LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
OF
Monday, June 7, 1993
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Alana Van Steelandt, Dan
Van Steelandt, Germaine Van Steelandt and others requesting the Manitoba
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) to consider conducting a plebiscite of
* * *
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Debra Normand, Sandra
Bancroft, John Martin and others requesting the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard) to consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it
was prior to the '93‑94 budget.
* * *
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (
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 (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.
Lathlin). 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 in 1987, the 25 Chiefs who
comprise the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, supported by medical officials,
police and the area Member of Parliament, 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)
Mr. Speaker:
I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Hickes). 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 in 1987, the 25 Chiefs who
comprise the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, supported by medical officials,
police and the area Member of Parliament, 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.
Maloway). 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
* * *
Mr. Speaker:
I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Ms.
Barrett). It complies with the
privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition
read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk:
The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out
the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to eliminate
44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service; and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker:
I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Santos). It complies with the privileges and the
practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk:
The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS 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 (Ms.
Wowchuk). It complies with the
privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk:
The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out
the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
PRESENTING REPORTS BY
STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of
Committees): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has considered
certain resolutions, directs me to report progress and asks leave to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member
for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), 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 loge to my left, where we have with us this afternoon Mr. Al
Patterson, the former member for Radisson.
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
Also with us this afternoon in the public
gallery, we have from the
Also this afternoon, from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
* (1340)
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Grain Transportation
Proposal
Government Position
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier
(Mr. Filmon).
Mr. Speaker, we have been raising
questions about the method of payment to the producer and the railways since
December of 19‑‑well, for years, but more recently with the 10
percent cut by Mr. Mazankowski and then the 15 percent reduction in the federal
budget tabled in April of 1993.
When we asked the Premier, he said he was
studying it. When we asked the Minister
of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), he said he was studying the issue. When we asked the Premier again in his own
Estimates, he said ask the Minister of Agriculture. We asked the Minister of Agriculture what the
position of
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of
Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, there is no question this is a
very significant issue for the producers and the economic survival of western
I have told the member many times that we
face serious problems in the grain industry.
You can talk about a trade war if you want, but really what we face at
the farm gate is that the value of the commodity we are exporting or selling
has dropped in half in the last 10 or 12 years, and the costs of getting it
from the farm gate to an export position have basically doubled.
That cannot be sustained in the
future. Governments, federal and
provincial, have stepped in with various kinds of support payments, but we all
know that governments are very much stressed in terms of being able to continue
to do that.
So we have to find a mechanism by which farmers
can get more return from the marketplace for the grain they are producing. Many
people look at what is being proposed by the federal government now as an
opportunity to have farmers have more control of the system. We believe they will generate more
efficiencies in the system, and in terms of developing the industry in the
future, will make more effective decisions if the money from WGTA is in their
hands.
Rail Line Abandonment
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the
Opposition): Again, my question is to the Premier (Mr.
Filmon).
Mr. Speaker, this change by the federal
government announced last week, with no appearance of
Mr. Speaker, what we are worried about is
fair access as well as effective access to markets. I wonder whether the Premier has an analysis
of what communities will be impacted by the closing of rail lines, the abandonment
of rail lines, how many jobs will be lost in those communities.
Can they table today who will be impacted
in a negative way, in a very unfair way, if they are more distanced from the so‑called
lower cost transportation routes? Who
has the higher cost and who will be impacted in
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of
Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, in the process of trying to
determine how these impacts will occur in
We looked at a lot of questions like the
one the Leader of the Opposition has raised today, and if you look back in
history, you will see that a lot of rail lines have been abandoned over the
last 20 years. Over 50 percent of the
elevators have been closed, yet we still are able to export more and more
grain.
Along the way, in the course of the
discussion with the advisory council, Mr. Speaker, we have constantly advocated
in
Equal access is a basic principle we
believe is important, so every producer who is further from the line will be
compensated in the process of getting to that main line, Mr. Speaker.
Grain Transportation
Proposal
Impact on Highways
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, again, we are very, very
concerned about the fairness of this federal Conservative proposal in terms of
the producers and in terms of access to a fair transportation system.
The minister will note and the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) will note that with the closing down of many of these rail lines,
we have also had massive depopulation in western
I would like to ask the minister a further
question. His study dealing with
Deloitte, Hoskins dealing with transportation policy indicates a major increase
in cost to highways with the change in transportation payment.
Has the government got any studies or can
it produce any studies today that will show that increased cost, Mr. Speaker,
and what is the strategy to deal with that in terms of the
* (1345)
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of
Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, since 1988, when I first took over the
responsibilities of this office, at that time, there was a rail rationalization
policy developed by the four western provinces which has been continually on
the table before the federal government in terms of how they should rationalize
the abandonment.
That position has not changed with us at
the present time. Even before the NTA hearings, we made our position known
again. As late as last week, I responded to the standing committee on
transportation to re‑emphasize the concerns we have about the approach to
this. We will continue to do that.
In terms of the specific question as to
the exact impact, we do not have exact information on that because we do not
know exactly which lines are going to be on track for abandonment.
Grain Transportation
Proposal
Government Position
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture
today how he can support the announcements made by Charlie Mayer, whether he
agrees with the decisions made by Charlie Mayer and whether he will now stand
up with
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
member has put her question.
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of
Agriculture): Mr. Farmer, contrary to the member for Swan
River‑‑sorry‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Wonderful profession.
Mr. Findlay:
Mr. Speaker, I have farmer on my mind, let me tell you, and very
contrary to the member for
With regard to the barley issue, the
amount of barley exported to the
Mr. Speaker, with regard to
transportation, there is going to be a producer payment committee which will
hear input from the farm community and their farm organizations. There will be an opportunity for review of
both of those decisions over the course of time. In the barley issue, there will be a review
in six years. In the WGTA issue, there
will be a review in about two to three years and a review every five years
after that.
Mr. Speaker, we have to evolve a system
that returns more money to the farm gate, and I support that principle very
strongly.
Barley Industry
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of
Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, let me assure the member that
With regard to the oats issue, once the
oats were taken away from the Wheat Board, we have more than doubled the sales
to the
I have incredible confidence in
Ms. Wowchuk:
Mr. Speaker, the minister has not given us his position on opening up
this border or the subsidies.
I want to ask the minister then, how he
can support a decision that will hurt the basis that the Canadian malting
industry has been successfully built on.
What does he expect will happen to malting barley prices when Canadian
farmers get a premium of $64 per tonne versus $12 per tonne in the
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
Mr. Findlay:
Mr. Speaker, it was a question I raised when I wrote a letter to the
Wheat Board some time ago. I asked them
why the premiums for malt barley have been shrinking over the last few
years. They told me it was because of
GATT‑related issues. They also
told me that in
Two‑thirds of the malting barley
plants in the
* (1350)
Economic Growth
Regional Market
Development
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the
Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, I want to
commence by recognizing seven years in this House of service as the Leader of
our party, of the member for
My question, Mr. Speaker, is for the
Premier. Signs are continuing to show
that
This government has said that looking at
individual monthly statistics is not relevant, but the fact is the past two‑month
tally puts
My question for the Premier, Mr.
Speaker: Given that we are nearing the
end of this session, where are the ideas of regional capital market
development? It has been many months in
this session. Where are those ideas that
we were promised for regional capital market development in this province?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, I begin by bidding on behalf of all my colleagues
congratulations to the member for St. James on being selected as the Leader of
his party at the convention this weekend.
We certainly look forward to his continuing contributions in this House,
and we wish him a long and distinguished career as Leader of the third party in
our Legislature.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the third party
has raised the issue of employment in
Indeed, both the Dominion Bond Rating
Service, in its recent report, and the Canadian Investment Dealers' Association
said that
I might also point out that in those
selfsame jobless statistics that were put out on Friday,
Mr. Speaker, both with respect to capital
markets and with respect to the accumulation of capital locally, this
government has made moves in the direction of making available investment
capital. Things such as the Vision
Capital Fund, things such as the Crocus Investment Fund, things such as the
Rural Development Bonds and more recently the Builder Bonds are all efforts to
attract capital, venture capital, for people in this province, for investors in
this province, and we believe those efforts are proving their worth in terms of
the results we are seeing in recent times.
Mr. Edwards:
Mr. Speaker, for five years I have been listening, as we all have, to
the scenarios, and it is always coming up roses apparently just down the
road. The fact is it is not in this
province.
* (1355)
Prairie Stock Exchange
Government Position
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the
Second Opposition): My question for the Premier again: In the past few months as I have gone around
this province, it has become abundantly clear to me that Manitobans do want to
invest in
Mr. Speaker, my question for the
Premier: When is the Premier going to
give that idea some consideration? Has
he discussed it with his colleagues in the other provinces, the idea of putting
together a vehicle for investment by Manitobans in
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, we continue to have in this province, of course, the
Mr. Speaker, the idea of a prairie stock
exchange was something that we have said before we are open to discussion on.
It was part of an economic statement that I released during the 1990 election
campaign.
The reality is, of course, we would like
to have
Provincial Deficit
Government Projection
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the
Second Opposition): My final question for the Premier is: The Conference Board of Canada has now
predicted a 2.3 percent growth for
My question for the Premier, Mr. Speaker,
is: Given that the estimate has now been
revised, will the government's deficit predictions for the coming year also be
revised, as they have continuously been in the last five years? What is the current projected deficit for
this coming fiscal year in view of that new prediction?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, there have been and there continue to
be forecasts made by many different economic forecasting agencies. I can tell him that the Conference Board is
but one of several. I think he said 2.3
percent. Actually, their recent forecast
was 2.4. The composite of five
forecasting agencies continues to be 3 percent that has been put forward.
I might tell him, Mr. Speaker, that
overall, since all of the budgets have been brought forward in
We could take the easy way out and just
simply spend more money, as was done by our predecessors, and create
artificially an increased GDP growth which, of course, would be destructive to
our economy, would be destructive toward our opportunities to attract
investment and job creation and would ultimately cost all future generations in
this province by way of interest on the deficit that we would drive up,
significant monies that would be very negative to our province.
We do not want to do that. We believe the course we are on will indeed
result in the kind of growth he and we would like to see in this province.
APM Management Consultants
Department of Health
Staff
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, the minister admitted in
Estimates last Thursday that five Department of Health employees have been
moved to work with Connie Curran and her company, American Practice Management,
which is receiving $3.9 million plus up to $800,000 in expenses, probably tax‑free
Canadian.
Can the minister advise this House whether
the several hundred thousand dollars in salary for these employees will come
out of Ms. Curran's $3.9 million salary, or will that money be paid for in
addition through the Department of Health?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): No, Mr. Speaker.
* (1400)
Mr. Chomiak:
So the minister has admitted the money will be coming in addition to her
$3.9 million.
Office Renovation
Costs
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Can the minister also confirm how much the
renovations‑‑[interjection]
If the Premier (Mr. Filmon) will listen, I will ask the second question.
Can the Minister of Health confirm how much
the renovations at the Health Sciences Centre are costing for the offices to be
renovated for Ms. Curran and her American Practice Management company? How many hundreds of thousands of dollars, if
that is what the price is, have been spent to renovate offices for her and her
American company to come in here and do the consulting work?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, as usual, my honourable friend's
research is rumour.
Economic Growth
Employment Creation
Strategy
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier.
According to the most recent labour force
survey, the size of our labour force‑‑that is all the people who
are ready and willing to work in Manitoba‑‑is shrinking. We are down by 8,000 from last year. We are the only province in
My question to the Premier is: Obviously the present policies are not
working after six budgets or so. What
does this Premier propose to do now to stimulate the economy and to create jobs
for the people of
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before, our government continues to enjoy
the third lowest unemployment rate in
Youth unemployment rate, as I said
earlier, was the lowest among the provinces and considerably better than most
of the provinces in
What we are not going to do, Mr. Speaker, is
to take the kind of short‑term approach that New Democrats did when they
were in office, which was to spend taxpayers' money to create short‑term
make‑work jobs that left us with one legacy and one legacy only, and that
is debt, debt that crippled all investment and job creation prospects for this
province for decades in future. That we
will not do.
Employment Decline
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East):
It is obvious that these low rates of unemployment that the Premier
talks about are because of the exodus of workers from
So my question to the Premier is very
simple: Why are jobs disappearing in
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, over the first five months of 1993 the number of people
employed in
We will continue to ensure that we work
towards improving that number and, Mr. Speaker, by ensuring that our deficit
level remains down and that our taxes remain in the lower half of the country
now, as opposed to being the highest in the country as they were when we took
office, those are the things that will work towards attracting the investment
and job creation that both he and we would like to see.
Mr. Leonard Evans:
Mr. Speaker, we have an $852‑million deficit. Do you call that a low deficit? That is the biggest we have ever had in the
history of this province. [interjection]
Well, the Premier raised the matter.
Social Assistance
Employment Creation
Programs
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East):
My last question, Mr. Speaker, could be addressed to the Minister of
Urban Affairs or indeed to the Premier, and it is with regard to the question I
raised last week.
Is the government now ready to enter into
an agreement with the City of
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the member
last week, if it was indeed last week, we are studying the matter. We are still looking into it in an attempt to
determine how real the proposal is from the City of
School Division
Boundary Review
Independent Commission
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
This government made a commitment from the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) in the 1990 election to review the school division
boundaries. On December 5, 1991, it is
stated that they were committed to proceeding.
Three months later, the Minister of Education deferred the review.
Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister
is: Given her remarks a week ago that
she was going to be looking shortly into having a review, would the minister
agree that the review of school division boundaries be undertaken by a
commission independent from government with input from all education
stakeholders?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of
Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, as I said when I
last answered this question, the decision to defer looking at school boundaries
was because there were several issues which were in process, and they have in
fact now come to a point in which we can see them.
I think the member should look at
Francophone governance which is now before this House, the review of The Public
Schools Act which is now before Manitobans.
We are in the second year of the school funding formula, and we have a
Task Force on Distance Education.
So, as I said to the member, with those
things before us, I will be making an announcement shortly.
Mr. Lamoureux:
Mr. Speaker, defining "shortly" from this minister is
unbelievable.
Cost Savings Analysis
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Did the Minister of Finance or the
Minister of Education do anything to try to ensure that monies could be saved
there, as opposed to taking a 2 percent straight education cut on the budget?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of
Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, the member seems to
be saying that the only reason to do a school boundary review is to save
money. The people of
Anything further, in terms of the
direction this government will be going, I will be making an announcement
shortly.
Education System
Reform Implementation
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
Mr. Lamoureux:
Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is: When will this minister
proceed with educational reform so the quality of education in
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of
Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, let me tell the
member again, more education reform has been undertaken by this government in
the last three years than ever before in the history of this province.
Let me tell him again, we have revised the
funding for the public school system. We
have a Task Force on Distance Education.
We are bringing forward Francophone governance. Mr. Speaker, I point to the university
review. I point to our community colleges
which have just moved to governance.
* (1410)
Water Flow Levels
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):
Mr. Speaker, there is great concern about the lack of research data being
presented to the Clean Environment Commission for the
My question is for the Minister of Natural
Resources.
We know that the PVWC is using the minimum
flow of 100 cfs coming into the city of
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural
Resources): Mr. Speaker, I will try to explain that this
is by no means and it ought not to be suggested that this is a minimal flow
figure, no more so than when the same engineers use the 150‑year
potential flood level for the design of something like the Winnipeg
Floodway. Those are the kinds of reasons
for pure model purposes, for design, that minimal or maximum flow figures are
used in design construction.
The 100 minimal flow is put into
engineering and design specifications for those purposes. The actual flow has to be determined and,
quite frankly, is open to negotiations with the City of
Ms. Cerilli:
I would ask the Minister of Natural Resources a simple question then.
What is the minimum flow level for the
Mr. Enns:
I will try once again. There is
no minimum flow level that my department uses.
With practice and tradition since 1972
with the advent of the control mechanism that we exercise on the
Public Hearings‑Brandon
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that will be fortunate is that
I would ask the Minister of
Environment: Now that
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of
Environment): Mr. Speaker, I have indicated the same as for
the jurisdiction immediately in and surrounding
The unfortunate part is that in the early
part of responses to the proposal, levels of interest were not high in the
area. There were one or two expressions but certainly not in the volume that
would have made the commission look at it differently. They have expressed a willingness to be quite
open about that in response to interest that now may be expressed.
Fishing Industry‑Northern
Government Initiatives
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas):
Mr. Speaker, about 50 percent of the approximately 700 fishermen in
northern
This situation does not speak well for the
future of the fishing industry in northern
I would like to ask the Minister of
Natural Resources to advise this House today what plans he has in place to
address this extremely serious situation in northern
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural
Resources): Mr. Speaker, I want to firstly indicate that I
and my government certainly are concerned about the difficulties that our
commercial fisheries is in, not just in northern
It is a question that primary producers
from time to time, just as our grain farmers have experienced over the past
number of years, have to live with.
Competition, low commodity prices, both of these are affecting the
fisheries at this particular time.
I want to indicate to the honourable
member and to the House, that I have agreed to attend a Fisheries ministers'
conference in mid‑July at which I hope to be able to discuss this issue
with the federal minister as well as with my colleagues, particularly in terms
of the jurisdiction of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation that includes
the provinces of
Freight Subsidy
Reinstatement
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas):
I would like to ask the Minister of Natural Resources if he has obtained
or attempted to get support from cabinet to restore the full subsidy that was
cut by this government. He was making
comments to that effect over the weekend.
He was going to think about reconsidering the freight subsidy program.
I would like to ask him, does he have
support from cabinet to do that?
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural
Resources): The freight assistance program that has been
in place for a number of years is a modest but helpful program to provide and
to offset some of the costs associated with the movement of fish, particularly
from northern
The capping, and that is all it was, of
that program specifically kept in place the full support for northern
fisheries. The effect of the capping of
that program was more pronounced on the southern fisheries, the Lake Winnipeg
and
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to examine with
my colleagues this and other measures that may or may not be able to prevail to
provide some relief to the current situation that our commercial fisheries
faces.
Federal Assistance
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas):
Mr. Speaker, my last question is again to the Minister of Natural
Resources.
Since every fisherman in
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural
Resources): Mr. Speaker, the honourable member touches on
a very basic question of policy that primary producers of all products face
from time to time.
In these times of budget restraint, it is
a question as to what extent subsidization ought to take place. I know my colleague the Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) has told our primary producers of grain products that
they cannot expect or should not build their whole industry on continued
government support.
I have made the statement and I have
written letters directly to the federal Fisheries minister, the Honourable Mr.
Crosbie, that just when support programs have been made available‑‑for
instance, the grain industry‑‑the support program the federal
government announced a little over a year ago, a year and a half ago, about
supporting the eastern fisheries, whether or not there would be some
possibility of extending some of that support for our inland fisheries.
I think that is a legitimate request to
make, and I will be making that directly to the minister in July when I attend
the Fisheries ministers' conference.
Private Money Lenders
Regulations
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood):
My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Following a series of complaints,
including a call I had from a person from Flin Flon who had first dealt
unsuccessfully with her department, on May 31, I asked the Minister of Consumer
and Corporate Affairs to regulate loan brokers.
Now, since then, I have received two memos from the minister, first
putting her department on high alert and then taking it off high alert.
Now that the minister has finally talked
to the Flin Flon resident, does she accept the need for regulation of loan
brokers who are operating in this province?
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I first must correct
the preamble. Some time ago, the member
raised in the House the issue of fraudulent loan brokers operating in the Flin
Flon area. I subsequently sent him a
memo asking if he could provide us with the details, so we could begin an
investigation.
After two days of waiting, the department
waiting for his call, he informed us in response to verbal inquiries from me
that he could not provide the information because the individual concerned
wanted to keep it private. I understand
that, Mr. Speaker. I subsequently wrote
to the department and told them they did not have to wait for that phone call.
I understand the need for privacy, and I
have subsequently spoken to the individual in question who has been very, very
pleased‑‑or at least has indicated pleasure at the help she is
receiving from the department.
It is a commercial enterprise, not an
individual one. Nonetheless, we are working on mediation with that particular
individual who, incidentally, has requested privacy. I am surprised the member is raising it for
public discussion in the House.
Mr. Speaker:
The time for Oral Questions has expired.
* (1420)
NONPOLITICAL
STATEMENTS
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the
Second Opposition): May I have leave to make a nonpolitical
statement?
Mr. Speaker:
Does the honourable Leader of the second opposition party have leave to
make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Edwards:
Mr. Speaker, I want to rise today to recognize that the ninth worldwide
Conference on AIDS is currently underway in
Mr. Speaker, I want to simply put on the
record on behalf of our party that this is an extremely important conference,
of course, for the worldwide community.
It is the ninth annual conference, and with regret, the organizers and
the speakers there are telling us that the situation is getting worse, not
better. Of particular interest and I
believe highlighting the tragedy of the worldwide AIDS problem is it is
expected that by the end of the decade, 20 million people will have been
infected with the AIDS virus.
I simply want today to wish the
participants and those who are involved in attempting to find a cure,
attempting to alleviate the pain and suffering of those afflicted with the
virus currently, the best in their undertakings this week in
As well, I want to just mention one other
particularly tragic indication from that conference, that the largest growth as
a sector of our society is young women who are living in poverty. That is the
group that is experiencing the greatest rise in contacting the AIDS virus. Mr. Speaker, this clearly gives all of us, in
particular legislators, our mission for the future to do whatever we can as
legislators to ensure that this disease is brought to its knees and eventually
eradicated as quickly as possible. Thank
you.
MATTER OF URGENT
PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr. Speaker:
Before recognizing the honourable member for Swan River, I believe I
should remind all members that under our Rule 27.(2), the mover of a motion on
a matter of urgent public importance and one member of each of the other two
parties in the House will have five minutes to explain the urgency of debating
this matter today.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Mr. Speaker, the announcements made by the federal Minister of
Agriculture in the last few days are devastating for Canadian farmers. In fact, I believe that this announcement
will do more damage to agriculture than the frost of last fall did.
The decision to remove barley from the
jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board and tamper with the method of payment
will change the whole pattern of agriculture and have a devastating effect on
the farming community. I believe it is
of urgent importance that we discuss this matter at this time.
We have finished Agriculture
Estimates. During that time, we asked
the minister to state his position on these issues many times, and he did not
do so, Mr. Speaker. We have raised the
issue in the House many times and have not received full answers from the Minister
of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay). These
changes are going to change the pattern of agriculture, and I think it is very
important that at this time, today, we take the time to discuss how this is
going to impact and what position
This is a sellout of farmers, particularly
our farmers who are barley producers.
They have already seeded their crops based on the existing market
structure and price expectations. This
decision to remove barley from the Canadian Wheat Board pulls the rug right out
from under their feet, Mr. Speaker.
Together, with adding more debt to farm families by the elimination of
the industry cash advance and increasing transportation costs, farm families
are left in a lurch.
So, therefore, I believe that it is a very
important matter. I believe that we have to take the time today to discuss this
matter. We have to get the Minister of
Agriculture to state his position and what it is we can do to help these
farmers.
Mr. Speaker, this is going to change the
pattern of agriculture. This is going to
be devastating to our rural communities if we have the acceleration of
branchline abandonment. By branchline
abandonment and change to the method of payment, farmers' costs are going to
increase and none of these changes are going to do anything to improve the farm
gate price. The Minister of Agriculture
continues to tell us that he stands up for farmers, and it is the farm gate
price that has to help. These decisions
will hurt the farm gate price. These
decisions will particularly hurt the family farm operations. This is a cave‑in
to big business, to the corporations and big farmers.
Mr. Speaker, this is urgent that we take
the time today to discuss this matter and see what it is that we can do to help
farmers, to get a position here on where the future of agriculture is going in
this country, and particularly in the
Mr. Speaker, people have planned their
lives. The pattern for agriculture has
been set. Branchlines were supposed to
be protected until the year 2000. Now
that can be pulled away from them. They
have done their seeding for this year based on certain conditions, and now that
has been taken away from them.
The Wheat Board, which has worked very
hard for farmers and returns the profit to the farmers, is now being
weakened. Our concern is, we have barley
being removed now, and what is the next step?
Is it durum wheat that is going to go next? Is this a move to further the Wheat Board
which has helped‑‑Mr. Speaker, we have to know.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge that you
consider and that all members of this Chamber today recognize the importance of
this announcement that we had over this weekend and that we take the time today
to discuss this very urgent matter.
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy
Government House Leader): From this side of the House, we
would like to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the issue raised for urgent
public importance by the member for
I would also like to point out to Mr.
Speaker that the member for
I would also like to point out to Mr.
Speaker that this issue has been thoroughly discussed in the Estimates of the
Department of Agriculture in which the member for
The issue is not one that has arisen today
out of the blue, Mr. Speaker, which is in the jurisdictional competence of this
Assembly. It is an issue that has been
in the public realm for a long period of time, has been thoroughly debated in
the Committee of Supply of this Assembly, has been debated on the floor of the
House in Question Period in exchanges between the member for
* (1430)
I would also point out to Mr. Speaker, it
is my understanding that the federal government has established a process
involving a panel to deal with a host of the complex issues arising out of
this. Consequently, there will be ample
opportunity for public involvement in this issue.
I would remind Mr. Speaker, again on this
time, very importantly that this is not an issue within the jurisdictional
competence of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. This is an issue within the jurisdiction of
the federal government.
It has been thoroughly debated in the
Estimates process of this House, and there is a forum established by the
federal government for members such as the member for
Using the time of this Legislative
Assembly to debate an issue not in our jurisdictional competence, which we have
already reviewed thoroughly in the Estimates, an issue that is not a surprise
to this House, that has been discussed thoroughly already, does not, we would
submit, Mr. Speaker, to you, fit within the need to urgently debate this issue
in this House today.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second
Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, we too want to put
some words on the record with respect to this particular MUPI. We are concerned in terms of the course of
direction that this federal government is taking toward the Canadian Wheat
Board.
What they are doing with the barley
industry causes a great deal of concern, and if in fact the government was
checking with what the farmers were saying, they would find that they do not
have very much support nor really a mandate to make a change of this particular
nature.
We are, as I say, as a caucus very
concerned, but in terms of dealing with the issue of debating it today inside
this Chamber in its urgency, well, there is some concern with respect to the
timing. This has been an issue that has
been debated for the last number of days, weeks, within this Chamber not only
during Question Period, but as the government deputy House leader was saying,
during the Estimates process and so forth.
There also are other opportunities
possibly in terms of colleagues throughout the Chamber talking to Members of
Parliament in trying to put pressure, in particular government members speaking
to their federal cousins in
We as a caucus see the Estimates that are
up and coming in Environment, which is to be followed by Health. We want to get into the Estimates process
dealing with health care and Education to continue that along even though the
barley issue in itself is something that we are very concerned about, but we do
believe has received some time within the Chamber. We are not too sure in terms of if the debate
were to occur that it is going to do anything anyway, Mr. Speaker.
I would suggest to you that if in fact the
member does have some concerns that she would like to express, she might want
to take the opportunity to use her grievance or save it for the concurrence
which would be another opportunity in which the New Democratic Party could
bring it up. I am sure at that time if
there are some significant changes, we as a caucus will also bring it up during
concurrence. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker's Ruling
Mr. Speaker:
I would like to thank all honourable members for their advice as to
whether the motion proposed by the honourable member for
I did receive the notice required under
our subrule 27.(1). As explained in Beauchesne Citations 389 and 390 and
according to our Rule 27, the two conditions required for a matter of urgent
importance to proceed are: the subject
matter must be so pressing that the ordinary opportunities for debate will not
allow it to be brought on early enough, and also it must be shown that the
public interest will suffer if the matter is not given immediate attention.
I am ruling the matter out of order.
First, the matter is not within the
administrative responsibility of this government. It rests with the federal government.
Second, the motion addresses two
subjects: first, the changes to the
method of payment; and second, the removal of the marketing of barley from the
jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Our Subrule 27.(5)(b) is clear that only one matter may be discussed on
the same motion.
Third, the honourable member for
Fourth, I am not convinced that the public
interest will suffer if we do not set aside the other business of the House to
debate this matter.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House
Leader): With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I
challenge your ruling.
Mr. Speaker:
The ruling of the Chair having been challenged, all those in sustaining
the ruling of the Chair, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members:
Yea.
Mr. Speaker:
All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members:
Nay.
Mr. Speaker:
In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Ashton:
Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker:
Call in the members, please, a recorded vote having been requested.
The question before the House is: Shall the ruling of the Chair be
sustained? All those in favour of the
motion will please rise.
A Standing Vote was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Alcock, Carstairs, Cheema, Cummings,
Dacquay, Derkach,
Nays
Ashton, Barrett, Cerilli, Chomiak,
Dewar, Doer, Evans (Brandon East), Friesen, Hickes, Lathlin, Maloway,
Martindale, Plohman, Reid,
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant):
Yeas 31, Nays 16.
Mr. Speaker:
The ruling of the Chair is sustained.
* (1540)
Committee Changes
Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli):
I move, seconded by the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), that the
composition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development for the Tuesday,
10 a.m. sitting be amended as follows:
The member for Arthur‑Virden (Mr.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas):
I move, seconded by the member for
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface):
I move, seconded by the member for
Motion agreed to.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
House Business
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy
Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, first I would ask
if you could please canvass the House to see if there is a willingness to waive
private members' hour?
Mr. Speaker:
Is there a will to waive private members' hour?
Some Honourable Members:
No.
Mr. Speaker:
No. Leave is denied.
Mr. Praznik:
Further on House business, I would like to announce on behalf of the
House leader that the Standing Committee on Law Amendments will meet on
Wednesday, June 9, 1993, at 7 p.m. to consider Bill 8, The Insurance Amendment
Act; Bill 6, The Real Property Amendment Act; Bill 7, the Builders' Liens
Amendment Act; Bill 12, The International Trusts Act; and Bill 19, The Court of
Queen's Bench Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act.
Mr. Speaker:
I would like to thank the honourable deputy House leader for that
information.
Mr. Praznik:
I believe that will be in Committee Room 255.
Mr. Speaker, I would also now move,
seconded by the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), that Mr.
Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve itself into a
committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into
a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the
honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the
Department of Education and Training; and the honourable member for
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel
Laurendeau): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order.
This afternoon, this section of the Committee
of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the Estimates of
Education and Training. When the
committee last sat, it had been considering item 2.(a)(1) on page 35 of the
Estimates book.
Chairperson's Ruling
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: At this time, I would just like to bring
forward my ruling from last week. On
June 3, 1993, in this section of the Committee of Supply, the honourable
Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Downey) raised a point of order
regarding whether or not the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) had
tabled a letter that he was referring to, and if he had not, would he table the
letter.
As Deputy Chairperson, I had first ruled
that the member did not have a point of order.
The honourable Minister of Northern and Native Affairs again raised the
point of order and requested that the Deputy Chairperson review Hansard to
determine if the member for Dauphin had specifically referred to the letter and
if he had, he should table it.
* (1550)
I took the matter under advisement. Since that time, I have reviewed Hansard, as
well as our rules and precedents.
According to our Rule 29.1 where in debate a member quotes from a private
letter, another member may require the member quoting from the letter to table
the letter. With regard to the issue of
rules of the House applying to Committee of Supply, our Rule 64.(1) states that
the rules shall be observed in a Committee of the Whole House insofar as they
are applicable, except the rules as to a seconding of motions and limiting the
numbers of times of speaking.
In reviewing Hansard, it was clear that
the member for Dauphin did directly quote into the record from the letter which
he indicated in the record had been sent to him by a private individual.
Thus with this fact clear and because the
honourable Minister of Northern and Native Affairs did ask to have the letter
tabled, I am ruling that the point of order was in order and that the member
for Dauphin must table the letter from which he quoted on June 3, 1993.
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin):
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am just reviewing Hansard myself here. In any event, I do not have the letter with
me, so I cannot table it at this particular time. [interjection] I am not saying I will.
I will decide on my response at a later
time, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. [interjection]
I think we are getting some interactions from outside the committee.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I thank the honourable member at this time.
* * *
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of
Education and Training): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I said
when we were last together that I would table information for the member for
Osborne (Mr. Alcock) on deaf or hard‑of‑hearing students using sign
language in the public schools. I have
that information today.
Point of Order
Hon. James Downey (Minister of
Northern Affairs): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I understand that you
have made a ruling requesting the member for Dauphin to table a document that
he referred to. I would request that the document be tabled.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I would like to clarify with the member for
Dauphin if he will be tabling the letter at a later date.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will check with the sender of the letter, and
if she has no objection to the privacy of the letter being tabled here, I will
not have any problem doing it.
Otherwise, I will, at that point, inform you, and you can take whatever
action you feel is necessary at that time.
I cannot do it at the present time,
because I do not have it with me.
Mr. Downey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this committee governs itself in
operations. You have made a ruling, sir,
which has requested that the member for Dauphin table a letter he has read from. I would like to have that letter tabled so it
can be used in the overall budgeting process debate that is taking place.
He has referred to it. The ruling has been made. I would like it tabled, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: At this time, the honourable member for
Dauphin said he does not have the letter with him here today. I will defer this until tomorrow, and the
honourable member said he will get back to me with whether or not he is going
to be tabling the letter. We will deal
with the matter at that time.
Mr. Downey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have heard what your ruling was. The member said he does not have it with him
on his person at this particular time. I
accept that. However, this committee
sits tonight at eight o'clock. I would
appreciate it being tabled tonight at eight o'clock, as I am sure the letter is
in his office.
I, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, will not back
off from this issue. You have made a
ruling. He has referred to the letter,
and I would expect that no later than tonight it be tabled.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: As I have stated, we will wait for the member
to table the letter. If at such time, it
is not tabled, we will take whatever actions are necessary.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I also note that the quote I gave from the
letter was from another letter from an employee of the department, a Mr.
Gillespie from Human Resources. There
was no other quote from this individual's letter. It was only the part that was quoted from another
letter provided by Mr. Gillespie. This
was not an original quote from this individual.
I would like you to consider that fact,
that the quote was from a Mr. Gillespie's letter. Mr. Gillespie's letter was the one I was
quoting from in that way.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think it is
important for you to take into consideration that I was not quoting from the
individual's comments. I do not know
whether you are aware of that.
Mr. Downey:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we accept your ruling that the letter should be
tabled.
* * *
Mr. Plohman:
Does the minister have some more information for us on the section
dealing with Native Education? When we
closed last day, we were asking for some specific information about hiring
procedures.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member asked a
question regarding hiring procedures in the Native Education Branch for the
community liaison consultant in Dauphin.
I can tell the member that this
competition was held before Manitoba Education and Training hiring authority
was revoked.
In the process of this competition, 37
applications were received. All
applicants were paper‑screened by a committee. The bulletin included the
affirmative action statement, and a selection board convened in Dauphin on
November 19 and 20, 1990, to interview nine candidates. The selection board unanimously recommended
the appointment of the candidate who currently holds that position.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, can the minister tell us who was represented on
the selection board?
Mrs. Vodrey: Which position?
Mr. Plohman:
The community liaison officer for the Native Education Branch in
Dauphin.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the selection board
members were Louise Ulrich, a personnel administrator from the Personnel
Services Branch; Juliette Sabot who is the acting director of the Native
Education Branch; Ron Zong, who is the chairperson of the Frontier School
Division No. 48; and Walter Menard, who is a business development officer,
Northern Affairs.
Mr. Plohman:
Is this the same selection board that hired all of the positions in the
Dauphin office?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this particular
selection board did two positions. One
position was for the English Language Development position, and the other was
for the community liaison consultant position.
Mr. Plohman:
In those positions, was there only one set of interviews conducted?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there was one set of
interviews.
Mr. Plohman:
Is it the practice that was followed at that time that there would be no
short list, that there would be only one person recommended, or would there be
normally a short list that goes to the deputy minister?
* (1600)
Mrs. Vodrey: As I said to the member, there were 37
applications received. There was then a
short list for nine candidates who were interviewed, and from those nine
candidates, as I have explained to the member, the individual now filling the
position was the unanimous choice of the selection committee.
Mr. Plohman:
So it was the practice then not to have a short list recommended. There was one person recommended to whom, the
minister or the deputy minister?
Mrs. Vodrey: The recommendations were sent to the deputy
minister. I can tell the member that
during the course of the interview process, all short‑listed candidates
were asked the same interview questions, and they were evaluated against the
same selection criteria.
In this case, the board recommended
unanimously that this particular individual fill the position of community
liaison consultant, and that was forwarded to the deputy minister.
Mr. Plohman:
Just so I get a better understanding of the process, the selection
committee did not usually recommend a list of three, with a top choice, second
and third, but just recommended one when it was unanimous, or how did that
work?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this competition was
handled according to the Civil Service regulations, where a department has
delegated authority. This committee did
choose to make one recommendation in this case.
Again, I can only tell the member that it was a unanimous
recommendation. In this case there
appears to have been a clear‑cut choice from that particular committee.
Mr. Plohman:
I thank the minister for that information.
Did she determine when the hiring
authority was revoked, because the minister did say that it had not been
revoked at this particular time?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the hiring authority
for Manitoba Education and Training was revoked November 25, 1991.
Mr. Plohman:
This competition took place in December of '91‑‑or October?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the selection board
convened November 19 and 20, 1990, one year earlier.
Mr. Plohman:
I thank the minister.
I wanted to just ask about the status of
the education policy. I know that was
something that has been dealt with over the last few years. Is that continuously being revised? Is it completed from the previous year? Has it been changed from the previous year,
or is that an ongoing process?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I believe the member
is speaking about the policy development for native education. He did not mention that in his question.
In the area of native education, the
advisory committee has submitted a status report. They have been working on two items in
Answering the Challenge, specifically the item of native studies, and secondly
the item of native languages. They are
developing a policy statement according to their schedule. I will be meeting with them within the next
few weeks to review exactly the work that they have done to this point.
Mr. Plohman:
Were there any other aspects of native policy that were developed in the
past year that the minister could table with us following the year that has
just been completed?
Mrs. Vodrey: In terms of the advisory committee
specifically, the work that they have been focusing on this year is in the area
that I have spoken about completing the recommendations for Answering the
Challenge and looking at the two areas of native studies and native languages.
If the member is also asking about other
work that has been done by the Native Education Branch I can point to the
document, Parents' Guide to Help Children Succeed, Seeking a Balance, which
looks at how to help parents become involved in the education of their
children. It was particularly developed
to assist native families and their approach to schools and the school system
and to become involved in the work with their children.
Mr. Plohman:
So the minister is going to share a copy of that I understand?
Mrs. Vodrey: We could have four copies available for this
evening's sitting.
* (1610)
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I was just going through my materials and I have
found a copy of this letter that you referred to. So I would like to table it at this point in
time.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I thank the honourable member.
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley):
I had a few questions on the Native Education section. This branch has two roles as I understand
it. One is to develop curriculum supports
and family supports to ensure the success of native students, and the second is
to engage in cross‑cultural education or diversity education as it might
be called now in non‑native schools and situations.
So I wanted to look at questions on both
of those areas but perhaps to begin by looking at the success of native
students, and I wonder if we could begin with some basic information that the
department works from.
For example, could the minister tell us
when this department defines native students how many native students we are
talking about, through which grades?
Mrs. Vodrey: I can tell the member that at the moment we do
not have data that would give us an accurate picture of the number of native
students enrolled in provincial schools or their school‑leaving rates or
their graduation rates specifically.
Again I would remind the member that we
are moving to a new information base, the schools information system, and with
that system we expect to be able to have a much more detailed way to look at
the students in
Ms. Friesen:
The minister did conduct a sampling I gather, a year ago or two years
ago, of schools to determine a pilot project for the new gathering of schools
information. Could the minister tell us
what that showed about native students in
Mrs. Vodrey: The member is referring to a pilot survey, and
I am sorry I am not sure which survey she is referring to so maybe she can
provide some clarification or some more details about that.
I can tell her that we do not have
specifically, as I said, collected through our Native Education Branch, numbers
of native students. Through our Student
Support Branch we do have schools identify risk factors, and we do provide
funding for English language enrichment for native students. We do have a total number on that representing
8,100 students in 44 school divisions.
Ms. Friesen:
That 8,100 number then represents native students who are having some
difficulty with English? And that is the
only number you have on how many native students you are dealing with?
Mrs. Vodrey: The federal government has it.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is one way in
which aboriginal students have been identified by school divisions as having
difficulty due to certain risk factors, but as I have said before, our new information
system will allow us to account for numbers of students in ways which we have
not had the capacity to do until the time that is in place.
Ms. Friesen:
Well, clearly, 8,100 is by no means the range of native students in
What I am trying to get at is, obviously,
the federal government has numbers on Status Indians. It has numbers on non‑Status
Indians. It has numbers of Indians in
reserve schools, numbers of Indians in nonreserve schools where they are in
conjunction with a school board. There
are a variety of statistics that the federal government keeps. Which ones does this department use?
* (1620)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member has
referred to some statistics by the federal government which identify status
people and also identify some students who would not be in our provincial
schools.
We do have the number of Status Indians
within our provincial schools, and that number we will have to provide to her
this evening. However, we find it
difficult to obtain the numbers for non‑Status students and also for
Metis because those individuals would be required to self‑declare, and we
have not required that to occur.
We do know that approximately 95 percent
of Frontier School Division are aboriginal students, and that would be about
4,500.
Ms. Friesen:
That was the reason I was asking about what I understood had been a
pilot project for the new program to collect data on students. Obviously, since you have the federal numbers,
since you know how many people you are being invoiced for, then it seems to me
that you need beyond that; for the government's own definition of native, you
are going to require self‑declaration.
How is that going to be asked?
How did you ask it in the pilot project?
Mrs. Vodrey: As the member may know, it is school divisions
who are invoiced for Status students, not the department.
Ms. Friesen:
Then the department section dealing with native education does not
collect those numbers from the school district when they have no other way of
collecting them at the moment?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, we certainly know where the
students at risk are, because that has been the support that our department has
been offering to school divisions and to students, and those students are
identified to us and they are identified by school divisions. That number I did provide to the member. So
we would know also by looking at divisions where there are larger numbers of
students who have been identified at risk, particularly those who would require
the English language enrichment for native students. So I can tell her by division where we have
offered the highest level of support, divisions such as Winnipeg, St. Vital,
River East, Lord Selkirk, Portage la Prairie, Swan Valley, Brandon, Frontier
and Mystery Lake.
Ms. Friesen:
The minister keeps coming back to at‑risk students which, perhaps,
we are speaking at cross‑purposes here.
I understood that with this section of the department one of their
purposes was to develop native curriculum and in‑services to ensure the
success of native students at whatever level they are operating. I do not think we should be equating at‑risk
students with native students, and so I am not quite sure why the minister
keeps coming back to that definition. I
recognize that those are the only numbers you have got, but surely that is not
the issue we are dealing with in this section.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, my questions have been to
answer some of the issues of numbers that the member has been asking about, but
certainly the Native Education Branch does in fact do the kinds of work that
the member has said. They do offer in‑service
training; they do offer support to teachers who are providing for students in
the in‑class setting. We also
provide, through our Student Support Branch, support for those young people who
are considered at risk. When we look
holistically at the education of young people or a group of young people, we
recognize that there is the whole continuum of support and interest required
from working with parents, and I have said that I will be happy to table the
document this evening that was developed by our Native Education Branch. We also work with in‑services in
schools, and we also work to support those young people who are at risk within
the system.
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Deputy Chair, looking at the future, I am trying to determine how
the department is going to identify native students, since the mandate is
broader here than Status, non‑Status definitions where numbers are
already available, although they do not seem to be part of the working
documents of the department.
That is why I asked about the pilot
project that I understood had been conducted in order to prepare for the
gathering of student data in the future.
How was that question phrased on that pilot project, or was the pilot
project never done? As I understand, it
was not under this minister; it was under an earlier minister.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, while the member has said
that it was not done under this minister, and I can tell her of that we are
aware, but the question is, does she have a date in terms of when this pilot
project was to be conducted? The staff
who are here, I am informed, are not familiar with that project.
I am wondering if she is referring to the
way we collect information by survey, but that would for our Student Support
Branch. That is the work that we have
been most recently doing. In terms of our new information system, we have not
conducted a pilot project as it relates to our new information system which we
are looking forward to having access to shortly.
Ms. Friesen:
Okay, then could the minister tell us how she will be collecting this
aspect of the data in the new information system? What questions are going to be asked and who
will be answering them?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, as we move into the
Education Information System, which is the name of the system we will be
putting in place for the Department of Education, we will have to develop definitional
criteria. We will be looking at doing
that internally.
We may also require that our FRAME
committee be called together again to look at this because we know that it is a
particularly sensitive issue. Many
native people do not wish to declare, and so we are going to have to look at a
way which will be sensitive to their particular desires as well as be sensitive
to meeting some of the needs which we also have as a department.
Ms. Friesen:
Do I understand that survey is to begin with this September entrance?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am not able to provide the member with a
specific date or month we would expect to begin to collect information on
aboriginal students. As our system comes
into place, it will be incremental as it is put into place, and the first
information that we will be looking for is information about schools. As we move into demographic information, then
we will also move into that in an incremental way.
* (1630)
Ms. Friesen:
There is a line, I think, where we will be discussing this specifically,
is there not? Which line is that?
Mrs. Vodrey: The line is 16.5 (c).
Ms. Friesen:
I will pursue some of those questions which are applicable more broadly
at that point. I must admit it was my
understanding that the department seems to suffer and presumably has suffered
for some time with a great lack of what I would call basic information, yet you
are not even going to start collecting the information on students this
academic year, this coming academic year?
Mrs. Vodrey: The information which we look to gather from
our new education information system will be really very complex
information. The member perhaps needs to
understand also that it will need to be tied in with school divisions and their
ability to collect information, as well, to set up that information and then to
transmit it to the department. So it
will be a complex system and, as I have said, we are looking at doing it in
incremental stages.
We do have information which I have been
explaining to the member. We do have
information from this branch. We
certainly have information on the English language programs for native
students, and I have spoken about the numbers.
We also have a very good working relationship with school divisions
where the programmatic needs have been identified. So this branch certainly does really a great
deal of work on behalf of native students within the province.
We have, in fact, looked at a number of
partnerships in our working relationships with school divisions, and we also have
been part of the career symposia in
In terms of the native language programs
for 1992‑93, I can give her some more statistics on that. There were 67 schools involved. There were 11 provincial school divisions, 27
provincial schools, and the other schools were band‑operated schools or
federal schools. There were 97 teachers
and approximately 10,000 students in the native language programming.
We also have, as I have said to the member
before in terms of statistics, data about the number of males, the number of
females, the age, the grade and the courses those students are engaged in, but
that is a count which is done just once a year.
Ms. Friesen:
That last item that the minister mentioned, the males‑females and
the grades that they are in, an annual count that is done, could the minister
give me that annual count for last year?
How many years has this been kept, because presumably this is a basic
census then.
Mrs. Vodrey: I just wonder if the member realizes the count
I was telling her is the count that we have been speaking about in the last
four weeks of Estimates, the one that is done once a year in which schools look
at the number of students they have, male and female, and the courses in which
the students are enrolled. It is not a
specific count regarding aboriginal students.
Ms. Friesen:
Then it is not particularly relevant to what we are discussing
here. What I am trying to get at is that
this is a section of the department, one of whose most important goals is to
support and develop the success of native students. We do not as yet know how many native
students there are in
I can understand it has not taken
place. It has not taken place for some
years. The point is, you have a million
dollars, I think, in your budget this year to begin to make that base‑line
proposition. I am asking some very
simple questions about when you start asking those questions, whom you are
asking them of.
I am not sure I really accept the
minister's argument that it is very complex.
We have many models of collecting this kind of information. The basic one, obviously, is the one where
you give a student a number as they enter the system, and you accumulate the
data as they go through. It can be done
relatively simply across the province with one computer system and one set of
materials. I assume that this would be
the department's role in developing and collecting that material.
For the purposes of this department, which
does aim at a specific section of the population, an undefined one at the
moment, it seems to me it is very important to be quite clear about how you are
going to collect that material. I would
think, if your goal is to increase native success in education, to ensure that
collection begins as quickly as possible.
It is in the budget this year, so that is why I am perhaps pressing on
this issue.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the issue of the
numbers of students was raised because the question was, did we have any
statistics? I wanted to assure the
member, yes, we do have. I have also
told her that schools have indicated, through the English language for native
students program, students of aboriginal background that are seen to be at
risk, and we continue to recognize these and we continue to support them. We receive that information from schools.
* (1640)
As I said, we also have numbers, and I
will be happy to provide the numbers that we have to the member. She may also know that, though she has seen
it as a very simple matter in terms of collecting statistics, even Statistics
Canada, with what they have available to them, has had some difficulty with the
kind of data gathering that the member is asking for here. So, though she has portrayed it as being a
very simple matter, in fact, in its actual effecting it, it is not always such
a simple matter, so what I have offered her is the information which we have in
the actual work that we do with students.
That work is programmatic work.
It is also work to support those students who, we recognize, are at
risk, at risk for a number of issues as well.
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister keeps coming back to at risk. The two are not identical, and I thought we
had agreed upon that.
My questions were much more broadly
framed. It would seem to me to be in the
interests of the minister, who wants to measure success, to at least have a
base‑line from which to start.
What the minister did was to repeat
answers she has already given me and, in fact, to ignore the questions I was
asking about the prospects for the collection of this data relatively quickly
in the fiscal year that we are going to be voting on in Estimates for. If I did convey it as relatively simple, then
I will apologize for that. It is not
simple. I never said that. Well, I may have said it, but I did not mean
it in that sense.
What I did say was that there were many
models; for example, universities and colleges collect this kind of
material. A student is given a number as
they enter the system. That number
follows them through the system. I do
not think we are dealing with as many variables as Statistics Canada is in its
collection of certain types of data.
The most difficult one, in fact, is going
to be the self‑declaration and, again, that is why it is useful for the
minister to have a definition of that or at least some way of approaching that,
that we could begin to look at now. [interjection]
That is why I am asking the question, because it is an interesting issue. I am asking how the minister is going to
establish that in the basis for her data collecting.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have gone over this
afternoon that we will be working toward the definition, that we will be working
with the department. We will perhaps be
calling the FRAME committee back so that we can look at how that definition can
be established.
I see the member for
We have also acknowledged in our
discussion that there is a level of sensitivity around the self‑declaration,
so we will look for how we can accomplish what the needs of information
balanced off between what people actually wish to tell us about themselves.
Ms. Friesen:
Will this begin, the collection of data on individual students this
fiscal year?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as I said, we will not
be embarking upon that particular aspect of data collection in the school year
'93‑94, but we do expect to begin that kind of data collection in the
school year '94‑95.
Ms. Friesen:
Statistics
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, from that report,
there was an indication that aboriginal students stay in school longer, and
school divisions have certainly reported to us that their aboriginal students
are staying in school longer.
We have also heard from parents, elders
and schools that there is an attitudinal change as we look at attitudes toward
school, that school has become more important and that also there is a greater
drive toward achievement. It also
appears that initiatives undertaken through schools divisions have also been
more successful in the programmatic area.
Ms. Friesen:
But, at the moment, all of that is in the anecdotal area. Are there any numbers on the average level of
attainment of aboriginal students in
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we have spoken over
the course of these Estimates about very strict statistical information being
one way to look at the gathering of data and the other being through anecdotal
and informal means.
* (1650)
At the moment, we have only the informal
means available to us. I am not sure if
the member would like a self‑declaration on a Grade 12 exam, for
instance, for a student to allow us then to look at the attainment but, at the moment,
we do not have the information. I have
explained that we will be looking toward a much more detailed collection of
information.
Ms. Friesen:
Does the minister have any anecdotal information then on the proportion
of aboriginal students who are in nonuniversity courses or non‑00
courses?
Mrs. Vodrey: As I have said to the member, we do have
information on the courses that students are taking and whether or not those
are 0001 courses, but we do not have a definition as to whether those students
are aboriginal or nonaboriginal.
Ms. Friesen:
If the minister has anecdotal evidence on changing attitudes, why would
there not be anecdotal evidence on registration patterns?
Mrs. Vodrey: My memory of the question was for statistical
information. The member is asking for
anecdotal information. I have‑‑
Point of Order
Ms. Friesen:
On a point of order, just to clarify the question, I did earlier ask for
statistical information. The minister
replied that she only had informal means.
So I said my unspoken assumption then is since there are only those
means, why would they not apply equally to registration patterns?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
The honourable member did not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mrs. Vodrey: As I said, we do have anecdotal information
which has come from school divisions, from parents and from elders that there
is an attitudinal change taking place for aboriginal students.
Those aboriginal students, as I said in
the answer that I gave, are showing a greater commitment and a greater
acceptance of various challenges in school and that there perhaps are more
students in the 00 courses.
Ms. Friesen:
Stepping back a little from the question, I think there is an assumption
in the general population as well as amongst educators that there is a danger
that aboriginal students are perhaps consistently streamed into nonacademic
courses.
I am asking the minister for the informal
evidence whether that, in fact, is happening or is changing.
Mrs. Vodrey: One of the long‑standing concerns of
some native students and parents is that there may be a kind of formal or
informal streaming policy which in some schools works to the detriment of
native students.
In the past, there has been a concern that
some native students were automatically placed in programs that did limit their
potential or that challenged them into some dead‑end kinds of
programming, or perhaps was not challenging enough for that individual student
to gather the intrinsic value of the learning process that would come from the
opportunity of a placement in another program.
Ms. Friesen:
My question then to the minister was, is this changing?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, yes, there is informal information that
indicates that aboriginal students may be looking at the full range of choices
within the school program as opposed to being formally or informally streamed
into programs which do not lead to university or to post‑secondary kinds
of training.
Ms. Friesen:
Could the minister tell us what the enrollment patterns are in Grades 9
to 12 in Frontier School Division?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, within Frontier School
Division, we know that there are approximately 5,300 students, and we know that
approximately 90 percent of those students are aboriginal.
In terms of the actual enrollment
patterns, in terms of courses of study, we would have to get that information.
I would also like to know from the member
if she is looking at a one‑year or a comparative year, two‑year‑‑is
that the basis of the question that she is asking?
Ms. Friesen:
What I am looking for is a specific example of the broad questions I
have just been asking on public attitudes and internal school attitudes about
streaming of aboriginal students within the school system.
The one example that we could look at is
Frontier School Division, which, as the minister said, is 90 percent
aboriginal. What I would be particularly interested in is the courses in the
years Grades 9 to 12, and to look at those that do offer the option of post‑secondary
and university education and those which are at 005 level, 003, those which do
not lead. What proportion of students is
enrolled in each, and if there are comparable numbers available for the last
three or four years so that we can see what kind of changes there have been?
I am sure it will not necessarily reflect
what is happening in all school divisions, but at least is the one area where
we do have the exact numbers and we could get a sense of what is happening.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, this is, as the member
knows, some very detailed statistical information which she had said may back
up some anecdotal sense of what is happening with students.
So we are moving back into the very
strictly statistical area. It will require
us to do some consultation with the school division in specific. So, yes, we could get the information for the
member. I cannot make a commitment in
terms of when that information will be available, because it will require some
work on the part of the school division as well.
Ms. Friesen:
Could the minister explain to me what the relationship is between the
department and Frontier School Division?
Is it not a direct relationship?
* (1700)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, Frontier School Division
operates as an autonomous school division as other school divisions operate,
except in the area of funding where the Frontier School Division is dependent
upon government as its primary source of funding for the budget.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The time is now 5 p.m., and time for private
members' hour. I am interrupting
proceedings of the committee. The
Committee of Supply will resume considerations at 8 p.m.
ENVIRONMENT
Madam Chairperson (Louise Dacquay):
Order, please. Will the Committee
of Supply please come to order.
This section of the Committee of Supply is
dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Environment. We are on item 4, page 52 of the Estimates
manual.
Would the minister's staff please enter
the Chamber.
Shall Resolution 31.4 pass?
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):
I think, first of all, I will ask for some explanation of why there is
the increase to this institute, given that there, as I understand it, are yet
no other provinces in the country that are contributing. So some explanation of why
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of
Environment): Madam Chairperson, this is a result of the
contractual arrangements that have been in place, and this is not a deviation
from the agreement. There is a
responsibility on the part of IISD, as the member may recall from our review a
year ago, where they must provide the private sector and other means additional
funding, and they will need to pick up additional private funding as they come
towards the end of the provincial agreement for funding.
Ms. Cerilli:
So how are they coming along with the plans for that, for having
industry contribute, and plans for having other provinces contribute?
Mr. Cummings:
I would refer the member to the IISD 1992‑93 Annual Report. That is where we are getting the information
from. As I recall the presentation from
the president of IISD and other information that has come across my desk, they
are actively pursuing projects where they are co‑operators with
international and national organizations.
I said private sector earlier. It
is not limited to private sector. They
may very well be doing work with public sector organizations around the world,
compiling, in the first instance, information that can be used in support of
activities that will lead to sustainable development around the world.
I was impressed with the list of
connections that the institute referenced to us last year. I cannot by memory repeat them at this point,
but it seems to me the member might have been present during the report in my
office last year where they made some particular reference to this. The board, in terms of whom they work with
and how they acquire other funds, is an independent board, with representatives
from around the world sitting on it. It
is not just a product of this province or even of this nation.
People of note sit on the board, such as
Maurice Strong and Jim McNeil who both reflect and are closely associated with
the Brundtland Commission Report.
Therefore, it seems to me that international flavour and the type of
leadership that the institute now has do reflect very well on what will unfold
over the next few years and into the future.
From the last annual report that I saw and
discussions that I recall with the leaders of the institute, they have a rather
significant number of projects that are either just underway or that are in
negotiation. While I cannot answer the
member's question with specifics, I have some confidence in the information
that I was given verbally. I am not sure
how far the member wishes to take this line of questioning.
* (1550)
Ms. Cerilli:
What I am interested in finding out is what private and industrial
contributors there are, who are some of the partners that are involved, but
particularly I think it is important that we have some kind of documentation of
any kind of financial contribution from outside agencies.
Mr. Cummings:
I have in front of me a list that I have just been given of things that
the institute has done. In fact, I see
on this list a situation that I am involved in from other aspects, and that is
in the Projet de societe, in response to the UNCED commitments that were made
by
I could go through this list. I would indicate that the leaders of the
IISD, in meeting with them last week in
It will be undertaken earlier this
year. As I recall, it was in the
doldrums of the summer last year, but we will try and get it over with before
the end of the session so that the member can have that information, if that
would be useful.
Ms. Cerilli:
Am I to understand then, that at this point, this institute is relying
solely on funds from the federal and provincial governments still?
Mr. Cummings:
I am looking at the 1990 to 1995 funding commitment. The Government of Canada was $13.75 million,
CIDA was $5 million, Western Diversification was $150,000, the
I would like to refer to the last page of
the institute's report. During the past
year, and I am talking about the year ended recently, that the IISD worked with
a variety of organizations as collaborators and partners. This is the area where they will, through
partnerships, strategic and partnerships that they establish, they will be able
to get the outreach and the type of impact and influence that they fully expect
to have around the world‑‑in fact, already have.
As a result of a meeting last week with
the Projet de societe, a number of the people at the Projet indicated that IISD
was the only publication during UNCED that was given credibility. There was one publication that was away to
one side in its interpretation of the activities. There was another publication that was just
as far to the other end of the spectrum.
I was not there, so I am repeating by word
of mouth here, but the people who were at UNCED, some of whom were represented
by the NGOs that were at this meeting, the Projet, said that the IISD was the
only publication during that event that told the facts and left it at that, and
let the public draw conclusions and judgment from that. So the credibility worldwide of the IISD is,
I think, rising as is appropriate.
But let me go through the list of
collaborators and partners that is listed here.
It highlights many organizations and I would invite the member, through
my office, or through her own, to seek further information on this list.
But it includes AIESCC from Brussels, and
obviously, I cannot elaborate on that group, but the Asian Students Association
in Hong Kong, the African Youth Coalition on Environment and Development, the
Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies, the Business Council for Sustainable
Development, Canada‑World Youth based in Montreal, the Canadian Chamber
of Commerce, the Canadian Council for International Co‑operation, the
Canadian Environmental Network, the Canadian Federation of Students the
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Centre for Our Common Future,
the City of Winnipeg, Conference Board of Canada, International Development
Agency, the International Development Research Centre, International
Facilitating Committee in Geneva, International Student Trade and Development,
International Union of Students in Prague, Island Press Centre for Resource
Economics, Learning for a Sustainable Future, the Manitoba Council for
International Co‑operation, government of Manitoba Department of
Education, Ma Mawa Wi Chi Itata Centre, Winnipeg, the round tables,
provincially and nationally; the WEB course, the computer network that they
work with; Partnerships for Sustainable Development.
The list is quite extensive, but I believe
that gives a broad‑brush answer to the type of people that they are
working with in partnerships. Some of
those will put up money that will be used by the institute to answer specific
concerns on their behalf. Others would
be sources of information for the institute, the broad approach, as I
understand it. That allows the institute
to become a centre for information and co‑operation that would lead to
enhancement opportunities of sustainable development around the world.
I am not a member of the board; we have
two members who are associated with the board from
I believe the board of directors reflect
that. We have Dian Cohen from
We have Gloria Knight from
Amiel Salim, I have also met, from
A pretty good and broad cross section when
you put them together with Mr. McGinnis, Chairman of the Board, Dr. Gilson, and
Dr. Hanson, now being the CEO, it seems to me that this is a very aggressive
and progressive board.
It has been pointed out to me that my
deputy, Norm Brandson here is also an alternate, so
Ms. Cerilli:
My concern with the institute is that it is another publicly funded
organization, and when I look at the contributors‑‑Canada, CEDA,
the Western Diversification Fund, which is also federal money in Manitoba‑‑it
is all public money. The question I had asked was if there is some industrial‑business‑financial
support coming into the institute, especially with the end of the agreement
approaching.
The advantage of having this be an
independent agency from government was that it would be more able to develop
those kinds of partnership. I hope the
minister would agree that we would have some money from the business sector
coming into the institute. It would be
interesting to compare the number of positions on the board that have
representatives from business and industry and compare that to the financial contribution
that is coming from there.
So I would ask again what the plan is to
finance this agency in a more balanced way, and if the province is going to
look at continuing its large support for this agency, if there is not some kind
of input from other provinces and from industry.
* (1600)
Mr. Cummings:
I have a copy of the agreement, and one of the main clauses is that, in
addition to the funding that is indicated in the five‑year agreement, the
institute may supplement this funding with funds from other sources including
the private sector, foundations, research, educational grants and fees for
service.
I would like to state most emphatically
that my discussions with Mr. Hanson and with the chairman of the board that
they are actively pursuing other means of funding. That certainly does include the private
sector. They intend to work with
foundations. They will be actively
involved in research and educational programs from which they will have to have
alternate sources of funding. It seems
to me‑‑and I would invite the member to ask the question directly
of the institute when we have their review here in this building before the end
of the month, the same direct question‑‑I recall I was the one who
raised it last year at the review, and the response was that, yes, they fully
expected to be independently funded by the end of their five‑year
agreement.
It is certainly not my position at this
time to debate what I see unfolding at the end of the five years, except that I
see a successful institute that should be able to acquire means of support
without coming to the public coffers, that this was an opportunity for
expertise to be brought to bear on the most important question of sustainable
development, and have an opportunity to make Winnipeg a centre of influence
around the world in this area.
It is very positive. People from all walks of life look at the
institute as a source of some very credible information. There are a number of
institutes and universities across
In some cases, I am sure the member would
appreciate that the very fact that this is an institute that reaches out
internationally makes it somewhat of a matter that has to be handled very
carefully and diplomatically. The
institute has taken a cautious approach in its early years not to oversell itself,
to make sure that they had the resources in place. They had people in
As I recall, when the institute was
announced, and it does not matter whether it was existing members or others,
the criticism within this Chamber was that the institute was not being
adequately funded, but the Province of Manitoba and the federal government were
penny‑pinching them, and they had no chance for success. In fact, the better job they do of leveraging
private sector, the more likely their long term of successes will be ensured.
It seems to me, a very enlightened way for
institutes of this type to approach their funding responsibilities, that they
do form what would be called, critical alliances, to be able to have access to
people as well as information and resources, because if they start off with the
connections and the information and the people who are supportive and
interested in helping them develop this type of an institute, the dollars begin
to flow.
I have a list of things here that they
have been involved in, but I know that at one point they were working with‑‑gathering
information in Rome for a number of organizations that were co‑operating
with them in order to put together some publications. The IISD is involved in the Earth Council as
I understand it, served as a co‑operating partner for that
organization. It participated along with
other Canadian entities as I mentioned in the Projet de societe. It has developed a media round table, trying
to bring some of the media people in this country and around the world into a
situation where they feel more comfortable and understand what is intended by
the term "sustainable development."
It is on the steering committee of the global access television
service. Those are a couple of things of
that nature that indicate some of the directions that the institute is going
in.
The personnel from the institute was
involved in input into the internationals standard organization, the technical
committee on the environment, the earth enterprise project in an endeavour to
find practical means for entrepreneurs, investors and innovators to create
wealth by meeting emergent needs for new sustainable processes, products and
services. They are developing that major
workshop right here in
So from
Ms. Cerilli:
With all due respect, I think that some of the financial questions that I
am asking are appropriate for me to ask for the minister. Specifically, what could change? When will we need to decide if we are going
to renew our commitment to this institute in an agreement? What could change, I guess, is the percentage
of the budget that this institute makes up, 8.3 percent of the Environment
budget, which is quite a bit given all the other things that this department
has to do, that we are giving that kind of a percentage to this kind of an
institute. I am wondering if the minister
sees that as something ongoing or if there will be a change in that and when we
need to let them know of the commitment of this government.
Mr. Cummings:
There are two years left of the five‑year agreement with the
institute. I think the member should
recognize that these funds were not taken out of other parts of the Department
of Environment. These are funds for the
institute that were allocated to be managed through the Department of
Environment.
In fact, I believe the funds, given the
appropriate growth in the institute, actually increased near the end of the
agreement because that is when they will have greater need for the
dollars. Obviously, the province is able
to manage its own affairs better if it does not have to flow the dollars before
there is an actual need for them, and the institution is able to manage its
affairs appropriately by receiving the money as they grow and as the need is
there for them to match dollars perhaps or enter into co‑operative
projects.
* (1610)
So I am not about to predict the ultimate
conclusion to the agreement with two years ahead of it and what will likely be
the two most active years and most high‑volume years of the
institute. I think we will be seeing
some pretty positive things in addition to what has already occurred.
Ms. Cerilli:
My question was, when do they need to know about our ongoing
commitment? If there are two years left,
we cannot tell them the day the agreement is over where we stand. So, what I am wanting to find out is, in
their planning process, when are we going to have to let them know about our
continued support?
Mr. Cummings:
As I indicated, there are two years or more left in the beginning
agreement. I think, any agreement of
this nature, that analysis of the results has to come before we start talking
about what happens subsequent to the agreement.
I have been trying to couch it in that
manner because I believe, I fully believe that the institute is responding to
its mandate, that it is acquiring critical alliances and ability to co‑operate
with potential sources of revenue, shared‑cost projects.
They are well aware, and certainly any
discussions I have had with Mr. McGinnis and/or Mr. Hanson indicate that they
are well aware of their responsibility to make themselves an independent
institute, which was the original mandate.
I am not sure that it is helpful to them or to anyone else that we
debate what if, in terms of what the government might do at the end of the five
years.
They certainly have not put a request on
the table to start off with. They have
to bring a plan forward as to where they will be taking the institute. The government is very supportive of this
undertaking.
If the member is asking me are we prepared
to renew the same level of financing for another five years, the institute has
not asked to start off with. Secondly,
it was always my expectation that the institute would start leveraging more and
more funds from sources other than the taxpayer. The better job they do at that, the more
likely they will move forward to be a strong, independent institution.
Ms. Cerilli:
Well, from the minister's answer, it leads me to believe that at the end
of two more years, the minister will be going under the assumption that there
will be no further financial support to the institute unless they ask, that
this was a five‑year agreement and when that time is up, they will be on
their own to secure and leverage other financial support.
My concern of the institute is that there
will be other input from other provincial governments if this provincial
government is going to continue its financial support. The government has used the argument, when
they have cut other services benefiting Manitobans, that there is no other
province in the country that offers those services. Yet, here we have an institute which is
supposed to be benefiting all of the country, and all of the planet, but it is
The other thing to ask from this is if
there was no longer the financial support to the institute, would the almost
$1,400,000 simply be removed out of any environmental allocation and
sustainable allocation, or would it continue?
Would that money then no longer be available through this department?
Mr. Cummings:
I do not think I can answer the member's question. I am not trying to be coy. I am not, I do not think, being unfair.
I think the member is being a little
unfair, inasmuch as she ventured very close a moment ago to suggesting that
perhaps the institute might not be too high a priority and that maybe the
government should be reorganizing its priorities and taking the money away from
the commitment to the institute. I hope
that was not what she was saying, but she got perilously close to saying that.
It seems to me that the very questions she
is asking are legitimate ones to have on the record, that they will be the
subject of debate over the next couple of years on where the institute takes
itself.
Beyond that, when one asks why was it
important to bring the institute here, I can tell you, as a fledgling
Environment minister when the discussions on this were beginning‑‑while
they were well underway in many aspects when I came to this office‑‑that
the benefits to the environment and to the development of a critical mass here
in Winnipeg and in Manitoba around the concept of sustainable development, and
there are a lot of benefits that do accrue to the province.
When I talk about part of the critical
mass, we have one of the better consulting and engineering groups of
professionals anywhere in
Governments begin these types of projects
with great enthusiasm and like to encourage the development of these types of
projects, but I do not think there is anything wrong with government and the
public saying, yes, there needs to be the conceptionalizing, there needs to be
the bringing together of the ideas and the thrust that goes behind the
establishment of something as important and of international nature such as
this.
But that does not mean (a) that it is
going to be part of government forever, because that is the one thing that the
institute, I think, would pride itself in down the road, that it would be its
independence. Any institute that
provides independent advice has to be able to look to its own standards and
indicate that independence and be able to quantify it.
So I would encourage the debate over the
next couple of years in this area, but I am really not going to make any
comment that would indicate support one way or the other in terms of what
happens at the end of the five years, because I think that is the absolute
essence of developing a plan such as this, that the institute knows that there
is a five‑year window, they know that they have goals that they need to
meet, and I am quite comfortable they will meet them.
Ms. Cerilli:
The minister talked about the benefits to
I know that they have prepared material
related to government budgeting, to move to more sustainable and environmental
orientation and budgeting. They have
prepared material that looks at poverty, and they are, I think, starting to
make those links between social justice, environment and development that are
so important.
I would ask the minister: What kind of commitment is there to follow
the vision of the institute?
Mr. Cummings:
We have taken a great deal of pride through the leadership of our
Premier (Mr. Filmon). In fact, we have
committed ourselves to sustainable development, and that has a lot of implications
for how government does business.
Let me digress for a sec in response to
the previous question. I am given the
figures that would estimate that probably out of the $4.3 million that the
institute would have spent in total last year, $3 million of that would have
been spent right here in the province.
So if we want to talk about actual dollars and cents and what happens in
terms of where expenditures occur, that is likely the ratio in which we would
have seen those dollars spent.
But if I would direct the member's
thinking to the fact that we have been working through the provincial round
table in response to Brundtland and along the lines of a lot of things that the
international institute is working on, total revamping of public sector
strategy, how government does business, how departments interrelate.
A lot of people like to say, well, this is
just changing the paint on the outside of the old vehicle, and it still
continues going on doing business the way it did before.
In fact, when the provincial round table reviewed
our public sector strategy and the committee made its report, the fact is that
it says and indicates, as far as I am concerned, to be correct in every way,
that we are looking at a decade or even two of change to implement the very
broad changes.
* (1620)
Now a lot of changes come fairly quickly,
but when you are talking about the review and revision of most of the acts of
this province, the laws of the province, the structure of government, structure
within departments, those things do not occur easily, sometimes do not occur
willingly.
Probably in fairness to government
employees over the years they will say, well, perhaps we have seen initiatives
of this nature come and go decade after decade.
To quote from an English speaker that I listen to occasionally talking
about reforms within government, and I say this with the greatest respect to
any civil servants who may be listening, but very often there is a mind‑set
that says, we will get the drawer closed now and we can continue doing
business. Nobody really thought these
changes were going to occur.
That is not what we are talking about in
the type of systemic and structural changes that we are trying to bring to
government. That is not simply talking
about numbers pro and con. It is talking
about a way of doing business, a way of approaching development and the
environment that is much different from, first of all, just command and control
if you want to look about the regulatory side, but it is also much different in
terms of how government does business, the openness of processes, for
example. There are no processes in this
province compared to other provinces that can be much more open.
Well, the member smiles. All you need to do is make some fairly minute
examination of other jurisdictions and compare them with our process and how
this government does business. There
really has been a large shift over the last few years since we came into
government. That in itself is the kind
of attitudinal change that will lead to a whole lot of different approaches to
how government does business. That is
only a small part of changing government, the approach of our province and of
our people to sustainable development.
One could stand here probably and go on
for hours in that respect, but I am quite comfortable in saying that as a
government we are responding to the kind of things that the institute is
talking about. We are quite prepared,
contrary to the view of the Sierra Club, to make sure that there is an open
access and a fair decision‑making system that does lead to the kind of
results that we expected.
Examination of budgets, one, I think,
could do a cursory examination of the
I even take it so far as feeling quite
comfortable in terms of support of the institute to recognize that if you want
to really have some impact on the environment in this world, first of all, one
does have to take personal responsibility for what they are doing and how it
impacts on the environment. If one
really were to take $1 and decide how they would best influence the environment
of the world, you know spending that dollar in your own back yard in energy
conservation would be one way of approaching it.
The broader international concept would be
that if you spent that dollar in helping some enterprise in a country that is
burning high sulphur coal to produce hydroelectricity, a dollar's worth of
reduction in emissions there would be equivalent of probably $30 to $35 worth
of control costs in this province or this country.
Those are the broad‑brush approaches
that need to be considered. A very small
aspect of what the institute does, but that is the kind of thinking that comes
out of the alliances that they have made around the world.
The institute is, I think, something that
would be very difficult to have us sit here and characterize and box it into a
line‑department type of budget, which is I suspect a little bit of what
the discussion has just been.
Ms. Cerilli:
What I am wanting to know is one specific thing that this government is
doing differently now that we have the institute and given that they are
working on developing material, collecting ideas to help direct governments to
do their business differently. So if the
minister can tell us one thing that is the basis for his saying that he
believes they are following principles of sustainable development, one thing
that this government has done differently in its budgeting and allocations or
in its systems of doing government.
Mr. Cummings:
Madam Chairperson, I do not want to appear to be filibustering my own
Estimates, so allow me to try and provide a brief answer. But the example that I just gave in the
strategic public sector document that this province has developed, it was one
of the first in this country. I think it
was the first in the country and that followed hot on the heels the fact that
this was the first or almost‑first province to have its round table in
place. Flowing from the round table came
a number of strategies that we have been working on.
I can tell you that the data in and of
itself has put the
It is represented there by all of the
various departments that would have an interest in working on a strategy, and
the feedback that comes out of that influences the way the various departments
respond. But most importantly, probably
its most lasting effect will be that it will influence departments in the way
that they co‑operate and the way they view their responsibilities
jointly. A very difficult concept for
long‑term departments that have been lined departments and have been
dealing with their own area of responsibility without necessarily worrying
about how that impacts or what the concern might be in the other departments.
So the very fact that we have responded
the way we have to the Brundtland Commission and have shared nationally and
internationally‑‑and I would only point out that the Learning for a
Sustainable Future Organization, which is a spin‑off from the national
round table, uses information from the
So it is a legitimate question, one which
I could go on at considerable length about how the province has provided
information and assisted in how we have changed the way in which we do business
in this province. The member says we
have not changed the way we do business.
I think she should take a hard look at how business is done here
compared to half a dozen years ago. If
she wants to get into any kind of a debate about it, she only needs to look at
how the Limestone project was handled compared to how we handle things today.
* (1630)
Ms. Cerilli:
The minister knows very well that the Limestone project was developed
before the new Environment Act was in place, which now has the environment
process that they follow. It is a process which I think needs to be
strengthened again, but which was not in place in the previous NDP
government. I do not know how much
longer he is going to talk about that and think that anyone is understanding it
any differently than that. The problem
is that we have round tables, we have institutes, we have secretariats, we have
a lot of materials that have been developed.
My question was: What is one
decision that has been made differently because of all this?
I agree that having departments
communicate better is important so that we get away from this compartmentalized
view of the world in doing things, but one specific example, especially in the
budgeting process‑‑I mean, we still have monies going to grants and
monies going to industries that are not sustainable, that are not operating
sustainably, that are exceeding their emissions regulations, and that is I
think an area that seriously has to be looked at.
We see also that there is a great need for
education in this area, yet we have a tremendous amount of cuts in
education. We do not see any new
programs in education to develop environmental consciousness in the number of
professions that we have. One example
that has been explained to me is in the area of industrial hygiene, these kinds
of courses, but we do not see any new programs at
I mean, setting up the agencies is not
action in itself. That may take time, and it is what needs to happen so that we
can see change, but I think we are past that now. This government has been in power for a
number of years, and we have had the round table operating. I understand that they are not even really
meeting anymore. They have not released
a lot of the documents that could be implemented. But that is what I am asking, is for one
example of a change in a decision that would have gone one way or in one
direction but was handled differently
and went in another direction because of having all these various
organizations.
Mr. Cummings:
I have got to rebut a couple of things to start off with. The member implies that the round table is
somehow inactive. I do not know whether
her sources regarding the round table have dried up or something, but it has
been meeting regularly and continues to meet regularly.
As I said before, it was the first round
table set up in this country. It was the
original round table following the Brundtland direction, which is to have a
meeting of government, industry in environmental concerns to provide advice to
government, chaired by the Premier (Mr. Filmon). Other jurisdictions have followed our lead in
that respect. You could point to any one
of a number of projects that have been handled differently. I think the member has an idea that
environmental decision making is either yes or no, or that sustainable
development is either yes or no.
I guess I would start off by pointing to
Ayerst in
Major infrastructure investments were made
there in order to protect the environment, considering the industrial stream
that was there, and the spin‑offs that have come from that are enormous
in terms of benefits to the western part of the province, to parts of
They brought to bear very much the
thinking of the people in I, T and T in promoting business and the nature of
the business that we can promote in this province. You cannot just promote a business and then
decide you are going to build an infrastructure around it. I think a good example of that in many
respects is the hog plant in my home town.
There was an initiative there that then had to have a whole host of environmental
and infrastructure decisions made around it.
That was a project that was begun,
obviously, before we came into government, but the fact is that it was an
example of a decision that was made with a little less planning, I have to
say. I am very pleased that the plant is
there, and proud of the work that it does and the jobs that it provides, but in
terms of a decision‑making process, Ayerst followed a much more logical
pattern and in the end had benefits that far exceeded just the concepts that
surrounded that industry, because the environment benefitted greatly in the end
because the environmental aspects of the sewage treatment have been improved as
a result of that plant being located there.
Instead of having a detrimental effect we now have an improvement on the
waters and the discharges to the
So, I guess I invite the member to take a
broader look in what sustainable development can mean, and how that changes the
way we do business. We are beginning to
attract more environmentally friendly and sustainable industries such as the
Dow Corning plant in Selkirk. It is a
clean industry. It moved to the latest
technology, and would use our most practical resources, our silica sand and our
electricity. You are not, in other
words, trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. You are moving in an area that there are
obvious linkages and abilities to succeed without being damaging to the
environment.
I have a drawer upstairs with a number of
speeches on sustainable development, of which I could give you one after one
over the next few minutes, but I am sure that is not how you want to use this
Estimates time.
Ms. Cerilli:
The two examples that the minister is giving me, when he is talking
about changes and dealing with government operations in a more sustainable way,
are Ayerst in
The other area I want to deal with under
the institute is to get some outline of the way the institute is spending its
money in terms of how much is going to salaries, how much is going to travel,
how much is going to rent and the renovations that they have done in their
office space. Related to that, I do not
think that there are any government staff that have moved over to the institution,
but I will ask the question anyway‑‑if there are any
Mr. Cummings:
First of all, let me respond to the postamble. The member somewhat
sarcastically, I think, said that I only had one or two examples of where
sustainable development had actually entered into the decision‑making
process and the ultimate way of doing things in this province. I would suggest that it has entered into all
of our processes because we are changing the way we do business. If she does not understand that that is what
sustainable development means, then I am afraid I cannot do much more to make
it any clearer. Even the decision that
chlorine bleaching would not be part of the Repap development demonstrates a
different way of doing business and approaching development without it being environmentally
damaging.
* (1640)
The question was asked about expenditures
at the institute. The total for the fiscal year of 1992, total personnel costs
were $1,400,000; partnerships and consultation were $529,000; publishing would
be $189,000; rent $72,000; honoraria transportation expenditures‑‑and
remember this is an international board with people from Algeria and other
distant places being part of the board of directors, and recall that the board
of directors do not always meet in Winnipeg; in fact, one of the board of
meetings, for example, was held at Rio because many of the directors would have
been there and that would save some considerable cost, as I understand it, so
the cost is $261,000 for honoraria travel expenses; meeting expenses of $100,000;
capital assets, half a million approximately; supplies, a quarter of a million;
telecommunications $73,000; telecommunications $45,000; and research $12,000;
for a total of $3,436,000.
That is how their budget breaks down, and
again, I guess I can add that we have one secondment from the
I think there are a number of people with
international connections that have been seconded for greater or shorter
periods of time to the‑‑if I recall, Mr. Sontag was there, came
highly qualified from other responsibilities.
I am not sure if his is a secondment or being handled otherwise. But that is the manner in which the institute
would relate to the province. We do not
have a lot of overlap in that respect.
Ms. Cerilli:
Just finally, if the minister could just tell us what the salary levels
are at the institute.
Mr. Cummings:
I am increasingly getting the feeling that the member is somewhat
critical of the institute and would sort of like to see the dollars that it is
getting redirected somewhere else.
I would remind her that the institute has
a contract with the
Remember that no government controls the
institute. It is an independent
institute. They clear their expenditures
through independent public audit, and their annual statement, which I am
quoting from, and the board manages their budget within their mandate.
As to the salaries, I cannot answer the
question. I had no occasion to inquire
specifically of the salaries. I would
invite the member to ask that question, and, in fact, I would encourage her to
ask that question when we meet with the institute because I am sure that there
is no desire not to be quite open about how they do business.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (
My concern is that we seem to be putting
in a great deal of money into the centre for sustainable development. No. 1, I do not see a comparable amount of
money coming from the federal government, and I want to know what kind of
negotiations the minister has had vis‑a‑vis the federal government
about providing that kind of funding.
My understanding is that by the end of
this fiscal year we will have put in, as a province, nearly $5 million. Can the minister give me an equivalent figure
for the federal government, including federal government agencies?
Mr. Cummings:
I am not sure if I understood the question. The implication‑‑well, let me
answer it this way.
The federal government dollars are two‑thirds
of the total budget, and they are flowing.
As I understand it, I am informed that there is no restriction to how
their dollars have been flowing.
The rider that I see here in the annual
report says that the grants are subject to condition that they must be expended
in accordance with the mandate of the institute and the grant from the Canadian
International Development Agency must be expended in ways that qualify as an
official development assistance.
As I indicated about the Province of
Manitoba and the manner in which the cash flows to the institute, as I recall
the agreement, the dollars flow more in response to the needed expenditures as
rather than simply a year‑over‑year flat grant but within the cap
of the original agreement. As I said a
few minutes ago, I think that is a reasonable and appropriate approach.
I am not the best expert to answer in this
area. I have some considerable
responsibility for the dollars, obviously, but I think I have the concept
correct as I recall the way the agreement was.
We have a copy of it here. That,
I think, correctly characterizes the way the funds are managed. To my knowledge, no one has deviated from the
agreement, either the province, the federal authorities, or the institute.
Mrs. Carstairs:
Can the minister tell us then how much money has actually flowed to the
institute from the provincial government? Has it been the amount that has been
budgeted for, or has it been considerably less than that amount of money?
Mr. Cummings:
Since the inception of the institute, it would be a total of $3.1 million.
Mrs. Carstairs:
Can the minister tell me if that has been the budgeted amount, or is it
less than the budgeted amount?
Mr. Cummings:
About $350,000 less than the actual budget.
Mrs. Carstairs:
One has to assume then that the federal government has a similar‑type
arrangement. Does the minister have
knowledge of the exact amount of cash flow from the federal government to the
centre for sustainable development to this point in time?
Mr. Cummings:
To the end of '93 it will be $7 million.
Mrs. Carstairs:
By my arithmetic, unless I am reading something very wrong, that is not
the level of their commitment.
* (1650)
Mr. Cummings:
They have $6.8 million left to complete their commitment and, as I have
indicated, that would not be improper to anticipate that that would sort of
reflect the growth that the institute has had, and the last two years will be
the higher funding years. It reflects
leverage. It reflects the reality of an
institute as of Day One or Year One is not going to have maximum needed draw.
As a member of Treasury Board myself, it
seems to me only to make sense that you flow the dollars, within reason, to
this type of an organization as the demand is growing rather than have those dollars
on deposit and let them grow or not grow.
There is a certain element of leverage to encourage them to be able to
indicate their growth and their demand, if you will, for cash flow. It is not a reflection on anyone, except it
seems to me to be prudent money management.
Mrs. Carstairs:
The reason I asked these questions is that, I think, many Manitobans
have felt for some time that there has been a disproportionate commitment from
the provincial government vis‑a‑vis the federal commitment. I mean we had the Prime Minister making these
great announcements at the U.N. and making them over and over and over
again. Finally we got some money out of
them but we have still been, as a province, considering that we represent less
than 4 percent of the entire population, making an extraordinarily large
contribution to a centre which, while it is centred here in
Mr. Cummings:
I think there is one point in all of this that perhaps I have not
emphasized enough and that is at no time will the Province of Manitoba pay more
than a third. So if perchance something
should happen in the next two years that the other funders somehow do not keep
up their commitments, we are protected.
Mrs. Carstairs:
We may be protected financially, but if the other levels do not give
their commitment, then the centre may become less than valid. Well, that was the question I was really asking.
Mr. Cummings:
I guess I only answered half of the question. The point is that neither do I believe there
is any likelihood of the other partners backing away from their commitment. I believe that these commitments will flow
through in the appropriate time.
Mrs. Carstairs:
The centre, it seemed to me, was supposed to do two things for
Mr. Cummings:
One of the things that is beginning to follow out of the activities of
the institute is the international linkage of information regarding sustainable
development. The institute has brought
on stream a person, whom I met for the first time at the Projet last week, who
was working to catalogue information and has been given the charge of following
up on a number of initiatives that the institute is beginning in terms of
putting together an international network for communication of technology and
information surrounding sustainable development. That sounds like a pretty esoteric and
nebulous concept, but, nevertheless, I am told very useful to a lot of emerging
nations, very useful to some nations that had not really thought about the
concepts of sustainable development.
The institute I think came of age, in a
sense, in terms of its international recognition during
Now the institute has made connections, as
I referred to before, that will be very valuable in carrying forward its
mandate. As various jurisdictions around
the world decide to embrace the concepts of sustainable development, they will
not just be linking up by computer link around the world. They will also be coming to the activities of
the institute, and the institute will be taking forward people and ideas at the
same time.
I see it as the usual results of an
institute inasmuch as it becomes a centre of activity from which there is a lot
of fallout. It seems that sometimes we
are too shy about mentioning that there is a development side to sustainable
development. The fact is we have, as I
referenced earlier, very viable engineering and construction systems here in
Manitoba that are operating world‑wide anyway, but they are now taking
forward, as well, the linkages that sort of spill out from this. I am sure IISD does not just sit down and
draw up a list of potential contractors, as an example, that they communicate
with.
That critical mass is starting to
develop. The desire of jurisdictions to
want to communicate with us is there.
Again, there is a number of things that spill out of this that you
cannot just say, well, here is this, this and this, our direct response to the
IISD. There is a critical mass of
activity that is starting to occur that is becoming quite beneficial to the
city.
Mrs. Carstairs:
I just have one final question.
Can the minister point to any specific
corporation or university or community college that has received a contract
from the centre for sustainable development with respect to the work that they
are doing in this community?
Mr. Cummings:
I think the first examples that have been the most successful that I
could point to are in the area of education and institutional exchange of
information that has gone forward, but I cannot give you a list, frankly.
Madam Chairperson:
Resolution 31.4: RESOLVED that
there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1,375,000 for Environment,
International Institute for Sustainable Development for the fiscal year ending
the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑(pass).
The hour being 5 p.m., committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
* (1700)
PRIVATE MEMBERS'
BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker:
The hour being 5 p.m., time for Private Members' Business.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 31‑Television
Violence
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), that
WHEREAS society benefits by providing good
role models for our children; and
WHEREAS family violence and abusive
behaviour is often learned in the home; and
WHEREAS families, as part of their leisure
and recreation activities, spend time in front of the television; and
WHEREAS too often these programs present
examples of violence, sexism and sexual exploitation during regular evening
viewing hours; and
WHEREAS the exposure of children to these
scenes can be very detrimental to their development, by providing mixed
messages regarding appropriate behaviour; and
WHEREAS it is estimated that by the time
children are 16 years of age they have already seen 16,000 attempted murders on
television; and
WHEREAS violent crime has been steadily
increasing over the past three decades, doubling in the 1960s, increasing by 30
percent in the 1970s and by 46 percent in the 1980s; and
WHEREAS there is evidence that the steady
flow of television violence is one of a number of reasons for this dramatic
growth in violent crime; and
WHEREAS the Canadian Radio‑television
and Telecommunications Commission can take a more active role in reducing the
amount of sexually degrading and violent material in both advertising and
programming on television; and
WHEREAS the Chair of the Canadian Radio‑television
and Telecommunications Commission, Keith Spicer, has suggested that if
broadcasters fail to respond to the issues of violence, sexual stereotyping and
employment equity, sanctions may be applied in terms of licence renewal.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Culture, Heritage and
Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson) to petition the Canadian Radio‑television
and Telecommunications Commission to review television daytime and evening
programming guidelines and to set standards as regards to violence, sexual
exploitation and sexism on television, which may include stiff sanctions such
as nonrenewal of licences; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly
urge the provincial and federal governments to work together to act on the June
1991 recommendation of the Canadian Radio‑television and
Telecommunications Commission to establish a forum where all interested parties
in the debate on television violence can express their views on a regular
basis.
Motion presented.
Mr. Chomiak:
Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to speak on
this particular resolution. It has been
some time on the Order Paper, and I have looked forward to the opportunity of
dealing with this significant issue almost since first elected to this Chamber.
I cannot take direct credit for this
resolution or even our party, Mr. Speaker.
The suggestion for a resolution of this kind was brought forward by
other groups‑‑some school divisions, parents and school
representatives and others‑‑who saw a need several years ago to
begin the process of trying to cut down on the violence, sexism and other
negative factors that are seen on our television on a daily basis, and in that
respect we brought forward this resolution.
I put it into a bit of a historical
context because since we originally introduced this resolution, and it has been
on the Order Paper several times, without an opportunity of being debated
because of the volume of the items on the paper‑‑since the
resolution was brought forward, there has been a whole series of measures and a
whole series of events that in some respects have superseded this resolution,
but in other respects have not gone far enough.
I am speaking of some of the
pronouncements of the CRTC, Canadian Radio‑television and
Telecommunications Commission and, most notably, the chairperson, Mr. Keith
Spicer, with regard to some of the pronouncements of that commission calling on
our broadcasters to effectively clean up their act or face some kind of
stronger action, some kind of stronger sanction from the CRTC.
More importantly, not more importantly,
perhaps more significantly is the fact that we have seen now a parliamentary
subcommittee with some wide‑ranging and very significant recommendations
that have come out concerning this kind of practice, Mr. Speaker. In fact, last week, Wednesday, June 2, a
report was released by the parliamentary committee dealing with it. It was called, the name of the report was
Television Violence: Fraying our Social
Fabric.
The essence of what was discussed in this
report and the essence of what was recommended in this report, for the most
extent, reflect what we are asking for in this resolution. Although, I would
have to say that I would see stronger sanctions or more of an intention for
stronger sanctions forwarded by members of this Chamber to the relevant federal
authorities and others concerning the issue.
But the commission made some very
significant findings. I just want to
briefly quote from it: and I indicate
the commission report accepts the scientific evidence which shows a positive
correlation between television violence and aggressive and antisocial behaviour
in individuals, although it acknowledges that no definitive causal link has
been established in this regard.
I think that pronouncement coming from an
all‑party committee, an all‑party standing committee that
recommended fairly strong measures, is significant coming from that,
significant for purposes of our debate here.
Mr. Speaker, I think that no member of
this Chamber or of our community can go on record as stating or would even
indicate that there has not been an increase in violence and sexual
exploitation on television in the past 10, 15 or 20 years. It is‑‑one does not even have to
scientifically state it. It is a known
fact that one just needs to watch the TV at any given time to note that.
Mr. Speaker, the stats, as cited in the WHEREAS
to this particular resolution, which indicated that by the time children are 16
years of age they have already witnessed 16,000 attempted murders, is
indication of that. In addition to the
murders and the attempted murders we see, we see rapes, we see sexual
exploitation. That is almost just the
commercials. I make that point not
totally facetiously, but the fact is that it is not just television programs we
are talking about, it is commercials as well.
It is all of the activities that come across the TV screen.
In fact, a mother in the area I represent
mentioned to me last week that one of her ways of limiting her child's exposure
to TV is not to let her child watch commercials which she thought were as bad
or worse than the actual fare on TV. There
is a certain amount of validity to that.
But returning to the main point, there is
far too much of this kind of activity in the mainstream programming. It is not just nighttime adult fare. It deals with cartoons, it deals with
children's programs, and it deals with the kind of messages that are reflected
in those programs, be it via the actual program or be it via the
commercial. I strongly feel that we are
conveying a message into society that is reflected in television. It is reflected in that medium, and if we as
legislators do not take a stand, then we are condoning it. We are saying as legislators, yes, you can go
on and do whatever you want on television.
* (1710)
Mr. Speaker, we are not arguing for
censorship, and that is usually the argument that is trotted out by opponents
to any kind of stricter regulation. We
are not talking about censorship. We are
talking about straight common sense, and we are talking about networks and TV
programs and others utilizing proper common sense in terms of what they
show. TV is so pervasive. It is so common. It is too simple a solution, for example, to
say, well, parents only have to exercise control by turning off the TV. That is
valid, and that is true. Parents and
guardians must take a very significant role in ensuring that, for example, they
watch with their children and they watch what their children watch.
There is no question, but that just does
not solve the problem. In fact, I go
further. It just does not deal with
children. It deals with adults. Some of the interesting articles that I read
with respect to this particular issue indicate that when you project an image
of violence and when you project a particular type of society on television,
the members in general who watch this kind of show gain an understanding that
that is the way their society is.
An example, again, I cite from the area
that I represent. There are several women in my own constituency, whom I have
talked to, who are afraid to go out of their homes at night because they are
afraid of being accosted. Now, for
better or for worse, that is their reality.
I suggest that it is probably, to a certain extent, a product of what is
on television and the television news and not the reality of that particular
community, but nonetheless, that is reflected on them. It is very sad that these people who are
senior citizens feel that they are virtually prisoners in their own home,
particularly in our society.
So I certainly feel that we as legislators
and that we as citizens ought to respond to what is clearly a difficulty that
is occurring in society, and we must do our part to ensure that this kind of a
pervasive image of what we are in society and where we are going is not
projected ad nauseam and not projected in the mainstream as a society and as a
culture where we are going. Let me
diverge for a second to give an example, Mr. Speaker. It is not just the graphic violence‑‑and
an interesting point‑‑that is offensive or the graphic sexual
exploitation or the graphic portrayal of inequity. It is the basis for a lot of programs.
For example, Mr. Speaker, most programs
dealing with a detective or police, why does it have to be a murder or a
violent act that is the ultimate and the end goal of the television
program? Why can it not be simply a
solving of some other kind of mystery?
No, it is always the ultimate, and unfortunately, one could even argue‑‑and
I diverge again‑‑well, in the old days that was the basis and the
genesis of mystery novels. Even in those
cases, the graphic portrayal of violence was not illustrated or portrayed on
the same basis that we see on television today.
That brings me to the other point, Mr.
Speaker, and that is the graphic portrayal of these kinds of activities. One, I suppose, could argue that we are
seeking some kind of censorship, but I do not see any benefit from a slow‑motion
portrayal of a violent death on television.
What possible good can come from the portrayal of that? If it could be argued that it is necessary
for the story line or it is necessary for the purpose of entertainment, surely
one does not have to graphically portray it to the extent, and in fact I would
suggest the exploited extent, that it is portrayed with today.
The same goes for sexual
exploitation. Do we need sexual exploitation
to sell beer? Do we need graphic
violence to sell television programs? Do
we need the portrayal of sexual inequality to sell programs? Surely, we are advanced enough as a society
to be able to get around these issues or to deal with issues without having to
be so graphically exploited and to deal with these issues without having to
deal with them directly.
Mr. Speaker, the option of just turning
off the television has not worked. If it
had worked, if the option of that strict choice had worked‑‑and I
have heard it argued that parents have a choice and all individuals have a
choice‑‑if it had worked we would not be faced with, what I would
term, almost an epidemic of violence on television. Clearly, the brakes have to be put. Some
message has to be put out to the industry.
Some message has to be put out to television that we no longer will
tolerate this kind of activity.
If it had been left to the marketplace, if
the networks and all of those involved had been as mature and as self‑regulating
as one is led to believe from reading some of the comments, we would not be
faced with this epidemic of violence and sexual exploitation in television that
we see today. Clearly, the past has not
worked.
I think that it is very, very important
that we send a strong message, Mr. Speaker, to the networks and to television
stations and to others that if these bodies do not take a responsible attitude,
then their licences, which come up for renewal and which are given to them at
the favour of the Canadian public, will suffer sanctions or, in the ultimate
case, be removed. Some message has to be
put out to the public that indicates we want the cycle of violence, the cycle
of sexual exploitation, to stop, because we do not want to raise a generation
or generations further who are fed only on this kind of programming.
Now, the argument that is often voiced for
it, well, the death stars that are coming in, the satellite channels, will
allow for it anyway, Mr. Speaker, and I will accept that argument. That is true, but that does not take away our
social responsibility to do something.
If we accepted that argument on almost any number of issues that affect
us as legislators, we would do nothing.
We would simply say, well, we are not going to regulate gun control in
It is our responsibility to do what we can
to send out a message of the Canadian public, to send out a message as
Manitobans that we desire something different for ourselves and for our
children, that we want to portray a different message on the medium, that we
will sit for nothing more, and that if the broadcasters and those involved in
the industry will not do so, then we are prepared to legislate and we are
prepared to take sanctions to make them understand.
Now I will hear an argument, Mr. Speaker,
that they will be socially responsible, they will deliver. Well, the proof is in the pudding, and they
have not delivered to this point. If
they do not seek to deliver, then I think these kinds of sanctions will have to
be imposed.
We are now hearing that they are going to
do that, but what did it take? It took
public pronouncements, it took committee hearings, it took messages, it took a
parliamentary subcommittee for some action, and consequently as a result of
that, there is now some action.
I am saying we can play our part. We can do our part to stop this systemic
portrayal of violence and sexual exploitation on television.
We can do our part. We can stand up in
We are doing this, Mr. Speaker, not just
for our children, but for our society in general and the kind of society that
we wish to reflect.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
House Business
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy
Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on House business,
I would like to announce that the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural
Resources which was scheduled for 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, June 9, will be held
in Room 254 rather than in Room 255, as previously announced.
* * *
* (1720)
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson):
Mr. Speaker, this is probably a subject that many of us do not really
relish to discuss or talk about as we sometimes maybe should and maybe more
often should. Maybe we should more often consider the impacts of violence in
the media and the portrayal of how humanity interacts with each other in
difficult times and in difficult situations.
The resolution that we are debating here
today I think is a good resolution. I
commend, I congratulate the member for bringing this resolution forward because
not only is it a good resolution, it is a timely resolution. For those of us that have from time to time a
bit of additional time that we can spend either to watch television or listen
to radio, I hear and see some things that we as children when we grew up,
especially those of us who grew up in rural Manitoba, simply did not have the
opportunity to view.
One has to reflect sometimes as to what
the impact of viewing all the violence, whether it be murder, whether it be the
accosting of one's friends, or watching rapes happen on television, will be to
those young people growing up in society today.
I think it behooves us, those of us that
are legislators, to take a very serious look at what the role of legislators
should be or must be in society. It has
always been my view that legislators should be the ones that guard and put in
place legislative procedures and regulations that guard against, protect
society from, be that in the area of violence, be that in the area of abuse, be
that in the area of substance abuse and other.
I think there are times when individuals
in society simply lose control of their emotions, and sometimes those emotions
are forced on us by things that we see and hear. We must in those instances ensure that the
innocents or the innocent bystanders are protected. That is how I see our young and future generations. Those are the innocent bystanders of some of
the things that we put on our television screens and our radios in the form of
entertainment. You have to wonder about
society in general. Have we in fact
advanced or have we in fact retreated in our appetite for entertainment to the
point where violence becomes the issue or violence becomes the entertainment?
We all know that television has brought
the entertainment world right into our living rooms. That is a major change that has happened
during the last two decades, and that in itself should bring to bear upon those
of us who sit in this Legislature the responsibility of ensuring that that
window that has been opened to us, and the advancement that we have seen in the
communication system is regulated to such an extent that it will in fact
protect those who are vulnerable in our society.
We have many times when we see headlines
of violent rapes and murders, especially of young people, where we have
kidnappings, you have to wonder what brings a person or a human being to the
point where they can in fact inflict those kinds of damages on one of their
own. It is questionable whether the
violent nature of many of the crimes that we see today is in fact brought on by
what is seen and so vividly demonstrated on television at times, or whether it
is heard on radio, and whether the portrayals of the crimes that we use and
watch as entertainment have led to an increase of the violence that we see on
our streets so many times and have witnessed so many times in the immediate
past.
I want to commend the Canadian Radio‑television
and Telecommunications Commission and Keith Spicer for actions that they have
taken not too long ago in setting up a process that will review those
regulations, and the recommendations that have been made by the CRTC that have
been brought to the attention of the CRTC.
I think the whole area of establishing proper codes for broadcasters in
general must be reviewed, and broadcast standards must be set in such a way
that they in fact ensure that we will not be subjected or our small children
will not be subjected to the kind of programming that is so prevalent in many
of the stations today.
I do not have the answers. I do not really know how one would go about
ensuring, specifically with the technology in communications that have come
about over the past four or five years even and the huge advancements we have
made. I suppose it would not be uncommon
today if we had descramblers in our house that we could get 100 or 150
different programs on our television screen at any given time. There might even be more if one really
looked.
But how do you put in place controls
and/or regulations that would ensure proper codes and proper standards of
programming on television? I think we
have come to a very, very questionable time in our history, and I wonder
whether there in fact are safeguards that we can ensure that this kind of
violence will not appear on our television screens.
* (1730)
How do we in this country, in Canada,
ensure that we will not have access to, or our children will not have access
to, a foreign country's‑‑and I refer to the United States, for
instance, which is right next door‑‑programming that is put into
the airwaves by a satellite from that country or, for that matter, of any other
country in the world today? How do we
ensure that our entertainment brought into our living room through television
is not able to pick up that kind of programming?
Those are some areas that I think we
should give some thought to. Maybe what
we need to do is discuss in other forums with other countries as well the
possibility of ensuring some general standards, some international standards,
that we could all live by. I think there
are other countries in the world, or the leaders of other countries in the
world, that would be quite willing to sit down in a much broader forum than
just within our Canadian boundaries, because it is not only a Canadian problem
or a
So if we could do anything from this
forum, from this Legislature, it might in fact be to consider an addition to
the resolution, although I am not going to propose an amendment, nor am I going
to propose an addition. But I am going
to suggest that we consider, jointly, the possibility of discussing it on a
much broader basis, maybe discuss, first of all, with our Canadian counterparts
on a provincial basis, provincial conference, the issue of violence, and then
try to come to some point in Canada that we could in fact take forward to an
international forum, if there was such a forum established, but take it forward
into an international forum and just see whether we could not devise some sort
of a regulatory body that would ensure that violence of the nature that we see
on television today could in fact be brought under some sort of control to
ensure that we would not allow our children to see this kind of violence on a
daily basis.
So with those few short comments, Mr.
Speaker, I would again say to the honourable member that I congratulate you
bringing forward this resolution and that we would support on this side of the
House these kinds of actions, and hopefully you can consider the proposal that
I put before the Legislature today.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise and add my comments to this topic. The whole subject of violence in society in
general is one that has caused great concern for people in recent years, and it
seems to be an area of life that is increasing rather than decreasing.
I was interested in the member's comments
prior to mine when he wondered if we were progressing or regressing. Indeed, in many ways, I believe that we are
regressing to a period of time when controls on emotions were not so prevalent.
It seems in part that people have
forgotten the caring that was inherent for many of my generation in their
growing‑up years, and in many respects, I think we are seeing the results
of freedoms and liberties and rights that have no restrictions placed upon
them.
How far does one go in talking about
freedom of expression? How far does one go in talking about the right to be
creative? How far does one go in artistic expression that has overtones of
violence and degradation?
These are questions that are important
ones to ask because we have seen an escalation of what society is willing to
accept. Indeed you will hear groups such as the group against pornography put
forward statistical evidence and stories of personal anecdotes put to them of
people who will begin by the reading of something mildly pornographic. After a while then that reaches a state of
boredom, and they seek to add another factor to that pornographic material and
so on. This in many instances includes
violence.
We see young people watching and listening
and reading violent episodes at every turn.
We see an increasing acceptance of the types of movies that 10 years ago
were shocking but today are not only no longer shocking but in some instances
almost boring because they have been repeated so often. Themes of blood, of stabbing, of shooting, of
decapitation, dismemberment, these types of things no longer shock.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
One wonders where it will end. You get down to questions of taste versus
censorship versus self‑discipline versus rights versus obligations. We hear a lot about rights; we hear less
about responsibilities. We hear a lot
about artistic freedom; we hear less about the knowledge of the impact of a
"work of art" upon the viewer.
I believe it is very important that all of those who have an ability to
influence young people be conscious of the effect of these things upon those
young people.
I know in our own household when my
children were little, I can remember one day sitting down in front of the
television with my daughter, who at that time was about two or three, and
actually watching Popeye and being horrified at what I saw when I really looked
at what I was seeing. There is my little
daughter, innocent young mind, watching the Saturday morning cartoons, which
consisted of brutality, brute force, degradation of females, stereotyping of
the genders, constant battering. I
remember thinking, this is a children's cartoon created and designed for
children, played at prime time for children, designed to amuse and indeed
amusing little children. It was
horrendously violent.
I thought at the time, maybe people felt
because these were cartoon characters and not real people that somehow children
would not accept it as real or influencing.
I do believe that type of image making, even as a young child, even in a
cartoon form, has an impact and does influence the thinking that goes on in a
young child's mind.
Does that mean then that as a mother I
should have written the station and asked to have Popeye taken off? That is a question that one wrestles
with. That is a legitimate question to
ask. I think it is a legitimate question
for mothers and fathers or caregivers of children to ask themselves. My solution was to not have Popeye played in
our house at that time.
My child being preschool, this was a
relatively easy thing for me as a mother to do.
It is not so easy for parents when those children are 13, 14 and 15,
because at that stage those children are wanting to assert their own authority,
make their own choices, establish their own independence and make their own
decisions. They have also acquired
tastes, likes and dislikes, many of those tastes, likes and dislikes having
been gained and accepted by the watching of many of those programs, the reading
of books, the seeing of movies, the discussions with friends, the telling of
jokes. It is all‑pervasive. When one segment of society begins to accept
something in literature or in film then it grows and is fostered.
I remember hearing a very excellent panel
discussion held at
* (1740)
I was very interested in the comments of
that television studio executive, because he had a grasp of the problem and he
was aware of the dilemma and he was asking himself those moral questions. I have heard, as well‑‑I just
want to go back to that executive for a moment‑‑because it is very
good that people in that situation are beginning to ask themselves those
questions, because the first thing that happens before any change takes place
in society is awareness.
I think the resolution as put before us
helps build that kind of awareness. It
gets people talking about an issue that is a very important issue. I am pleased that it is here for us to talk
about. I liken it in some respects,
although nothing is exactly the same as any other situation, but I do liken it
in some respects to the movement towards a nonsmoking society.
When I was in my teens, smoking was
commonplace. It was accepted. It was almost expected that when you got to a
certain age you would begin to smoke. It
was a socially acceptable thing. As time
went on, and it has taken time, it has taken a couple of decades for that
attitude to change, but the attitude has changed.
I can remember when those who were members
of the group called GASP were looked upon as rather eccentric individuals who
were pushing a cause that was doomed to failure and, yet, we now have a society
that has turned its attitude completely.
There are still lots of people who smoke. There are people in this Chamber who smoke
but, by and large, it is not deemed acceptable anymore.
You will find even amongst those who smoke
that they will invariably now say, do you mind if I have a cigarette, when they
are in a crowd of people they do not know.
That was not a question that was asked even 15 years ago. A lot of that happened because there were a
lot of very active people who sought to build awareness and change in attitude
in society.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
I think it is one of the things that has
to happen in terms of this increasing violence.
I really believe we are seeing the effects of the breakdown of the
family in many respects. I am not
placing blame for that totally, but I know that it is that much more difficult
to protect a child from these influences if there is just one parent to do the
work that in years past was shared by two people. It is just that much more difficult for that
parent who is alone.
The wide access that children have to material
is another factor that is something that was not there 15 years ago. The advent of VCRs and the video stores and
those types of things have added much pleasure to our lives, but they have also
opened the door for abuse by making available materials that have the potential
to harm.
I do not know that anything really ever
will happen without that changing attitude that I spoke about before. All the laws that you put in place, all of
the regulations and restrictions and so on that you put in place can all be
circumvented by creative minds if the desire to circumvent them is there.
I believe firmly that with almost any
issue, the best and most effective way to get to the heart of it is to change
that attitude which I believe the member is helping to do by raising this issue
for discussion, and I commend him for that.
We have seen that certain things can
happen where people of will pull together.
I mentioned a little while ago the group against pornography. I refer to them again in terms of the work that
they have done with adult videos or with classification of videos. That has not been an easy thing for them
because they have always had to work against, and I say against‑‑it
almost hurts me to say work against‑‑those who speak for unlimited
free speech, unlimited freedom of expression.
I say it almost hurts me to say that because I am one who likes to think
that people can freely express themselves in creative ways without having to
have their work bound by convention.
That is the ideal.
That is something I say that I could
believe wholeheartedly if I thought that no one abused that right to
speak. I guess we have to always balance
the right to freely express with the obligation not to slander, the right to
say whatever you would in a free society without fear of retribution against
libel and hate. We have rules against
hate literature. We are developing rules
against the degradation of people because of their skin or their gender or
things like that, and we will go to court, as we did with the Ernst Zundel
situation, for example.
Always, I think judges and lawmakers and
those who set rules are torn between the right to express and be creative and
the obligation not to harm with those things that you do. If we can as members and as individual citizens
in society help change the attitude as those who helped change the attitude of
smoking did, I believe we will be on the right path.
Mr. Ben Sveinson (La Verendrye):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today and speak on Resolution 31
on television violence. I have worked within many different community groups
from Boy Scouts to parents' committees, task forces, many other community
groups that in fact have endeavoured to try to understand and to, in some way,
help, whether it is our young people or our young adults in some way, but it is
mainly to try to understand.
I think that we all have to take
responsibility for many of the things that are happening in our young people
today. Peer pressure is something that
many people know is there. I guess, in
some cases, it is a thing again of understanding how it works, but the more you
deal with the young people and see the different situations that they are put
in within the schools, within the communities and also by trying to understand
the different things that are shown on TV, from robberies to shooting of
machine guns to cars smashing into other cars in a fun manner, so to speak, yet
the car is demolished and, of course, nobody is hurt or you do not see them
being hurt, but it is done in a joke or in a funny way.
The fact is, I have read that it is the
subconscious and the conscious mind that are moved, if you will, farther apart
when you are bombarded with all these different types of things on TV, from sex
scenes, if you will, whether it is photographing or running into these
different types of photographs of young people in sex scenes and whether it is
shooting of people, where you see the bullet hit the person and blood splatters
but, all of a sudden, that person in the next scene is alive and well and at
the hospital or at home.
* (1750)
It is a pulling apart of that subconscious
and the conscious mind. When it comes
down to the old thing of peer pressure or being involved in a particular
instance with other young people who for some unknown reason happen onto a
situation, it is the thing of being able to make that instant decision: What is right and wrong? Incidents do happen, and we say, well, how
could that be? How could anybody do
that? The fact is that these are things
that are hard to explain and hard to understand unless we really look deeper
within ourselves and how in some way sometimes we are affected by TV.
As we look back, a number of years ago, in
universities in the States, you do not have to go too far back, 10, 15 years‑‑there
have been many incidents since, too, but if we go back 15 and maybe even more
years and the times when in fact down in the States in the universities, there
were many of these rallies and so on of people saying that this war and that
war was wrong as far as Vietnam and that kind of thing was concerned and how
the rallies erupted into violent incidents.
It was young people then being perceived,
although it was not right, by many other parts of
I also think that the media‑‑there
is none in the gallery right now, so perhaps I am all right. I believe that the media play a part in this
role of things too. If you watch the
news, and we have many good things happening within our province, within our
country, and throughout the world, but it seems that we are bombarded with
everything that is negative, wars, I mean we can go on and on, the different
things that we are bombarded with‑‑[interjection] It is unfortunate, and perhaps this is some of the
TV coming out in opposition members. As
far as the different shows and so on are concerned, perhaps the member for
I do believe that the media has a big role
to play here. If you look at this
Assembly, and the member for
The point that I am trying to make here is
that if you read the papers, or watch TV, you seem to think, where was this all
happening? Was that really in the
Assembly? You see these great front‑page
announcements, the opposition was challenging the government today, and they
were ripping them apart on some particular issue.
I do have to laugh when I see that. It is almost as bad as some of the cartoons
you can see on TV and in what way they would affect our children today. The fact of the matter is that this Assembly
is missing, in the last three sessions of this Legislature, only one thing, I guess,
and I have heard it, and I have even termed it as a morgue, and that would be a
casket in here because of the fact of the ineffectiveness of the opposition
parties.
Point of Order
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood):
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have a resolution before us, a very
serious one on television violence, and I would ask the member who is currently
speaking to perhaps talk on the issue of television violence.
Mr. Speaker:
On the point of order raised, I would remind the honourable member for
La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) that the honourable member is quite correct. It is television violence that we are
presumably supposed to be debating at this point in time. So, the honourable member for La Verendrye,
keep your remarks relevant.
* * *
Mr. Sveinson:
I am definitely on topic. I am
trying to show the people in this Assembly exactly how media can effect a
difference with everybody. That is where
I am coming from, Mr. Speaker.
I do believe, perhaps some cannot see it,
and I can take that also, but I really do believe that we should be seen as
role models for our young people, for most people. Indeed, if things are sensationalized to the
point where, in fact, maybe some of us sitting in here, maybe even a good part
of us do not even recognize where that particular thing went on, as being the
assembly of Manitoba, it would make me wonder indeed if our young people and
how they perceive things on TV‑‑I think the media has a big role to
play here. It has to be a positive thing
as well as recognizing the negative things.
At any rate, Mr. Speaker, I agree with
previous speakers as to the topic and to the resolution, and I would commend
the opposition for even bringing it up today.
It is one of the most positive things in three sessions that I have seen
brought forward by the opposition.
I would like to commend them, and perhaps
down the road we will see a provincial conference and possibly even a national
conference on this particular topic.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker:
Is the House ready for the question?
The question before the House is the resolution of the honourable member
for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), Resolution 31.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members:
Agreed.
Mr. Speaker:
The motion is accordingly carried.
Is it the will of the House to call it six
o'clock? [agreed] The hour being 6
p.m., I am leaving the Chair with the understanding that the House will
reconvene at 8 p.m. in Committee of Supply.