendments
in Bill 38 would also apply to provincial parking fines.
Another of the amendments, Mr. Speaker, in
the bill is the correction of errors in the legal description of municipal
boundaries, not particularly an exciting topic except if you happen to be in
the disputed area. However, legislation
on municipal boundaries provides a process by which boundary adjustments may be
initiated.
We talked not an insignificant amount last
session about changes in municipal boundaries.
However, we did talk about this a great deal with respect to the issue
of Headingley and the change of municipal boundaries, and all of the dire
things that the members of the opposition and particularly the member for
Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) were predicting were going to occur as soon as this bill
was passed interestingly enough have not.
However, there is no recourse in that
legislation for correcting ambiguities or errors in legal descriptions which
may inadvertently arise. Amendments are
therefore necessary to The City of Winnipeg Act and The Municipal Act to
provide a simple process through which ambiguities can be clarified.
The need for this type of provision has
become apparent in trying to correct an error in the boundaries of
There is a proposed subdivision
application now coming forward on this property which cannot be processed in
either municipality until it is determined which municipality has
jurisdiction. In the case of this
particular property, Mr. Speaker, no one lives on that 45 acres of property, so
no individual resident is affected, although the owners of the property would
be affected.
Before taking any action on clarifying the
jurisdiction of the 45 acres in question, however, the government referred this
matter to the Municipal Board who met with all of the affected parties before
submitting recommendations. The
Municipal Board recommended that the appropriate way to correct the boundary
overlap is to retain the lands in
Two critical factors led to the board's
recommendation. First of all, all of the Rural Municipality of Ritchot, except
for this 45 acres, is located south of the floodway. Therefore, the floodway forms a natural
demarcation between what is Ritchot oriented and what is
* (1440)
Two, Mr. Speaker, directly abutting the vacant
land, where a 12 lot subdivision is proposed, there is an existing residential
community serviced by the City of
As a transitional measure, the Municipal
Board also recommended that Ritchot retain the 1993 municipal property taxes
for the lands in question. The
government agrees with this recommendation, and the amendments in Bill 38 will
also enable the Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council to attach any
conditions such as the condition recommended with respect to 1993 taxes which
are considered necessary to effect the boundary correction.
The existing legislation under The City of
Winnipeg Act contemplates tendering as the only procedure for the supply of
materials and services to the City of
The City of
Under the proposed legislation, the city's
procurement policy must cover a number of aspects, among which are the forms of
contract and when they are required or permitted to be used and also the
procedure for soliciting procurements by competitive bids, competitive
proposals or requests for quotations.
Mr. Speaker, the City of
After undertaking a general reassessment
of business premises in 1991, the first reassessment in some 17 years, council
has been trying to increase the business tax yield to its former level in the
1970s.
During the 1970s, business tax as a
percentage of total realty and business tax was 16 percent. By 1990, business tax had dropped drastically
to approximately 11 percent of combined taxes.
In order to be able to maintain modest
annual increases in the business tax yield, council needs to be able to phase
in taxing decreases which will occur as a result of switching to a uniform rate
of business tax. Therefore, council has
requested an amendment to the existing legislation to also permit phasing in of
business tax decreases. They already
have the right to phase in increases; they now wish to phase in decreases as a
result of the changes being made.
Without the authority to phase in business
tax decreases, the city would forfeit approximately $6 million in business tax
at the current rate of tax of 10.5 percent.
The amendments to the existing legislation of phasing in business taxes
will also permit council in future to phase in tax decreases which occur due to
a general reassessment. At this time,
council only has the authority to limit tax increases due to reassessment.
Another amendment, Mr. Speaker, is the penalty
on property to be redeemed from a tax sale.
The City of
There is a precedent in the act for this
amendment. First, council may set the
interest rate charged on tax sale purchases within one year of nonpayment of
taxes. Second, council can determine by
by‑law the rate of interest charged against property taxes due. This proposed amendment would therefore be
consistent with the flexibility given the city under other similar
provisions. Moreover, The Municipal Act
gives councils the authority to set penalties for the redemption of property.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
The city has also asked for a related
amendment to clarify that the fee charged by the Land Titles Office for
redemptions would be payable by the person who is buying back the property
rather than deducting it from the amount of taxes to be recovered by the
city. This amendment would enable the
city to fully recover all of its costs associated with the tax sale of a
property. This is also the current
practice in the rest of
The city has also requested a definition
to be contained in the act with respect to a public utility. This request is to include the collection and
disposal of solid waste and refuse under the definition of a public
utility. The intent of the amendment is
to enable the city, if it so wishes, to operate solid waste and refuse services
as a public utility.
The intent of the amendment is to enable
the city, if it so wishes, to operate solid waste and refuse services as a
public utility. Right now the definition
of public utility includes the delivery of water, electricity, natural gas and
collection of sewage. The city's
utilities function as independent financial entities within the civic
structure.
Utilities are run like a business and levy
their required revenues directly from their customers, not through the property
tax. Existing utilities like water and
electricity are also not financially subsidized by the City of
Madam Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, I
have described, I hope, for members of the House, the main features of the
seven substantive amendments contained in Bill 38. The remaining amendments in Bill 38 are
generally minor and technical in nature and serve to clarify the original
intent of legislation or to correct small errors that have occurred in the
past.
In conclusion, I would recommend Bill 38
to the honourable members of the Legislature for their consideration and adoption.
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): I move, seconded by the member for Elmwood
(Mr. Maloway), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
House
Business
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Madam
Deputy Speaker, on further House business, first of all, I would like to
announce on behalf of the House leader (Mr. Manness) that the Standing
Committee on Economic Development will meet on Tuesday, June 8, 1993, at 10
a.m., to consider the 1992 Annual Report of Moose Lake Loggers.
I would also like to ask if you could seek
the required approval of the House for the House to sit tomorrow, Thursday,
June 3, at 10 a.m. until 2:30 p.m., and for the House not to sit on Friday,
June 4.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it the will of the House to not sit Friday,
June 4? [agreed]
Is it the will of the House to sit
tomorrow, the hours being 10 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.? [agreed]
Mr. Praznik: Yes, further to government business, I would
ask if you would, as I asked before, to call Bill 41 for second reading, and
then follow for debate on continuation of debate on second reading in this
order: Bills 16, 18, 13. We will have, perhaps, some additional House
business to announce later.
Bill 41‑The
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to move, seconded by the Minister of Education
(Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill 41, The Provincial Parks and Consequential Amendments
Act (Loi concernant les parcs provinciaux 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.
* (1450)
Mr. Enns: Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a new act and
bears little resemblance to the old act.
It is a contemporary piece of legislation designed to meet both the
resource and financial management challenges facing
Last fall, the government undertook to
consult extensively with Manitobans on what they wanted to see in a new parks
act. The
In large part, the rewrite of this act was
guided by the direction received from this public consultation process. The principal reasons for undertaking the
rewrite of The Provincial Parks Act were to clarify resource and land‑use
policies, to meet our stated commitment to the Endangered Spaces Campaign, and
to improve our ability to manage financial issues arising out of cottage
subdivisions within our parks.
The Preamble to this act reflects this
government's commitment to sustainable development in a manner that recognizes
parks' role as special places. A number
of sections within the act reflect the principles of sustainable development.
There is now a binding commitment in
legislation to not only develop an overall systems plan for the management of
parks but also to prepare a park management plan for each park in the
system. A new park classification system
is introduced that condenses the existing 12 classes into four easily
recognizable classes with their main purposes embraced within the body of the
act.
As well, a new concept utilizing land‑use
categories will aid in further describing the broad range of activities,
developments and uses permitted in each class of park. The land‑use categories will be
identified at the time of park designation and will provide a much needed tool
to guide park management.
The World Wildlife Fund and its Endangered
Spaces Campaign is promoting the protection of habitat by setting aside a
target of some 12 percent of each ecosystem in Canada to be protected from
logging, mining, hydroelectric development and other activities which could
significantly affect habitat.
Madam Deputy Speaker and honourable
members will and should know that it was just yesterday that we announced a
very significant further initiative in this Endangered Spaces Program by
publicly proclaiming the regulation that sets aside hundreds of thousands of
acres, indeed, I believe, it is in excess of a million acres of land that for
all time will be set aside for future generations to enjoy in its pristine
wilderness with no commercial resource extraction permitted from that
particular area. I am of course
referring to the
Madam Deputy Speaker, I mention that only
because it was a noteworthy and an important event happening in this particular
area of activity in
Some of my prominent friends from the
Manitoba Naturalists Society and the wilderness caucuses were present at the
press conference. I do not, as a rule,
get all too many accolades from those groups of Manitobans concerned with the
environment, but they certainly recognized the importance of setting aside that
land for that purpose, and acknowledged it to be an important occasion.
To carry on, Madam Deputy Speaker, with a
brief description of the bill before the House.
The resource development or extraction
activity must be conducted in a manner that does not compromise the main purpose
of the park classification. The desire,
expressed by participants during the
Public consultation is focused on park
classes and categories, where the purpose of strategic management direction for
parks is determined. The act provides
for a linkage between the parks act and The Environment Act, so that a
development proposal will receive public review that integrates the
requirements of both acts.
The establishment of parks districts
provides an administrative framework for the recovery of the costs of services
to cottage subdivisions. During the
A recent trend has seen more cottages
being used as a chief place of residence.
Since cottagers in provincial parks are not subject to assessment in
taxation, specifically education in taxes, a provision has been added to charge
a chief place of residence levy.
The Provincial Auditor, in a recent
report, identified the problem of collecting outstanding fees from landowners
within parks, that is, private landowners within parks. We have taken steps to address this problem by
strengthening the provision to collect the arrears by registering a lien
against the property title.
The regulation‑making authority has
been clarified between the Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council
regulations and ministerial regulations.
The L‑G‑in‑C regulations address park designation. In
other words, those are the fundamental designation determinations made as to
the type of park it is to be, that is, O/C, by Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council,
not simply a ministerial regulation.
Strategic directions and ecosystem
protection, the occupation of land and any financial matters are covered under
the same Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council regulatory
authority. Ministerial regulations
address the day‑to‑day management activities such as public safety,
unruly behaviour, use of roads, trails, issuance of permits, fire management,
cottage subdivision management and the protection and management of resources
within the framework of the park classification.
I would like to stress that the process
outlined in legislation for designating parks provides and in fact builds a
sense of security for those who are concerned about setting aside areas for
future generations, as well as those Manitobans who depend on access to
resources within the parks for their livelihood.
* (1500)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not wish to, in
any way, understate the significance of that particular portion within this
act. There are those people who will
view, with some concern, this aspect of the act which specifically and clearly
indicates that there will be some continued resource extraction allowable
within parks, only after appropriate designation has taken place in those areas
that make that possible. There will be
other areas and significant areas of our parks set aside where that will not be
permitted, and where that is the case, those will fit into the higher protected
category of such programs as the Endangered Spaces Program.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in closing, I would
like to emphasize that this new parks act legislation clearly demonstrates this
government's view that provincial parks are considered special places and play
an important role in the protection of natural lands and the quality of life of
all Manitobans. Thank you.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Motion agreed to.
DEBATE ON
SECOND
Bill 16‑The
Public Schools Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading Bill 16
(The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles
publiques), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Education and
Training (Mrs. Vodrey), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Selkirk (Mr. Dewar).
Is there leave to permit the bill to
remain standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Okay.
Leave has been denied.
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Bill 16, an amendment to The Public Schools
Act has been before this House now for a couple of months, Madam Deputy
Speaker, and our members have stood one after another in this House over the
last couple of months to debate this bill and have risen to oppose, not only
the principle of the bill which we find offensive, but the substance of this
bill and the way that it has been handled and has been brought in to this
Legislature.
Unfortunately, it is typical of the
approach used by this government. When
major decisions are made, they are made behind closed doors. There is no such a thing as consultation. When they know not what to do, then they say
they are consulting and they are going out to the so‑called Partners in
Education that we have heard the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) mention so
often in this House during the Estimates debate to a point where we find it
quite nauseous, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We oppose this bill because it is an
attack on the public school system in this province and on the quality of
educational opportunities in this province.
It is certainly one that intrudes on long‑standing principles of
local autonomy and local decision making.
We oppose this massive intrusion into
local decision making, into local autonomy.
We oppose it in the strongest terms, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We will vote against this bill at every
opportunity. We hope that this
government and these members will listen to reason, have listened to reason as
it has been brought forward by our members in this Legislature. We hope that the government members will
reconsider what they are doing with this bill and that they will understand the
widespread implications, in many instances the damage that it is causing to the
public education system, will rethink their actions and withdraw the bill that
is before this House.
Because this bill must be placed in
context, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to go back over the chain of events that
has led to this action by the government, to put them in context with all of
the other actions and show how the government has become bolder and bolder with
regard to its treatment of the public education system as the months have
passed in this House and while they have been in government.
We look back over the last five years when
the member for Roblin‑Russell (Mr. Derkach) was the Minister of
Education. Over that period of time, as
we have described to the minister, the increases in support to the public
education system have consistently fallen behind inflation in this
province. In other words, the quality of
education has fallen as a result of underfunding by the provincial government
during that period of time.
I brought that information to the House,
that total funding that was approved by this government over that five‑year
period was about 14.2 percent while inflation was running at 18 percent. Of course this placed a squeeze on the local
school boards at that time, on local schools, because in fact school boards had
to raise money locally to offset the underfunding by the provincial
government. They were able to do that
through the mandate they have in The Public Schools Act, through the powers and
responsibilities they have historically under The Public Schools Act to raise
money from local property tax owners in the province.
Over the past five years, we have seen
underfunding by this government. The
interesting point that we have made, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that at the same
time, the private school system has been receiving rather massive increases up
to and approaching $25 million in this province over the five‑year
period, an increase of some 150 percent over the period of time that the public
schools have seen an approval of only 14 percent‑‑more than
tenfold.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): That is not what the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
said on the steps of the Legislature. He
did not tell the kids that were protesting‑‑
Mr. Plohman: The member for Thompson reminds me, when the
Premier spoke he conveniently ignored the fact that his government has funded
the private school system and with them the elite exclusionary schools like St.
John's‑Ravenscourt to the tune of 10 times the rate of inflation and 10
times and more that they funded the public education system. He ignored that. He said, oh, I can assure you that the
private schools are going to be frozen this year too; they are not getting any
more.
That comes after a 150 percent increase
over the last five years. Particularly,
it comes after elite schools, as I said, exclusionary schools, who do not allow
every student to attend. They will not take the ones that do not have
sufficient academic standing to make the grade, so they cull those out with an
entrance exam, and they make sure that the ones that do not measure up are not
included. Academically they are not
quite the ones they want there, and they say, I will take you but not you, now,
we will take you over there. They go through
this process of elimination before they arrive at a student body for their
schools.
The public school system on the other
hand, Madam Deputy Speaker, has to take all students, as we know, and they will
do the best they can to educate and bring those students along to the extent
that they can be to realize their full potential. That is the aim of the public
school system, but that is not the aim of the private school system that this
government and this Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger) have been a part of in
funding massive increases there to create a two‑tiered education
system: one for the wealthy and the
other system for the rest of us. That is
what we see from this government, and that will be part of their legacy, let
there be no mistake.
Everyone will understand this in the next
election campaign and into the future.
They will understand it very clearly as they are getting to understand
it even now, and as every day passes I am sure there is a greater understanding
of the role this government has played in the funding of the elite schools and
exclusionary schools in this province.
Students are hearing about it as they participate in
demonstrations. Teachers are hearing
about it when they participate in demonstrations, demonstrations that should
be, surely, Madam Deputy Speaker, an embarrassment for this government.
They have caused so much havoc to the
public school system through their actions that people are coming to the
Legislative steps in unprecedented numbers on issues that never before brought
them before this Legislature. It is a
shame. It is a black mark on this
government, and they will be held accountable for those decisions in the public
school system.
* (1510)
During this time that they were funding
private schools by 10 times the rate that they were funding the public school
system, they were at the same time offloading their responsibilities onto local
property taxes. Local property taxpayers
were having to pick up the bill even if they were not able to to the same extent
in some areas as they were in other areas.
So we had poorer school divisions falling further behind because they
did not have the comparative wealth within their boundaries. They had to raise their mill rates to offset
the underfunding by the provincial government.
Over the last five years we called this
the GFT, the Gary Filmon tax, which sounds very much, coincidentally, like the
GST which is the Brian Mulroney tax. So
we had a Brian Mulroney tax, GST, and we had the Filmon tax, the GFT, and we
know that over those years while the members sat back comfortably and said, who
us? We raise taxes? We would not raise taxes! But we know what they did during that period
of time. They were causing through their
cuts and offloading the municipalities to have to do the dirty work for
them. So there were tremendous increases
in taxation at the local level.
The Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger)
smiles away because he knows he was one of the most guilty ministers of
that. He threw 2,000 kilometres, or was
it 2,000 miles, of roads onto the backs of the municipalities and said, now
municipalities you can pick up, your local taxpayers can pick up, the
maintenance and the upgrading of those roads.
That is why the Minister of Highways knows, because this rings very true
for him. It rings home very well for
this Minister of Highways. He knows
exactly about which we speak when we talk about offloading. This happened, Madam Deputy Speaker, in
Education. It happened‑‑[interjection]
Well, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) may note that it happened in
Natural Resources, as all kinds of services were cut in his department and
offloaded onto the municipalities. Of
course, we saw it in Highways. We saw it
in almost every department of government.
So during that time, we saw massive
offloading onto the municipalities, over those five years. We also, during that time, as I have said,
have seen an undermining of the public school system. It was the crowning blow this year when they
brought in Bill 16, which followed an announcement by the minister which was
about a month later than the normal period of time for the announcement of
funding for public schools, in mid‑February instead of mid‑January. So they made the school divisions wait an
extra month for the bad news. Then they
told them that they would be receiving, on average, 2 percent less than the
previous year for the funding of the public school system. This was the crowning blow on top of all of
the cumulative cuts, in fact, over the last five years.
They said that 2 percent would manifest
itself in terms of 3 percent in some divisions, 4 percent, 5 percent, as high
as 9 percent in some divisions, cut in funding in the public school
system. That was the announcement that
school boards got in mid‑February.
It was a bombshell, along with the other
bombshells that came later, which put greater pressure on the school boards,
the clinicians being cut, and the school boards being told they had to hire
these specialists themselves. We saw the
Diagnostic Centre being eliminated, Distance Education cuts and so on, all cuts
that would put greater pressure on local school boards.
Then, after that announcement, they
introduced Bill 16. Bill 16 is the bill
that we have before this House which is the crowning blow for school divisions
because it removes the ability of school divisions to make independent
decisions about the priorities in their school division. It removes that power from school boards and
puts that power in the hands of one super trustee, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of
the
That is the principle that we oppose so
vehemently and which the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, MAST, and the
rank‑and‑file trustees in school boards across this province oppose
so vehemently, because they do not want to see an historic relationship
disturbed and undermined in this way. It
leads to the question: Where will this
government go next? What step will they
next take to undermine the trustees in this province‑‑
An Honourable Member: You just wait and see, John.
Mr. Plohman: The minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns)
says, you just wait and see‑‑a veiled threat, Madam Deputy Speaker,
about where this government is contemplating to go next‑‑well, not
even so veiled.
An Honourable Member: That is not a threat; that is a promise.
Mr. Plohman: This minister says, that is a promise. Well, we will see. We can only hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that
before they can keep that promise, one which I am sure they will not make during
an election campaign, before they can keep that promise, they are no longer in
a position to wreak havoc on the school system in this province, because they
will no longer be in charge. We know
they are temporary custodians at best and they are doing a very bad job of
their custodial work in this
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, they brought in
Bill 16 and, at that particular time, they achieved three objectives in my
mind. They achieved three objectives that they wanted to accomplish in one fell
swoop.
The first one was that they wanted to get
at teachers. They wanted to cut teachers
down to size. They wanted to reduce
their funding, their salaries.
The second one, they undermined the public
education system while they are lifting up the private school system so that
they created a two‑tiered system, part of their agenda, elitist agenda.
Thirdly, they intruded on local autonomy
and local decision making. That third
principle was so they could have complete control in their hands. The Premier (Mr. Filmon), the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) wanted to have all of the control within their hands so
they could make the decisions as the supreme politicians in the province, those
who were elected with all power to make all decisions.
They ignored the fact that it was a
democratic process through democratic elections that have historically put
trustees in place in this province to make educational decisions, even
educational financial decisions.
That was what they were elected to do. They were elected on an education platform,
Madam Deputy Speaker. They were not
elected on all kinds of other things that the Premier found himself elected on
in the last election. They were elected
on an educational agenda to offer and protect the public education system, to
offer the best possible education that could be offered for all children in
this province. That was what they were
elected for.
The province has decided, in its wisdom,
through no mandate, through no mandate to do this, that they are superior to
trustees in terms of the mandate that they were given and, therefore, they
should remove those powers, undermine those historic relationships that had
developed and been built up.
Now, members opposite have been trustees
in the past. They know what is involved
in the responsibilities. They know that
they do the best that they can to offer quality education, that they are
responsible people. Why then has this government
decided that they are superior and that they could not trust trustees to do the
job, that they had to undermine that local decision making and authority? I think it was because they wanted to
accomplish other agendas, as I said earlier.
One of those agendas that they had was,
those hidden agendas that have become quite open now, as I said earlier, their
hit on the teachers. They were willing
to do this even if it meant sacrificing the quality of education across this
province. The quality of education of
this province has been affected regardless of what the Minister of Education
(Mrs. Vodrey) and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) have said.
It has been undermined by this broad rush
approach in an effort to get at the teachers by reducing the funding to public education
and putting a squeeze on, a cap on the ability of school boards to make
decisions by Bill 16, because then they could force school boards to make the
decisions that they wanted them to make within that narrow mandate that they
had left, that narrow mandate of decision making that would remain within local
school boards.
Of course, and‑‑
An Honourable Member: You might say we did this because of our
unquenchable lust for power.
* (1520)
Mr. Plohman: Well, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.
Enns) puts its very well when he says that the government has done this because
of their unquestionable lust for power.
I think that sums it up very well.
I think the Minister of Natural Resources sometimes comes up with these
truths that are not spoken by the vast majority of the members.
You would think the member for
I would hope that the member for Portage
(Mr. Pallister) would join with his colleague the Minister of Natural Resources
(Mr. Enns) in describing this measure for what it is‑‑a punitive
act imposing their will on elected people, the local school boards, the local
trustees.
The final blow in this series of events,
Madam Deputy Speaker, that took place over the last five years and in this year
particularly was the introduction of Bill 22.
It was one of the major agenda items introduced to get at the teachers,
as I said earlier, which is partly the goal and the objective of Bill 16. We know that.
So Bill 16 and Bill 22, when taken in
concert with the 2 percent cut in education, are designed to achieve their goal
of undermining the teaching profession, undermining educators in this province,
even if it meant taking the students down with them, even if it meant
undermining the quality of education in this province during that time.
In some ways I look at what this right‑wing
government is doing in this province and they are more right by way of their
agenda. As we see the true agenda coming
out, they are guided by right‑wing principles, even to the right of the
Bennett Social Credit government that was in place in
As a matter of fact, it reminds me of the
early 1980s, when the Bennett government in British Columbia was taking the
same kinds of actions against the public education system as this government is
doing now in Manitoba‑‑breaking collective agreements, no respect
for collective bargaining that took place, intervening in existing contracts
and rolling back wages, cutting back on the amount of money that was available
to the public school system and to local school boards, and then firing school
boards that did not co‑operate with the government's agenda in British
Columbia. Under the Bennett government
that was done.
I think this government has read up on the
Bennett process in the early '80s and is following in their footsteps, and they
are proud to do so. They would easily
gloat over the ability to be as right‑wing and draconian in their actions
as the Bennett government was in
We see that agenda now as Bill 16 unfolds
and Bill 22 brought into this House, which is another piece of legislation but
which is clearly as draconian as this one, if not more so, and which indicates
even less respect for other partners that are involved in the process of
government.
Now the main reasons, Madam Deputy
Speaker, that they gave for doing this kind of thing to the school boards, for
bringing in Bill 16 is that they were concerned about taxes, they were going to
keep taxes down, they were going to keep property taxes down. They just did not want to see those taxes go
up.
Is that not interesting because in the same
budget, within a month of their saying this, they introduce a budget that
increases property taxes for every home owner in the
The Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger)
knows this. It hits a responsive chord
with him, and he smiles. I can tell
right away when it hits a responsive chord with the Minister of Highways
because he gets a little grin on his face.
He knows he has heard those arguments from his constituents the odd time
when he talks to them. I know that he
realizes that the $250 increase when combined with the $75 increase is totally
unfair.
It indicates that this government does not
even consider fairness, does not use reasonable decision‑making processes
when it does things such as it has done with Bill 16, and when it made its
budgetary decisions this year. There was
no desire to keep property taxes down.
What there was, was a desire to intrude on decision making of another
elected body. That is the reason, and
they wanted to get at another agenda, to get at the teachers and make them pay
because they were not having to pay‑‑as the government would say,
to do their fair share. So they had to
put a special tax on teachers. Bill 16
helped them accomplish that.
Also, during this time, they ran up a
deficit of $862 million, the greatest deficit in the history of this province,
presided over by this Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and these ministers and
this government.
An Honourable Member: You want it higher.
Mr. Plohman: During that same time they cut taxes to
corporations‑‑the member for
What did those corporations do back for
this government? What did they do for the people of
We were first into the recession. We are going to be the last out of the
recession under Tory government. We saw
that under Sterling Lyon in the 1980s, and there are several ministers in this
government who were there with Sterling Lyon during the long, dark years. There were only four years, but it seemed
like it was many more, the long, dark years of the early 1980s and late '70s,
when the
The Minister of Natural Resources knows
that did not catch on too well. I think
the Minister of Natural Resources, I am sure, believes that he was only 10
years ahead of his time. He was only 10
years ahead of his time, because they are certainly practising acute,
protractive restraint now, but they are not calling it that now.
While they are doing it, they are running
up a record deficit in this province.
The ministers chirp all over about deficits; they are the architects of
the greatest deficits in the history of this province. What a legacy. What a shame for Conservatives, who say they
manage. Well, we know they cannot
manage. We see the results of it
now. We saw the results of it during the
Bill 16, Madam Deputy Speaker, tears down
a history of trust and relationship between elected officials, those being
trustees and school boards and the provincial government, the provincial
Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey). A
historical relationship that was based on trust and responsibility, joint
responsibility. This government has
moved in to grab that responsibility from those locally elected officials
without any semblance of consultation or consideration about the impact that
this has on that institution, part of the institution, part of the history of
public institutions in this country.
They say that they believe in tradition.
They say they believe through the Conservative name of their party that
they believe in coveting those historical institutions and traditions in this
province, and yet they are undermining it and tearing it apart.
* (1530)
I cannot understand how this government
can think that they can get away with it.
I believe that this is a large fight in their caucus. This bill is one of the large spikes in their
coffin. It is not just a little nail or
a tack, it is a major blow to this government.
It is a start down the slippery slope to oblivion and that is where this
government is going.
I say, Madam Deputy Speaker, what is next
from this government? Get the economy
moving again. You failed. You see I could not give a lecture to these
members over here, it goes right over their heads. They do not listen and then finally they make
statements that say tough. I just said
your economic policies have failed. Your
failure is manifested in your lack of revenues.
That is why you do not have money to offer services. It is a failed
economic policy. Get it through your
head, think about it, read it, say it over and over. I will make a tape for you.
We can only say, what is next? Where will this government move next to
undermine the decision‑making powers of school boards and other elected
officials? Will they decide to tell the trustees
what the mill rate should be, the precise mill rate, or will they just abolish
them altogether? Will they tell them how
many teachers they can hire? Will they
tell them how many teachers they should have in place in every school? What courses they can offer?
Where will they go next? That is what I think we have to ask this
government. We have to ask, where are
they going to go? Is this just a first
step in the undermining of the school boards? It is a major one; it is a big
one. It is certainly going to destroy a
lot of their decision making. Are they
going to go further with this and undermine the school boards further?
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): The
hospital board is next.
Mr. Plohman: Certainly, the Minister of Natural Resources
(Mr. Enns) says hospital boards are next.
I do not doubt that they are going to be, that they are on the drawing
board right now for being eliminated‑‑[interjection].
An Honourable Member: Who says that?
Mr. Plohman: The Minister of Natural Resources.
Now I think that the Minister of Natural
Resources is probably on the final leg of his provincial political career. Who
knows, he might be a senator in two years.
We thought maybe it was going to be a couple of weeks ago, but he has
got another life because there is a retirement coming in
An Honourable Member: He will be here a lot longer than you will,
John. The Bank of
Mr. Plohman: Well, now there is another suggestion from
across the way. It seems to me that
perhaps he will be appointed to the Bank of Canada to replace Arnie there. Now that is a possibility. We know that there will be a place, but it is
possible that this Minister of Natural Resources, knowing that he spent over 25
years in this House, finds it now appropriate to reveal some of the secrets of
decision making in that government. So
he will come forward with statements that say school boards are next on the
chopping block. I mean, it is entirely
possible with this government that hospital boards are next on the chopping
block. I think the Minister of Natural
Resources has identified that today.
Now I ask, will this government ever
consider in their undermining of school boards, as they go down this path, will
they at least consider equality of opportunity in education in this
province? They certainly did not do it
with this bill. They entrenched the inequities that are already there. We saw that when we had representatives come
forward, delegations come forward to talk to us from Transcona, for example,
who showed how the inequities and inequalities in the system were entrenched.
They could not get out of that rut. They
were not able to make decisions to enhance the level of education to a level
that would at least allow them to offer what is offered in most school
divisions in this province.
They were not able to do that because of
Bill 16. It prevents them from ever
getting out of that situation that they find themselves in at the present time
through no fault of their own. So I am
just saying to these ministers, if they are going to remove the authority of
school boards, which it seems they are bent on doing, then ensure they are
willing‑‑this super trustee, this Premier (Mr. Filmon), this
colleague the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) and the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness), will they at least ensure that public education is offered
equally across the whole province? That
is the challenge that is not being met by this government at the present
time. It is one that they must meet, if
they are going to overcome the supreme criticism that they are going to receive
over the next number of years as we move towards the next election because of
the actions they have taken with Bill 16.
There is no equality there. They refuse to even listen to the arguments
about equality. They refuse to listen
and act on the pleas from school divisions across this province who are asking
the minister to please look at the situations they find themselves in in their
school divisions in providing education to their children. They are saying, look at our situation,
provide some method of amelioration so we will not have to make the cuts in
this division that will undermine our quality of education further. They are asking the minister for this. They are just totally ignored. They get a nodding of the head and a smile
and that is it.
There is no action by this minister, by
this government. I know that the
minister is very proud of her ability to avoid answering questions directly, to
talk in circles, to talk about concepts and principles and processes, but she
does not have any plan. She talks about
plans. There are no definitive plans.
When you probe these statements and ask for specifics, you do not get them
because they do not exist. They have no
plan. They have no plan for reform. We have asked about dates, when they are planning
to do certain things and what we can expect to see in terms of scope of reform
even, and she has no idea, no idea whatsoever.
I can say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that that
is what is so telling about this government minister. There is no real agenda. It is an effort to delude, to create an
illusion that something is happening and hope that they can get past another
election. Well, they are well on their
way through this one, but it is falling apart.
The public education system is, as one of
my colleagues said, imploding upon itself as a result of this government's
decisions. It will also explode in the
face of this minister as she sees the unprecedented delegations coming before
the Legislature: students concerned
about their future, teachers concerned about their future, teachers and
parents, students concerned about the future.
How many thousands came before this
Legislature when New Democratic governments were in place in this
province? No students from the public
education system, no teachers and parents.
Now, let me just say that we are
experiencing a crisis in the public education system as a result of neglect and
underfunding by this government while the private school system is elevated in
this province. We will not stand for
that. We will not stand for the creation
of a two‑tiered education system in this province. We will not stand for the neglect of the
public education system. That is why we
are fighting this bill. That is why we
will get the message out to the public.
That is why this bill will be a major part of the demise of this
government in the next election.
This bill affects two full school
years. Enough damage has been done
already this year because school boards have acted on the basis of what is in
this bill in anticipation of it being passed.
There is an opportunity now for this government to stop this action
halfway. They could withdraw this
bill. They could let it die here and
they would be able to say, well, they were able to cut the costs this year, but
they found it too damaging.
* (1540)
The public came forward and said, we will
not stand for that. We made a
mistake. We miscalculated. We are prepared to admit that mistake and we
are prepared to say, we do not want to wreak further havoc on the public school
system in this province. We see the
damage it is doing. We have not done
enough focus testing with our groups. We
did not understand this. So it has come
upon us with some surprise, but now that we know it, we are prepared to pull
back because we are a responsive government.
Responsive? Has this government ever been
responsive? Have we seen any examples in
education where they have been responsive?
No. That is why I do not think
they will do the wise thing here today.
I do not think they are prepared to admit that they have made a mistake.
I am asking, Madam Deputy Speaker, that
they do give this consideration, those who are here today, that they have
listened to my colleagues and that they will take another look and step back
from this‑‑just as the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) did
with his park legislation, the charges that he was going to put in place a year
ago and he withdrew that measure.
We say that is at least some indication of
responsiveness and we will hope that they will do that this time. We want to say that they, this government,
must be responsive to the public, to the school boards who were elected to make
educational decisions in this province.
If they are prepared to do that, they will let this bill die on the
Order Paper here today and they will vote with the opposition and hopefully
with the Liberals, with the third party in this House, to kill this bill.
Kill this bill and do the wise thing for
the children of
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 16. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
All those in favour, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members:
Yea.
Madam Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would request a
recorded vote.
Madam Deputy Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as
follows:
Yeas
Dacquay, Derkach,
Downey, Driedger, Ducharme, Enns, Ernst, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer,
Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Orchard, Pallister, Penner,
Praznik, Reimer, Render, Rose, Stefanson, Sveinson, Vodrey.
Nays
Alcock, Ashton, Barrett,
Cerilli, Cheema, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Interlake), Evans (Brandon East),
Friesen, Gaudry, Gray, Maloway, Martindale, Plohman, Reid,
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Yeas 25, Nays 21.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.
Bill 18‑The
Corporations Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) Bill 18, The
Corporations Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les corporations, standing
in the name of the honourable member for Burrows.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): I move, seconded by the member for
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows?
Mr. Martindale: I move, seconded by the member for
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows? Leave? [agreed]
Bill 13‑The
Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), Bill 13, The Manitoba
Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi
constituant en corporation le Fonds de participation des travailleurs du Manitoba,
standing in the name of the honourable member for St. Boniface. (Mr. Gaudry)
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that that matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and speak
on Bill 13, The Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment
Act. This bill has a very long history
since this began under the administration of the Pawley NDP government when we
began negotiating with the Manitoba Federation of Labour to establish the
Crocus Fund.
Regrettably, it took five years for this
Conservative government to actually set up the Crocus Fund, an inordinately
long period of time. However, during
that time, the government took considerable credit for this and repeatedly
announced it in their throne speeches, and yet it took many, many budgets to
set up the fund.
I believe that this is actually one of the
few positive things in the economic front that this government has done. We know that, in spite of the Crocus Fund,
there is no economic plan by this government, with the exception of many
announcements, press conferences and press releases on potential jobs, on
projected jobs and on promised jobs, but in many instances we have failed to
see these jobs actually be produced.
Just to mention a couple of those announcements, one would be the
MacLeod‑Stedman announcement, and the other would be the Royal Trust
announcement. A third would be the Repap
jobs that were announced.
In every case, in spite of promises that
were made at press conferences, the jobs that were promised did not
materialize. In fact, what we have
actually seen in terms of the economy of
This is a downward trend for
Unfortunately, what they are doing is the
opposite. This government is eliminating
jobs, and part of this is coming through their budget decisions. For example, when this government eliminated
the grant to 56 organizations, the result was that many of those organizations
were forced to lay off staff.
We know that, in their budgetary decisions
around child daycare, the result has been and will continue to be staff
layoffs. There are very clear reasons
for this. When they ask parents to
contribute‑‑in fact, that is one of the government's favourite
expressions, that it is a contribution‑‑it is a tax or a fee
increase. The result is that parents who
cannot afford the $1.40 a day‑‑many parents on social assistance
are being forced to withdraw their children from child care, and, in many
cases, the reason that the children are there in the first place is because the
parents have a job. Some of the parents
are forced, because of the fee increase, to withdraw their children from child
care and to withdraw from the labour market.
That is very regrettable indeed.
I have talked to some of those parents, and they do not want to quit
their jobs, but they feel forced to.
* (1630)
Similarly, this government, through its
budget decisions in the Department of Family Services, reduced the number of
weeks that parents could search for a job.
They reduced it from eight weeks to two weeks. I have had many, many phone calls from
university students and others saying that two weeks is not a realistic length
of time in which to search for a job.
The result is that they will be pulling their children out of child
care. The result of this is that staff
are and will be laid off.
I know that the Manitoba Child Care
Association is gathering statistics on this and will be sharing those
statistics with me. I know that many, many parents in the child care system and
board members are writing letters and phoning me. I know that they are contacting their MLAs,
including, I am sure, backbenchers on the government side and telling them
about the effects of this government's decision. I know what I say to these parents and board
members. It would be very interesting to
know what back‑bench members, in particular on the government side, are
saying to these parents and what they say in defending their government's
budget decisions.
I asked the Minister of Family Services
(Mr. Gilleshammer) many, many questions about how they came up with these
decisions before they made them. I asked
the Minister of Family Services if their research staff did any research, if
they even made one phone call to Canada Employment Centres, and the minister
would not tell me. The minister could
not tell me, in fact. I was the one who
was informing the minister things like statistics from Statistics Canada which
say that the average person in Manitoba is on unemployment insurance, is
looking for work before they find employment on average for 23 weeks.
Did the Minister of Family Services take
this into consideration when he changed the policy? Well, of course, he would not tell me. He would not admit that the staff had even phoned
a Canada Employment Centre or Statistics Canada or done any research before
they made this decision. The result is
that parents who cannot find work in two weeks, which is totally unrealistic,
are being forced to pull their children out of child care and in fact will not
be able to participate in the labour market.
So we believe that this is a bad economic decision and a bad budgetary
decision on the part of this government.
Right now, the Minister of Urban Affairs
(Mr. Ernst) has a job creation proposal on his desk from the City of
On the other hand, one of his colleagues
in cabinet the Minister of Family Services, when he is asked about job
creation, always talks about the NDP's job creation programs during the Pawley
years and has absolutely no interest and no desire to create jobs for Manitobans. In spite of that, what they do is they budget
millions and millions of dollars more for social assistance, because this
government would rather pay people to stay home and collect social assistance
than to pay people to work. We know that
there are many, many benefits to having people in the paid workforce as opposed
to staying home.
So we are waiting, and we will hope that
the government will do the right thing, that they will put social assistance
recipients on the City of
One would think that people who, ideologically,
are Conservatives as well as members of the Conservative Party, logically,
would believe in having people work instead of collecting social
assistance. It seems totally
contradictory to me that they could support one and not the other. Does that strike the member for Osborne (Mr.
Alcock) that way?
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): That is very consistent with all the positions
they have taken in the last five years.
Mr. Martindale: That reminds me of a quotation I found about
the Conservative Party from
Well, the member for
We hope this government will do the right
thing, as the member for Niakwa says, since he believes that this government
always does the right thing. Of course,
we totally disagree. How can he believe that they do the right thing when they
spend millions and millions of dollars more every year on social assistance and
will not spend money on job creation, in spite of the fact that the benefits of
job creation are many?
We know about the multiplier effect of
investing money in the community. We
know that we are going to have infrastructure, which is a capital asset for the
City of
In fact, I was going to mention later in
my speech, I may as well say it now, what this government has done is deprive
people of hope. If they were to give
people some hope that there is a job there or there might even be a job there,
then I think attitudes towards this government would be quite different,
because right now what we have is an attitude of despair and hopelessness, and
it is because of their economic policies or rather their lack of economic
policies. We could hope that they might
have hope, but there is no guarantee unless they can turn things around
substantially and put large numbers of people to work. I think there are many, many factors
inhibiting that.
The Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), since he
is actually listening to me, thinks that they are going to turn it around.
Well, the Deputy Premier has an opportunity, since he is in cabinet‑‑is
he on Treasury Board? The Deputy Premier
is not on Treasury Board, but I am sure that he is a very influential member of
his cabinet. If he really wants to do
something good for Manitobans and good for Winnipeggers, then he would push his
cabinet colleagues and say, yes, we are going to do the right thing; we are
going to take people off social assistance and put them back to work.
We will see, when the Minister of Urban
Affairs (Mr. Ernst) finally makes a pronouncement on behalf of his government,
if they ever do, whether they are going to accept or reject the City of
This government also has a very sorry
record when it comes to labour relations.
For example, this government has raised the minimum wage, I believe,
only once. I believe the Minister of
Labour (Mr. Praznik) has only raised the minimum wage once since 1990. This is 1993, and the result is that instead
of
In fact, we know that historically the
minimum wage is declining as a percentage of the average industrial wage and,
therefore, the purchasing power of people who are earning minimum wage is
constantly declining. That is why we
have more and more people who are classified as being working poor who are
living below the poverty line. We think
that is deplorable. In fact, I believe
it is in the
If this government were to say, we are
going to make the minimum wage, just for an example, 50 percent of the average
industrial wage, then they would not have to make a political decision every
year about whether or not to raise it.
Now there are problems with tying it.
One is that, if the average industrial wage goes down, then the minimum
wage would go down, and we would not be in favour of that. I think the decision is long overdue, and we
will be waiting for an announcement on the part of the Minister of Labour and
hoping that, as the member for Niakwa says, he will do the right thing.
* (1640)
This government has another very antilabour
policy; that is, they withdrew final offer selection. We believe that this was very helpful
legislation when it was in place, and if it were in place today, it would
probably have averted lockouts and strikes.
For example, there is a lockout at Trailways and the employees there are
not being allowed to work by their employer. Their employer, I believe I am
told, was asking employees for a 24 percent rollback in wages.
Now under final offer selection, this
probably would not have happened. Any
decent arbitrator would have said, it is not realistic to ask for a 24 percent
rollback and, in fact, the employer would not have asked for a 24 percent
rollback. They would have asked for
something that was much more realistic which is in fact what usually happened
during final offer selection. Both sides put in their final offer and usually
they were close together, and they were realistic and one of them was
chosen. As far as I know in most cases,
particularly employees supported this kind of labour‑management
negotiation.
Another economic policy of this
government, we believe it is going to be a failed economic policy that we have
been opposed to, is Sunday working, another piece of antilabour legislation.
This bill, in spite of the fact that it says that people will be able to opt
out and not work on Sunday if they do not want to, we believe, is going to
coerce many people to work because they know that if they do not accept working
hours on Sunday that they will not get working hours during the week, or they
will have their hours during the week cut back or reduced or in some way will
be indirectly punished for not agreeing to work on Sunday.
It is going to be very interesting to
listen to the debate this evening, to listen to the public presentations on the
Sunday working bill. I understand there
are 26 people who are registered to speak.
Hopefully, it will have to continue again tomorrow after Question
Period.
We are looking forward to the various
kinds of presentations. We know that
there is going to be a great variety, that there will not just be labour union
people there and there will not just be church representatives there, but there
will be employers. There will be
business owners, and there will be people in rural
The member for
So, Mr. Speaker, we believe that this
government does not have a coherent economic strategy. They have done many things which have caused
people to be laid off. They have made
many promises in terms of official announcements and pronouncements of news
releases about potential jobs that they thought were going to be placed in
The need in
We also know what the City of
These are people who are deemed
employable. These are people who want to
work. These are people, many of whom
have not been unemployed before until this particular recession. I mentioned in a previous speech that I went
on a tour of a City of
This government has taken care of
that. They have put a cap on the amount
of money they will pay in mortgage payments, which means that, I think, many of
those people are going to be forced to sell their homes. They will no longer be able to afford to stay
in them. I think this is a very little
known change to social assistance regulations.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like
to finally comment on the fact that the Crocus Fund requires that 100 percent
of funds be invested in
We believe that that is not helpful to the
Canadian economy. So, therefore, we are pleased to see that 100 percent of the
Crocus Fund monies will be invested in
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Oui, Monsieur le president, il me fait
plaisir de pouvoir‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The House had previously agreed to allow
this matter to remain standing in the name of the honourable member for St.
Boniface.
Is there leave of the House to allow the
honourable member for St. Boniface now to take his place in this debate?
[agreed]
Mr. Gaudry: Mr. Speaker, just a few comments to say that
we have had three members that have spoken on this bill and have spoken in
favour of the bill. We are prepared to
let it go to committee as soon as possible so that it can be debated. That will be the comments for today because
the three members of the Liberal Party that have spoken have spoken in
favour. Thank you very much.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 13, The Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation le Fonds de participation
des travailleurs du Manitoba.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
House
Business
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, further to arrangements for the House, I would ask if you could
canvass the House to determine if there is unanimous consent to set aside the
Estimates of the Environment department and of the Sustainable Development
Innovations Fund being considered in the Chamber for the purposes of tomorrow,
Thursday's session, and to replace them with the Estimates of the Department of
Health for that day only. We would then
return to the regular Estimates.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to alter the
sequence of the Estimates process? [agreed]
So we are going to alter it by setting
aside the Environment and the Innovations Fund, I believe it is? Right.
We are going to replace that with Health in the Chamber for tomorrow
only. [agreed]
Mr. Praznik: Further on House Business, I would also ask
you to please canvass the House to determine two things: one, if we could amend the sitting hours for
the Committee of Economic Development, which is scheduled for tomorrow at 10
a.m., we would ask if that could be moved to 11 a.m. If consent is not required, then I would make
that announcement.
I would also ask you to canvass the House
for consent to have this standing committee of the House sitting while the
House is also sitting.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to, as previously
has been indicated, that the Economic Development committee would be meeting at
11, now I believe they would like to meet at 10 a.m.?
An Honourable Member: The other way around.
* (1650)
Mr. Speaker: The other way around? Okay.
They were supposed to meet at 10; now they would like to meet at
11. Is there agreement? [agreed]
Also is there leave of the House to have a
third committee sitting? [agreed]
Do we need agreement for that because the
House will be sitting? Now we need
agreement for a committee to sit at the same time. [agreed]
Now the honourable member for Gimli with
his committee changes.
Committee
Changes
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital
(Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee for Economic
Development for the 11 a.m. Thursday sitting be amended as follows: the member for Gimli for the member for Seine
River (Mrs. Dacquay); the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render) for the member for
St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau).
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I would ask for Bill 22 to be
called.
Bill 22‑The
Public Sector Reduced Work Week and Compensation Management Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), Bill 22, The Public Sector Reduced Work Week
and Compensation Management Act; Loi sur la reduction de la semaine de travail
et la gestion des salaires dans le secteur public, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that matter remain standing? [agreed]
Also, standing in the name of the
honourable member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) who has 32 minutes remaining.
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that matter remain standing? [agreed]
The honourable member for Broadway (Mr.
Santos), who has 17 minutes remaining.
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): Mr. Speaker, Bill 22 enables the provincial
government to mandate that Crown agencies and other public sector employees may
be able to cut the working days of the public service in two consecutive 12‑month
periods commencing no earlier than April 1, 1993, regardless of the terms and
conditions of any collective bargaining agreement that might be in effect
during that period.
In other words, this proposed legislation
reduces the number of paid working days and systematically eats away the scope
of the public service activities in this province. This is consistent with the Conservative philosophy
of reducing the area of public services and correspondingly increasing the area
of public sector activities that affect the general public.
This direction is contrary to what we
should be doing. Because of the increasing complexity of public policymaking
and the advancing technology in our society and the growing importance of
information in our technologically advanced and informational society, the
public sector should be broadened. Otherwise, there will be less and less areas
for equality among all the various groups of citizens.
Indeed, the public policymaker of all
levels of government should take a longer time horizon in visualizing the
future condition in which they want the society to go forward to. No longer should we give any kind of program
of government to the electoral cycle of four years because the consequences
will effect a longer time duration.
Whatever policy any one geographical unit
in our country may adopt will have consequences that extend to the citizens of
other provinces, even to citizens of other countries in the world. The effect of any kind of public policy that
any level of government adopts sometimes extends beyond the jurisdiction of the
geographical unit which adopts such level of policy.
There have been so many interdependencies
now in this global village that any activity or action on the part of any one
government will certainly have impact on other citizens as well as at other
times. For example, whatever we do with
our pension system, the unfunded, liable government will, of course, effect the
future generations of people.
There is not only geographic
interconnectedness. If we convert, for
example, any of our forest into orange groves in order to raise new products,
this will be good for the growers, but not for the environmentalist. The conversion, for example, of the Brazilian
jungle into arable land will be bad news for environmentalists and bad news for
those people who are affected by the ozone layer. The interdependencies in our biosphere affect
everyone. The destruction of the ancient
rain forests, the destruction of our prairie grasslands, the destruction of all
our natural resources affect the people of this world in the sense that it will
be detrimental to the future security not only for the present but for the
future generation. In other words, the
past is interconnected with the present, and the present is interconnected with
the future.
Therefore, the diminution of the public
sector will affect essential services, such as education, health and other
basic programs of government, where only the poor can share in these
areas. The rich, of course, can always
afford whatever they want to do for their children, but those that are
dependent in our public sector education, with the diminution of these
essential public services, will have less and less opportunity. Therefore, there will be more and more of
this hierarchical elitism and less and less of this egalitarian principle by
which everyone will have access to the essential public services. This is bad policy.
This is consistent with the other events
that are happening in this province. For
example, we have already eliminated in this province the child dental program,
which is mainly available to the low‑income people in rural
On the other hand, the same government had
extended the number of business exemptions from business units, from the
payroll tax. At the same time, they
freeze the corporate taxes so that, indirectly, their corporate friends are
benefiting. They once again fail to introduce the surtax on 2 percent of
Manitobans who are earning in excess of $70,000 per annum.
In other words, whatever changes are
happening now are good for the higher income people but bad for the lower
income people. They are out to destroy
the lower element of society who are least able to defend themselves because
this element of society is not voting the right way. This is precisely ruthlessness in a political
sense. What kind of consequences can we
expect out of these hopeless, despondent people?
An Honourable Member: That is what they are banking on.
Mr. Santos: They are banking on that they will be
powerless, but they will be antagonizing this small group until the small group
will be able to realize what is going on and that if they cannot persuade this
government to change its own mind, then they will have to change the government‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House,
the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) will have eight minutes
remaining.
House
Business
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to just advise the House that the Committee on Economic
Development to sit at 11 a.m. tomorrow will meet now in Room 254 rather than
Room 255 as previously announced.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable deputy
government House leader for that information.
* (1700)
PRIVATE
MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., time for Private
Members' Business.
PROPOSED
RESOLUTIONS
Res. 30‑‑Mining
Community Development Fund
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), that
WHEREAS mining is a billion dollar
industry in
WHEREAS many northern communities are
directly and indirectly dependent on the future of mining for their economic
survival; and
WHEREAS mining taxes and related sales and
payroll taxes contribute hundreds of millions of dollars annually to the
province's economy; and
WHEREAS three mining communities have collapsed
since the Filmon government took office in 1988; and
WHEREAS the government has refused to
utilize the Mining Reserve Fund to adequately support communities and miners in
northern
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the government to consider the creation
of the Mining Community Development Fund, as proposed in the 1988 NDP budget;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly
urge the government to consider ensuring that this fund is governed by a board
made up of representatives from northern communities, northern mining
companies, as well as mining unions and the employees they represent.
Motion presented.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, I honestly wish that I would not
have had to present this resolution to the House today. I wish, as do many northerners and many
northern communities, that the government had taken the opportunity in 1988,
when this proposal was part of the budget, to continue to implement the concept
of a mining community development fund.
Mr. Speaker, there exists in the province,
already, a Mining Reserve Fund. That
fund has been available for many decades, and as a matter of record, that fund
is supported by contributions that come from mining taxes paid by mining
corporations in the
In the 1988‑89 budget that was
proposed in March of 1988, the intention was to create a new broader fund which
could be used by mining communities when they experienced downsizing, when they
experienced changes in technology, when they required support. The proposal
was, at that time, that instead of the allowable 3 percent being transferred
from mining taxes into the Mining Reserve Fund, the government be required to
transfer on an annual basis some 5 percent of mining tax revenue into the
Mining Community Development Fund. This
development fund would have been a broader‑based fund that could have
been utilized by government to do any number of things to support mining
activity in the
The purpose of the Mining Community
Development Fund was to ensure that there was money available from the
government, through good times and bad times, to support mining communities and
miners and mining families who have invested their life savings sometimes in
the development of our resources and have made significant contributions to our
economic development and to the coffers of government, quite frankly.
Mr. Speaker, since 1988, the
The government chose not to do that. The government, as well‑‑although
I am sure the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey) is going to get up and
tell us that the government has continued to support mining activity in the
However, since 1988, since this government
and this minister assumed responsibility for mining in the province, we have
seen three separate communities threatened by mine and mill closures. The
community of Sherridon in 1989 was devastated by the closure of its only mine,
the Puffy Lake Mine, which was a gold mine. Some months later, we saw the
closure of the LynnGold Mine in
Mr. Speaker, since that time we have seen
the closure of the Spruce Point Mine and are facing the closure of the Namew
Lake Mine as well as the Chisel Lake Mine in the community of Snow Lake.
Since this government took office we have
lost more than 1,000 mining jobs‑‑a devastating, catastrophic blow
to our communities in northern
* (1710)
Mr. Speaker, we believe, and I believe
firmly, and many of the communities in northern
In 1989 when LynnGold closed, the
government had an opportunity certainly to offset some of the distress that was
being caused to the LGD of Lynn Lake by utilizing some of the money it had in
the Mining Reserve Fund. The government
on at least two separate occasions had to be badgered, had to be cajoled into
utilizing funds that they had at their disposal that would have added no
additional cost to the government of Manitoba, that would not have added to the
provincial deficit, would not have added to the obligations of individual
departments, the Department of Energy and Mines or any other department,
because they had funds already available in the Mining Reserve Fund.
The government refused time after time
after time the pleas of individuals and families, workers and community
leaders, to get involved and to take some responsibility.
The latest example of that came only a few
months ago when the community of
The bottom line is that the government
continues to withhold support, financial support, departmental support from
communities in northern
There is a feeling amongst many in the
communities of Snow Lake and Lynn Lake and Sherridon and Flin Flon as well, Mr.
Speaker, that this government has not been forthcoming, that they have paid lip
service to the problems that are faced in our communities in northern Manitoba,
and that they have failed to keep their commitment to supporting the mining
communities when they face these kinds of difficulty.
The member for
The government has neglected its
duties. I know that the Minister of
Energy and Mines is going to stand in his place and is going to suggest that
somehow this government has done everything for the mining community.
When we left office there were more mines
open. There were more employees in the
mining field. The mining industry had
become a billion‑dollar industry.
Since this government took office we have a thousand fewer miners. We have three mining communities that have
been devastated. We have mine closures,
an extensive list of mine closures, and we have communities that are in
jeopardy because the government failed to act when it came to the request for
modernization in a timely fashion. They
failed to act in a timely fashion.
Mr. Speaker, on top of that this
government continues to collect a 1.5 percent surtax on mining taxes that they
implemented in 1988‑89 as a "temporary measure." So if the minister is tempted to get up and
say it was the tax regime imposed by the previous government that caused the
crisis in mining today, let him not attempt to make that argument. This government has imposed additional taxes
at the same time it has withheld support to mining communities, miners and
their families in a time when that support was desperately required. If they will now stand and support the
concept of a mining community development fund that will be funded directly
from mining tax revenue in the Province of Manitoba, I think we can move a long
way to making sure that the funds are available and that the broadest possible
mandate to support our mining communities is available to whatever government
happens to be in power at the moment.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the debate
on this resolution. I hope that, as the
member for
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Energy and Mines): I rise to
speak on the resolution, Mr. Speaker, by the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie),
and let me say at the outset it is my intention to amend it to improve the
resolution to more adequately adapt to the current times in the
Normally, one would start a speech of this
nature by being overly critical of the member, and I am not. My only comments would be as it relates; I
have heard stronger presentations from the member, to start with. It was not one of his more invigorating
speeches. It lacked a lot of commitment
and conviction, and I am really surprised that he did not put more into this
presentation today. It just almost
seemed like it was something that he had to do, something that he was
politically motivated to do, but did he really want to do it? That really was not in the spirit of the
speech of the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie).
* (1720)
Mr. Speaker, let me as well say, and I am
not afraid anytime in this House to give credit where credit is due, the
approach that the member for Flin Flon has presented to the House is a concept,
at certain times, that probably is worthy of consideration, but I happen to
believe that this is not the time to introduce such a concept. I say this because the mining industry in
Mr. Speaker, as well, what he is
advocating is that the provincial taxpayers add to the pot. [interjection]
Well, he is saying again, coming out of mining taxes. Who pays the taxes? It is the mining
companies. It is another form of
taxation, which I said at this particular time is not able to be done.
Let me say a couple of things about where
this particular member comes from, and his party. He makes the comments that this particular
party has seen, during our term of office, the closing of a couple of
mines. He well knows that the very day
that a new mine opens is the first day that it starts to close, because there
is a limited amount of ore to extract from the ground.
Because he and his government who were in
office for 16 years discouraged the exploration of new mining activities in
this province, that is the reason that mining towns have closed and there have
not been the reserves to continue on with the towns and the communities.
So one has to ask the question: Are we doing a favour to a community by
falsely believing them‑‑for them to believe that there is a future
for their town if there are not any orebodies. Is that a fair approach? Is that fair and honest leadership?
An Honourable Member: Everybody knows there are orebodies.
Mr. Downey: Everybody knows there are orebodies. Well, why did the members opposite in their
term of office not encourage the industry to do it? In fact, you drove them out. Your philosophy and your economic policies
drove the mines out.
Let me tell the member for Flin Flon (Mr.
Storie) an experience that I had when I first became the Minister of Energy and
Mines. I visited the mining industry,
many of the heads of the mining sector.
I visited them in
An Honourable Member: The big shots.
Mr. Downey: The member for Flin Flon, here is what the
member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) says.
He refers to the heads of the mining companies as "big shots,"
as if it is some big person who is some way lesser than the member for
Thompson. Who does he think makes the
decisions that keeps the very community that he represents alive? It is a condescending approach in which he
approaches‑‑
An Honourable Member: Condescending?
Mr. Downey: That is exactly what it was. It was a slander to the people who direct and
operate the mines in this province. That is exactly the way it was taken.
An Honourable Member: It is a slander against them.
Mr. Downey: It certainly was, and on behalf of the mining
sector, I will make sure that they get his comments.
An Honourable Member: Visit some of the workers.
Mr. Downey: I will make sure they get some of his
comments, and yes, it is important that the workers be heard as well.
Here is the point I want to make. Upon the visiting of some of these people who
are directors of mines and the people who make the decisions, here is what they
said to me: We understand that in
Manitoba, that during the NDP years, there was a law brought in that any mine
that was opened or developed, the Province of Manitoba wanted to participate in
50 percent of that mine as they did in every oil well that was drilled.
Do you know what? [interjection] That was
in the '70s during the Schreyer years, and there was another government since
that time and another government since that time and another one. It is the third government since that
time. But do you know what? The industry,
once they got soured on
I can point out many companies that gave
me that very statement, that the NDP drove the mining companies out of
Let me add another comment. Because the investments were driven out of
We are saying that we are going to go out
and aggressively introduce programs that will in fact‑‑[interjection]
Mr. Storie: You never changed a thing . . . .
Mr. Downey: The member for Flin Flon says we have not
changed anything. Yes, we have, Mr.
Speaker, we have changed many things. We
have put $55 million in the upgrading of the smelter in his backyard, something
that he could not do as a minister of the Crown, could not get through his
caucus or his cabinet. It took the Gary
Filmon, Progressive Conservative government to upgrade the smelter in his
backyard‑‑[interjection]
An Honourable Member: That is nonsense.
Mr. Downey: It is not nonsense. Just look at the proof, just look at what is
happening. He could not deliver.
I will give you a list of other programs,
Mr. Speaker, that have been introduced by this government, that have in fact‑‑[interjection]
An Honourable Member: Tell us about your federal‑provincial
mining agreements now. Tell us where
those are at.
Mr. Downey: I sure will.
We have a federal‑provincial agreement which is in place for five
years‑‑[interjection]
An Honourable Member: And what is the latest federal budget
announcement? Your buddies in
Mr. Downey: We will have it for another three years‑‑[interjection]
An Honourable Member: Oh, and then it is dead like the Northern
Development . . . .
Mr. Downey: Not necessarily dead, it was you who killed
the mining industry in
What have we done? We have introduced a program for the average
citizen who wants to go out and prospect, a $7,500 grant to grubstake those
individuals to go out and explore for minerals.
We have introduced a mining and mineral
exploration incentive program which was introduced in 1993. Under this program, investors are offered a
25 percent grant on eligible investments.
Grant incentives of $10 million are available for metallic and
nonmetallic mineral exploration and $2.5 million for oil and gas exploration.
A mining tax exploration incentive was
introduced in 1993 under this program.
Mining companies, which significantly increase their mineral exploration
activities in Manitoba, are entitled to a deductive equivalent to 150 percent
of exploration expenditures in a given year that exceed the average of these
expenditures in the previous three years‑‑major incentives.
A mining tax holiday was implemented on
January 1 of 1993‑‑[interjection]
Mr. Storie: It is a joke.
Mr. Downey: Well, the member for Flin Flon says, it is a
joke‑‑[interjection]
An Honourable Member: How much did you spend? Not a nickel.
Mr. Downey: How much did you spend? You cannot spend it. You cannot spend it unless the mining
companies put in their applications, and that is now happening.
But let me conclude on the
incentives. A mining tax holiday was
implemented on January 1‑‑[interjection] He said nothing was
done. A lot of things have been
done. A mining tax holiday was
implemented on January 1, 1993. Qualifying
mining operators will not be required to pay the mining tax until their profits
for mining tax purposes equal their capital outlays in opening a new mine.
Tell me that is not incentive for a new
mine development in this province.
At the end of the tax holiday, operators
will inherit the undepreciated balance of the book assets. The Marketing branch of Energy and Mines is
aggressively searching for new opportunities to develop new mineral resources
in
That is where it is at, Mr. Speaker. We want to see development of new orebodies,
and we will.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could
indicate how much time there is left‑‑three and a half.
* (1730)
As I indicated at the outset, I am not totally
rejecting the concept which the member raises.
I am not totally rejecting it, although Jim Walding rejected it when he
defeated the budget which it was in, in 1988.
Jim Walding, his own colleague, defeated it, so he had not done his own
homework.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore move, seconded by
the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns),
THAT Resolution 30 be amended by deleting
all the words following the first WHEREAS and replaced with the following:
WHEREAS mining is a major industry in
WHEREAS the former NDP administration's
unfavourable economic policies had a negative effect on the mining industry in
WHEREAS the provincial government of Manitoba,
under Premier Filmon, has implemented several programs, namely a Mineral
Exploration Incentive Program, a Mining Tax Exploration Incentive Program, a
Financial Assistance to Prospectors Program and a mining tax holiday for new
mines aimed at stimulating and encouraging mineral exploration and the
establishment of new mines through financial incentives.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba support the government's actions to improve
the economic and political climate for continued and new mineral development as
well as value‑added job creation.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would hope for support from all members on
this very important amendment.
Motion presented.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Thompson): I realize
that members opposite might try to get the House to adjourn early and not to
hear the reality of what is happening in the North, but I think it is important
that the rather bizarre comments that were just put on the record by the
Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) be corrected because, Madam Deputy
Speaker, I cannot believe that this member‑‑maybe I should believe
it. Anything is believable with this
particular member of the Legislature, but I am not sure‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) has just
indicated that the minister has placed false information on the record. I believe that is not allowed in the House.
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): On the same point of order, Madam Deputy
Speaker, I was listening carefully to the remarks of the member for Thompson
(Mr. Ashton). I believe the word he used
was "bizarre," not "dishonest."
Mr. Ashton: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am the member for
Thompson. I am not sure who the minister is referring to. If she is referring to my comments she will
see that there was nothing that was unparliamentary, and I made reference to
the fact the minister made some bizarre comments and was going to correct the
record based on that.
So I think the minister once again is
confused, and I suggest we help her out by saying there is no point of order
and allowing me to pursue with my comments.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister does not have a point
of order. It is a dispute over the
facts.
* * *
Mr. Ashton: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I want to
place the facts on the record because, you know, the Minister of Northern Affairs
(Mr. Downey)‑‑I am really not sure I would even call him the
Minister of Energy and Mines in this context because he has demonstrated a
complete and absolute failure to grasp what has been happening in terms of the
mining industry in northern Manitoba.
He gets up in this House and says he has
gone and visited the people in
In fact I think it is ironic, and I refer
to him again as the Minister of Northern Affairs, that we just had the Northern
Manitoba Economic Development Commission, of which the minister was supposed to
be the sponsor, that has endorsed the proposal that was put forward by the
member for Flin Flon.
It received a lot of positive feedback in
the community meetings. In fact, it was repeated
in the documents put out by the commission.
It was put out in their newsletters, et cetera, it was one of the major
ideas that was developed.
A lot of people said it was an excellent
idea. If once again the minister had
been listening to people living in the mining communities he would be standing
today withdrawing this ridiculous amendment, this bizarre amendment, and would
be getting back to the original intent of this particular motion.
The fact is, Madam Deputy Speaker, the
original motion is very clear in its intent.
The original motion is very clearly aimed at dealing with the situation
in mining communities such as
In my own community I have seen the
community of Thompson go from a much higher population than is currently down
to a low of about 11,000. In fact, the
member opposite may remember that. He was part of the government at the time
when Sterling Lyon, the then Premier, came to Thompson. He did not even know that there had been the
major cutbacks in the mining industry, elimination of 600 positions, that the
population of Thompson had gone down to 11,000.
The same thing is happening again.
The minister has not seen what has been
going on in the mining industry. To
suggest that what happened in the '70s and the '80s and going to the '90s that
somehow there was an NDP government that drove the mining industry out is
completely ridiculous, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Where did the Thompson open pit develop from? If the minister would open his ears as much
as he is mouth currently, the Thompson open pit was developed in the 1980s. Also,
Under this government, we have seen mine
closures. We have seen
Well, I do not know who he met with in the
mining industry. I do not know who he met with, who he is quoting as his source.
It is interesting he did not do that, but if he was to talk to Inco, they could
point out the development that took place during that period in the Thompson
open pit. He might also point out that
some of the items that are referenced in this particular amendment in terms of
the programs, the incentive programs, do not even apply to Inco and
HBM&S. So I do not know who he was
talking to, Madam Deputy Speaker. Maybe
he was talking to Arni Thorsteinson, Bob Kozminski. God knows, maybe the Immigrant Investor Funds
were involved in investing in the mining industry. Maybe that is the source of the business
wisdom that this minister is imparting into this House.
* (1740)
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not know
where the sources are in terms of these comments he has put on the record, but
they do not bear any reflection on the facts or any of the reality in northern
You know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that
should be the focus of this minister if he wants to talk about what is
happening under this government. As I
said, I am not blaming this government for the world market conditions in the
mining industry, but what I do question, and I think this is a legitimate
concern, is why now, given the chance to do something for the communities that
are affected, why the minister in his rush to put on the record these rather
bizarre comments about what people in the mining industry in Toronto and
Vancouver say, why he does not refer to what people in this province in
northern Manitoba are saying in the mining industry, the people who work in the
mining industry, the people such as myself who live in mining communities that
have seen the tough times and are seeing it in other communities right now.
The bottom line is one looks at the
situation in Flin Flon currently. The
member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) introduced this resolution I guess at the
beginning of the session prior to the current discussions in terms of
downsizing. Since that time, Flin Flon
has learned that it is going to lose as many as 600‑plus jobs, 500 to
600, in that range. The bottom line is
that is going to have a devastating impact on the community.
I know that, Madam Deputy Speaker, because
I have seen what it did in Thompson when 600 positions were eliminated in 1977.
[interjection]
f the Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) wishes to travel to Flin Flon, she might learn a lot
about that community. It is a very tough
time for people in those communities.
The fact is, people are looking at what happens.
I will tell you what happened in
1977. I know because I lived in Thompson
at the time. When the population
plummeted to less than 11,000, what happened was, the first thing that
happened, people who had money invested in businesses and in their homes lost
substantially. Many people had to turn
the keys over because they could not afford the mortgage.
By the way, they did not have the luxury
of certain Tory fundraisers of being able to get an extension on their
mortgage. CMHC did not give people in my community an opportunity to sit there
and go and rent their house out and collect rents, not pay the mortgage, and
then go and get an extension when it became a political issue. They did not get appointed to any boards
afterwards either, at the Bank of Canada or Manitoba Hydro. They had to eat the loss. There were people walked away from $10,000,
$20,000 and $30,000.
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Sixty thousand dollars‑‑we had
one constituent living in Transcona.
Mr. Ashton: Well, indeed, as the member for Transcona points
out, $60,000 in the case of one of his constituents, up to $60,000. People lost businesses. People lost houses. They lost pretty well their life
savings. For many people, that was what
it was about.
What does the member for Flin Flon's (Mr.
Storie) original motion refer to? It
refers to the need to build into place a system that means that the people‑‑you
listen to the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), it is not the
corporate officials in
The fact is those are the people who pay
the price, and what does the original motion refer to? The original motion is very clear in terms of
dealing with those specific circumstances.
The member talks about the need for dealing with the situation in the
three mining communities where you have seen the complete collapse of mines in
those communities and where the downsizing has taken place.
Dealing with the mine and reserve fund‑‑and
the minister talked about the Schreyer government‑‑that was set up
under the Schreyer government. The fact
is we should be looking at enhancing that fund and developing the Mining
Community Development Fund, as was proposed in 1988 by the then‑NDP
government. If the member says, oh, well,
where are you going to get the money from, how about the money that has been
coming out in terms of royalties? How
about the money that went to this government and continues to flow, but
particularly in the 1988‑89 period?
When we left government in '88 and during the fiscal year 1988‑89,
in fact, there was a surplus. One of the
reasons was because of the money that was coming from mining communities. The bottom line is, Madam Deputy Speaker, we
are not asking for handouts, but let us see some of those resources going back
in the communities.
I will give the minister another
suggestion, too. In terms of what is
happening currently with Manitoba Hydro, there is another resource. Why could not that kind of resource, the kind
of royalties that are going to be coming in from the Limestone sale, the NSP
power sale that are clicking in, that are going to result in over a hundred
million dollars a year in sales coming into Manitoba because of that export
sale negotiated, by the way, by the then‑NDP government‑‑that
money could be used for northern economic development?
Madam Deputy Speaker, we need two‑
and three‑pronged approaches here.
The fact, to the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), is that we
need‑‑[interjection] The member is talking about the Hydro
Board. Is maybe now going to get up and
acknowledge now that he is going to ask his Tory fundraiser to quit from the
Hydro Board? Is that what he is going to
do, because I am quite willing to give him that opportunity?
We need a number of things, Madam Deputy
Speaker, in northern
The third thing we need‑‑and
once again the minister did not reference this once in his comments. He talked about mining officials in
This government has, by the way, rolled
back the clock by the number of positions that have been eliminated,
particularly in Education and Training in the North. The fact is there are still more people in
Thompson, currently. Our population has
gone up slightly despite the fact that employment in the mining industry has
gone down since 1981 to the current time, and particularly the last number of
years when there have been a number of incentive packages, early retirement
packages, a reduction again of 125 positions, in case the minister is not
aware. The reason is because of
diversification. That is what we need in
northern
The minister should realize this is not
1977 here. I think he had sort of a
flashback today. This is 1993. They have been in government for five
years. They always say, well, the
opposition never gives constructive proposals.
This is about as constructive as you can get.
The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) even
went to the Northern Manitoba Economic Development Commission and made a
specific proposal to them. They have
said it is a good idea. Northern residents have said it is a good idea.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is why we
should defeat this bizarre and ridiculous amendment and return to the main
motion. Surely, everyone in this House can support supporting mining
communities in their times of need.
Thank you.
Mr. Storie: Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for Arthur‑Virden
(Mr. Downey) attempted in his opening remarks to suggest that somehow I had not
been passionate enough about this issue.
Of course, at that time I had not heard the ludicrous remarks that would
be made by the Minister of Energy and Mines.
That has encouraged me to perhaps put more energy into my subsequent
contribution.
The Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr.
Downey) also showed a rather appalling lack of knowledge about how the Mining
Reserve Fund and the proposed Mining Community Development Fund would be
funded. I made it very clear that I am
not asking the Department of Energy and Mines or any other department to make
any sacrifices for this fund.
What I am asking, particularly in good
times, that the government contribute as a matter of course some 5 percent of
the contributions that come in by way of mining taxes themselves, that we take
a portion of what is earned as we extract our resources, what is earned on the
backs of miners and mining communities and members of miners' families, that we
put this into a fund to support mining communities and mining enterprise when
they experience trouble.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to talk about
the complete and utter failure of the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey)
to understand what has happened in the last five years in the mining
community. The Minister of Energy and
Mines, who has apparently a very long memory when it comes to ills in the
1970s, apparently forgot, completely forgot, that he was part of a government
from 1977 to '81.
Mr. Downey: And we changed it.
* (1750)
Mr. Storie: Madam Deputy Speaker, he says they changed it.
Well, if what he says happened from '81 to '88, if any of that was even
remotely true, he would have to accept responsibility because the government
from 1981 to 1988 did not change in any substantive respect anything that was
done prior to 1981.
I want to add, the member and his
government from 1977 to 1981 were particularly ineffective if that is the
case. While that member was a minister
in that government, they failed to provide any incentive to create opportunity
in the mining industry in northern
I also want to say that the minister has
misunderstood completely what happened in the mining industry from 1981 to
1988. During that period, unlike the
period from 1988 to the present time, the government opened copper mines,
nickel mines and gold mines.
During this minister's era, copper mines,
gold mines and nickel mines are closing.
Three communities have in effect been devastated. So this government has to take some
responsibility, and this minister has to take some responsibility.
The minister goes on to talk about what
this government has done in terms of programs for the mining industry. I have said on other occasions that some of
the proposals, the programs that this government has introduced, may in the
long run be beneficial to the mining industry.
But, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the
minister to get up and say that the Mineral Exploration Incentive Program has
done anything for the mining industry to date, that it has in any way improved
the circumstances of the mining communities that are suffering today, is
ludicrous.
The Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr.
Downey) knows as well as anybody in this Chamber that the Mineral Exploration
Incentive Program has not flowed dollar one.
The minister knows as well, or he should
know, that when the program was introduced, the two major mining companies in
the
So the two companies that employ the vast
majority of miners in the province of Manitoba, do the vast majority of
exploration in the province of Manitoba, were not even eligible.
Now if that is the Minister of Energy and
Mines' idea of designing a program that works, the Minister of Energy and Mines
had better go back to the drawing board.
An Honourable Member: You could not get a nickel to support
Mr. Storie: Listen to this, Madam Deputy Speaker, could
not get a nickel. In 1982 the government
contributed its 27 percent share of the capital cost of developing Trout Lake
Mine.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in 1985, in 1986,
when Sherritt Gordon was having difficulty in
The minister also seems to forget conveniently
that during the time I was Minister of Energy and Mines, which began in
September of 1987, from September of 1987 until March 8, we also agreed to
contribute some $17 million to the development of Callinan mine.
The Minister of Energy and Mines appears
to have forgotten the fact that Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting came to
government while I was Minister of Energy and Mines and required some
additional capital to develop Callinan mine.
In the space of less than four months, while I was minister, we put
together a package that would have allowed the government of
On top of that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and
I want this to be clear on the record, that HBM&S did not present a
proposal or request any money from the
Also, for the record, I indicated on
behalf of the government of
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, the government
waited. They waited and waited and
refused to commit to the project until such a time as the Minorco came along
and was able to provide the government with a guarantee that they would not lose
a cent. In other words, what the government
did is wait until they had guarantees that they were not going to put anything
at risk, that they were not going to invest in the mining industry in the
The community of
Madam Deputy Speaker, for the information
of the member opposite, while the NDP were in government, we had the highest
level of exploration dollars expended in the
The fact of the matter is that this
government's performance when it comes to the mining industry is self‑evident
to anyone who works in the mining industry, anyone who lives in northern
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to say today
that I am very disappointed as well that the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr.
Downey) decided to turn what was a serious resolution into an opportunity to
again pat the government on the back.
There are too many miners, there are too many miners' families, there
are too many communities suffering in northern
The minister says we need new orebodies,
and instead of sucking some $16 million out of Manitoba Mineral Resources to
make the Minister of Finance's (Mr. Manness) deficit look good, sucking $16
million out of the very company that should be investing money in exploration,
this government speaks with a forked tongue.
Either that or they do not know whereof they speak.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the fact of the
matter is that this‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mrs. McIntosh: Earlier, I made reference to the fact that
the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) had said that the information was not
correct. I am now saying the speaker
from Thompson has indicated speaking with forked tongue which I believe has the
implication‑‑the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) has indicated
that the minister here was speaking with forked tongue and that, I believe,
implies a falsehood, and I believe it is unparliamentary, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am more than willing
to lend my copy of Beauchesne to the minister.
If the minister would care to check, the words "forked tongue"
do not appear. What is a problem with
unparliamentary language is in terms of a number of expressions that do appear
on the parliamentary list, none of which is even close to what the member for
Flin Flon‑‑I am Thompson, he is Flin Flon‑‑was
referring to. So she has no point of
order.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The term indeed does not appear on the list of unparliamentary words.
* * *
Madam Deputy Speaker: When this matter is again before the House,
the honourable member for Flin Flon will have four minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is
adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Thursday).