LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday,
March 3, 1992
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Karen Kulik, Natalie Monkman, Servillena Beltran and others requesting the
government show its strong commitment to dealing with child abuse by restoring
the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign.
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Steven Hay, Randy Maxwell, George Williams and others requesting the government
show its strong commitment to dealing with child abuse by restoring the Fight
Back Against Child Abuse campaign.
INTRODUCTION
OF BILLS
Bill 18‑The
Franchises Act
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Concordia (Mr. Doer), that Bill 18, The Franchises Act; Loi sur les
concessions, be introduced and the same be now received and read a first time.
Motion presented.
Mr. Maloway: Mr. Speaker, Manitobans have lost large
amounts of money buying franchises in various companies over the last few
years, everything from $5,000 for alarm franchises to $8,000 for computer
franchises up to $100,000 for travel franchises.
This bill will do several things. One, it will require the franchise companies
to file a prospectus with the province.
It will require that monies paid up front by franchise buyers will be
kept in trust until all the promises of the franchise company are made good on,
such as advertising and other things. It
will provide that franchises would have a protected area, a consistent
contract, because that is a major problem in the business. With the consistent contract, there would be
consistent requirements for cash investments, guarantees in terms of their
equipment, fixtures, royalties, fees and other conditions. It is hoped that this bill will address a
growing problem in
Motion agreed to.
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
welcome you here this afternoon.
*
(1335)
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Ducks Unlimited
Headquarters
Impact
Tourism
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, recently I was listening to a
Manitoban who was stating that he and his family, when they were down at the
Minnesota State Fair, received a number of pamphlets and material opposing the
Ducks Unlimited complex in Oak Hammock Marsh.
It appears to me that, when one starts to
look at the list of organizations across
I would ask the Acting Premier: What impact will this growing negative international
fight against the Ducks Unlimited complex have?
What impact will it have on the thousands of people who rely on tourism
in
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Acting Premier): Mr. Speaker, actually I think the Leader of
the Opposition has overlooked the fact that this facility will very likely
become a tourist attraction.
Certainly he is overlooking the fact that
this marsh has been expanded, that the facility being built there is to provide
education, education being one of the key reasons that we can bring people from
other areas, people from within the province to look first‑hand at the
opportunities to, close‑up, see the action that is being taken in that
marsh and gain an appreciation for the real attributes that we have in that
marsh.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, it sounds like the same kind of
answers we had on chlorine bleach a couple of months ago from members opposite,
total inability to predict the future and therefore to predict the future
markets. That is what we see from
members opposite in terms of dealing with issues in front of them.
Funding
Withdrawal
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): My question is to the Acting Premier. Given the fact that organizations right across
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Acting Premier): Mr. Speaker, again the Leader of the
Opposition is wrong. He is trying to
spread fear and innuendo regarding this project in the jewel of the marshes of
this country. It is pretty obvious to me
that he has no appreciation for the fact that people want to be able to have
access to view the activities that are going on there. He is overlooking the fact that some 80,000
people per annum visit that marsh today.
He is overlooking the fact that this will become a major attraction, a
major educational centre. I think that
the type of comments that are coming from the Leader of the Opposition are the
very type of comments that drive people away from this province.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite told us we
were fearmongering when we said that we should not proceed with chlorine
bleach. Let the records show who was
right and who was wrong on predicting the future in this province. It is not the members opposite. If you look at the list, The Manitoba
Naturalists Society, the conservation federation of
Federal
Environmental Assessment
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): A further question to the minister, the Acting
Premier.
We have seen the recent decision on the
I would ask the minister, will this
project now require, under the
*
(1340)
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Acting Premier): Mr. Speaker, as is his
wont, the member will look at the
*
(1340)
Conawapa
Dam Project
Public
Utilities Board Referral
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): I have a report commissioned by Hydro on the
long‑range, demand‑side management plans which demonstrate its
ability to conserve more than twice as much power as originally thought before
the PUB hearings. The demand‑side
projections help explain why the need for Conawapa in the projections was off
by some 12 years and why the government must re‑examine the plans for
Conawapa, as it has with Repap.
I would ask the Minister of Environment,
has he received and reviewed this report which would recommend from an
environmental point of view that they would update Hydro's conservation plans
and refer the Conawapa project back to the PUB?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Well, Mr. Speaker,
the member totally overlooks the range of figures that were provided in front
of the Public Utilities Board. As the
ultimate regulator responsible for licensing, I suggest it would be
inappropriate for me to comment much beyond that.
Ms. Cerilli: Can the Minister of Environment explain why
this report, which was tabled on November 2, 1991, was not part of the PUB
hearings and why this demand‑side management study was not done before
those hearings, which would have been the environmentally responsible thing to
do?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, the corporation is constantly
upgrading its demand, its load and dealing with the conservation side of its
responsibilities. As I have said
earlier, I will take the details of the question as notice for the minister
responsible.
Conawapa
Dam Project
Public
Utilities Board Referral
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): In keeping with the
government's constant queries for suggestions, I would like to ask the minister
if he will recommend, based on this report that the demand‑side
management projections give, to develop an incentive program for the senior
officials with Hydro so that we can see the implementation of some of the
demand‑side management programs which will fulfill these projections.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Well, Mr. Speaker, I
think the members opposite will have an opportunity, once The Loan Act is
tabled in this House, to ask certain questions with respect to the conservation
programs associated with Manitoba Hydro and indeed their programming over the
next year. There is a component,
significant component, I might add, that will be directed toward incentives and
rebates, and indeed to the development of the plan.
As a matter of fact, today in Treasury
board, I had an opportunity to see the global funding that is going to be
directed toward conservation efforts. It
is significant, and I can assure the member that she will be happy with that
information once it is tabled.
Constitutional
Issues
Bilateral
Negotiations‑Quebec
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for the Constitution.
Yesterday, the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
indicated that
Will the minister tell this House if this
government is in favour of bilateral negotiations between
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the honourable member will recall
the responses made by the Premier to her questions yesterday in regard to
this. She will recall the Premier indeed
made the point that
Among those, of course, is the position
*
(1345)
Mrs. Carstairs: I can only assume, therefore, that this
government is quite happy with a bilateral negotiation between
Mr. McCrae: Of course, it would be our wish that
I do not take the honourable member's
preamble as she would put it, in the sense that I believe firmly that
Aboriginal
Representation
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): I think
the principle is that we should all be treated equally, and we are not if we
enter into bilateral negotiations between the Government of
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the aboriginal
community indicated their pleasure and their delight at the recognition of the
inherent right to self‑government in the Dobbie‑Beaudoin report.
They also raised a very serious concern, and that concern is that there is now
going to be discussions about the devolution of powers, that powers will be
moving from the provinces to the federal government and from the federal
government to the provinces.
Will the constitutional minister tell me
if
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs): I think that
Of course, with respect to aboriginal
issues, aboriginal issues affecting aboriginal people in this country, it is
going to be important to receive the input of aboriginal leadership and
ordinary, if I can use that word, aboriginal people across this country.
Policing
Services
Municipal
Costs
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
The most important issue facing towns and
municipalities as they prepare their budget for the upcoming year is policing
costs. A committee of urban and rural
councillors has been struck to discuss this issue, and they have completed
their report in which they made five recommendations of how the issue should be
addressed. The minister has had this
report since January but has not taken a position.
Can the minister provide us with a copy of
the report and tell us when he is going to take some action and make some
decision on these recommendations?
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the critic for her question.
I would like to say that I received the Charlie Hill report about a week
after I was appointed Minister of Rural Development. At that point in time, the report came to me
without the signatures of the participating MAUM or UMM officials, which raises
some concerns about whether or not they had completely endorsed the
report. As a result, I thought it was
only fair that municipalities throughout the province would have some idea as
to what was contained in the report.
We have now circulated an executive
summary of the report to municipalities, and we have asked for their responses
to the options and the recommendations that have been made by the committee
that was put together to study policing costs in this province. Once those recommendations or responses are
in, Mr. Speaker, we will be in a position then to move forward in terms of
implementing some of the report's recommendations.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, one of the difficulties people in
rural municipalities and towns face is that this government changes their
Minister of Rural Development every session and then‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
*
(1350)
Ms. Wowchuk: I would like to ask the minister, if he is
not going to take action on this report, will he meet with the committee and
councillors and give them some assurance that he is not going to change his
mind after they prepare their budgets, which they are doing right now? They do not want to face the same thing they
did‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, I have met with both executive
groups, both UMM and MAUM. We have
discussed this issue, and I think the critic of Rural Development was at a
meeting in
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I was at that meeting, and the
people were certainly disappointed. If
they cannot take steps on this report, how can this government proceed with a
proposal to change policing boundaries?
They say they have to consult on one, but they have not consulted with
municipalities on changing the boundaries.
Have you told municipalities what the impact is going to be? Are they going to have‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The question has been put.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is just
alluding to some of the difficulties that we face out in
Post-Secondary
Education
Accessibility
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, the
concrete results of this government's funding of post‑secondary education
are that the doors are closing for young Manitobans. In just one faculty at the
My question for the Minister of Education
and Training is: What programs or plans does she have in place for those
students across the province who will now be denied access to university?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, the issue of a university education for Manitobans is of great concern
to this government. I will remind the
honourable member that we as a government have had to set priorities. We have asked school divisions to set
priorities. Universities have also had
to set priorities in line with what can be offered within the financial limits.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, what action has the minister
taken to deal with the additional 20 percent increase in student fees anticipated
at
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, as the member said in her
statement, it is anticipated. We do not
yet know the results of the budgets, and we have not tabled our budget in this
House at this time.
Community
Colleges
Funding
Restoration
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, will the minister make the
commitment today that she refused to make last week, to restore the more than
10 percent that her government cut from community colleges last year and to
reopen at least those opportunities for
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, as I said last week in response to the question, the range of training
opportunities and educational opportunities for Manitobans are very important
to this government, but we will have to wait until our budget is tabled in this
House to make any commitments.
*
(1355)
Health
Care System
Licensed Practical
Nurses' Role
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Health.
Last week I asked the Minister of Health
some questions regarding the future of LPNs in
Last week the minister indicated that the
unemployment rate for the graduating class of LPNs at St. Boniface was 19
percent. Mr. Speaker, according to the association, there is an unemployment
rate of only 1 percent for this particular class.
Is the minister going to stand behind his
information, or is he going to correct his record and tell the people of
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my
honourable friend raises a very important issue. The information that I provided to the House
last week, when this question on the future of LPNs came up, was information
that I had about the employment status at graduation from the St. Boniface
General
Subsequent to that, I have been informed
that the association has tracked some 19 of the 22 graduates from the March
1991 graduating class of Practical Nursing at St. Boniface. All 19 of those are employed whether it be full
time, part time or casual. The three that they cannot locate to complete the 22
graduates may well be out of province.
Both pieces of information appear to be correct.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us why he
stated that he had no knowledge of the recommendation of the board of the St.
Boniface Hospital that they close the LPN program when, according to LPN
Association, the deputy minister of the Department of Health was present at the
meeting of the 27th of November '91? At
that time, the hospital director stated that he will be making their
recommendation.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I have never said that I was
unaware of that being an issue for discussion at St. Boniface, including at the
board level. I have never made that statement. My honourable friend better be a little more
accurate. What I have said, though, and
this is‑‑[interjection] I
have never said to my honourable friend in answer to any question that I was
not aware of the discussion being at St. Boniface. As a matter of fact, yesterday, in answer to
the question of the official opposition critic, I said, I know the issue has
been discussed at St. Boniface, so do not try to confuse the issue.
What has not been presented, Mr. Speaker,
to myself and to my deputy minister is any request to close the school, and
until they do, I cannot comment around whether they will in fact ask for that
to happen or not. Until I have that
request from a hospital, I surely cannot be expected to react to a hypothetical
question.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell this House
when the decision regarding the moratorium on LPN training at Red
Mr. Orchard: I would hope that kind of information can be
made available and the moratorium issue at
The purpose, Mr. Speaker, is to exactly
remove the uncertainty around moratoriums at
Rent
Regulations
Rollbacks
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Tenants in
What is the minister responsible for the
Rent Regulation Bureau doing to ensure that increases which cannot be justified
are rolled back and the savings passed on to the tenants?
*
(1400)
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):
Mr. Speaker, the way in which the policy works is this: The landlord gets an approval of, say, 5
percent because he has had a tax increase.
The tenant can appeal that. The
bureau can approve that. If the tenant
feels it is too high, the tenant can appeal.
If, during the course of that appeal, the landlord has his taxes
reassessed and put down, then the department at that time has the right to move
the rent increase back to the appropriate level. Once the appeal is made, that is it. However, it is picked up again in the next
year when the rent application considers the fact that the previous year he got
money back from taxes.
Mr. Martindale: Will the minister direct her staff in the Rent
Regulation Bureau to enforce the act when subsequent applications are made,
instead of having the director say, we are thinking about it and worrying about
it? What direction will this minister
give so this does not happen again?
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, our policy is as I have
outlined. If there was a refund or a change in the tax assessment as the result
of appeal on tax reassessment, it is picked up the next year and the adjustment
made the next year.
Education
System
Special
Needs Funding
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Education. The problems with
government chronic underfunding of education is not helped by the government's
publication of inaccurate information.
Can the minister clarify why the
department and herself persist in stating that special needs has increased by
42 percent this year when this is impossible, since special needs funding
totalled $51 million last year and the increase of 42 percent would equal $22
million, which is beyond what the government is giving to the total public
education system of the province of
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, there is most certainly an increase in the area of special education
funding. The figure of 42 percent is
very important because it signals money that is available very specifically for
the area of special education, and it signals this government's commitment to
that special need.
Mr. Chomiak: It is a pity the figure is wrong. It is not 42 percent.
I am asking the minister my
supplementary. When will this government
live up to its promised commitment of funding 80 percent of the costs of
special needs rather than the less than 50 percent that it is funding today?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, we are attempting to meet
commitments to all Manitobans within the amount of money that Manitobans
presently have and can afford to pay for education.
Mr. Chomiak: My final supplementary to the minister
is: While she reviews these commitments,
I wonder if the minister could undertake to inform me why she is going to 64
percent of the funding of private schools and special needs remains at 50
percent or less?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, the funding for independent
schools has not yet been announced, but I would like to remind my honourable
friend that any funding for independent schools is for operational only and
does not include capital.
Taxicab
Industry
Luxury Cab
Proposal
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Does the honourable member have a question? Kindly put your question.
Mr. Lamoureux: My question to the minister is: Does this government endorse the decision
made by the Taxi Board to increase the number of taxis on the road?
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to the
member that we have a Taxicab Board which has been appointed, and it is a quasi‑judicial
board. That Taxicab Board has the right
to make all kinds of decisions. They
have gone through a very difficult two years of having hearings and trying to
address some of the concerns within the taxicab industry. They have made some decisions, and it is
within their jurisdiction to make those decisions.
Mr. Lamoureux: Why did the government not indicate that we should
have upgraded, if they want luxury cabs, 40 of the current cabs to luxury? Mr. Speaker, we do not deny that the public
want‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The question has been put.
Mr. Driedger: I think many people will take exception to the
statement that the Taxicab Board has shafted the industry. Let me just indicate, Mr. Speaker, that I
think it is approximately 40 years that we have had 400 licences within the
province, and it has never changed. In
the hearings that the Taxicab Board undertook, they felt by the response that
came in that there was a demand for a special upgraded cab within the industry
within the city.
When you consider the increase in
population from the time that we had 400 licences there to the population that
we have right now, the Taxicab Board felt, based on representation made to
them, that there was a requirement for an elite cab.
There were 32 elite cabs, and eight are
for specially handicapped people.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary: Why is this government undercutting the
market price of a taxi licence by selling the permits for only $100 when the
licence holders can sell their very same licences today for between $45,000 to
$50,000, turning a quick profit over to whom?
Mr. Driedger: I find it interesting that the member raises
the questions here. If he has had
concern on the taxicab industry, he should have maybe appeared at the hearings
and put his views forward at that time.
That is what the hearings were all about.
Mr. Speaker, I made a mistake three years
ago when I personally got involved with the taxicab industry. It was not within my jurisdiction to do so,
and that has been corrected. The Taxicab Board has their jurisdiction. They have had their hearings, made their
decisions, and I support that.
Health
Care System
Licensed
Practical Nurses' Role
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
I would like to ask‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would
ask you to ask the honourable member to withdraw that statement. We are all honourable members; at least
Beauchesne says we are, and we are to be treated in that fashion. I think that that statement was most unkind to
the Minister of Health, and I would ask that the member withdraw that.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw that
word. It was just in my memory, so
recently planted there by the Minister of Health yesterday.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable member
for
* * *
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Let me just ask a straightforward question. What
is the policy of this government when it comes to the profession called
licensed practical nurse? Does this
government support the notion of a mix of nursing professionals, including the
RN, the LPN and the aide, or is this government moving in a direction that is
counter to every other province in this country?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): No, Mr. Speaker, and yes.
*
(1410)
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: I am beginning to regret withdrawing the word
obfuscation‑‑[interjection]
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Considering that the decision, with respect
to the school at St. Boniface General Hospital, is being made as a result of a
budgetary squeeze being placed on the hospital by this government's budget‑reduction
exercise, would this minister convey to the St. Boniface General Hospital that
there is some flexibility in the $19‑million‑budget‑reduction
exercise of this current year and the $20‑million‑budget‑reduction
exercise of this coming fiscal year so that they can make decisions‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, on careful reflection to my
previous answer, I may have had to reverse the order or else the questions.
I want to tell my honourable friend that,
when she is talking about flexibility around the budget, that is exactly the
process that has been in place for some 15 years, including when my honourable
friend sat around the cabinet table making hospital decisions. That flexibility, Mr. Speaker, demands of the
hospital administrators that they manage within their budgets, as allocated by
government, and without deficits, as I explained to the member for Brandon East
(Mr. Leonard Evans), and I will explain for the critic for the New Democratic
Party, because she was at the cabinet table when the Pawley administration made
that decision. I tell you, we agree with
it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in terms of dealing with
the issues of staffing complements and the mix of staffing on the various wards
of hospitals throughout the province, we have said that that is a management
decision that the administrators must make to assure quality patient care. I would hope that within those management
decisions, there should and ought to be room for all disciplines of trained
nurses in the province of Manitoba, because I think then one can accomplish
both the budgetary exercise as well as the patient care that all Manitobans
want to see continue.
Bed
Closures
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (St.
Johns): Mr. Speaker, is the action being considered at
St. Boniface hospital to close the School of Practical Nursing and to lay off
LPNs related at all to the difficult situation the hospital has been placed in
by this government who has directed the St. Boniface hospital and the Health
Sciences Centre to consider the impact of closing 250 beds?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the hospitals are being asked to
manage within budgets, budgets which have increased year over year, in last
year's case, not by the $19 million that was requested in addition to the
increased funding we provided. What we
are attempting to do with the Urban Hospital Council, with individual
hospitals, is to develop care for the patient.
There are examples, as is tabled in the Centre for Health Policy and
Evaluation report, which clearly indicate that there is a more appropriate
regime of care for the patient not dependent on institution, that it may well
be in community. That is what my honourable friend has been urging me to do.
Northern
Health Care
Transportation
Fee
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, of all the unfair and
insensitive actions this government has taken, one of the most insensitive has
been the application of the $50 user fee for Northern Patient Transportation,
particularly as it affects remote northern communities such as Ilford, Thicket
Portage, Pikwitonei and Wabowden.
Since those communities are now asking the
government to have physician services provided since many individuals in those
communities cannot afford the three‑days‑a‑week train service
to travel to Thompson, stay overnight for a couple of days, be faced with
hundreds of dollars of bills just to have access to a general practitioner,
will the minister now withdraw the $50 user fee and provide fairness to all
northerners?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I realize my honourable friend
has raised this issue time and time again. Let me background the decision by government
around the $50 consumer contribution toward transportation. Everybody in
My honourable friend from his seat says
not to pay accommodation. Is he asking
the taxpayers to do something he did not do and pick up accommodation? Of course, he is not, because all Manitobans,
if they have to stay overnight, must pay the accommodation themselves whether
it is in
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
NONPOLITICAL
STATEMENTS
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave to make
a nonpolitical statement? Leave? It is agreed.
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, today is the second day of the
second annual National Social Work Week.
As a social worker myself, I am pleased to rise today to pay tribute to
the thousands of men and women in Manitoba and across this country who have
found themselves in a wide range of occupations and jobs under the general
heading of social work.
For over 100 years, these men and women
have been providing assistance to individuals, families and communities in
need. The names and the job descriptions
may have changed over time, but the basic value that everyone in our society
has the right to the best life they can lead has framed social work as a
practice, and I as a member of that profession take a great deal of honour and
respect in that basic value.
Today, social workers are found in
virtually every town, region and city in our province working in a wide‑ranging
number of organizations, providing services to Manitobans literally from cradle
to grave, both in their work time and in their volunteer time after their
working hours.
I would like to put on the record just a
few of the agencies and the organizations and the areas in which social workers
provide service to our citizens of
Finally, I would like to congratulate
again the thousands of social workers in
Thank you.
*
(1420)
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, might I have leave to make a
nonpolitical statement?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave to make
a nonpolitical statement? Leave? It is agreed.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the
member for
In thanking the profession for honouring
him in this way last night, he made a point that I think is worth
repeating. He spent the time just
talking about those people that have contributed to his life, about his wife,
his children and the people he works with and his colleagues. He said he looks forward to a day when the
people who do the work in this community helping other people get the kind of
recognition that we afford to the rock stars and the movie stars.
He looks forward to a day when a child
care worker can walk down the street and have people stopping them, recognizing
them and thanking them for the work that they do. It is a profession that knows only too well
the underside of our communities and has people who have devoted themselves to
try to make this truly a gentler, kinder, friendlier community to live in. I think they deserve the support of this
House. Thank you very much.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Might I
have leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable minister have leave to
make a nonpolitical statement?
Leave? It is agreed.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice and
the voice of the government to the congratulations offered to social workers as
they celebrate National Social Work Week this particular week.
Obviously, we have a tremendous network of
social services across this province, as referenced by one of the previous
speakers, where we have so many, many social workers working with families in
crisis and disadvantaged children. I can
say that my understanding of the very, very difficult work that they do is
enhanced every week in this position as Minister of Family Services. I have nothing but the highest respect for
those front‑line social workers who day after day have to deal with the
crises that face Manitobans.
I am aware that Clay Wotherspoon was
honoured last night at a ceremony for his tremendous contribution to social
work in the 30 years that he has worked in that field, and I would like to add
my congratulations to him and say it is a much deserved recognition of the
career he has had in helping others.
On behalf of the government, I extend my
best wishes to all social workers for their contributions in
Mr. Jack Penner
(Emerson): Mr. Speaker, might I have leave to make a
nonpolitical statement?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave to make
a nonpolitical statement? Leave? It is agreed.
Mr. Penner: I take some pleasure in rising today to
recognize the tremendous effort that was put on by a group of people in the
southeast part of the province over the weekend.
There was a snowmobile ride sponsored by
the Minnesota Trailblazers and the Manitoba Snowmobile organization, and it was
organized by Margaret Arndt from
The effort that was made in bringing these
snowmobile people together was in recognition of the opening of a trail that
was opened a year ago to connect the network of Minnesota‑North Dakota
snowmobile trails with the Manitoba snowmobile trails and afford the tourism
industry and the hospitality industry in that southeast area an opportunity to
present a hospitable atmosphere to all those snowmobilers that travel back and
forth across this province.
I pay tribute to all the organizers and
all the people who were involved and congratulate them for jointly, between our
two great nations, sponsoring a ride such as this, not only to demonstrate our
friendliness, but in fact to promote tourism in both countries.
Committee
Changes
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could make some
committee changes.
I move, seconded by the member for Niakwa
(Mr. Reimer), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments
be amended as follows: The member for
Lakeside (Mr. Enns) for the member for Arthur‑Virden (Mr. Downey); the
member for
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. James McCrae (Acting
Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you
be so kind as to call the bills as they are listed on the Order Paper beginning
at page 2, Bill 9.
DEBATE ON
SECOND
Bill 9‑The
Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable the
First Minister (Mr. Filmon), Bill 9, The Economic Innovation and Technology
Council Act; Loi sur le Conseil de l'innovation economique et de la
technologie, standing in the name of the honourable member for the Interlake
(Mr. Clif Evans). Stand.
Is there leave that this matter remain
standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr. Speaker: Leave.
It is agreed.
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today
to speak to people in the House, including the Attorney General regarding Bill
9. I have just spent a few minutes
reading over the provisions of Bill 9, and it seems to me that this bill is
very much part of the government's smoke and mirrors program. Essentially, when you are really not sure of
what you are doing, you come up with a diversion, come up with smoke and
mirrors to try to convince the public that in fact the government is doing
something.
I think there is a consistency here with
what this government is doing in this vein over the last couple of years when
they brought in the ozone depleting substances measures and environmental
legislation and so on. There does not
seem to be much more than lip service paid by this government in this area.
I guess it does make some sense because
traditionally Conservatives have been not known to be overly sensitive to
things such as the environment, ozone depletion and generally new ideas. It has not been one of their fortes.
We have a different version of a
Conservative government here. We have, I
believe, a version that has taken a page out of the Bill Davis handbook on how
to stay in power for as long as possible.
While they may not be actually doing anything constructive in these
areas, they want to convey to the public, they want to convince enough members
of the public that in fact they are progressive, in fact they do have a concern
about these issues. I think this Bill 9
is just another example of this effort by the government to basically approach
the problem with window dressing.
I look across at a government that is very
tired. It looks to me that it is very
directionless, it is aimless, it has lost its way. I think what we have here is a government that
is on the way out. All governments go
through different periods. They come in
with the initial period of euphoria when they win, and they are very excited
about things they are going to do. There
is a limitless horizon in front of a new government. We saw that with this government. They went through that particular period in
their existence, but those days are long gone now, Mr. Speaker. This government is, in many respects, getting
into a stage of premature aging. It is
going bald prematurely on us, and we see from month to month the changes in
this government and how the members are becoming very disheartened about where
the government is headed.
That is to be expected in many, many
respects. All parties run into this
problem after they have been in power for a little while, when they find that
some of the problems are more complicated than they originally thought, but
then other problems set in and the problems are peculiar to how one solves a
particular problem. This is what this
government is really coming to terms with right now. They have to come to grips with the
realization that they do have limited power, not only that but how they are
going to deal with the limited power they do have. Which road are they going to take?
You have the faint‑of‑heart
people in the caucus over there and in the cabinet over there who are
interested in half measures and are interested in smoke and mirrors and
fleeting popularity. Then you have the other people in the caucus who are
perhaps a little more serious, perhaps want more than just half measures and
are there out of a policy desire and wish perhaps to take a more extreme
position. Of course, at this point it is
debatable as to how well they are doing in the grand scheme of things.
*
(1430)
What happens with all the activity that produces
a bill like Bill 9 is that all that activity reduces the government into basic
inertia, in that nothing really happens.
The government is trying to deal with what is essentially a worldwide
problem, and it is not really a major player in this worldwide problem. It is trying to deal with it using old
methods. Even the Chamber of Commerce,
at this point in our history, is realistic enough to propose that governments
cease giving big grants to private businesses.
The Conservatives themselves, the ministers in this government, many of
them recognize the futility of having one company basically barter one
government off against another, and how futile that is.
In fact, companies which do not want to
partake in that bartering and government monies are really left at a
disadvantage, and they are wondering why.
They would be silly not to take money if it is being offered to
them. So perhaps governments across the
country have to make decisions, and that is that they will stop giving handouts
to businesses. I think that there is a
good sign when the businesses themselves are saying, let us stop doing it
because it is counterproductive. Not only is it counterproductive, but it also
leads to problems within those business communities themselves because no
business person wants his competitor to be given an unfair advantage by the
government. The quickest way to lose
support is to be giving money to one competitor in one field at the expense of
everyone else in the field.
So there is a fundamental question here
that has to be solved, that has to be solved by governments of all stripes, in
all jurisdictions. This government has
been no more successful than others in resolving that question, as to whether
or not they are going to keep giving money out to private enterprise and under
what terms they are to give it out to private enterprise.
This innovation council essentially
continues along the same vein here. In
the bill there are references to supporting economic restructuring through
innovation and development and commercialization of technology so as to enable
There is talk of a number of companies
which are moving to the
This particular person, who was profiled
on this show, seemed quite attracted by the $4‑an‑hour wage rates
that he was looking forward to in California, but he was complaining that the
Californians were not taking care of him in the manner which he was used to
being taken care of. I think that points
to perhaps just a problem with a peculiar business attitude this particular
person had, and which I am sure is shared by a lot of other people, because
when you realize that this story was not just a case of this guy leaving Canada
to set up shop in Florida, but in fact, what was he leaving here in Canada?
I guess what I really want to say is that
if business people want to leave this country so bad, then perhaps we should
let them go because some of them are probably better off gone than having
stayed here. Nevertheless, he was
painting a picture that he was now in
You know, little do the public know that
this particular person is going to Florida because he could not make it up
here, because he had used the Canadian system and abused the Canadian system as
much as he possibly could, to the extent that he finally went bankrupt. He left a lot of people, Canadians, living
here in this province with debts that they are going to be stuck with.
I think it is quite convenient and
incredible for a so‑called rugged individualist who lived beyond his
means in Canada, who ran up debts in Canada through poor management and
improper foresight, ran his business into the ground, left a bunch of Canadian
suppliers owing him money and then abruptly leaves the country citing high
taxes and a bad business environment.
This person will have a problem no matter what business environment he
is involved in.
I predict to you that this person, if he
continues on the way he is, will end up going bankrupt in Florida, and then
what is he going to do? Is he going to
blame himself? No, he will blame the
State of
He now is suggesting that somehow the
*
(1440)
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker,
in the Chair)
I think the point is that there is a
peculiar attitude to some people in the business committee that, in fact, the
world owes them a living, and that all is fair in securing the sale, in running
the business, that if they can get breaks‑‑they believe in free
enterprise, they preach a free enterprise line and they want the government to
keep their hands out of the business, but on the other side of the coin, they
are the first in to try to get as much money and guarantees as they can from
the public.
Over the years, these businesses, and we
all know them in Canada here, have set up shop, polluted the environment,
polluted the rivers in northwestern Ontario and then abruptly shut down,
leaving the enormous cost of the pollution cleanup on the backs of the
taxpayers.
What, in the final analysis, did we really
get out of this plant that was set up?
It was set up with taxpayers' money.
It was run as cheaply as possible, no pollution controls, and now years
later, when all the ore is taken out of the ground and shipped to The States or
wherever it was shipped to, the workers now are unemployed. The pollution is still there in the ground,
and millions and millions of dollars have to be spent to clean up the pollution. In fact, by and large, the workers more than
likely in many cases are sick and have been poisoned by the pollution that the
plant has given out, Mr. Acting Speaker.
There is a major amount of hypocrisy in
the business community in this country, and I was very hopeful that when the
Chamber of Commerce last year made the statement that it thought that the
provincial government should cease to give handouts to businesses‑‑and
I am sure the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) was grateful to hear that because
I know that the Minister of Finance is a fiscal conservative‑‑when
the Chamber of Commerce said that they would appreciate the elimination of
grants to private business, I would have thought that this minister would have
been happier than most of his colleagues.
It is about time that the Chamber of Commerce has taken such a
responsible position in that vein, and I only hope that the government listens
to it and pays some attention to it because that whole process had to stop.
It is impossible to be caught in a
situation similar to a cat chasing his tail, when you are trying to barter with
different companies for jobs here and there, and the jobs end up going to the
largest bidder. There is always someone
who has a bigger pot of cash who can attract these jobs, and in fact the jobs
become uneconomical.
I believe if we take a look through most
agreements that governments of all stripes have signed with some of these
private businesses, I think we would find these jobs were bought at tremendous
cost. The jobs were bought at perhaps
more than they are worth, certainly in the case of a mine in the '50s where the
long tail of pollution is still with us today.
I mean, the cost there, we bought ourselves a much, much serious
problem.
Nevertheless, what does this government
intend to do vis‑a‑vis the North American free trade agreement with
Now three, four years later, we are seeing
the results of this agreement, and I think his attitude still is, well, it is
better than no deal at all. Think of
what things would be like if we did not have this deal, and that seems to be
their position. With respect to the
trade deal involving
If Winnipeg was negotiating a free trade
deal with Thompson and you were looking for a level playing field‑‑because
that is what they keep talking about is a level playing field‑‑and
you were trying to construct a trade deal with Morris or a trade deal with
Thompson you would have to be more than level.
It would have to be a tilted playing field to make it equal. Because if you have a level playing field
between
Why we felt, why our negotiators, why the
Conservatives felt that somehow a level playing field was going to give us,
little Canada with 26 million, 27 million people, an equal playing field to
compete with the United States is just beyond me. We would have had to have an agreement that
would have been viewed as heavily biased in our favour in order for us to be on
a level playing field, but that throws out the idea of a level playing field
being the operative approach here.
Mr. Acting Speaker, another section of the
bill talks about financial services being targeted at levering innovation. Well, that is just more of the same. I hesitate to call the Premier "Premier
Moonbeam" here, but I am just not certain what he envisions here, whether
this is part‑‑
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Order, please. I would like to remind the honourable member
that all members are honourable members and we will refrain from using that
type of name‑calling in the House.
Mr. Maloway: Mr. Acting Speaker, I did not realize that
Premier Moonbeam was a derogatory comment‑‑
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Order, please.
Mr. Maloway: I will withdraw and listen to the admonition
of the Acting Speaker.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I am still very unclear
as to what sort of financial incentives they are planning‑‑he is
planning, because after all this is the Premier's bill, Bill 9. I am wondering what sort of financial
incentives he is planning on targeting and at the levering of innovation.
I mean, clearly from here, he is planning
to use money from this innovation council as seed money to bring in more
money. I mean, the theory works solidly
in financial circles at times. When the market is good, people can borrow a
dollar and perhaps buy securities, $2 worth of securities for $1. Then if the value of the securities goes up,
they simply sell, pay off their debts, and they have made a profit.
Well, that is the philosophy behind
leveraging, but I do not know how the leveraging is going to work so well in
this area, because he is talking about a potentially tremendous amount of money
here for research and development. I do
not believe that this government is capable of being able to select areas that
are going to produce really good results.
The history of this sort of activity would tend to indicate otherwise,
because it is provinces like
Most of you are familiar with the Sprung
greenhouse in the Maritimes where they were growing gigantic cucumbers or some
type of strange cucumbers. It is this
sort of weird‑‑I guess perhaps it is not a weird idea because, with
all due respect to the person who invented this cucumber process, perhaps the
system would have worked somewhere. The
fact of the matter is, it was not taken by any
*
(1450)
Well, that is the kind of activity that
this minister, this province is going to attract for this leveraged
innovation. We are going to see ideas
like this come forward. There was a case
a while back in southern Manitoba where Dara Wilder, I believe, a man running a
company I believe from B.C., was turning pulpwood into sugar, or something like
this, and this was in fact being sanctioned by the federal tax department.
The federal tax department was giving tax
shelter credits for people who invested in this thing. Do not tell me that this will never
happen. I have seen, over the years
here, both when the NDP were in government, when the Conservatives have been in
government, it does not matter which party is in power, the fact of the matter
is that loony ideas get put into practice by all governments. I mean that is a fact.
I would be very, very cautious about
letting the member for
I have a fear, I have a real deep‑seated
fear that the member for Portage la Prairie is somehow going to get his hands
on these levers and will end up in charge of our space program, and we are
going to be in major league troubles if that happens.
The government is doing all it can right
now to keep that member for Portage away from digging ditches out in Portage la
Prairie and damming rivers and doing all sorts of things that he wants to
do. He wants to remake the map of
western
It is all this government can do is to
stop him from doing this mega project that he is promoting right now. We are hearing a lot about it over here
because I think he is doing some unauthorized sales of this idea. Perhaps an idea like this has a chance of
getting somewhere with cooler heads, and not too many weird ideas.
Having said all of this though, I have to
tell you that, and this harkens back to what the government, when I said the
government was involved in a smoke and mirrors caper here, the fact of the
matter is that they have reduced the contributions, the financial
contributions, to the research and development sector. What they have really done is simply, through
smoke and mirrors, brought in a new bill, called it The Economic Innovation and
Technology Council Act, and they have simply replaced an existing body that was
there before and reduced its financial contribution.
I am sure the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) lays awake at night dreaming up all these smoke and mirrors, thinking
how can we do more with less, how can we move the peas in among the shelves
here and make it look like we are really doing something, that we are really
concerned and spend less money doing it.
I have to give him full credit.
They have come up with some real winners, some real winners here, over
the last couple of years. Like I said, as long as they keep it away from the
member for
Mr. Acting Speaker, I guess at this point
I should ask you how much time I have left.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Ten minutes. [interjection]
Mr. Maloway: Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker. Well, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
is not trying to encourage me to use up my final 10 minutes. You know, when the Minister of Finance
encourages me not to, I feel that I must.
[interjection] That is right, I am a contrary guy, and the Minister of
Finance and I have been on radio shows the last couple of elections talking
about the economy and so on, and making predictions about how many seats
parties were going to get.
I know we were quite shocked to find the
number of Liberals that arrived here back in 1988. That was a prediction that neither one of us
were too accurate in making as to those numbers, but other than that I have always
had respect for the Minister of Finance's abilities, and I know that he is one
of the major players over there on that side of the House, some would say the
de facto leader of the government.
Others might say other things‑‑it
is hard to say‑‑but I know that he has a very difficult time dealing,
as any Finance minister would, with financial circumstances and a lack of will
and a sense of direction over there in the government. The government is a very tentative
government.
The government is scared that it is going
to make that one mistake, and I tell you it will happen. They are so terrified of making that one
mistake that drops them those 10 points in the polls from which they will never
recover. They know the mistake is out
there. They know it is there somewhere
right now, maybe they even know that we know about it, but they are waiting for
it to drop.
They are hoping that it is not going
happen, and so far they have had a pretty enormous spring of luck. [interjection] You, the
government. The government has been
very, very lucky over the last three years, but even they know that as the
wrinkles increase and the lines increase that it is only a matter of time
before the whole thing starts to fall down the chute.
Anyway, I have made several statements
here that the government should quit giving out grants willy‑nilly to
private businesses, that the Chamber of Commerce has finally taken some type of
a principal position in the last year and asked the government to stop giving
them money, and the government should listen to that and quit handing out
handouts to business.
As a matter of fact, businesses do not
like handouts being given to their competitors.
I know that Mr. Acting Speaker would certainly agree with me that in the
petroleum business, if one garage owner were to get a grant who happened to be
a competitor of his when he was formerly in the business, he would not have
been happy. He would not have been happy
to have that person have an unfair advantage over him. It is self‑defeating to get involved in
that section.
*
(1500)
Now, if it is kept to industries where
there really is not competition locally, then perhaps one can make a better
argument for some sort of government assistance. In other words, if it is a one‑of‑a‑kind
type of business, then an argument can be made. If there are already
competitors operating here, those competitors will find the market. They do not have to be primed by government
incentives and government grants and so on.
We have also seen that the idea that
somehow businesses are flocking to the United States as an answer to high
taxation and other problems up here, that that is beginning to crack. In fact, it is not that the proposition is
not as good as what the media have made it out to be. Witness the person that I mentioned to you
who said when he went to
Of course, what he did not say, and what
we could clearly see was that he had an attitude problem, an attitude typical
of a lot of business people in this country.
His attitude was, this country owes me a living. His attitude was, I live on
So they run their business into the ground
here in Canada, they leave the country, literally leave it, house and mortgage
foreclosure, American Express chasing them for 9,000 bucks, the moving company
has not been paid. These rugged free
enterprisers, these rugged individualists who do not believe in government
handouts, right?‑‑who run their business into the ground here in
Canada, say they are leaving because the taxes are too high, when it is
incompetence on their part and then they head to the United States. Then they have got the gall to bitch down
there that things are not right for them, that they have not got immediate bank
loans. I am telling you, it is an
attitude. It is an attitude that some of these people have.
So do not necessarily believe that somehow
businesses are going to be leaving here for better climates. They may leave here, but in actual fact when
they get down there, they may realize that things are not so bad here after
all, that there is a value to having proper social systems. I know of businesses in the States that are
concerned that their employees do not have proper health care, because the
business has to factor that into the cost of their costs as well in the
So it is a lot of false economy, a lot of
false economy to be looking at those $4 an hour wages and thinking that somehow
you are going to be able to head down to the United States and somehow
everything is going to be going in your favour because, quite frankly, let me
tell you this, that if you cannot run your business in Winnipeg, if you cannot
run it here, you tell me how the hell you are going to do any better in
Florida? Explain that one to me?
Clearly, when a person has got $9,000 in
American Express bills that they have not paid and a house triple what they
need, surely they could have sold the house and maybe lived in more modest
circumstances. They did not have to run
up all those debts.
An Honourable Member: Is this a business recommendation?
Mr. Maloway: I am basically, to the minister, trying to
explain that the press will oftentimes make it sound as though these business
people cannot make it in
In fact, this guy is complaining about the
Anyway, Mr. Acting Speaker, I sense that
my little light is flashing, and it is time for me to conclude and come back
another day.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): As previously agreed, this matter will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): I will also be speaking
to Bill 9, which I have just recently had a chance to go through. It seems to me that this is this government's
desperate attempt to look like it is doing something.
This government has a problem; they have a
definite revenue problem. They have
gotten themselves into a situation where they have made a commitment that they
are not going to increase personal taxes.
We have a federal government which is hand over fist clawing back on
transfer payments and, at the same time, continuing the Conservative monetary
policy approach of decreasing taxes to corporations which, in my way of
thinking, would be the greatest source of revenue this country has, which I am
going to talk about a little bit of where under all the years of government we
have had in this country and in this province, mostly in this country though
because this is a federal area, they have allowed all of this money to escape
from being part of public revenue.
Serious concerns about the bill are around
the way it is going to affect the Manitoba Research Council, and I am sure the
people at the research council are not impressed with this bill. It is
interesting that we already have a research council which is supposed to make
available to small businesses and industry some of the technology and expertise
they would need so that they could innovate, and there is some benefit to
having that supplied by government. I
would hope that would continue. The
concern would be with this new council that the Premier is going to set
up. From seeing what they do with other
boards and committees that they establish, my big question would be, who is
going to be appointed to this?
Is this going to be a council that is
going to be lopsided, where we will not have a fair distribution of all the
people who should be involved in economic discussion? Are we going to have people there from the
voluntary sector, which makes up a huge part of our community and contributes
extensively to work that is done in the economy? Are we going to have people there from
labour? Are we going to have people
involved in this council from the social services sector? That is one of the concerns that I would have
about this kind of initiative.
One of the easiest ways of dealing with
the problem that the Premier seems to be trying to deal with with this bill‑‑and
that is to increase the research and development in Manitoba‑‑would
be, I would think, to simply legislate, to simply legislate that companies of
such‑and‑such a size making such‑and‑such a profit have
to start investing something into research and development in this
province. I do not know if that is
something that this council might recommend, is that we simply start seeing
some of the industry and companies in Manitoba start putting some money of
their own into research and development, rather than coming to the government
to do that.
The government, unfortunately, is not
going to be able to have research and development carried out at the
universities and colleges like we would like to because of the cutbacks from
the federal government. I do not think
it would be impossible for governments to start legislating that industry start
putting some money into that kind of research and development, which we know
would go a long way into making us more productive.
One of the things I wanted to talk about a
little bit too is it would be interesting if this council is going to sit down
and take a good look at which areas of our economy would be better served by
having Crown corporations and which would be better served having private
industry manage those sectors. It seems
like the government's choice and what they are doing with Linnet, that company,
that there would be an opportunity for a body like this to take a look at that
decision and to give us some suggestions if that is going to be the best
approach to have our sensitive data controlled under.
*
(1510)
A number of the other members have talked
about the approach of government that adopts the monetary policy that this one
is adopting, and I wonder if with this council we are going to see more
situations like we saw with MacLeod Stedman where we are going to have
companies that they say we are trying to attract here. We have to give up our standard of
living. We have to see our environmental
laws compromised so that we can attract all these industries here. It never seems to happen that they do what
they say they are going to do once they get here. Over and over again we see that they want to
have guaranteed loans so that they can expand.
They need to have government money so that they can do any kind of
development, and there never seems to be any conditions on that money, that
they maintain a certain amount of service or remain in
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
I have some interesting information here
related to federal and provincial personal and corporate taxes, direct
taxes. It is interesting to see that
very recently, just since 1986, we have seen personal taxes go up from $85.3
billion to $112.8 billion. The corporations have gone from $14.4 billion in
1986 to $15.3 billion in 1989. One of
the interesting things I always talk about with people is how we have seen this
change since around the '50s. If you go
back to the '50s, corporate and individual taxes paid were about equal, 50‑50. It has only been since then that we have seen
this shift where we find this horrible imbalance where individuals in this
country are paying this incredible percentage greater of taxes.
Another chart I have here, Mr. Speaker, is
corporate profit subsidies and taxes in 1984.
These are a little old, but still I can rest assured, I think we can all
know that things have got worse and not better.
Before‑tax profits were $57.2 billion and with federal and
provincial income taxes there was $12.6 billion. Government subsidies around that time were
$8.4 billion. We can see that there has
been to this point a very low rate of affected corporate tax paid in
Another interesting thing we always hear
talked about is the wonderful economy in
Another interesting thing here is we can
compare to some other countries in
A couple of the areas that I think that we
need to have more research and development in first of all are going to be
signified by the demographics in our population. We are heading to a point where we are going
to have a huge number of senior citizens who are going to need services, are
going to need people to care for them, and to me that is where we should be
having some of our research money being spent.
The question is going to become, who is going to pay for that kind of
research? We are going to have to
develop a better system for these people to have the kind of affordable aids
that they will need to get around. They are going to need housing where they
can live and have the kind of support they need. To me this is a significant area where there
should be a lot more research and attention being paid to, is this social trend
that is going to take place with having a greater number of senior citizens in
our society and a far fewer number of young people and people working in the
work force. I wonder if that is
something that this council would be going to address, and the implications
that that is going to have.
*
(1520)
Another area is the whole area of
environment. One of the meetings I had
recently was with Atomic Energy
To me, this is an example of where we have
missed the boat in
This government is going along and
developing a kind of council that is going to authorize even more grants to
private industry. They are forgetting
about the kind of revenue that is generated for, to stay in government coffers,
on some of the kinds of developments that were being done under the Manitoba
Data Services or the Manitoba Research Council that were generating money for
the public treasury in Manitoba.
When I started talking, I was referring to
the problem that this government has with revenues and how desperate they are
to be seen as doing something, to be seen as having any kind of leadership in
this province, and what they seem to be really good at is developing committees
like this which, in effect, end up doing a lot of public relations. It would be interesting for us to tally up
all the government councils and groups that they have developed that are
putting out a lot of material, things like in the sustainable development unit.
I read an interesting little pamphlet the
other day, or booklet the other day, Environmental Tax Incentives. One thing that struck me was the very
cautious wording in that document. It looked really good. It was on recycled paper, green ink. I would challenge the government to start
implementing some of those kinds of suggestions in there, where there would be
some, again, revenue generated, other than just sending out the booklet and
making it look like they are doing something.
I fear that that is the same kind of thing
that we are going to have with this group.
It is going to be another round table that is going to spend. You know, the Round Table spent some $400,000
on putting out these quite nicely coloured purple booklets that were so vague
and took up people's time in filling in surveys. In effect, we see that the Round Table will
not consider any substantial issues that are going on in Manitoba, like
developments that are being proposed, like Conawapa, where there are
significant economic and environmental considerations to be made.
I have another paper here, called
A trend towards service jobs has two
important consequences. The full‑time, well‑paying jobs predominate
in the goods sector but not in the service sector. In services there is a sort of job ghetto
where the hourly rates are‑‑there are fewer hours, with an average
28 hours per week as compared to 38 hours per week in the goods sector. Again, we would hope that this kind of bill
is going to address that and we would see some recommendations.
One of the other areas this covers is,
specifically, the whole issue of privatization, which not only reduces the
quality of public services, it reduces the quality of new jobs available to
Canadians. As we are getting all geared
up and going along with Conservative policy, all that we ever hear is that we
have to try and attract industry to come here.
We see what we are attracting, the kinds of jobs that we tend to
attract.
The other issue that comes under this is
that these kinds of industries tend to be nonunionized, and there is a
significant problem with people then not being paid a living wage, a wage which
they can live on. We have a problem in
Manitoba where more than 50 percent of those who are living under the poverty
line are actually working and are part of that group that are becoming known as
the working poor. With the kind of
policies of trying to keep corporate taxes down to attract industry here, we
tend to have those kinds of jobs. We see
that the gap between the lowest and highest paid has increased sharply with
these kinds of policies.
I am just reading this. This is a very interesting paper. I would encourage‑‑I would might
just have to table this paper. I would
encourage the members opposite to have‑‑
One of the other things I was reading
recently, and I wish I had brought that book with me. It was a book called The Betrayal of
Canada. Mel Hurtig wrote it, and I was
hoping that this document might have some of the same kind of information where
it explained how foreign ownership that comes and sets up business and industry
in
I will get something else here. Here is something that is interesting. The other facts that we should note with
respect to this bill, and we see this government's real commitment to research
and development, is the Manitoba Research Council last year had a budget cut of
$700,000. That seems like it is pretty
incongruent with the commitments‑‑
An Honourable Member: Incongruent?
Ms. Cerilli: Incongruent, yes‑‑with the
sentiments the minister is claiming to have with announcing this bill.
I ask the Speaker how much time I have
left.
*
(1530)
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has 14 minutes
remaining.
Ms. Cerilli: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will look for some more of my charts
from these wonderful documents I have.
Go to the bill. [interjection] We have lots of material here. [interjection] Sure it is. I
have lost my train of thought.
An Honourable Member: This is your time. If you cannot debate the bills during your
time, when are you going to debate them? Go ahead, call it six.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, no, do not call it six o'clock. [interjection] Are you sure?
An Honourable Member: If you want to, it is government bills.
Mr. Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for the Interlake (Mr. Clif
Evans).
Bill 10‑The
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), Bill 10, The Manitoba Hydro
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Hydro‑Manitoba, standing in the
name of the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave that this matter remain standing. Leave.
It is agreed.
* * *
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): It gives me pleasure to speak to this because
these are government bills, and I always thought it was the responsibility of
the government to keep the House running and continue government process. I am pleased to be able to speak to this‑‑
Point of
Order
Hon. James McCrae
(Acting Government House Leader): Just for
my own identification, could you tell me, Your Honour, which bill we are
debating just now.
Mr. Speaker: I was just getting clarification on that. We had already agreed to have Bill 9 remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans),
at which time I called Bill 10.
[interjection] I had already called Bill 10, and we were discussing Bill
10.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, in fairness to the member from Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), his
intentions, he had thought that there was will on the government to call it six
o'clock, and he had full intentions on speaking to Bill 9, and we would be
willing to give him leave in order to go back to Bill 9, so he can, in fact,
speak.
Mr. McCrae: I do not know whose idea this was about
calling it six o'clock. It is not six
o'clock, and we have two full pages of bills that are there for honourable
members to pass or to debate or whatever, and we are only actually still on the
first one on the list, so I do not quite understand that. In any event, we would be happy to give leave
to the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to allow the
honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) to revert to Bill 9?
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr. Speaker: Leave?
It is agreed.
Bill 9‑The
Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to
thank the opposition House leader and the second opposition House leader for
giving me leave to speak to this very important bill, because when you are
dealing with The Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act, it could have
a lot of positive impacts and also it could have some negative impacts.
This is very consistent with the
Conservative cousins in
What are the future industries of
Manitobans? The future industry of
Manitobans has to be first and foremost.
When you go into new innovation and new ideas and new job opportunities
is the whole area of training, to ensure that your youth and your citizens of
Today, as I speak, we have 57,000 people
unemployed in
In northern
The members that make up this committee,
there will be 35 in total with the government people and government
appointees. I wonder how many of those
appointees will be drawing honorariums for every meeting they attend and taking
money away from the youth that could be benefiting from those dollars. If you looked at the cutbacks we had in
education by your last budget, we had a reduction of a mass amount of dollars.
We heard tuition fees in
How can the government sit there and say,
we are doing the best we can for
Many people believed
*
(1540)
My colleague from Elmwood was talking
earlier about this businessman who had this great invitation from
(Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
When we talk about innovative ideas that
is a whole‑‑the old research council had in place, let us look at
some of the jobs that we are losing, because my colleague was talking about
this individual. This individual had
moved his whole operation from here in Winnipeg, and those are manufacturing
jobs that we lost, and now we are saying, well, we need to find new scientific
employment opportunities.
Why did we not work a little bit harder to
keep those jobs here? If those were a
hundred jobs that company moved to the
An Honourable Member: Spend, spend, spend.
Mr. Hickes: It is not spend, spend, spend, because those
100 people who lost their jobs, who is looking after them? I bet you if you looked at it, either they
are on unemployment insurance or they are on social assistance. [interjection] That is right. If we spent a little bit of money to keep
those jobs here we would have saved a heck of a lot more than what we are
paying out in U.I. and social assistance.
How do you mean by spend, spend, spend?
That is save, save, save; that is not spend, spend, spend. If a person is working and holding a
meaningful job then that person has their days filled and they feel better
about themselves, so you do not get the spousal abuse and the alcohol and drug
abuse that all ties in with it.
When we talk about innovative new ideas,
let us look at some of the innovative new ideas that we have right in our own
backyard and start protecting some of those.
When we heard the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) in the last budget, it
said we just have to stand aside, because the private sector will create all
kinds of jobs. The private sector has
new ideas. Is that not what that council
is all about, to put the brains of business, labour, aboriginal people, agricultural
leaders, labour leaders to go into an equal partnership, to come up with some
innovative jobs that we need here in Manitoba?
The government said, stand aside, we will
stand aside, the companies will create all the jobs and nobody will
suffer. We will be the first one out of
the recession. [interjection] No, it
said 1991, the next quarter we will be out of it. We will be the first province out of it in
One of the big things that I heard talked
about in the last budget, which was very important to me, because I am
originally from the North and I know how bad it is in northern
If you looked at northern
I know that the industry right now is
suffering. It is on a rebound, from what
I have heard, and from the stats that I have read, that the trappers are
lobbying and putting together their own ads and trying to sway the antifur
people. Apparently, it is working to
some degree. I personally hope that it
picks up, because in my culture fur has always been very important.
When I was a child, I remember going to
school wearing a caribou coat and mukluks.
That was the way we dressed. It was
not dressed for show, it was because that is the warmest thing possible, you
know, and very durable. If it rebounds,
I hope that we will consider looking at setting up a manufacturing and maybe
even a nice big sewing centre tied in with that tanning plant right in northern
Manitoba somewhere, because that will create a lot of jobs. Those are the kinds of things we have to look
at.
The announcement I was going to speak a
little bit about was the whole space project for Churchill. It had a lot of fanfare when it was
announced, and now the community is wondering if it will be or will not
be. I personally hope it will be,
because it has a lot of potential there.
The community of Churchill at one time used to have about 6,000 people
living there. It used to have the army,
navy, air force, and it was a thriving, thriving community. Now you go up there, it fluctuates anywhere
between 800 people and 900 people. That
is a heck of a drop. If you took that
percentage and applied it to
Churchill has a lot to offer. When I was growing up, there used to be ships
that would come in to take grain back, but when they were coming in they used
to bring liquor and cars and other products that were made over in
It is not only jobs that benefit people
from Churchill, because a lot of the individuals that used to come up there and
work at the harbour board and the grain elevator, they were from all over. There were some from
*
(1550)
That is the kind of stuff that we really
should be looking seriously at when you look at that innovative centre. To me innovation means new ideas‑‑and
even to shore up some existing ideas, to expand some ideas that are in place.
In northern
I think that is what this, to me anyway,
whole bill is all about. I could rant
and rave and be negative and talk about this, but I do not want to do that
because there are some good things which could happen out of this. It all depends on what happens now.
We have had different committees and
different organizations that were put together by, not only this government,
all governments. A lot of times, yes,
they were just window‑dressings, and there was just public relations
efforts, and nothing really came about.
This time around, I am hoping that something positive will happen. It does not matter what political stripe you
carry.
We know what is happening out there, and I
am sure you do, and so do the Liberals.
There are 57,000 people out of work that need jobs‑‑as
simple as that. If we could find jobs
for them, however, we could do it. I
have to get back on the whole education because that is the whole key,
otherwise, like our youth today, they struggle through school, and they try to
save enough money to go back to university for the next term.
It is getting harder, and harder, and
harder to find jobs for our youth because right now, the way the economy is,
they are competing with adults who have much more experience. Right now, a lot of people will take any job
that comes around just in order to try and make ends meet. So, right now, it is not only students
competing against students, some of them are competing against their mothers
and fathers, and so it is very difficult.
The cutbacks in the ACCESS programs, when
you look at the whole idea of your Economic Innovation and Technology Council,
they are not only going to be addressing the educational needs for employment
opportunities say per se in Winnipeg or a lot of the bigger centres, a lot of
those students, especially aboriginal students, who were attending these ACCESS
programs, a lot of them would have gained employment opportunities through
aboriginal organizations and within their own aboriginal communities.
With the whole drive right now by
aboriginal leaders and aboriginal people of the wish of aboriginal self‑government,
that should create a lot of employment opportunities for aboriginal youth and
aboriginal people. If that ever comes
about‑‑some day it will, I do not know when‑‑but if it
does come about, if you are an aboriginal person and if you have a marketable
skill or any experience in management, counselling, teacher, doctor, lawyer,
what have you, you will be signed up so fast, because the opportunities will be
there.
You know, like we even talk about a new
justice system for aboriginal people.
Well, if that comes about, who will be the judges? Who will be the lawyers? Who will be the magistrates? Who will be the
counsellors who will have to deal with offenders?
That is the kind of thing that I think
this bill could be looking at seriously and addressing. I have a hard time when, like when I was
reading this bill here where it says, support economic restructuring through
innovation and the development and commercialization of technology. What does that mean? That could mean anything. It could mean like what my colleague was
saying. It could be a body that just
hands out grants to companies and manufacturers and say, well, here, we will
give you X number of million dollars and you should create X number of jobs.
I think it should go a little beyond
that. There should be something that
looks at getting our youth trained and employed. That way when you do hand out
say a million dollars, maybe a little of that could be set aside for new
research and development far in advance so that we could say that we will need
20 rocket scientists, for example.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaking,
in the Chair)
That way when the youth who are attending
universities, when they do have a choice of which avenue they want to go, some
of them might start enrolling to become a rocket scientist if there is a job
opportunity at the end. A lot of the
youth would love to stay home. They
would love to stay here in
A lot of the Tories, as Liberals, as NDP,
we all have families, we all have children, and I know I would like to be close
to my children and my children would like to be close to me. I am sure that goes for everybody in this
House. Nobody has that special tie or commitment. I am sure we all feel that same. I think if we made it easier for our children
to accomplish that, I think that should be the goal of all parties, not just
who is in government. [interjection]
Well, I do not think that is a right‑wing comment. I think that is just a common‑sense
comment.
Some of the other things that we could be
looking at, you know like, we talk about cost; it costs government so much
money. I heard one of my colleagues from
across the way, who was yelling spend, spend, spend. At lot of the time, to spend a little money,
you save a lot in the end. [interjection]
No, no I did not mention any names. I
just heard it from someone, I do not know who it was, but sometimes you spend a
little, you save a lot, you know, because of the whole‑‑
An Honourable Member: That is not good management.
Mr. Hickes: Well, it is not good management but sometimes
it makes common sense.
An Honourable Member: Good management is common sense.
Mr. Hickes: Well, if you look, for example, at one bill
that we have been trying to get proclaimed, Bill 91, the antisniff bill.
Without that bill being proclaimed, city police or any law enforcement, if they
are not able to put in stronger measures to stop people from abusing drugs‑‑a
good example was my colleague on the steps, you know. Somebody attacked him. Someone attacked him right on the steps.
Maybe that individual is coming to the
steps of our Legislature and saying, hey, maybe it is time to do something
about us sniffers. We want help. Maybe that was the message. I do not know, but if we continue letting
people abuse Lysol and glue and sniff, how much more does it cost us in the end
when we have to hospitalize these individuals, keep them in hospitals or mental
institutions, keep them incarcerated?
How much does that cost? It costs
a heck of a lot more than what it costs us to proclaim a bill that has already
been passed in two years.
The other thing that I hope will be part
of what this whole committee will be looking at is when we talk about
innovative ideas, the aboriginal community in
*
(1600)
I have not heard too much more, but I have
heard that it is very close to being accomplished again. I hope it does, because that is very
innovative. It ties in directly with what
the committee should be looking at and dealing with, because then we are
talking about jobs. That is what this
committee is all about, to create employment opportunities and educational
opportunities to meet the demand for those new jobs.
Mr. Acting Speaker, that is why I hope
this committee will seriously look at where is that CP station and where is it
going, because that will be like an umbrella for all aboriginal people to mix
ideas and to share ideas, and through that, once they get the agencies in place‑‑you
are talking about social workers; you are talking about management people; you
are talking about clerks. It could be
anything. They can even set up their own
little research group. It could be in
the education area; it could be in the health field area; it could be any area
you want, because those are the kind of ideas that we need to hear, not only
from government ministers or government‑elected people. We need to hear what the people out there‑‑a
lot of the time the people out there have some good ideas. A lot of our elders and seniors have been
through a lot, and a lot of times they come up with some darn good ideas,
because they have seen, and they have experienced a lot, and a lot of them are
more than willing to share with us, because that is the only way we are going
to progress.
Another good example was yesterday, during
Question Period‑‑well, it was not yesterday, it was Friday‑‑about
the Cross‑Cultural Counselling Unit.
That whole unit, that whole initiative could be expanded even
further. That could be expanded
further. It does not have to only stay
here in
Now why could not an idea like that
expand? We could set up a training
centre and use the individual counselling unit and the individual model, how
they were able to accomplish that, and set up some specialized training
programs, and bring people in from
Utilize the resources we have. That is innovation. It does not always have to be big, millions
of dollars, mega‑projects, all the time.
Sometimes you bring people in and you have a team that will do the
instructing and pass that knowledge on.
Then they could go on and work wherever they are going to. Look how many jobs that would create if you
just looked at our 10 provinces and two territories. Even if you looked at five for each, because the
bottom line, and we hear it over and over and over, whether it is federal or
provincial taxes, it comes from our pockets, so if we are able to help other
provinces and even to charge a small fee to create revenues for ourselves in
Manitoba, why not?
There is nothing wrong with that, because
the more you share your knowledge, the more other provinces will share theirs
with us. That whole emphasis, the
Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) went down to
It could open a lot of doors for us
here. I have seen ships, personally
myself from
The Minister of Highways and
Transportation, he will gladly share that with you. He knows that. When you go over to
An Honourable Member: It is a long way once you get to
Mr. Hickes: What is that?
An Honourable Member: A long way from
Mr. Hickes: Yes, you would have to do it by wheelbarrow‑‑you
are right. When you ship grain‑‑and
then also those countries manufacture stuff.
Those countries manufacture goods that we could use here, so we could
bring those back.
When you look at the whole community of
Churchill, that would benefit from that.
You look at the whole rail line.
Something has to happen with that whole rail line going up to Churchill. I hope the minister will address that council
and say, hey, look, here is an idea that you as a committee could be addressing
to create employment opportunities and to ensure that people in the North have
an opportunity, not just short‑term projects, but long‑term
employment opportunities.
As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Acting
Speaker, it cannot just be the private sector that will create all the
jobs. It cannot be. You have to have a
good combination from all sources. The
private sector can create some.
Governments can create some. Governments do not have to create all the
jobs either. You need a blend of both.
When I talk about that rail line‑‑I
first mentioned it with the space board up in Churchill‑‑you will
not have that research station there if you lose the railroad tracks. It is as simple as that. You cannot fire a rocket from wherever they
make them to
There is even talk of creating about 200
jobs alone with that space board. That
is the figure I have heard. I have
talked to some people in the community, and that is the number that they were
looking at, around 200 employment opportunities. Those 200 employment opportunities are not
going to be labour positions. There are going to be some positions that are
going to require very highly advanced scientific knowledge.
Where are we going to get that expertise
from? Do we have it here today? I do not know. I doubt it.
We are probably going to have to bring some people in from NASA or some
other rocket stations throughout the world, and then we should look at
innovative training programs for people to train. It says right in here where the government
can put consultants on contract. It says
right in this bill, put consultants on contract. If you use that model, say, for instance, if
you put together a program where you wanted to train‑‑I do not
know, you have 200 positions, you might need 50 advanced people with scientific
knowledge, you might want to hire some consultants on say a two year, three
year, or one year, whatever it requires for people to get that knowledge, hire
them as consultants. Then when you
recruit your graduates from university or what have you to go into these
programs, that way they will get on‑the‑job training conducted by
experts in those areas. Then when you go
into a contract, it has to be made very clear that you are training an
individual to replace you when your contract expires.
*
(1610)
A lot of people will not have a hard time
with that, because a lot of people whom you would hire on a consultant basis
could be borrowed or seconded from other provinces or other governments in
It says right in the bill, to share
knowledge and share technology. If you
went into an agreement, say for instance it could be Alberta, and if you
brought in some people with expertise and they were on a two‑year
secondment, they could come up there and train people in Manitoba right in,
say, Churchill. Once they had the skills‑‑they should have the
skills in two years. Once they have
attained the level, then they would be hired by the research station, and then the
individuals would go back to whatever they were doing because the secondment
would be over.
All that stuff cannot happen unless you
have a strong, strong commitment from all levels of government. You have to have a strong commitment for that
to happen, because otherwise what you will have is the same thing we have
today. You will have our side yelling at
the government side, the government side yelling at our side and at the
Liberals, and nothing gets accomplished.
There has to come a time when we have to
look at what is best for Manitobans, not what is best for us as a party, what
is best for you as a party, what is best for all Manitobans. I have heard many, many times from the other
side of the House, condemning us or condemning me at times because some of it
was directed at me about Daryl Bean. [interjection]
It does not matter. I will bring it
up because I want to make something very, very clear. Daryl Bean spoke for Daryl Bean. He did not speak for George Hickes. Most of my colleagues‑‑I would
say 100 percent of my colleagues‑‑think the same way. They do not share those same ideas. Nobody has the right to make those kind of
statements.
Even on the same hand‑‑
An Honourable Member: Somebody like that should resign, do you not
think?
Mr. Hickes: If you look at the party you support, the party
I support, the party the Liberals support, there have been people all along in
history who have made silly, silly statements that we do not agree with‑‑
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Acting Speaker,
I am sure that the government side would be prepared to allow the member leave
for a couple of minutes if he wished to finish his comments.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Is there leave for the
honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) to complete his speech? Leave?
The honourable member for Point Douglas has stated he has completed.
As previously agreed, this matter will
remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif
Evans).
Bill 10‑The
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), Bill 10, The Manitoba Hydro
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Hydro‑Manitoba, standing in the
name of the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr.Storie).
Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Agreed.
Bill 11‑The
Bee-Keepers Repeal Act
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): On the proposed motion
of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), Bill 11, The Bee‑Keepers
Repeal Act (Loi abrogeant la Loi sur les apiculteurs), standing in the name of
the honourable member for
Is there leave that this bill remain
standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Agreed.
Bill 12‑The
Animal Husbandry Amendment Act
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), Bill 12, The Animal Husbandry Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'elevage, standing in the name of the honourable
member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman).
Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? Agreed, and so ordered.
Bill 14‑The
Highways and Transportation Department Amendment Act
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), Bill 14, The Highways
and Transportation Department Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le
ministere de la Voirie et du Transport, standing in the name of the honourable
member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): I am pleased today to rise to add my comments
on Bill 14. Bill 14 is an amendment to
The Highway Traffic Act and it is not long in its length, but it is not short
in what it is that it is trying to accomplish for The Highway Traffic Act or
the minister's department.
It seeks to bring about changes that will
allow the minister's department to change the way the government conducts its
business. With that, I refer, Mr. Acting
Speaker, to the fact that the government currently has to use Orders‑in‑Council
to dispose of their properties. I would
like to start off by thanking the minister for the explanations that he has
provided on his bills.
I know that many of my colleagues here
seek to have the same opportunities of explanations for the other bills that
are before us in the House, but unfortunately the Minister of Highways and
Transportation's colleagues have refused to undertake that activity. I realize that the Minister of Highways and
Transportation (Mr. Driedger) is continuing a practice that was started by the
previous NDP Minister of Highways and Transportation, Mr. Plohman. I believe that is a good practice and it
should be continued and I hope that the other ministers that are in the House
here, today, listen and adhere to the practice that the minister is still
continuing.
With Bill 14 that is before us, it seeks
to change the level from $5,000 to $25,000 that the minister has to seek Order‑in‑Council
for, for disposal of public property.
There are many forms that public property can take as far as‑‑[interjection] To some it may be pocket
money, but to others it is a vast sum of money for those who are not quite so
independently wealthy. It is changing
the level from $5,000 up to $25,000 for disposal of public assets that the
minister has to apply for Order‑in‑Council. I am not sure why the minister wants to have
that much control. I am sure there is a
reason for it [interjection] The
minister indicates that it is in keeping with Government Services, and that may
be the case.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
I look back on some of the Orders‑in‑Council
over my short term in office and the items that have been disposed of by Order‑in‑Council
and the values of them. I think that may
be one of the reasons why the minister wants to increase the level of
discretionary property disposal. I look
at the Orders‑in‑Council dated October '91, where there was a one‑and‑a‑half‑storey
residence, 2,300 square feet, that was disposed of as a public asset, and it
was put out to public tender. I had
asked the minister prior to this point if he would bring forward some
information on the public tender process so I could have a better understanding
of it.
I am sure that the minister is still
undertaking to seek that information for me and that he will bring it forward
at some later time so that we can educate ourselves on that matter. With this one‑and‑a‑half‑storey
residence‑‑2,300 square feet is a sizable dwelling. It was put out to public tender, obviously,
and the highest bid received that was indicated was $16,700 for a 2,300 square
foot home. That is a pretty good value
for those who are purchasing by this public tendering process. Of course, the people then have to add that
infamous GST to that and the provincial sales tax as well, and then they have
to relocate it off the government property, Crown lands, and move it to their
own private location. I understand that
aspect of it.
There are other costs involved, but I am
sure that even with those other costs involved, looking at the value of a 2,300
square foot home by today's prices, even a used home I am sure would be in the
$150,000 to $200,000 range. There is no
doubt these people got good value for their purchase‑‑[interjection] No doubt the minister is
very nervous about questioning some of the Orders‑in‑Council, and
when we start to talk about the discretionary powers that the minister has and
how he can dispose of public assets, I can understand his nervousness.
*
(1620)
One other Order‑in‑Council
that was disposed of just recently was in January of this year. It was a three‑bedroom diplomat mobile
home, obviously a fair size‑‑
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): With low mileage.
Mr. Reid: Low mileage, as the member for Elmwood
says. This was as well disposed of for a
very reasonable value, $7,800.
An Honourable Member: Reasonable, that is dirt cheap.
Mr. Reid: Maybe for some that would be considered dirt cheap.
The minister talks about having to relocate this property to other areas and
that there are those costs involved plus the services that have to be
connected, but $7,800 is a reasonable value I would think. You must remember though that on top of that
the people who are purchasing this public asset or what was a public asset,
have to pay for that GST. Now that tax
on‑‑probably almost a comparable to what the original cost was, so
there is a doubling of the cost if you tack on the GST, and then there is the
provincial sales tax on top of it. There
is a fair amount of money that these people have to expend. The list goes on and on.
Another Order‑in‑Council that
was signed by the honourable minister in October of 1990 for one six‑room
single‑family dwelling located in the city of
An Honourable Member: How much did it go for?
Mr. Reid: How much did it go for?
An Honourable Member: Do not keep us in suspense.
Mr. Reid: I will not keep the Minister of Agriculture
(Mr. Findlay) in suspense. The
consideration for purchase was $25,200, another very good value.
An Honourable Member: For what?
Mr. Reid: For the purchase of a 1,138 square foot home,
single‑family dwelling. There are
bargains to be had from this provincial government as they dispose of public
assets in the
An Honourable Member: I am going to take a closer look at this.
Mr. Reid: The minister, I am sure, has other Orders‑in‑Council
that are on the records. If we went and
did our digging, we would find more of these bargains that Manitobans have
purchased from the Department of Highways and Transportation.
I have to question why the minister‑‑I
mean, he is already giving away bargains to Manitobans‑‑wants to
raise the limit? Why would he not set that $25,000 limit down to $10,000 to
change the Order‑in‑Council process?
There are also other changes in this bill,
and how it is going to affect the Highways and Transportation department. The minister has indicated over some time
that the department purchases various pieces of property throughout the
province for expansion of the highway systems, in improvement of the highway
systems and yet do not have a need for that particular piece of property.
It is my understanding that this bill will
give discretion back to the department and to the minister to allow this land
to be temporarily leased out and used, whether it be for farming use or for
other uses in the communities where this property is located. I think that is a good step. I think if this land is sitting unused and if
there is a chance for our farm producers in the province to utilize that for
productive means, I think that allowance should be made for these people.
There is no understanding in this bill how
the government is going to undertake the lease arrangements and what kind of
remuneration they would expect in return for the leasing of this property. I take it that the minister will provide that
for us at some other opportunity to keep us aware of how this lease arrangement
is arrived at.
There are several other areas in this bill
that bear discussion, but I would like to talk a bit about transportation in
general and how it impacts upon the Province of Manitoba in the Highways and
Transportation department. There were
some questions that have come before us in this Chamber over a period of time
dealing with transportation in the province and in particular the taxicab
industry.
We have asked questions in this House, and
we have written letters to the minister questioning the decisions of the
Taxicab Board. We have had meetings with
the Taxicab Board members to find out the reasons why they make certain
decisions. We have had correspondence
from many Manitobans who are involved in the taxicab industry.
An Honourable Member: What do they think of this government?
Mr. Reid: They are quite concerned, as I am sure the
member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) knows, about the way this government has
treated them in their particular livelihood and the industry that they rely so
heavily on.
The government has undertaken various
hearings throughout the
Now, looking at the state of the economy
in the
I find it discouraging that the Taxicab
Board would then‑‑on the minister's behalf obviously, because it
was the minister who would set the policy for that‑‑continue to go
forward and press at this poor economic time to further dilute the taxicab
market in the city of
The questions that have been raised in the
past are many and varied. When the
studies were done, before this decision was brought forward to implement these
new taxicabs, it was shown that there were some 400 taxicab licences in the city
of
Some of those questions were raised again
here in the House today and have been raised by myself and our party in the
past. That is the fact that the current industry members who are issued these
taxicab licences in the city of
The current government, by the policy that
was brought in by the Taxicab Board, has allowed the members of the industry,
of the limousine business, to make application to the government for the right
to own and operate executive cars on the streets of the city of
*
(1630)
We have questioned the minister, and we
have questioned the Taxicab Board on this for a number of months now. We have attended the meetings of the Taxicab
Board when they were revisiting the decision to implement these new vehicles,
these executive vehicles, onto the streets of
We listened to the presentations that were
put forward. Some of these presentations
were very explicit in that they were not going to be in direct competition with
the current taxicab industry in the city of Winnipeg, but there are others who
were going to allow their rates to float where possible, who would and could
put themselves in direct competition with the taxicab industry. That would take away business and business
opportunities, something that I thought this government supported and obviously
does not, for business people in our province and in our city of
With the recommendations that were brought
forward by the Taxicab Board, the minister's department had shown that had the new
executive car authorities been purchased for the full price that is currently
charged to the taxicabs themselves that those monies could have been taken and
invested into a fund that would have been able to provide benefits for the
current members employed in the industry.
The minister's department did not see fit to implement that charge, and
now it leaves the current industry members without any means of a benefit
program.
The argument that was used for not
charging that was that they were afraid that they did not have the legislative
authority to charge that fee. Now the
minister knows full well that he could have introduced a bill in this House
that would have given him that authority to do so. He chose not to do that. He did not want to aggravate or irritate
those who obviously support his party. I
believe that is the reason why he did not choose to implement that full fee
level.
This benefit fund that was supposed to
have been set up as a result of the extra fees that would have been charged for
these new vehicle authorities could have created an accident and sickness
program for themselves, for the members of the industry. It could have created many other benefit
opportunities. These members who are
employed in the industry rely on that level, that $50,000 fee level, as their
investment in their business that they hope that they will be able to recoup
out of their business when they decide to move out of that employment. That is their nest egg. That is their pension for the future.
By the minister's department not charging
that fee to those new executive cars, he has taken away that opportunity from
these people in the future. I think it
is something that his department should revisit in the future and see if we can
implement the recommendations that were in his own Taxicab Board's reports, not
just cherry‑pick from the one's that were there that are suiting his
needs for the present time.
There are many other recommendations, of
course, that were in here in the Taxicab Board's study. The way the minister chose to implement those
recommendations obviously was his department's decision.
One of the decisions that we did agree on
was the implementation of vehicles that would allow access for people with
disabilities in our society. That is one
of the positive lights that I can see from the recommendations that were
implemented.
The disabled people for too long have not
had accessible taxicabs to allow them to move about freely in our society as
they would like to. By the
implementation of these 10 new vehicles into our community, I think that will
give our people with disabilities greater opportunity to be mobile.
Of course, that may not totally address
the concerns that were there, and there were other recommendations that could
have done that. There are several
organizations dealing with the concerns of people with disabilities, and some
of them made presentations at the committee hearings. They were quite concerned on how their
concerns were listened to by the board.
Some of the concerns they had were the
opportunities where those that operate the accessible taxicabs would actually
come out of the vehicle themselves to assist the disabled people to either get
into or get out of the vehicles and to make sure that they got safely to the
dwellings that they were being transported to before the taxicabs would be
driven away.
I hope that this will be part of the
regulations for these accessible taxicabs that the minister will set down as
these new licences are issued. The
Taxicab Board has obviously made their ruling just recently, and there are
going to be some 60 new additional licences put into circulation for these
premium taxicabs, executive cars and accessible taxicabs.
It is also my understanding from the
report that the department is also considering expanding the number of
authorizations that are issued. I think
the minister has to look seriously at the fact that this could further water
down the business opportunities for those who are employed in that segment of
the industry, as well as the fact that it will also take away business
opportunities for taxicabs.
The criteria that was used to select or to
justify the implementing of these vehicles was based on surveys that had been
done by the Taxicab Board in the minister's department. The justification they had used was that they
had received surveys back indicating that there would be a 20 percent increase
in ridership if the government allowed the Taxicab Board to go ahead with
implementing these licensing authorities.
Now, the minister has hung himself out
there. If this 20 percent increase in
business opportunities does not come forward and does not materialize, I
believe that the minister is going to see these executive car owners banging at
his door asking for a lowering of their fees that they would charge; they would
put these vehicles in direct competition with the taxicab industry. I believe
in these difficult economic times we find ourselves in in this province, that
we are going to see those people coming to the minister's door and looking for
the opportunities to lower their rates to attract more business clientele and
more regular travelling public, more members of the travelling public.
There are several other recommendations
that were in the report. One of the concerns
that I had from the decision that was made from the Taxicab Board was that with
the opportunity for these new individuals, some new and some currently in the
limousine business, who have now been issued the executive car authorities. They have the opportunity to purchase these
licensing authorities for some $100, and it will give them the opportunity,
over a period of time, to dispose of these licensing authorities for the full
market value. From that, I mean the $100
value that they were currently obliged to pay to the Department of Highways and
Transportation versus the $50,000 fee that one could dispose of these to other
people who wish to get into that form of business.
I think that is an unfair advantage that
is being given to these new participants in the transportation industry. I do not think the minister should have
allowed his department to undertake or give this unfair advantage to one
segment over another. We have drawn this
to the minister's attention for some time.
He refuses to act on that, and it is unfortunate that he chooses to do
that.
Many other recommendations that come
forward‑‑of course, the current industry is very upset at the way
the minister has handled this and his Taxicab Board has handled this. We have had numerous meetings with the
taxicab industry over this matter. We
have attended the public meetings; we have attended the court hearings.
The industry members, themselves, are now
in a position where they have to place themselves in direct competition with
the limousine industry and the executive cars that these people own. That means
they are going to have to purchase, obviously, full‑sized vehicles. They are going to have to have them air
conditioned. They are probably going to
have to have cellular phones in them to allow the business clientele, who are
riding in them, to communicate freely as they travel about.
This will mean more expense for these
people who are employed in this industry if they want to remain viable and
competitive. More expense will mean they will be in a precarious position of
being able to survive.
I hope the minister has listened to the
comments that we have put on the record on behalf of the taxicab industry
today, and that he will recognize the role he has to play in preserving an industry
that we already have in this province that is running through some difficult
times today.
We have received correspondence from those
who are employed in the industry, and they feel that they have been
discriminated against. There are
obviously only short‑term gains that appear will be made to serve the
travelling public in the city of Winnipeg, and the long‑term consequences
of this will mean members who are currently employed in this industry will be
forced out of this industry.
The correspondence we have indicates that
the Taxicab Board, by the studies that they had done, should have kept their
word, and they should have implemented all 31 of the recommendations.
*
(1640)
There are other areas of Highways and
Transportation, of course, that will be brought forward in Bill 15, and I am
sure in other bills that the minister will bring forward in the future.
The minister talked sometime ago in his
comments‑‑I am not sure if it was on Bill 14 or Bill 15‑‑about
bringing in an omnibus bill that would update the overall Highway Traffic Act.
I was wondering why the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and why the Minister
of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) have not corresponded or have not
communicated with their own constituents in their own portions of the
province. I ask specific questions to
deal with the seat‑belt legislation.
An Honourable Member: Oh, yes, did he duck the issue?
Mr. Reid: The Minister of Health has continued to duck
the issue; he will not even return the phone calls of his constituents.
It was interesting to note that, when the
New Democratic government brought in that legislation‑‑and it was,
I believe, good legislation; it protected the lives of many Manitobans, the
travelling public in Manitoba‑‑the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard)
did not support that piece of legislation and now when his constituents call to
talk to him about that, he refuses to answer their phone calls. Now what kind of representative is that who
will not even return the phone calls of his constituents about a very important
issue like seat belts?
An Honourable Member: He could be vulnerable in the next
election. Watch out.
Mr. Reid: I think he could be very vulnerable. Now, I am not sure if it is going to be the Reform
Party or some other party that will challenge him for that, but, obviously, his
seat is vulnerable.
I quote from the article in the Scratching
River Post of February 17, 19‑‑
An Honourable Member: Scratching River Post?
Mr. Reid: Scratching River Post, that is the centre‑of‑the‑road
political newspaper that reports accurately the facts as they see them in the
I will quote, Madam Deputy Speaker, for
the benefit of the members of the House here:
Politicians ducking the seat‑belt questions, provincial Health
minister Don Orchard and Highways minister Albert Driedger appear to be
avoiding commenting publicly on the controversies surrounding mandatory seat‑belt
legislation.
Now I wonder why that is. To go on, it further states: Two recent studies attacking the mandatory
seat‑belt legislation, Mr. Orchard has not returned repeated phone calls
by a Post reporter; Mr. Driedger's assistant returned a call last week saying
the Highways minister was very busy and would likely have nothing new to say on
this subject.
It goes on to say and I quote: Mr. Orchard was the most vocal opponent of
mandatory seat‑belt legislation during public debate of 1983, prior to
enactment of Manitoba's new law in 1984 by the New Democratic Party, NDP
government. Mr. Driedger, the Minister
of Highways and Transportation, opposed the mandatory seat‑belt law,
citing constituents' concerns.
It is funny how the roles change when you
go into government and something that you were so dead set against and opposed
to at the time becomes a policy that you are going to support. It is obvious that two ministers sitting
opposite support the seat‑belt legislation; otherwise, they would have
taken the necessary steps to fulfill their constituents' wishes and retracted
that legislation.
Unfortunately, that would have been to the
detriment of the travelling public in
It goes on further to state in the
article, Madam Deputy Speaker, that according to Hansard, the official record
of debates in the Legislature, Mr. Driedger told the NDP in 1983, the seat‑belt
law would come back to haunt them. The
Minister of Highways and Transportation said that. Now, in 1983 the minister looked into his
great crystal ball and he saw that it would come back to haunt somebody, but he
was a little bit unclear on who it was going to come back to haunt. It goes on‑‑
An Honourable Member: We should bring those speeches back to him.
Mr. Reid: I think that would be a great idea. I think we will have to resurrect a Hansard
on the debate on that, and maybe mail it out to the constituents of the two
ministers opposite and make their constituents aware of the position they took
then versus the position they are taking today.
Then maybe their seats would be in jeopardy.
It goes on further to state, Mr. Driedger
told the Post in January just prior to the release of the Levine‑Basilevsky
study which claimed seat belt use increased the risk of death and injury in
daytime multi‑vehicle accidents, Manitobans have become accustomed to
wearing seat belts and there is a wealth of international research which proves
seat belts save lives and reduce injuries.
A total change of position over what he had said in 1983. Now I have heard of the Liberals flip‑flopping
on other issues in the past, but I think that this has to be a direct challenge
to the flip‑flop Liberal position that has been taken over the
years. Now we see the flip‑flop
Tories flip‑flopping on various issues, versus to when they were in
opposition to when they are in government.
Personally, I believe that seat belts are
good legislation. I used seat belts myself even before it became legislation in
this province, and I must say for the record that I have had my personal health
protected by seat belts. They have saved
me in some of the unfortunate accidents that I have had in my earlier
days. I highly recommend seat belt
use. I hope that the minister‑‑
An Honourable Member: We will have to check your driver's‑‑
Mr. Reid: Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister raises an
interesting point that he is going to have to check my driving abstract in his
Department of Motor Vehicles. Well, I
bring to the minister's attention, if he checks my abstract he will find that I
have five merits on my licence. This is
not bragging, but just clarifying for the minister's benefit that should he
check my driving abstract, he will find those merits on my licence. Of course, those five merits come in quite
handy when it comes to Autopac time, and how it reduces our premiums a
substantial level. I recommend for those
who do not have merits on their licence that they work toward achieving those
merits.
*
(1650)
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister of Government Services): You can have five merits
and not get a discount on your Autopac.
If you had an accident last year, five merits, you do not get a
discount. It is not just merits. You better get that clear. You can have five
merits and an accident, no discount.
Mr. Reid: The Minister of Government Services (Mr.
Ducharme) indicates, because he does have some experience in Autopac matters
obviously in his other experiences of life, we will call them, he is accurate
in the comments that he has made there, and I stand corrected on that [interjection] I recommend that the
minister, when he drives home tonight, he does use his seat belts, and that he
continues to defend at every opportunity the use of seat belts.
There are other areas of transportation
that are very important to us in this province, and I had the opportunity
yesterday to put some comments on the record about the state of the industry in
the province, transportation industry in our province here.
The transportation is struggling to
survive in our province, and we have seen a continual decrease in the numbers
of job opportunities and employment opportunities for the residents of
When I talked about the rail line
yesterday, the bayline to Churchill, I was serious when I was mentioning my
comments to the minister that this may be our last opportunity as a province to
ensure the long‑term future for that bayline. By putting forward our position in our
meetings with the federal Minister of Transportation a week and a half ago, and
the minister's apparent acceptance of these proposals, the Minister of Highways
and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), indeed the government in general, has this
one opportunity to make some investment in our future.
With the federal government's position
over this period of time and intransigence in willing to deal with this
subject, unless we undertake this partnership arrangement, we stand to lose,
and probably in a very short period of time, this bayline.
There is a lot at risk‑‑and I
talked about this yesterday. The government very much wants to see, I am sure,
this rocket range program take off‑‑and I do not use that term
loosely‑‑in the northern part of our province and the economic spin‑off
opportunities it is going to create for us throughout the province, not just in
the North, but in our communities in the southern portions of the province as
well.
If we had this $120 million invested in
our province, and the creation of 200 to 300 jobs plus the 1,000 to 1,500 spin‑off
jobs that could come about as a result of this investment, I think it is
something that the government has to pursue very seriously, not only from the
point of view from the rocket range itself, but from the point of view that we
have to preserve and enhance the service that that bay rail line serves for all
of the residents of northern Manitoba.
If we do not undertake to have that
investment from us, if we do not put our money forward on the table, the
federal government is not going to take us seriously here in this
province. We have to make that
investment. It is a very minimal amount
of investment that anyone could ask; $3 million per year over a three‑ or
four‑year period is not a major investment in this province based on the
budget that we have. When we look at
$110 million for capital programs in this province under the Highways and
Transportation department, a $3‑million investment out of that capital
spending is not a large amount, and yet it would preserve and enhance the
service and job opportunities for many Manitobans. I believe $3 million is a very modest price
to pay to generate the economic wealth and the over 1,000 job opportunities
that could come about as a result of this.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
I once again call on the minister and his
department and the government to look at this investment opportunity. That includes the economic and innovation
council fund that the bill is currently going before the House, Bill 9. If the minister cannot see fit to free these
funds from his capital spending program in Highways and Transportation,
possibly the government can seek out these resources from another fund. I believe it is a major investment for the
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to
say that we look forward to the opportunity to discuss Bill 14 when it moves to
committee stage. We will be asking the
minister to provide us with certain opportunities on the leasing conditions
that are attached to any of the Orders‑in‑Council and the way the
public properties are disposed of in the province.
Thank you for this opportunity, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the member for
Motion agreed to.
House
Business
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if there might
be willingness of the House, and I refer to the acting government House leader,
to call Bill 11. It was stood earlier,
but there may be willingness to pass it through.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to bring forward
Bill 11 again? That is agreed.
Bill 11‑The
Bee-Keepers Repeal Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), Bill 11, The Bee‑Keepers Repeal
Act; Loi abrogeant la Loi sur les apiculteurs, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Wellington, the honourable member for Wellington.
Ms. Becky Barrett
(Wellington): Mr. Speaker, I cannot
tell you what a pleasure it is to stand here at this moment in this House to
speak‑‑albeit briefly, not my normal practice in this House, I
understand, but albeit briefly‑‑on The Bee‑Keepers Repeal
Act.
On a serious note, we have had several of
our members speaking on this act and sharing some concerns that they have with
the act and with the implications it has, or is responding to as far as
marketing boards are concerned. However,
I do feel and we do feel that we have had enough discussion about this bill in
the House and are prepared at this time to pass it to committee so that the
members of the public will have an opportunity to share their concerns on this
bill as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 11, The Bee‑Keepers Repeal Act; Loi abrogeant la Loi sur
les apiculteurs. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?
Some Honourable Members:
Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 15‑The
Highway Traffic Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), Bill 15, The Highway
Traffic Amendment Act; Loi modifiant le Code de la route, standing in the name
of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
Some Honourable Members: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand. Is
there leave that this matter remain standing?
Leave. It is agreed.
Is it the will of the House to call it
five o'clock?
Some Honourable Members:
Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., time for Private
Members' Business.
PRIVATE
MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, do I have leave to change the
sponsorship of some resolutions?
Mr. Speaker: Does the member have leave?
An Honourable Member: No.
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, just for clarification, I was wondering if the member who denied leave
for this party to change a name after it has granted leave to members of that
party to change names for the member for Crescentwood would clarify. I am not sure if I heard him. If he could put that on the record I would
like to‑‑
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, do I require leave to put it on the record? If there is leave, I will be more than happy
to put it on the record. I just do not
want to start off‑‑there is leave?
Mr. Speaker, I would be more than happy to
explain what had taken place. The
government House leader had approached myself‑‑or actually I approached
the government House leader and requested that the resolutions standing in the
former member for Crescentwood's name be transferred into some of my
colleagues' names. The government House
leader then told me that that would be fine, but in order for him to agree to
that, we would have to agree to having the member for Turtle Mountain's (Mr.
Rose) resolution on the postal services brought to the top of the Order
Paper. We said, we do not have any
problem in allowing leave for that to happen.
Now that the government wants to transfer
some resolutions, I think it would be most appropriate to suggest in terms to
at least the second opposition, because we had given something in return for
it, that they‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
This appears to be a matter that House leaders can discuss amongst
themselves.
Leave has been denied to change the
sponsorship.
DEBATE ON
SECOND READINGS‑PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable member
for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), Bill 25, The University of Manitoba Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Universite du Manitoba, standing in the name of the
honourable member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render).
Stand?
*
(1700)
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Order, please. I will call it one
more time. Bill 25, The University of
Manitoba Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Universite du
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing?
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Leave.
It is agreed.
The honourable member for Thompson who has
10 minutes remaining.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): I appreciate the opportunity to speak and the
leave that was granted previously.
Without reflecting on a previous matter, which would be out of order, I
can indicate that there are times, particularly in private members' hour, when
we operate as much by leave as by the rules per se. While we do not always agree, on this
particular occasion, I know we have indicated our willingness to help expedite
matters in private members' hour as was just done on this bill, and as I think
could have been done in terms of the resolution the Conservatives were
mentioning earlier.
I hope that the people reflect on the role
of private members' hour, because I think at times we tend to forget that and
treat it as simply the three parties hour, and I really think that is a
mistake. When we are dealing with a bill
such as this, certainly, I would assume this reflects the views of the mover of
the bill. I know traditionally caucuses
have supported bills, and there is a role for caucuses. I do not disagree with that, but this is the
type of bill and, in fact, many of the type of matters we are dealing with, I
feel do not really require us to view this in quite as competitive a manner as
we do, that there have to be three different positions on each and every matter
before private members' hour.
I would point to other jurisdictions, Mr.
Speaker, where there are provisions in place to ensure that bills such as this
or some of the resolutions that were referred to earlier in terms of private
members' hour where there is a clear opportunity for members of the Legislature
to vote on those particular bills, not every bill but a certain percentage of
the bills. The House of Commons does
that on a regular basis, both in terms of public bills and also in terms of resolutions.
I find it unfortunate that practice has
fallen into disuse in this Assembly in the last number of years. In fact, when I was first elected, there were
still times when bills were voted upon.
It was assumed that at the end of session, when there was discussion and
negotiation about the resolution of a session, the completion of a session,
that there would be some bills and some resolutions passed through the
representative mixture usually of the parties.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the government
should consider that in terms of this bill this might be one of the bills that
could be considered in terms of being voted upon. I know some of our members have some bills,
particularly in the consumer area, where we would like to see them come to a
vote. I think it is important that this
private members' hour regain some of the validity that it has had in previous
years, and that we all attempt, in this session at least, to put aside some of
the adversarial relationships we have in terms of being members of three
different political parties. If there is
a bill that makes sense, pass it; if there is a resolution that makes sense,
pass it. I would point that we have made
the start with at least one resolution, despite a rather inauspicious start with
some of the wrangling and the battles of the press releases that took place,
over postal rates for rural newspapers.
The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is we were
able to pass it in the end. Perhaps we
should look in terms of bills such as this particular bill. Perhaps we should put it to a vote. Even if it was put to a vote, for example,
and there was disagreement on behalf of the various members of the House, it
would at least show to people that private members' hour is important and that
the business of private members is important.
That includes not just opposition members‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
I appreciate the remarks of the honourable member for Thompson but, as I
have indicated previously, I believe his remarks would be better used at a
meeting with House leaders. Therefore, I
would ask the honourable member for Thompson to keep his remarks relevant to
Bill 25, The University of Manitoba Amendment Act.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I was merely attempting to say
that this was the type of bill that should be considered for passing because it
is important. It should at least be
given the opportunity to go to a vote regardless of who moved it. In this particular case it matters not to me
that it was moved by a member of another party.
I think it is of sufficient importance.
I outlined some of the reasons during my last comments, because I have
had the opportunity of being a former president of the
Indeed, it was a sad day when I had to
come down in front of the Legislature with 4,500 students and demonstrate
against the likes of the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) in his previous
reincarnation as a member of the Sterling Lyon government. Mr. Speaker, history is repeating
itself. We hear talk again of 20 percent
tuition fee increases, of major cuts to different faculties at the
What disturbed me the most today were the
statements made by the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. Vodrey) in
Question Period that these are simply a matter of internal priorities. They are
starving the education system, and now they are saying it is a matter of
internal priorities.
Let us understand one thing, Mr.
Speaker. When it comes to the
I realize that Young PCs are becoming
rather rare on campus nowadays, Mr. Speaker, and I realize that they were
concerned perhaps about preserving an endangered species‑‑we have
talked about that‑‑but they had no right to go and appoint a member
of the Young PCs over the appointment of the democratically elected University
of Manitoba Students' Union representing the students of the University of
Manitoba. They took patronage and pork
barrelling and nepotism, the arts in which they are very good at, to its
ultimate form, in the form of the appointment that led to this bill being
introduced.
We now have a new Minister of Education
and Training (Mrs. Vodrey), and I would suggest that this minister has the
opportunity with this bill to put behind this government some of the pork
barrelling‑‑if I can use that word‑‑the patronage, the
nepotism, that we have seen in the Department of Education and educational
institutions as brought in by the former Minister of Education.
*
(1710)
If she really wants the universities to be
able to make decisions internally, and what she was talking about earlier
today, how can she then turn around and use the
When we were fighting the Sterling Lyon
government, when we had student representatives on the board, we were not
denied the opportunity to make that appointment by the then Conservative
government. So whatever happened to fair
play on behalf of this Conservative government?
Is this Conservative government really only concerned about finding new
patronage appointments? Could they not
have invented some other place to appoint this particular individual?
In fact, the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) says he has a number of constituents here today, and I welcome them to
the Legislature. I wonder if they
realize what this government has been doing at our educational
institutions. If they do pursue their
studies at university, would they want some crony of the government, some Young
PC crony speaking for them, or would they want a democratically elected
representative of the students speaking for them? I know whom they would choose: the democratically elected representative.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying on this
particular bill, this bill deserves to go to a vote. Let not the government stand this bill. Let not the government speak it out on the
Order Paper. Let this bill go to a vote
so that we can vote not only on behalf of our constituents in this Chamber, as
we do on every vote, but particularly send a message of hope to the
universities, to the students who are facing tough times, to let them know that
they will at least not have this government deny their democratic right to have
representatives on the Board of Governors as the previous minister did. They will rectify it by passing this bill.
Mr. Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render).
SECOND
READINGS‑PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 27‑The
Business Practices Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Bill 27, The Business Practices Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur les pratiques commerciales.
Are we proceeding with Bill 27?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand.
Bill 31‑The
Municipal Amendment Act
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): I move, seconded by the member for
Motion presented.
Mr. Gaudry: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to welcome
you back, see you are in good form in the Legislature and wish you well in the
upcoming session.
Mr. Speaker, I stand to speak today on
Bill 31, The Municipal Amendment Act.
Bill 31 deals with the definition of residency in the summer resort
municipalities in
Mr. Speaker, last year the government
introduced legislation which made a number of modifications to The Municipal
Act. Most of these changes were
improvements, and they were intended to meet the needs of those most directly
affected by The Municipal Act.
Mr. Speaker, however, the change to
Section 45(2) which defines residency for the purposes of eligibility for
election was ill‑advised. It
changed the residency requirement that stood for many years in the act from two
months in any year to two consecutive months in any year.
Mr. Speaker, one of the resort
municipalities impacted by this residency requirement change is Victoria
Beach. As in other municipalities, the
majority of property taxpayers are summer residents who own cottages. Many of them spend a very significant amount
of time in the municipality, but still do not qualify under the two consecutive
months rule. The change introduced last
session disqualifies them from running for election to the local council.
Mr. Speaker, it is well known that resort
municipalities often experience some tension between the interests of year‑round
residents on one hand and cottagers on the other hand. Provincial legislation
should help to reconcile the different interests and provide a framework in which
different groups can work together for the benefit of the entire
community. Tres bien, merci. [interjection]
However, Bill 18‑‑well, he is
not doing his job, so I figured I would do it for him. [interjection] Mr. Speaker, I visited his constituency last week
and I was well received. However, Bill
18 of the last session which changed the residency requirement failed to do
that.
Mr. Speaker, we in the Liberal Party do
not believe that different interests can be accommodated by preventing some of
them from being represented in elected bodies.
That is against all democratic principles, and that is what has happened
as a result of the amendment last session. [interjection]
Well, I go in his constituency also, and I
am well received in that one, too.
Mr. Speaker, and to the member for Roblin
(Mr. Derkach), he should know that I visited his people, also. I was well received there also. He is quite aware of that. He did not do his job, so I did it for him.
The principle of no taxation without
representation has brought about revolutions, as those who pay attention to
history well know. I do not think we
will see a revolution in
That right has been taken away from many
people in summer resort municipalities.
Of course, there has to be some practical limitation on who is eligible
because of the unique nature of summer resorts, but that practical
accommodation existed in the law before the government's changes. It was a reasonable definition, and it had
stood up in the courts. It was a
compromise which helped to accommodate different interests.
The requirement of two‑months
residency to be eligible to run for office in summer resort municipalities
should have been left as it stood. Our
bill will restore it. This, therefore,
leads me to conclude that, in the interest of basic democratic principle, Bill
31 will correct the flaw that was inserted into The Municipal Act in the last
session. The amendment to Section 45(2)
was the result of inadequate consultation by the Conservative government.
As we found out in our committee debate of
Bill 18 in July of 1991, it was apparent that change was made on recommendation
of one particular resort council, and other councils were not canvassed to
determine their positions. The council
of Victoria Beach did indeed come forward and oppose a change, but the then
Minister of Rural Development ignored them.
Hopefully, the new minister will not do the same.
An Honourable Member: We hope not.
Mr. Gaudry: No, because I know he will do a good job; he
will support the bill. He graciously
admitted that there may have been an oversight in the consultation
process. He offered an apology but
stubbornly refused to consider changing his course. This was a case of poor
consultation and poor lawmaking.
There was opposition to this provision,
but the minister claimed there was none.
The Liberal Party, in that committee meeting last summer, urged the
minister to reconsider, but he refused.
He offered apologies, but he did not offer a correction of the
problem. He refused to listen to the
presentation of the Victoria Beach Council, and he refused a suggestion of the
Liberal members of the committee. Our
Bill 31 will correct these errors made by the minister last year.
The present bill will remove the word
"consecutive," restoring the previous requirements of two
months. I beg the members of this House
to support this bill. Thank you very
much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that debate be adjourned.
Motion
agreed to.
*
(1720)
Bill 50‑The
Beverages Container Act
Mr. Speaker: Are we proceeding with Bill 50, The Beverage
Container Act; Loi sur les contenants de boisson?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Bill 51‑The
Health Services Insurance Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Bill 51, The Health Services Insurance
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance‑maladie?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
PROPOSED
RESOLUTIONS
Res. 6‑Workforce
2000
Mr. Jack Reimer (Niakwa): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Gimli (Mr. Helwer),
WHEREAS Workforce 2000 is a program
designed to assist business and industry to meet their training needs; and
WHEREAS Workforce 2000 is aimed at
upgrading and retraining people in both job specific and generic skills to cope
with the introduction of new skills, equipment and processes; and
WHEREAS Workforce 2000 will work closely
with the community colleges, especially through their market‑driven
training program, to provide appropriate training for industry.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba support the efforts being made to work with
industry and the workforce to proceed with programs that are responsive to the
needs of the work force.
Motion presented.
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Speaker, this gives me a great deal of
pleasure to stand up here today and talk about Workforce 2000, because in the
last few days we have sat on this side of the House and listened to the members
opposite talk about, particularly speaking to Bill 9, The Economic Innovation
and Technology Council Act, in which they have chastised and berated this side
of the government for their lack of initiative, and lack of direction regarding
trying to come up with some sort of formula for retraining and education in
Manitoba.
This government has responded. In fact, back in October of 1990, the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) announced Workforce 2000.
This was a program that was to be phased in over a three‑year
period. I would like to give you the background on this Workforce 2000, because
Work force training and human resource
planning are essential to ensure that Manitobans have the skills required to
fulfill the needs of the businesses and industry. Education and training have been identified
by a majority of businesses and labour leaders as the most important factors in
improving competitiveness. Employers
must play a role in the training of their employees as it is at their best
interests.
Government's role in developing the human
resources of our province is to act as a catalyst in encouraging business and industry
to increase their investment and their involvement in the training of the work
force. Workforce 2000 is
The program has four major
components: training advisory and
brokerage services, private sector training incentives, industry‑wide
human resource planning, and province‑wide special courses.
As a background and further exploration on
the various four points that I just pointed out, regarding the training
advisory and brokerage services, the Workforce 2000 program recognizes that an
educated, a well‑trained and a flexible work force is the key to
competing in the intensely competitive marketplace of today's society. Through training, business and industry are
able to improve productivity by developing the skills required in the
workplace.
Workforce 2000 will work with industry,
business and with labour to provide the training advisory and the brokerage services
to ensure that effective training has taken place. Workforce 2000 works with
private firms, especially small‑ and medium‑sized firms, to assess
their human resource needs and develop training strategy. The program will provide assistance to employers
and groups of employers in training needs assessment, training plan development
and training evaluation follow‑up.
Workforce 2000 assists
Also, under private sector training programs,
there will be cost‑shared financial incentives available to encourage
private businesses to increase their investment in training. These work‑based training programs
include retraining, upgrading and entry level training. The priority skills of training are in the
areas of high‑demand occupations and skill shortage areas, as well as the
introduction of new techniques, equipment and processes. The program supports job‑specific skill
development geared directly to the firm's operations and generic skill
development on broadly based transferable and transportable skills.
Workforce 2000 also has a payroll tax
refund that will be available to private sector goods‑producing firms
that are paying the payroll tax. The
refund will cover workplace training costs related to improving the generic
skills of their employees.
With the industry‑wide human
resource planning, I would like to point out that the Workforce 2000 program
recognizes that training and skills development are a critical part of
To put all ills and all responsibilities
in perspective, we must take into account that management must have the
facility to change, management must have the will to change, management must
have the direction to see that working within all parameters within labour and
the private sector that changes can come about because of the fact that, as
mentioned, in today's competitive market there must be analysis of which is the
best and most productive way of bringing about the goods and the services that
are required.
There is a responsibility that management
recognizes that any type of confrontational attitude or confrontational
atmosphere with labour is not going to be conducive to the change and
introduction of the skills that are required to meet the demands.
This program looks at that type of
redirection. It gives the emphasis on
working together with the government and business to try to bring about a co‑ordinated
effort to bring about the best skills training, and the best way to go to
market to bring about the product or the services. There is a responsibility not only for labour
to recognize the benefits, there is a responsibility for management, and the
ownership of business to recognize that there has to be a co‑operation
and a co‑ordination between all levels to achieve the ends that we need
in today's competitive environment.
*
(1730)
We have to look only in the papers at all
times, and we see we have the unfortunate situation and the hard times that we
are being faced with, but at the same time, we must look at the challenges
ahead, and the fact that if there is a retraining program for the existing
employees so that they meet the needs that are coming forth, it gives them an
opportunity to be better in tune with what may be happening in the very near
future. The training of the individuals,
the training of the work force in all industries is necessary from time to time,
and it gives a better perspective and a broader initiative for people to strive
for something better.
The redundancy, sometimes in the work
force, can be overcome by the fact that when there is the availability of
training, when there is the availability of advancement, when there is the availability
to strive for new frontiers, if you want to call it, and to have the ability to
do this, it makes for a better and a more cohesive work force within all parts
of the sector of Manitoba and indeed in all of Canada.
Anytime there is a training program that
is put forth, it has to be looked at in the objective sense of how it is going
to help the economy, and how it is going to help, more importantly, the
individuals.
The assets of every company, and the
biggest assets of all companies, are the people who are working for it. With the recognition that this work force is
the most valuable part of that commodity in that business. With the training that we are proposing under
this Workforce 2000, it gives an emphasis and a direction for both management
and labour to sit down and see how they can best address the change. Change is something that is not necessarily
bad from time to time. We say, because
things change we lose the good old days, if you want to call it, because change
makes things different.
Change can be change for the better. Change can make things better. Change can make things easier. Change can make things safer not only for the
work force, but for all individuals that are involved with that business, so
that we have to look at the change and availability of training in a positive
manner and not as an infringement or a cutting back of anybody's work or
anybody's position within that company.
I feel that with the Workforce 2000 program and the availability of a
funding that goes directly towards existing businesses with an existing work
force that are being forced to look at a change that they may not be ready for,
it gives them an avenue and a window of opportunity to look at it and to be
ready for the challenge.
We know too well that if we look back
within our own personal situations‑‑I can recall my grandfather,
who did not know what an airplane was, and my father, who did not know what
television was, and now I as a man have been exposed to the computer. So just as things come about, each one of
them is not a bad situation.
The program promotes an industry‑driven
incentive to address the training needs in this strategy. There are three sets of initiatives that are
part of the strategy. One is to
determine the impact of technology and the changing skill requirements within
specific sectors. Two is to identify
priority training activities and provide brokerage of necessary training and
provision of cost‑sharing programs.
Three is to support and update the delivery of courses in new and
changing technologies.
In addition to the job‑related
skills,
The course skills training will teach
basic skills such as reading, writing, computation, communication, problem
solving, creative thinking, teamwork and leadership. The training for the trainer will be a course
to develop the skills of the workplace trainers.
Just in summing up, Mr. Speaker, I realize
there is a strong force in the room here to move this forward because of the
fact that, as was put forth by the members of the opposition, training and the
training of individuals is of high priority, not only on their side, but on
this side.
I look forward to a unanimous passing and
consent on this referendum, and I thank all members for their support on this.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for presenting Workforce 2000.
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to
address this resolution because it seems the government is saying one thing and
doing another. With this resolution, if
you look at the whole idea of Workforce 2000, it looks like the government
wants to privatize training. That is
what it is all about.
If you look at training programs that were
cut, if the government really wanted to make sure our youth and citizens of
When I heard the member talk about
reading, writing, comprehensive skills, leadership training, those are the
exact emphasis of a program that I am sure some members are aware of, called
New Careers. That is how New Careers
conducts their training programs. They
tie‑‑[interjection] What
is that? That is good; I am glad to see
that, but how come there was $1.6 million cut from last year's budget? Why?
Instead of taking that $7 million into private businesses' pockets, that
$7 million could have been utilized a lot more if it had been allocated to
colleges and the ACCESS programs where the expertise is already in place. It is already there.
You talk about qualified instructors,
training the trainer. There are lots of trainers who were laid off with community
colleges. Where are those individuals
working now? They had the expertise. [interjection] They did not have the
expertise? The former Minister of
Education is laughing. There was
expertise in training.
If you are a trainer, you can adjust your
training skills to train in various courses.
When I was employed with the New Careers program‑‑I was
employed with them for 12 years‑‑when you had an instructor who
instructed, say, adult correction officers, that same instructor could be
transferred over to train recreation workers because they had the teaching
skills. That is what you learn.
An Honourable Member: If you are going to need a barber, you need a
barber instructor.
An Honourable Member: To teach you diesel mechanics.
Mr. Hickes: Now, you are talking about apprenticeship
trades. When you talk about specific apprenticeship trades, the colleges were
delivering those programs. They were
delivering the barbering courses; they were delivering the auto mechanics; they
were delivering the heavy equipment mechanics.
An Honourable Member: You said they can train anybody.
*
(1740)
Mr. Hickes: I am talking about, when we talk about the
specifics that the member mentioned‑‑reading, writing,
comprehension skills, and leadership training.
Those are the skill areas that New Careers teaches.
When you talk about your labour‑intensive
and your apprenticeship training, yes, you have to specialize in there, but
those community colleges were already doing that‑‑they were already
doing that. So why were all those
individuals laid off, and then turn around and give $7 million to private
businesses to do exactly what the colleges were doing? Does that make any sense? [interjection] Yes, but you can hire
trainers to train whatever you want. So
if you want specific training in, say, jackhammer repair, if there is no one
skilled out there, how can you deliver that kind of training? [interjection] Well, if there are jobs
there and the company says, we need 12 jackhammer repair mechanics and there is
no one in
An Honourable Member: You would go to the company and they would
provide the training to the individual.
Mr. Hickes: That is the point I am making. A lot of these companies have expertise in
their given area, whether it is in the trades area or the mining industry, but
they are not trainers. That is the
difference.
The community college instructors are
trainers. They are there to deliver
training programs. How do you think we
got auto mechanic training programs, plumbers, electricians, secretarial,
clerical? Why? Because there was a need out there, so people
got trained in those specific areas, and they were delivered by the community
colleges. What is wrong with community
colleges in
An Honourable Member: I did not say there was anything wrong.
Mr. Hickes: Well, why do you want to lay off a whole
bunch of staff from community colleges and privatize training? The private industries are there to make
money, to do the work. They are not trainers.
An Honourable Member: They create the jobs.
Mr. Hickes: They create jobs, guaranteed, but once they
are trained from a community college, they can fill those jobs.
An Honourable Member: You had better be sure that the linkage is
there, that you have the right training.
Mr. Hickes: The New Careers program that I mentioned tied
that directly in. They tied in exactly
what the job roles would be.
They would do a task analysis, and if you
were the one who was selected to go to S.I.R., if you needed A, B, C and D, and
if you only had A, they developed a specific course that included B, C and D to
make sure that you were qualified to do that job. That is already in place‑‑it
is already in place.
Why does it take $7 million to do
something that agencies are already doing?
Expand those agencies. How much
do you think it is going to cost when you take a consultant to go in and
consult with a company and do an evaluation and say, okay, this individual
needs A, B, C and D? How much do you
think that consultant will charge that company that is getting money from
Workforce 2000?
They are not going to do it for
nothing. Government employees, whether
colleges or New Careers, that is exactly what they used to do. They would go into an agency or a company and
define A, B, C and D. The government
employee, who was already employed by the government, would develop a training
package to suit that company's needs.
They have been doing it for years. Business skills, they have already done. If you look at New Careers for an example,
you talk about business management. New
Careers has delivered for the
They have been doing an excellent job
until a lot of them were laid off so private companies could benefit from
that. Even if you look at your whole
apprenticeship training program, how many individuals go through the whole year
of training? What happens is a lot of
them go in for a month's training program for a level. They will take a level course in a community
college. They go back and work for the company for the whole year until they
get 1,800 hours, and then they go to the next level.
What are you inventing here? I do not know, because all that has already
been happening. What you are doing is,
you are taking money that should go to public colleges and public training
programs and giving it to private companies, who, you will probably be paying,
probably could be $10 an hour for an individual, and that individual in turn
will probably get minimum wage out of that.
They are saying, well, we need the rest of it to do private training
because we are training that individual on the job. Does that make sense?
Who is lining the pocket? If you have 10 employees who are getting
$4.70 an hour, and the company is getting on top of that, say even $5 an hour,
that is pretty good profit. How much
actual on‑the‑job training goes on? [interjection]
That is exactly how the businesses will
operate. I have seen it done. I have seen it done. I have worked on various programs‑‑[interjection] That is exactly what this
is saying‑‑privatized training.
The person who is taking this training
program will not benefit that much from it.
The private company will benefit the most. That is who will be lining their pockets.
We have private training programs, and you
heard the outcry when a lot of the programs were cut from community colleges,
and they were saying the reason we cut these programs is because you can go to
An Honourable Member: Approximately the same.
Mr. Hickes: No, they are not the same. They are not the same. No, it costs more to
deliver private training than it does to deliver out of the community colleges. There were some individuals who had told me
personally that some of the tuition went up to $3,000 from about $1,000. Is that fair?
These students are having a hard enough
time to raise $1,000 for their tuition fees, and now we are going to let the
private training programs charge them two, three times as much.
I am sure a lot of these so‑called
trainers who are working for private training programs, they would not be
getting the same benefits as the government instructors. With government instructors you get a decent
pension, you get a decent hourly rate, you get the government holidays. What do private trainers get? I bet you they would not get the same hourly
rate. How about benefits? What do they get for benefits? They would not be the same as government.
Yet you say, we are serious about giving opportunities
to the youth and to unemployed Manitobans.
I saw one of your market‑driven training programs delivered in
Thompson with Inco. That was supposed to initiate aboriginal people getting
hired on with Inco. You know who
benefited from that training? It was the
existing employees that were already working for Inco. There were no new aboriginal people hired
from that.
That was the whole idea of market‑driven
training when it was first started. The
existing staff were upgraded. Those
existing staff‑‑
An Honourable Member: Did they move to a better salary?
Mr. Hickes: Oh, I do not know about a better salary, but
that initiation‑‑
An Honourable Member: Well, evaluate the whole thing before you
criticize.
Mr. Hickes: It was initiated to bring on new employees of
aboriginal nature.
An Honourable Member: Do not condemn it until you know the whole
story.
Mr. Hickes: I know the whole story. I was up there, I saw it.
An Honourable Member: You said you did not know if they had an upgraded‑‑
Mr. Hickes: That is not the point. The point was that you were supposed to hire
new employees, new employees that were aboriginal. That was the point, but the company did not
do that. They used the money to upgrade
their existing staff. That is not what
it was supposed to be used for. That is
the point I am making. When you talk
about expanding training, like you were just saying, because we want our youth
and the citizens of
If you are serious about youth and
Manitobans getting adequate and proper training for jobs, why in the world
would you cut $1.6 million from the ACCESS program and the New Careers
program? It says, and you could talk to
anyone, in 10 to 20 years, the highest labour pool and resources will be the
aboriginal people. Where do the
aboriginal people access their training?
It was through the ACCESS programs and New Careers programs.
That is the kind of training programs that
most aboriginal people had a chance to go to.
Is your government serious about aboriginal people getting adequate
training program and job opportunities?
Some of you will say yes, but if you were serious would you cut $1.6
million that directly affects aboriginal people? That is what the ACCESS program is all about.
If you look back in history and talk to
the aboriginal people that are now doctors and lawyers, social workers and
teachers, ask them how they were able to obtain and be where they are
today. I will bet you anything you want
that 99 percent will say it was through the initiative of the ACCESS
program. Is that helping aboriginal
people? Is that advancing aboriginal
causes?
*
(1750)
Is that a commitment to aboriginal people?
[interjection] No, but I deal
directly with aboriginal people, because I hear and I see and I associate a lot
of my time with aboriginal people, and I hear that every day. How come the government does not care about
us?
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
First, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make
reference to the resolution in terms of, what we have is a government that has
introduced a program known as the Workforce 2000. A member looks at the program and saw fit to
bring it forward in the form of a resolution and to pat on the back the
minister responsible for the program itself.
In thinking of that, had there been more requests within the resolution
for enhancements, or some sort of direction about the program itself, I believe
then, maybe, my opinions might have been somewhat different than what they are.
What comes to mind is there are literally
hundreds of programs that government has.
Are we to conclude by seeing a resolution of this nature that it is
virtually endless in terms of the numbers of resolutions that could come
forward saying that this is a resolution that endorses what in fact the
government is doing? I have some
concerns with that, Mr. Speaker. There
are programs, a number of programs, some of them no doubt all three sides of
the house would support. Other programs,
you might not get that same type of support.
For the member from Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), I am sure his intentions were
good in the sense of trying to bring what he feels is a program to debate
inside this Chamber. I would like to
have seen the debate on an issue of this nature possibly come up through debate
on the throne speech. I believe it has
been debated fairly extensively, this particular program, and in particular
through the Estimates process.
I do not really see any change to the
program that the member would like to suggest.
The only thing that I read into this particular resolution is that this
is a good program, and the minister should be patted on the back for it. Mr. Speaker, I think that the member from
Niakwa could have had the same effect had he written a letter to the minister
and said to the minister that you have a fine program. It would have likely had the same effect.
Having said that, you know our work force
is really an issue to every Manitoban.
We have numerous unemployed, well over the 50,000. The things that are on all of our minds is how
do we prepare our society to be able to compete in a very competitive world
climate? Mr. Speaker, when we look at
the government's record in terms of retraining, or if I can back up, if we look
at the Free Trade Agreement that was entered into‑‑the reason why I
say it is because there was a report that was released, a Conservative report
that said: adjusting to win.
Mr. Speaker, that would have been part of
the argument no doubt in terms of introducing a program such as the Workforce
2000. There are many other things that
could have been done in order to live up to that Conservative report regarding
free trade, and the free trade is only one aspect of what is happening in the
world.
Albeit that there is a role no doubt for
the private sector, there is also a role for the government to ensure that
retraining programs‑‑and the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes)
spoke in terms of the CareerStart Program which has pros and cons. There are many different programs, Mr.
Speaker, that we could be debating inside the Chamber to find out, to draw
hopefully, some sort of conclusions as to whether or not the government in
particular, or if there are ways that we can encourage the private sector to
enter into so that the retraining of Manitobans, of our work force, would in
fact be a very high priority.
Mr. Speaker, the government itself‑‑I
know the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) has often referred to the
commitment to the work force in retraining of 2 cents for every worker. I do not believe that is a strong enough
commitment from the government, that they need to commit more than 2 cents per
worker towards the retraining. The
member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) made reference to the cut in our ACCESS
program, a cut to our colleges. Albeit
they have brought in a program to, in their view, curtail, to assist the workers
in
They have also done a lot of damage to the
workers in
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member will
have eight minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House now
adjourns, and stands adjourned till 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).