LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday, March 11, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
MATTER OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I rise in this Chamber on a matter
of privilege, and I am raising this matter at the first opportunity and
occasion in which I have to raise this matter
after some information was drawn to my attention this morning.
Mr. Speaker, this
is a very serious matter and after I complete my comments, I will be following
my comments with a substantive motion in this Chamber.
Mr. Speaker, we
in this House, in order to discharge our duties, often ask questions to provide
information not only to ourselves but to the public. The information we receive from the
government and ministers is crucial to our roles as parliamentarians.
There is much confusion in the community
regarding health care. The strategy of
the government is to blame those who are asking the questions. One of the areas of greatest concerns in
health care is the area of services provided to children. Part of the problem is the government has not
outlined to the public what is happening in children's services.
In the fall, the
government announced the consolidation of children's services to Children's
Hospital. At the same time it seemed
that a portion of children's services would remain at St. Boniface Hospital and
some surgery would remain at community hospitals. That was changed with no public announcement,
and it was decided that all services requiring hospitalization would be moved
to Children's Hospital.
Next, without
formal announcement, the government also decided that children's surgery would
be moved from community hospitals to Children's Hospital. It was not made clear whether day patient
surgery would also be consolidated.
We received calls
in our office, and I personally received calls from parents and doctors. We received calls because these same parents
had phoned the minister's office and had been told one thing, and they phoned
the deputy minister's office and the head of health care reform and were told
another thing.
On March 3, I
very specifically asked the minister, and I will quote, Mr. Speaker from
Hansard whether: " . . . outpatient
surgery for children will also be consolidated at the Health Sciences
Centre? What is it? Will outpatient surgery also be consolidated
or not?"
That very same
day the minister replied to me, after much verbiage, and I quote, the minister
said: ". . . but outpatient services
will continue in most, if not all, of the locations currently, including St.
Boniface, Victoria‑‑"
The answer was
clear. I did not have to ask it again,
because the minister had given me a precise answer. I sent copies of these answers, Mr. Speaker,
to people in the community. Our job was
done, or so I thought.
On March 4, the
next day, less than 24 hours after the minister had made those statements in
the House, a senior departmental official in the minister's office sent a
letter to the community hospitals dated March 4, for Tim Duprey, Executive
Director, Hospitals and Winnipeg Community Health Services saying, and I
quote: The transfer of all surgical
patients, in‑ and outpatients zero to 14 years of age, who are presently
admitted to St. Boniface Hospital and the Winnipeg community hospitals, will be
admitted to Children's Hospital.
That is what the
minister's official said the very next day. The official said that.
Mr. Speaker, the
minister said one thing and it is clear he had already made a different
decision. This is an indication of what
is wrong with health care reform. It is
not the only example, but I am sure that for me since I have been Health critic
it is clearly the most blatant example.
The minister thinks he is pulling one over the public and over members
of this House by his cute answers in the House, but he does not do anyone a
service when he misleads us in this House.
More importantly, what are the parents and the patients to say? What are they to know when the minister does
that?
Now, Mr. Speaker,
this morning in my office I received a letter from a doctor, and I want to
quote from this letter. This is when the
matter was brought to my attention, and I will quote. It is from Dr. Stranc from the
* (1335)
Mr. Speaker, I
must establish a prima‑facie case.
The minister very specifically answered a very specific question when he
knew his department had adopted a different course of action, unless in the
subsequent 18 hours somehow the minister and his department had reached a different
conclusion. By reading the letter, it is
clear they had not.
Prima facie‑‑the
minister said one thing in this House and his official sent out a letter saying
100 percent opposite, different. He said
outpatient surgery would remain at the community hositals when his own
department had already decided, and himself, that it would be shifted to Health
Sciences Centre.
Mr. Speaker, it
was not fair. It is not fair to the
public. It is indicative of the problems happening in health reform. He ought to do more than apologize. He ought to clarify and set the record
straight.
I move, seconded
by the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis), that the Minister of
Health (Mr. Orchard) be requested to apologize to the House for providing false
information to the House on March 3, 1993.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker,
Beauchesne's tells us that, of course, a matter of privilege is the sum of the
peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the
high court of Parliament and by members of each House individually.
Mr. Speaker, we
are also told that a question of privilege ought rarely to come up in our
Legislature, should be dealt with with a motion. I acknowledge that the member has provided a
motion. We are also forewarned that a
genuine question of privilege is a most serious matter and should be taken
seriously by the House.
Mr. Speaker,
those issues met, I would say that the prima‑facie case has not been
established by the member opposite.
Indeed, we are told within our Rules that has to be established. Furthermore, under Section 31.(1), we are
told, "A dispute arising between two Members, as to allegations of facts,
does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege."
Mr. Speaker, I
submit that is exactly‑‑as I listened to the argument put forward
by the member, it seems to be exactly what has happened in this case.
Mr. Speaker,
because the member in my view has failed to establish a prima‑facie case,
I would submit that the motion that he has put is out of order and should not
be considered by the House at this time.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I share with the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) in terms of the
concerns one has as an opposition member when we put forward a question and we
anticipate that the answer will be forthright and deal with the question that
has been asked of the minister. In fact,
when a minister makes a statement we assume that what he is telling us is
correct.
As the member for
Kildonan has pointed out, this has not been the case. The concern I have is that if we see this as
a matter of privilege, then it is a question of how many matters of privilege
could we have when there are numbers of different pieces of information that
come across our desks that imply that the facts the minister might have given
today or yesterday might not necessarily be in keeping with some information
that I get tomorrow.
That is where I
have a bit of a problem with the matter of privilege even though I agree with
what the member for Kildonan is saying in terms of the frustration. As an MLA, you want to have the
correspondence, you want to know what the minister is telling you, but
Beauchesne's is fairly clear when it says answers to the questions should be as
brief as possible and deal with the matter raised and should not provoke
debate.
Well, debate over
facts, Mr. Speaker, I believe is what the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) and
the government House leader‑‑and I am sure if the Minister of
Health (Mr. Orchard) were to stand up, he would give another side of the
story. I sympathize with the member for
Kildonan, because I too have had that frustration and I think a good number of
opposition members have had that very same frustration.
I would suggest
to you that in fact this quite possibly might have been a question for Question
Period. I am not too sure, given the
serious nature of a matter of privilege, that it would qualify for a matter of
privilege, but would suggest to you that you take it under advisement and come
back to the House, because it is an important ruling as it will have an effect
on other potential matters of privilege.
* (1340)
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, indeed,
the government House leader is correct.
There are some facts which are not in dispute. The member has obviously raised this matter
at the first available opportunity. He
received correspondence from a doctor this morning, pointing to the clear
evidence that the minister did not only mislead the House, but also misled
members of the public and particularly health care professionals who are trying
to deal with the types of decisions that this minister and this government is
making under the guise of health care reform on a daily basis. That aspect of the matter of privilege has
clearly been satisfied.
Your job, Mr.
Speaker, is to determine whether there is a prima‑facie case. I would refer you to the clear indication in
Beauchesne's that a question of privilege is partly a matter of fact, and I
think the facts are clear. The minister
did mislead the House and partly of law in this case, in particular the law of
contempt of Parliament. I would argue
that what we are dealing with here is not a dispute over the facts. That indeed is clearly referenced in
Beauchesne's as not constituting a matter of privilege and indeed we have many
Speakers' rulings. I will not quote them
extensively, but I have researched today a number of Speakers' rulings that
have clearly established that fact, including a number of rulings of your own
over the last number of years.
Mr. Speaker, this
goes beyond that. We have a case here
where the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) does not have to answer
questions. In fact, I know the Minister
of Health exercises his right not to answer questions in Question Period on a
regular basis.
Mr. Speaker, we
are not dealing here with a confusion in terms of the policy. Very clearly the government has developed a
policy in this regard. What we are
dealing with is a situation where the minister, for whatever purpose, in this
House is making statements in response to a very specific question, very
specific statements that are very clearly intended to deliberately mislead
members of this House and members of the public.
That is why this
is not a dispute over the facts. The
facts are clear. The minister misled the
House. The key decision, Mr. Speaker, I
think you have to make is the degree to which this does indeed represent
contempt of parliament. In doing so, one
obviously has to look at the context and the fact that this is not the first
time that members of this side of the House have expressed concern about the
inability of this minister to provide those kind of direct answers, not just to
us but to health care professionals, about exactly what is happening with this
so‑called process of health care reform.
Mr. Speaker, when
you have such clear evidence between the minister on the one hand and the
minister's own department and doctors, patients and members of the public on
the other hand, I would suggest there is only one conclusion that you can
reach. Indeed the minister is showing contempt to this House, to health care
professionals and to members of the public.
I would suggest that means, indeed, there is a prima‑facie case of
privilege and this minister should be asked to apologize to this House and
members of the public for showing that contempt.
* (1345)
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank all honourable members
for their input into this matter.
Indeed, a matter of privilege is a very serious matter.
The honourable
member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) has presented a motion to the House. I will, as I have done in the past, take this
matter under advisement. I will peruse
all the remarks that have been put on the record here today, and I will come
back to the House with a ruling.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Ann Ozunko, Alex Ozunko, Linda Stannard and others, requesting the government
of
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Heather McIvor, Tamara Walsh, Lynn Bengert and others, requesting that the
government of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
It complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and
complies with the rules. Is it the will
of the House to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the
provincial government has not implemented the major recommendation of the
Kopstein report which was to bring in no‑fault auto insurance; and
WHEREAS over four
years ago, the Kopstein report found that if Manitoba adopted no‑fault
auto insurance it could have saved $40 million; and
WHEREAS over two
years ago, a second government report found that over $63 million could be
saved if Manitoba adopted the Quebec plan of no‑fault auto insurance; and
WHEREAS the
provincial cabinet this year after being extensively lobbied, rejected a
business plan capping insurance commissions that would have saved
WHEREAS the rates
for auto insurance are now being raised on average by 9.5 percent to 14.5
percent when the inflation is less than 1.3 percent making this the highest
actual increase in the history of this province; and
WHEREAS one in
five car drivers in this province will now face increases of 13.5 percent; and
WHEREAS the
provincial government has not implemented other aspects of the implementation
of the Kopstein report.
WHEREFORE your
petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be
pleased to request the Minister responsible for MPIC (Mr. Cummings) to consider
implementing no‑fault auto insurance, capping insurance commissions, and
bring in other recommendations of the Kopstein report that the government has
delayed acting on.
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the
Annual Report 1991‑92 of Manitoba Industry, Trade and Tourism and the
Fitness and Sport Directorates.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to table the Third Quarter Report of the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation for
the period ending December, 1992.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
afternoon, from the
On behalf of all
honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
* (1350)
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Consolidation of Health Services
Minister's Clarification
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I spoke with some parents of
children, who get surgery at some of the community hospitals, this morning and
they are still not sure what is happening with respect to outpatient services.
Can the minister
tell me how he can reconcile his statements of March 3 in this Chamber when he
told this House that ". . . outpatient services will continue in most, if
not all, of the locations currently, including St. Boniface, Victoria‑‑",
with that of his official Tim Duprey, executive director, the very next day
when this official said: The transfer of
all surgical patients who are presently admitted at St. Boniface Hospital and
the Winnipeg community hospitals will be admitted to the Children's Hospital.
How does he
reconcile those two statements, Mr. Speaker, that in Hansard and that of his
official?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, with very little difficulty in
fact, Sir, because, as I have indicated in answers to my honourable friend in
the House, that the consolidation of inpatient pediatric services will be
consolidated from the respective community hospitals and St. Boniface to the
Children's Hospital for the provision of inpatient services.
Sir, that will be
accomplished by several initiatives which have recently been completed. I will share these with my honourable friend
because I know that he wishes to have full information provided to all
Manitobans.
One of the
initiatives that we have undertaken in order to accommodate this shift is, for
instance, Sir, to upgrade a fifth operating theatre at the Children's Hospital
at the Health Sciences Centre complex.
That will allow us, with the additional operating time dedicated to the
existing four surgical suites, to accommodate all inpatient surgical needs in
the city of
I know that this
is a confounding process for my honourable friend because he was not part of
government when Children's Hospital was envisioned, but this has been the
entire planning thrust since 1975, to consolidate pediatric services for
children to a centre of excellence, namely the Children's Hospital.
Sir, that process
will happen. In the attempt to make that
process happen, Dr. Aggie Bishop who is the head of pediatric services at the
Children's Hospital is in consultation with surgeons giving pediatric services
to assure that they have admitting privileges.
In the instance of the surgeon referred to, that individual has, as I
understand it, admitting privileges in both Victoria and the Health Sciences
Centre.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the
question. I will ask it again.
For the parents,
the patients and the surgeons, is outpatient surgery to be consolidated from
the community hospitals to Children's Hospital as per the letter of his
official, or is it not, as per the minister's own comments in this House, March
3? [interjection]
Mr. Orchard: My honourable friends over there say, it is
simple, and Mr. Speaker, I will deal with that later.
Mr. Speaker, let
me give my honourable friends some sense of the kind of service provision we
are talking about in terms of surgery cases 1991‑92, which is the last
full year that we have statistics available.
Children's
Hospital provided surgical procedures, both inpatient and day surgery‑‑6,571
cases out of a total of 8,731. Right now, without the consolidation from
To provide, Sir,
those consolidations, we are opening six of the 11 beds which have never been
opened since Children's Hospital was commissioned, in order to accommodate the
additional inpatient services.
Now, that is the
first transition of service from inpatient surgery in those community hospitals
to Children's. Currently, we do 75
percent of day surgery at Children's Hospital.
Over time, I believe that there will be a natural flow of the balance,
but the issue, Sir, is the inpatient services which are being consolidated with
full accommodation of children, families and the professionals delivering those
services.
* (1355)
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder that parents
and children are concerned, given that answer?
Mr. Speaker, I
ask for a third time, given that his own official said that this will take
place April 1, 1993, will the minister tell us, will outpatient surgery
presently performed at the community hospital be transferred to Children's
Hospital as per his own official's letter and contrary to what he said in this
Chamber on March 3.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the letter
says, acute care services will be provided at the Children's Hospital.
Let us not
forget, while my honourable friend the new critic for the New Democrats was
standing up and posing as wisdom, he made this statement, and I will give you
the date that it was made, CKND TV, February 16, 1993. Here is a direct quote from the member for
Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak): The government
has not been up‑front in terms of its bed closures and has not been clear‑‑[interjection]
Well, I hope he is still clapping when I finish, Sir‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Orchard: Oh, now they are going to drown me out.
The member for
Kildonan went on to say: ‑‑has
not been clear as to the fact that St. Boniface Hospital will completely close
to children‑‑Mr. Speaker, including emergency services, which would
have endangered children with that kind of false statement out there as fact.
And, Sir, that is
what we have been correcting in the last three to four weeks. If anybody owes an apology to the people of
Manitoba‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Canadian Economy
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance often
complains that the opposition picks out one economic statistic without looking
at the whole economic picture. I have
analyzed
Mr. Speaker, my
question to the Minister of Finance is very straightforward. Why has
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): The simple answer,
Mr. Speaker, is, thank God we came to power in '88 and salvaged this province
from the taxation policies of the members opposite. I do not have to remind the member that his
government, indeed his colleagues the ministers of Finance through the '80s
ripped away, from disposable income, $800 million from the people of this
province.
Of course, what
the Conference Board is saying now in terms of '93 is, it expects Manitoba
disposable income to increase by $204 for every man, woman and child in the
province after adjusting for inflation‑‑fifth best among the
provinces and the best outside of Atlantic Canada, would result in $224 million
in take‑home pay. The
Mr. Speaker, our
policies are working. We are saying the
taxpayer can do better with disposable income left in their pocket as compared
to the government ripping it away like the NDP did throughout most of the '80s
and destroying the economy in doing so.
* (1400)
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, I would like to share this
information with the Minister of Finance, therefore, I would table this
report: The Economic Decline Under The
Filmon Conservative Government 1988‑1992.
I also have copies for members of the House, for any other member who
may wish to study the figures and look at the facts for himself.
This is my
question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister
would look at the very last page, for example, and see information on Total
Construction Work Performed, you will note that
My question is
straightforward to the minister then.
Why have we slipped, for instance, in total construction work
performed? Why do we have a smaller
percentage of total construction activity in
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is, thank goodness
the members of this House are subjected to the professorial views of the member
for Brandon East once a year, and thank goodness he is not in the classroom
every day because of the inane information that he presents, couched, of
course, in a very selective way as he likes to look at certain areas in
factoring out so many of the years. I
have looked at his analysis before, and I am sure the basic foundation and
methodologies have not changed over the period of time.
Mr. Speaker, all
I can say at this particular point in time is that we will continue to stay the
course. The reality is there are budgets
coming down, I understand, over the next week or two in other provinces, some
of them governed by Liberals, some governed by NDP. I will be looking very carefully to the
results that they put into place on the expenditure side, on the taxation side,
and also the supporting economic information that the member is trying to share
with us today.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to debate this,
but these are official Stats Canada figures.
There are 14 basic economic indicators which are used by most economists
in measuring the performance of the economy.
So they are straightforward facts.
My question
is: Is this minister‑‑surely
he is prepared to accept some of the responsibility for
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the
responsibility. I can say one
thing. I feel badly that the forecast
that we brought down in last year's budget did not come to be, to the extent
that I accepted forecasts that came from outside of the jurisdiction. I feel badly about that.
I also say that
on the good side, I take some consolation for the two‑year period, and
this again is the Conference Board of Canada, '93 and '94,
Mr. Speaker, our
approach is working as compared to the approach of the members opposite which
is one, tax more and second, continue to spend and take the deficit to a larger
number which of course is increased taxes for the years coming. Our approach is better, because I look around
Personal Care Homes
Quality of Health Care
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Health.
Twenty‑five
RNs at the Central Park Lodge on
Can the Minister
of Health tell this House whether he has been advised of this situation and
what he has done to rectify this very serious problem in our health care area?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the
circumstance my honourable friend brings to my attention. I will attempt to get as much information around
the circumstance and provide him with full information.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, the question is that the
personal care homes are being run by some of the private owners, but the
Department of Health has the responsibility to set certain standards and a
certain code of ethics.
We are simply
asking the minister to make sure that procedures are put in place so that these
health care professionals are protected and also, the quality of care should
not suffer at the expense of certain personal care home procedures.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I accept my honourable friend's
motivation in posing the question. My
honourable friend shares a concern that we share on this side of the House that
we maintain quality health care.
I am prepared to
share with my honourable friend whatever circumstance exists around the
decision that he alleges has been made at Central Park Lodge and give him the
investigation, if any, that we have done to date.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, we have received many calls on
some of the communications, and we have been very careful not to alarm the
health care professionals.
Government Funding
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): My question is: What procedures are put in place to make sure
that the government funds, which are being appropriated to the personal care
home, are being used for the health of Manitobans?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, in terms of personal care home
provision, we have consultants and ministry staff who visit personal care
homes, for instance, to ensure that standards that have been set by government
are being met.
Certainly, we
have had a role in some instances over the last number of years where we have
had to investigate complaints about circumstances involving inappropriate care,
or inappropriate treatment of patients by not only staff, but other residents,
and attempt to work with the facilities to assure that, in all circumstances,
the quality of care and the safety of patient care is maintained.
I cannot offer to
my friend any more detail without further specifics other than what my
honourable friend shared with me.
Overseas
University Differential Fees
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, overseas students in
My question is
for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism. I want to ask him: What advice did he offer to the Minister of
Education (Mrs. Vodrey) when she proposed to introduce differential fees and
put at risk what are essentially export dollars?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I believe that
Therefore, in
terms of the issue of the fairness across Canada, the same standards across
Canada and the contribution to our education system, it made a great deal of
sense to do the same in Manitoba as is happening across Canada, recognizing
that we still expect to get at least the same number of students here to
Manitoba because of the high quality of education that we offer here in this
province.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister will find
that the
I want to ask the
same minister to confirm that where differential fees have been introduced in
other jurisdictions and where studies on such have been concluded, in
particular Ontario, what they have found is that you lose at least a third and
up to a half of the overseas students immediately.
If we assume in
I want to ask the
minister: Why is he prepared to forgo
such revenue under the present economic circumstances?
Mr. Stefanson: The simple answer, Mr. Speaker, is because we
will not be forgoing the revenue referred to by the honourable member. The information we have is that does not
occur in terms of the comparisons to other provinces.
We expect that
there will be the same level of foreign students participating in our
universities. Because of the standards
that we offer in this province, because of the ethnic communities that do exist
here that have contacts back to those countries, because of the graduates that
we have from our universities and our alumni associations throughout other
parts of the world, we will maintain the same number of students.
Therefore, in
terms of a net benefit to the economy of
As we all know,
the cost of our universities‑‑the taxpayers of our province pay
some 80 percent towards the cost of the education at the universities. Foreign students will now be making a
contribution to obtaining an education here in
* (1410)
Ms. Friesen: Then I invite the minister to table the
studies that he has, and I want to ask him to, in fact, recommend to his
government that they delay this decision until they have reconsidered the long‑term
implications of the loss of these students.
Mr. Stefanson: We will not be delaying the decision. It has been part of the announcements made by
the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey).
I have already outlined why the decision was made.
From all of the
information we have in terms of what is happening within Canada, in terms of
fairness within Manitoba, in terms of fairness within Canada and in terms of
our ability to attract foreign students, in terms of the confidence that we
have in our own ethnic communities to promote our province, to attract students
to Manitoba, in terms of the confidence we have in former University of
Manitoba graduates who are in other parts of the world to promote our
universities, we will maintain the same level that we currently have, Mr.
Speaker.
Transportation Industry Employment
Government Action Plan
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona):
The Department of
Education estimates that in rail jobs alone we will lose another 1,700 jobs.
My question is
for the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Driedger). What action plan does the Minister of
Transportation and his department have to stop the hemorrhaging of well‑paid,
high‑skilled jobs out of the
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention to
the member that
We know that
there is downsizing taking place within the rail industry. We know the problems that the air industry is
facing, and in our meetings that we basically have been holding with officials
from these companies we have asked for fair consideration so we do not get
treated differently from other provinces.
However, the
member asked, what have we done? Our
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) in his five budgets that he has brought down
has tried to help create an environment that is conducive to investment here,
and we are trying to use that kind of an approach to have people come back and
invest here.
We promote this
kind of an idea with the companies that are involved. We say, this is a good place to do
business. Our tax structure is
good. This is a good place to try and
create employment.
Rail Line Abandonment
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): My question is for the same minister. Will the Minister of Transportation indicate
to the House the policy of his government on the recommendation of the NTA
Review Commission that will allow railways to abandon rail service without
demonstrating a financial loss or the absence of public need? What will be the impact upon
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): The day before yesterday the commission
tabled its report, which is two major documents. I gave the indication to members in the House
yesterday that we had made our submission in August, a very substantive
document that addressed all the transportation problems and issues that we
thought were involved in the National Transportation Act.
Mr. Speaker, the
member is starting to pick certain things out of that report, which is a very
substantive document. There are some
positive things in there. There are some
negative things in there. We are doing a
very precise assessment.
It is my
understanding that the federal Minister of Transport, Mr. Corbeil is referring
this study to the transportation committee to take submissions and to review
and make a recommendation back some time in June. We intend to do a full assessment of that
report and make our submission to the standing committee on transportation.
Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty simple. There are only 55 recommendations there. I am sure the minister should have had the
opportunity to read them by now.
CN Rail Privatization
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Given that
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday I
made a public statement to the effect that I, at first blush, was opposed to
the suggestion of privatization because we do not know what that impact would
be. There are many things to be
considered in terms of, when we talk of privatization, the Canadian content in
there which is now at 73 percent according to law, whether that can drop down
to 51 percent. There are so many aspects
of that whole report.
The member, I do
not know whether he has read the whole report because it is two substantial
documents. We are going through that
because some of the recommendations that we brought forward to the commission
have been addressed in terms of the safety issues and railways and
airlines. Some of the ones that we
brought forward have been accepted, others have not. We are reviewing that, and we will be putting
forward a document which I will then table in the House before we present it to
the standing committee on transportation.
Headingley Jail
Safety Compliance
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister
responsible for workplace health and safety.
Back on March 22,
1988, an improvement order was issued to Headingley Jail requiring that range
bars be put in place, reinstalled for the protection of guards. The province did not comply with that at that
time and only complied in November of 1988, after I had raised it in the House
with the minister and two extensions had been granted.
Mr. Speaker,
after that arduous process to get compliance back in 1988, I was significantly
surprised to learn that yet again Headingley Jail administration wants to
remove these safety bars and in fact issued a direct memo, dated March 27,
1992, which has subsequently been acted upon, indicating the range bars should
be removed.
My question for
the minister is: Why has Headingley Jail
administration now again ordered the removal of these range bars in direct
contravention of the original Workplace Safety and Health order?
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, if the department is in
violation of any part of Workplace Safety and Health that will be dealt with,
but I am not aware of a decision to remove the range bars, nor have I had a
report or complaint coming up through the normal system of complaints with
Workplace Safety and Health.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, that answer surprises me and
disturbs me, more so from the perspective of the Minister of Justice (Mr.
McCrae) than the minister of Workplace Safety and Health.
Did the Minister
of Justice not consult with the minister of Workplace Safety and Health or seek
the direction of his department before he contemplated removing range bars in
direct contravention of an order of the Workplace Safety and Health Division?
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, as the member for St. James may
or may not be aware, specific orders of the department deal with a particular
situation. If there was some change in
the use or operation of that facility which would then change the basis on
which the order was issued, that would not necessarily be a violation of either
a previous order or regulations under The Workplace Safety and Health Act.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, will the minister of Workplace
Safety and Health at least commit today to immediately taking this up with his
colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae)?‑‑given the Minister
of Justice's comments back in 1988 that, quote, this government has decided not
to quibble or quarrel with Workplace Safety and Health or with the union
involved at Headingley. We will move
quickly, and we have done that. I can
tell the member that range bars will be installed by November 1, 1988.
Will the minister
of Workplace Safety and Health immediately take this up with his colleague the
Minister of Justice who does not seem to understand‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I just say this to the member
for St. James. In the operation of any
government facility, there are decisions that are made by the administrators
who are in charge of those areas. They
change programming. They change the way
in which the particular area operates.
They have responsibility as administrators to ensure that they are
complying with the appropriate legislation and regulations. I am sure that the Minister of Justice and
staff in the Ministry of Justice will ensure that they are in fact in
compliance with the appropriate regulation.
* (1420)
Street Youth Service Funding
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, the other day I raised a serious
issue of homeless youth and violence and health risks that are associated. The Minister of Family Services said that
they would work actively with groups that they do fund to try and assist in any
way that they could provide the service through existing organizations.
I would like to
ask the Minister for Family Services:
How many children and youth are homeless and on the run and living off
the streets in
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, yes, the member started to ask some questions about this program the
other day, and I indicated that there are a number of organizations that do
receive funding from other levels of government and when that funding runs out
sometimes they come to the provincial government to ask us to provide funding
for them. I had indicated that we have been able to assist some groups in the
past and we would, in the case of this program, work through existing
organizations such as Children's Home of Winnipeg, through the Winnipeg Child
and Family Services agency to try and provide these services for the youth of
the inner city.
A good example of
what we were able to do, if you will recall your colleagues were asking last
year about funding for
Ms. Cerilli: I think it is clear, Mr. Speaker, that this
province is not provincially funding any programs for street youth.
My question for
the same minister is: Can the minister compare
the costs of funding a program such as the Street Kids and Youth program that
is going to help young people avoid street life and prostitution and compare
that with the cost of treating someone with HIV or, in fact, full‑blown
AIDS?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, the member is asking for detail
on health‑related issues which I am sure she can pose to the Minister of
Health during the Estimates process.
I would indicate
that we do fund the Winnipeg Child and Family Services agency and organizations
such as Children's Home and some of the other treatment centres that work with
many of these youth. A number of the
individuals that the member is asking about are children who are in foster
homes at one point in time or in the treatment centres. Some of them leave on their own volition and
then come back into the system where they are provided with the assistance that
they need by those existing organizations.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, does this minister understand
that the kids who are living off the street and are turning to prostitution,
have been through the institutions? They
are no longer turning to those institutions.
What services are
going to remain in this city and in this province to reach out to those kids,
kids that still are under the legal responsibility of this minister's
department?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, the existing organizations that
were there a number of years ago are still there today to work with these
children. I have indicated that they
have been in the care of the agency.
Many of them have been in private treatment centres, in foster homes, in
group homes.
I recognize that
there is a certain small segment of those children that come into care that do
not remain in care. They leave of their
own volition and re‑enter the system at some time later.
We will work with
the existing institutions to provide the services that those children
require. We are not in a position to
provide new programming that is going to meet the needs of every one of those
children, but I would say to you that those institutions that are presently
there can go a long way to provide that assistance.
Public Child Care Centres
Smoking Policy
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, it is well known that smoking
and secondhand smoke cause cancer, and that every year thousands of Canadians
die from lung cancer due to smoking and secondhand smoke. Estimated deaths from lung cancer in
Can the Minister
of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) tell the House what the current policy is
regarding smoking in publicly funded child care centres?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, the boards of the daycare centres are in a position to make policy in
reference to those facilities. I think
you will find, in many of the daycare centres, that they have a no‑smoking
policy, and they come under the guidance of the board that is elected to govern
those institutions.
Mr. Martindale: I am surprised that this is left up to the
individual daycares and their boards, since smoking in public places is
prohibited under an act that applies to the whole
What is the
policy regarding smoking by parents in family daycare homes? Is the minister concerned that this policy
exposes children in many licensed family daycare homes to secondhand smoke, a
proven health hazard? In fact‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, many of the things that go on in
the homes of
In reference to
daycare homes, we have some of the highest trained professional daycare
providers in the country. We are very
proud of the standard of care that daycare givers give, both in the
institutions and in the homes, and the decisions about smoking in homes is left
up to that provider.
Mr. Martindale: Will the minister change the regulations and
require that family daycare homes be nonsmoking as a condition of being granted
a licence, in order to protect the current and future health of children, a
change which would be endorsed by the Manitoba Child Care Association and the
Manitoba Family Daycare Association?
This is public
money which is being used to subsidize‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, we certainly will review the
situation as I have indicated in a number of letters that we have had
recently. At the present time, we have
no plans to change that, but we will review the situation. We are meeting with the daycare providers and
the unions that are involved with the daycare workers in the very near future.
Video Lottery Terminals
Social Costs
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
The government has
side‑stepped the issue of gambling, Mr. Speaker, in trying to address it
through rural economic development where we have clearly seen a change in
government policy. I want to ask the
minister a question with respect to the cost of gambling. We have had individuals in rural
My question to
the minister is: Can she indicate to
this House what work this department is doing in terms of tracking the social
cost of this government's greed to get additional revenues through VLT funding?
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister charged with the administration of The
* (1430)
Moratorium on Expansion
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister charged with the administration of The
I am slightly
puzzled on what the Liberal policy might be on expansion of gambling, because I
have in my possession a letter from the now Leader of the Liberal Party asking
us to expand video lottery terminals into legions and veterans' clubs and we
have other members of the Liberal Party asking us to stop expansion. So maybe they should try to get their act
together, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, Debate
on Second Readings, would you call the bills in this order, please, Bills 5, 8,
3 and then starting at the beginning of the order and continuing down the page.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay,
Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
DEBATE ON SECOND
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 Radisson (Ms. Cerilli).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Ms. Becky Barrett (
As the members of
the House know, I am not a resident of a northern community in
Again, as I have
stated in my other comments on other bills this session, while the amendments
may appear‑‑and they certainly are being presented by the
government as minor amendments, they are being presented as amendments to bring
the act to reflect more current policy and current practice. Madam Deputy Speaker, as in the case with The
Oil and Gas Amendments Act and The Endangered Species Act, upon closer reading
it would appear to us that there are some major things that are going on in
these amendments that require further clarification.
As I have stated
in my discussions on these other two bills, I would hope that the government
would respond to our concerns during second reading so that we can continue a
debate and a dialogue back and forth, knowing exactly what the minister and the
government have in mind. Failing that,
we of course will assume that the public hearing process will provide the
answers to our concerns.
According to the
amendments as they have been presented by the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr.
Downey), one of the major areas of change is going to be that the renewals of
Crown land permits that are located in and around communities in the northern
part of the province would automatically be approved without consultation with
the northern communities.
Madam Deputy
Speaker, the minister, in his address to the House on December 9 when he
presented this bill, stated that the process of consulting with Northern
Affairs communities on initial dispositions only is well understood and
accepted. The inclusion of this
amendment " . . . is to establish the existing process in
legislation."
Madam Deputy
Speaker, this is causing us a fair bit of concern, because under the existing
act the minister shall consult with a community council or the local committee
of the incorporated community council regarding the disposition of Crown land
permits located in a community or within eight kilometres of the community
boundary. This to us makes a great deal
of sense, because the disposition of Crown lands can and does have a major
impact on the lives and the surroundings of many of these northern communities.
We believe that
this amendment, if we are accurate in our reading of this amendment, is a
mistake.
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Northern Affairs): What!
Ms. Barrett: I will repeat for the Minister of Northern
Affairs (Mr. Downey). We believe that
this amendment to this section is a mistake, this particular clause.
The original
intention of The Northern Affairs Act was meant to shift decision‑making
powers from the government to local people, and that decision‑making
shift from the government to the local community is seen in the current act
whereby changes to Crown land disposition are shared with and are done after
consultation with the local communities affected. There is the eight‑kilometre boundary
range that is currently in place.
Now, the concerns
that I have, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that the amendment would remove that
local community consultation process from the act and would mean that the
Crown, the government, can dispose of or make changes to the disposition of
those Crown lands without community consultation, that only the original
disposition would be done after consultation, and any future dispositions,
changes, reapplications or renewals of permits would not need to go to
community councils.
One of the
important principles that is being put in jeopardy by this change is local
control. This government has talked ad
nauseam about choice, about the difficult choices and decisions that have to be
made by governments and organizations.
They have also talked at great length about sharing those difficult
decisions with other groups, organizations and agencies in this province.
Madam Deputy
Speaker, this sharing of the load in virtually every other context has meant an
offloading of expense to a lower division of government‑‑offloading
of social assistance costs to the City of Winnipeg, offloading of policing
costs to rural municipalities, offloading of school expenditures and
requirements to local school boards and local communities.
In every single
one of these cases, the responsibility has been offloaded, not the resources
that would enable communities to implement those responsibilities.
This is what the
government talks about when they talk about giving local communities
choice. It is an attempt on the part of
the government to offload their own legislated, statutorily determined
responsibilities in an attempt to put the political backlash onto another
organization or another level of government.
Parenthetically,
we on this side of the House believe that strategy is not only morally bankrupt
but will prove to be politically bankrupt as well. End of parenthetical comment.
This amendment to
The Northern Affairs Act sort of puts that whole concept on its ear. What it does is it gives the government a
much larger degree of power and control over the disposition of Crown lands
then it had originally, according to our reading of this legislation.
This is something
that is not a progressive step but a regressive step for a number of
reasons. It would appear that this
amendment, this change, will circumvent the original intention of the act which
was to give northern communities a voice in the decisions that directly affect
them.
It is very clear
to anyone who has spent any time at all or even travelled through the northern part
of this province that Crown lands are a major component of the physical
surroundings to virtually every northern community in this province, that the
disposition of the permits to organizations and bodies and corporations of
those Crown lands plays a vital role in the political ecology, the physical
ecology and the social ecology of these communities. It is not a small change, Madam Deputy
Speaker, to take away any kind of local control or local consultation from
these communities in this regard.
* (1440)
The minister,
again in December when he was discussing this legislation, says that
consultations on renewals of Crown land permits are "inefficient and
expensive." Well, Madam Deputy
Speaker, much of what the government does as a legitimate part of its function
could be considered inefficient and expensive if you are talking only in terms
of cost, money out and money back.
For example, the
highway system in the
We know as a
community that the provision of the highway system in this province is never
going to be economically viable on that straight kind of comparison of costs to
revenues, but we do almost without thinking recognize the importance that
highways and a good highway transportation system play in our province in
enabling the residents of Manitoba to communicate, to move from one part of the
province to another. We realize the
importance of a highway system in enabling goods and services to move from one
part of our province to another. This is
an example, Madam Deputy Speaker, of a service and a component of our
government that we all expect to be provided without a definite or specific
directly attributable benefit to us. We
know that the costs need to be born and that the benefits, if it is properly
structured, will outweigh those costs.
I would suggest,
Madam Deputy Speaker, that the concerns that are raised by this minister's
comments that consultations on renewals are inefficient and expensive are in
the same category as saying that highways do not pay for themselves in a direct
line item so, therefore, we should cut out the expenditures on highways. The act, we believe, was originally intended
so that local councils and locally elected community groups could conduct the
business of Crown permits, would have a major say in Crown permit applications
and renewals.
According to a
brief prepared by the Department of Northern Affairs in 1983, Madam Deputy
Speaker, the act was intended to shift important decisions to the local council
or committee, with only technical assistance being supplied by the Department
of Northern Affairs, technical assistance to enable the local councils and
communities to make the decisions that are most relevant and important to
them. This, 10 years ago, was the clear
intent of the act as promulgated by the previous New Democratic Party
government. The act intended local
councils to conduct the majority of consultations with government there to
assist them in that process. The
government was not ever intended to be the major player in this process.
Another intention
of The Northern Affairs Act, Madam Deputy Speaker, was that individuals and
elected representatives in their northern communities would initiate proposals
to the review and approval stage. Again,
this is real local control. This is not
the current government's offloading of responsibilities with no concomitant
offloading of resources. The intention
of The Northern Affairs Act, in this context, was to provide real, concrete
control over the lands surrounding their boundaries to local communities.
Madam Deputy
Speaker, what this amendment will do is remove that local control from
communities. It will mean that the
provincial government, with its less‑than‑exemplary commitment to
the preservation and protection of Crown lands, to renew or provide for permits
to any organization, association or group they choose to without consulting
with the local community‑‑a Crown land permit could have been
issued 10 years ago, after consultation with a local community. The permit comes up for renewal. Who is to say what local changes might have
taken place in that community or in the surrounding environs in that 10 years
that might have a major impact on whether that permit should be renewed or not?
According to our
reading of this amendment there is nothing that states there shall be
consultation with the local community.
The Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) has retaken the
power. The Minister of Northern Affairs
has consolidated and centralized power in his department that should not be
there. Again, Madam Deputy Speaker, we
worry and we are concerned about the rationale and the philosophical
underpinnings of this decision.
The question I
have, Madam Deputy Speaker, in this regard as well is: Are there any environmental concerns regarding
the usage and occupation of Crown lands near communities? What assurances do communities have that they
will remain where they currently are free from exploitation? What assurances do those communities have
that they will remain free from exploitation?
Madam Deputy
Speaker, our knowledge and understanding of the negative impacts of much of our
actions on the environment is increasing exponentially. Things that were seen to be acceptable 10
years ago or five years ago are now being seen to be ecologically and
environmentally unacceptable.
This amendment
does not recognize that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It does not say that environmental impacts should be done when Crown
land licences are being renewed or an application for their renewal is being
undertaken. There is no environmental
recognition in these amendments.
Another concern
with this is there is no guarantee that the minister, if the minister is dead
set on maintaining control or retaking control over these permits in his own
department, there is no guarantee in this legislation that he or she, whoever
the minister might be, will undertake to look at the environmental impact on
these permits. That is a very major
concern that we have, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Another question
on this is: Is there a process in place,
either currently or in these amendments, whereby northern communities could
challenge the automatic renewal of a permit for Crown lands if they felt that
the occupation or usage of those Crown lands within the community boundaries was
harmful to their community?
For example, was
it going to harm their environment? Was
it going to harm the local ecology? Was
it going to have a negative impact on their wildlife, on their health facilities,
on their ability to have clean drinking water, on their community planning, on
their whole entire way of life? No,
Madam Deputy Speaker, according to these amendments, there is no provision for
local input into that permit‑granting process, number one; and, number
two, once the permit has been reissued, there is no process for a community to
make an appeal of that decision.
* (1450)
The members of
the northern communities in this province have had first‑hand experience
of the unwillingness of this government to take their concerns seriously. We have seen cutbacks to programs in the
Natural Resources area. We have seen
cutbacks to programs in health care service delivery. We have seen cutbacks to social service
program delivery. We have seen cutbacks
to policing. We have seen cutbacks to
Highways and Transportation. We have seen all of these cutbacks which have an
inordinately negative impact on our northern communities.
We have no
security, either historically or in these amendments, to give us any kind of
comfort that these environmental, these quality‑of‑life issues will
be looked at by this minister or any other minister of this government in the
future.
I guess, Madam
Deputy Speaker, again to just conclude on this section of the act and the
concerns that we have is that Manitoba is almost unique, I think, in Canada as
a province in that over 60 percent of the population, and it is growing larger
everyday, lives within half an hour or 45 minutes of the boundaries of the city
of Winnipeg. The rest of the population
lives in smaller urban centres such as Thompson, The Pas, Brandon, Dauphin,
Steinbach, Winkler, Teulon.
It is important
that the legislation and the regulations implementing legislation on the part
of the government recognize this imbalance in the population distribution in
our province, that it recognize this imbalance by making sure in every single
one of its pieces of legislation that the needs and the rights and the services
for northerners and for rural people in this province are protected.
With a population
that is as skewed as the population of Manitoba is, it is vital that people who
live outside the Perimeter, or within 45 minutes of the Perimeter, it is
important that people who live outside that ring feel comfortable that their
government is looking after and allowing them an input into issues that concern
them greatly.
Madam Deputy
Speaker, these amendments do not in our view allow for that support and that
understanding on the part of the government for these issues and concerns. It is taking control away from local
communities. It is putting it into the
hands of a government that has never shown its commitment to the people of
northern
All of these
things make us very uneasy that the legitimate concerns, the legitimate views
of these local communities in northern
Madam Deputy
Speaker, there is one other area I would like to touch on in these
amendments. The third element that the
minister was attempting to address when he tabled this legislation was to make
some changes regarding obsolete language in the legislation.
Madam Deputy
Speaker, we have no quarrel with the concept of rendering language in
legislation modern and reflective of current thinking as far as language is
concerned. We are delighted to see the
concept of gender‑neutral language being at least addressed in a minimal
way by the government in these amendments.
However, there is
maybe two or three sections and subsections that have changes to
"obsolete" language, i.e., rendering the subsections gender neutral
in their language. There are 14 sections
where gender‑neutral language is not rendered obsolete by these
amendments.
I cannot
understand why the government would have made the attempt in a couple of instances
to change his to his or her and then not made those changes in 14 other
sections.
I would like to
briefly list the sections that still have gender‑biased language in
them. No. 1 is the powers of the
minister. Well, yes, the current
minister is a man. That is not
necessarily always going to be the case.
The legislation should reflect the possibility of a change, not only in
gender, but other changes that might very well take place as well. The current section says, in addition to his
other powers, rights, duties, et cetera, the minister may assist, and then, as
he deems appropriate, et cetera. I mean,
in this one section, there are two or three allusions to gender‑biased
language.
Another section
is again dealing with the minister acquiring real property, allowing the
minister to perform any of his powers, rights, privileges, et cetera. Again, what would have been so difficult
about perusing this piece of legislation when you have already stated that you
want to eliminate some of the obsolete language in this legislation.
The minister,
another section has powers that in his opinion are required. Nothing further need be stated about that.
Whenever the approval of the minister is required before giving his approval,
the minister may do X, Y and Z. Again, a
simple change.
There is another
area where it is not dealing with the minister, but with a person who is
appointed to conduct an inquiry under a certain subsection of this act may
require any person to appear before him and give evidence on oath and for that
purpose he has the same power, et cetera.
So we are not only talking about the minister being referred to only as
in the relation to one gender, but another person who has powers under this
act, a power of inquiry is also referred to only as he.
The minister has
powers regarding payments from funds, and in this section the requisition shall
be signed by the minister or a person designated by him. Yet, again, the minister is referred only as
a him. Again, the minister invests a
surplus, but obviously according to the act only the minister can do this only
if the minister is a he.
The local
committees can be established, Madam Deputy Speaker, to assist the minister,
i.e., him, and act in a consultative capacity to him. Community councils will be continued as he
deems necessary.
* (1500)
Finally, Madam
Deputy Speaker, there is another category of people who are referred to in this
act who are still referred to by only one gender and that is employees. Now, granted, many government employees,
particularly I would think in the Department of Natural Resources and Northern
Affairs, are male, but not by any manner or means all of them. One would hope that this current government
will do something in actions rather than just words to ensure that gender
balance becomes a reality in the actual workplace of this government, as well
as in the legislation.
Finally, there
are several sections that talk about employees in the context of he, his
employment, him. Again, only male
pronouns are used in these sections.
Madam Deputy
Speaker, I would seriously hope that the minister will take both of these
general comments and concerns into account, and I would expect to see a series
of amendments when we come to public hearings that will make the rest of the
sections of this act nonsexist, gender neutral in their language. I do not understand why it did not happen
before. I think I have some suggestions
as to why this has happened, but I will leave those to another day.
With those
comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will conclude my discussion of Bill 5. Thank you.
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: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
*
* *
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau
(St. Norbert): Madam Deputy Speaker, the honourable member
for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) asked me to peruse Hansard, and, after perusing
Hansard, I would like to sincerely apologize to the House and to the honourable
member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) for some very inappropriate statements that I
put on the record.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I thank the honourable member for St. Norbert
for those comments.
*
* *
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am glad to have the
opportunity to put a few remarks on the record about Bill 8, The Insurance Amendment
Act, which is, even within the context of the limited agenda of this particular
government, a relatively small bill. It
is one which has yet to go to committee, and we have yet to hear the opinions
of both the insurance industry and of the many customers and clients of that
particular industry throughout both urban and rural
So, Madam Deputy
Speaker, I think it is perhaps within the range of context of a housekeeping
bill, although I am sure the minister herself‑‑and in fact I would
join her in this‑‑would suggest that that is not the best use of
the word "housekeeping," but it is one that has, as the minister
said, three principles.
One of these is
to reduce the potential time delays, particularly in the area of crop and hail
insurance. I understand, Madam Deputy
Speaker, from speaking to those who are from rural
The second principle
that the minister enunciated was that some of the changes that she is
suggesting in this act are ones which have been due for some time, particularly
those which relate to the use of new technologies, particularly fax machines. Here again, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think it
is worthwhile, I am sure, for all ministers to look at their legislation that
is part of their departmental responsibilities and to see whether there is the
opportunity to update those bills in the context of the new technologies which
are available through much, but not all, of our province.
So, in principle,
the tightening up and the changing of the wording of those particular sections
are probably quite helpful. However, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think there are
some times where we will have to be concerned about that. I am not suggesting a blanket licence there,
because one of the areas I think that the Free Trade Agreement and increasingly
the North American Free Trade Agreement will touch is the very rapid transfer
of goods and services, particularly financial services such as insurance, the
transfer of those very quickly across international borders.
There are some
concerns there, Madam Deputy Speaker, in principle, not particularly related to
this bill, but in principle, some concerns about the questions of employment in
We have seen some
of the results of those changes that are happening across our country and internationally
in the recent loss of over 80 jobs with the enRoute technology changes in Air
It is one of the
areas that we have indicated time and time again that we have concerns about in
the current Free Trade Agreement and one where we see certain companies, the
multinationals largely based in the United States, who have pressed
particularly for free trade agreements, largely for the purposes of financial
services and service industries, things which can be transmitted very quickly
and across international boundaries and which are, partly because of the
technological change and partly because of the increasing reluctance and
inability under some of the free trade agreements of governments to regulate
those kinds of industries.
Again, in
principle, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think we have to be very careful about
changes that we make in that area. I
look forward to some of the comments of industry people, not just on the
specifics of this bill which, as I say, at the moment are not a direct cause of
concern but the willingness of governments, the willingness of Conservative
governments in particular to accommodate with great powers multinational
corporations who are involved in these new technologies and which are able to
supersede national boundaries, able to supersede national communities and, I
would argue, to supersede the powers and abilities of Legislatures such as this
to address the legitimate needs, social and economic needs, of our own people.
A third area that
the minister has underlined in this particular bill is an area of
language. She has argued in her
introduction to this bill that she has brought some changes in language with a
view to making the language clearer and plainer. I would like to congratulate
the minister on this. I think the
changes that she has brought are indeed simpler.
I know that the
minister has a particular concern for language and the correct use of English
and that she has put this into practice in this bill. It is simpler. It is clearer in the sections that she has
changed. I wish she had been able to
convince some of her colleagues, particularly those who deal with some of the
very complex bills such as the oil and gas bill for example, to take the same
approach. I congratulate her for that,
and I think it is very appropriate for a Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs to see this as part of her role in protecting consumers.
* (1510)
Another area that
minister has underlined is that again in terms of technology she wants to
eliminate some of the sections of this bill or wording of this bill which might
have been inappropriate or made it impossible to use under certain types of new
printing technologies. So rather than,
for example, use red ink, she says that we are going to use bold print or we
are going to go boldly. I think perhaps
she means into the future.
I think if this
is acceptable to the industry, if it is clear to the consumer, if it protects
the interests of Manitobans, then I think that too will be perfectly
acceptable, but one can only wish that this government would go boldly in other
areas.
One can only wish
that this government read the letters that I get every day and the phone calls
I get every day from people who see no future for themselves in this province,
people who have had jobs for much of their lives, and now at the age of 50 or 52
find themselves unemployed and looking at a lifetime now of unemployment just
staring them in the face, or that they would listen to young people in this
province who are facing an unemployment rate as high as that of the island of
Montreal, as high as that of parts of Newfoundland, an unemployment rate for
young people which is growing.
If they listen to
those people, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think they would want to tread boldly
there too. The absence of any initiative
for youth unemployment I think is one of the most tragic things that I have
seen happen to this province in many, many years. To listen to those students in high school,
many of them now who are coming back to try and improve their grade 12 marks, staying
in university longer and longer in order to improve their jobs to compete for
an increasingly narrow segment of employment in Manitoba, it is a tragic loss
of young people's ambition and enthusiasm.
It is a tragic loss to
People who have
given 30 years of their lives to this province and who are now no longer given
the opportunity to put that expertise and that experience to work, either in
training young people in an expanded apprenticeship system or indeed in terms
of their own productive labour, the work of their own hands.
There is nothing
that this government is doing about that. There are no bold steps in the area
of unemployment. There are not even any
bold steps in looking at the magnitude of the conditions which are facing
people, not only in my riding, but right across the province.
How can we stand
here and listen to those voices from young Manitoba, those voices who have
never had a job, and many of them now 25, 26 years old, often with reasonable
educations, high school graduations, one or two years of either community
college, and increasingly graduates so‑called of these private training
institutions and for whom there is no work.
Other countries,
other jurisdictions are indeed looking at the issue of youth unemployment. This is an issue which is concerning people
around the world, but it seems to me that this government, first of all has no understanding
of the magnitude of the problem that they are facing, and indeed are creating
in this province.
By turning a
blind eye, by turning their backs on those young people who will never find a
job under their conditions, they are in fact creating a potential future for Manitobans
which is very, very serious, and other governments around the world recognize
this.
You look at
governments in
It does not
listen‑‑[interjection] Is the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay)
suggesting‑‑[interjection] I would not want to put the comment of
the Minister of Agriculture on record, that is up to him, but it does seem to
me that it was one of those typical ad hominem or ad feminam arguments that are
often used by the other side in answering questions in the House, not usually
furthering debate, but, often, I think, ones that people often resort to, and I
guess we all do it or are all tempted to do it on occasion. Perhaps it is best not done in this
particular House or this particular setting.
I was talking,
Madam Deputy Speaker, about the minister, who I think has reason in many cases
to be proud of sections of this bill, and I was congratulating her on certain
areas of it and picking up her language of going boldly into‑‑I do
not think she says the future, but certainly a government which is acting
boldly‑‑and expressing my frustration, my concern, my lament, I
think, that this government has not chosen to address boldly one of the issues
which I think is the most tragic, most dramatic issue which is facing most
jurisdictions around the world. I was
suggesting that other jurisdictions are addressing this, and there is an
opportunity here for this government whose children and grandchildren they know
and I know are facing a very, very difficult future.
There is an
opportunity for them to address this, to look at some of the programs which are
being put into place in other parts of the world, the youth unemployment
program, for example, in
What they have
done is to address, is to create an emergency youth employment program, one
that they hope will touch at least a third of their unemployed youth which will
provide both training and jobs. It is an
initiative which I commend Prime Minister Keating on, a Labour Prime Minister,
for recognizing that this is one of the most vital issues that has to be faced.
I believe that he has addressed it in an appropriate way by combining
education, by combining training and the provision of jobs and particularly
expanding training on the job and expanding the apprenticeship system in
In France, Madam
Deputy Speaker, they have taken a similar approach. Again, another social democratic government
has said, what are the issues that are facing us at this time? Where must we tread boldly? They looked at the conditions they were
facing in
Given the rise of
right‑wing nationalism, some would call it facism, given the rise of that
type of ideology, their actions on the streets, the social issues that they are
bringing to the fore, not just in France but in other parts of Europe as well,
again, I think that this is an important strategy, and it was one which, within
a relatively short period of time had considerable success, and, again, it
combined education and job placement. The two crucial areas that
Madam Deputy
Speaker, from this government, I think we have in March 1993, with an
unemployment rate that is growing, a picture of stagnation and economic decline
in this province. We have an absolutely
small agenda of legislation and a government which cannot bring itself to bring
in a budget. I do not know what they are
waiting for.
I would think one
element that is at issue here is that this is a government which has fired
about 1,500 civil servants, which has created such demoralization amongst its
own employees that they are no longer prepared to tell the government the
truth. They have got their heads down.
You are losing the confidence of your civil servants, and when you do
that, you are in real trouble because they are your eyes and ears, and you will
be alone.
* (1520)
Any government
which engages in that kind of wholesale dismissal of its civil servants will
have a price to pay. I think one of the
prices we are paying, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the delay in the budget, the lack
of initiative in this government and its ability to prepare programs, the
inability of the government to, in fact, negotiate a labour force development
agreement.
We have seen
three, four years of delay on that particular agreement, a strategy which may
not be a panacea for all the ills of
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Ms. Friesen: . . . provincially, federally . . .
[inaudible] on the Civil Service, I think, which has confidence in this
government is one of the difficulties we have.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am having great difficulty hearing the
individual who was recognized to speak on this bill.
Ms. Friesen: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was trying to put some remarks on the
record as to my understanding of why this government has so many difficulties
in bringing forth legislation and why it is having some difficulties in
bringing forth its budget at the appropriate time.
I think one of
the difficulties is that they have fired a great number of civil servants and
created a great deal of disarray amongst those who are left, losing the
confidence of the very people who should be their eyes and ears on this province.
This is a
government which is presiding over the decline of
This is a
government which opens the door for you, smiles broadly, have a nice day, they
say, and off they send you to the unemployment lines, a very short step away
from the welfare rolls. That is the bold
step that this government is taking. They are adding to the unemployment crisis
that we have in Manitoba, and it seems to me that those are the kinds of bold
steps which certainly the people who write to me and who phone me do not
welcome. They recognize what in itself this
government policy is doing to the economic conditions and social conditions of
life in this province.
In a way, Madam
Deputy Speaker, there is a double crunch that is happening here. It is happening in the city of
But the
particular policies of this government have made Manitoba suffer
extraordinarily within the context of other provinces, and those are the kinds
of tables and studies which my colleague has tabled, and I hope that the
government will take them to heart and they will re‑examine with the few
civil servants left to them the kind of economic positions which they have
taken and the way in which they have contributed to unemployment in this
province.
I suggested,
Madam Deputy Speaker, that there were two things happening here. One of them is the unemployment to which this
government is adding, and the second thing is that the policies of this
government and the policies of their allies in City Hall are in fact to add a
second stab in the back or a stab in the belly to the people of Manitoba,
because what they are doing is deliberately taking away the public sector. They are taking away the very institutions
that those people who are unemployed and who face a lifetime on welfare who
face no jobs, they are taking away that very area of public institutions when
people need the most.
It is that double
slam which I think makes people so resentful and so angry at what this government
is doing. They are taking away the
libraries, the affordable public transport system, the inner city recreation,
medicare, Pharmacare, eating away at all of those areas which we thought and
which we had built as public institutions, institutions which we could all
share whether we were rich or poor, the public sector that we built.
You may never be
able to equalize income amongst Manitobans. You may never be able, and you have
no interest of course in redistributing income at all. What you have done is in fact take away that
public sphere that people could have participated in on an equal basis. It is a double whammy. It is the great unfairness of it all, and it
is in effect the kind of structure that this government is creating for the
people of
So, yes, Madam
Deputy Speaker, they are stepping boldly. There are some pieces of legislation
here, some sections of this particular bill of plain language, the adoption of
some new elements of timing and the introduction of language which takes into
account new types of technology.
All of those I
think are reasonably straightforward, although, as always, I am not an expert
in this area, and I always look forward to hearing the presentations that are
made at committee and very much value the legislative system of
With that, Madam
Deputy Speaker, I think I will close. I
believe that other people will be speaking on this bill later and I look
forward to comments of all members of the House.
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: Stand?
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Bill 2‑The Endangered Species Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of 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: 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 Members: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
* (1530)
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]
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to be able
to speak on this bill.
I want to talk
about this bill in the context, obviously the changes it proposes to the
I want to talk
about the entire concept of employee ownership, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I
think it is important that we as members of the Legislature discuss I think
this particular fund and the particular potential that is available in this
type of ownership of an alternate ownership structure which builds upon some of
the principles of the financial business world, the corporate structures, but
it goes beyond that and establishes some unique dimensions, some unique
features. It has a great deal of
possibility for this province.
Let us start from
the economic context we find ourselves in, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to commend the previous speaker, the
member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), on outlining the economic circumstances we
are in. This is particularly relevant
when we are discussing the whole question of this particular fund and the whole
concept of alternative ownership.
I point to the
situation we are in, Madam Deputy Speaker, as very effectively outlined by the
member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), our Finance critic, in the
document that was tabled in the House earlier, entitled "The Economic
Decline of Manitoba Under The Filmon Conservative Government 1988‑1992."
This document is similar to some of the other analyses the member for Brandon
East has conducted in terms of the economic situation of the province.
I noticed the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) earlier today said that the only thing he was
pleased with was that the member was here and not teaching this in the
university context. Indeed, I do not blame the Minister of Finance for stating
that, because I am sure the Minister of Finance does not want people who are
studying economics to see how dismal the record of this government has been and
how bankrupt this government has been in terms of economic policy.
Let us face the
reality. What we are dealing with in
Madam Deputy
Speaker, look at this document in terms of the various different indicators
that the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) has analyzed, and you know
there is no requirement to look selectively at statistics. Whether one looks at population or economic
growth or employment or the unemployment rate or labour force statistics or the
average weekly earnings, the retail sales, housing starts, manufacturing
shipments, manufacturing employment, farm cash receipts, investment, building
permits or the value of total construction work, Manitoba is not first or
second. It is not third. [interjection]
Well, we are
first maybe in decline, Madam Deputy Speaker‑‑first maybe in
decline, but there is a very clear trend in evidence. What is happening‑‑and I quipped
this from my seat earlier, I think the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard
Evans) should have entitled this, using the title of the movie that was put out
by Walt Disney. I think that is
appropriate, given some of the
The Premier in
four years basically, going into five now, almost to the fifth anniversary of
the election‑‑in fact, we were into the election campaign five
years ago‑‑in that short period of time, Madam Deputy Speaker, the
Premier has indeed shrunk this province in comparison to other provinces across
the country. One can see it in terms of
We have seen it
in terms of a whole series of other statistics.
The labour force, we have shrunk from 4.03 percent to 3.88 percent. In terms of average weekly earnings, industrial
composite index,
In terms of
investment we have dropped from 3.08 percent in 1988 to 2.79 percent of the
overall investment in
Madam Deputy
Speaker, that is a pretty dismal record.
This is not, as I had mentioned before, these are not strictly the
absolute statistics. These are the
comparative statistics, because I think governments, to be fair, should be
judged comparatively. They should not be
judged strictly in terms of absolute numbers.
We all recognize there is an international recession, and there has been
a national recession. In fact, in many
ways the Conservative government nationally through its policies led us into
the recession a lot earlier than most other industrial countries were in the
recession.
So the bottom
line is that there is indeed a recession, but if we were holding our own in a
recession, those statistics I read earlier would either have shown that we have
continued to be the same percent of the country or would indeed, perhaps, as
some indicators, shown an increase.
Those are the comparative statistics.
These show that
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): What does make you happy? You tell us.
Mr. Ashton: The Minister of Health says what does make me
happy. What would make me happy in this
particular case is if we showed some signs in this province that we were going to
be doing better, that we are going to be getting out of the recession.
[interjection] The Deputy Premier talks from his seat as he indeed does about
debt. I mean, this government inherits a
$52‑million surplus and ends up‑‑well, Madam Deputy Speaker,
it was confirmed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). They should maybe discuss that.
They now are
looking at the highest deficit in the history of the province. Oh, I notice there was no howling that
time. They know that is true.
The minister the
other day talked about credit cards.
They have the credit card now, the
Perhaps the
member for
Madam Deputy Speaker,
you know, is it not interesting, the Minister of Environment starts, well, how
much of that is the interest on your debt?
It is interesting, the finger pointing. I raise this to point out to
this government by its own definition, and I remember the minister of cultural
affairs, and I have quoted this in the House, said in 1988, she said, the one
thing you can count on is that we are not going to have a higher deficit. We are going to reduce the deficit.
Reduce the
deficit? As I said, we are looking at a
$700‑million deficit in this province.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) has admitted as much. You know, it is interesting, because over the
period of time they have been in, we are doing worse economically, but we are
also doing worse fiscally in this province.
The more they apply their so‑called economic philosophy, the more
they are digging this province into the hole in terms of the economic
performance and in terms of the fiscal performance. Those are the facts.
* (1540)
The Minister of
Finance, on the one hand‑‑[interjection] Indeed, the member for
Indeed, to the
member for
Well, you know,
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) says the hole that we dug
this province into. He has been in
government for five years. What is the
cumulative value of the increase that they have attached to the debt while the
economy has been going downhill? What is
the cut in services that has taken place?
You know, Madam
Deputy Speaker, the Conservatives‑‑[interjection] Well, I hear the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) speaking from his seat. Perhaps he is trying to answer that question
that we still have not got an answer for earlier today. If that is the case, I look forward to
hearing the answer.
But, let us face
it, the policies of this government have left us worse off than in 1988
economically with fewer services and a higher deficit. No one can dispute that fact. We are worse off on every score, not just
absolutely‑‑as I said, it would be unfair just to compare
absolutely. Comparatively, we are
failing in this province. When I say we,
I mean the provincial government, but we all collectively share as residents of
this province in the failure that we are looking at economically. After five years, this government has clearly
shown that it is not only bankrupt financially, but it is bankrupt economically
and bankrupt in terms of ideas.
As I said, there
are alternatives that we could be looking at.
The bottom line is, Madam Deputy Speaker, one small example of this has
been in terms of the Crocus Fund, because this is the kind of co‑operative
approach that has been tried in other provinces, in Quebec, for example. The fund in
Let us look at
what it is aimed at doing. It is aimed
at keeping capital within
I go back to the
original Autopac debates when there were really two arguments on Autopac in the
original days. People may have forgotten
some of those debates. One of the
arguments was obviously that there would be lower rates, and that has been borne
out by the practice of Autopac. [interjection] Well, relatively speaking.
One of the
reasons I am concerned about what has been happening currently is the fact that
the government is not dealing with some of the structural problems in the
system, particularly the fault/no‑fault aspects that are leading to a
rapid escalation of rates related specifically to the increased amount of
litigation related to personal injury claims.
An Honourable Member: Actually, litigation is not up but the costs
are.
Mr. Ashton: Well, costs are up, that is what I am
saying. I realize that is what is
happening, and I thank the minister for that clarification, and I realize what
is happening. What is happening is that
the awards that are coming in are significantly greater than they were a number
of years ago. That has been predicted,
Madam Deputy Speaker, since the mid‑1980s. In fact, if one goes back to the Kopstein
report, it is specifically identified as one of the major challenges facing
Autopac, and I hope it will be dealt with.
I do not want to
get into that debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, not that I do not look forward to
having a debate with the minister at some other time, and I know we have it on
an ongoing basis. That is the cost end
of it.
The other
argument for Autopac‑‑and it was an argument I remember the former
member for
Madam Deputy
Speaker, I have always believed that one of the reasons the Lyon government,
when it looked at privatizing Autopac in the late 1970s, besides the fact that
there would have been a major uproar from Manitobans on the rate side‑‑one
of the main reasons they kept it is that I think even they, with the benefit of
hindsight, having opposed Autopac when it was first brought in, recognized that
it would be a substantial loss to Manitoba.
If one went to
the national and multinational insurance companies, if one went to the previous
flows of capital that took place, one would end up in the position where once
again you would have money flowing outside of
This bill
essentially, Madam Deputy Speaker, attempts to ensure there is adequate support
to the Crocus Fund in its initial stages, to ensure that it can establish
itself and provide that kind of source of investment that it has a great deal
of potential to do. A good example, good
model of a co‑operative approach‑‑government with, in this
case, the Manitoba Federation of Labour‑‑and a shared goal, the goal
of investing in our province.
Madam Deputy
Speaker, I would like to suggest that there are many other areas that we could
be looking at doing this, and many other sources of revenue, I think, would be
more appropriately put to use in this province.
I go back to the video lottery terminal debate, and then I have some
difficulty, and I look to members opposite from rural constituencies, from
northern constituencies. I have some
difficulty when I go, for example, as I did to the hotel in Ilford recently and
I saw the big banner that was put out originally by the Lotteries Foundation,
saying Video Lottery Terminals, and it says right underneath that proceeds will
go to rural economic development.
Madam Deputy
Speaker, the difficulty I have is, it is not that some of the proceeds are not
going to rural development. The difficulty I have is that much of it is now
going to go into general revenues, and that is not what the original intent
was. I understand there is some debate over what the experience has been, and
there is some suggestion that the video lottery funds were more than were
anticipated. But I think that when
people go in there, they have a sense that they are putting their money into
something, and it is going for a good cause.
I hate to say it, a lot of people are just into gambling for gambling's
sake, but there are a lot of people that it does make a difference for
them. I am sure a lot of people would
not gamble in the same sense if they felt it was going for private profit‑‑[interjection]
We have been
asking for updated figures in terms of what percentage is going into rural
development, but the member for
Mr. Brian Pallister (
Mr. Ashton: The member for
I will give you
an example at Ilford. Money is going
into that community from Ilford and York Landing and
The bottom line
is that money could be better spent in a community like Ilford or surrounding
communities on economic development projects.
I throw that out as an example, because I think that is important. We cannot just talk about, well, let us have
a policy of economic development. The
obvious question is where the funds are going to come from. I think VLTs should be used‑‑[interjection]
The member talks
in terms of REDI applications. A number
of communities are looking very seriously at the REDI applications. I am not
saying that funds are not being dispersed, but the bottom line is that is not
going to be anywhere close to the percentage of money that is being
raised. We are looking at $30 million
from rural communities, and I have talked to people I know who work for
Lotteries, and they are astounded by the amount of revenue they are pulling in,
astounded in small rural communities. Quite frankly, I am astounded too when I hear
the degree. I have talked to hotel
owners. Of course, they only collect a
very small portion of it. I think that
is important to place on the public record.
The bottom line is,
Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a lot of money being raised from video lottery
funds. I go back to the original
purpose. Why not put it into economic
development? I will go one step
further. I am not just talking about
short‑term job creation programs.
We can get into that debate at another time. I think there is a role in remote northern
communities, particularly for young people.
Where there is a high degree of unemployment, there often is a role for
having some degree of job creation on a short‑term basis to give people
exposure to the workforce, to give them some sense that there is something else
beyond the high degree of unemployment. [interjection]
Well, the member
says in terms of the Green Team. What is
happening is a lot of communities are not able to really access that type of
employment because of the criteria of the program. I think we have established,
despite our differences, that when it comes to young people, with the high
degree of unemployment in the North, we have a unique situation.
* (1550)
In most other
areas, there are more young people employed than those over the age of 25 in
the workforce, more in the workforce.
What happens in remote northern communities is the reverse. You will find in some northern communities
where 80 percent of those over the age of 25 are in the workforce, but 40
percent of those under the age of 25 are in the workforce, a much smaller
number, the reason being that there is not a service sector.
We do not have in
a lot of remote communities the McDonald's, the Burger Kings, the restaurants,
the retail stores that do provide a significant amount of employment in more
developed communities. You will see the
difference even between Thompson, which is just developing that level of
service sector, and more established communities like The Pas, for example,
which have more opportunities available for young people.
What happens is
people work at McDonald's. They work at
Burger King, et cetera. They work in the
retail store. They earn the income; they
then go and spend it. There is a high
degree of consumption, and that creates spinoffs. The bottom line is there is a role for that
kind of short‑term employment program.
Madam Deputy
Speaker, let us take it one step further.
The bottom line is we do have a significant number of economic
development agencies, community development corporations established in the
North, Community Futures, for example, and in rural areas. Community Futures has a fairly limited budget,
provides business assistance, but is not in a position of providing significant
venture capital. That is not the purpose
of the Community Futures corporations or set‑up. There are other agencies. I look to the Minister of Northern Affairs
(Mr. Downey) in terms of CDF. The
Minister of Northern Affairs knows, of course, that CDF provides loans to
northerners within the prescribed area at a reduced rate compared to other
banks, but it is loans again. There is
not a potential for venture capital.
There is actually
reduced potential overall. A number of
the federal programs that had existed previously are no longer in place. The bottom line, Madam Deputy Speaker, is
something that I think is confirmed by virtually everyone I talk to, that there
are a lot of good ideas in a lot of rural and northern communities that go
nowhere because the commercial banks will not touch them. That is particularly the case in a lot of
rural communities. Banks just will not
lend in certain communities, particularly the case up north.
Not only that,
Madam Deputy Speaker, there is often not the venture equity capital available
to invest in those types of projects.
There are many examples of projects that have worked where the funding
has been available. I think that one of
the important things that has to be done is to recognize that even in the most
difficult of circumstances, rural and northern communities often have excellent
ideas.
I find, Madam
Deputy Speaker, it is amazing. I talk to
people in remote communities with virtually no retail service sector at all,
but people have ideas. They know that
their community needs a variety of services.
I know in
You know, a lot
of people may not be aware of this, but many remote northern communities have
no services at all, apart from a northern store. Many northern communities do not have a
restaurant, a coffee shop or a hotel, or any retail stores of any
significance. A lot of the money that
goes into those northern communities ends up flowing to the nearest regional
centre, and in the case of the regional centres, even to
So money from VLT
revenue is a good potential source, Madam Deputy Speaker, to be put into
Venture Capital in rural and northern communities, allowing business people,
both individually or community‑based businesses, because in many
aboriginal communities the vehicle of choice is not so much necessarily the
individual business, although in some cases it is, but is often the community‑based
business. The bottom line is a lot of
potential in terms of that. I mentioned
VLTs. I will mention another area as
well, and this goes back to late in the 1980s in terms of Limestone revenue. Limestone is producing a significant profit
for the people of
In effect, the
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) asked the question‑‑I find
it ironic because I know at the time the minister was fairly critical of the
Limestone start‑up and the NSP power sale as the then‑Energy critic
for the NDP. I think it is to his credit
that he asked the question, and I think knowing full well that Limestone has
worked out.
I think one of
the reasons the member for
An Honourable Member: Lemonstone.
Mr. Ashton: Lemonstone.
Well, I do not want to talk about the Liberals. [interjection] Let us
talk about the Liberals, no. Let us talk
about the Liberals, Madam Deputy Speaker, because when it came to Limestone
they said that Limestone would cost $4 billion.
What was the projected cost at the time?
It was under $3 billion. What was
the final cost? Was it $3 billion? Was it two and a half? Two?
One and a half? No, it was $1.45
billion.
An Honourable Member: It was 1.7.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Deputy Speaker, 1.45.
An Honourable Member: Madam Deputy Speaker, 1.7.
Mr. Ashton: No.
The latest figures for‑‑[interjection] No, no. For the
Liberal member, and I know his intention has been focused elsewhere, and I‑‑
An Honourable Member: What about Elijah?
Mr. Ashton: In a nonpartisan way, I wish him well. Well, more than that, I hope he beats Dorothy
Dobbie if he does get elected, or I hope somebody does, Madam Deputy
Speaker. But, anyway, that is another
point.
The point is in
Manitoba Hydro, if the member had been in committee the other night, it was
confirmed the actual final cost is now 1.45. [interjection] Well, the member says he will debate
that. It was not $4 billion, so I am
afraid that the Liberals missed the mark by a considerable amount.
The thing is,
Madam Deputy Speaker, if we had had, God forbid, a Liberal government at the
time and Limestone had not been developed, just imagine what the ratepayers in
The cost‑benefit
ratio of Limestone was 2.1 to one projected.
The final cost‑benefit ratio was 2.1 to one. So I think it should be noted for the record,
and it would be tempting to say I told you so.
So, in fact, given the circumstances, I will say I told you so. I remember the debates when the NDP said this
was the proper management and fiscal and economic decision, and I am proud to
be able to stand here today and say that was exactly the case.
An Honourable Member: Under budget and ahead of schedule.
Mr. Ashton: Under budget and ahead of schedule. I mean, that is an accomplishment. Apparently, for the record, 2 percent
[interjection] We are dealing with that, the one who has a great deal of
experience here, the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), in terms of the
contracting industry.
The statistics show,
Madam Deputy Speaker, that 2 percent of projects are completed under budget and
under time. The Manitoba NDP put us in
the top 2 percent. I want to say‑‑
An Honourable Member: In closing.
Mr. Ashton: I know the member wishes to speak on this
particular bill. Do not worry, you will
have the opportunity. [interjection] Not on this bill, on another bill.
I want to say
that those are some of the ideas that I think we can look at in terms of source
of economic development. I think in
terms of Limestone we could look at putting some of the revenues generated from
our northern resource, particularly, back in the northern communities, from our
water, from our northern water, to put it back into some of those communities
that have suffered high degrees of unemployment, social problems and
environmental damage because of previous dams.
That is what we need‑‑the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr.
Downey) here, the minister responsible for the cancellation of Conawapa, talks
about northerners, talks about northern economic development.
* (1600)
(Mr. Speaker in the
Chair)
The northerners‑do‑not‑know‑how‑to‑vote‑right
minister ought not to lecture who has done a lot for the North and who has not,
but that is another issue.
The bottom line
in finishing debate on this bill is, the Crocus Fund is only one example of the
type of approach we need in this province about harnessing our own resources.
[interjection] The Minister of Northern Affairs should know this was brought in
by Eugene Kostyra in 1988. This was not
his idea, but of course he would not know that.
The bottom line
is, there are a lot of things that can be done.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we put forward
ideas on these kinds of bills, because I think it is really important that we
sit down and we look at our economic strategy in this province. The solution to our economic problems is not,
as was documented by the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), the
failed policies of this government, of cutbacks, of looking for scapegoats, and
relying on the same tired old rhetoric they have been peddling in this province
for the last five years.
The future of
this province is going to depend on co‑operative ventures such as the
Crocus Fund. It is going to depend on
harnessing revenues from such sources as VLTs for rural economic
development. It comes from harnessing
revenues from such developments as Limestone for the economic development of
this province. It comes from taking what
we have, our resource base, and the capital that we have in this province and
the human capital working co‑operatively to develop this province. That is the alternate type of vision that I
think not only our party is espousing, but many other Manitobans.
I find it
interesting, as I complete my remarks here, that today apart from‑‑and
I will give some members credit for listening in terms of these positive
suggestions. I mean, I think that is
important. Obviously, there are some
political differences we have. It is
unfortunate that some still on that side refuse even to listen in terms of
positive suggestions. That is I think a mistake. I think it shows‑‑[interjection]
Maybe if the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) would have listened,
there were a number of suggestions I made, Mr. Speaker, and I will continue to
make them in terms of economic development in this province.
That is what we
need, Mr. Speaker, yes, some political debate, but also some specific ideas on
where we are going. There is a lot more we can do in this province with a co‑operative
approach to economic development.
We in the NDP
will be raising our suggestions throughout the session on this and other bills
to ensure that if the government‑‑[interjection] If not the
Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), perhaps some of the newer
members. The member for
We need a new
economic approach in this province, and this government should listen not just
to us, but to the many others who are proposing them.
Mr. Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain
standing in the name of the honourable
member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie).
Bill 14‑The Personal Property Security and Consequential Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), 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,
standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 15‑‑The Boxing and Wrestling Commission Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), Bill 15, The Boxing
and Wrestling Commission Act; Loi sur la Commission de la boxe et de la lutte,
standing in the name of the honourable member for the Interlake (Mr. Clif
Evans).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 16‑The Public Schools Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. Vodrey), Bill 16, The Public Schools
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles publiques, standing in the
name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed] House Business
Mr. Speaker: Are we proceeding with second reading of Bill
9? No, okay.
The honourable
acting government House leader, what are your intentions, sir?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I think
if you canvass the House, there may be a will to call it six o'clock.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it six
o'clock? No. Okay.
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 Wellington (Ms. Barrett), Bill 200, The Child and Family Services
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services a l'enfant et a la
famille, standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms.
Wowchuk), who has seven minutes remaining.
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Also standing in the name of the honourable
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I thought I might‑‑[interjection]
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Alcock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do want to take a few minutes just to put a
few remarks on the record on this particular bill. It is an attempt, I think, by the opposition
to undo some of the damage that they did when the original bill came before the
House, and it is an attempt by the NDP to rewrite history and to try to get on
the right side of a very important public issue. From that perspective, I suspect that I can
support this bill or I can encourage the House to adopt this bill, because it
does address a fundamentally important issue in this province, and that is the
empowerment of children.
We had a debate
in this House. I unfortunately ran out
of time and was not able to speak on the bill that was before the House,
although I was involved somewhat in the discussions that took place in bringing
the bill before the House. The
government did something that I think on the face of it was a good thing. They
attempted to put into legislation some protection for those in this community
who are perhaps the most unempowered, those who cannot vote, those who have no
voice of their own in this Chamber‑‑the children of
We supported that
intention at that time, but we noted that the way the government was organizing
it, by having it report through the minister, who had already been seriously
discredited in the community and has shown complete contempt for the children
in families with these problems, we noted that having this very important
responsibility reporting to someone who was so completely insensitive to the
needs of children was wrong, that we had to have that office reporting to this
Chamber, to the public of this province so that there would be none of the kind
of exercise, or perhaps shall we say, lack of exercise of the responsibilities
of the department that we have seen from this particular minister and frankly
that we have in the past at times seen from other ministers, not only in this
government. The fact is that the
interests of children takes second place to the interests of adults. That is a fact that we have seen exhibited by
governments over and over again.
I can recall
experiences back when I was in the department, with the previous government,
where if it came to a conflict between a particular interest of theirs and the
rights or the interests of a child, that the previous government would not act
to protect children. They needed to be
called into account. I think I can
attest to, and I am prepared to at some point if I get a chance, maybe before I
leave this Chamber I might speak at greater length about some of the actions of
the previous government around the protection of the rights of prisoners and
the spouses of prisoners and how if a person held an NDP card they were allowed
to undertake some abuses and they were not checked and they were not
disciplined.
* (1610)
In this particular
case what we want to talk about is how we protect the interests of children in
this province and how we hold ourselves accountable to an authority that is
beyond this Chamber. The way we do that
is to empower somebody to give them the resources to investigate when there are
serious concerns and report to this Chamber, not to report to the very person
who is responsible for the abuse in the first place.
When we made that
case in the last session of this House, it was the New Democratic Party that refused
to support us. It was the New Democratic
Party that stood up and said, oh, no, let us just get this bill through because
we want to support this minister the way we want to support this minister every
time he takes a major decision. It is
only now after they have had time to reflect on their actions that they have
come forward with this bill. [interjection] No, that is exactly the way it
happened.
The member for
Burrows (Mr. Martindale) says that is not the way it happened. Well, he is wrong, and if he sat in this
House he would remember the words of the member for
In fact, at that
time they were quite willing to support this minister, but all of a sudden they
have had a conversion. All of a sudden
they now believe that perhaps we were right in the first place. It is a little late, but, you know,
conversion has to be accepted whenever it occurs.
So I am prepared
to support the intention of this bill, and I would like to ask and urge the
government, the minister, the members of the Treasury bench to stop and reflect
on what is really intended here, and that is simply an attempt to give to the
people charged with protecting the rights of children the same right we give to
the public accounts of this province and to the Ombudsman of this province.
The Auditor comes
to this Chamber, the Ombudsman comes to this Chamber, and surely those people
who are charged with protecting and investigating our actions relative to
children should receive no less respect than those other two.
We say, when it
is an issue that affects us, when it affects an adult, when we go before the
Ombudsman, that in order to ensure the independence of that office that they
report to this Chamber. We should do the
same for the Child Advocate. That is all
we are asking for in this bill, and I would like to see this House adopt it.
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for
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).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: 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).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this very good
amendment, which I think could easily be supported by all three parties, is to
expand the authority of the Ombudsman to investigate complaints within the
education system. That would include
complaints by children or teachers or administrators or trustees, or indeed it
could be complaints about teachers or complaints about administrators or
complaints about trustees.
Why is this
necessary? Well, first of all it is
necessary because the Ombudsman currently does not have jurisdiction to
investigate these kinds of complaints, so that is an obvious rationale for this
bill.
Secondly, there
are very limited avenues now for anyone within the educational system to
complain. For example, if a parent
thinks that a child has been wrongly treated or unfairly treated, the parent
has recourse to talk to the teacher and to take their concern to the principal
and, if still not satisfied, to go to the administration, and indeed to the
school trustees.
I suppose the
ultimate avenue of appeal would be to the minister himself or herself. However, what usually happens is that the
minister says, I am sorry, I cannot interfere in a matter because it is the
responsibility of a local school board; therefore it is in their jurisdiction;
and would refer it back to the school division to investigate.
In fact, I have
been involved with complaints from parents where an individual contacted the
minister's office. I, myself, have
phoned the minister's office and talked to staff and knew what the response of
the minister was, and namely it was to refer the matter back to the local
school division. So I know from personal
experience that this is what happens.
A parent or a
teacher or a principal or anyone in the system, of course, can take a concern
to a trustee or a superintendent that would suggest that they take it close to
the top of the administrative structure and the political structure of the
local school division, but of course it is much more difficult then to get
redress for the problem.
Why is that? Because the parent or teacher or anyone with
a complaint, of course they have the right to go to the board. They may
correspond with a board and may appear as a delegation and have a brief to the
board. Then what happens? Well, the board then delegates responsibility
to the administration to investigate.
Perhaps the board designates the superintendent to investigate, and the
superintendent in turn may delegate that investigation to a deputy or assistant
superintendent or someone down the line.
Then the report goes back up the administrative ladder to the
board. I would suspect that in the vast
majority of cases, the administration would report to the board in a way that
was favourable to the administration. I
would not suggest that there would be a cover‑up, but there may be damage
control.
The
administration may have a self‑interest in protecting a teacher or
protecting a principal or protecting a school or a reputation or whatever, and
so an organization investigating itself is not a very fair way of doing
it. In fact, one could say there is a
lack of objectivity, and there is a perception that there is a lack of
justice. Not only must justice be done,
but justice must be seen to be done.
This is an aphorism that we usually hear in connection with the courts,
but I think that this could apply to anything and any jurisdiction and any
organization, that not only must justice be done but justice must be seen to be
done. I think this is as true in the
education system as it is in the courts.
Of course, the
most common example is the police. When
there is a complaint against the police, and if the police conduct an internal
investigation, we have a situation where the police investigate the
police. Then the public, if they do not
get the kind of report or response or recommendation that someone be punished,
then they say, well, no wonder we had a situation where the police were
investigating the police. Why would we
expect it to be any different, or why would we expect it to be fair? That is why we have organizations like the
Law Enforcement Review Agency. We have external
agencies with civilians on them to investigate the police, and this is the way
it should be. Similarly, I think, the same argument can be made in a school
division that there should be a third party, an independent body to investigate
complaints.
The Minister of
Education (Mrs. Vodrey) and her department have talked about educational
reform, and for 17 months there has been a study of The Public Schools
Act. I think there are good reasons why
there should be a review of public education in
I am a parent
with two children in Winnipeg School Division No. 1, and I have been very
involved in their education both at home and in the school.
I have been on
the Ralph Brown parent council, the English‑Ukrainian bilingual parents
committee at Ralph Brown School, the parent council at Isaac Newton School, the
parent council at Sisler High School, and I was asked to be a representative by
Sisler parents at the Sisler‑Rosser advisory council, and I was asked by
the Isaac Newton parent council to be on the St. John's advisory council.
In fact, I went
to a meeting of parents, and they did not know who I was. I was a little bit chagrined, but it was
rather interesting because they asked me if I would let my name stand as
president. I said, well, I would like to
be president of this organization, but as the MLA for Burrows I think it would
be inappropriate, so I declined to be elected president. However, I was listing all those
organizations to show my involvement as a parent. In fact, my wife has been on
all the parent councils that I named, and in many ways has been more involved
than I have because she has probably gone to more meetings than I have, and has
also been treasurer of the parents council‑‑[interjection]
* (1620)
Well, the
minister asks about Immaculate Heart. I
was at a‑‑sorry, the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer); I did not
really intend to promote him so quickly. [interjection] He does not want it; he
is a very smart man. He asks about a
school in Burrows constituency. Well, I
had the pleasure of attending a tea there a few weeks ago. I am always happy to go to a tea at any
school and raise my profile with the people in the constituency of Burrows,
regardless of whether it is a separate school or a public school. They were happy to see me; they even let me
present a plaque honouring the Sister Servants of Mary Immaculate. So I think they were happy to see me; they
sent me a nice thank‑you letter for presenting this plaque.
I think there are
occasions that all of us would recognize as nonpolitical, and certainly when
you go as an MLA to an event in your constituency, they do not expect you to
make political remarks at every occasion.
It would not be appropriate to make political remarks on every
occasion. They know that I am a member
of the NDP caucus. They know what our
party's position is on funding to separate schools‑‑[interjection]
And they love me anyway, as the member for
Getting back to
the need for educational reform. If one
reads letters to the editor of daily newspapers, and if you read articles in
papers like the Globe and Mail and elsewhere about education and even op‑ed
articles in papers like the Free Press, you would assume that there is a huge
interest in our society about education and the need for educational
reform. Indeed, there is some interest,
but what I find quite surprising and disappointing is that this interest is not
reflected at the local schools, at least not the ones that I have been involved
in. It is surprising and it is
disappointing, but one would think that, given the level of public concern,
there would be many, many more parents attending parent‑teacher
interviews and parent‑council meetings.
The best parent‑council
meetings that I ever went to were at
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Urban Affairs): Get back to the topic.
Mr. Martindale: Well, the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr.
Ernst) would like me to get back on the topic.
I think it is relevant to The Ombudsman Act to talk about involvement of
parents in schools, because what we are talking about is empowerment of people
in the system to have investigations done by an independent third party, namely
the Ombudsman.
If the
educational system can only investigate itself, then why should people get
involved? Why should people complain?
What recourse do they have? Well, I
suppose the only recourse they have is that once every three years they can
turf out trustees if they are unhappy with the educational system that they
have. So that is a democratic right that
people have and they can exercise that right and they do exercise that right
although, unfortunately, the voter turnout in places like Winnipeg School
Division No. 1 is very low.
In the civic
election three years ago the voter turnout in places‑‑well, I think
the average in
Of course, we all
know that that changed dramatically last fall, mainly because of a contested
civic election. I suppose some of that
could have been attributed to very heavy television advertising by the
successful mayoralty candidate, who spent I believe in the range of $175,000
buying the election. That, of course,
resulted in a very high voter turnout and generated a great deal of interest.
[interjection] Of course I did not vote for the mayor of
Getting back to
the point that I was trying to make about the need for educational reform, one
of the things that we need to do is involve parents much more in the
educational system. Why? Because
currently there seems to be a lack of concern.
Now I suppose that could be because parents assume that the school board
and the school are doing a good job. On
the other hand, it could be that parents are intimidated, and I think that is
very true when the parents have less education than the teachers. It is hard for many parents to talk to
teachers. Perhaps they feel
inadequate. Perhaps they feel
embarrassed by their own lack of education, and so they do not get involved in
the school.
I think there are
some solutions that we should be looking at when talking about educational
reform. One suggestion would be to make
schools more parent friendly. I know
that this was certainly the case at
So when the
parent council met, it was always around suppertime and they would order in
food. So we had pizza. We had Chinese food. We had Ukrainian food. Every meeting we tried different kinds of
food, and that seemed to guarantee a good attendance. So, that was a good idea. I do not know who paid for it and how it was
paid for, but it certainly had a very positive effect on attendance, which
subsequently has greatly suffered since the community improvement project is
over and the food is over too.
This reminds me
that at the official opening ceremony of the community improvements, at the
official dedication, there were representatives from the three levels of
government, and I was allowed to participate as the MLA for Burrows. However, I am getting the signal, so I will not
elaborate on that.
I think,
secondly, we need a partnership between parents and teachers. We need more community involvement. To their credit, Winnipeg School Division No.
1 trustees are drafting new policies in a number of areas. One of those areas has to do with community‑based
decision making and school‑based decision making. What they want is more parental involvement,
and I commend them for that. I think the
new policy will go a long way towards providing that.
The final point I
would like to make is that the education of parents is tied to the education of
children. What happens when parents go
back to school? Well, one of the very
positive effects is that the marks of their children improve. Perhaps it is because they see the parents
studying, and so the children study more.
In Burrows
constituency we have a very high illiteracy rate, so we need to get many more
adults back into the school system. Fortunately, we have programs like the Open
Doors Adult Literacy Program, and I am on their advisory committee. They have been doing some very exciting
things. The students in that program
wrote their own book, and the stories in that book are wonderful stories. Some of them are poignant; some of them are
sad; some of them are happy. But it is
upgrading the education of their students and encouraging them to get more
education to improve themselves. I
believe that will have a positive effect on their children.
Mr. Speaker, in
conclusion, we hope that all parties will support Bill 205, The Ombudsman
Amendment Act. Thank you.
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to
add my comments on Bill 205, The Ombudsman Amendment Act, that was introduced
by my colleague the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak). I think this is an important piece of
legislation, because it will, as my colleague for Burrows has indicated,
effectively give a voice to those now in our communities that do not have a
voice to allow them to adjudicate or have some form of referee process put in
place, so that they can air their concerns and have their issues or their
concerns addressed by an independent party.
This is something
that, in my estimation, should have taken place some time ago, something that
has been lacking within the education system. I know that the Ombudsman has played a
significant role in this province as they attempt to assist the people in the
province that have had dealings with various government departments or agencies
where they have not received an answer or a satisfactory answer, Mr.
Speaker. So the Ombudsman has played a
role in that.
* (1630)
In cases that I
have dealt with, in particular with the Workers Compensation department under
the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), I know that there are individuals even
within my own community that have had to utilize the services of the Ombudsman
to assist them in determining whether or not their arguments that they have
used in putting forward their case on their concerns are indeed accurate.
Of course, the
Ombudsman has to also act in an advisory capacity as well. I know that one individual in particular had
been battling with the Workers Compensation Board for a considerable period of
time, in fact, years. In that sense the
agency had continually told him that they would not pay any benefits to him for
an injury he had sustained in his workplace. He had battled the agency and gone
through the complete appeal process to no avail, and the agency was steadfast
in their refusal to accept his claim.
He had gone
through the other processes that were available to him, and eventually‑‑and
this has happened recently‑‑he has gone to the Ombudsman. It is my understanding that the individual
has had his case accepted by the Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman has written to
the Workers Compensation Board asking them to review the matter and to take the
necessary steps to comply with the legislation that is in place, something
that, it was obvious by the letters that I have seen, the Workers Compensation
Board had not done to that point over the period of years.
I know, in my own
dealings with the Ombudsman, Mr. Speaker, and I have had some dealings through
the Ombudsman's office, not a lot, but occasionally I have to, as the MLA for
my community, make use of the services of the Ombudsman. In particular, I have a plant within my
community that has, I believe, been creating health concern problems for the
residents of my community.
I have attempted,
as the MLA for Transcona, on many, many occasions over the last two and a half
years to have the Department of Environment play an advocacy role in
representing the needs and the interests of the residents of my community. The
Department of Environment, of course, did not want to play that role, and they
can still continue to take the position that they are not interested in playing
that role as acting as an advocate on behalf of the residents of my community
with respect to plant emissions.
In that sense, we
have had to go to the Department of Environment and ask to see some of their
files. Now, while we have been granted
access to some of the files, we were not granted access to all of the files.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting
Speaker, in the Chair)
Through the
freedom of information process, there is also an appeal mechanism that would
allow myself or members of the public the opportunity to go through the
Ombudsman's office. The Ombudsman then
would appoint one of their investigators, upon a written request to them, to go
to the department, the government agency that is involved and to investigate
the matter.
If in their
determination there is information that is on the files to which access was not
granted, then the Ombudsman can come forward with a recommendation indicating
that access to that file information that was denied should be granted.
In my case, where
I put forward the Freedom of Information request, the Ombudsman investigated,
found that there were grounds, after their investigation, indicating that I
should be given access to that file information and had communicated that to
me. So in that sense, I was then given
the opportunity to have an appeal mechanism that was there and available to me
to allow me to have some recourse for something that had been previously denied
to me by the Department of Environment.
Now, it is my
understanding, Mr. Acting Speaker, that this particular piece of legislation,
Bill 205, The Ombudsman Amendment Act, as I said earlier, something that is
lacking within this province. There are
other departments that fall under the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman in this province
and give the people of the province the opportunity to have some recourse, some
appeal, but it is my understanding that the Ombudsman has absolutely no power
to investigate matters raised by the public in dealing with school boards.
It is unfortunate
that that is the case, because school boards and school trustees, themselves as
individuals, of course, are elected by residents of the community and, in that
sense, they should be responsible to and representative of the residents that
elect them.
It has been my
experience, since I was elected in 1990, and I have had constituents come to me
and raise concerns with me about their inability to access certain information
within school boards and, in particular, school board budgets. Now it is my understanding that school
trustees are not subject to The Ombudsman Act, so, of course, they did not have
the appeal mechanism there for them.
So the residents
came to me and they asked me to take part in the process to assist them in
trying to achieve the information that they desired, the information that they
needed to come to a decision on whether or not the actions being done by the
school trustees were indeed valid and, of course, representative of what the
community needs were.
Now the residents
communicated with the school trustees in person. They made presentation to the school board
meetings. They wrote to the school board.
They wrote to the administration of the school division, but they were
denied access to the budget information they were seeking, Mr. Acting
Speaker. Now they had found that they
had no appeal mechanism, and they could not get the detailed budget information
that they wanted. So they approached me
as the MLA for the community.
I took their
concerns and brought them to this House during the Estimates debate for the
Department of Education. Now in my
questions of the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) I put the case of the
residents to the minister. What the
minister indicated to me is a matter of record through Hansard, but the gist of
the conversation went that the minister did not have the authority to impose
his will upon the school trustees. In
other words, he could not force them to release the detailed information that
the residents wanted.
The minister says
that the school trustees have an obligation to the community and that the
trustees must release him some information, but they do not have to release all
of the information, and that the residents had wanted some precise detailed
information upon some of the spending practices of trustees in the division for
my community. So I gave that information
back to my constituents. They went back
to the school board, and then they found that the school board was still
stubborn in their position. It would not
release the information.
Had this act been
in place, The Ombudsman Amendment Act, the residents in this case would then
have been able to write to the Ombudsman and have brought that matter to that
department's attention. That department,
the Ombudsman's department, then would have investigated the matter and then
would have advised my constituents on the decision by the Ombudsman's
office. That appeal process or that
appeal mechanism was not available to the people.
So the residents
were left without recourse in this matter, Mr. Acting Speaker, and that is why
I think that this piece of legislation is important as it would give that
appeal mechanism not only to the residents of the community, but to the
children, the teachers, the administrators, to the community at large to give
them that appeal mechanism that is currently not available to them.
I often hear
comments in this House here, and members opposite say quite often that they
want to have some constructive suggestions brought forward to them and
hopefully members would quit being negative or just critical for the sake of
criticism. I think, Mr. Acting Speaker, that this is a constructive piece of
legislation that is brought forward by my colleague the member for Kildonan
(Mr. Chomiak). I hope that the members opposite
would seriously consider supporting this legislation, because it would empower
the parents, it would empower the children and, indeed, all residents of the
community, some appeal mechanism that is currently not available.
We often say we
want to have public participation in the democratic process, so that we have to
be responsible and representative of the people, of the communities, in which
we live. We want to have public
participation in the education process.
We want the public to be involved in that, not only in the education of
the children, but also in the decision making of the school trustees as they
make decisions that affect our children's future, not only in the education
aspect, but on the programs that are available to develop their minds and their
bodies as they move through the education process. We want to improve the quality of education,
Mr. Acting Speaker.
* (1640)
I think that this
bill would go a long way toward improving that quality of education because it
would give people the opportunity to address the concerns that they have and to
hopefully resolve them in a fair manner.
By giving the Ombudsman the power to make decisions on matters brought
to their attention, to act as a third party arbitrator or an adjudicator, I believe
would instill a sense of fairness back into the decision‑making process,
something which is currently not there.
I think the
public would welcome changes like this.
I know I have had discussions with constituents of mine who have raised
matters of concern in their dealings with the school board and that when I have
raised this matter with them, the possibility of having this appeal mechanism,
they were supportive of this initiative.
They thought it was a good step.
It was a positive move, a move in the right direction and it would
improve the quality of education and make the trustees, in fact all elected
representatives, responsible and not exclude one specific group by way of
school trustees. It would give a voice
to the parents to resolve disputes at the base level in dealing with the school
board, so there would be no need, at least hopefully no need, to have those
matters brought before MLAs to be brought to this Chamber, except in more
serious circumstances.
The government
talks about education reform. I know
this is something that has been talked about a fair amount. I know that there have been serious negative
impacts upon my community by the so‑called reform, and that we have not
seen in my community, at least to this point, Mr. Acting Speaker, any positive
changes.
This bill will be
a positive change to the education process.
We, as members in this House, all of us, if we are supportive of this,
play a positive role in changing education for the better. We want to bring the community‑based
decision‑making level down to the community level. We want the community to play a role in that
process. I believe that this would be a
relatively low cost change by giving a voice to the children and parents of our
community. I believe that it would
contribute to improving the quality of education in
I hope that all
members opposite, when they have the opportunity to debate this particular
piece of legislation and to review this legislation in its content, will be
supportive of it, because I think it will improve the responsibility of school
trustees within their own communities. I
hope that they will view this positively and we can hopefully expect their
support when this comes to a vote, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Thank you very
much for the opportunity to add my comments on this legislation.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. Acting
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and speak in favour of a bill that is
before the House, which is unusual given the fact that most of the very light
legislative agenda that we have before us are bills from the government side.
To my way of
thinking, most substantive bills that have been presented before this House
this session are bills that have been brought forward by the opposition. I refer specifically to Bill 200, the act to
put in place a Children's Advocate, and Bill 205, The Ombudsman Amendment Act.
I think, Mr.
Acting Speaker, there are some similarities between these two acts and some
similarities in regard to the problems that our society is facing that have led
to these two private members' bills being put before the Legislature this
session.
As my colleagues
have stated, the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), when he proposed this
legislation in December, and my colleagues the members for Transcona (Mr. Reid)
and for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) in their discussions today, this act would
allow for the Ombudsman to deal with issues that arise out of concerns being
expressed by parents or individuals involved with the public school system.
Mr. Acting
Speaker, this act is, as the member for Kildonan stated in December, a very
simple but effective piece of reform, simple because it is a very short piece
of legislation that would be very simple to implement, simple and progressive
because it would allow for access by the users of the public school system to
an appeal process that they currently do not have available to them.
Mr. Acting
Speaker, the public school system in the
(Mr. Speaker in the
Chair)
The fact that
many children go to school without adequate nourishment is a concern to
us. The fact that many children come
from dysfunctional families is a concern to us.
As the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) put on the record this
afternoon in a question to the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer),
the fact that many children actually have nowhere to go in this society of ours
today is of deep concern to us, Mr. Speaker.
Many of those
problems that are faced by us as a society as a whole, as I have stated, play
themselves out in the public school system.
The school system was not designed to deal with the quality and the
quantity of problems that are facing the school system today.
The current
Ombudsman Act does not provide for the Ombudsman to deal with those issues and
those concerns. The school trustees are
elected and are, therefore, not eligible to deal with these issues in many ways
either.
The question is,
is there currently an avenue of appeal, an avenue that families and people who
are involved in the public school system can access when they find a concern
with the school system? The answer, Mr.
Speaker, I am afraid to say is currently there is not. Just as in the Department of Family Services
the Children's Advocate is now in place‑‑not completely to our
satisfaction, but it is in place‑‑which does allow for the children
who are clients of the Family Services department to make presentation to a
semi‑independent advocate to deal with issues of concern about the
services that they are receiving, so Bill 205 would parallel in the public
school system. It would allow the
Ombudsman to deal with issues of concern as they arise out of the public school
system.
The current
Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) and her predecessor in that portfolio have
spoken extensively about the issue of reform, that the school system needs
serious reformation. We will not, of
course, on this side of the House deny that statement either, Mr. Speaker. However, as we have stated in many cases, we
have a very different definition of reform from that expounded by the current
government.
* (1650)
Bill 205, to our
way of thinking, truly is a piece of legislation that would institute needed
reform to the public school system. The
reform that the Minister of Education is advocating is yet another case of
offloading. It is yet another case of
the province saying we do not want to take the responsibility that is mandated
to us in legislation for the education of our children in this province. We do not have an economic strategy. Our province is declining in virtually every
economic indicator. Our population is
decreasing. The problems are expanding,
and the government, in the words of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism
(Mr. Stefanson) today, stands aside.
They even stated
publicly that their only response to the issues that are facing us today is to
stand aside or to say, as the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr.
Driedger) has stated, there is nothing we can do about the fact that we are
losing thousands of jobs in one of our most important, historically and
economically, sectors of our economy, that is the transportation industry. Five thousand jobs in three years, 5,000
families, Mr. Speaker, in the
Now, Mr. Speaker,
one might ask what does this have to do with Bill 205, The Ombudsman Amendment
Act? It has an enormous impact.
[interjection] Well, I am certainly glad that the member for Osborne (Mr.
Alcock) asked that question. I was
hoping that I would not have to respond in a rhetorical fashion but could
respond to an actual question. I would
be delighted to respond.
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): What is the capital of
Ms. Barrett: The member for Osborne asks the member for
Mr. Speaker, to
return to what is a very serious matter, the fact that the province of Manitoba
has lost in the last three years 5,000 very well‑paid jobs in the
transportation sector has a great deal to do with the situation that our public
schools find themselves in.
Economically, it means that tax base that the school divisions‑‑I
would suggest largely in the school division of Transcona‑Springfield‑‑used
to be able to rely on has been diminished by the loss of those high‑paying
jobs. The tax base has been further
eroded by the lack of the spin‑off economic effects that those 5,000 jobs
had on the local and provincial economy.
As well, the
impact on those families‑‑not only the purely economic factors have
created a crisis in our education system, but the impact on those families
being able to function in a constructive manner has been seriously jeopardized
by the loss of these jobs, these jobs and tens of thousands of jobs like them
in the province, leading to the kind of social disorder that we are facing in
Manitoba as a whole, and, as I have stated before, the kind of social disorder
that is played out in our public school system.
The students, the
teachers and the administrators in our public school system should not, Mr.
Speaker, need to deal with those kinds of problems. They should not have to deal with them,
because if there was an economic plan put in place by this province we would
not have to deal with the fallout of tens of thousands of jobs being lost in
the
This amendment
would at the very least allow the public schools, the children and the parents
in the public school system, an avenue of appeal when they have seen something
that they feel is very inappropriate in their public school system. It should
be only one small element of a true reform in the education system which would
go more to the heart of the matter of lack of resources, lack of commitment,
lack of any overall strategy or any overall vision of what education can and
should be for the children of
In the meantime,
Mr. Speaker, we on this side have been able to provide a very simple piece of
legislation that would make a difference.
It would be a start. It would be
true reform, albeit on a small scale. We
certainly hope that the minister and the government will actually take on the responsibilities
that have been mandated to them through legislation and be responsible and show
a degree of responsibility that has been sorely lacking in the past for the
education of the children of
One final, brief
comment, Mr. Speaker, is that when the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) asked
the then‑Minister of Education, were there problems, and the Minister of
Education said, no, the system is working very well because there have been
virtually no appeals in the education area, the reason for that, we feel, is
that the people in the system, parents in particular, do not trust the system
as it currently stands. They feel the
need for an independent appeal process, a need that we agree is there and
should be addressed.
We believe that
support by all three parties in this House for Bill 205 would be a small step
in a very progressive direction. Thank
you.
Mr. Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
*
* *
Mr. Speaker: Are we proceeding with second reading of
Public Bill 202?
Six o'clock? Is it the will of the House to call it six
o'clock? [agreed]
The hour being 6
p.m., this House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow
(Friday).