LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday, December 3,
1992
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Mr. Speaker: I have
reviewed the petition of the honourablemember for St. James (Mr. Edwards). It complies with theprivileges and practices
of the House, and it complies with therules.
Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?
To the Legislature of the
WHEREAS each year smoke from stubble burning descends
uponthe
WHEREAS the Parents Support Group of Children with Asthma
haslong criticized the harmful effects of stubble burning; and
WHEREAS the smoke caused from stubble burning is not
healthyfor the general public and tends to aggravate the problems ofasthma
sufferers and people with chronic lung problems; and
WHEREAS alternative practices to stubble burning arenecessitated
by the fact that the smoke can place some people inlife‑threatening
situations; and
WHEREAS the 1987 Clean Environment Commission Report onPublic
Hearings, "Investigation of Smoke Problems fromAgriculture Crop Residue
and Peatland Burning," contained therecommendation that a review of the
crop residue burningsituation be conducted in five years' time, including are‑examination
of the necessity for legislated regulatory control.
THEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the
LegislativeAssembly will urge the Government of Manitoba to pass thenecessary
legislation/regulations which will restrict stubbleburning in the
As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
* * *
I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member forBrandon
East (Mr. Leonard Evans), and it complies with the rulesof the House. Is it the will of the House to have the
petitionread?
To the Legislature of the
The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Province
of
The
The citizens of
The
The administration of the hospital has been forced to
takedrastic measures, including the elimination of the PalliativeCare Unit and
Gynecological Wards, along with the layoff of over30 staff, mainly licensed
practical nurses, to cope with afunding shortfall of over $1.3 million; and
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the
Legislatureof the
*
(1335)
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General):Mr.
Speaker, I am tabling today annual reports for the Departmentof Justice and The
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 5–The Northern
AffairsAmendment Act
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern Affairs): Mr. Speaker, Imove, seconded by the Minister
of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns),that Bill 5, The Northern Affairs Amendment Act
(Loi modifiant laLoi sur les affaires du Nord), be introduced and that the same
benow received and read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 200–The Child and
Family Services Amendment Act
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Motion presented.
Ms. Barrett: Mr.
Speaker, we are introducing this legislation toensure that the protection of
children is undertaken throughoutan independent body. These amendments will provide that theChildren's
Advocate report directly to the Legislative Assemblyas the Ombudsman does at
this point.
The current legislation is unacceptable and may
jeopardizethe safety of children in
Motion agreed to.
Bill 6–The Real Property
Amendment Act
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General):Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister ofFamily Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer), that Bill 6, The RealProperty Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la
Loi sur les biensreels), be introduced and that the same be now received and
reada first time.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 7–The Builders'
LiensAmendment Act
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General):Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister ofFinance (Mr. Manness),
that Bill 7, The Builders' Liens AmendmentAct (Loi modifiant la Loi sur le
privilege du constructeur), beintroduced and that the same be now received and
read a firsttime.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to
Oral Questions, may I direct the attentionof honourable members to the loge to
my right where we have withus this afternoon Mr. George Henderson, the former
MLA forPembina.
On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to
welcomeyou here this afternoon.
Also with us this afternoon, seated in the public
gallery, wehave, from the
Also this afternoon we have sixty Grade 5 students from
the
On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to
welcomeyou all here this afternoon.
*
(1340)
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
North American Free
Trade Agreement
Government Position
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I have anumber of questions for
the First Minister on federal‑provincialrelations.
Today, the parliamentary committee dealing with trade ishearing
presentations from Manitobans on the effect of free tradeon
In August of 1990, this Premier said he was opposed to
freetrade with
In the Speech from the Throne it again says, our bottom
linewill be determined by the six conditions.
In light of the fact that the committee is meeting today
in
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, we were the firstprovince that
put together conditions that we felt wereappropriate. I might tell you that those conditions were
alsoones that were shared, for instance, by Governor Clinton in hiselection
campaign. Several of those conditions
were directly theconditions that were contained within our letter to the PrimeMinister,
I might say.
That was because
More particularly, Mr. Speaker, we have taken the time totake
the proposed agreement to consultation with all sectors ofour economy. That is what the Minister of Industry, Trade
andTourism (Mr. Stefanson) has been doing, going through a verythorough
consultation process to determine how that agreementmight affect the
That will be the basis of
*
(1345)
Federal Mini Budget
Unemployment Insurance
Reforms
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): This is the onlyPremier in
Mr. Speaker, a second question on federal‑provincialrelations
to the Premier. The Premier is meeting
with the PrimeMinister today. We have a
number of issues that are on thefederal‑provincial agenda for
In light of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the social
assistancein
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, we have grave concernsabout many
aspects of the federal statement. We
have graveconcerns about the possibility that workers will be unfairlytreated
by their employers as a result of the judgments that haveto be made with
respect to the release of employees and whetheror not dismissal is unfair and
whether or not that disqualifiesworkers for UIC compensation.
We think that there is great potential for abuse, and we
havevery grave concerns about how that will work because we believe,above all,
the system is supposedly in place to assist workersduring a period of
misfortune in which they are without a job andalso to assist them in retraining
for the new opportunities.These changes have the potential to introduce some
seriousaspects of unfairness that we believe ought to be looked at.
We are also concerned, of course, with the
disproportionateallocation of the new additional training funds, the redirectedUI
training funds that appear to have been done in a fashion thatwill be very,
very unfair to
Infrastructure Renewal
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we wishthe Conservative Premier
well with the Conservative PrimeMinister on these changes. They are horrible for the mostvulnerable
people in our society, and I am pleased we share thatassessment in terms of
Manitobans.
A final question to the Premier. He mentioned training quiteaccurately in this
proposal, but there are also some realdeficiencies in the statement from the
federal government oninfrastructure programs.
In fact, only two provinces in Canadawere not mentioned in specific
infrastructure proposals.
We were led to believe in many statements the government
hasmade in the past that we could look with optimism to some of theannouncements
made by the Finance minister yesterday.
There areprojects for
I would ask the Premier why was
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader ofthe
Opposition for his question. There is no
doubt in my mindthat the statement that was put forth by the federal Minister
ofFinance has a huge gap and a huge hole when it comes toaddressing
If you look at the list under transportation
infrastructure,the statement mentions $125 million to upgrade federally ownedChamplain‑Cartier
bridges in
You can imagine our outrage, Mr. Speaker, when the very
basisupon which the National Highways Program was developed was puttogether by
a committee chaired by the Manitoba Deputy Ministerof Highways and
Transportation. That was the basis upon
whichthe Prime Minister announced his support for a National HighwaysProgram
and then, when that program is announced publicly, toleave
*
(1350)
Crow Benefit
Government Position
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, there is more than onedisgrace
in this statement by Mazankowski.
Farmers in Manitobaand this opposition were literally outraged and
shocked by thedecision that was made by the federal minister with regard to theCrow
and by this minister's laissez‑faire apologetic response towhat the
federal minister did.
Now, I say, this is who we have standing up for the
farmersin
I want to ask the Minister, Mr. Speaker, why he will notstand
up for the farmers of
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, thereis no question we are
gravely concerned about what theannouncement said, very disappointed that the
WGTA was attackedin this direction. We
have been in negotiation and discussionabout how to deal with maintaining the
benefits of the Crow inwestern
A year ago in 1991, the option of phase‑out, no
compensationwhich the federal government had on the table, we had it removedfrom
the table. So we have fought long and
hard to maintain thisbenefit in western
I am astounded and shocked, because it was never
discussed atany time that I was there, that the federal government would takethis
action with this payment for western Canadian farmers. Iwas also concerned that the safety nets
might be attacked in thisbudget approach.
I am very pleased to see that GRIP, NISA, cashadvances and crop
insurance were not affected at all, so westernCanadian farmers are still
protected by the safety nets, thankgoodness.
We will be meeting very soon to deal with the otherissue of the impact
of removal of the Crow benefit, 10 percenteach in the next two budgets.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the federalminister
last night about that, and the meeting is set formid‑January.
Mr. Plohman: Mr.
Speaker, now this Tory minister is reduced tosaying that he is thankful that
the federal Tories did not breaktheir agreements with this government, with
this province, thatthey did not break their federal‑provincial
agreements.
Mr. Speaker, will the minister now agree that his laid‑backposition
on this issue is playing into the federal agenda, andhis failure to stand up
with
Mr. Findlay: Mr.
Speaker, I refuse to accept that knee‑jerkreaction from that member who
does not consult with the farmersin this province. We have consulted on a continuous basis as Itold
him the other day, most recently with representatives of 30farm
organizations. We discussed the issues
at hand and how todeal with them.
I want to remind him, it was this minister, this provincethat
put the words "in perpetuity" back into an agreement, wherethere was
an attempt to take it out. It was not
*
(1355)
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind that member, he was in thegovernment
in 1983 when the WGTA was put in place that made thefarmers pay the first 6
percent on inflation forever and a day.So the benefit of the Crow benefit is
decreased in half becauseactions his government took in 1983 did not stand up
for thewestern Canadian farmers in the WGTA act.
Mr. Plohman: Mr.
Speaker, we now protest in this House $1,000per farmer, and this is what this
minister is doing, $1,000 perfarmer and he is doing nothing.
I want to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon) now, because he ismeeting
with the Prime Minister today, whether he will now admitthat this is a
fundamental breach of trust, a sacred trust, forwestern
Mr. Findlay: Mr.
Speaker, you talk about breach of trust, thatmember sat in the cabinet that
took away half the Crow benefit,took it away forever and a day, and we are back
at the tabletrying to fight to get it restored.
He took away half of it. Ifhe
says this costs $1,000 per farm gate, he took away $2,500 perfarm gate, and I
would like to hear him answer how he did notstand up for western Canadian
farmers in 1983 when the benefitwas basically destroyed.
Federal Mini Budget
Minister's Position
Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne):
Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat heartenedby the comments that the Premier has
made in this House, and Ishare his very grave concerns about this decision that
wasannounced yesterday.
Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure program nationally is
lessthan a quarter of the money that is being taken away from theunemployed in
this country, and I think that is a disgrace.
Iwas surprised to hear over and over again on the radio last nightthe
support offered for this program by our Finance minister,when he talked about
how it was very consistent with his ownplans and he thought it was an excellent
tonic for this country.I would like to ask him, does he share the grave
concerns thatthe Premier (Mr. Filmon) has?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, mostdefinitely, but let me say
to the member who likes to take, ofcourse, comments out of context and build
upon them, the themesthat I was talking about were very specifically on the tax
side.I was talking about, for instance, that the federal governmentwas
following along some of the budgetary decisions that we hadbrought forward in
our budget a year ago, specifically, a miningtax holiday, which, of course, has
put
So when I see the federal government bring down a
taxationmeasure which mirrors one that we put in a year ago, and, Mr.Speaker, I
also notice a 10 percent tax credit dividend on thepurchase of new equipment, I
say that mirrors our measure withrespect to a 10 percent offset against tax
payable for thepurchase of new equipment.
Those measures are keeping with thegeneral themes of this
government. If the member wants toconfuse
that with the whole unemployment insurance, I say he isdoing a disservice to
the listeners. He is doing a disservice
tothe members of this House because that is basically an untruth.
Impact on Employment
Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne):
Mr. Speaker, I think this Financeminister is doing a disservice to this
province by toadying tothe federal Finance minister.
The total job creation and the infrastructure program
amountsto less than half the job layoffs announced by CN. I would liketo ask the Finance minister, who
likes to pull out projections,what is his projection of net job loss in this
province as aresult of those two decisions?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, we arein no position at this
point in time to provide that answer, andthe member knows it. He knows very well that we just have hadaccess
to the documents as presented. He knows
that we do nothave the potential to analyze and give him that specific number.He
knows that without even having to ask the question, but let mesay in his
attempt to create mischief, we recognize that thereare significant changes that
are undergoing in the economy.
The
*
(1400)
Impact on Social
Assistance
Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): I
do agree, Mr. Speaker, that theFinance minister does not know what is going
on. I would ask himthough to try to project
one other thing, because his departmentdoes look at UI programs. They do look at the impact of federaldecisions
on this province. They do have a large
branch thatdoes analysis. Given the
changes in UI and given the belief thatthis will put more people on welfare,
and given the lack of anyjob creation in this budget for this province, what is
the netimpact on our social assistance budgets in this province?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Again, Mr. Speaker,I cannot answer that question
in an absolute or a quantifiablesense. I
do acknowledge that there is going to be a negativeimpact, unmeasurable at this
time, a negative impact on thewelfare rolls and, indeed, the amount that we are
going to haveto spend within that area.
I fully acknowledge that.
The reality, with respect to some of the cautious remarksthat
I had made yesterday, was certainly more on theinfrastructure side. It was obvious that we could see theabsence
of the mention of
Labour Force Development
Government Position
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, for almost two years,while
thousands of Manitobans lost their jobs, this governmentdid absolutely nothing
to create a plan for labour forcedevelopment and training.
Over the past summer, some first steps were taken with
labourand education groups to establish a fully representative LabourForce
Development Board to address the very urgent and seriousissues of training
which face Manitobans.
I would like to ask the Minister of Education: Will theminister explain to the House why she
has suddenly andunilaterally rejected this co‑operative process?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr.Speaker, one of the issues that my
department has been workingtowards, on behalf of our government, is the signing
of aCanada‑Manitoba Labour Force Development Agreement. With thesigning of that agreement, then we
look to further our strategieswithin
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker,
could the minister explain why thereversal of her decision and an announcement
of a so‑called,made‑in‑Manitoba Labour Force Development
Agreement involved noconsultation with her two most significant partners,
labour andeducation? Could she explain
to us how this will contribute tothe co‑operative spirit necessary for
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.
Speaker, the member has obviouslymisunderstood.
The important point is that
Ms. Friesen: Sign
here on the dotted line, Mr. Speaker.
Will the minister confirm that what she in fact will beproposing
is not a made‑in‑Manitoba solution but a made‑in‑Quebecapproach,
where business appoints its own delegates, thegovernment is represented by its
own business appointees andgroups such as education, vital to any training
program in anyprovince, are simply dismissed from the table, because that iswhat
is happening here?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.
Speaker, absolutely not. I will not
confirmthat, because that is simply not true.
What the member has referenced, however, is that
provinceshave designed agreements to suit their particular needs as aprovince.
CorporationAgents' Fees
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a questioneither for the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) or the ministerresponsible for Autopac.
Yesterday, in this House, the Minister of Finance
confirmedthat the cabinet did discuss the request of the insurance agents'lobby
to force MPIC to withdraw its plan to limit the commissionspaid to insurance
brokers, which would have saved insured driversand owners around a million
dollars per year.
My question, Mr. Speaker, is: Why did the cabinet give abenefit of about
$2,500 to each of the 400 Autopac agents in
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the administration
ofThe Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, Iexplained this yesterday. I am sorry the member for Brandon Eastwas not
listening, either that or chose to ignore the statementthat I made to him about
the fact that this requires a regulatorychange.
We saw the regulatory change at a time when the Autopac2000 negotiations
are going on between the corporation and therepresentatives across the province
through the agents, anopportunity for them to conclude those negotiations
because anentirely new package will be in place with the implementation ofAutopac
2000.
Mr. Leonard Evans: The
minister really did not answer thequestion, but I would ask the minister: Did the cabinet or theminister responsible
for Autopac receive a formal request fromthe Insurance Brokers Association of
Some Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member for
BrandonEast has put his question. I
believe he is waiting for hisanswer.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker,
as I said, this is a requirementunder the act that discussion was as a result
of what would havebeen required by way of a regulatory change.
In terms of whether or not I was lobbied or whether I wasapproached,
I received some‑‑actually, a fairly minor amount oflobbying and did
not have any formal meetings with theassociation or any of that type of
contact. The concern that weraised is as
I described. When you are in the middle
of anegotiation process that will develop an entirely newcompensation package,
then that process should be seen through tocompletion.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Well, the people of
My last question to the minister, and I ask this in view
ofhis statements of not wanting to interfere with the process ofthe Public
Utilities Board. I want to know, Mr.
Speaker, and thepeople of
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker,
the Public Utilities Board dealt withthe application in front of it. Nothing on my part or anyactions by this
government interfered with that process.
Thecorporation has been able to deal with the rate application thatit
had in front of them without making changes and without goingback to the Public
Utilities Board.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, what he is saying is that he wants
toturn over any regulatory capacity to the Public Utilities Board.
*
(1410)
RRAP Funding Reduction
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
There is a very good federal program called the
ResidentialRehabilitation Assistance Program, of which I am sure theminister is
aware. It provides grants and loans to
low‑incomefamilies in order that they can upgrade and improve the homeswhich
they live in. It also provides older,
more establishedcommunities the hope to revitalize and improve the
neighbourhoodand the surroundings. Last
year, the federal government cut theprogram by 21 percent. Now it is being rumoured that the programis
going to be cut by 29 percent.
My question to the Minister of Housing is: Has the ministercontacted the federal
Minister of Housing to protest the reducedlevel of support for this program,
and if not, will he nowcontact him and demand that there be no further cuts to
thisimportant and very beneficial program to the
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Housing): Firstly, Mr. Speaker, theResidential
Rehabilitation Assistance Program is delivered in thecity of
Mr. Lamoureux: One might
want to digest that and come acrossthat the Minister of Housing does not
necessarily know what theprogram is all about.
What I am trying to get at here is
My question to the Minister of Housing is: Will the Ministerof Housing take the
initiative and make his federal counterpartsit down and come to an agreement,
much like the Province of
Mr. Ernst: Mr.
Speaker, in the last federal budget, there was a3 percent cap placed on CMHC
expenditures, Canada Mortgage andHousing Corporation expenditures. That 3 percent cap meant, over1992, a 22
percent decrease in funding available to the nonprofithousing corporation and
all the programs associated under thatprogram, and will result in 1993 in
another 36 percent decrease.
All housing corporations across the country have beensignificantly
impacted by these reductions in Canada Mortgage andHousing Corporation
funding. Mr. Speaker, we are desperatelytrying
to at least continue to provide for low‑income Manitobansan opportunity
for social housing, and we are devoting ourresources principally in that area.
RRAP Funding Reduction
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker, my question to the Premier is, later on thisevening,
he is going to be having supper with his federalcounterpart, the Prime Minister
of Canada. Will the Premier atleast
bring up this particular program while he is having supperwith the Prime
Minister and get some sort of an agreement,because we know the Minister of
Education (Mrs. Vodrey) is doingabsolutely nothing?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I thank the member for his advice.
Manitoba Public
Insurance Corporation
Public Utilities Board
Application
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, we are not surewhether we heard
the minister correctly on this side of the Housein reference to the process of
using the PUB to bring forward anonpolitical decision in this matter. The record is clear, and Iwould refer the
minister to page 3 of the Public Utilities Boarddocument, order No. 174‑92,
a specific reference to the fact thatMPIC had to change its application,
because they learned that therequest of the government to amend regulations
under The MPIC Acthad not been approved.
Surely, would this minister not agree that if they wanted
toremain true to their promise to not politically interfere thatthis government
would have allowed the PUB to deal with thematter? The PUB would have made a decision‑‑let
us say it saidyes‑‑then the cabinet would have to pass the
necessaryOrders‑in‑Council.
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the administration
ofThe Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, thePUB and the MPIC process that
they have gone through in front ofthe PUB‑‑they did not alter their
application. The PUB, as Irecall that,
has asked them as to how they would respond, and ithas not cost the motoring
public of this province in the changingof the rates, and that is what the PUB
order was to approve, therates of the corporation.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Again, I
would urge the minister to read thispage 3.
My question is:
Why would the minister, if he had theseconcerns, not make that position
well known in June, or beforeJune, before they made the first application to
the board?Subsequently the MPIC got the message.
I read, Mr. Speaker, and I am asking why is‑‑could
theminister confirm this? During the
course of the hearing thecorporation increased the $5.8‑million loss
estimate to $7.8million when it learned a proposal to amend the regulations
underThe Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act to limit premiumtaxes and
brokerage commissions had not been approved by thegovernment. Would the minister confirm that?
Mr. Cummings: Mr.
Speaker, the corporation will not beincreasing its deficit; it will be
increasing its ability tomanage its affairs to account for any kind of saving
such asthat, and there was no increase passed on to the motoring public.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Well, Mr.
Speaker, I would ask this ministerthen, the bottom line is, how can this
government, and how canthis minister, sit there very complacently and justify a
$2,500bonus, a Christmas gift for the insurance agents of thisprovince, while
at the same time forcing excessive rate increasesonto the driving motorists of
Mr. Cummings: Mr.
Speaker, the member is making bizarreallegations. The brokers' compensation package is beingrenegotiated
right now. This is the third time I have
had topoint this out to the member. In
that process, as we movethrough to the Autopac 2000 process, why would you all
of asudden abort any kind of negotiation such as that in the middleof the
process when you were in fact bringing forward a newcompensation package? That is exactly what happened.
Telecommunications
Industry
Deregulation
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, deregulation of theairline
industry has cost
Before the last election, the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
himselfopposed deregulation of the telecommunication sector when hecorrectly
pointed out that subscriber rates would increase iflong‑distance rates
for large businesses were lowered, which isexactly what is going to be
happening under deregulation.
Yesterday, it was announced that 45 workers at NorthernTelecom
were laid off. Why has this Premier
caved in and brokenhis promise to oppose deregulation? Has he learned nothing aboutthe job losses in
the telecommunication sector? [interjection]
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I think the member should know thatit is
impolite to clap for his own question.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that there was a Supreme
Courtdecision that established that the responsibility fortelecommunications
rests clearly with the federal government.We, I might say, negotiated with the
federal government aMemorandum of Understanding that will see
I might tell you, from my discussions with my colleague
in
So I think he should perhaps talk with his colleagues in
Sears Canada
Telemarketing Site
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, my next question isalso for the
Premier.
Why did Sears Canada last week announce that they decided
tolocate their telemarketing centre in
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, oneof the
key features in terms of comparative costs was the payrolltax in
*
(1420)
Telecommunications
IndustryDeregulation
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): In view of the obvious failures ofderegulation,
Mr. Speaker, will the Premier reconsider hisposition on deregulation before
more jobs are lost in thisprovince?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before,the
Supreme Court has ruled that telecommunications comesunder‑‑[interjection]
I will let the member for Kildonan (Mr.Chomiak) respond to the question since
he has all the answers.
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please. Time for Oral Questions has
expired.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
THRONE SPEECH DEBATE
(Fifth Day of Debate)
Mr. Speaker: On the
proposed motion of the honourable member forSeine River (Mrs. Dacquay) for an
Address to the honourable theAdministrator in answer to his speech at the
opening of thesession, and the proposed motion of the honourable Leader of theOpposition
(Mr. Doer) in amendment thereto, and the proposedmotion of the honourable
Leader of the Second Opposition (Mrs.Carstairs) in further amendment thereto,
standing in the name ofthe honourable member for Transcona, who has 13 minutes
remaining.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased tocontinue my
remarks from where I left off yesterday, where I wasdiscussing the government's
failure, total and absolute failure,when dealing with transportation‑related
issues. I was talkingin specific about
the
We have, Mr. Speaker, been watching this issue very
closelybecause of the potential impact that it will have on the northernpart of
our province. We had made
recommendations to the federalminister earlier this year with respect to the
rail line to theport and how we could upgrade that line on a permanent basis byway
of a four‑way partnership.
Our concern on this side of the House because of the
completelack of action on the part of this government‑‑and I talkspecifically
about programs where they had agreed to make equalinvestments with the
community of Churchill, at least to do afeasibility study for the rocket range
which would have giveneconomic stimulus to that community. [interjection]
I see, Mr. Speaker, that the space cadet on the other
sidethere, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), as he likes to refer toothers in
this House, is chirping from his seat.
Of course, ifhe had taken action on this issue, we would not have to bediscussing
it over and over in the House here.
What we had proposed, Mr. Speaker, and what this Minister
ofTransportation (Mr. Driedger) and his government are going tohave to face, I
believe, in the very near future is the very reallikelihood that his government
is going to have to make adecision on whether or not they are going to have to
pick up thecosts to maintain and operate the rail line into the northernpart of
our province. I say that based on the
information thatwe have seen come forward by way of Directions: The Final Reportof The Royal Commission on
National Passenger Transportation. Itmade
several key recommendations in that report that will affectnegatively the
I refer specifically, Mr. Speaker, to the fact, and I
willquote from the document itself, that any railway company beallowed to
abandon any amount of track without limit.
I have notheard the Minister of Transportation, in the comments that he
hasmade on his debate on the throne speech, make any reference tothis document
whatsoever. It is unfortunate. I know theminister should have a copy of this
document by now, and thiswill have a great deal of bearing upon us in this
province.
It goes on to further reference that, and I quote: Anysubsidized remote access service,
regardless of the mode, bedesignated to take passengers out to and bring them
in from theclosest convenient point where a transfer can be made to acommercial
unsubsidized carrier. This, in turn, Mr.
Speaker,will force Via Rail, who now services the northern part of ourprovince
on a reduced schedule, to look at‑‑if theserecommendations are
accepted by the federal government and arenot fought by this provincial
government‑‑only having asubsidized service for the portion where
there are no otherunsubsidized modes available to pick up passengers and to
bringpassengers to that point.
In other words, the closest roadway where there may be a
busservice could be the part. If there
is a bus service that goesto the community of Gillam and the railway runs to
that point thesubsidized section will most likely remain from Gillam toChurchill,
being the only part that does not have a road systemin our province.
What position, then, is the minister going to take if ViaRail
says that they cannot economically afford to maintain thattype of service and
apply for abandonment of that service to thenorthern part of our province? Is this minister then going tofight the
federal government once Via decides they want toabandon this service?
We already know that CN is pulling its equipment out and
islooking for long‑term storage for the boxcars that they had beenusing to
the port. What happens then if CN pulls
out? Is thisgovernment then going to be
faced with the option of having toabandon the rail line outright and the
service to the communitiesalong the way, or is this minister and his government
going totake over operation of that rail line at great cost to thetaxpayers of
this province?
That is why, Mr. Speaker, we put forward our proposal
earlierthis year to the federal Minister of Transport, something thatthis
Minister of Transportation for
Yesterday, I was talking about the rocket range and the$75,000
matching of funding that this government was supposed todo. I know the minister across the way probably
does notunderstand the concept of what this means to northern Manitoba.He
probably spends very little time out of his office, never mindvisiting the
northern part of our province. If he
took the timeto go and see what impact this is going to have on the community,I
am sure he would understand a bit better what is facing thesepeople in the
future.
I suggest that he take the opportunity to travel up toChurchill
and the communities along the way and talk to thepeople there. [interjection]
Yes, you flew up. There is no doubtyou
probably flew up and flew out in the same day.
Have you evertaken the train to Churchill? No.
Why not? It is part of theservice.
Why have you always flown everywhere in
the province?Why do you not try the train?
Why do you not try the bus? Irecommend
it.
There is a road up to Gillam and you could take the trainfrom
there; the bus to Gillam and then take the train up toChurchill. Why do you not try the train service? Take a trip upthere. You might enjoy it. Maybe we can encourage someincreased tourism
for the northern part of the province as well.
It is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that the
provincialgovernment in their throne speech highlights indicate that thereis
supposed to be a review of the National Highways Program, andI am still waiting
for the Minister of Highways andTransportation (Mr. Driedger) to give us an
indication of whatprograms we can expect for the
Is the minister meeting with one his federal counterparts?Is
there going to be some investment in the highwaysinfrastructure of our province
so that we can create those jobs?The minister has been silent on this. He keeps saying that he isspearheading these
efforts, but I have not seen any results yet.The
*
(1430)
I hope that when the Premier (Mr. Filmon) is meeting with
thePrime Minister today he reinforces Manitoba's position on this,that we want
them to take some serious action to keep that bridgeopen and to invest the
monies into it to make sure that it issafe for the future. Do not just put an advertisement in thepaper
saying, ah, the bridge is closed; we are not going to worryabout it.
It says in the throne speech highlights, Mr. Speaker,
thatthis government will work for federal government support forChurchill, and
that is why I referenced yesterday and again atthe beginning of my comments
here today that it is more than justthe federal government's responsibility for
the communities inthe province, that this government has to take an active role
inparticipation in the support for Churchill and the community.
We have to take an active role in transportation in
generalin this province, something which we have not done in thisprovince for
several years now, obviously, because I referencedin my earlier comments
yesterday, in the last throne speech therewas no reference to transportation‑related
issues. In thisthrone speech there is no
reference to transportation‑relatedissues other than highways and
roads. Well, highways and roadsare not
the only part of transportation in the province. We haveto take an active role seeking
programs of investment for theprovince of
The minister has not made any reference whatsoever to why
hisgovernment withdrew the so-called or the reported $25-million funding that
was in place for Canadian Airlines. Why
was thatfunding withdrawn? Why is this
government not coming forwardwith another program? Why are there no strategies to deal with transportation-related
issues in this province, like the airlinecrisis that we are in right now?
There is no reference to the difficulties with the crisesthat
are facing transportation in this province.
The minister'soffice sits mum, no plan of action, no ideas.
[interjection] Nointerest, as the member for
When I first came into this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, theminister
used to say proudly that we had nine of 14 Canadiantrucking firms headquartered
in this province. Now we have sevenof
11. What is that saying for
transportation?
I reviewed my notes from the last session when I was upspeaking
on transportation‑related issues.
They are the sameissues facing us now as were facing us then. I have seen noprogress in this area. Airlines were facing open skies. That isa program that is still on and being
discussed, maybe on the backburner now, but nevertheless still being
discussed. Foreigntakeovers and buyouts
are still an issue. Railway downsizing
andrationalization, the railways are talking about harmonizing theirtaxes, fuel
and property, with the United States‑‑the sameissue. Layoffs are still facing us in every sector
of thetransportation industry, and bankruptcies. I see no action bythis government to rectify
those problems. They seem intent tosit
idly by and let the market dictate what is going to happen tous.
I think we have some good people in the Department ofHighways
and Transportation. I think they
probably have somegood ideas that can be brought forward to help us move out of
thedoldrums that we are in, out of the recession that we are in. Ihope the Minister of Highways and
Transportation (Mr. Driedger)will accept those ideas and bring some of those
initiativesforward, because I think Manitoba needs those ideas to be putinto
practice, and I hope that‑‑while the Minister of Agriculture(Mr.
Findlay) likes to sit there and say that my comments areirrelevant, I have
seen, as we have witnessed here today duringQuestion Period, his irrelevance in
dealing with the method ofpayment for the producers in this province here and
what effectthat is going to have on the producers. He is taking no actionto protect the
producers or the railway jobs in this province.
Iguess there obviously is no interest in what is taking place.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I see my time has expired. I thankyou for the opportunity. I hope that this government will listento the
comments that have been made and will take some action toresolve the issues
that are facing us here and not just sit idlyby while others make those
decisions for us. Thank you very much.
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, itis a privilege to be able to
participate once again in support ofa throne speech that really deserves the
support of all membersof this Chamber.
If honourable members opposite really thoughtabout it, and if they
really were prepared to come to terms withthe seriousness of the situation that
the people of Manitoba, thepeople of Canada face in these times, they would
break fromtradition, they would break from that reactionary knee-jerk opposition
and support this throne speech and vote for it.However, having been around for
a while, I recognize thattradition likely will not be broken, and they will do
their thingas they see fit.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to express my pleasure in seeingyourself
ensconced in that responsible chair that you occupy aschief custodian, steward,
magistrate of this Assembly in tryingto keep order. I welcome my new colleague certainly from
Portagela Prairie along with the return of the member for Crescentwood(Ms.
Gray). I offer my congratulations to the
table officers,some of the new ones who have joined us. I am always pleased tonote the new group of
Pages who come to serve us, particularlywhen I have the privilege of having, I
believe, one, perhaps eventwo of them from the grand constituency of
I take this moment to explain to the honourable Pages
that wehave with us, as I often do to the school children and people whocome to
visit us in the gallery, who sometimes walk away, youknow, perplexed,
disappointed at the lack of decorum, at the kindof shouting that goes on
sometimes, the fact that we are notalways listening to each other, but, Mr.
Speaker, as you knowthis is what parliament is all about. This is what a free andopen society is all
about, and we talk and we talk and we talkand we try to talk out our
problems. We try to reach consensus.
There are so many parts of the world where they do not
takethat time to talk. It is not a very
efficient way of solvingproblems, but, surely, we all recognize how much more
preferableit is to the ways in far too many parts of the world where othersolutions
to problem solving take place. We see
that on ourtelevision sets. We see that
in so many different parts of theworld and the dire consequences from that.
Mr. Speaker, it is my hope to talk principally about theaffairs
of the natural resources in the
I understand the kind of ongoing tremendous challenges
andproblems that some of my colleagues have in other portfolios,Family
Services, that have to deal with so many of thedifficulties of our complex,
modern society. Their table, theirfare
is a daily recitation of trying to resolve these issues,some of the failures of
our society, some of the deep‑seated andnot easy solvable problems that,
for instance, the Minister ofFamily Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) or the Minister
of Health (Mr.Orchard) or the challenge that the Minister of Education (Mrs.Vodrey)
have. I have, and I am very much aware
of it, theopportunity of travelling through this country, seeing so much ofour
beautiful natural resources, whether it is in our forests,whether it is in our
lakes and rivers, and dealing with the kindof people that I deal with.
*
(1440)
I get a little sneaky every once in a while about how I
tryto protect those natural resources by putting up a little decoycalled
Fluffy. Fluffy has been very active, Mr.
Speaker, in thelast little while. I will
not go into all of the activities ofFluffy.
I am going to ask my colleague the member for St. Vital(Mrs. Render)
who, in the last year, has proved and shown herskill at authoring of books and
novels; I am seriously thinkingof asking her to begin writing a book, The
Legend of Fluffy, andit is pursuing those evil poachers of our wildlife and
showing nofear or favour, whether it is‑‑well, I better not say
anything.Just leave it at that.
But, Mr. Speaker, before I get on to Natural Resources,
it isone of the advantages, of course, in getting to speak midwaythrough the
debate or towards the latter part of the debate thatyou are not immune to some
of the other participations in thedebate, and I have one or two general
comments about the tenor ofthe debate so far.
I am, I suppose, surprised, because it is evident that myfriends
opposite of the official opposition simply are provingthat‑‑well,
it has often been said of Conservatives, perhaps withsome accuracy, that in the
past, and some will even say that thevery name implies that, we were the ones
reluctant to change,reluctant to acknowledge the need for change. We wished to holdon to tradition; we wanted
to keep riding buggies even when theautomobile was upon us, and so forth.
But, in fact, what we are seeing now is new for the
'90s. Itis our socialist friends, the
New Democrats, who are supposed tobe the new thinkers, who are the
reactionaries, who are theconservatives, who cannot see change for change
coming at them.They want to believe that they can hunker down this country,erect
trade barriers, and they can keep flying planes when thereare no passengers,
keep running trains when there is no freightor passengers. That is what they still believe they can do.
Mr. Speaker, change is always uncomfortable. Change isalways disturbing, and I would be
the first one to acknowledgethat change brings about a great deal of anxiety, a
great deal ofreal hurt.
Who would have thought five years ago that thousands ofpeople
would be looking at layoff notices in the aircraftindustry, at Air
That is what is happening in the world. That is not justhappening with our
airlines. That is not just happening
withAmerican airlines. That is happening
with European airlines;that is happening around the globe. It is that kind of change,that kind of
competition that honourable members fail to grasp.Then, when you get a
contribution like we did yesterday afternoonfrom the member for Radisson (Ms.
Cerilli), just the one examplethat she used, the concern that a Safeway store
in Transcona wasarbitrarily choosing for its economic reasons to move somewhereelse.
Well, Mr. Speaker, what was she implying? She wants thegovernment to run the grocery
stores? She wants some centralbureaucracy,
either
Even 10 years ago, Mr. Speaker, I was in this House when
wehad an honourable member who thought the kind of dogmaticsocialism‑communism
practised in the
An Honourable Member: Who was he?
Mr. Enns: The
honourable member for Crescentwood, I believe, hewas, who still is, I believe,
the chief of Economics at theUniversity of
In those days when it was not that easy to penetrate the
IronCurtain because of censorship, because of thought control,because of police
control, they actually managed to get away withit for a period of time. We did not see those tragic faces ofthe
children in Romanian orphanages that we now see. We did notsee the total failure of the
economy that we now see‑‑and theyadmit and are being openly debated
in their parliaments. No.Our people were
ferried across and shown very supervised modelfarms. We were shown model agricultural production
units. Wewere not shown, and we did not
come back with reports, about howserious the collapse, how serious the criminal
responsibility for40, 50, 60, 70 years of that kind of central planning, that
kindof central bureaucratic control. I
will even leave away, Mr.Speaker, we are not in the Cold War anymore. I will not callthem pinkos. I will not call them commies. I will just callthem what it was. It was centralized planning that led to thatdisaster.
I would think that honourable members opposite, I would
liketo think that my Liberal friends are not even thinking in thoseterms, but
when I hear the member from Radisson (Ms. Cerilli)talking about the social
injustice, talking about the fact thatyou cannot have true economic development
unless a bureaucracydetermines where a grocery store will or will not be, then,
Mr.Speaker, we really have not advanced very far.
That is why in the main, as much as they will try‑‑and
I donot fault the opposition‑‑obviously, we have made economic
issuesthe central issue of this Legislature of our government at thisparticular
time. The federal government has made
it. So theyhave to attack us on the
economic front, but surprisingly itlacks a kind of a foundation. It lacks integrity, because to thepeople back
home even it does not make sense anymore.
It mayhave made sense, and maybe it still makes tragically some sensein
a union hall sometime, but it does not make sense to the broadspectrum of
Manitobans anymore because they are really caught inthat Catch 22 situation.
Raising taxes is no longer a solution. In fact, the Ministerof Finance (Mr. Manness)
will report, and has reported onoccasion, that raising taxes now has become counterproductive. Ido not know how much more the provincial
revenue will be ontobacco tax. I suspect
it will be $4 million or $5 milliondollars, partly because we have raised taxes
to such a level thatwe have encouraged the illicit trade in tobacco, and partly
wehave raised spirit taxes to such a level that we encouragecross-border
shopping.
I appreciate that we are taking some steps to recover andrecoup
some of those lost taxes, but the simple fact of thematter is that it is not
returning more money to the treasury.
Mr. Speaker, we all are residents within our localmunicipalities,
within our cities and towns, and we know what theelection was all about here in
the city of
When honourable members opposite speak to us about thesolution
to our economic problems, they touch no chord with thegeneral public when they
talk about potential or optional taxincreases.
In fact, you notice how they shy away from thatbecause they realize that
is like a plague, yet they talk to usconstantly about more and more government
intervention. Well,Mr. Speaker, that is
their problem.
*
(1450)
I am delighted that we have had the courage to date, and
onceagain with a document that is currently under discussion, thisthrone
speech, we certainly will be making some errors injudgment, some mistakes. That is the fallibility of man. Pardonme.
That is not a politically correct word and if the member forRadisson
(Ms. Cerilli) were in the Chamber, she would be callingme to order.
That is the‑‑I was going to say the human
condition, but Icannot say that either, because that is a person condition thatsimply
exists, but I am extremely proud to be associated with agovernment that has the
conviction to believe in the set ofprinciples that they have set for
themselves, and those are allincluded in this throne speech that we are
debating here today.
Mr. Speaker, having said that and having the Minister ofFinance
(Mr. Manness) who has 101 things on his mind in hischair, I have said so
publicly before and I will say so again, Iwould certainly be a happier camper,
if you like, if economicconditions were such, provincial revenues were such,
that wouldenable departments like mine to share in some increasedrevenues. It is, I think, a given that every minister
of thiscabinet would want to do the same.
I have specific reasons to say that, because I see in theDepartment
of Natural Resources and its mandate a great number ofthings that could and
should be done. I am delighted, Mr.Speaker,
that the challenge of tighter budgetary times has madeus and forced us to seek
out more partners, more innovative waysof doing things. Let me refer to just a few of them.
One of the most rewarding programs that the province isengaged
in, in the field of Natural Resources, is in our ongoingcommitment to the
improving of the natural habitat for waterfowlin the southwest portion of the
province, particularly under thatprogram, the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan. Mr.Speaker, it is a
program that the department has been able tocarry on, this government has been
able to carry on, where we aretargeting upwards to a half a million acres,
marginal acres thatperhaps, particularly in today's economy and today's graineconomy,
ought never to have been put to the plow.
These arevaluable acres around potholes.
This is a program that will maintain the last of the
habitatwe have in that area. More
directly, this program is puttingmillions of dollars directly in the hands of
the farmers, thehard‑pressed, cash‑strapped farmers in that area,
some $2 millionthis year alone in various forms of incentives to set aside 30acres,
180 acres, 50 acres, 70 acres, whatever it is, to enhancethe habitation for
wildlife in that portion of the province.
Mr.Speaker, while it is focused and concentrated on waterfowlproduction,
anytime you set aside some land for habitat purposes,all wildlife is
encouraged.
I was delighted just not so long ago to be in the
communityof Melita where we have added another component to that program,not
directly attached to the North American program, but awoodlot development
program, because it is our hope that we canencourage on some of these acreages
that we are acquiring undervarious forms of lease or outright ownership and
also theexisting woodlots that are in that area, greater and greateropportunities
for Manitoba citizens to get involved in woodlotfarming in agro Manitoba.
I am delighted to announce, Mr. Speaker, that our
fledglingwoodlot operations are beginning to pay off. I understand rightabout now the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) is being presented aManitoba‑grown Christmas tree in his
office. I can report to allthe members
that whereas little as eight or 10 years ago,virtually all our Christmas trees
were brought in from outsidesources.
There were always some hardy souls who took advantageof my department's
offer to go out and cut their own for arelatively modest fee, but this year I
am told by Mr. MacLeod,the secretary of the Woodlot Association of Manitoba,
thatupwards of 75 percent of natural trees will be grown by our ownManitoba
growers. That is a significant
portion. Those are thekinds of changes
in the environment that we have.
Mr. Speaker, no doubt honourable members will have beenaware,
at least some have been aware, that one of the majoractivities of the
Department of Natural Resources has been tryingto ascertain what Manitobans
think about what we should be doingor should not be doing on our landscape with
respect to parks,with respect to what we call natural areas.
We are a government that is committed to ensuring that
futuregenerations will enjoy wilderness areas within our province.Whenever you
speak about land designations of one kind oranother, you bring together
conflict of uses, the legitimateaccess to some of the resources on some of
these lands, whetherit is for mining purposes, whether it is for the forestryindustry,
whether it is for wildlife purposes.
Those become verycomplex, and I do not take lightly the challenge that
mydepartment and I as minister face in this context.
It is my intention, Mr. Speaker, as indicated in this
thronespeech, to introduce updated parks legislation that will bringManitoba
provincial parks into the 1990s and into the year 2000and beyond.
It is my intention to move aggressively forward to meet
someof our commitments under the Endangered Spaces Program. We havethat opportunity in this province and
indeed certainly in goodportions of this country to ensure that we can have the
best ofboth worlds. We can support
healthy industries, viableindustries, in the pursuit of minerals, in the
pursuit of timberresources and all the jobs that this provides, and at the sametime,
ensure that future generations will have the enjoyment thatin some cases can
only be found in those areas set aside, thoseareas designated as endangered
spaces, so that the habitat canperpetuate the ecosystems that we have come to
learn to beimportant for all our survival.
I was pleased to be able to sign just a week ago, on
behalfof the
Mr. Speaker, I know that if nobody else, then perhaps themember
for
Mr. Speaker, we have in this province such tremendousopportunities,
if only my friends opposite would just take theirblinkered environmentalist
eyes off that for a little moment tounderstand.
At the same time they are talking about jobs. Atthe same time they are talking about rural
development. At thesame time they are
talking about value being added to some of ournatural resources. Those, in my judgment, hold out by far thebiggest
promise for future economic development for a provincelike
Mr. Speaker, we have done so much investigative
work. Allowme just to read one short
paragraph from one of the major studiesdone with respect to the South Hespeler
area that borders thearea from Carberry south of the Assiniboine to the Red
River andall the way to the
*
(1500)
Mr. Speaker, let me give you a little‑‑and I
really want someof my friends opposite to understand. One of the principalchallenges of the
department is to become much more sophisticatedand get a far greater understanding
of our water resources, bothsurface and ground water, and we are moving in that
direction.In the study of my Estimates, you will see a noticeable shiftfrom
what has‑‑which has been going on for some time.
In the late '50s, in the '60s the issue before the day
was tomanage flood conditions, to develop drainage systems. Today, theissue is quite reversed in some
instances. We underrate whatwater means
to us.
I have one particular graph here, and these are old
figures.I will not attest to their accuracy as they apply today, but togive you
some idea of how‑‑and I know this is offensive to somepeople who
want to look at any natural resource simply assomething that we cannot touch,
something that has to be left inits pristine form.
The usage of a million gallons of water per day in thecommunity
of Selkirk produces $80 million in direct annualbenefits to the
Mr. Speaker, surely we ought to be smart enough to know
thatwe use this water in a sustainable way, because this governmenthas firmly
and with determination adopted the principle ofsustainable development so that
water is not there just for thisgeneration's use but for future generations'
use.
Secondly, I have confidence in my colleague the Minister
ofEnvironment (Mr. Cummings). I have
confidence in theever‑growing developments with respect to regulations
and that wehave with respect to our environment, particularly with water,that
we could use this water and return it in a way that it isnot polluting our
ground water shortage, in a way that it can beused again and again and again.
While we are using it, we can hopefully provide the best
forour children in education, the best for those in need of healthcare, the
best for those like my friend from Rossmere who areapproaching that golden age,
senior citizen status, who so oftenappeal to this House about the need, the
care that his generationrequires from governments, from big governments.
So, Mr. Speaker, these are the things that we can do justwithin
the confines of this province. These are
the things wewill have to do if we want to be able to compete with the globalchanges
that are around us. I am hoping that my
government, I amhoping that honourable members opposite from time to time willhave
the courage to be supportive of measures undertaken in thisarea. We have in place certain works that can help
us.
The issue, of course, that I suspect later on in the new
yearwill be dealt with in a very public way is the question of theallocation of
some of those waters in some of this area.
It is amatter certainly that concerned the former member for
Mr. Speaker, I would encourage, in fact I will bedistributing
to all members a copy of this report which, forinstance, among other things,
simply reminds us that with theShellmouth reservoir, as presently operated,
only 48 percent ofthe Assiniboine River's assured consumptive water supply
capacityhas been licensed for consumptive use.
In other words, there isa great deal of capacity just in the system as
we now have it, ifwe wish to consider some of the other options available to
us, ifwe are serious about providing jobs in Manitoba, if we areserious about
creating that kind of wealth that every day membersopposite ask for the social
services in this province.
You see, Mr. Speaker, whether or not we shut down someindustry
from cutting trees in our woods or shut down a minebecause it is intruding on
the natural environment, that isreally the easy decision. Whether Abitibi‑Price stops cuttingtrees
in an area that many people do not want them to cut trees,that is not a hard
decision at all. The hard decision is:Which
three hospitals and which university are we going to closedown? That is the tough decision. I ask honourable membersopposite to bring
some responsibility when we try to sort out inthe most sensitive way and in the
most prudent way theappropriate use of our resources, but if we deny ourselves
accessto those resources, that is simply not being responsible to thevery
people who elected us.
You cannot stand in your places, you cannot ask day after
daywhat we are doing about jobs. You
cannot stand and ask day afterday what we are doing to ensure appropriate
levels of healthcare, about family services care, or any other kind of socialservices
care, without tending to the economic issues.
Mr.Speaker, in this province, a lot of that hinges on how you allowthe
ministry of Natural Resources to access some of thoseresources. I will give all of you an assurance because
of mycommitment, because of my absolute faith that it is possible tohave within
our fine province the finest of parklands.
We havethe capacity in our province to set aside substantial portionsthat
will not be developed, will remain in its wilderness statefor future
generations.
It was my pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in the last days of the
lastsession to leave this all behind me and travel to the boundaryline as far
north as you could travel in
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, we are fortunate in thisprovince
that we can, if we do it with considerable selectivityand only after we have
done our careful examination and consultedwith people, whether it is in the
Department of Energy and Mines,whether it is within the Forestry branch‑‑is
this appropriate,can we set aside this particular piece of land forever under
theEndangered Spaces Program? I am
satisfied we can.
I suspect that one of the more lively aspects of mydepartmental
work in the coming year will hinge on how we set outand how we proceed to do
this, how we set out and how we proceedto draw up a new parklands act that
clearly sets aside the factthat parks are there for people enjoyment. Parks are there forwilderness enjoyment. Perhaps we have to do a better job indefining
which is which.
*
(1510)
Many people forget that virtually the entire provincial
parksystem was superimposed on existing forestry reserves. Theforestry reserves were there first, and 35
or 40 years ago, whenthe provincial park system was started, it was just a
natural toput the park system, the provincial parks, the Big Whiteshellparks,
the Nopiming parks, onto existing forestry systems,because very often forestry
operations already had put someaccess roads into them. So people could access into these parks,but
it was always understood in
Mr. Speaker, that definition is falling into someconsiderable
controversy in the last little while, and it isoften aided and abetted
irresponsibly by members opposite. Isuggest
to all members opposite, balance is what we need in thisinstance. We can have it. Balance is what we have. We need thejobs. We need them not just for the sake of
providing somethingworthwhile for people to do in this province. We desperatelyneed the wealth that is created
out of our resources. You see,honourable
members want to keep forgetting that it is a questionof wealth creation. Simply all of us working for governments donot
create wealth. We pay our taxes and we do
our things, butall we can do is provide a service, but to whom are we providinga
service if we are not creating wealth?
In the livestock business‑‑you know, we sell
a lot of ourgrain, too much of our grain to the world for two cents a pound,but
if you put it through a hog, it is 70 cents a pound. If youput it through one of my animals, a
beef animal, it is a dollar apound. Now
that is value added. [interjection] That is pasthistory. Regrettably, it is even better if you put it
through aprocessing plant and you sell the bacon at $2 or $3 or $4 a poundfor
the pork chops and the beef at $3 and $4 a pound.Regrettably, your forebears
just of our previous generation, itwas the Schreyer administration that kicked
them all out ofhere. That has been done;
those jobs are in
There is no use crying over spilled milk. We still can doother value‑added
things. A lot of them have to do with acombination
of water, land and special crops. A lot
of it has todo with our natural resources that my department has a mandateover
to supervise‑‑mineral extraction, timber extraction. Donewith sensitivity, done with some
imagination, we can at the sametime draw in that great resource of encouraging
tourists andvisitors to come to our parks.
We have between five to sixmillion people come and visit our parks. We only have a millionpeople in this
province, so we have a lot of people coming fromother parts of the country,
other parts of the world to visit ourparks in our short summer season.
Our responsibility, Mr. Speaker, is to develop our
naturalattractions that will increase those visitations. As I canattest to, they have been improved
and increased at a littleplace called Oak Hammock. Members opposite may have forgottenthat
place. That is why I built that little
hacienda with anattached veranda for ducks and geese and mankind‑‑well,personkind‑‑to
enjoy. They are coming, both, record
numbers ofbirds and, in a short period of time, record numbers of people.Most
encouraging, so many of them will be young people, schoolchildren, that will
come for the first time coming out of an evergrowing urban society to have some
direct contact with MotherNature.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to makingfurther
contributions.
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, it is with mixedemotions that I
rise to respond to the Speech from the Throne.
Since we were last assembled here, life for many
Manitobanshas deteriorated. We are
approaching the Christmas season and,if you talk to teachers in inner city
schools, you will know thatthe Christmas season is the one that they dread the
most. Theexpectations of children are
raised very high by the glitz andthe advertising that are part of our 20th
Century world.
That disappointment, I think, can be seen in the children
ofinner city schools and it is reflected in their behaviour formany months
afterwards. Such, I think, will be the
experiencefor many more Manitobans this year as they face that decline intheir
wages, that downward spiral in wages for skilled workersthat so many people are
facing. Manitobans across the provinceare
finding themselves faced with a loss of jobs and withunemployment for their own
family and in their own neighbourhood.
But it would be impolite, Mr. Speaker, not to welcome youback,
to welcome the new members, for Portage la Prairie (Mr.Pallister) and for
Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), to welcome the newtable officer and the Pages, some of
whom, I gather, aretravelling quite long distances to work in the House this
year.I wanted to assure the Pages particularly that, although we oftenseem very
rushed, busy, perhaps we do not always express ourappreciation at the
time. I wanted to let you know that in
spiteof all that, we do certainly understand the difficulties underwhich you
work and appreciate the duties you perform for us.
Mr. Speaker, I think you have also had an interesting
year.It has been one, I think, that has given you a number ofinteresting
opportunities to meet with Francophone legislatorsfrom across North America,
and also, in your role on theCommonwealth Parliamentary Executive, you have had
theopportunity to travel to London and to meet with other Speakersfrom across
the world, in fact, who share your goals inmaintaining the fairness of our
democratic forums. I want towelcome you
back, Mr. Speaker, to assure you of our continuingsupport in the task that you
perform with such equanimity andsuch good humour, and I do so with genuine
respect.
What did the Premier (Mr. Filmon) hope to accomplish withthis
astonishing retread of press releases that are masqueradingat his sixth throne
speech? This government, Mr. Speaker,
hashad six opportunities to chart a course for
The general reaction that I heard in the press and on thestreet
is that this year's throne speech was no different thanthe others, and I think
one of the most startling things that Ifound in the reaction that I heard on
the street is that no oneis really fooled anymore. There is, in fact, a growingrealization that
what is said in those throne speeches is indeeda fair representation of the
limited vision and ideologicalperspective of the current Manitoba Tory party.
* (1520)
But, of course, Mr. Speaker, there are some
differences. Ithink there is a little
less bravado in this one, less of themindless boosterism of past speeches, and
there is a recognitionthat Manitobans, like Canadians, are looking for more
than thecandy floss, more than the platitudes of R.B. Bennett, more thanthe
transparent reassurances that tomorrow will be sunny andwarm. It may be, even now, that ministers have
become tooembarrassed to continue to blame their difficulties on the NDPgovernment.
If you have ever wondered, Mr. Speaker, as I have, what
iscontained in those big briefing books that they bring to theLegislature every
Question Period, I think what you will probablyfind on the first page is
"Blame it on the NDP"; page 2, "Blameit on the NDP"; page
3, "Blame it on the NDP"; page 4‑‑hold it,[interjection]
There is no room for it; page 5, "Conditions aretemporary, do not adjust
your set." On page 6 we heard
today,"It is an international problem," the old Trudeau mantra.
I think one day we may find that there will be a page 7
wherethey will acknowledge the foresight and the fiscal planning ofthe
government of Howard Pawley, which gave them the FiscalStabilization Fund and
the rainy day fund which has sustainedtheir last six budgets.
What is most striking, of course, is what is missing fromthis
throne speech. Member after member on
this side of theHouse has spoken of that.
There is no analysis of the past year,no sense for Manitobans of the
context of this package of retreadpromises, platitudes and limited
proposals. One can understandwhy this
past year has been a painful one for many Manitobans.We have seen little shift
in the overall unemployment rate. Itremains
exceptionally high among young Manitobans.
It remainshigh in the city of
In the strategic industries that
I think perhaps one of the most delicious parts of the
thronespeech was when the Lieutenant‑Governor's substitute, theAdministrator,
started reading the sections about the offloadingof the federal promises and
literally the chuckles went throughthe House.
It was not just on our side, and it was not just inthe press
gallery. Right through the House, people
saw throughthe transparency of those crocodile tears that were being shed onbehalf
of federal offloading.
Make no mistake.
Every Tory member in this House sends hismoney, sends his support,
continues to support Brian Mulroney,continues to defend him in this House even
today, in spite of theoutrage that they profess to support.
All around us this Christmas we see the impact of thederegulation
initiated so long ago by Lloyd Axworthy and thefederal Liberals.
The loss of the jobs at Air
This Tory party is a party of self‑congratulation. Theyboast about being right on course. In the words of the Premier(Mr. Filmon), they
have never been prouder to be a ProgressiveConservative. Are they so out of touch that they cannot
hear thefears and worries that are on the lips of all Manitobans, cityand
country, rich and poor, those with jobs and those growingnumbers without? There are some in my caucus who believe thatthis
is the case, that this is a government which is arrogant,isolated and
bewildered by the economic changes of the worldaround them. Indeed, there is much evidence for suchobservations.
If you ask yourself why are they so apparently blind andimpervious
to the increasing hopelessness around them, I thinkyou must admit that there
are other conclusions that must bereached.
Like other modern Tories before them, they have decidedthat the
restructuring of the
High levels of employment, they believed, would be
acceptablebecause, and I genuinely believe they thought it would betemporary,
but it would only be temporary if the government hadmade the necessary changes
in the economy to create the workeradjustment policies. It would have been temporary had they foundthe
economic niches in advance that would provide some economicstability for
Manitoba and, above all, it might have been moretemporary had they provided for
the education and training thatare required for any community in the new
economies being createdaround the world.
They did none of this.
They supported the Free TradeAgreement and its extension to low‑wage
We find none of these reflections in the throne
speech. Whatthe throne speech gives us
is airbrushed
Let us not be deluded into thinking that free trade,deregulation,
a high dollar and high interest rates had nothingto do with the crises we are
facing. Each played their part.Each is a
fundamental key to Tory policy. Each of
them took usdown the road of closures, bankruptcies, loss of homes and farms,unemployment
and despair, and that is the true face ofconservatism today.
In
*
(1530)
The cry for less government is one of the mantras of
thesenew Tories. They foster the belief
that public policy has a verylimited role to play, and we heard it very clearly
from theMinister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) the other day, a very limitedrole to
play in our society.
They have two advantages in expounding this particularphilosophy. They have powerful allies in some
corporations,including the media, whose interests are served by no regulation,no
national boundaries, no taxation and no limits to corporatepower. Secondly, when the Tories are in power, they
are able topursue policies which deliberately diminish the role ofgovernment
and offer self‑fulfilling prophecies to the generalpublic as well as to
those whose interests are served by theweak, ineffective governments such as we
have seen in Manitobafor the last few years.
In fact, I was struck in a small way by the speech of themember
for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) the other day, when he talkedabout his frustration
in a government office. He had notreceived
very good service. He talked, he banged
on the desk.The employees eventually came over, and he read out a sign, whichI
will not repeat here. [interjection] Unparliamentary language,yes. What did the former minister, the member for
Rossmere,conclude from the poor service and the somewhat insulting signthat was
behind these government employees? He
concluded thatthey were overstaffed.
As a member of the Legislature who sits next to the
Ministerof Government Services (Mr. Ducharme) every day, did he once, forexample,
ensure that that sign was removed, as it should beremoved? Did he inquire into the conditions of work in
thatparticular location? Did he make any
effort to change the natureof government services that he was faced with? No.
His answeris, they are overstaffed, government is ineffective,
governmentis weak‑‑a very small example, Mr. Speaker, of theself‑fulfilling
prophecy of Tories in action, whose real agendais to diminish the role of
government and to diminish the role ofpublic policy.
Why are the Tories floundering in education? Why are thereno systematic training
opportunities being offered? Why arethere
so few programs of labour adjustment here?
Why do we havethe pathetic spectacle of a Premier (Mr. Filmon) faced
with aloss of hundreds of jobs from CN pleading to be treated fairly byhis
Has this government already reduced sections of the CivilService
to the level where they do not have the capacity torespond, in a policy sense,
to such blows? Yes, that is partlyit,
but is it not that fundamentally the new Tories do notbelieve that public
policy has any role to play in mitigating theimpact of the market in this
way? The tragedy of the long‑termimpact
of federal and provincial Tory regimes is that thereduction of government and
its ability to deal with economiccrises has led to a loss of public confidence.
When a community does not believe that it can, through
itsdemocratic institutions, shape its own future, then I believe youbegin to
face the disintegration of society. The
market isglobal, but democracy is local, Mr. Speaker, and I believe thatone of
the most important tasks after the next election will beto rebuild that sense
of community in Manitoba and to restore topeople the sense that public policy
has an important andeffective role to play in shaping our world.
It was Margaret Thatcher, not Gary Filmon, who proclaimedthat
there was no society any longer, just individuals, but it isGary Filmon who cut
$10 million from our community colleges,eliminated 900 positions from the Civil
Service, refuses to acton the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, has no plans for the
innercity of Winnipeg, reduces the role of the community in Child andFamily
Services, and has no intention of dealing with the issuesof unemployment our
community is facing. By the time the newTories
have finished with this country there will indeed be onlyindividuals at the
mercies of global capitalism.
Mr. Speaker, the social services and the opportunities
formobility through education will have been considerably diminishedas a result
of the policies of the federal and provincialConservatives. Yet have such policies ever formed a part of
theelectoral platform of either of these Tory governments?
What they do make much of, however, is their false claims
tohave kept taxes down. The call for no
more taxes clearly suitsthe interests of those Conservative supporters who are
now, as aresult of high interest rates and federal tax changes,appropriating a
greater proportion of the national wealth.
It isclearly also the case that the middle‑income earners across
thiscountry and across this province are bearing the cost ofproviding essential
community and municipal services.
There should be no tax increases for this group who, I
knowfrom my own constituents, are finding it hard to repair thedamage of the
high interest years and to cope with the GST.
Theyknow that they are looking at a long‑term future under thisgovernment
where they must pay an increasing share of the cost ofmunicipal services and
education or watch their communitydeteriorate and their children's future
threatened. No one Imeet is under any
illusion that these federal and provincial Torygovernments have not increased
the tax burden on the ordinarypeople.
They are well aware that the burden of support for ourinstitutions and
community has shifted to the middle-income earner.
The evidence is mounting that the Tory governments in
Ottawaand
What we have seen in
We all know the horrifying numbers for the United Stateswhere
under Reagan and Bush 60 percent of the increase innational income has gone to
the richest 1 percent of the people.Like the members opposite, Reagan and Bush
believed that a risingtide raises all boats and that the wealth would find its
way indiminishing amounts to others, the disastrous trickle‑downtheory. The shocking truth, Mr. Speaker, is that the
poor in theUnited States have become much, much poorer. The poorest fifthof the country with an
average income of just over $8,000 peryear saw their incomes decline in those
years, decline by 9percent. The richest
fifth, over $110,000 per annum saw theirincomes increase 29 percent, and the
richest one percent ofAmericans, over $500,000 a year per annum, increased
their wealthby a stunning 77 percent.
That is the consequences of thetrickle‑down theory.
You may think this has no effect on
For many years, Mr. Speaker, these free marketeer Tories
haverewritten history in their own image, to portray the end ofsocial
democracy, to portray the end of history, to portray atriumphant march of the
market economy. Perhaps Clinton'svictory
has put something of a damper on that imperial style.Certainly those who voted
for and worked for a Democratic victoryunderstood the necessity of a return to
active government anddemocratic control.
* (1540)
It is no less the case in
These losses have been compounded by the systematic
transferof federal jobs out of the province, in transport, inenvironment, in
the military and others to the point where eventhe devout Tory Minister of
Justice (Mr. McCrae) thinks that wehave paid our share. But this government seems devoid of anyinfluence
in
Most disturbing, as the opposition has so frequently
pointedout, is the loss of long‑term jobs in the manufacturing sectorand
the absence of any hope for those Manitobans, both young andold, who have seen
their world disappear, because as you talk tothem, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly
what is happening. The worldthat they
have known in their working life or that they hadexpected as a result of their
education has simply crumbled.People are looking for leadership, for economic
plans and for anew future for Manitobans, and I do not think that any Manitobanwill
either forget or forgive the destructiveness of these Toryyears.
Given all of this, what vision does this sixth throne
speechoffer to our fellow citizens?
Well, there is Sunday shopping.Got a problem? Sunday shopping is the answer. We will have theopportunity to debate that
soon, but it hardly seems anappropriate answer to the many serious problems
facingManitobans, and I think it is being dealt with like that by mostof the
public and the press.
I suppose the new vocabulary of innovation is one of the
mostnoteworthy aspects of this speech. I
wish that the government'spast record could give us some expectation of success
here, but Iam particularly shocked, Mr. Speaker, that there are no newideas, no
innovation in the area of training or post‑secondaryeducation.
The university review has a very limited mandate. Thecommunity colleges have been in limbo for
more than a year andare still in limbo waiting for direction from their new
boardsand waiting, too, for the next round of cuts, which will fallheavily on
their shoulders. Yet thousands of
Manitobans areunemployed. Too many of
them have inadequate basic education.Thousands of them need, demand retraining
in the newtechnologies. They want
work. They want the new technologies.They
want education. They want the training
opportunities.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) has spoken at
lengthabout the lack of concern in this throne speech for jobs and forthe
unemployed but, equally, Mr. Speaker, it must be stressedthat there is no
recognition here of the absolutely criticalnecessity of training and
retraining.
In spite of Tory ideology, we cannot rely on the privatesector
for this. It has become common
knowledge, in fact, thatCanadian employers spend less than half of what is
spent in theUnited States on training and one‑eighth of what is spent by
theBritish and German private sector on training and retraining inthe labour
force. Yet the only initiative we have
seen from thisgovernment is Workforce 2000.
It has been a long time in gettingup to speed. It grants money to the private sector, and it
doesnot necessarily require an increase in the proportion of moniesdevoted to
training by
Nor can we rely on the federal Tories, who do talk
trainingand yet, in 1991 and 1992, cut $100 million from the Canadian JobStrategy
and then froze all future contributions.
Even then,they continued to claim as their contribution the $1.8 billionbeing
taken out of UI funds from the employee and the employer.In real terms, the
federal government is providing less now thanit did in 1989. There will be no help there.
This government of
There is no secret, Mr. Speaker, to the success of theeconomies
of
They have encouraged the co‑operation with labour
byattacking FOS, by eating away at the rights of workers to bargaincollectively,
by diminishing the work of the Workers CompensationBoard and by taking an adversarial
position with labour on almostevery possible occasion. Their much vaunted Economic InnovationCouncil
has two out of 20 labour representatives.
The lectureseries which masqueraded as a conference which the governmentheld
a few weeks ago had about the same proportion ofrepresentation, 10 percent of
labour, their 10 percent solution.A solution that they paraded with great pride
as a greatachievement in the House the other day. Yes, it is a beginning,Mr. Speaker, and it
may represent progress for this Tory caucus,but it is insufficient to create
the climate of change, reformand co‑operation that will be required to
alter the conditions oflife for Manitobans.
It is clear now to everyone in
It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the intellectual well has
rundry across this Chamber. They are
dispirited, and it is a sorrysight. Now
is the time for that final stand‑aside gesture.Stand aside and allow
those who believe in government to serve,those who believe in co‑operation
with labour and business andeducation to bring us together, those who believe
in publiceducation to open the doors to training that has been closed toso many
Manitobans.
*
(1550)
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the market is global. We are indeed facedwith an international
crisis, intensified in
(Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr.Acting Speaker, it is my pleasure to now
respond to the Speechfrom the Throne, one which I believe did offer Manitobans
hopeand encouragement and energy from this side of the House.
First of all, I would like to extend congratulations to
theSpeaker in his returning capacity, because I know that hisposition is not
always an easy one in this House; there are manyopinions and many behaviours
which he is required to manage. Ithink
he manages them very well and with tact to all sides of theHouse.
I would also, Mr. Acting Speaker, like to take a moment
towelcome the Pages because I believe that these young peoplereally play a very
important part in the work of ourLegislature.
I have had the personal experience of dependingupon them and recognizing
that we as members really do benefitfrom their commitment. I do recognize, too, that our Pages takeon an
extra amount of work because they continue with theircourse load in their
school programs as well as freeing up acertain number of days a week to come to
be with us in the House.
I really look forward to having a chance to get to know
thembetter and to watching them as they become acquainted with theoperation of
this House, and something which, I hope, willinspire them and help them as they
continue on in their careerpaths.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I would also like to take a moment towelcome
our new members to the House. I would
like to start bywelcoming our new member, the member for
I would also like to take a moment to welcome the new
memberfor Crescentwood (Ms. Gray). I am
looking forward to getting toknow that member as well, and look forward to
working with her inthe House on matters that I know are of real mutual interest
toboth of us.
Then, Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to take a moment
toextend best wishes to the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs.Carstairs) as she
has announced her intention to step down asLeader and to provide a recognition
for the work she has done andto wish her well as she is now making the
decisions that she hasdescribed for her own future. We do wish her well on this sideof the House
and I personally wish her well. I also
mention themember for Rupertsland (Mr. Harper) who has also tendered hisresignation
in this House, and I wish him well as he makesfurther decisions about his
future on behalf of himself and alsohis family.
Mr. Acting Speaker, it is now my first opportunity to
takepart in a full session as Minister of Education and Training, andI am
looking forward to this opportunity. I
can tell you that tothis point my opportunities as minister have led to realexcitement
and energy, particularly in the field of education. Ihave had to learn a great deal. There was no doubt about thevastness of the
work in education across this province, but Ihave really sincerely enjoyed the
learning process.
I am happy that my personal background, with my graduate
workin education, has provided me with some experience and aframework to begin
working in my portfolio. Then my active
workin the school system before I was elected as a member of thisLegislature
has also been a great help, because my work and mytraining as a school
psychologist, which is a specialty amongthose people practising in the
discipline of psychology, hasallowed me to be part of many schools across this
province,several school divisions, and it has also allowed me to workwithin the
system, within the school system with young peoplefrom kindergarten right
through the end of Grade 12, and to havehad the experience in a very first‑hand
way before I assumed myportfolio as Minister of Education, to really see first‑hand
theissues and the concerns and the challenges that face education inManitoba,
stakeholders in education in Manitoba, the challengesfor parents, the
challenges for young people, the challenges forteachers and the challenges for
educational leaders such assuperintendents.
I have had a very good experience so far, and part of
thatexperience has been the first‑hand opportunity to work withschool
divisions for a start. When I became
minister, I had theopportunity to meet face to face with school divisions and
tohear from them not just on paper but in meetings where we wereable to discuss
their communities, their challenges, what theirissues are, and I have certainly
enjoyed the opportunity to workwith those school divisions.
I have also had the opportunity to work in the post‑secondaryarea
as well and then to meet with representatives of that area.In my own work
background, I did teach at the University ofManitoba and now have the pleasure
of meeting my students as theyare now taking their place in the work
force. That opportunityto teach at the
post‑secondary level really helped acquaint mewith the issues of the
university. But, as I have said before,at
the time of my election, I was also a student at theuniversity, so that very
recent experience on both sides of thepost‑secondary educational system
has really helped me as I beginto talk with people in post-secondary education.
I have enjoyed the opportunities that I have had to meet,throughout
the time that I have been minister, withpost‑secondary representatives,
representatives of all fouruniversities in
Mr. Acting Speaker, I think it has really been an
importantpart of my time as minister to note that I have had theopportunity to
meet with organized groups, with educationalstakeholders but, also, with
individual Manitobans. I have madea
great effort in my time as minister to make sure thatindividual Manitobans
believed that their individual concerns andissues were also very important to
me and that time was made forthose individuals to meet with me either in their
home divisionsor in my office.
Since I have become minister, I have tried very hard to
do alot of visiting. It has been very
important to me not to simplyhear from Manitobans while I am in my office in
the Legislaturebut instead to hear from Manitobans in the places where theylive,
so I have begun a system and a routine of visiting acrossthis province. I spend two days a week in the field. That twodays a week has allowed me to visit
with school divisions, tovisit with our colleges, to visit with our
universities. I havegenuinely been
impressed by Manitobans' interest in education.It is certainly a part of
Manitobans' lives, it is certainlysomething that they are eager to talk
about. I think it is veryimportant to
provide Manitobans with the opportunity to speakabout education.
I also have to say too that as minister I have really
just inmy life as a Manitoban, apart from being minister, had theopportunity to
see some very positive things about our schoolsystem. Just last evening, I was a celebrity reader
at theFestival of Trees and when I went to read to young Manitobans Ialso had
the opportunity‑‑
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner): Order, please.
I am wonderingwhether the honourable members, if they do chat, whether
theycould do it a bit more quietly so I can hear the ministerspeaking instead
of them. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Vodrey: In my
visits as recently as last evening, I had theopportunity to hear two wonderful
choirs from
*
(1600)
I have taken the time, as I said, however, to visit
withinthe system. I visited within the K‑12
system. When I makevisits to school
divisions, I make a point of visiting first ofall with parent groups if they
would like to have someopportunity to sit and discuss their issues.
I visit with school boards and take the time to meet
schoolboards to talk about their concerns in their home area. Then Igo into the schools and I make a point
of actually going into theclassrooms. I
have an opportunity to speak to teachers in theclassroom. Teachers have been very kind in taking a few
momentsfrom their class time and allowing me to speak to students. Whatthat has allowed is an opportunity for a
real feel for educationin Manitoba, no longer just the recipient of some of themessages,
but an opportunity to actually go out and experienceeducation in Manitoba.
I plan to continue those visits, because I have then
heardfrom people directly on the front line, from parents who arewanting me to
see first‑hand what their concerns are regardingperhaps their own child's
circumstances to see that first‑hand.It has been very, very helpful. One of the things that hashappened as a
result of it is that I have received lots ofletters from children, from school
divisions and from teachersacross this province of a very personal nature. Children nowhave decided that they can actually
sit down and they can writethe minister a letter, and they can tell me the
things that areon their minds.
I want to make sure that I have put on the record how
much Ihave enjoyed that correspondence with students and with teachersand with
parents across this province because, again, it is avery personal experience in
education.
I have spoken to parents.
Again, I would like to come backto parents, because I think that their
involvement within oureducation system is very vital. We certainly referenced that inthe throne
speech and wanted to make a point of stating how thisgovernment recognizes that
the role of parents is vital to theeducation system, and also the role of
teachers.
I have had the pleasure in these visits that I have had
inthe community to sit in staff rooms with staff of schools andspeak directly
about their concerns so that they are not justhearing via a letter what the
plans and the challenges ofeducation are but that we are able to speak about
these face toface.
When we do speak about them face to face it is very clearthat
education and the changes that are coming to education areextremely
exciting. They are exciting in the
field; they areexciting to families. We
have a very exciting job to do with allthe partners in education.
I have also enjoyed visits to our community colleges, andthat
has been a very helpful experience, to sit with the deansand the instructors of
our community college programs and to talkwith them about some of the innovations
and the excitingdevelopments that have taken place within our community
collegesand, also, to step into some of the programs in our communitycolleges,
to sit with those students to find out what motivatedthem to either continue on
in a sequential way into the programthat they are in or what it was that
motivated them to return tothe educational system and what they hoped to
achieve as a resultof being a part of that educational system. Again, it has been avery first‑hand
experience in working with the colleges.
I have also had the same opportunity to visit theuniversities. I have visited with the boards of governors
of allof the universities and had a chance to hear from the boards asmanagers
and from the administrators, the presidents what are thechallenges, what they
see ahead.
I also take as much time as I can to meet with students
atthe university level simply by being out at the universitiestaking the
opportunity to meet with them or the regular meetingsthat I have with the
presidents of the students associations.That has been a very, very big help in
terms of keeping a veryclose contact with that side of the educational system,
thestudents, the recipients of the education.
What are their issues?
What are the strengths and theweaknesses that those participants are
seeing within the system?I really want to make a point of talking about the
importance ofregular contact with students, because they are the ones who havemade
the decisions to attend a course, and it might be auniversity course, it might
be a college course, it might be ashort‑term training course, but to make
sure that we have had theopportunity to talk about what brings them there, what
they arelooking forward to and what kind of assistance can be offered tothese
students or how they see the strengths and what they aresaying to people when
they are out in the community about thework that they are doing.
So the visiting has been extremely helpful as we are nowlooking
at this process of reform and education.
There is nodoubt that we have a great potential in
Education is going to be an extremely important place for
usto focus our attention, and I am very pleased to have theopportunity to
influence some of the decisions that we will bemaking.
As a result of the visits that I have made and the
contactsin the community, there have been some issues which Manitobanshave
wanted to make sure that we as a government and that I asminister knew about,
and I would like to start with our K‑12system to talk about what those
issues are, as I have been toldabout them.
The first issue, Mr. Acting Speaker, on the K‑12
side whichhas been raised to me is the issue of standards andaccountability. There has been in Manitoba a great deal ofdiscussion
about standards of curriculum, and parents, teachersand educational
stakeholders want to make very sure that ourcurriculum is of a standard that will
allow our young people tothen go on to whatever post‑secondary courses
they would like toachieve, and that it will allow them to be competitive, not
justwithin Manitoba and not even just within Canada, but competitivearound the
world, because there is a strong recognition now thatwe are not dealing just
with those within our immediategeographic area, but instead we are looking
around the world. Ifwe do not achieve
the best and provide the best, someone elsewill do it for us or do it in our
place, and Manitobans want tobe sure that we have a way of evaluating our
standards to achievethe very best.
Manitobans have also in that same area said that they arevery
interested in accountability. They want
to make sure thatthe standards of the curriculum that we are implementing areactually
being transmitted to the student population and thatthere is a sense of
accountability, that students are achievingwhat we hope and believe that they
are achieving, and they haveasked this government to take a look at the issue
ofaccountability, and they have named that as a very specificinterest and
challenge for us in government.
The second area that Manitobans have raised, and I think
itis also a very important one, is that they have said, while weare looking at
issues of standards and accountability, we alsohave to make sure that our
teachers then are provided with thetraining in their preservice years so that
the training actuallymatches the reality of the classroom, and that in fact theteacher
training will allow our teachers then to translate thestandards and
accountability to the students whom they areworking directly with.
In addition, Mr. Acting Speaker, they also have said thatthey
want to make sure that teachers in the classroom who arepresently teaching are
supported so that those teachers cancontinue to move with the ever‑increasing
challenges of ourcurriculum.
We recognize that education in
Mr. Acting Speaker, the third area that Manitobans haveraised
as an area of interest is the area of the learningenvironment, because what
they have said during the time that wehave been speaking is that with an
excellent curriculum, strongmeasures of accountability and support to teacher
training and toteachers while they are working, we still have to make sure thatthere
is a learning environment in which young people, or adultstudents, are able to
achieve what they would like to achieve.They have wanted to make sure that we
are able to begin to paysome attention to the kind of environment that students
areworking in.
*
(1610)
We have taken all of those issues very seriously, those
threemain categories very seriously, and our response is that we willbe looking
through our process of reform to make sure that wehave a very strong plan to
deal with those. We would like tomake
sure that we do it together.
Mr. Acting Speaker, Manitobans are also asking us to do
somebalancing. Manitobans are saying to
us that they would like tomake sure that we have a trained work force, that our
studentscome through the educational process prepared and with skills toapply
that to the workplace. It might be not
only technicalskills, but attitudinal skills of how an individual, a Manitobanwould
settle in in the workplace, get along with peers, managethe relationships of
the workplace. So they have wanted to
makesure that through our curriculum we are able to begin to developattitudes
as well as technical skills for Manitobans to work.
The balancing part is that Manitobans are also saying, we
arenot just training people for the work force, but we are alsoproviding an
education. We are also making sure that
ourstudents in
So that is one of the challenges of education in these
nextfew years, to make sure that we have met the balancing requiredin the
education that we provide for our students.
Mr. Acting Speaker, in the post‑secondary level,
one of thechallenges that we have been asked to make sure that we work withis
the development of a learning culture. I
have used thosewords very specifically.
I have used the learning culture asopposed to a training culture, which
has been used many times bythe other side of the House, because I think it is
the learning,the active part of learning which is what we are asking and whatManitobans
are asking us to help develop. It is an
attitudinalsense as well as a practical sense that we are in fact turninginto a
learning culture.
In addition, in the post‑secondary area, Manitobans
haveasked us to look at what kind of assistance and support we canprovide for
people so that they can progress on to post‑secondaryeducation.
One of the very big challenges that I have had as
minister isto look at the Canada Student Loans Program and to look at someof
the strengths and weaknesses of that program.
In particular,Manitobans have brought forward concerns around the weekly
loanlimit. I have discussed that in this
House before.
One of the challenges that I have had is to meet with thefederal
minister responsible for the Canada Student Loans Act andmake sure that he has
heard the opinion and the concerns ofManitobans regarding the Canada student
loan and to ask him verydirectly to look at making those changes and to inform
us ofthose changes as soon as possible.
So I have had two face-to-face meetings with the federalminister
and in addition, as Minister of Education, I take partin the Council of
Ministers of Education across
When I do represent these interests I make sure that I
havehad the opportunity, first of all, to meet with students inManitoba so that
I can take their opinions they have expressedface to face and very directly to
the federal minister. Thenwhen I come
back from those meetings, I have made sure that wehave also had a meeting so
that I can keep those students who areaffected by this as up to date as
possible about the plans of thefederal government and what has been told to the
provinces.
Those two issues, the learning culture and the matter ofstudent
assistance, are issues which, I think, go across thewhole post‑secondary
system, but when I look at very specificparts of the post-secondary system I
would start with thecolleges. Our
colleges are moving towards college governanceApril 1, 1993, and that is coming
very soon.
The reasoning behind this move is to allow the colleges
to bemore receptive and more responsive to the needs of their regionsfor
training programs so that
It has been a very important move to provide for each ofthose
colleges, then, a board of governors, and through thosecolleges and through
their board of governors, to allow thedecisions to be made at a very local
level and representative ofthe communities who will benefit from the training
offered bythose community colleges.
We have named interim boards to the community collegesbecause
we had wanted, before the permanent boards were named,for the colleges to have
the opportunity to begin to respond tosome management by the public. At the moment we have a veryclose relationship
with the college, and by the naming of theinterim boards, it does allow for the
new system ofaccountability to have a trial period and to have an opportunityto
work it out so that when we move to full governance on April1, the colleges
will be very ready for the change inaccountability and the move.
In addition to the colleges and their movement to
governance,we also are very concerned about the training in
We did have several years ago the Skills Training
AdvisoryCommittee, which was one of the first steps, and some of therecommendations
of that particular report were to say that weneeded to make sure in the
planning of our strategy that we hadinvolved all segments of Manitobans, that
we made sure that weinvolved business, industry, labour, community,
education. Thatis a report that we have
taken very seriously.
We have also, Mr. Acting Speaker, been negotiating a newfederal
Canada‑Manitoba Labour Force Development Agreement, andwith that
agreement we will come to an agreement with Canadaregarding the use of training
funds and how those training fundswill be funneled into Manitoba and how they
will be used.
But I think it is very important on the training side and
inrelation to that agreement to recognize that agreement is notstrictly a
boiler plate agreement, an agreement that shouldoperate with no changes. Instead, that agreement has been shapedby the
provinces that have so far signed it, and we in Manitobaare working very hard
with the federal government to make surethat we have a made‑in‑Manitoba
agreement, an agreement whichsuits our province with our geographic and our
population and ourdemographics, that that agreement is the best one possible
forManitoba.
I do look forward to our signing that agreement as soon
aspossible and also making sure then that with that agreement weare able to
involve Manitobans in the planning of our labour-market strategy.
We also recognize in planning the labour-market strategy
thatwe do want to make sure that the interests of business, industry,labour,
education, institutions are also incorporated into it,and that we make sure
that there is a mechanism for their voice.So we will be making sure to consult
Manitobans, to have theopportunity to incorporate the opinions of Manitobans,
as wedevelop how Manitoba will very specifically implement the LabourForce
Development Agreement.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the word "partnership" has
been used. Istill think it is one of the
best words to describe what we aretrying to do in the area of education
totally. We would like tomake sure that
all the interests are represented. I
think onearea of reform that has already begun in education in
*
(1620)
In our training area as well, in addition to partnership,
weare also looking at the role of sectoral planning. We want tonot look at maybe just very
individual and ad hoc kinds ofplanning, but we can work together with sectors
of this provinceto make sure that the work done is complementary and
supportive.Part of the experience has been that, with sectoral planning, weare
able to attract other kinds of business and industry andlabour and
training. So the sectoral planning, I
think, isanother important movement forward.
Mr. Acting Speaker, in the area of training, the other
veryimportant issue that has been raised during my discussions withManitobans
is the issue of articulation: that we
want to have alook at how Manitobans can progress from one part of theeducational
system into the next; that we recognize students whohave perhaps studied at a
community college, have worked in theirfields for some time, may wish to attend
a university program.We want to look at how they can articulate the skills and
thetraining that they presently have and apply that into the nextkind of a
program that they would like to embark upon.
Then, Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to speak for a
momentabout universities. We recognize
that our universities inManitoba have a very great role, but the presidents of
theuniversities in my discussions with them had said before theannouncement of
the university review that they wanted to be veryclear about the role and the
mandate of universities in
The University Review Commission has a very broad
mandate,because it looks at a number of issues, a range of issues as theyrelate
to university, issues such as accountability andgovernance structure. It also has an end part of the mandatewhich
says to the commission: and other
matters that are ofimportance to Manitobans are to be considered by the
UniversityReview Commission. So there
has been a very great attempt tostructure and to give some direction in terms
of areas to beexamined, but we have also wanted to be very clear to Manitobansthat,
as they see other issues, those issues should also beincluded in what is
brought forward.
Mr. Acting Speaker, those are the issues and the
challengesthat Manitobans have raised about education in the time that Ihave
been minister, and I have had an opportunity to speak tothem. We do have several initiatives currently
underway to dealwith some of those issues.
I would like to speak about those fora few moments before I get into the
initiatives of reform of thisgovernment.
We had commissioned a panel on legislative reform of ThePublic
Schools Act because we recognize in this province therehas not been a
significant reform of our Public Schools Act sincethe early '80s. In fact, there had not ever been a series ofpublic
hearings to reform The Public Schools Act in
That panel took their work very seriously. They went outacross
Mr. Acting Speaker, one other point that Manitobans
raisedwas that though they believed that they were very well heard bythis
committee, they wanted to have the opportunity to look atthe recommendations
and the information before this governmentdrafted legislation and brought it
forward, because they wantedto make sure they were accurately represented and
that we wouldnot go through an extremely long and cumbersome process ofamendments
at the committee level. So I have spoken
toManitobans and made sure that they understood that this would bepossible for
them.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I know my time is limited, so I wouldlike
to simply list a few of the other initiatives which arecurrently underway. We did put in place a new education financeformula
in January of last year, and school divisions haveexpressed, first of all, the
fact that they now believe they havesomething they can rely upon. They also said that they wouldlike to make
sure that this was not written in stone in the firstround and that there would
be an opportunity for that financemodel to undergo some shaping as issues were
raised by divisionsto be sure that it was as responsive as possible. So I have hadan advisory committee on the Ed
finance model. That committeehas been
working very hard and has been responsive to the schooldivisions of
Mr. Acting Speaker, again, my time is running out. I want tospeak briefly about distance
education because we have also heardfrom Manitobans of the importance of
distance education and itsvery important role in some of our smaller schools
across theprovince, some of our more isolated schools across this province.
We have put together a task force on distance
education. Ihave received Phase 1 of
their report, and that is out to schooldivisions for review, and I am looking
forward to Phase 2 oftheir report within the next few weeks. This task force hasworked extremely
diligently, and this government has taken theirwork very seriously.
We have also established the Student Support branch,
becausewe recognize that students are at risk across this province ofsometimes
not being engaged in the educational system, and wewant to make sure that local
solutions for the engagement ofat‑risk students are put in place. So this government putforward $10 million,
and local schools were encouraged to bringforward plans on behalf of
students. Now we are in the firstyear of
funding some of those plans, and I am looking forward toseeing the
results. I have had a chance to visit
across thisprovince some of the programs put in place by the Student Supportbranch. It has been really an interesting and an
excitingopportunity.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I also have to say that Workforce
2000,an initiative of this government, has been a very important and avery
successful initiative. We have had over
1,500 workerstrained. We have had over
11,000 employees in larger Manitobacompanies take advantage of the training
opportunities, and wehave had 1,800 employees trained in the area of aerospace.
So we recognize that this partnership, the partnershipbetween
our business and industry and labour in
In closing I would just like to say that this government
nowis looking at reform. We have a solid
basis of initiatives inplace and we have heard from Manitobans. Manitobans are askingfor better assessment
and evaluation. They want to know where
westand. They are wanting to know
clearly about roles andresponsibilities, and they are asking for an increased
emphasison reading and mathematics and on training skills, and we haveheard
them.
The Manitoba education forum will be a very important
step inachieving these goals, but if I can leave you with one thought itis to
say that we want to make sure we achieve this inpartnership with Manitobans,
that we want to make sure we haveincorporated the ideas that Manitobans
bring. It is vital for usto work
together.
The process of change that we have embarked upon is notalways
going to be an easy one. We recognize that
it will notalways be easy, but we have to keep our communication between ourgroups
open, and we have to keep working together.
*
(1630)
We have to look for long-term solutions, Mr. Acting
Speaker.We are not looking for quick‑fix solutions such as I have heardfrom
the other side of the House. We are
looking to capitalizeon our potential and to make our public education and
trainingsystem the very best that it can be.
Manitobans should be proud now, and we expect them tocontinue
to be proud with the education system that we have herein
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
I anxiously await his participation in the debate. I can saythat he is following an individual
who is going to be awfullytough to beat.
Many had thought he was a maverick of sorts, andit will be very interesting
to see how the residents of Portagela Prairie will be represented this time
around.
I would also like to acknowledge the presence of the newPages. It is always encouraging to see high school
studentswitnessing or participating in the democratic process. I can atleast advise them that they will see
some things that might turnthem off at times, but all in all it is all for a
very worthy,worthy cause.
I once again compliment the table workers, the
individuals inthe public gallery, the individuals who actually have to typewhat
we are saying. Those are the
individuals, of course, inHansard.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I wanted to pay tribute to my Leader,
themember for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs), who has been not onlya Leader of
the Liberal Party to me but also a very good friend.She has provided me with
many different opportunities both withinthe Liberal Party and outside of the
Liberal Party. She hasdemonstrated her
confidence like no other political leader inthis Chamber has, in terms of as a
House leader where she and myfellow colleagues in the caucus have entrusted me
100 percent. Idid not need to go back to
consult once I had been givenpermission to go ahead and negotiate a deal, and I
think thatsays a lot about leadership and the qualities that the member forRiver
Heights brought to it. Once she gave the
responsibility,whether it was to a critic or to myself as House leader, sheentrusted
us with her full confidence.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the member for
Mr. Acting Speaker, I did want to‑‑because I
noticed inlistening to everyone thus far whom I have heard, no one has madereference
to the Constitution, and I wanted to make very briefreference to it because
this is something in which very fewpeople actually stood up for what Manitobans
and in factCanadians wanted‑‑very few people.
We had a free vote in our caucus. Mrs. Carstairs, myself,the member for The
Maples (Mr. Cheema), and there were others whowere on the no side, but in
particular‑‑[interjection] Well, forthe Deputy Premier (Mr.
Downey), I was on the no side, and Ioften wonder where he was on this or many
members of his caucus,but they were not allowed to talk on the Constitution, or
theywere nowhere to be seen. But, Mr.
Acting Speaker, you saw aLeader that fought on principle and won a very good
fight.[interjection] Well, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) willhave his
opportunity to put his words, and hopefully he willaddress the whole issue of
the Constitution, but I just wanted toallude to the fact that this is something
that Mrs. Carstairs puta lot of effort and energy into and, I would argue, had
a verysubstantial impact on the outcome of the whole constitutionalreferendum.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I wanted to go into the throne speech
atthis time. You know, it was
interesting, the member for RiverHeights (Mrs. Carstairs) said she was going to
step down asLeader of the Liberal Party because she felt tired, and afterhearing
the throne speech, it makes me wonder why she steppeddown when I have seen a
throne speech that had absolutely nothingin it.
There was no new initiative except for one that I detected,and
that new initiative was a Liberal initiative, something thatwas being talked
about back in 1986. What they did with
thatparticular initiative is they changed a word. Instead of aPharmacare card, it is a health
card.
Well, that is really all I am going to talk about withrespect
to the throne speech because that is really all that wasthere. Rather, I am going to take this opportunity
to speak on anumber of different issues.
I want to start off by talking about the economy. Time aftertime, Mr. Acting Speaker, we see
the Minister of Finance (Mr.Manness), the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and other
ministers who willstand up, and they will try to defend the record of Manitoba
bycoming up with all these wonderful statistics.
Mr. Acting Speaker, there is an argument that can be madethat
the government will use the stats that are in their favourand the opposition
will use the stats that are in their favour,but I want to suggest to you that
what my constituents arethinking about and what Manitobans and the Minister of
Finance's(Mr. Manness) constituents are thinking about is the bottom line.
Let us go back into October of '88, when in fact there
were84,000 part‑time jobs, 415,000 full‑time jobs. In October of'92, there were 98,000 part‑time
jobs and 396,000 full‑timejobs.
Now the government would say that it is the net loss of5,000 jobs. Given the recession, given the world economy
andwhat is happening in
Mr. Acting Speaker, it is bad because you have to look atwhat
has actually occurred by losing the number of full‑time jobsfrom 415,000
to 396,000. One has to ask the
question: What typeof full‑time
jobs are we talking about? These are not
theservice‑oriented, McDonald's‑type jobs.
We are talking about jobs in the manufacturing
industry. InOctober of '88, there were
63,000 full‑time jobs in themanufacturing industry. In October of '92, there were 49,000.That
says a lot in terms of what has been going on in theprovince of Manitoba. That this government's plans, philosophy,whatever
you want to call it just is not working.
We see it in terms of what has been happening with thepopulation. You have a population shift where we have
provincialmigration at a negative. We
have had a net loss of individualsever since the third month of 1988, all the
way up to the sixthmonth of 1992. All of
the quarter reports have been on thenegative side. We have more people leaving the province ofManitoba,
because they do not have hope. They do
not have anyhope. This government is not
giving them any hope. Otherprovinces are
doing much better than the
*
(1640)
The Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Finance (Mr.Manness)
will often comment that our unemployment is much lowerthan all the other
provinces. Well, quite simply, if you
have anet decrease of 592 in three months and then 1,600 in the nextthree
months; 3,600 in the next three; 3,600 in the next, youhave, in the work force,
those that are losing the jobs areleaving the province. Those that do not have any hope areleaving
the province. So the unemployment
statistics are notnecessarily reflecting in terms of how well the provincialeconomy
is doing.
The Liberal Party in its opposition has brought forward
inthe last couple of years ideas in which we have thought wouldhelp the
economy. One of the examples I want to
cite is the3‑percent sales tax drop for three months, to drop it from 7percent
to 4 percent in order to increase retail sales, possiblyprevent some
individuals from shopping across the border, to givean incentive for Manitobans
to shop within
So, Mr. Acting Speaker, I do not know why the government
doesnot take advantage of more of the ideas that are coming acrossfrom the
opposition benches, because there have been plenty ofthem in all of the
different departments, because I sat throughthe Estimates and I have heard many
of the different ideas thathave come forward.
I want to touch on health care, because health care is anissue
which everyone, no doubt, feels very, very strongly on. Weare at a time when everyone recognizes that
there is a need forhealth care reform, and let me preface any comments I make
onhealth care by saying that we did introduce, so that it would bevery clear to
all Manitobans, to all political parties in thisChamber, that the Liberal Party
supports the medicare system. Wein fact
introduced Bill 51 in the last session.
Under Bill 51, we want to put into legislation publicadministration
the comprehensiveness, universality, portabilityand accessibility, the five
fundamental principles of healthcare. We
want to put that into legislation.
Now, the reason why I want to start off by saying that isthat
whenever anyone talks about changing health care you leaveyourself open for
criticism that might not necessarily belegitimate, that might be more
opportunist. We received thatcriticism
from the NDP critic of Health. When our
critic ofHealth stands up to ask a question, she makes reference to ourcritic
of Health being an acting, the other Minister of Health.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I would argue that there is a
difference,that opposition has more of a role than just to oppose, that wehave
a role to provide a responsible alternative to what iscurrently there. When the government does something good we
willtell them they have done something good.
When they do somethingwrong, we are going to tell them they have done
something wrong.
When I explain to my constituents about health care
reform,and I must admit the critic of Health was at one of the meetingsthat I
was at in which I had the opportunity to talk about healthcare reform and,
also, so was the member for Wellington (Ms.Barrett). I believe that even the critic agreed with
what I wassaying. I had former NDP MLAs
come up to me and tell me that itwas a very well‑delivered speech, that
it made a lot of sense. Ihad
professionals telling me that.
I am going to give it in a nutshell in terms of what I
said,that what is most important in reforming health care is theservices that
we are going to be giving to the individualrecipients.
The example that I used at that time is, if we have to
closesome health care beds and we can open up personal care home bedsand
enhance home care services for our seniors, that is not NDPpolicy. That is what the NDP oppose, for the critic
forEducation on the NDP side. That is
the way in which we should bemoving.
You can go into any given hospital, at least in the city
ofWinnipeg, in rural Manitoba, I would argue that you could even gointo some of
the hospitals there, in particular in Brandon, andyou will find that there are
seniors that are in those hospitalsthat do not have to be there, that they
could be in a personalcare home.
By shutting down one health care bed where you have a
senior,you could open up a personal care home bed. You can also providehome care services for
two other seniors. You can improve thequality
of health care services to all, and it is not going toincrease the cost of the
health care department by one dime.
Mr. Acting Speaker, if you do it on a larger scale, you
aregoing to be able to create beds for individuals that needoperations for hearts,
for whatever the operation might be, wherewe have the line‑ups. That is tackling the whole question ofhealth
care responsibly. That is how you
enhance our health careservices. We all
have a responsibility not to go for theheadline. It is very easy to say to your constituents
that theTories are cutting or taking away health care beds, and you cangive the
fear into the minds of the individuals, but there wasnot one individual that
disagreed with me, that came up to me anddisagreed or opposed what I was saying
on that particularevening, even the critic for the NDP or the Deputy Leader for
theNDP (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis).
When I think of health care, I think that there are a
numberof other things. We need to spend
more on prevention. Byspending more on
prevention, we are going to save more at theother end. I would like to see a real debate on the
medicaresystem. What is a health care
service?
We have been criticized, our Leader, the Liberal Leader
(Mrs.Carstairs) has been criticized for saying that we should maybecharge a
quarter for the slippers that are given out.
That issomething that we were criticized for and were told that we wantto
implement a user fee. The NDP says, yes,
that is true, butthe NDP in
Mr. Acting Speaker, I want to move on to education. I amvery disappointed in the Minister of
Education (Mrs. Vodrey). Wehad thought
that, the Minister of Education having replaced theformer Minister of
Education, we would have seen somethingsubstantial happening in the Department
of Education. What wasone of the very
first things that she did? The whole
reviewpackage, the whole idea of reforming the school divisions and theboundaries
and so forth were put on the back burner indefinitely.[interjection] Yes, that
is what the Minister of Education isdoing.
Mr. Acting Speaker, do you know that we have well over
350school trustees? In some cases there
is no candidate to run, soone has to be appointed. In the city of
I am a property taxpayer, and I am going to make a
suggestionfor a solution. I live in
Winnipeg School Division No. 1, whichhappens to be, for those who live in
Winnipeg No. 1, the heaviestproperty tax of all the different school
divisions. In Winnipeg1, total levy‑‑and
this comes out of the Finance department‑‑for1991 in
*
(1650)
The first thing this minister does when she comes in is
thatshe is saying that she is going to put it on the back burner.Well, I would
have suggested to you that the whole idea ofchanging the boundaries, of
revisiting the number of schooldivisions and the number of school trustees that
we have shouldhave been a higher priority than reducing the number of citycouncillors
in the City of Winnipeg.
How does a small rural school division compete with thelarger
school divisions that have larger tax bases, largerresources in terms of
providing expertise to the principals or towhoever it might be, to
students? Why, if we tackled this issueand
had the review, then we could be spending less money onadministration and
putting more money in our classrooms.[interjection] Well, the NDP critic says,
how much? Well, wewould have likely had
a better idea in terms of how much had thereview gone ahead. The NDP policy is status quo, leave it theway
it is; if anything, increase the number of school divisions.That is the NDP
attitude towards this, and that is not goodenough, Mr. Acting Speaker.
I look at education, and now that we mention NDP, let us
hearanother area of responsibility that the NDP have noresponsibility. That was very poorly worded. Let me try thatagain. Let me tell you another way in which the New Democratsare
hypocrites. That makes sense.
[interjection]
For the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), this will be a
goodone. Private schools. The NDP philosophy is to preach classwarfare. They figure by preaching class warfare, they
will beable to manipulate the vote. That
is the only reason, Mr. ActingSpeaker, that they do not support private
schools. Ed Schreyer,when Premier,
supported it. Howard Pawley supported
it.Whenever the NDP stand up to criticize private school fundingthey talk about
Balmoral, they talk about Ravenscourt, the twobiggest. Well, are they the two biggest?
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
I think the critic for the NDP better look twice before
hesays that they are the two biggest.
Let us talk about twoothers. Why
not St. Joseph The Worker School Inc., which happensto be in Transcona, which
happens to have 133 students? Many ofthe
individuals who have students going there are on welfare.They are not
rich. They are not part of the
elite. They arecollecting welfare.
What about St. Edward's School? St. Edward's has 206students. The member for
What can be done?
Well, why not look at
So when I look at education and I see those two points,
as Isay, I am disappointed in the Minister of Education (Mrs.Vodrey). We need that reform. I am disappointed in the NewDemocrats because
they preach, as I say, class warfare, and thatis what it is.
Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to comment on social
assistance.We in
There are many things that can be done in order to do
that.A couple of examples that I would like to cite is that right nowthere is a
limit in terms of how much an individual receivingsocial assistance can
make. After they make that, if it is $1more,
they lose $1 on their welfare cheque.
It is providing incentives, possibly on 60‑, 40‑cent
dollarsso that there is an additional incentive for someone to work theextra
hours. It means providing courses. It means enablingindividuals to better their
educational skills to better equipthem to enter into the work force through
providing courses.[interjection] Well, Mr. Speaker, that is an area in which,
as Isay, there can be a lot of improvement.
If the will of thegovernment was to proceed and to do something for
those that arereceiving social assistance other than helping them get on tosocial
assistance, as we have seen in the last four years, wewould be much, much
better off.
I also wanted to talk about housing. Earlier today I broughtup the question with
respect to the Residential RehabilitationAssistance Program to the Minister of
Housing (Mr. Ernst).[interjection] To the Minister of Housing? No, I knew that we donot deal‑‑we
do not have a direct impact on it. The
federalgovernment provides the loans that are forgiven and additionalloans. The City of
But the point that I was trying to make, and I think
everyoneinside the Chamber caught on to it except for the Minister ofHousing
(Mr. Ernst), was that the provincial government does havea role to play. The
You know, the city of
But, Mr. Speaker, this is something that rural Manitobashould
also be benefiting more by in a very large way.
Portagela Prairie has many homes that would benefit from a program ofthis
nature. So does the city of
Housing co-ops, Mr. Speaker, I have had other
opportunitiesto speak on housing co‑ops.
In fact, I have introduced theresolution on housing co‑ops. I believe that housing co-ops area real,
viable alternative to the current nonprofit housing unitsthat we presently
have.
*
(1700)
I look at the riding that I represent‑‑whether
it is GilbertPark; the riding that the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett)represents,
Blake Gardens; the member for Burrows (Mr.Martindale) represents‑‑I
believe it is Burrows‑‑Lord Selkirk.There are thousands of
nonprofit housing units in Manitoba, wherethe government is the landlord and
the individual living in theresidence is a tenant.
There is a better way and we can convert. Agreements can beachieved to allow these
units, if not for no other reason but ona trial basis, to convert into housing
co‑ops, because what youhave done by doing that is no longer are they a
tenant to thegovernment, they are a part‑owner of the place in which theyreside. I would argue that would do wonders in terms
of bringingup morale, of ensuring individuals have an opportunity toparticipate
in the management decisions.
I personally believe that they could do a better job than
agovernment agency can. So this is the
type of direction that webelieve that the Minister of Housing (Mr. Ernst)
should be movingin. I would be
privileged if he wanted to have a trial area andwas wanting to use Gilbert
Park. We have a very active tenantsassociation;
Amie Chartrand is the current president and has beenworking very hard. I know he has contact with Saul Schubert, thedeputy
minister. There are many housing units
that would lovethe opportunity to be able to try something of this nature. Iencourage the Minister of Housing to act on
it.
There is some concern that I have in terms of the InfillHousing
Program. I will be raising those
concerns once we gointo the Estimates. I
know, with the former Minister of Housing,he and I had gotten into a few
debates on this particular issue.I do plan to continue to find out why it is
the government haschosen to move in the direction that they have and then will
basemy decisions after I hear a few more of the arguments. Thatcould be a very good reason, especially
if we can allocate someof those resources over to RRAP‑‑[interjection]
R-R-A-P.
Well, then I also wanted to talk a bit about Labour. Anotherarea that I am the critic for. The Labour Adjustment Unit hasreceived one
year; it was a third of a cent for every worker inthe
Mr. Speaker, when I look at the global economy and what
ishappening with free trade, first with the States‑‑and the currentConservative
government is determined to move ahead with freetrade with Mexico. It does not matter what either the Liberalsor
the New Democrats or the people have to say, they are movingahead with it. Here, while we are seeing and witnessing thischange
in the work force, there really is no real increase atall, period, to such a
fundamental need as a labour adjustmentunit, something that is going to help
those individuals who arebeing laid off, whether it is in the manufacturing,
the produce,whatever the industry, textile.
They do not have the resources, and I think that is
somewhattragic. You have to be able to
invest in individuals, in thepeople. If
you do not invest in the people of the province, theeconomy is not going to
improve.
Final offer selection‑‑and I have talked
about final offerselection so many times‑‑I think clearly
demonstrates why theLiberal Party is best positioned to really deal with labourlegislation,
to deal with what is in the best interests of theworker.
I know that both the Conservatives and the NDP would
questionme on that particular statement, and all I would do to them issuggest
that they read over the hours and hours and hours ofdebate in final offer
selection and take me to the side and tryto convince me how the workers
benefited by what took place onfinal offer selection. Mr. Speaker, the worker did not benefit.The Tories
brought it in because of the chamber; the NDP opposedit because of a very few
select individuals in the unionmovement. [interjection] Well, coming from the
Deputy Leader ofthe New Democratic Party (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis), she has
got to bevery careful because everything I say I can prove beyond a shadowof a
doubt.
Some Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
Mr. Lamoureux: Well, if
I have leave to speak till 5:30, I willbe more than happy to expand on it.
An Honourable Member: Table it.
Mr. Lamoureux: I do not
even need to table it; all you have todo is read Hansard.
Mr. Speaker, I want to move into another area that I amresponsible
for, the critic for Multiculturalism.Multiculturalism is a wonderful thing, and
I think everyone inthis Chamber would agree to it. When I think ofmulticulturalism, I think in
terms of a lot more than the songand the dance that we see during Folklorama,
and I know thatthere are a number of individuals here that participate inFolklorama. That is because it is a lot more than song
and dance.
We are talking about social and economic and politicalintegration
into all aspects of society, whether it is theChamber of Commerce, whether it
is within the union movement,whether it is in this Chamber or in City Hall,
wherever it mightbe. When I think of
multiculturalism, that is the type ofmulticulturalism that I think about.
I had an interesting example that was given, and maybe
one ortwo of you might have heard this particular example, but it wasgiven to me
from a constituent of mine who teaches at one of thelocal schools. She made reference to a student teacher that
hadcome into her class.
The student teacher went down the class to find out what
theyhad for breakfast. The first student
said that she had‑‑Ibelieve it was fried rice and pork. The student teacher wassomewhat mystified
about this and continued to go down. The
nextchild that answered that particular question from the same ethnicgroup as
the first child said, well, I had fried eggs or eggs andtoast or something of
that nature. At the end of the class,
theteacher brought the student teacher to the student who said thatshe had the
eggs and toast and asked if in fact that was what shehad for breakfast. The response was, well, no, I had the friedrice
and pork. The reason why she said that
is because she feltthat was the right thing to say.
Well, I have had fried rice and pork for breakfast. That ispart of our heritage, and that is
what, again, multiculturalismis all about, the heritage and cultures of all the
differentethnic groups.
People, whether they are individuals such as the studentteacher
or if they are more of the extreme individuals, racist orwhatever it might be,
Mr. Speaker‑it is an educational process.The only way we will really and
truly become a multiculturalsociety is by having education. Education is so very important.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that my light is already flashing.
I wanted to comment very briefly on tourism. Tourism is avery important area that I
believe that this government has notgiven enough time to. One of the things that can be done, andthe
member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) has commented on this,is the whole idea of
taking tourism away from the Department ofIndustry and Trade and having it go
to a department such asHighways, so that we can have more effort put on tourism
in theprovince because it is one of the areas in which the provinceshould be
able to expand upon.
*
(1710)
Mr. Speaker, I am really cutting this short. I am going
I would hope through the government and the New Democratsthat
we will in fact see some sort of consensus that would allowthis resolution to
be debated.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Bob Rose (
I would also like to welcome our new Pages and tell thembeforehand
I do appreciate the good work that they do for all ofus. I would also like to welcome back the staff,
the Clerk'sstaff, both the new and the old, and we still, as MLAs, very muchappreciate
the assistance that they give us on a daily basis inhelping us perform our
duties.
I also welcome, Mr. Speaker, this, my fourth opportunity
tospeak to the motion to adopt the throne speech, as moved andseconded so
capably by the member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay)and the member for Portage
(Mr. Pallister), or more accurately Isuppose, to speak to the amendments, as
proposed by the Leadersof the Opposition parties. More experienced members in thisChamber are
accustomed to returning to another session withchanges in the make‑up of
the membership of the LegislativeAssembly.
This is my first experience, again, with such a change.
I would like first of all to acknowledge the contributionmade
to our province by the former member for
I would also like to welcome, as others have done, the
newmember for
I viewed also with interest, from my vantage point in
thistop southeast corner of the Chamber, the musical chairs in theLiberal
caucus, the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) movinghalfway up the ladder
or, in this case, down, perhaps poised forthe next move. We have the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock)moving
closer to his natural friends. This was
a surprise,because many of us expected him to stay close to the aisle tofacilitate
an early exit. We note the member for
An Honourable Member: The only
one who has not moved is Gulzar.
Mr. Rose: Gulzar
has not moved.
Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the
tworecently announced changes. Tuesday's
official resignation ofthe member for Rupertsland, Elijah Harper I think marked
an endand perhaps a beginning, but an ending certainly to therepresentation of
the first aboriginal in this House.
Now being the first in anything is never easy. I am surethat there are many women who can
attest to that as they taketheir places in all elements of our society. So, in itself,being the first aboriginal
earned Mr. Harper a place in history.That recognition will be more than just a
statistic, for hebrought the hopes and fears and aspirations of his community
tothis Chamber. With the fickleness of
There is a tide in the affairs of men,Which, taken at the
flood, leads on to fortune.
His simple no in this Chamber captured the imagination ofCanadians
and, for that matter, people in other countries. Thereis beauty, simplicity and a certain
amount of poetic justice inusing the rules developed by other cultures to
highlight lack ofrecognition of our original culture.
Historians will long debate whether the demise of Meech
Lakewas good or bad for
The other recent announcement of the resignation of Mrs.Carstairs
as Leader of the Liberal Party is also, I think, worthyof comment. I will admit a decade ago, as a card‑carrying
memberof the Progress Conservative Party, to watching with some glee asPierre
Trudeau decimated the Liberal Party in western Canada.There was amusement as a
supporter of another party in watchingthe provincial Liberals choose and
discard Leader after Leader.Then there was downright puzzlement at their last
choice, SharonCarstairs. I did not know
then, of course, of her determination,her capacity for hard work, her ability
and her genuine concernand aspiration for good government in
I do not think it is an exaggeration to say shesingle‑handedly
restored the Liberal Party in
In the long run, well, in our partisanship, we, as in
sports,cheer for our own team. Our
citizens are better governed ifthere is an articulate representation for the
many differentpoints of view. Mrs.
Carstairs has restored that to Manitobapolitics, and I have to note on the way
by that, if there isanyone who brings different points of view to this
LegislativeAssembly, it is the Liberals.
I spoke earlier of fate, and I think of the 1990 electionwhen
my tide came along, more like a trickle really than a tide,but a change at
least for many of us in this Chamber, for had notMrs. Carstairs success in 1988
denied a majority government,bringing about the 1990 election, quite a number
of us would notbe here today, this 3rd of December 1992.
I do not know where we would be, but I submit to you thatMrs.
Carstairs had a very direct effect on many of our lives and,more indirectly, on
the lives of all Manitobans.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that both Elijah Harper andSharon
Carstairs will be noted in history, and it has been apleasure and an honour for
me to have been in the Legislatureduring part of their tenure.
I am also convinced that history will be kind to anothermember,
our Premier Gary Filmon, in a different and perhaps lessdramatic way, but
recognition just the same of a Premier alreadyrespected as a statesman, or
statesperson, if that suits better,respected as a statesperson across Canada; a
Premier who, withhis cabinet and caucus, recognized the dramatic changes takingplace
in our society, recognized the need to adjust to thesechanges, recognized the
inevitable disaster that awaits a societythat continues to borrow from our children
and their children inorder to finance today's standard of living, recognized
thenecessity of being part of an emerging world economy and, mostimportant of
all, recognized that our citizens have the abilityand determination to accept
these new challenges of a changingworld if allowed to be unfettered with
punishing taxes andcrushing debt.
*
(1720)
All these recognitions and more are reflected in the
thronespeech as this government continues to develop a climate whereour
citizens can function to their full potential.
Our provincewill be well positioned when this recession ends, and it
will end.
The reaction of the of the two opposition Leaders, asillustrated
in the two amendments before us, was predictable, andI was heartened to note at
least three different media outletsusing that very word to describe the
reaction of the oppositionparties to the throne speech‑‑predictable‑‑predictable
becauseManitobans are coming to understand that the opposition partiesrefuse to
deal with the reality of changing times.
Yes, we can continue to be in a recession and, no, it was
notmentioned in the throne speech. The
opposition seems to be veryupset about this; why, I do not know. Perhaps they get somesatisfaction out of
gloom and doom. When everyone knows we
arein a recession, stating the obvious is hardly necessary, and itis this
recognition of the obvious that causes continued deficitfinancing which the
opposition is again quick to point out.
We recognize, Mr. Speaker, that there are some casualties
aswe move through recession and the changing times. We only haveabout 90 percent of our people
who are gainfully employed, andrecognition of necessary and increased social
services as well asmaintaining our health and education standards requires this
kindof deficit investment.
The trick is to understand the balance so as to bewell‑positioned
for the future, and nothing I think, Mr. Speaker,illustrates the lack of
understanding of deficit financing on theopposition benches, nothing
illustrates this more than theircontinued insistence that the Howard Pawley
government left asurplus. It is still
costing us Manitobans $500 million a yearinterest on this NDP surplus.
Now, I agree that if you govern in times when the economyaround
you is booming and at the same time raise taxes 17 times,there should be a
surplus, but our government cannot deal withshould‑have‑beens and
might‑have‑beens. The first
thing ourMinister of Finance (Mr. Manness) has to do every year inpreparation
for a budget, before anything else, is fill in theline of $500 million interest
on the NDP surplus left to thisprovince.
Mr. Speaker, I have also noted a new buzzword emerging
fromacross the way, reregulation. I am
not sure what this means orwhat the definition is, but we will not dwell on
those niceties.The point is, what does it mean?
Will their definition be asaccurate as their definition of a surplus?
The member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) commented on thereregulation
of business in NDP provinces, that after being taxedand regulated into
insolvency, they will be reregulated intocontinued operation. Does this mean the employees will bereregulated
to continue working even though there is no money topay salaries? Is this the long‑awaited NDP solution
toescalating health care costs, to reregulate hospitals, doctors,nurses, the
entire health care complex to continue to functionwithout compensation? What nonsense, Mr. Speaker. Had this kindof new think been in place 50 years
ago, we would be left withfirms like Consolidated Buggy Whip to fuel the engine
of oureconomy.
Time does not permit comment on all the oppositioncontributions
to this debate. Anyway, I think all
Manitobansrecognize that much of the rhetoric in this Chamber is justthat. But it is worthwhile, Mr. Speaker, I think,
to watch forlittle things, the spontaneous indicators.
I direct attention to a question from the member for SwanRiver
(Ms. Wowchuk) to the Minister of Rural Development (Mr.Derkach) a few days
ago. It was a good question, and Iparaphrase: What jobs are being created in rural
The minister responded with the example of the expansion
ofthe Ayerst plant in
Real jobs, Mr. Speaker?
Does the doubling of a plant'sproduction not create real jobs? Does the doubling of productionunits on farms
all across
What does the NDP caucus define as a real job? Painting afence, planting flowers in the
ditch, measuring the streets inFairfax,
Now, I know the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) has
onlya few colleagues with much understanding of rural Manitoba, butwith her
farming background she should take the time to explainto her colleagues that
one does not plant a crop one day andexpect to harvest it the next.
In two short years this government has prepared the
fertiledevelopment fields in rural
Well, Mr. Speaker, I exaggerate for the sake of
effect. Thelast administration in
When the opposition point to deficits and debt in otherprovinces
and other countries, they are correct.
Constantdeficit financing is not confined to political philosophy but,surely,
it needs to be confined to the past.
What is importantis that we recognize that we are rapidly reaching our
limits.The changing times demand carefully controlled deficits in timesof
recession and stabilized and reduced debt in times of growth.
Many, many of our citizens realize this, but not all, andsurely
it is time, just as all political parties practisedcontinued deficit financing
in the past, now for all politicalparties to show leadership to recognize this
terrible threat andfollow a responsible course, just as does this government
andthis throne speech.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about a project that istaking
shape in my constituency of
*
(1730)
A few years ago some interested people formed the
BoundaryCommission North West Mounted Police Trail Association. Thisgroup chronicled the historical events of
the western movementfrom Emerson of the Boundary Commission to survey and
establishthe border between
In 1991 the provincial government recognized this
historicalroute by officially declaring Highway 3 from Morden to
One of the very first visitors from out of province and
outof country to this trail, Mr. Speaker, was a group called ICOMOS,the
International Council on Monuments and Sites, the principaladviser to UNESCO,
the United Nations Educational, Scientific,and Cultural Organization. This group toured across the trailfor three
or four days last spring, examining all the varioushistoric sites that are
available to see along this historictrail.
Now, not content with this, and I am coming now to thecurrent project,
the association‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please. Pursuant to Rule 35(2), I aminterrupting
the proceedings in order to put the question on themotion of the honourable
Leader of the Second Opposition party,that is, a subamendment to the motion for
an address and reply tothe Speech from the Throne. Do members wish to have the motionread?
Some Honourable Members:
Yes.
Mr. Speaker: THAT the
Amendment be amended by adding thereto thefollowing words:
And this House further regrets that:
1. this
government's state of intellectual exhaustion has prevented it from taking the
actions required to improve
2. this
government has failed to respond to the needs of the people of Manitoba during
the recession in that it has not provided any job training and retraining
strategy;
3. while
criticizing the federal government for offloading education costs, this
government has itself transferred education costs from the provincial tax base
to the property tax payer, and failed to articulate specific reforms to the
education system except substantial cuts to the funding of the education
system;
4. this
government has not made sufficient efforts to consult and involve the public in
its reform proposals for the health care system;
5. this
government has not implemented a comprehensive, co‑ordinated, independent
Health Reform Monitor, to monitor and report publicly on the progress and
impacts of reforms in the health care system.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members:
No.
Mr. Speaker: No? All those in favour of the motion, please sayyea.
Some Honourable Members:
Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those
opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members:
Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my
opinion, the Nays have it.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader): Yeas andNays, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Call in
the members.
The question before the House is the motion of the
honourableLeader of the Second Opposition Party (Mrs. Carstairs) that is asubamendment
to the motion from the Address in Reply to theSpeech from the Throne. Do members wish to have the motionreread?
*
(1740)
Some Honourable Members:
No.
Mr. Speaker: No,
okay. All those in favour of the motion
willplease rise.
A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result
being as follows:
Yeas
Alcock, Ashton, Barrett, Carstairs, Cerilli, Cheema,
Chomiak,Dewar, Doer, Edwards, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake),Friesen,
Gaudry, Gray, Hickes, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Maloway,Martindale, Plohman, Reid,
Nays
Cummings, Dacquay, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Ducharme,
Enns,Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau,Manness,
McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Neufeld,Orchard, Pallister, Penner,
Praznik, Reimer, Render, Rose,Sveinson, Vodrey.
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 25, Nays 28.
Mr. Speaker: I declare
the motion lost.
Is it the will of the House to call it six o'clock?
Some Honourable Member:
Six o'clock.
Mr. Speaker: The hour
being 6 p.m. this House is now adjournedand stands adjourned until 10 a.m
tomorrow.