LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday, March 9, 1993
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 214‑The Beverage
Container Act
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for
Motion presented.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, I
briefly want to put on the record once again, since this is not the first time
our party has introduced this legislation, a piece of legislation which is long
overdue.
It is very clear that in provinces where there is such a
piece of legislation, 80 to 90 percent of soft drink bottles are indeed kept in
circulation; they are returned. We have
a voluntary system; we get back less than 50 percent. They are filling our landfill sites, they are
a disgrace to the environment, and it is time we changed.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 215‑‑The Public
Schools Amendment Act (2)
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood):
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for
Motion presented.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, this
bill is being introduced to entrench in The Public Schools Act the principles
which should be embodied in
This bill acknowledges that parents should be fully
informed of the progress of their children in schools so that they are able to
make informed decisions about their children's education. Parents should have the right and the
opportunity to be heard by the teacher, the school staff, school boards and the
Department of Education.
This bill will also entrench a parent's right to
assistance for children who have special needs.
Finally, parents have the right to expect that a school
system has safeguards that govern them.
The rights which this bill proposes to entrench in The
Public Schools Act are not only parents' rights, Mr. Speaker, but the rights of
our children who are, after all, the future of
Motion agreed to.
TABLING OF REPORTS
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to allow
me to revert back to Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports? [agreed]
Under Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports, I am
pleased to table, in accordance with Section 55 of The Freedom of Information
Act, the report of the Ombudsman for the calendar year January 1, 1991, to
December 31, 1991.
Introduction of Guests
Mr.
Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us
this afternoon Senator Morford‑Burg from the state of
On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to
welcome you here this afternoon.
Also this afternoon, we have seated in the public gallery,
from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to
welcome you here this afternoon.
* (1335)
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
enRoute
Employment Status
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey). Since the time that Air Canada has been
privatized by the federal Conservatives in
We have asked questions before about the status of these
financial services jobs in
I would like to ask the Deputy Premier: What action has this government taken to keep
those 100 jobs from enRoute located in the city of
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and
Transportation): Mr.
Speaker, let me first of all indicate to the member that there have been
ongoing discussions taking place with the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and Air Canada,
as well as Canadian, in terms of the impact of some of the decisions that are
being made, over which we basically have no control.
The member is well aware of the negotiations that have
taken place initially between Canadian and Air
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to hear the Premier (Mr. Filmon) is actively engaged in maintaining the
jobs in
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Can the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) explain today
the announcement made by Diners Club and enRoute that their operating division
in
How does that impact on
the 100 jobs that are now located in the city of
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and
Transportation): Mr.
Speaker, we are trying to get that information. I would have to take the
question as notice and try and get back to him.
enRoute
Employment Status
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would refer the Deputy Premier
(Mr. Downey) to an announcement made this morning by Citibank
My question to the Deputy Premier is: What is the status of the 100 jobs in
Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Highways and
Transportation (Mr. Driedger) I believe has addressed the broader issue as it
relates to the services provided here in Winnipeg.
Let me assure the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer),
unlike him and his party when they had the most unfriendly tax regime in the
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):
Well, Mr. Speaker, hot air does not keep jobs in
So I ask the Deputy Premier, now that he has this little
tirade off his shoulders, could he please tell Manitobans what is the status of
the 100 jobs presently located in
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and
Transportation): Mr.
Speaker, I do not have the precise information on that, and that is what we are
trying to establish. There are
announcements made and we are trying to establish exactly the impact that it
will have. As soon as I have that
information, I am prepared to share it with members here. While we are getting this information, we
also want to make sure that we can take and stress the importance of these jobs
to
* (1340)
enRoute
Employment Status
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) is the
Chair of the Economic Development Board of Cabinet, and he has had contact, as
the Minister of Transportation has indicated, on the enRoute situation.
I would ask the Deputy Premier: When was the last time they met with the
Citibank operations? What was the status
of those discussions in terms of those 100 high‑tech jobs in
Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, as far as any meetings or any
activity as it relates to the Premier, I will have to take that part of the question
as notice.
Vision Capital Fund
Funding Recipients—Women
Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I will
respond to yesterday's question by the Leader of the Opposition as it related to
the Vision Capital program, a program that was established in 1987 by the
former administration which set up the board of some six individuals who were
all men. The Leader of the Opposition yesterday in his question certainly has a
short memory.
The establishment of Vision Capital, Mr. Speaker, allows
for those people investing in Vision Capital to have a representative on the
board. The government had the
opportunity to put one individual on that board and that individual is the
Deputy Minister of I, T and T who is Mr. Goyan, but the initial establishment
of it was set up by the NDP government, of which six people were appointed, all
of them men.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we did have 41 percent of people
on boards of commissions who were women, but if we had six men on that economic
committee and you have nine men on that committee, we are both wrong and we
both should change it. I do not mind
admitting that. So on behalf of our
previous government and that committee, I think we were wrong and we should
have changed it.
enRoute
Employment Status
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): A final question, Mr. Speaker. This is a very serious question for the 100
families tonight that have the press release from Diners Club and enRoute and
Citibank. They do not know whether these
100 new jobs announced in
I would ask the Deputy Premier to immediately obtain the
information that he should have today, and inform the House of whether we have
lost those 100 jobs in
Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier):
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that when that
information is available, we will make it available to the House. I can assure him as well that we will do
everything we can to encourage employment and maintenance of jobs in this
province.
Vision Capital Fund
Funding Recipients—Women
Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): I should further add, I was negligent in my responding to
yesterday's question, and I said I would bring this information forward. He makes reference to boards and commissions
having 41 percent female when he was in government. That has now risen to some 43 percent under
this government.
In 1987, Mr. Speaker, in the executive positions within
government, I believe they had something like 8 percent. Eight percent of those
individuals were women. That has now
doubled to almost 16 percent under this government. That is in executive positions within
government.
Economic Growth
Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for the Minister of Finance.
On the 5th of May of this year the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
stated in this House that: Every single
one of the forecasters is suggesting that we will be in the top three or four
provinces in the country in terms of economic growth. In '92, '93 and '94 we will be in the top
half of provinces. The figures
demonstrate we are getting the results and the performance that we are looking
for.
Well, sad to say that we are not in the top half. We are seventh in this country now. The Conference Board of Canada has just come
out with its forecast and has downgraded
I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a very simple
question. Why are his economic policies
producing this result?
* (1345)
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the fact that the
ranking by the Conference Board for the '93 forecast is dropping. The final forecast at this time shows a
number just slightly below the national average, I believe a 2.5 percent
forecast of growth for the
Let me say that we still see some very encouraging signs,
particularly in the investment side.
Manufacturing shipments in themselves were also encouraging. Let me say that the national average, I would
say, given the experience over the last two years, I would never, ever want to
lay whatever claim the member wants to make at this point in time on the basis
of one snapshot in a period of time.
Those forecasts changed dramatically in 1992. They changed dramatically in 1991. I would welcome an ongoing debate with the
member on any series of numbers, but I say to him it is foolhardy to dwell on
one number at one point in time.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, the
Finance minister is correct. They come
out positive and then they get revised downward each year. That has happened
every year since this government has been in office.
Out‑Migration Statistics
Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker,
another indicator of how well we are doing is whether or not people are
choosing to stay here. The fact is in
the first three quarters of the recent year, nearly 5,000 people have chosen to
move out. That is a net loss of
4,894. Last year, 7,663 and the year
before that, over 10,000. Over 40,000
people have chosen to leave this province under this Finance minister's
rule. Why?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, population growth from October 1,
'91, to October 1, '92, totalled 4,000 people.
I would say to the member that population growth in the province is
stagnant, as it is in seven other provinces in the land. It is a well‑known fact that the main
province experiencing population growth right today is the
Mr. Speaker, after
Mr. Alcock: In fact, Mr. Speaker,
the losses in manufacturing are greater than average.
Education and Retraining Programs
Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask the Finance minister how his policies in education to
remove money from education and training in this province square with his
vision of opportunities for all Manitobans.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite says that they are my
policies. I would remind, under the
parliamentary system, Executive Council is given the responsibility of making
decisions with respect to budgetary matters.
I invite the member, once I bring down the budget, and
that probably will not be in the month of March unfortunately, but I invite the
member to balance all of the decisions that will be made in the area of
education with all of the other decisions being made in all of the other
departments, and I would say to him, he would acknowledge that there would be
tremendous balance with respect to all the decisions made in government that
will be presented when the budget is brought forward.
School Divisions
Clinician Funding
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin):
Mr. Speaker, last week we asked the Minister of Education about cuts of
nearly 70 speech pathologists, child psychologists and staff at the Diagnostic
Support Centre which would affect the most vulnerable children in our
communities.
The minister's position was that a $45,000 grant for 700
students would enable divisions to hire their own clinicians and that services
would not be affected.
Mr. Speaker, since the Manitoba Speech and Hearing
Association has written in a recent letter, and I quote: Ms. Vodrey stated that the layoffs at the
Child Care and Development Branch will not affect services. We believe this is highly erroneous.
In other words, this minister was not telling the truth
in this House, Mr. Speaker.
I want to ask the minister‑‑
* (1350)
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the honourable member for Dauphin
to withdraw that remark and to rephrase his question.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly
withdraw that.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to
thank the honourable member for Dauphin.
Mr. Plohman: My interpretation of
it is not relevant here, of those words.
I want to ask the minister whether she will now admit
that hard‑pressed school divisions will be unable to meet the required
service levels and that in fact the information that she gave to the House was
not accurate last week.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, we have included within our ed
funding finance model a provision for the hiring of clinicians within divisions
because we recognized from the very beginning their importance to education for
special needs young people, in fact all young people.
The member may not know that there are many young people
in school who receive clinician services for a short or a longer period of
time.
The member perhaps was not listening last week when I let
him know, and when I let the House know and let the people of
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not
allowed for any operating funds. There
will be at least another $30,000 for clinician costs to divisions, an
offloading of over $2 million by this Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) on hard‑pressed
divisions.
I want to ask the Minister of Finance how he can claim
that this government is making decisions based on cost‑effectiveness when
it is obvious that the cost to the school divisions to hire these clinicians,
who do not have the economies of scale that the province would have with the
larger numbers, they will not be able to afford these and that there will be
extremely larger costs to the school divisions.
Will the Minister of Finance justify those kinds of
decisions?
Mrs. Vodrey: The member is not
very familiar with our school funding formula, so let me provide him with some
instructions. In that school funding formula, the grant provides for both the funds
to pay the salary operating dollars and also the administrative dollars. That has now been rolled into one grant.
Mr. Plohman: Will this minister
of privilege now admit that this‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for
Dauphin to refer to all honourable members as the honourable member for their
constituency or the honourable Minister of Education and Training, whatever the
responsibility.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, will this privileged
Minister of Education now admit that this ill‑conceived decision for the
people of
Mrs. Vodrey: I said on the first day that we
discussed this, there are already 10 rural school divisions, and one of them is
the member for Thompson's (Mr. Ashton) school division, which are currently
operating with their own clinician support, and they did not rely on the
Department of Education to hire their clinicians. What we have done through this is to, through
our clinician grant, allow individual school divisions then to hire their
clinicians.
By doing so, they will then have the control and be able
to provide the direction to their clinicians.
But I will also remind the member that we in the Department of Education
will still provide support. We will
still provide the supervision support for the certification of clinicians, and
that under our current formula, it will allow school divisions to hire more
clinicians than previously through our department.
The member disputes the truth. That is true, and also, Mr. Speaker,
divisions may decide‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would like to remind the honourable
minister that answers to questions should be as brief as possible.
Essential Services
Reduced Workweek
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): There is growing confusion about exactly what
this government is doing in terms of public services in this province,
particularly in regard to the enforced 10 days with leave and closure policy
that this government is bringing in, in terms of public services.
We saw yesterday, for example, that the
* (1355)
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker, as we announced at the time of the announcement of the reduced
workweek program, we would be asking each department to develop models within
their departments for the delivery of service, although the general model was
to go to the Friday and Christmas closure period.
That work is currently underway in each department, and
we will be able to make announcements closer to the time that the reduced
workweek actually comes into effect.
Mr. Ashton: In other words, the
government does not know yet.
Crown Corporations
Reduced Workweek
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson):
In terms of Crown corporations, since I asked questions on Hydro and MTS
on Friday, I would like to ask the minister responsible for the Liquor Control
Commission (Mrs. McIntosh), how are they going to enforce this 10‑day‑off
policy. For example, are they going to
be closing liquor stores for 10 days over the summer, Mr. Speaker, or do they
not know what they are doing yet?
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): You know, if we had announced all the details
of the plan at the moment, the member for Thompson would have accused us of not
consulting with departments or applying common sense.
Mr. Speaker, we announced a principle. We have plenty of time in which to make it
operational. We are consulting in
departments; plans are being developed.
The same rule applies to Crown corporations. They are in the process of developing plans
in their own operations, and those will be announced in due course.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, so the
same rules are being applied so, I take it, when it comes to liquor commissions,
they will not be closed on Friday if they are considered an essential
service. I still do not have an answer.
Civil Service Layoff Statistics
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I would like to ask another question, final
question, Mr. Speaker, of the minister.
I would like to ask: What is the
sum total of positions that this government is eliminating? We have already received the announcement of
290, and we have seen the additional 66 clinicians. What is the total number of positions and
services that those positions were going to be providing, that are going to be
eliminated from the provincial Civil Service this year? What is the bottom
line?
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, first of all, again, the member
for Thompson somehow sees that it is a terrible process that we would go to
Crown corporations and ask them to develop plans and models. Obviously, we want to avoid the situation
where there is not common sense, applied in the case of the Liquor Commission,
other Crown corporations that are revenue generating, and they are developing
those models.
With respect to this year's budget, notice was already
provided, and that is an old story of approximately 300 individuals who would
be affected by this year's budget. In terms
of number of positions, for that he will have to wait for the budget, but I
would remind honourable members, we have had 400 applications to VSIP, and the
matching process is underway. So the number of people actually affected will
not be known yet.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The honourable
Minister of Justice, responding to a question taken as notice?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General): Yes, Mr.
Speaker.
I rise today again to correct some false information put
on the record by the honourable member for St. James (Mr. Edwards). I have been
asking him for five years not to do this‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is the honourable minister responding to a
question that he took as notice? [interjection! Yes. The honourable minister will get to the
point.
Point of Order
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I do not recall hearing the
minister saying that he was taking as notice, and I would ask him, which
question is it that he is responding to.
Maybe he should have made a ministerial statement.
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order
raised by the honourable member for
Mr. McCrae: On the point of
order, yesterday the honourable member asked some questions about temporary
absences. I said that I have to be
careful with this honourable member and that I would check the facts and report,
and here I am ready to go.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader):
Let us not be too cute with the words that are used. The minister did not take the question as
notice, and that is the only way in which he may rise now to add additional
information. If he wants to get into
debate with the member for St. James about this particular issue, there are
other opportunities, Mr. Speaker, but he should not waste the time in Question
Period.
Mr. McCrae: On the same point of
order, I will cease and desist if honourable members do not want the correct
information.
Mr. Speaker: I was recognizing the
honourable minister because I thought he was responding to a question taken as
notice.
* (1400)
Domestic Abusers
Discretionary Passes
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no fear of
placing a question to the Minister of Justice, never have and I doubt ever
will.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I raised with the minister his
failure to follow through on his spoken commitment to get tough with domestic
assault. I want to raise another
representative case with the minister today.
Mr. Randall Jeffrey McLean was convicted on September 17,
1992, for assaulting his partner with a weapon causing bodily harm. He was convicted at the same time for three
theft offences and given a 12‑month sentence. Five months into his sentence he received a
discretionary 90‑day, unescorted, temporary absence‑‑unescorted,
I emphasize. After that 90 days, of
course, two‑thirds of his sentence being up, according to statute he was
automatically on parole, effectively meaning that seven out of 12 months were
free and clear.
Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is: Why are discretionary temporary absences
being given in these cases of serious domestic violence, essentially to hustle
convicts out the back door of Headingley Jail?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General): Mr.
Speaker, the honourable member's question is about temporary absences, so I
would like to point out that yesterday he made reference to 108 temporary
absences given to inmates as of February 23.
The member then stated that of the 108, 47 failed to show up at the
community release centre. Well, the
member is clearly wrong.
In fact, for the months of January and February of this
year, a total of 97 irregular temporary absences and 92 intermittent temporary
absences were given out. Out of this
total figure of 189, five individuals either failed to show up or committed
another crime.
I suggest the honourable member‑‑I have done
it for five years and I am asking him again, get your‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, on a
point of order, I am shocked that the minister knows so little about the
department that he runs. People do not report to the community release
centre. They report to Headingley Jail‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St. James clearly
does not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, again
for the same minister, I would like him to answer this question, which I will
pose again, albeit, slightly differently.
Why was Mr. McLean given a 90‑day unescorted pass
when he had committed another assault to cause bodily harm in 1990, violated a
probation order in 1989, had to be transferred to Headingley from Milner Ridge
after three weeks "because he was experiencing problems with authority
figures"? The police were opposed
to his release. The female victim was
not even contacted. Her mother said she
did not want him released because he was a threat to the family‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Does the honourable member for St. James have
a question? Kindly put your question.
Mr. Edwards: Why was he
released? There was nothing going for
this guy. Why was he released?
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Is this an appeal court?
Mr. McCrae: That is a good question. The honourable Leader of the Opposition asks
if this is the appeal court, and I really wonder sometimes.
Mr. Speaker, again, the honourable member has brought
forward a whole bunch of information, and past experience just instinctively
tells me, check it out before you get brought into it with this honourable
member.
He says that I, of all people, should know that they are
supposed to report to Headingley Jail.
Well I, of all people, know that they are supposed to report. Where they are supposed to report is where
they are told to report. It is either at
Headingley, it is either at a community release centre or the job site.
He, the honourable member, and a lot of other people
suggest: Why do you not make prisoners
work? Well, we do, Mr. Speaker. They report to the work sites. The honourable member, of course, would not
grab on to that concept, because he thinks they should throw them in the can
and just leave them there and hope they get better. It does not work that way.
Mr. Edwards: Finally, for the same
minister, Mr. Speaker. Why was Mr.
McLean given a temporary absence in view of the fact that he failed nine out of
10 of the listed criteria in the government's temporary absence policy? The nature of the offence and impact on the
victim failed, criminal history failed‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, it is
clear that there are going to be staff at places like Headingley who are going
to feel an impact when populations are low or when absence programs are working
and not keeping people in the jails. We
are not going to need as many staff. I
know that staff make complaints to members like the honourable member for St.
James and people like Donald Campbell in the Winnipeg Free Press. They go running to those kinds of people to
get their message out. The point is the
policy in corrections is not only progressive, but it also works, and that is
what we are about.
Repap Manitoba Inc.
Negotiation Deadline
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Finance, and it has to do with the government's stated promise that it would
finally get aggressive and complete a deal with Repap, a deal that would
benefit northern Manitoba and, of course, the firm itself. Last year the Minister of Finance announced a
series of final deadlines only to keep postponing them.
My question is:
Does the minister now have a final deadline by which he will be
completing these negotiations with Repap?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): I thank the member for the question. I take it that he is supportive of Repap and
he would like to see the major projects proceed, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask
that he try and convince his colleagues also to come aboard.
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated last fall and as Repap
indicated, there will not be major expansion over the course of the next year
and a half. The government of the time
has served notice to Repap that we will take as our option and our right, an
opportunity to find a venture capitalist or somebody who will partnership with
Repap, given that they have tremendous financial problems to the extent they
cannot borrow billions of dollars today.
We therefore will give ourselves the opportunity to help find
capital. If we find capital and the
company chooses not to proceed, then we will make a decision at that time.
Government Priority
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Mr. Speaker, my question is again for the
Minister of Finance.
Given that the Repap takeover announcement was made four
years ago this week and the same minister announced over a year ago that the
province was restructuring a deal, residents of The Pas are not prepared to
stand by and wait for this minister to act, Mr. Speaker. Why is this minister not putting a higher
priority on this issue at a time when people in northern
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the member's assertion is
wrong. We put a very high priority on
The Pas development. Let me say, and I
know the member is fully aware of this, but this industry has lost upwards of
$3.5 billion over the course of the last two years. There has been incredible consolidation
within this industry throughout
What we have is we have an operation that is on the
margin financially but is still employing several hundreds of people. The
sawmill today is producing well. As a
matter of fact, it is providing, basically, the only net cash flow to Repap and
its whole chain of plants throughout
So I say to the member, Mr. Speaker, we want that
development as badly as the residents of northern Manitoba, particularly The
Pas region, but I also say at least we have in place a plant which is covering
its own variable costs. As I talk to Mr.
Kass of Repap he tells me that, in its whole battery of plants, indeed is the
one shining light. That is how difficult
the circumstances are within that industry across
* (1410)
Mr. Lathlin: My final question is
again to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness).
Given that there are encouraging signs in wood prices, could I ask this
minister to take the initiative along with his colleagues in government to work
full out to get the deal restructured so that northerners, particularly those
residents who are directly affected by the plant, can go ahead on the basis knowing
that their jobs are secure?
Mr. Manness: We have been working more or less
full out over the last two years to try and restructure the deal, but I remind
the member there is not a lending institution in the land today who will put up
$1 billion, not one who will put it up unless all the environmental processes
are in place, unless the native land issues are dealt with.
I say to the member, I have not seen a community‑‑when
I say community I say this in the broadest sense‑‑willingness to
work hand‑in‑hand with the government in a lot of respects to try
and address these problems, but if they were addressed tomorrow I say to the
member still, finding this capital, this $1 billion‑plus today would not
be an easy matter.
That industry is going through tremendous consolidation
at this point in time, so if we can just continue to see that plant operate
more or less at full production over the course of the next year, the
government will continue to try and find the sources of capital.
We will also try and more fully measure and quantify the
resource because that has to be done as we work towards the expansion that we
all want.
Video Lottery Terminals
Revenue Investment
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Well in excess of $30 million has been collected out of
the rural economy, and only a small fraction of that has been returned into the
rural economy.
My question to the government, any minister who has the
integrity to live up to a commitment that they made, the question is: Why has this government misled rural
Manitobans?
Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, unlike the party which the member
is trying to represent in the upcoming leadership, we do have people who truly
represent rural
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, this
government has not lived up to the commitment.
That is the problem.
Video Lottery Terminals
Revenue Investment
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Did the Minister of Family Services indicate to at least
one organization that the government does not know what it is going to be
doing, that in fact it could go‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, let me answer that question and
say yes. There is a good probability
that some measure of the VLTs this year will go to deficit reduction.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker,
significant, in the sense now we have a change in government policy. Finally, the government is being honest. They are saying that VLT revenues are not
just for rural economic development.
Video Lottery Terminals
Revenue Investment
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, at the time of the announcement
of the VLT program, which the government introduced and which was to enhance
the rural hotel industry to in fact save a lot of rural hotels that would have
been in extreme financial difficulty and probably would have had to close‑‑the
returns from the VLTs have been somewhat greater than what was
anticipated. It was the intent, with the
knowledge of the government at the time of the introduction of the VLTs, to
participate with those funds to that amount in rural
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the Liberal caucus can get
their act together. Yesterday, the
member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) was speaking in opposition to putting money
in Community Places and Lotteries money.
I wonder if the Liberal Party would clearly state what their position
is.
Street Kids and Youth Program
Funding
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, it is becoming common knowledge
that pornography, violent television, violent toys and books are most
devastating and dangerous to children and young people. They actually teach and model the behaviour
that children then practise out. In economic
stress, children are often neglected and they are very vulnerable to becoming
victims of the streets.
I want to ask a question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of
Family Services. [interjection! I would encourage the government to realize
this is not a laughing matter.
Will the government commit to financially supporting the
Street Kids and Youth program, which is being threatened to lose its funding,
and ensure that this program and service is going to remain in the city of
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, as the member is well aware, we
are in the midst of many discussions and deliberations on the current budget,
which the Finance minister had referenced earlier. Those decisions will be announced in due
course.
I would say to the member, it is not the first time that
a group that has been funded through the Secretary of State at the federal
level or municipal funding has their funds run out and comes to the province to
backfill. I would say that we would work
actively with the groups that we do fund to try and assist in any way we can
and provide that service through existing organizations.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has
expired.
Committee Changes
Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) for the
member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik); the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr.
McAlpine) for the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson); the member for
Rossmere (Mr.Neufeld) for the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer). [agreed!
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for
* (1420)
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you call second reading, Bill 14,
followed by Bill 16 and, following that, if you would proceed to Debate on
Second Readings, the bill numbers as shown on the Order Paper.
SECOND
Bill 14‑‑The Personal
Property Security and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of
Justice (Mr. McCrae), I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr.
Cummings), that Bill 14, The Personal Property Security and Consequential
Amendments Act (Loi concernant les suretes relatives aux biens personnels et
apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), be now read a second
time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, the new
Personal Property Security Act when enacted would resolve existing
uncertainties by covering areas which are not dealt with under the present
act. It will not change the basic principles
of the existing act which include a public registry where secured parties can
register interest in personal property and the public can conduct searches.
The existing act was passed in 1973 and brought into
force in 1978. There have not been significant
amendments since the legislation was proclaimed. However, over the past two decades there has
been considerable study and development of personal property legislation
throughout
As
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy
Speaker, in the Chair)
Madam Deputy Speaker, the area of
personal property security is a complex and technical one. It deals with all kinds of financial
transactions including the taking of security and items of personal property. It affects borrowers and lenders, buyers and
sellers, whether they are individuals, businesses or financial
institutions. The changes in the new
Personal Property Security Act are so numerous and extensive that almost no
section of the present act is untouched.
The new act addresses questions involving conflicts of laws and
enforcement processes on default. It
will resolve issues that have arisen from judicial consideration of the present
act. Furthermore, the new act will
result in improved consumer protection.
There are a number of benefits related to having
legislation that is compatible with other provinces. Uniform commercial legislation is important
for businesses that operate in
Madam Deputy Speaker, this new act has been studied in
great detail and we are confident the new PPSA will be welcomed by knowledgeable
practitioners within the legal and commercial financing community and other
users of the system.
With these brief remarks, I recommend this bill for
second reading. Thank you, Madam Deputy
Speaker.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson):
I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that debate be
adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 16‑‑The Public
Schools Amendment Act
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training):
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik),
that Bill 16, The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
ecoles publiques, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of
this House.
Motion presented.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Deputy Speaker,
it is the intent of this legislation in Bill 16 to hold the increase of the
special requirement of any given school division at a maximum of 2
percent. There will be exceptions for
any divisions with additional funding needs resulting from enrollment increases
or losses in phase‑in funding.
Our government is committed to fairness, and we have
included a section dealing with errors made in calculating the 1992‑93
special requirement in our bill.
Introduced Friday by our government, the legislation will
affect two school years and three property tax payments.
My department will continue to provide any assistance
divisions may require in determining special requirements and calculating the
special levy.
Our bill is based on the following principles: (1) It is fair and equitable to both school
divisions and taxpayers; (2) Our bill is prospective and not retroactive; (3)
It recognizes our commitment to some school divisions to react to increases in
enrollments; and (4) This bill is not intended to decide the rate of tax
increases. I urge school divisions to
set their own upper limits.
We believe we can achieve administrative and salary
savings through joint initiatives with staff.
Surpluses must be examined for funds.
We, as all Manitobans, must work together to face the
difficult economic challenge. Manitobans
have clearly expressed their wish for no major tax increase.
We encourage school divisions to use any surplus funds
available to avoid exceeding the maximum special requirement or to reduce the
amount of the special levy.
We urge school boards to seriously consider adopting a
version of the province's workweek reduction program, and we would expect they
would look to reduce divisional administrative costs by 20 percent.
We, as all Manitobans, must work together to face the
difficult economic challenge. Manitobans
have clearly expressed their wish for no major tax increases. Our intention is to control tax increases.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as the government searches for ways
to trim costs instead of asking for more and more from
As this government makes tough, but what we believe fair
decisions, so must the divisions. As the
government faces the challenge of today's economic reality, so must the
divisions. This government maintains its commitment to education and its commitment
to students. We also maintain our
commitment to the taxpayers of this province who have clearly said to us, they
cannot afford tax increases year after year.
Those who provide the tax dollars expect leadership from
government in ensuring those who consume tax dollars do so in a responsible
way. While it is easy to spend public
dollars in good economic times, those who spend the money must be equally
prepared to share in the collective belt‑tightening exercise in the tough
economic times.
This legislation ensures any division‑driven tax
increase will be reasonable. They must
be if we intend to make progress towards economic recovery. Thank you.
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Madam Deputy Speaker, may I have leave to ask
the minister a couple of questions on the bill, as is traditional in the House
when requested by the critic?
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, the tradition in
this House is that it does not require leave.
I believe the member was asking by courtesy. Certainly, I remember many occasions where
members have asked questions on second reading without leave being required.
If the minister is denying leave by courtesy, I would ask
that perhaps there be a ruling brought back to the House as to whether leave is
required.
It has been a standard tradition in this House that
ministers answer questions on second reading.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if they are not able to do so, we have another
tradition in this House, and that is they take it as notice. On many occasions ministers have responded in
closing comments to not only concerns that were expressed but also questions
that were asked.
I would ask for a ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, on this
as to whether leave is required.
Perhaps I would suggest in this regard that we take some
time to research the precedents in this House, because I know of many occasions
where leave has not been required.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, the opposition House
leader, the member for Thompson, is half right.
There have been times in the past when ministers have agreed to take
questions, in essence granting leave.
That rarely happens, and it only happens on matters of a
technical question, but more importantly when there is a professional
relationship between the critic and the minister, and when the minister is
fully aware that the critic is asking the information purely on a technical
basis and not to make cheap politics.
* (1430)
On the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is fully
within the purview of the minister to grant leave or to accept a question. If she feels that she has no trust in what it
is the member is going ask, then obviously she will not accept a question.
Mr. Plohman: Madam Deputy Speaker,
I cannot believe what I have heard from the Minister of Finance to try to
defend the indefensible here.
Clearly this is a tradition in the House. The minister need not be afraid. She can take it as notice. I was not going to ask her a lot of technical
detail in here. I had a couple of
questions on principle dealing with the bill that I wanted to ask her
about. I am sure she can handle them,
and the Minister of Finance does not have to come to bat for her.
Remember this is a matter of tradition in this
House. I am not asking for something out
of the ordinary. It facilitates
debate. It gives her an opportunity to
come back when she is closing debate to provide us with the answers on these
questions. It is very important. It also assists us if she can provide the
information in written form or perhaps even today in oral form. It helps us, Madam Deputy Speaker.
[interjection! No. Now the Minister of
Finance‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order,
please. I think I have heard quite enough
in terms of justifying this as a point of order. Due to the fact that I do not have‑‑[interjection!
Order, please.
I will take this matter under advisement, indeed, and
check as to what the tradition has been and report back to the House.
Mr. Plohman: Madam Deputy
Speaker, I wanted to proceed then to ask the minister a question if I could.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order,
please. I have just ruled that I will
take it under advisement as to what traditional procedure is.
* * *
Mr. Ashton: I move, seconded by
the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), that debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 2‑‑The Endangered
Species Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume
debate on second readings, Bill 2 (The Endangered Species Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les especes en voie de disparition), standing in the name
of the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave
to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed!
Bill 3‑‑The Oil and Gas
and Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume
debate on second reading of Bill 3 (The Oil and Gas and Consequential
Amendments Act; Loi concernant le petrole et le gaz naturel et apportant des
modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave
to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed!
Bill 5‑‑The Northern
Affairs Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume
debate on second reading of Bill 5 (The Northern Affairs Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les affaires du Nord), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order,
please. Will the honourable member for
Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) please resume his seat. [interjection! Thank you.
Is
there leave to permit the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable
member for Interlake? [agreed!
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
As we look at the notes from the
minister's comments, this is a very minor bill, very little detail being
addressed in it. That is a bit of concern in light of the fact that there are
very serious problems facing Northern Affairs communities, concerns that have
been raised with this government many, many times, concerns that have been
raised with the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) when he has visited
these communities, and this would have been an ideal opportunity to address
many of those concerns.
Some of the concerns facing these communities, Madam
Deputy Speaker, relate to housing, to roads, to economic development, education,
all of these things, but very little is being addressed in this bill.
I had the opportunity to visit several Northern Affairs
communities in my constituency over the last few months, and I want to say that
they have raised some serious concerns. Basically, one of the biggest concerns
is economic development and lack of development, lack of jobs in these
communities.
I am sure the minister is well aware of these. He has had an economic task force visiting
many of these communities, and hopefully he will take to heart some of the
concerns that have been raised.
Also, their concerns would even be raised to a greater
extent when we see what is happening under the administration of this
government, particularly in education and in health care. Education is a key to
these communities. If these communities
are to survive, if they are going to have any growth they have to have the
opportunity for education.
We are well aware there is a very high dropout rate in
these communities. There are many social
problems that have to be dealt with, many issues that teachers basically fill
in in the community to offer supports to the children. These will not be adequately addressed now
that we are going to see reductions in the number of teachers, reduction in supports,
because many times it is teachers who deal first‑hand with the family
problems that are in these communities.
It is of great concern that we are seeing the cutbacks in services.
The real issue is that if we are going to have economic
growth, children have to have the opportunity for education, because the basis
of economic growth is to be educated. If
you are going to reduce the number of children who drop out of school, then you
have economic growth and an opportunity for the children, and that is not
happening by this government, Madam Deputy Speaker. That was raised, as I say, by members of the
northern communities at these economic development meetings.
I had also had the opportunity to visit some more remote
northern communities over the last few months and got a better understanding of
what northern roads are like and how important roads are.
We in the southern part of the province and in fact even
the central part of the province take roads very much for granted. It is much
easier for people in our part of the province to get roads built, for councils
to have the ability to build roads than the maze that Northern Affairs
communities have to go through in order to get their roads built.
As I say, we take roads for granted, but in these communities
they are the lifeline to the communities, and if they are not maintained
properly, and particularly this year when we have the warm weather conditions,
there will be many communities that are going to have difficulties.
Even in my constituency the roads into these Northern
Affairs communities are very important and many times in very poor
condition. There are people‑‑particularly
I think of the fishermen in the
* (1440)
As we look at this bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, we see
that the bill is supposed to be giving more decision‑making power to
councils. I had the opportunity to
attend the NACC meeting, and that was a real concern of many of the
representatives of that body of people, the lack of authority they had, the
lack of ability they had to make decisions, and the long process they had to go
through to get anything to happen. So I
hope that this bill, although it is a very small bill, will deal with the whole
issue of local people having more input and more control of the affairs in
their communities.
When we look at the section on renewing of Crown land
permits, there appears there is going to be consultation in the initial part of
giving out Crown land permits, but as the renewals go on there will not be a
place for the communities to be consulted further. That would seem to be a problem. You would think that if they are going to have
the input on it they should have the ability to review.
We will be talking further to councils throughout the
area to see how they are feeling, whether this is adequate for what they are
wanting to do or whether it is not. I
think about the community of Camperville which is in my constituency and Duck
Bay as well that have had some concerns about how the Crown lands have been
allocated to different people. When
these people look at expanding possibly into cattle or other types of
activities, all the Crown land is taken up and they do not have the ability to
expand at all. I hope this will give
some power to the local communities, and they will have the ability to have
some input and have some control on the affairs in their areas.
As I visited communities, Madam Deputy Speaker, it was
amazing to see the quality of some of the houses and things that have fallen by
the wayside, and also when you listen to councils, the difficulty they have
faced in improving the standards of their houses and the difficulty they face
in having people address their concerns and making the houses more adaptable to
their way of life. Also, they have run
into problems with getting the land to build these houses on and who has
ownership of these properties. Those are
all concerns. We have to look at giving
councils more authority that they can make decisions within their communities.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is not addressing the real
problem. Giving council this decision
making is a step, but really if we are going to help these communities it all
is based on economic development and growth in the community, jobs in the
community, and we have seen none of that from this government.
Many of the residents of Northern Affairs communities,
Madam Deputy Speaker, depend on the fishing industry. That has been a disaster this year. There has been very little income. There has been very little initiative taken
by this government to address the concerns of the people in these communities
who are facing very, very low incomes. In
fact, Madam Deputy Speaker, many will not even qualify for unemployment
insurance.
The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) was in the
Winnipegosis area meeting with fishermen in that area. In fact, in the
There is no job strategy, no plan for anything that will
change the lifestyle of these people. To
give some authority to councils is one step, but really, it is going to take
much more from government to deal with the whole problem facing Northern
Affairs communities.
Is there any opportunity for Northern Affairs communities
to get more control of their resources?
The member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) raised the whole Repap issue, and
that is an interesting one, Madam Deputy Speaker, because that is having a real
impact on the Northern Affairs communities in my area. There is no work. The forest is completely tied up with Repap,
and even though this government said that they would renegotiate the cut area,
they said if the people from the
Another area, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the whole area of
sewer and water and who is responsible for installation of sewer and water in
these communities and how we are going to raise the standard of living of these
people. It would be interesting to look
at Northern Affairs communities and check how adequate the water and sewer
supply is in those communities and what has happened over the past few years,
what kind of improvements we have seen.
To my understanding, we have seen very little progress and very little
activity in those areas.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there is one section of the
amendment that is interesting and that is to deal with the gender changes,
changing from "his" to "his and her" in subsection 10(1)
and replacing "letters patent" with "articles of
incorporation." But I find it is
interesting that only in one part is the sexist language removed. There are other subsections that have not
been addressed.
We have the sexist language remaining under subsection 4
dealing with the powers of the minister, also Section 8, Minister acquiring
real property. In several sections where
there is an opportunity to make corrections to the act, the minister has chosen
to leave those out, and I hope that he will look at those and deal with those
before this bill is passed, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I find it interesting that this is being left out. I find it interesting because I want to
relate to a particular community in my constituency where the legislation could
be written the other way, and that is the community of Pelican Rapids where for
the last, I believe, close to 20 years they have had an all‑woman
council. In fact, the Minister of
Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) was up in that community recognizing a Flora
Campeau for her duties on council for the past, I believe, 20 or 25 years. It is a long time that women have been
running that community and doing a very good job at it. It is amazing. They work co‑operatively, very
well. They do not seem to have the
disputes that many other councils do. I
am very impressed with the way they run that council.
When we talked about it to them, as to why it had
happened, basically they said that was the way it was. The men were mostly out fishing and working
in the bush when there was work up there, and the women fell into the role of
running the community. When they
realized they could do just as good a job, if not better, than the people who
were there before, they have just carried on, and for a long time.
* (1450)
Theirs is not the only community that has a council of
all women, but I am pleased that the recognition is there, that the act is
being changed not only for these women, women in other parts of the Northern Affairs
communities, but in all women in government.
All legislation should be changed to recognize that there are women that
play a role as well, and it does not always fall onto the men.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there are other communities that I
would like to mention briefly that would like to see more supports, more
understanding, more services provided by the Northern Affairs department, which
are not being acted upon.
I think about the community of
That is something that has been raised by the community
council not only of
One of the concerns they have is that so much of their
money from the department is tied up with bureaucrats and travel. Anybody in
the communities that I mentioned‑‑Barrows, Pelican Rapids‑‑most
of their administration is either done from The Pas and some of it is done from
Dauphin. That is a great distance
away. If more of that authority could be
given to the councils where they could handle more of their affairs, we would
not face the continued delays in having services provided. If local councils would be given more
authority in other areas, they would not face the length of time that it takes
to pass letters back and forth.
I know the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) was talking
about one particular area where they were trying to set up a nuisance ground;
and, to set up that nuisance ground, I believe it took about 17 signatures to
get it through. These are the kinds of
problems that are faced by people in Northern Affairs communities, and they
must be dealt with.
But, more importantly, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I say, we
have to deal with the whole economic issue of northern
It is not only the NACC communities that are having
revenue drained out of them. All rural
communities are having a lot of revenue drained. We had someone here mention the video lottery
terminals; and, although I am not aware of video lottery terminals in the NACC
communities, they are in many, many other communities that are suffering
because of the revenue being drained out of them but not being put back into
the communities.
Those are the things that are of concern, that money is
going out of the North and out of rural communities, but we are not having
money put back in. We are not having the
economic development in these communities.
We are not having the supports put in place that are needed to keep
their economy going.
I would hope that, when the results of the Northern
Economic Development Task Force are finally presented to government, there will
be some action taken from this government, because many of the recommendations
from those communities deal with economic development, but they also deal with
the powers of council.
It deals with the bureaucratic nightmare that councils
have to face when they try to build a road, when they try to build a community
centre, when they try to get housing for their people. Every time they make an
attempt to do something like this, they run into brick walls. There are always delays, always several
people who have to approve, and very little authority at the local level.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that when we get the
report from the Northern Economic Development council, when we get these
reports, I hope that this government will take seriously the recommendations
and that we will see some growth, that we will have the people in northern
Manitoba have access to training, access to jobs right in their own community,
and along with training, as I say, jobs that will support their communities.
There are many things that could be done for economic
development in the North. When we look
at the houses that have been built in the North, and over the years some of
them have not been built very well and have not been built very efficiently. We
have to look at that whole area.
If it was possible that we could put in a training
program, a training program that was administered, handled by the local
council, if council had that authority, they could look after things like
that. If we could have a training
program on how we would retrofit these homes, if you would think about the
amount of money that would be saved‑‑you would be training people,
houses would be upgraded, but if those houses were upgraded to a level where
they would be energy efficient and where they would meet the needs of the
northern climate and of the northern people, it would cost money in the short
term, but in the long term, we would end up saving tremendous amounts of money.
Along with saving money, we would also be having people
who were trained, people who had skills, who could take their place in the
community. Again, Madam Deputy Speaker,
if more authority was given over to northern councils, they could deal with
this at a more local level and have more control over their own affairs.
* (1500)
It would be interesting if we would look at the Northern
Affairs budget and just see how much it costs to administer that department,
how much of the money goes to actual cost to the council and how we could turn
those dollars around if it was not being spent in administration. People coming into the community, if the
people in the community were trained to do the jobs right there and we could
reduce some of those other costs, all of that extra money could be diverted
into economic development, jobs and housing in the communities.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as I look at this bill, there are
certain parts of it, as I say, that I hope will give councils more authority, I
hope will deal with giving more local control but, as I say, this could have
been a much broader bill than we have right now. There is very little in it, and the Minister
of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) could have dealt with a much broader issue
here and opened up the issue of how we are going to have economic development
and give more control to councils, which is not happening.
Again, there is also the section on the sexist
language. I hope that the minister would
go farther and clean up the act even further so that it meets the requirements
of today.
Thank you very much.
Bill 8‑‑The Insurance
Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume
debate on second reading of Bill 8 (The Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant
la Loi sur les assurances), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed!
Bill 10‑‑The Farm Lands
Ownership Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on
second reading of Bill 10 (The Farm Lands Ownership Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la propriete agricole et apportant des
modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed!
Bill 11‑‑The Regional
Waste Management Authorities, The Municipal Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume
debate on second reading of Bill 11 (The Regional Waste Management Authorities,
The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant les
offices regionaux de gestion des dechets, modifiant la Loi sur les
municipalites et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois),
standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
An Honourable Member:
Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed!
Bill 12‑‑The
International Trusts Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume
debate on second reading of Bill 12 (The International Trusts Act; Loi sur les
fiducies internationales), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed!
Bill 13‑‑The Manitoba
Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume
debate on second reading of Bill 13 (The Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund
Corporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation le
fonds de participation des travailleurs du Manitoba), standing in the name of
the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed!
House Business
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable
government House leader, what are your intentions, sir?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I did not realize that
members opposite were not going to address these bills. If we have come to the end, I suggest then we
go to private members' hour.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it the will of
the House to move to private members' hour, call it five o'clock?
Some Honourable Members:
No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: No?
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker,
on a point of order, I do not believe it requires leave. If the government House leader is calling
private members' hour as government business that is his prerogative. He can call anything on the Order Paper
including Private Members' Business. We
certainly have no difficulty dealing with private members' hour.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, on the same point of
order, so that the official opposition House leader is in fact aware, now that
we are done with government business we cannot automatically flow into private
members' hour. We do not enter into
private members' hour until five o'clock as the Rules say we enter into private
members' hour. I would suggest that the
government has an option. They can
either bring whatever it is that they want during government business, we can
recess until five o'clock, at which point in time private members will start or
we can call it six o'clock.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised, I
would like to remind the honourable member for
"When government business has precedence, the
government orders and private members' orders may be called in such sequence as
the government determines."
The honourable government House leader does have the
right. We finished with government business.
If he so chooses we can just move right into private members' hour or
move in such a way that we would do the bills as they are listed on the Order
Paper.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I
realize there is some difficulty when we get into Private Members' Business ahead
of time that often people are expecting it to be dealt with at five
o'clock. I would like to suggest perhaps
if you would check if there is leave to deal with Resolution 7 and then leave
the Order Paper as it is with the exception of Resolution 7, which would drop
to the bottom of the Order Paper after being considered today. That way, I think, Mr. Speaker, we can
accommodate all members of the House and proceed with the business of the
House.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I would
seek for further clarification from the Speaker as to why the Rules indicate
that in fact private members' hour commences at five o'clock. If what we are saying is that the government
can call private members' hour at any point in time they want, I think what we
are doing is we are putting into jeopardy the private members' hour in the
sense that whenever the government looks around and sees so and so is not here,
my goodness, let us call private members' hour now, and then what is going to
happen?
I think that is very dangerous in terms of precedent
setting, and I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is not right. The
Rules of this Chamber say that private members' hour commences at five
o'clock. I would suggest to you that if
the government does not have an agenda, that we recess until five o'clock or we
be willing to call it six o'clock.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, on a
point of order. Obviously, we have a
lovers' quarrel between the two official opposition parties.
I resent the House leader of the Liberals saying that the
government does not have material on the Order Paper. We have a significant number of bills and
indeed the government was fully of the expectation that the ministers, having
spoken on these bills, second reading, fully expected the opposition would use
the opportunity they have available to them to debate these particular bills.
So, Mr. Speaker, we have a significant number of bills on
the Order Paper. The members opposite
have chosen not to address them, which is their right, but let me say when it
comes to private members' hour, my belief is similar to the House leader of the
Liberal Party. I thought the Rules said
five o'clock. I can call for any
business, but indeed unless I have the leave of the whole House, unless you
have the leave of the whole House to call it five o'clock, it is not five
o'clock. I take it, the Liberals were
going to deny that.
So, Mr. Speaker, we have two choices here. Either the opposition can choose to debate
legislation as presented or, secondly, we can call it five o'clock.
Mr. Ashton: On the same point of
order, first of all, Mr. Speaker, let us recognize why we are in this
situation. The government in bringing in
second readings, the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) would not answer
questions. We are not prepared to debate
important bills without those questions.
Second of all, I had made a suggestion that this matter
could be called. It is the prerogative
of the government House leader to call any matter of business including private
members' bills. It does not require leave.
The Liberal House leader is missing the point that it does require
leave. [interjection! If the Liberal House leader would care to check our
Rules, indeed it does require leave to call it five o'clock, but what is being
suggested here is that the government House leader call as government business
an item on Private Members' Business.
For the Liberal House leader, that is standard practice in this
House. It is part of our Rules.
I had made the suggestion, and I ask once again, is the
government House leader suggesting that we not call it five o'clock, but we
call some or all of the matters of business listed under private members'
hour? He can do that without leave, Mr.
Speaker, and I would ask for that clarification. It may assist greatly in getting us back to
business instead of on these continuing points of order.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of
order. Hearing what the government House
leader was saying which made a lot more sense than what the official opposition
House leader was saying which made absolutely no sense, I would suggest to the
government House leader that in fact if the bills that came before us, in most
part we were quite content in terms of seeing them going to the committee as a
caucus. The two that were introduced
today, I believe it was The Winter Roads, Bill 9, in which I understood our
critic to say that there is going to be some sort a briefing done on it. The Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) introduced
her bill. I think that you have to give
some sort of a courtesy to allow for second reading of those bills, for the
opposition critic to address them, before they actually comment on them.
* (1510)
Again I would go back to the fact that if the government
would like to call some resolutions or some bills out of private members' hour,
I would encourage it. Otherwise, I would
suggest that we go to six o'clock, because we cannot call private members'
hour, unless there is leave, until five o'clock.
Mr. Speaker: All right. For clarification purposes, on the point of
order raised, it is quite correct. We
may not call it five o'clock unless we have leave of the House to do so at this
time, at which time, if we did receive leave of the House, we would
automatically move into the Order Paper and deal with the different items as
they are listed.
According our Rule 20(2):
"When government business has precedence, the government orders and
private members' orders may be called in such sequence as the government
determines." Therefore, the honourable government House leader has the
right to call any business which presently is listed under Private Members'
Business at this time in any sequence that he so chooses.
House Business
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I will
call Private Members' Business, Debate on Second Readings, Public Bills
only. They are Bills 200, 203 and
205. After we have dealt with those, I
am prepared to call it five o'clock.
DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS‑‑PUBLIC
BILLS
Bill 200‑‑The Child and
Family Services Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed
motion of the honourable member for
Some Honourable Members: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed!
Bill 203‑‑The Health
Care Records Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed
motion of the honourable member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis), Bill
203, The Health Care Records Act; Loi sur les dossiers medicaux, standing in
the name of the honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner).
Some Honourable Members: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed!
Bill 205‑‑The Ombudsman
Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed
motion of the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), Bill 205, The
Ombudsman Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'ombudsman, standing in the
name of the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
Some Honourable Members: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed!
House Business
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the
House to call it five o'clock?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No, okay.
The honourable government House leader, what are your
intentions now, sir?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, seeing that the members do not want
to debate private members' hour, I would call it six o'clock.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader):
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, first of all, there is no leave to
call it six o'clock. Second of all,
there are many other items on private members' hour business, including the
resolutions.
We are prepared to speak on Resolution 7 and would ask
that the government House leader‑‑since the Liberal House leader
will not allow it to be called five o'clock‑‑call Resolution
7. We can have speakers immediately.
Mr. Speaker: First of all, we will
deal with one matter at a time.
Is it the will of the House to call it six o'clock?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No, it is denied.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, seeing as we are going in for
suggestions, I would love to see Resolution 34.
I would be more than happy to speak on that resolution‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is that a point of order?
Some Honourable Members: Call it five
o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the
House to call it five o'clock? [agreed!
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 5
p.m., time for Private Members' Business.
DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS‑‑PUBLIC
BILLS
Bill 200‑‑The Child and
Family Services Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed
motion of the honourable member for
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed!
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson):
I am pleased
to be able to speak on this particular bill that has been brought forward by
our former critic for this area, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to indicate that
I think it is appropriate that this matter is still remaining in her name, even
though there has been some reassignment of critic responsibilities, because it
relates to a matter that she was very much involved with last session.
It relates to the fact that at that time the government
made changes in terms of The Child and Family Services Act that did not reflect
the broad opinion of people in the community, the Family Services community, in
terms of the way in which this Legislature should be dealing in terms of its
own particular power in this particular area.
Part of the problem, as we got into in debate,
particularly towards the end of last session, was the fact that this government
is unwilling to have the recommendations of the Family Services community
accepted in legislation before this House.
We saw last year that this government would much rather have
a situation in place whereby the minister is the final authority. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, I think this is,
unfortunately, a comment on the kind of situation we find ourselves in because
of the growing development in this country, and particularly in this province,
towards the assumption that we have not a parliamentary form of government‑‑although
technically I believe we do‑‑but rather that we have an executive
form of government.
That is inherent of what the government has been doing on
this and other issues. The assumption
that a minister of the Crown, with whatever authority is vested in the minister
of the Crown, Mr. Speaker, should be the final authority in terms of appeals
such as the ones I have mentioned before, and not the Legislature.
There is some inconsistency with that. There are other departments and agencies that
report to this Legislature. I will take
the example of today, the release of The Freedom of Information Act by the
Ombudsman. The Freedom of Information
Act was today released, reported to the Chamber. The Ombudsman reports to the House, does not
report to a minister. That is one
example.
The Chief Electoral Officer is another example. The Chief Electoral Officer does not report
to the minister of any department but reports instead to the Manitoba
Legislature.
So I ask the question, and I think this is appropriate
given the fact that we spent a considerable amount of time at the end of the
last session debating this particular issue.
At the time we essentially found ourselves in the situation where every
other item had been resolved either in terms of agreement between the parties
or agreement to disagree, except this particular act.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I consulted again with the former
critic, because I know she was very much involved with negotiations with the
minister at this point in time, and I look again and acknowledge too that the
Liberals express this concern. I believe
another former critic, the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), was very vocal on
this issue, as well as was the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs),
and certainly our Leader (Mr. Doer) as well.
So the issue here goes beyond a technicality. It goes to the bottom line, Mr. Speaker,
particularly given the benefit of hindsight.
The benefit of hindsight here‑‑this is a matter that came up
in June, July of last year; we are now into March the following year; we have
had close to nine months‑‑and I ask you, and I think this is a
reasonable question: Would not a
government that has an open mind on such issues, after having consulted
presumably, if not necessarily before they brought in the bill last year, but
after the fact‑‑would it not make sense that they might change
their mind?
Would it not make sense to you, Mr. Speaker, given the
fact that they had agreed to sunset this particular reporting provision, that
they might now after the experience of the last number of months of talking to
people in the Family Services communities and different organizations and
different individuals who have said to the government that the opposition was
correct last year, the Liberal and New Democratic Party opposition was correct,
in suggesting that we are dealing here essentially with a reporting mechanism
that should go not to a minister of the Crown, but to the Legislature? I ask you, would that not be reasonable?
* (1520)
It is interesting, because a lot of times the government
when it is bereft of ideas, it turns around and it says to members of the
opposition, as did the Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Mrs.
Mitchelson) on Monday, give us some ideas.
Our critic certainly gave many ideas.
I think it was a comment, Mr. Speaker, that we saw how completely devoid
of ideas the Minister responsible for the Status of Women has to be when she
has to ask in this House formally in a statement that we the opposition
members, without the access to government resources that the minister has, the
significant access, should be developing the agenda for the province of
Manitoba.
I want to say we are prepared to provide good ideas to
this government anytime and we are prepared also to govern and to implement
those ideas, which is even more important.
That is exactly the same in this particular bill, Mr. Speaker. We are providing the idea, and we are indicating
on the public record that we are ready, willing and able to be able to provide
the kind of ideas that this government needs that it is totally lacking in.
I think it is interesting, because a lot of people may
not have realized that yesterday marked the fifth anniversary of the time which
this government, then under the guise of Autopac, as an opposition party
defeated the previous government. It has
been five years‑‑
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): I remember that night.
Mr. Ashton: Well, the Minister of
Natural Resources remembers that night, too.
I remember it well. Some of us
would say, Mr. Speaker, it is a day that lives in infamy certainly in terms of
this province. They defeated a
government based on Autopac rates, and five years later I have some
satisfaction of telling a lot of my constituents, I told you so, when they come
to me and say look what this government is doing in terms of Autopac
rates. I said at that time that, when
they ran on a platform of low Autopac rates and no political interference, they
were not being forthright with the people of
That relates specifically to this bill, because the basic
principle we are dealing with here, and this is second reading where one does
deal with basic principles, is the question of political interference. Mr. Speaker, one of the intents of this
particular bill is to take out the question of political interference from this
very important matter because there can and there will be political
interference when you have reporting to a minister, by definition, and I do not
necessarily mean it will be political interference that is intended in some way
to create something for some ulterior motive, create some difficulties.
Political interference in this context is referring to
the fact that a politically appointed individual‑‑and let us not
forget, the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) is essentially
appointed by only one person, the Premier (Mr. Filmon). We are all elected to this House by our
constituents, and he represents his constituency, as do all ministers of the
Crown, but there is only one person who appoints that individual, the
Premier. In essence, in terms of accountability,
Mr. Speaker, the prime focus of the accountability of that minister is to the
Premier, to other members of cabinet, perhaps in a more general sense to other
members of his caucus.
That minister, Mr. Speaker, and I am not just saying that
minister individually, but any minister of this or any other government, has to
recognize that they essentially, when they are appointed as ministers,
represent the philosophy of the government that is in power, yes, represent the
philosophy of the Premier of the day that appoints them for whatever reason.
They do not by nature, by virtue of being the minister
responsible, in this case, for Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), represent
those out there providing services in terms of family services. In this particular case, they cannot, I would
suggest, particularly given the political pressures‑‑and I do not
use this in a pejorative sense, Mr. Speaker‑‑that all ministers
sense.
I do not think they can say‑‑given that lack
of accountability that one has by definition of being a minister and there is a
democratic accountability to a broader context other than the cabinet, or, as I
said, the fact that you are under political pressures, and I do not use that in
a pejorative sense. You cannot exercise
responsibilities as a minister in this particular case unless you have what we
have suggested and what the other opposition party has suggested and that you
have the reporting to the Legislature as a whole.
It would not require a significant increase in the
budget. I do not think it would affect
the budget whatever. What it would do, I
think it would make a fundamental policy statement, as we have done with the
Ombudsman, for example, which is a nonpolitical office, or the Chief Electoral
Officer, or indeed, may I say, with the Legislative Assembly itself.
Our Legislative Assembly, once again, does not report to
a particular minister. It reports, Mr.
Speaker, to you as the Chair of LAMC and reports to you as Speaker of the
House. That is important because there
has to be a degree of nonpartisan, nonpolitical integrity maintained when you
have matters that are really not ones that should be affected by political
decisions in the broader context.
I mentioned the Ombudsman. I mentioned the Chief Electoral Officer. I mentioned the staff in this building. I would suggest to you that it is the same
when we are talking about the situation we are dealing with here, when we are
dealing with direct responsibilities under The Child and Family Services Act,
what could be more appropriate, in this particular case, than to have that
matter removed from even the potential of political decision making and
political interference and put in the hands of this Legislature?
Let us not forget that I would suggest, and I do not mean
this in any legal sense, I am not using it in the same sense, for example, when
we deal with ourselves and when we file conflict of interest statements. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in a
political sense that you put a conflict of interest in place when you have a
minister, in this case having rights and responsibilities under this act rather
than the Legislature in comparison to his or her responsibilities as a minister
of the Crown, in terms of providing the funding presumably through the
Estimates process to the department, operating the department, making policies
that affect a whole range of services offered by the department and by funded
agencies.
I believe you have the potential for a conflict of
interest. I say that not in the sense of any personal gain, but I say in terms
of that clear focused decision‑making process that is necessary when you
are dealing with the Minister of Family Services.
How can you expect the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer), particularly in the context of this kind of budget year, when
this year we are most definitely looking at unprecedented cuts in virtually
every department, including Family Services, on one hand to be going before
Treasury Board‑‑and I am not aware if the minister is a member of
Treasury Board so I will just use it in the context of going before Treasury
Board‑‑having to deal with budgets and having to deal with policy
decisions and reflecting the fact that there are going to be cuts in services
in the Family Services area? And then how
can you have the minister on the other hand set up‑‑and as the act
brought in by the government last year sets the minister up to be the supposed
neutral arbiter in this particular case, the individual to which the reporting
takes place rather than the Legislature.
I ask that question, Mr. Speaker, because I quite frankly
do not know why the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), when the
Minister of Family Services was bringing in this bill last year, did not
listen. I quite frankly do not know how
the Minister of Family Services can indeed‑‑
An Honourable Member: Not a single
person spoke in favour of it.
Mr. Ashton: ‑‑live
with that kind of situation. Indeed, as
our former critic in this area points out, not a single presenter before the committee
spoke in favour of what the minister was proposing. I appreciate the comments from the member
opposite that our former critic did an excellent job in representing the
concerns, and I certainly subscribe to that, and I think it is a testimonial to
that excellent job that we are dealing with this particular bill brought in in
the next session, brought in prior to Christmas in the first days of this
session, brought in by our former critic because we did not want to wait three
or four or five years for the government to recognize the error of its ways,
and we wanted the opportunity to deal with this particular matter right now.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that the
government House leader earlier, given the vacuum in government business that
we ran into‑‑
An Honourable Member: That is an
understatement of the century.
* (1530)
Mr. Ashton: Understatement,
indeed, as pointed out by the member for
Mr. Speaker, there is a requirement on ministers in this
House, and I have seen ministers in two different governments, and I have seen
the pressure that is on ministers and I do not envy the kind of
responsibilities that ministers face, but one of the paramount responsibilities
of a minister is that when policy decisions are made, that minister has to know
what he or she is talking about, has to know the ramifications of what he or
she is doing and, more particularly, I cannot believe when any minister would
get to the point of making a decision of bringing in a bill not just to first
reading, because you can bring a bill before this House to first reading
without having a defined text, but we are talking here of bringing into second
reading, we are dealing with the broad principles of the bill and ministers of
this Crown do not even know how to defend their own decision‑making
process.
That is unacceptable.
It was unacceptable last year with this particular bill. That is why we brought in this amendment and
would urge all members of the House to support it.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted to engage in this debate at this time.
I listened with care and with caution to the words of the
House leader of the opposition and, not pretending to lay any great wisdom or expertise
on the particular subject matter at hand but, as I understood his participation
in the debate, it centered on accountability, more particularly ministerial
accountability and his objection to the fact that as the bill is presented,
that is precisely what the bill calls for, accountability by the minister in
question, the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), and he feels that
is wrong. He feels that is wrong that a minister should be held accountable.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you and honourable
members a little story, because there are of course two conflicting views on
this one. I tend to believe that a great
deal of the cynicism that the general public has about politicians in general and
our system of government in general lies in the fact that just the opposite is
true, that it is difficult for John Doe, the average citizen, to know who to
hold accountable for actions of whatever government from time to time. I say, we do ourselves a disservice when that
happens.
I appreciate that in the complex system of government, in
the various regulatory agencies and boards, there are many issues that I could
accept the honourable member's argument about not allowing any form or even
hint of political interference to prevail.
But, in principle, what are we talking about when the honourable member
refers to political interference as something bordering on a disease?
Mr. Speaker, that is what we all were elected for in this
House, to politically interfere hopefully in the improvement of the affairs of
our province.
I want to tell the honourable member a little story,
because a gentleman that once graced this House that I have a certain amount of
respect for‑‑indeed a great deal of respect for although we never
had the privilege of being politically affiliated‑‑was a senior
minister of a government that the honourable members opposite were part of at
some point in time. The honourable member was the former member for
I can recall shortly upon his party achieving power under
Ed Schreyer in the then first New Democratic Party government of Manitoba, Mr.
Green found out to his horror that under a certain section of, I believe it was
The Water Rights Act, if certain things took place, automatically other things
took place like public hearings with respect to a water issue. He was offended that the way the legislation
was written there was no possible reference to the responsibility of the
minister, nor did the minister have an opportunity to express or direct policy
in this area. It was the kind of
legislation that the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) just now spoke
in such great defence of. Ministers
should not be in a position to influence; ministers should not be able to
politically interfere.
Well, the same Mr. Green, I want to tell, when the New
Democrats were in power, in that first session of the legislature he promptly amended
the act, in this case The Water Rights Act, so there would be no
misunderstanding among the people of Manitoba, and he was the Minister of
Natural Resources at that time, as to who was being held accountable for
matters that took place with respect to that specific act. I happen to agree with that view, because the
way our system works it is, in my opinion, essential, or else who do you hold
accountable? Some faceless bureaucrat,
as talented as he may be, as well meaning as he may be, as wise as he may be?
Our system calls and our people from time to time clamour
at the fact that they want to hold somebody specifically accountable. Under our system it is laid out
constitutionally for us. It is Executive
Council, it is members of the Treasury benches.
Yes, you can broaden it, you can include the caucus of the governing
party, and you can include in some instances all members of this Legislature
when we deal with certain responsibilities that are so laid out but, in the
main, in the running of the government, I have no difficulty in acknowledging
what I believe to be is a desirable feature of the bill that is being discussed
for that simple reason. If the operation
that this bill calls for, the responsibilities of the director or of the Child
Advocate of the department is not being properly administered, then we do not
go start pointing fingers at people who cannot defend themselves in this
Chamber. No, we point the finger
directly at the person who under our Constitution is responsible, the minister. If there is cause, the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
does something about it. He removes the
minister. That is the way our system
works and people understand that.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I have, and I appreciate that I
may well be in a minority, but certainly at the time that when Canada took a
quantum leap, or lurch, whatever way you want it to be, it decided to
fundamentally alter parliamentary responsibility under the then Prime Minister
of Canada, Mr. Trudeau, to impose a carved‑in‑stone Charter of Rights
on the people of Canada. It was, on the
one hand, understandable that most Canadians accepted that. I happen to have served the Premier at that
time for whom I had a great deal of respect, particularly on the intellectual
level, the then Honourable Sterling Lyon, who made sound judgments and carried
it into the highest councils of this country in opposition to it. The Mother of Parliaments from which we
derive our parliamentary powers from does not have a written constitution. I am referring to
There are solid arguments to make that we in fact made a
mistake in 1982. I do not believe that
unelected, faceless‑‑well, they are not so faceless‑‑but
unelected, unrepresentative and unaccountable people, judges, in this instance,
should be making serious, important issues on the lifestyle of the people of
We Canadians tend to like the mix and match. We like to cherry‑pick some of the
better things that we see in the American congressional system and impose that
on our system but not taking in account the superior points that our system
provides. Our system provides, in fact,
a living, breathing, constantly evolving set of rules, constitutional Charter
of Rights, if you like, as we make the laws, as we pass the laws. That is why the laws are not out of date. They evolve as times change. Quite frankly, intellectually, I make the
argument that that is a sounder basis than attempting to, at one snapshot point
in history, decide this is what is right, this is what is wrong, and these are
the rights if you‑‑and then you set up a battery of lawyers. You clog up our legal system with a host of
legal challenges as to what is right or wrong and what conduct is acceptable or
what conduct is not acceptable in our country.
That is what we have now, and I say that‑‑well,
some applaud it, some feel its great; certainly many, many of the special
interest groups have found that a way of doing an end run around the people
that are from time to time elected to establish rules. I think on some very important issues and
some very important moral issues, the question of abortion, the question of sexuality,
other things, rights, ought not to be decided by judges. They ought to be decided by the people who
are chosen from time to make these laws.
We have forgone that, because we say, we do not want to hold the people
that we elect accountable for these decisions.
We put that into a charter, we put that into a document, and then we let
lawyers argue about it.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I just enjoy the opportunity as I
encourage private members to more fully utilize the opportunity of private
members' resolutions. It is in fact an
opportunity where ministers, upper benchers, opposition members are all on an
equal playing field, and we do not in my opinion take full advantage that
private members' resolutions offer us.
* (1540)
I know that when I have to speak to a government bill, I
am of course expected to and do speak in support of the bill. As a private member on a private member's
resolution, we have far more freedom to express the individual feelings and
thoughts that members bring to this Chamber from time to time and, in doing so,
hopefully enrich and perhaps even raise the general level of debate.
So, Mr. Speaker, I simply close by saying that the
honourable member for Thompson's (Mr. Ashton) concern about having a minister
accountable, I take offence to. I think
that I swear an oath as an Executive Council member to be accountable. I say that it is a failing in our system that
we too often find bureaucratic ways of holding ministers not accountable, and I
at least provide the counteroffer in saying that in this instance I believe
that it is absolutely appropriate for the minister, in this case the Minister
of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), to be accountable for an important
function that his department will have to supervise.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): It is a privilege for me to participate in
this debate on Bill 200, The Child and Family Services Amendment Act.
Mr. Speaker, the issue in this case is precise. Should the office of the Children's Advocate
report to the Minister of Family Services as a minister of the Crown, or should
the Office of the Children's Advocate report directly to this Legislative
Assembly, the Manitoba Legislative Assembly?
That is the issue.
Let us analyze the problem here and see what the
consequences are if we follow one option and contrast the consequences if we
follow the other option. What are the
consequences if the Children's Advocate reports directly and becomes
accountable to a minister of the Crown?
What would follow in that kind of arrangement, in that kind of
arrangement which naturally obtains now in
The first consequence would of course be, there would be
an absence of independent autonomy and discretion on the part of the Children's
Advocate.
Being a subordinate officer to a political minister of
the Crown, the Children's Advocate cannot in any sense of the term exercise
independent discretion as to how he or she would see the welfare of the child
and formulate policy accordingly. It
will be impossible for him to impose his own view of his conception of what is
good for the children of Manitoba on the basis of his understanding of what the
public interest requires, because he has to report to a political minister of
the Crown who has other factors or other considerations in mind in making
policy decisions other than the welfare of the child.
Therefore, on this basis alone we can see that the
formulation of policy affecting the welfare of children will of course
ultimately be decided on the basis of political considerations, the Child
Advocate merely being a subordinate official of a political minister to whom
that Children's Advocate is administratively accountable. If you are an administrative subordinate and
you report to a political superior, you can never insist on your own view or
your understanding of what the public interest requires, because the political
superior is the one who is elected by the people and you are just
appointed. Being appointed, the power to
appoint carries with it the power to remove.
If you do not follow the wishes of your political
superior, of course, he can always remove you from your position despite the
fact that you may enjoy Civil Service status or Civil Service security because
there will always be some grounds if the political superiors are intent on
removing the appointed official. Of
course, the appropriate procedure is to be followed. There has to be just and legal cause; there
is to be a proper hearing and everything will have to be satisfied before you
can exercise the power to remove.
This is precisely the wisdom of our system of laws that
there are certain procedures that are indispensable to obtain fairness and
justice. This procedure has to be
observed and followed.
Now, the second consequence, what other consequence will
follow if the Children's Advocate is reporting directly to a political
minister? He will be subject to
oversight by the minister of the Crown.
The minister of the Crown can substitute his own judgment and abrogate
the judgment of the subordinate.
On what basis will the political minister do this? Of course, when there are higher and more
pressing political factors involved. On
that basis, the political minister will exercise his discretion and substitute
his judgment for the judgment of the Child Advocate.
Now, what is happening here with respect to the
formulation and implementation of the children's policy? Those people who are well versed and close to
the problem at hand, people have all the information at hand, people who know
all the alternative ways of dealing with a problem will be suppressed by
someone who is higher up and unfamiliar with the problem at issue. Because he is the political minister, he can,
of course, substitute his own judgment and discretion and abrogate the judgment
and discretion of the people who are knowledgeable about the problem.
Therefore, what is happening in this situation is that the problem is being solved
by people who have higher authority but have less knowledge and less
information. Therefore, we can hardly
arrive at any good or reasonable solution to the problem of children.
What about the third consequence? Being a subunit merely in the ministry of
Family Services, the Child Advocate office will of course be competing with
other offices and other organizational units in the same department. If it is so decided by the minister of the
Crown that this particular office should not be effective, some of the
resources will be reallocated to other units in the department. There will be no stability of funding or
resources because that can be reallocated by the responsible minister of the
Crown. Therefore, the degree of activity
of the Children's Advocate will lie entirely in the sole discretion of the
minister of the Crown. These are the
undesirable consequences of having the Children's Advocate office placed and
directly accountable to a political minister who is responding to pressure from
the Premier (Mr. Filmon), from the public at large, from his colleagues in the
House, in order to protect his position as minister of the Crown.
Let us investigate the other side of the coin. What are the desirable results if the
Children's Advocate is made directly accountable to this Legislature? What would happen then? He will have a mandate, and the mandate will
be statutorily laid down by the Legislature.
Within the parameters of the statute, he has to exercise full authority
and full discretion to carry out the welfare policy of the
* (1550)
Listen. If you are
to hold any person accountable for anything, then you must give him the
necessary authority to carry out his responsibilities. In other words, accountability,
responsibility must be commensurate with the authority that is given to the
official if the official is expected to carry out and fulfill his mandate and
his obligation. That is a basic
principle of administration. Authority
must be commensurate with the responsibility established if you are to hold a
person accountable for what he does.
This is the desirable consequence of being in an office where you are
subject to know that discretion because you are subject to the legislative
mandate as expressed in the enabling statute that created your office.
Second, being independent politically, the Children's
Advocate will not waste his time attending to the pressure of the group or
pressure of this politician or pressure of this minister, because there is no
time for that. He will devote his full
attention and focus his energy to the carrying out of his legislative mandate
in order to implement the children's policy as the Legislature has solely
stated that he should carry out. He will be more efficient in carrying out the
purpose for which the office has been created because he will not devote any
more resources, he will not devote any more time needed in order to appease all
these pressures that will usually impinge when you are in a political
position. So the freedom from partisan
pressures, from partisan insinuations and other demands, will, of course, inure
to the contribution of efficiency and effectiveness of the Office of the
Children's Advocate.
The third desirable advantage: being a legislative office created directly
by statute, of course, there will be allocation by the executive of how much
resources will be devoted for this office, and that cannot be meddled with or
interfered with by anybody because it is approved by the Legislative Assembly,
to which the official is directly accountable; and being based on a reasonable
amount of funding necessary in order to carry out his responsibilities and his
duties, you will see in the Children's Advocate a devotion to the duty as we
have seen in the other offices that we have created that report to the
Legislature, like the office of the Boundaries Commission, the Office of the
Ombudsman, the office of the auditor general.
You can see how efficient and effective they are, because they do not
have to devote any of their resources to political pressures and political balancing
of interests. All they do is to carry
out their mandate as laid down by the Legislature, and that is what they are
held accountable to.
Now, all this amounts to is the question of
accountability. Who will be more accountable, an appointed official who is
responsible and accountable to an administrative political superior, who in
turn is appointed by a higher political superior, both of them being elected by
the people, like in the present system that the government wants to implement
in this province, or an official who received definite tenure of office laid
down by the Legislature, cannot be removed without the consent of two‑thirds
of the Legislature and whose mandate is clearly and legislatively mandated in
the form of an enabling statute?
When you are accountable as an appointed official, your
accountability takes the form of administrative accountability. That means you
are subject to all the rules and regulations of the office and you are subject
to the authority of your superior. When
your superior imposes on you a thing that you do not like, like a gag order,
you have to obey. You have a duty to
obey. If you violate that order of your
administrative superior then you are endangering your own position.
So, because the administrative accountability is
administrative in nature, you have to obey, the subordinate has to obey the
administrative superior regardless of the reasonableness of the instruction or
the order, unless of course it is illegal, unless of course it violates some of
the laws and statutes and rules and regulations of the government.
On the other hand, if the Children's Advocate is directly
made accountable to the Legislature, his accountability is statutory and
legislative. Nobody can question him
except the Legislature itself. He will
be pursuing a policy that is given to him in the form of a mandate, in the
framework for which the office is created, and he will have to devote his
fullest energy and time in carrying out that mandate because, regardless of the
difficulty of removing him, it is still possible to remove him by a two‑thirds
vote of this Legislature if he is not faithful to the performance of his duties
and obligations, in the carrying out of his function.
Should the welfare of our children be left to the interplay
of the political forces and be the political football of politicians and
pressure groups and parties, or should the welfare of our children be laid
squarely in the bosom of this Legislature?
That is the issue, Mr. Speaker, and I think the wisest policy is to give
the responsibility to this Legislature.
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this
afternoon and speak on Bill 200, The Child and Family Services Amendment Act,
brought in by my colleague the member for
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would like to caution the honourable member
that we do not make reference to the fact of whether a member is in the Chamber
or outside the Chamber. The honourable
minister is probably having some difficulty in hearing your remarks, but I
would just like to caution the honourable member for Selkirk.
Mr. Dewar: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker, for that ruling. I was
commenting on the incredible quality of the speeches that I have just had the
pleasure to hear in this Chamber.
I want to begin my discussion on this particular piece of
legislation by of course demonstrating my support for this bill brought forward
by the member for
The purpose of that particular bill was a good one. It was to advise the Minister of Family
Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) on matters relating to the welfare of children, a
concern I know all members in this Chamber share, and it was also set up to
review and investigate complaints.
One of the major difficulties we had with that particular
legislation was that the Child Advocate is responsible to the Minister of
Family Services and not to members here in the Legislature. As some of the colleagues before me had
mentioned, there were many reports that have recommended that the Children's
Advocate be an independent position and responsible here to the Legislature and
not to the minister.
They chose to, unfortunately, ignore that advice and the
Minister of Family Services did what he wanted to do. As I was mentioning, there were four
different reports. All of them
recommended that the Child Advocate report to the Legislature. There was the
Kimelman Report, the Reid‑Sigurdson Report, the Suche report and the
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry.
* (1600)
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Speaker, in
the Chair)
As a matter of fact, I would like to
quote from the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry one of their recommendations on page
747, Child Welfare, Aboriginal Peoples and the Child Welfare System in
A recommendation in the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, which
this government chose to ignore, among many other recommendations from the
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry which they have ignored and failed to act upon yet‑‑that
is just one of them‑‑it is recommended right in the Aboriginal
Justice Inquiry that the government set up an independent Child Protector, it
is called, and be responsible and report here to the Legislature, not to the
minister.
I believe last year there were extensive hearings on this
particular issue and extensive debate throughout this discussion in this
House. Unfortunately, the government
chose not to support virtually, like I said, unanimous recommendations about
this particular issue and how it relates to children in this province. It really is unfortunate.
There really is nothing complicated with this particular
bill. All the government has to do is‑‑it
is a simple part of the simple mechanism to implement. Again, the legislation that was introduced by
the member for
Here they had a chance to act upon some of that
consultation that they have chosen to get involved with and, unfortunately,
they have chosen to ignore it. I believe
the Child's Advocates who currently maintain this position in other
jurisdictions, Alberta and Ontario, have stated publicly that they wish their
jobs were not outside the political arena, that they would be reporting not to
the minister but to the Chamber as a whole, and that the Child's Advocate be an
independent position, and that, again, report to the Legislature here and not
to the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer).
Many different colleagues of mine have mentioned about
other independent commissioners or independent commissions operated by the
government. I think of the Electoral
Boundaries Commission, which reports here to the Chamber and does not report
through the political process. It is
independent; it has acted quite well. I know that my particular constituency
remained the same. The boundaries
remained the same as they had in the '88 election. It was done in an independent fashion, and
the boundaries were decided throughout the province in a very fair and
equitable manner, and we feel that the Child's Advocate should be done under
the same conditions, again where the individual involved would report here to
the Chamber, to the Legislature, and not to the minister.
We feel that the children in our province, their
services, their safety and their security are at least as important as the
drawing up of political boundaries. One
of the only reasons why, of course, the minister appears not to be interested
in doing this is the political health of himself, not the health of Manitobans,
not the health of children in this province.
So, Mr. Acting Speaker, we know that the government will
be supporting this particular piece of legislation based upon the wisdom that
myself and other members of this Chamber brought forward this afternoon. On another occasion we had a chance to speak
on this particular legislation that the Child's Advocate will report to the
Legislature and not to the Minister of Family Services, because in that case we
feel that there is an element, a chance of political interference in the
operations of this particular commissioner.
The Ombudsman is an independent body which reports here
to the Legislature, the Electoral Boundaries Commission, and we feel that the
Child's Advocate could operate under the same situation as that, and this is
why the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) brought forward this particular
piece of legislation and why we know that all members in this Chamber will be
supporting it. As it is now, there is a
lack of independence on behalf of the Child's Advocate, whether it is real or
perceived, and we are concerned about the potential for political
interference. We know that if this
legislation was to be amended by Bill 200, which would amend Bill 64 from last
session, we feel would correct that glaring error.
So, Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to conclude my
remarks by saying I know that the members opposite and all members in this
Chamber will be supporting Bill 200 because our children's safety and security
are well worth it.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr. Acting Speaker, the whole debate on the Child's
Advocate began some 10 years ago when recommendations were made. Many reports were made, and we have had delay
after delay to have this type of legislation introduced, and finally we had the
introduction of Bill 68 that was to be known as the Child Advocate's bill. The purpose was to advise the Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) on matters related to the welfare of
children. It was also to review and
investigate complaints and represent the rights, interests and views of
children who fall under the Child and Family Services.
The one concern we have, Mr. Acting Speaker, is that
through this legislation the responsibility of dealing with this would fall
with the minister rather than an independent body, and that goes against many
of the recommendations that were made over the years saying that this should be
an independent position. It should not
be the Minister of Family Services who has the authority in this, but the
minister chose to ignore that advice and did what he wanted to do, and not
follow the recommendations of the many committees who have made recommendations
on this.
As my colleague from Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) just indicated,
there are recommendations on this in the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, saying
that the Child's Advocate should be an independent person not connected to the
minister. The reason for independence is
to protect the child. There is always
room for some political interference in situations like this, and I am not
saying that the minister would personally interfere in these types of cases, but
there is always the perception out there.
If we are concerned about the welfare of the children and
those children who are under the jurisdiction of Child and Family Services, we
must offer them the protection that they so desperately need. They must be independent so that people who
have information, people who want to make recommendations can feel free that
whatever they say will not be construed in some fashion and then have political‑‑anybody
that is investigating that there will not be appearances of political
interference.
One of the other serious concerns that we have with the
bill is the fact that there are not adequate resources connected with the
Child's Advocate. The staffing at the
Child's Advocate in 1992‑93 Estimates is for one Child's Advocate, one technical/professional, and two
administrative support positions, a total of $70,000 for administration, travel
and expenses. If we are to have a truly
independent Child's Advocate, if we are going to be able to do this job
adequately to address the concerns of all children in
* (1610)
A Children's Advocate will be only as effective as the
resources allowed for. There have to be
resources to do outreach work, there have to be resources to do publicity to
make people aware of the position that is there. There have to be the resources to allow the
people involved to travel to rural and northern
If we look at the
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
There are many people who have made
recommendations that it is very, very important that this position be
independent of the minister's office, that it operate in the same fashion as
the Ombudsman does, and we hope that this government will take seriously these
recommendations and that the amendments that we are proposing, that were
introduced by the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) be adopted, that we can
have a Child's Advocate that can truly represent the needs of the people who
are using the services.
It is very important that this position be independent of
any government interference. In talking
to some people who were involved with the Lester Desjarlais case in
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House,
the honourable member for
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is now adjourned and
stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).