LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday,
March 5, 1992
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member. It conforms with the
privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules (by
leave). Is it the will of the House to
have the petition read?
The petition of the undersigned citizens
of the
THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by
all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world;
and
It is the responsibility of the government
to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and
Programs like the Fight Back Against Child
Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with the
crime; and
The decision to terminate the Fight Back
Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good citizens to
help abused children.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
I have reviewed the petition, and it
conforms with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the
rules. Is it the will of the House to
have the petition read?
The petition of the undersigned citizens
of the
THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by
all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world;
and
It is the responsibility of the government
to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and
Programs like the Fight Back Against Child
Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with the
crime; and
The decision to terminate the Fight Back
Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good citizens to
help abused children.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
MINISTERIAL
STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I have a statement for the House
with copies for all members and a copy of a working group report on breast
cancer screening.
When I became Minister of Health, I made a
commitment that the most fundamental concern of my ministry would be to improve
the health status of Manitobans and that I would see that resources were
appropriately targeted to those Manitobans who were most at risk of ill
health. In that context, I recognized
that women's health would be one of the highest priorities for my ministry. That is why we created the Women's Health
Directorate and why we gave women's health a high profile in the healthy public
policy programs division of the ministry.
I made another commitment that we would
not simply keep doing things in the same old way. We would not continue along the all too
familiar pattern where planning for health care is distracted by emotion, by
inaccurate information and by inadequate research.
I am pleased to provide you with the
Report of the Working Group on Breast Cancer Screening. The work done by the Working Group on Breast
Cancer Screening challenges the old approach and is based on sound scientific
data, analysis and research. This
scientific data may make some people uncomfortable, but I have a responsibility
to respond to the valid conclusions of scientific research.
I made the commitment that the new
initiatives and programs of the ministry would receive priority on the basis of
the evidence for their effectiveness in terms of improving the health status of
Manitobans. I have attempted to ensure
that I have received the best and most expert evidence‑based advice as
the basis for reforming the health care system.
For example, that is why I established the Manitoba Centre for Health
Policy and Evaluation and why I called together the high‑profile
professionals to advise me on one of the most critical women's health issues,
breast cancer screening.
Every year, in
One year ago, in January 1991, the
ministry convened a working group to address the issue of breast cancer
screening and to provide a report and recommendations to me on the advisability
of instituting mass mammography screening in Manitoba. The report of the working group is based on
work conducted by an ad hoc technical committee struck in 1989 in response to
events in other jurisdictions and in response to changing patterns of practice
in
It should be emphasized that a mixture of
clinical mammographies and screening mammographies is already occurring in
*
(1335)
The membership of the working group was
carefully chosen to represent the best available expertise on breast cancer
screening in
The rest of the working group consisted of
13 representatives from medical oncology, surgery, radiology, pathology, the
Manitoba Medical Association, the
I will not read the list of membership of
the committee, but I am sure all members of the Chamber would like to thank the
dedicated professionals for their advice and the many hours of work spent on
researching to present the report that I am tabling today, Mr. Speaker.
This group has spent the last year
intensively reviewing the current research on the benefits, risks and
limitations of mass screening with mammography.
It has also looked carefully at mammography programs that have been
established in Europe, the
Women themselves have been asking for
clarification of the breast screening issues, and measures are currently
underway to provide them with up‑to‑date balanced information about
the risks, benefits and limitations of mammography screening. The Women's Health Branch will work with
women's health agencies and others in educating women about breast screening.
Access to women who, in conjunction with
their health care providers, choose periodic screening will be in no way
affected by this report, and diagnostic services will remain available as
usual. We will place special emphasis to
ensure that women who are in high‑risk categories will continue to have
access to screening and diagnostic services.
What this working group has found is that many questions remain to be
answered about the effects of mammography screening.
*
(1340)
The earlier optimism and hoped‑for
benefits are not convincingly supported by the evidence at this time. Women under age 50 do not appear to benefit
from periodic screening with mammography in terms of reduced mortality, and the
benefits to women over age 50 are still being determined. The extent of problems that may result from
mammography, such as false negative results and false positive results are just
beginning to be understood. We also do
not know the risk from additional exposure to X‑rays posed by the
screening.
The working group has recommended that no
program be established this year until there is further evidence of benefit to
women from mass screening. Studies such
as the Canadian National Breast Screening Study in which
I would like to announce action the
ministry is taking in response to the report of the working group. First, by summer, we will launch an
educational campaign to educate women about breast cancer and to educate health
professionals on the risks and benefits of the options available for breast
cancer screening.
Secondly, in addition, in conjunction with
the Centre for Evaluative Clinical Sciences in
I will shortly announce the establishment
of a breast cancer screening advisory group with appropriate membership to
monitor evidence regarding breast cancer screening. In particular, one of the first tasks of the
group will be to review the results of the Canadian National Breast Screening
Study which are expected to be released this spring. The group will also continue to monitor and
reassess the appropriate options for breast cancer screening and prevention so
that we can take immediate action as new evidence becomes available.
Fourth, the ministry will continue to
support and encourage national and
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(St. Johns): I appreciate the opportunity to put some
comments on record in response to the Minister of Health's statement on breast
cancer, and I begin on behalf of our caucus by thanking the minister, this
government, and the working group who have devoted considerable time delving
into a most critical issue for women, that of breast cancer. We appreciate the focus that this minister
and this government have given to this issue, and we appreciate this update
report.
As the minister has said, this is a very
scary issue for over half the population of our province and our country. By the minister's own statistics, in 1989, there
were 157 deaths and 655 diagnosed cases of breast cancer. That is a very scary thought for all of us,
Mr. Speaker, for all the women in this House, in this province, in this
country. By the minister's other
statistics in our Estimates debates, he has indicated that one in 11 women in
this country are struck with breast cancer.
That means one of us in this House can face that prospect at any
time. It is scary, and it needs urgent
attention.
*
(1345)
The minister has indicated that he recognizes
the urgency of the problem. It is urgent
because we are getting so many different mixed messages about how to detect,
how to treat and how to deal with breast cancer. The minister has appropriately addressed the
mixed message we are getting.
I, for one, was very concerned and took a
very adamant position in Estimates that this government was breaking its
promise reiterated in a couple of Speeches from the Throne about the need to
have a breast screening mammogram. I
remember yelling from the rooftops and going after the minister like crazy
about the lack of action on this issue.
He pointed out to me some of the studies that were coming in indicating
that this technology may not be as foolproof and as sound a piece of technology
as we had originally thought.
However, there are still mixed messages
out there, as the minister knows, and women like us do not know what to do in
terms of getting tested. Some reports
have indicated that the breast screening mammogram has increased the chances of
cancer among women by a considerable percentage. Other studies show that the mammogram has, in
certain age categories, improved or reduced deaths among women from breast
cancer by 20 percent. There is confusion
and uncertainty, and a need to deal with it urgently.
I trust that this minister's statement
today will be backed up by resources allocated in next week's budget. I trust there will be staff and resources
pulled together to ensure this wide‑sweeping, massive education campaign
to tell women about the need to get involved in self‑examination, to get
good physical examinations on a regular basis and to study the relationship to
diet, stress and physical environment. I
am concerned that this be done on an urgent basis, and I am concerned about a
number of other women and health issues.
The minister has addressed in the past the
question of Depo‑Provera, an injectable contraceptive for which there are
rumours that it will be imminently approved by the federal drug protection
agency. The minister has indicated he is
prepared to fight that kind of approval, but we are asking him today if he will
fight the use of that injectable contraceptive among vulnerable target groups
in our population, right now in the
We know that only about 3 percent of all
medical research funds goes toward dealing with women's health issues. That is a very small percentage for over half
the population. We have had the
discussions before about what would be an appropriate allocation, and I would
like today to use this opportunity to suggest that, for too long, the health of
women has been treated as a very secondary second‑class issue, that in
fact, many times, women have been treated as guinea pigs for the purposes of
trying out and advancing certain products when it comes to contraception or
breast implants.
Everyone in this House knows full well the
horror stories around the Meme breast implant and contraceptives like Depo‑Provera,
where women have been used as guinea pigs.
We have a saying on this side of the House that, if men could get
pregnant, perhaps a lot more money would be devoted to research into
contraceptives.
I would conclude by saying, once again,
commendations and congratulations to this minister, and particularly to the
members of his working group, who have put long hours into this very important
issue of breast cancer screening. We
look forward to being updated with respect to this study, these inquiries and
reviews. We look forward to this issue
being treated on an urgent basis. Thank
you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, I would like to applaud the
government for this step. In 1988, in
our campaign, and 1990 campaign, that was one of the issues. During the discussion between 1988 and 1990,
in all the Health Estimates, that was one of the major issues that all the
parties discussed, and we asked the minister to look at the issue very
carefully.
I think we should learn from this very
good example, that the data which has been given to us today‑‑and
we do not have the time to review the whole process, but it is a good example
that we should look at the data very carefully in terms of developing a major
policy which is going to have a long‑term impact, and not just follow one
example in one part of the world or the other part of the world and just jump
on the policy conclusions. This is a
very important issue and is one of the examples where we can develop a long‑term
policy.
*
(1350)
Also, how the health policy centre has
been helpful in this issue, that again emphasizes the point that we must be
very careful in health policies to develop a policy which will save us money in
the long run. This is one example which
will not only save money, but most importantly, it will help more than 50
percent of our population. I think it is
a very serious matter that this cancer in women is one of the leading causes of
death in this country. For an industrialized
nation to be worried about such a major issue and not do analysis, I think, is
very sad, but now the governments are realizing, and Manitoba has taken the
lead.
I am sure the other provinces can learn
from us, because we have data, we have individuals who have worked very hard,
and they will continue to develop a policy which will help in the long run.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to reinforce
again that the other aspect which is very important in our health care policy
is the education of the public and the education of this particular group, to
teach them that we have this health risk problem. Then each and every person knows the risk
factors, and that can be dealt with in terms of health care professionals as
well as through the Department of Health.
The minister should take a positive
stand. They have taken in fact one part,
to have a video developed explaining to the women of
Finally, I would like to pay our special
thanks to the group in this particular section which has worked very hard. They are very knowledgeable people, and they
have no political bias, another good example of how the people of
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 St. John's‑Ravenscourt, thirty‑five Grade 9
students, and they are under the direction of Mr. Einarson. This school is located in the constituency of
the honourable Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. Vodrey).
On behalf of all honourable members, I
welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Clean
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the
Minister of Environment.
The new Environment Act passed in 1988 or
proclaimed in 1988 provided for a public process and an open process for
licensing for all new proposed forest management plans in the province of
Manitoba. The government has followed
through on the legislation with the Clean Environment Commission hearings and
report that is now in the hands of the government and now before the public.
There are a number of key recommendations in that report that have a great deal
of significance for the people of
I would ask the Minister of Environment,
dealing with specific recommendations in the report, dealing with Nopiming Park
and the recommendation asking the government to cancel all commercial forestry
activity in all provincial parks in terms of a phased‑out way, whether
the government is going to support that recommendation before the ministry, or
is it going to act in a contrary way to the recommendations?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, the
member is correct in stating that this report identifies an issue that has been
in front of the public for a number of years in this province, going back to
the time when he and his colleagues were the government of this province as
well, an issue that is one that frankly this government welcomes a further
debate on, and we look forward to an open discussion and a process that will
allow public input on the policy issues that are raised around this particular
recommendation.
There were a number of recommendations
regarding the future use of park lands.
Mr. Speaker, it is not an issue from which we intend to shy away from.
I would remind the member of the process
under which these recommendations are dealt with. The director within the Department of
Environment will deal with those portions of the recommendations that are the
responsibility of the department. In the broader policy issues, we look forward
to an open and public process of discussion and in fact, following very much
along the lines that were recommended in the report.
*
(1355)
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, we have had the open public
process with the licensing process. I
would remind the minister that the Premier even got involved, Premier Pawley,
in 1985, in the Atikaki Park, in stopping the logging that was granted by a
licence in 1979, stopping the logging in that wilderness park and negotiating
with the company for alternative wood supply outside of that wilderness park.
The question is, Mr. Speaker, what is the
government going to do on those major recommendations? I recognize that they are broad policy
issues, as the minister has indicated, but he has not told us today in the
House where the government stands.
I would ask the minister another specific
question. In 1989, I wrote the minister
recommending a process of stakeholders' involvement in many of these licensing
and monitoring processes. A similar recommendation has been provided to the
minister in this Clean Environment Commission report, calling on the government
to establish a stakeholders' advisory committee to not only advise the
government and stakeholders on the various resources and issues at stake, but
also to monitor the conformity of the company and the province to the terms of
the licensing agreement.
I would ask the minister, will he follow
through on that recommendation, a recommendation, quite frankly, that has been
before the minister for a number of years on dealing with forest management
plans?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the Leader of the
Opposition raising that question because, as a matter of fact, that is a
process that has been written into and used in a number of situations already
in this province. We have involved
advisory committees in the Oak Hammock licence.
We have had advisory committees in relationship to operations with Repap,
a number of examples where that type of process is used. The member knows the process probably as well
or better than I do. I would think that
he should recognize that to ask me to respond definitively to certain
conditions that may or may not be in the licence as written by the director, a
licence which, by the way, I am the appeal to.
It would probably be inappropriate for me to comment much further than
that.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, if the minister is using the
model of Oak Hammock Marsh and Ducks Unlimited, and the Repap project where
they had chlorine bleach proposed, the last jurisdiction in the world to go
ahead with a project like that, then we are in a lot of trouble in this
province in terms of where we are going.
Clean
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): A final question to the minister responsible
for the divestiture of Repap corporation.
Last week, the minister released terms of reference in this House, terms
of reference quite a bit altered from the original terms of reference that the
minister had incorporated in the contract he had negotiated.
My question to the minister
responsible: Will he incorporate in the
terms of reference and amend the terms of reference that he now has with the
Repap corporation to include some of the recommendations in the Clean
Environment Commission report that do impact on the Repap situation,
specifically dealing with provincial parks and also dealing with stakeholders'
committees, stakeholders' committees that include the inclusion of aboriginal
people who are directly affected in the areas that are very, very crucial to
this set of discussions with the minister and very much outside of the
government's discussions right now?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister responsible for the administration of The Crown Corporations Public
Review and Accountability Act): Mr. Speaker, what we will not do after the
public dialogue leading to the government ultimately making a decision is, we
will not forcibly expel cutters from one region and put them into another park
like the former government did in 1985.
Mr. Speaker, page 113 of Article 9 of the
Purchaser's Covenant Agreement between Repap and the province spelled out that,
and I will quote: Manitoba reserves the
right to withdraw certain areas within the forest managed licensed area.
It stipulates a number of reasons why, or
other uses, which
*
(1400)
North
American Free Trade Agreement
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, in July of 1991, this government
set down six conditions which the government said must be met before they would
approve the entering into of a free trade agreement with the United States and
Mexico. On February 17, when I asked the
Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) what the government
would be doing if these six conditions were not met, he did not answer.
Mr. Speaker, it has today become very
evident that the six conditions outlined by the provincial government will not
be met in the free trade discussions, that in fact Canada is prepared to give
up, and the United States continues to ask for concessions that would open the
free trade agreement and establish other conditions which would violate the
principles set out by the minister.
My specific question to the Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism is: What
specific action is this government going to take when it becomes evident that
the free trade agreement will cost
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, firstly, I would like to
correct the honourable member for Flin Flon that I did answer his question when
asked in terms of what our position is, was and will continue to be. We have said on many occasions that, if those
six conditions are not met, we do not support the agreement. That is what was tabled here at the House
back in July of 1991, that we do not support a North American free trade
agreement unless those six conditions are met.
In terms of the one specific condition
that he has referred to today in terms of the reopening of the Canada‑U.S.
Free Trade Agreement, that is one of our six conditions. It has been a condition to date of the
federal government, if you listened to the Honourable Michael Wilson, that they
do not support the opening of the Canada‑U.S. Free Trade Agreement
because of concerns relative to particular industries like our cultural
industry. That is our position. We have stated it on many occasions, and we
will continue to state that, Mr. Speaker.
Impact on
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Well, Mr. Speaker, the minister did not
answer the question. The question
was: What specific steps is the minister
going to take if he opposes it? Is it
going to be a muted opposition‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Question please.
Mr. Storie: ‑‑Mr. Speaker, or are they
actually going to do something to protect our interests?
Mr. Speaker, my follow‑up question
is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism. Can the minister tell this House what he is
going to do to protect the vegetable producers, in particular, who will be
devastated by a free trade agreement with
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): First of all, Mr. Speaker, in terms of
the Manitoba position, it has been outlined in writing to the federal minister,
Mr. Wilson; it has been put on the record on at least two occasions at federal‑provincial
trade ministers' meeting, and probably, as a province, we have more often
stated our position than any other province within Canada, and I want to make
that clear.
In terms of any trade agreement, there are
some winners, there are some losers in terms of the adjustments that would
happen to any economy. Clearly, a major
part of it is also one of our conditions, Mr. Speaker, whereby under any free
trade agreement, there have to be the necessary adjustment provisions, and that
would relate to any industry that is in any way negatively affected by a North
American free trade agreement.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about
justice. A Canadian study‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, my specific question was: Can the minister tell the House how many jobs
are going to be jeopardized by
Mr. Stefanson: As the honourable member should know, and I
would hope he realizes that, under any of these types of negotiations, there
are a series of reviews that have been done by all different sectors, by all
different industries. Unfortunately, it
is not a science; many of them point to different statistics. Some indicate
that
We do have concerns. We do not support a North American free trade
agreement unless six fundamental conditions are met. I have outlined those for the benefit of the
honourable member on many occasions when we debated this under private members'
resolutions, on two different occasions.
I outlined them for this House and for the honourable member, and I
would encourage him to read Hansard so he gets them perfectly clear.
Forestry
Industry
Sustainable
Development
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, this government has been long on rhetoric on a policy of sustainable
development. The Clean Environment
Commission's recommendations yesterday clearly are a blueprint for providing
for sustainable development, particularly in the forestry industry.
We have already heard earlier in this
session that, despite this blueprint, the government will not commit itself to
phasing out commercial forestry, it will not commit itself to ending commercial
forestry in the park lands covered by the Repap agreement.
My question is to the Minister of Natural
Resources. Will this government commit
to a comprehensive, provincial forest policy consistent with the principles of
sustainable development before any other forest management licences are
renewed, including Repap's?
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister
of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, for the
sake of some 10,000 Manitobans whose livelihoods depend on commercial forestry,
we would want to be very cautious about disrupting their lives in an economy
that is already in some difficulty. If I
understand the honourable member's question correctly, my department is very
much interested in looking at sustainable forestry in the
My department, and more importantly,
interested parties such as the Naturalists Society, The Wilderness Society‑‑Mr.
Roger Turenne just a few weeks ago was in my office‑‑are well aware
of the fact that senior officials in the department have been working towards
putting together the necessary documentation and mechanics for extensive public
hearings that will, I suspect, take place later on this spring, extend into the
summer and perhaps the fall, that will address some of the very issues that the
Clean Environment Commission report draws our attention to.
I welcome that opportunity because there
are a number of issues that need to be addressed, not least of them, one that I
know that is near and dear to the heart of my Premier (Mr. Filmon) and to which
this government is fully committed, our commitment to the Endangered Spaces
Program here in Manitoba.
Wilderness
Status
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): If the
minister and if this government are truly committed to a sustainable forestry
policy, then they will come up with a policy.
They will not commit in this House today to, in fact, establishing that
policy.
In light of his response to me, will this
government commit itself to designating the northeast corner of Nopiming for
wilderness status, given its commitment, he says, to the Endangered Spaces
Program?
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): I have
just had the privilege of returning from
It was, by the way, a very encouraging
ceremony, with all provincial forestry ministers present, federal government,
Canada forestry present, a large number of‑‑I always have trouble
with this bureaucratic term for it, I believe they call them NGOs, but it means
nongovernment agencies or something like that‑‑other people there
that were not directly affected. A
number of them, including representatives of the Canadian Wildlife Federation
and others, affixed their signature to that.
Mr. Speaker, these kinds of policies are
ongoing commitments. They began not just
with forestry. In fact, we began, and my
predecessor, with water and soil, with my colleague with agriculture. We are doing it with forestry. This government is committed; this government
leads the nation in taking the round table discussions seriously. This province leads the nation in taking‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
*
(1410)
Forestry
Industry
Sustainable
Development
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): One has
to wonder how many trees were destroyed for all the paper that moved all around
those tables during the signing procedures.
The problem is we wanted just a little commitment to a northeast corner
of a wilderness park to get a designation so it would not be used for
commercial logging, and we cannot get that.
Well, perhaps we can get another
commitment from the Minster of Natural Resources. Will the government at least commit today to
develop a comprehensive provincial forest policy consistent with the principles
of sustainable development?
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, it has been my experience, having been resource minister of this
province on several occasions‑‑you know the one thing, the general
public and particularly those who are, if you like, watchers of the
environment, that concerns them the most is if governments do things without
consultation. I cannot talk about a
cottage development in a park without being criticized if I do not take in the
broadest consultation.
Mr. Speaker, surely nobody on that side
suggests that a fundamental alteration, a fundamental change in policy and in
management should take place without consultation. These consultations are going to take place,
and what is important to know is that it is just not myself reacting to today's
question. Mr. Roger Turenne of the Wilderness Society knows that to be a fact;
Ms. Alison Elliot of the Manitoba Naturalists Society knows that to be a
fact. They have in fact been working
with some of my officials since fall in developing the process that will lead
to that broad public discussion that the Clean Environment Commission calls
for.
That will be the first order of
business. That will commence, I suspect,
on or about May or June and no doubt will lead into the fall.
CareerStart
Funding
Restoration
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister of Finance.
According to Statistics Canada, the youth
unemployment rate in
In view of the fact that this government
cut youth employment programs in half last year, is the government now prepared
to reinstate these programs to at least the 1990‑91 level? Specifically,
will last year's $3‑million cut in CareerStart program be continued, or
can we expect CareerStart to be increased to the $6‑million level of the
previous year?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker,
budgetary decisions have been made, even before the question being put by the
member today. They will be announced in
their complete fullness, Wednesday next.
Mr. Leonard Evans: The 17,000 unemployed young people will be
anxiously awaiting the minister's announcement, I am sure.
Northern
Youth Corps Job Program
Funding
Restoration
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Will this government reinstate the Northern
Youth Corps job program that was killed last year in spite of the fact that
unemployment levels in northern
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, one of
my colleagues has helped me in my response to the member. He will know that fully in six more sleeps.
Mr. Leonard Evans: This is not a laughing matter with the 17,000
young people who do not have a job in this province. Talk to their families, to the thousands on
welfare in this province, and you are doing nothing about it.
Student
Temporary Employment Program
Funding
Restoration
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, is this government prepared to
increase funding of the Student Temporary Employment Program this year in view
of the fact that there has been a sharp increase in youth unemployment in this
province to 16.8 percent?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, this is
not a laughing matter. I say to the
member opposite, his questions will be answered fully. Also, it was no laughing matter indeed when
the former government applied a 2 percent tax against everybody that earned
$11,000 and more, destroyed jobs and sent the youth in this province outside,
and killed the business initiative in this province. That was no laughing matter.
I say to the member, if they want to look
at the reason for some of the problems we have today, all they have to do is
reflect on the decisions they made around the cabinet table from 1984 to 1987.
Domestic
Violence
Bail
Conditions
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Justice. Despite the Pedlar report,
despite the fact the Crown has now opposed bail in situations of abuse and
abuse victims and in spite of federal lack of action in this area, often
abusers get out on bail.
As a concrete suggestion, I would like to
ask the minister: Will he not ask his Crown prosecutors, in cases of bail, that
a bail condition be imposed on an abuser that requires daily reporting to
probation officers in order to ensure a check on the abuser and to provide some
comfort and security to the victim of an abuse?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, that is a suggestion that I
have raised and encouraged upon prosecutors so that they could ask for such
things in cases where judges feel that it is appropriate that accused abusers
be let out on bail. That kind of
submission is available to the Crown, and we are aware of it. We take that suggestion very positively and
thank the honourable member.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that
response.
Rehabilitation
Programs
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): In conjunction with the Pedlar report, I am
wondering if the minister can advise us whether or not the Crown has instituted
any programs to deal with abusers in order to stem the tide of abuse in our
society.
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
By the Crown, I take it the honourable member means the justice system
and the system that we have in general.
The Pedlar review does identify a need to deal with abusers while, at
the same time, deal as well as we can with people who are victims of
abusers. In that regard, we are pleased
with the performance of the Department of Family Services, under successive
ministers in the last four years, with regard to funding for the shelter
system, a very, very significant increase in funding over levels prior to our
government taking office.
Yes, indeed, the Pedlar report deals with
going eyeball to eyeball, as it were, with abusers and making them responsible
for their behaviour. That includes
things like sentences that include probation and counselling as a condition of
that probation.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary to the
same minister is along the same lines. I
wonder if the minister can advise me whether or not the working group has met
and whether we can expect concrete actions in the form of programs, as
recommended in the Pedlar report, in which there has been no action‑‑in
abeyance basically on most of those recommendations since the fall of last
year?
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the honourable member
could say that there has been no appearance of action, but indeed a couple of
days ago the working group met, the community advisory group will be meeting
later this month, so we believe there is nothing stopping us from proceeding
along. There is progress which would
flow from the Pedlar report.
Just before I sit down, since the
honourable member for Kildonan has shown an interest in trying to curb
violence, I wonder if he could encourage his colleagues to take a stand with
respect to the deplorable language used by Daryl Bean in dealing with people
who choose to work during the week when‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
*
(1420)
Student
Food Bank
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, for four years now, we have been
warning the government about the inadequacy of the student aid provided to
university students in this province and other students in this province. The situation has gotten so bad at the
I would like to ask the Minister of
Education if it is her government's policy to use food banks as an alternative
to adequate financial aid for students?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, the conditions that students are experiencing are of great concern to
this government and great concern to me as minister. I was a student until I was elected to this government
as well. I know many of those students,
both young people and also adult students who have come back to study. The issues are of great concern. I am raising the issue at a federal level as
well to press the federal government, through the Council of Ministers of
Education and individual meetings, to try and provide adequate assistance to
students in
Mr. Alcock: Raising the support might help, Mr. Speaker.
Department
of Education
Underspending
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, will the minister assure the
House that the $6.6 million underspent in her department was not in part taken
from the Student Aid Program?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, I am reviewing the results of that with my department now, but as the
member will know, that percentage within my department, which is an extremely
large budget, was an extremely small percentage. I am examining it at this point‑‑less
than 1 percent.
Budget
Student Aid
Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Well, Mr. Speaker, 1 percent of $1 billion
would provide a lot of aid for students in this province. Will the minister ensure the House that the
budget will contain sufficient support for students so that the opening of this
food bank at the university will become unnecessary?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, I can say again that I am very concerned with the need for a food bank
at the
Department
of Health
Employee
Morale
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
I want to ask the Minister of Health: What is he doing to stop losing the best and
the brightest among his civil service? What is he doing to restore confidence
and morale within this department?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, with all the respect I can
muster, I am not taking advice from my honourable friend the New Democratic
critic on this particular issue; on others, I will.
Mr. Speaker, Dr. Fast is taking a position
at Cadham Lab, where her expertise will be still contributed to the
Mr. Speaker, the emphasis on communicable
diseases is not lessened. In fact, with
replacement of Dr. Fast in the slot that she vacated for Cadham Lab, we expect
to double the team‑bench strength, having Dr. Fast fully and readily
available from Cadham Lab plus the recruitment, we hope, of a competent
professional replacement for Dr. Fast, who has contributed a significant amount
of good to the public policy of Manitoba from her former position and we know
will continue from the current position that she occupies.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, this is not an isolated
incident. I would like to ask the
minister: Why was action not taken to
correct the problem of low morale and organizational chaos in his own
department after Dr. Peter Cooney, with his position as Executive Director of
Dental Services, not too long ago, out of concern as well for what was
happening in the department, went to work for federal medical services?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, again, Dr. Cooney, I had a very
close working relationship with him in his professional capacity. He was an excellent director of the
children's dental health program. It is
my understanding that the offer from the federal government was one that was
very, very attractive, and in terms of discussions with Dr. Cooney, I accepted
with regret his decision to move over there.
I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that Dr.
Cooney has very much appreciated the relationship and the working ability he
had within the department. He has given
us the commitment that he will be available for whatever advice we may need,
given his experience as director of the children's dental health program, and
we intend to keep the lines of communication absolutely open with Dr. Cooney in
the hopes that maybe, after finding the pastures may not be as green as one
expected, we can welcome him back to the ministry.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Let me ask a final question pertaining to low
morale, chaos and confusion in the minister's department. It pertains to John Robson, a civil servant
in the Department of Health who worked for this government for 29 years.
I would like to know why the minister told
this House that John Robson was being fired because of the melding of rural and
urban facility executive director positions when now we see a new
organizational chart for the department, showing the destination of those two
positions‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reply with the
same rhetorical flourish, but you know how calm I am about these sorts of
things. If my honourable friend wishes
to discuss the organizational development within the ministry of Health, I
would be fully prepared to discuss that in detail when we discuss my Estimates.
When we made the amalgamation last year of
commission functions with departmental function, in trying to bring the system
of health care delivery together for the betterment of patient care delivery
services, it was unfortunate that there were a number of folded‑in
positions which became redundant. Mr.
Robson's position last year was one of those, Mr. Speaker. It is with regret‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, once again, the minister did not hear
that I said both positions were restored.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order. It is clearly a dispute over
the facts.
* * *
Mr. Orchard: As I indicated to my honourable friend, it
would be my absolute delight that we share an open discussion in Estimates of
the continuing process of making sure that Manitobans have the best ministry of
Health in
Rent
Regulations
Rollbacks
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, on the issue of rolled‑back
odometers, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs contradicted the RCMP
and said there was no problem. On the
issue of fraudulent home repairs, the same minister said she could not do
anything because she had not had any complaints. On the problem of windfall profits for
landlords, she says, I cannot do anything; my hands are tied; it is a complaint‑driven
system.
My question is: What is this minister going to do as a result
of provincial portioning of property tax assessment to ensure that reduced
landlord expenses and taxes will be passed on to tenants?
*
(1430)
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):
First of all, I would like to correct an error in the preamble. I will just correct the one, because I happen
to have the Hansard right in front of me.
The member opposite said that I said there was no problem with
odometers. That is not what I said, Mr.
Speaker. What I said was‑‑I
just happen to be reading it, very timely‑‑from our department's
experience, we had at the time the question was asked, received no complaints. In that sense, it was not a widespread
concern of consumers to the government; however, the RCMP had a concern which
we shared. That is what I said. I did
not say there was no problem.
Since that time, Mr. Speaker, I should
indicate that I have been in close communication with the RCMP on that issue,
as we are in our department on a number of issues, including the home
renovations that he referred to in his preamble. We work in conjunction with the RCMP in
numerous investigations, in co‑operation with them; we have then, we do
now, we will continue to do so. That is
my answer to the preamble.
In answer to the question‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Martindale: How can this minister justify a tax break for
landlords whose property taxes in
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, this was a question that was
asked the other day, which I answered the other day. I will answer it again. There is a system of appeals. There is an ability to have the problem
addressed in the subsequent year. The
system is complaint‑driven; it is driven by application, as are most of
the laws in this country.
If my house is broken into, I call the
police. I do not expect them to be
standing at my door watching my house.
There are many, many, many thousands and hundreds of thousands of people
in Manitoba who respond to the law by indicating they have had a problem and having
the law enforcement officials take action on their concerns.
Consumer
Protection Legislation
Government
Support
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): The minister is saying she cannot or will not
do anything, so I will. Is the minister
responsible for protecting consumers prepared to support a private member's
bill in order to allow for rents to be rolled back in cases of windfall profits
to landlords? Will she support a private
member's bill to amend the legislation‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):
Mr. Speaker, I will not answer the preamble on this occasion because I
know Question Period is nearly over, nor will I address hypothetical
questions. However, I will say this: my department, in landlord and tenant affairs
and in all other aspects of my department, is concerned about an effective and
workable marketplace wherein the consumer and the corporation, the landlord and
the tenant, have a workable relationship that is fair to both parties. I will examine any bill put before this
Legislature to see if it meets my criteria of being fair and workable to all
those concerned on either side of the marketplace.
Student
Aid Clarification
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, I would just like to add to my answer to my critic to give some
further information so that the accurate information appears on the record,
that my department for student aid overspent its budget by $600,000 for the
third quarter.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister had ample opportunity
to answer that question before. Order,
please.
Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Point of
Order
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
There are many other opportunities for the
minister to put on the record in terms of the information. She could have asked for leave after Question
Period. There are other questions that
need to be asked, and the government does not want to allow the questions to be
asked from this side of the Chamber. She
should be ashamed of herself.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): On the same point of
order, Mr. Speaker, we have just had the height of the ridiculous. The members opposite asked a specific
question on student financial aid. The
minister did not have it at the time.
She tried to rise and provide that same information. She did so, and the members opposite hollered
her down. I say to the members,
apologize for your actions. The member
has the right to answer questions.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised, I had already
indicated to the minister that she had had ample opportunity to respond to the
answer. Order, please.
Speaker's
Ruling
Mr. Speaker: Now I have a ruling for the House.
On Monday, March 2, 1992, the Acting
Speaker the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) took under
advisement a point of order raised by the honourable member for Emerson (Mr.
Penner) during debate on second reading of Bill 9. In his point of order, he indicated that
comments by the Leader of the Second Opposition party (Mrs. Carstairs) made
during Question Period on February 20 did not reflect what he had said from his
seat about Dutch Elm disease funding.
I have some concern that the point of
order may not have been raised at the earliest opportunity. However, more importantly, the honourable
member for Emerson did not have a point of order. It may have been a dispute
over the facts. Let me quote from our
rule book, and I quote: "Points of
order are questions raised with the view of calling attention to any departure
from the Standing Orders or the customary modes of proceeding in debate or in
the conduct of legislative business . . ."
Beauchesne, Citation 322 states, and I
quote: "Points of order are
justified when there is some flagrant misuse of the rules, but they are
unfortunate necessities which should not be regarded as usual phases of
procedure . . ."
I would encourage all honourable members
to restrict their use of points of order to the purpose for which they are
intended.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would
you call adjourned debate on second readings of Bill 45 and then call the other
bills in the order as they are shown on the Order Paper.
DEBATE ON
SECOND
and Consequential
Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst), Bill 45, The City of Winnipeg Amendment,
Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
la Ville de Winnipeg, la Loi sur les municipalites et d'autres dispositions
legislatives, standing in the name of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms.
Friesen).
Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr. Speaker: Leave?
It is agreed.
Bill 9‑The
Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
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. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): I am pleased to be able to add my comments on
Bill 9, The Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act. I believe the government first raised the
notion of a new council in the 1991 budget.
In its attempt to present an image of action, it shuffled some existing
cabinet committees and research organizations.
*
(1440)
This Innovation and Technology Council
replaces the Manitoba Research Council and, of course, ironically, the Manitoba
Research Council budget was cut by $700,000 in the 1991‑92 year. The net
effect is an actual reduction in the support for research and development in
this province.
Why did the government do this? Well, with a motive. Again, there is an attempt to appear to be
doing something, to be doing something for the 50,000 Manitobans out of work,
for the record number of recipients of social assistance in this province, for
an economy, Mr. Speaker, mired in failures of this government and the federal
Conservative government. The council is
simply a public relations gesture to deflect from the real issues in this
economy, and of course, that is the dismal state of our economic condition.
Now I feel very compelled, of course, to
relate some of those conditions to the House and to the members today. I would like to start off with, of course,
Selkirk and some of the conditions that we are faced with there. One of the headlines in the paper: Food bank posed for March opening‑‑and
Selkirk will be the second rural area in the province to set up a food bank.
Over the next two weeks, volunteers will be stocking shelves and developing a
system for distributing and collecting of the food. The tentative plans will
see the food bank open for two days a week and, of course, the individuals who
will be using this service will be required to show their medical numbers to
determine family size, make‑up and so on.
This, of course, is just simply a Band‑Aid
solution to the larger problem that we have in this province. It is not really the solution to the
problem. It is a problem, of course,
faced by all MLAs in this House, and more recently, I think, in ours‑‑I
believe our case load has more than doubled in the last year as the economy
deteriorates and as the government's response to the needs of these individuals
diminishes. For this reason I get calls
from the
Recently I received a call from a woman
from a nearby municipality. She was
having trouble receiving short‑term social assistance, so I contacted the
reeve of that municipality and asked the reasoning why. He gave me the conditions of the
council. The rules state that there
would be no assistance provided to anyone while they are waiting for longer‑term
assistance. I relayed that in Selkirk,
of course, there is assistance at any level.
He said, well, this is not Selkirk and, as a matter of fact, we are
interested in cutting our social services allowance by 20 percent.
There is a real trend out there, I think,
to be tougher on social assistance recipients as opposed to offering them
broader assistance. The reason why we
have food banks, of course, is because of inadequate social assistance levels and
the very high unemployment rate in this province, upward to 57,000 Manitobans
out of work.
Again, read beside that headline about the
food bank, in Selkirk, Mandak Metal Processors are laying off 14 workers on
February 14. As the operations manager,
quote: We are seeing a slowdown with the
railways perhaps more severe than other years.
Soon, they hope, of course, that full
production will be expected to resume again in the spring.
(Mr. Harold Neufeld, Acting Speaker, in
the Chair)
I have a list of a number of small businesses
which have closed in Selkirk in the last short while. We have one of the first, I guess, Finesse,
which is a women's clothing store; More Than Kitchens, which is a kitchen
cupboard store in Selkirk; the Husky gas station closed, again, every one of these
having two or three individuals work for them, all of them unfortunately out of
work at this point; the Esso gas station; we had Riverside Furniture, which is
a very old store in the Selkirk community, closed; we got Francines in the mall
and one of the managers of the store was an old friend of mine, she was a
single mother, and now unfortunately she is out of work; Nite Owl Foods store
closed; Stepping Out Family Footwear closed, again in the mall, so we are
finding two side‑by‑side stores in our mall in Selkirk have closed
recently; Adi's Video store, Mr. Acting Speaker; Sports Card Fever; a coin‑operated
carwash.
I think one of the sadder closings of
course was the closing of our Macleods store, which has been a mainstay in
Selkirk for many generations. I know
that my grandfather, in the early '60s, was interested in buying this
store. On the weekend I walked into the
store. I knew some of the staff and, as
I walked through the store, all the emptying shelves reminded me of all the
empty promises of this government. There
was this young gentleman there, and I knew him from my previous visits to the
store, and as we walked down the shelves, he relayed the message of his
situation to me that he would be out of work in a very short time and, unfortunately,
he does not see where else he can find alternative employment. It left him in a very depressing state and,
unfortunately, myself as well.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker,
in the Chair)
Last year on Bill 70 we debated, which was
of course the freeze of public sector employees in our province. I made some comments then to the Minister of
Finance about how this would have a direct impact on the Selkirk economy, and I
would not mind relaying some of the information again, the fact that the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) closed the school of nursing, which was a
direct loss to the economy there in Selkirk of $3 million.
The other problem, the Rolling Mills asked
the employees of the mill to take a 10 percent cut in pay. Fortunately, though, that did not occur, so
we did not lose that additional revenue. Unfortunately, as I calculated then,
there are 1,775, approximately, provincial government employees in the
constituency of Selkirk. It has been
estimated that there would be a $70‑million loss to the province and to
the provincial economy. If you were to
divide that by 48,000 employees, it works out to approximately $1,500 per
employee.
Again, that represents the loss of over
$2.6 million to our riding, so we have the $3 million from the school of
nursing, and we have the $2.6‑million loss by the wage freeze. Of course, there is a magnifying effect of
approximately 10 times. I remember
during the presentations to Bill 70, there was a presenter, and he represented
a small business concern, and I asked him who shopped at his store, and he
said, well, a broad range of the general public, of course.
I said, would public sector employees be
included in that, and he said, well, definitely. I said, what do you think the factor would be
on their ability to purchase service if their wages have been frozen? Well, he said, very, very much in the
negative way, obviously, so you can see that this is the case now in Selkirk
with all these different retail outlets closing‑‑Finesse, More than
Kitchens, Husky, Esso, Riverside Furniture, MacLeods, Francines, Nite Owl,
Stepping Out, Adi's, Sports Card Fever, car washes. Again, this government's policy is having a
negative effect in the community of Selkirk.
What I would like to do now is to talk
again in a broader sense, on broader issues related to the Tory economic
failures, and speak more about the Conservative agenda. I have been reading an interesting book by
Maude Barlow. If I can find my notes,
there are a number of points I would like to raise from that article. There are seven points I would like to raise
from that particular article.
I will read the points and then I will
address the points further. Number 1,
tie the Canadian economy by a free trade agreement to the most powerful economy
in the world in which the corporate sector controls the government's agenda and
an unfettered free‑market ideology is firmly entrenched. Force economic restructurings; i.e., cut
jobs. Force alignment of cost
structures; i.e., force down wages, weaken union bargaining power. Force down labour laws and environmental
standards. Force down taxes. Force down
government spending on social programs, et cetera. Do it in the name of harmonization‑‑to
harmonize means to Americanize.
*
(1450)
Just this week, all members of the House
received this booklet, this ballot, from the Canadian Federation of Independent
Business. I have mine here, and they
have polled their members just recently this year, mandate 158. Question No. 4 says, should
In
Nationwide, 41 percent of the respondents
said yes, but 43 percent of the respondents said no; 15 percent were undecided.
Why would they change so
dramatically? Undoubtedly, this
federation, four or five years ago when the Free Trade Agreement was proposed
and debated, was a fervent supporter of free trade with the United States, but
now all of a sudden they are no longer interested in supporting any free trade
with Mexico. Why is that?
I think it is relevant again to quote a
particular story or anecdote dealing with this specific issue. I will talk about a boat manufacturer in
The owner, Peter Francis, testified before
a parliamentary committee in 1985, and he was not intimidated by taunts that
opponents of free trade were weak and inefficient. He saw clearly the real dangers of fighting
the
We are geared to a population of 25
million, he said. The task of expanding
to compete in a market of 250 million is staggering. The Canadian powerboat industry was protected
by a 15 percent tariff and a 71‑cent dollar. Unfortunately, A.C. Grew Incorporated
declared bankruptcy in the fall of 1988, an early casualty of the Free Trade
Agreement. Its rival, Doral Boats, again
a Canadian company, the only way it could remain afloat, Mr. Acting Speaker,
was to move to
Again, I would like to make some comments
about free trade. Free trade was supposed to create jobs. Of course, here is a quiz: Free trade will create more jobs especially
for our young people and put more money into the pockets of Canadian workers.
The Economic Council of Canada predicts that free trade will provide 250,000
additional jobs. That was a quote by
Brian Mulroney in the election of 1988.
Unfortunately, Brian was only out by about
700,000 jobs. When you look at the actual jobs that were created‑‑this
is the monthly average‑‑in 1987, 40,000 jobs; 1988, 26,000 jobs;
1989, 13,000 jobs; 1990 there was actually a minus 7,500 jobs created. Eight
hundred thousand jobs were created in
Tories said free trade will bring us jobs,
jobs, jobs. Instead
Unemployment, of course, has risen dramatically
to more than 10 percent, just under, and now it is probably approaching one and
a half million Canadians who are unemployed.
In this province, of course, there are 57,000 Canadians unemployed. A large portion of jobs lost are in the well‑paid
manufacturing sector, and according to the Organization of International
Cooperation and Development, manufacturing employment has fallen from 19
percent of total employment during the period before the deal was signed to 16
percent in 1991. An increasing number of
workers are confined to low‑paying, nonunion service sector jobs. In contrast, the number of decently paid
unionized manufacturing jobs is declining.
At the top end, a small group of professional executives has seen income
rise dramatically.
The federal and provincial Conservatives
said that free trade would give a major boost to Canada's economy by creating a
positive investment climate, and still we have high interest rates,
dramatically higher than the Americans, perhaps the severest recession in the
past 50 years, a massive shutdown of our manufacturing sector as more and more
firms transfer their operations out of Canada, both to the United States and to
Mexico.
Business investment has fallen
dramatically. In 1988, the last year
before the agreement was signed, investment rose 24.7 percent. During 1989, it
rose by only 5 percent, while in 1990 it fell by 2.3 percent. A further 6 percent to 10 percent decline is
expected when the 1991 figures are known.
The agreement was supposed to benefit our
export industries because tariffs would be lower, giving firms easier access to
the large
Interest rates: We have a particular issue right here in
Cedric Ritchie, who is the chairman and
chief executive officer of the Bank of Nova Scotia‑‑and again I
mention it is not too often you will be seeing us quoting a bank president here‑‑he
said, there is no doubt that Canadian firms are adjusting to the Free Trade
Agreement. The problem is that too many
are adjusting by leaving
Arthur Donner was quoted again: By early 1990, high interest rates have made
a recession virtually inevitable. The
combined effects of the Free Trade Agreement, the high interest rates and the
high Canadian dollar has decimated our Canadian economy.
Michael Wilson once said, bilateral free
trade with the
Mulroney has lied to Canadians about free
trade and its impact on social programs.
He said there is absolutely nothing in the Free Trade Agreement that
will stop the Government of Canada from maintaining all its social programs,
all its regional development programs; there is absolutely nothing; we are
going to maintain all of our social programs; social programs are a sacred
trust.
Now, of course, you see the erosion of
medicare. We see the erosion of the
federal transfer payments. Does
The Tories said free trade would benefit
consumers by reducing prices‑‑what a misnomer.
I will continue on with point No. 2, use
monetary policy, that is, interest rates and exchange rates to speed up
restructuring, to weed out weak companies, accelerate the loss of jobs and
downrate pressure on wages by speeding up import competition and creating a
recession. Nothing will produce massive
unemployment as fast as high interest rate policy combined with the policy to
cut public spending. High unemployment
keeps wage demands low, also a high interest rate is a good way to transfer
more wealth to those who have wealth. In
the name of fighting the deficit, use high interest rates to increase the
deficit, focus public attention on the urgency to reduce the deficit as a smoke
screen to hide the slashing of public spending.
*
(1500)
I have some quotes I would like to read to
you from a Maclean's article‑‑some of the business elite in our
country. We have Douglas Peters, chief
economist of the TD Bank: "The
first thing the government has to do is to say, 'Look, this recession is deeper
and worse than we expected,' and then start to do something about it."
Matthew Barrett, chairman of the Bank of
Montreal declared: "Helping Canadians without work makes good business
sense." Helping Canadians without work makes good business sense‑‑hardly
a friend of New Democrats.
We have Miller Ayre who is the current
chairman of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
He was expressing his personal views when he said: "The government has to face the fact
that there are short‑term economic problems that have to be dealt
with. They cannot continually look to
the long term for solutions." He
concludes with: "Right now, there
is a perverse logic that the sicker we are, the healthier we must be
getting."
In the Investment Dealers Association of
Canada little leaflet that again all members received, it says here: Federal and Provincial Financing, Budget
Deficit (Surplus). This is for
Mr. Acting Speaker, we had an indication
from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) yesterday that the deficit will be
even higher than he initially projected.
Number 3, bring in tax subsidies for high‑income
earners in large corporations. Say the
purpose is to free our private savings and unleash the entrepreneurial energies
of Canadian business. Increase taxes for
middle incomes and the working poor.
Where possible, do it through a mechanism such as inflation, de‑indexing
of tax brackets.
The National Council on Welfare calculated
that by 1988, the tax bill for the working poor had increased 44 percent, while
that of the wealthiest Canadians decreased by 6 percent. In 1989, the latest year for which statistics
are available, 118,000 profitable corporations paid no taxes on profits of $25
billion. Under the federal Conservatives, the federal revenue from corporate
tax was half, from 17 percent to less than 9 percent.
The most recent data that is available‑‑again,
15 Bronfman‑owned companies pay tax of less than 0.5 percent on a
collective profit of $1.598 billion.
Power Corporation paid no taxes on profits of $214 million. Xerox
Point No. 4, cut back social programs,
especially the universal ones. Do it in
the name of targeting those who need them most.
We just witnessed that with the federal government budget that was
brought down just this past week where they have decided to cease universality
of the family allowance program. We see this here in the government's where
they have de‑indexed 55 Plus.
Number 5, in the name of fighting
inflation, strengthen measures such as sales tax and high interest rates. Do this directly to public sector employees
by imposing a wage freeze. That sounds very ominous. We know that Bill 70 froze 58,000 Manitobans,
public sector employees in this province.
I related earlier how this has negatively affected my own community in
Selkirk.
Number 6, privatize profitable public
sector enterprises, deregulate, privatize.
We see this now and unfortunately I witnessd‑‑one of my own
critic areas, of course, is the MTS telephones.
We have noticed that as our government begins to deregulate the
industry, it allows the federal government to take over control of MTS. At one time, they were radically opposed to
the notion, but now, for some reason, they are responding quite favourably to
the idea of the CRTC taking control of MTS.
We have a quote from our Premier. In October of 1989, he said: Local phone rates are bound to go up if the
federal government seizes control over the Manitoba Telephone System. There
could be dramatic increases in the cost of basic phone service because of
lowering of long distance rates for big consumers.
We know now that the ministers,
fortunately, have now changed their tune in supporting CRTC control over
MTS. Again, we have a document from
Manitoba Telephone System, Competitive Preparedness for Message Toll
Competition, which is a competition of long distance rates in this
country. Is this innovation? I will quote from the article: Message toll competition will have a
significant financial and operational impact on the Manitoba Telephone
System. Capital and expense resources
requirements are expected to increase dramatically while settled revenues
experience a substantial decline.
The following points summarize the impacts
under the assumption of a competitive environment in 1994 framework: Network
and information systems modifications alone will require an estimated $88
million to $89 million in additional capital expenditures. Settled revenues are expected to decrease by
$70,000 in 1998, dropping to an estimated $118 million loss by the end of 2002,
assuming a competitive situation in the 1994 time frame. This impact is especially significant because
it relates to Telecom
We already know that the CRTC will
probably this year grant Unitel its licence to compete with MTS and other
publicly owned companies in this country.
Because of that, we know that local rates which have been subsidized by
long distance revenues will now unfortunately increase. All estimates are that it will only benefit
nine out of 10 users. One out of 10, of
course, will benefit from it. It has
been stated time and time again, even the Premier (Mr. Filmon) mentions it,
that the only beneficiaries of this will be the large corporations in this
country. Recently, long distance revenues from the telephone system were
reduced by 15.5 percent, and it is because of reductions in long distance
calls.
It seems like the only winners in this
game are big business users who use long distance in bulk and competitors such
as Unitel. Bud Sherman, a former
minister of the Crown, of the government, mentioned that nine out of 10
Canadians would end up paying more, paying higher telephone bills under
competition. Only 1 percent, only one out of 10 will actually benefit from a
competition in telephone rates. This government
seems inclined to support that‑‑when we remember what happened with
Community Calling and the incredible outroar people expressed during that.
*
(1510)
So we have No. 7, bring in all these
policies in the name of international competitiveness. What exactly does that mean, Mr. Acting
Speaker? We have heard these terms
mentioned before by this government. We
know just as I mentioned there before what it is going to cost for
international competitiveness. It is
going to cost, unfortunately, the Manitoba Telephone System $25 million initial
cost and $2 million per year to maintain apparently this Tory competitiveness,
as they like to mention.
I would like to make a few more comments
about
The past few years have been characterized
by high unemployment, bankruptcies, factory closures, escalating welfare
rolls.
On the other hand, the number of jobs
increased by only 1.4 percent in 1990.
The unemployment rate for 1991 averaged 8.8 percent, up significantly
from the 1990 average of 7.2 percent. Retail sales declined by 2.4 percent in
the first 11 months of 1991 over the same period in 1990. In 1990, retail sales showed zero growth from
the previous year. Obviously, the GST as
well as the recession have had a negative impact on the retail sector in this
province.
Urban housing starts dropped by 36.8
percent in 1991 from the 1990 level.
This was the fourth consecutive year of declining activity and
residential construction reflecting the poor economic situation and stagnated
the population level, which resulted largely from the loss of people through
interprovincial migration. The value of
building permits dropped by 22.9 percent in the first 10 months of 1991. We experienced a 12.6 percent decline in
1990. Farm cash receipts declined by 6.3
percent in the first nine months of 1991 compared to the decline of 6.1 percent
in 1990. Manufacturing shipments
declined by 13 percent in the first 11 months of 1991 or the same period in
1990, while they actually dropped by 3.2 percent in 1990. Average weekly wages increased by 4 percent
in 1991, virtually unchanged from the 4 percent rise in 1990.
Population net, interprovincial migration,
we were seventh in 1990 and eighth in 1991.
Retail sales in 1990 we were ninth, in 1991 we were sixth. Building permits, seven in 1990, eight in
1991. Manufacturing shipments we were
sixth in performance ranking in 1990, in 1991 we were tenth, we were in last
place. In investment,
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Order, please. Could I have those honourable members wishing
to carry on a conversation in the loge‑‑at this time I am
attempting to listen to the honourable member for Selkirk.
Mr. Dewar: Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker.
In investment we have 1990 we were fifth,
in 1991 we were eighth.
When you compare ourselves to the national
average‑‑comparing the national average of economic performance
with that of
Mr. Acting Speaker, in conclusion here,
the economic data analyzed in the presentation revealed that
Coupled with these policies have been the
federal and government deregulation and privatization initiatives that have
caused further loss of industry and transfer of activities out of our
province. Both rail and trucking
transportation have suffered in recent years.
The federal government's CNR has been moving jobs out of this province
to
Mr. Acting Speaker, hence
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Acting Speaker, I reflected for a period
of time about what my comments would be on this particular bill because I think
it is significant, although I get the distinct impression that I have heard it
all before and that I have been this way before. I reflect back until the 1960s, which was my
first involvement in actually politics, and up through the '70s and into '80s
and into the '90s, we see the restructuring of the restructuring of the
restructuring. We had the development
fund, and we saw the fiasco with CFI and other developments, and I really get
this sort of deja vu impression about this particular bill.
Mr. Acting Speaker, in trying to determine
how I would deal with this matter and precisely how I would in general terms
deal with a bill of this nature, I thought of what would happen if I were to do
my regular door knocking, if I were to go to the door and ask my constituents,
who are the source of all knowledge for us here, I would ask my particular
constituents to reflect on this bill. I
get the distinct impression that I would get‑‑although I did not do
it on this particular point during my regular door knocking this week‑‑my
impression is that I would get the response from my constituents, what is the
big deal, and what is it all about?
Somehow, I think they would say the same thing that I said. Have we not heard all of this before?
*
(1520)
Then I reflected on, Mr. Acting Speaker,
and thought that one of the reasons I am having trouble in dealing with this
particular bill, is that it has so many unanswered questions. Not only do we
have the element of something that we sort of heard before, and we have this
credibility problem, I suggest, with respect to Tory governments and economic
development in general, so we have that particular position out there. As well, I think of grave concern to me is
the fact that there is a whole raft and a great series of unanswered questions
with respect to this bill. I would like
to illustrate some of the questions I have with respect to this bill.
For example, what is the plan and what is
the general objective of this particular‑‑I mean, I have read the
objectives, Mr. Acting Speaker, I have drafted legislation. I know what you put in objectives, and I
actually read the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) comments in order to get some
understanding as to what the objective and the plan is for this, but he failed
to articulate it, and the bill fails to articulate it. There are unanswered questions. What are the parameters of this particular
organization, this particular bill?
Where is it supposed to fit in, in terms of the
What are the general goals? Well, we know the goals are economic
prosperity. We know the goals are an
attempt in this economy to try to get people back working, and I believe
members on that side of the House are attempting to do that. I do not agree with the method by which they
are choosing to do that, but Mr. Acting Speaker, I believe they are trying to
do that. Clearly, that would be a goal.
Where is the end point, Mr. Acting
Speaker? In dealing with problems of
this kind it has been my philosophy that you start from your objectives and your
goal and you work backwards to see how you would achieve it. That is a basic principle of problem solving,
I suppose. What are the goals of this
particular bill? What are the objectives we are trying to obtain other than an
Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act?
They are not there, which is why it lends itself to political criticism,
which is why it lends itself to members on this side of the House quite rightly
suspecting political motivations and being quite suspicious generally about
where this bill is going.
Where are the other examples of councils
and projects of this kind? Are there
other examples? Are there successful
experiments? Are there states, are there
provinces, are there countries that have innovated, that have utilized
something like this, and what has that achieved? That is not articulated.
What was the data that initially prompted
the change to move from the former research council to this new body? Upon what empirical basis did the government
make this decision? There is a cynical
side of me that suspects, given my experience of dealing with the Department of
Education, that there is no empirical basis, that it was more like sitting
around a cabinet room and kind of saying‑‑okay, Mike, what should
we do now? And this is what we are going
to do. We are going to restructure and
set up a new council. There is a cynical
side of me, Mr. Acting Speaker, that thinks that.
There is an idealistic side of me that
says perhaps there is a plan, perhaps there is data, perhaps there is empirical
evidence and a whole series of documentation that says this is the way we
should go. If that is the case, I would
like to see it. Members on this side of
the House would like to see it. What was the basis upon which this program,
this plan, was adopted?
Does this relate to
We get the distinct impression that the
old ship of state is kind of adrift, Mr. Acting Speaker, and that it kind of
moves this way and it moves that way, but that it is listing quite a bit. I just want to take that analogy a little
further, and when it is listing, the deck chairs kind of get stumbled about, so
what you do is‑‑hey, what are we going to do about this economic
problem? What are we going to do about
57,000 unemployed? Let us rearrange
those deck chairs. Let us all shift them
around. I know it is a tired and old
analogy, but the current of my thoughts was along the analogy of the ship of
state, Mr. Acting Speaker. Members on
this side I think quite rightly are suspicious of the motivations of this
government with respect to this particular bill.
Another question is, why was the $10
million chosen that was chosen and was adopted?
Why was that particular amount chosen? What is the future of it? Is it meant to expand or contract? Where is
that fund going? Every time you see in
any kind of legislation a fund to be established, at least in my experience,
that is what you key it on in terms of the management, the control and the
accountability. I guess the question I
have is, why was that chosen? Again, no
answers.
I peruse the comments of the Premier (Mr.
Filmon). I desperately am listening
through one ear to the comments of the honourable Minister of Highways and
Transportation (Mr. Driedger) to try to obtain some kind of acknowledgment or
some kind of response to these question but, alas, no response.
How were the members chosen? Why were those members chosen? I do not want
to criticize the 29 members who make up that body; there are some very
outstanding citizens, but I do not know why. In fact, I have to admit to a
particular bias, Mr. Acting Speaker, in areas of this kind, that we see a
retreading of the same individuals generally over and over again in terms of
these committees.
The same individuals over and over again
are used, be it on Winnipeg 2000 or be it other task forces, and I begin to
think that maybe there is a problem. I
mean, we have seen nothing happen in this economy in the last four years. In fact, we have seen a regression of this
economy in the last four years, and now we are turning to the same people that
we have turned to in the last four years to give us some kind of answers, some
kind of innovation. For that reason, I
am a little bit suspect as to how, and I would like some indication as to how
and why those particular members were chosen.
Further to that, I would like some
information as to why‑‑you know, the list of members on the
committee does read of a who's who of CEOs in leading companies in
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): None will
be so near and dear to our heart as this one.
Mr. Chomiak: No, question.
The Minister of Natural Resources indicated, there is no issue more near
and dear to their hearts, but you know, when they are pursuing their own
individual enterprises and their own individual interest, I get the impression
that they may not have perhaps the time and energy to devote the kind of gray
matter that is required to devote to this kind of a council.
*
(1530)
Just by way from my own perspective, again
no reflection on these individuals, but perhaps second‑level people in
their organizations, the research and planning types, the analysis types,
perhaps some of those individuals should have been put on the council, not
those. I dare say that perhaps
individuals, not just‑‑we chose the head of organizations including
labour organizations. Why not some
individuals just who operate small businesses?
Why not some individuals just with ideas and why not some individuals
just from x, y and z constituency?
Surely they have as much to contribute as those individuals.
Mr. Acting Speaker, one of the other areas
that concerns me is where is the interlinkage between this particular body and
organization and the federal government, or in fact international bodies? If there is anything we have learned, and
certainly the federal government constitutional initiatives are in that
direction‑‑and by the way I do not agree with many of them‑‑but
surely we have learned that there has to be some interaction, increasing
interaction between governments at various levels, et cetera.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
I do not know in this bill where the
linkage and the interaction is, so there is another basic question. As well, Mr. Acting Speaker, I ask, what are
the criteria by which this organization and by which this particular council
will be judged? What are we looking
for? That ties us back in to the
original lack of goals, to the original lack of objectives that I indicated
earlier on were a concern of mine. What
is the basis by which this organization will be judged?
Fundamental to any kind of economic
development and restructuring, Mr. Acting Speaker, and to anything in our
society is the question of what will be the public input into this particular
organization and to the particular developments. Now, certainly the public has access, and the
public has input through members of the Legislative Assembly, but I have
already illustrated that we receive very, very little by way of
information. There is very little in the
report.
There is very little that can be gleaned
even reading between the lines of the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) speech. We have heard very little from the
government's side as to what this organization is all about. So I am very, very concerned about public
input, about public accountability, about the accountability of the public to
fund into organizations of this kind.
Because if there is anything we have learned recently in our political
history, it is that accountability is a basic requirement in any kind of
allocation or expenditure of the public funds.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I could go on with
question after question after question.
In fact, I have spoken now for a good deal of time on my concerns
regarding the question, but just let me end this portion of my comments with a
couple of other questions. That is, what
are the target industries? Are there any
target industries? Are there any target
groups of industries? Is there any target
geographic area that is being looked at by this council, by this particular
industry? Is there any kind of critical
mass that is being developed? Is there
any kind of target industries? Are there
any linkages of industries to other industries that it is supposed to look at?
I noted that the Conservative government
in its 1990 election platform kind of targeted industries and targeted sectors
of the economy. Of course, those have
been eroding away so rapidly and have been falling so badly in the last several
years that we have heard very little from the government in that area other
than the job losses that have occurred.
So, Mr. Acting Speaker, understandably,
for political purposes, the government did not want to lay its ducks on the line,
no pun intended‑‑
An Honourable Member: Unlimited numbers of ducks.
Mr. Chomiak: Its unlimited number of ducks, Mr. Acting
Speaker, with respect to the target industries.
Still it is a very, very open question as to where are the target
industries that this particular body is going to address itself to. In the final analysis, with respect to the
questions on this bill, it is just too wide open, too few controls, too few
questions answered. That causes grave concern for two members on this side of
the House with respect to the body and to the bill.
I guess another concern that I have with
respect to this bill, and I know that we are not to deal with specifics, clause
by clause, in the bill because we will have opportunity to do that, is the question
of the fund. The fund is available for
the government to give grants to organizations.
This government and others have fallen into the trap that these kinds of
grants only go to the large organizations and to the large companies, to the
large organizations which, frankly, should be capable of raising the capital,
if they are so successful and if they are such innovative kinds of entities and
organizations.
Ironically, these Conservative governments
tend to give government grants and giveaways to these large corporations which
should, theoretically, if the philosophy is to be followed, be able to raise
that capital on the open market. They
fall into a trap time and time again of providing grants and loans, usually
forgivable, to organizations like this.
Mr. Acting Speaker, there is a rhetorical
refrain we hear all the time, that small business is the main generator of jobs
in the economy, et cetera, et cetera. I
wonder if the emphasis will be on those small businesses, those real generators
of jobs and wealth in the economy, or will it be to the large corporations, the
large companies that the Tory governments increasingly and continually provide
giveaways to in the old fashion. That is
a concern not only because of the people I represent in my constituency but
because we see what is happening in Manitoba, the strangling and the squeezing
out of those businesses and the very fundamental change that has occurred in
our economy as a result.
One of my pet points that has come up
recently, that has really been forgotten with respect to these large grants to
companies, Mr. Acting Speaker, is we end up with these large corporations sort
of doubly indemnifying them, that is doubly providing them with benefits. First off, we train people for the work
force, et cetera, and when these industries say, well, we do not have the
proper workers, train them again, we go back and give the industry a grant to
retrain them, something that industries and companies in other jurisdictions,
most notably Europe, do on their own, but something which we, in this province
and in this country, have failed to do.
So we say, okay, sure, we will take back those workers, we will retrain
them. Oh, you do not have to pay
anything to retrain them, we will do it.
Consequently these large entities, these
large companies, get double grants. They
get grants in large forgivable loans that come in the first instance, and then
when their workers are not trained‑‑in fact it is a triple grant‑‑by
the public system the way that they want, they come back in the system and we
pay again. We give them another grant to
retrain their workers, so it is my concern, with these so‑called business
managers and these so‑called individuals, who were supposed to understand
the workings of business and the economy.
They do a rather shoddy, slip‑shod
job of dealing with our tax dollars, and it is a grave concern of ours with
respect to this bill. This bill has no
plan. There is no general direction. We cannot fit this bill in, I suppose,
because the province has no coherent economic plan, a coherent economy
strategy, with which to fit this bill in.
Is this the economic strategy? I ask, is this the plan? Is this council the generator and the main
generator and the thing that is going to lead us out of the recession? If it is, it is too little, it is probably
too late, but if this is it, then let us know.
I suspect it is, and if this is the economic plan that is going to save
our province and save our economy, if this is what the government is proposing,
somehow is going to make us lead in Canada this year, then we are in serious,
serious trouble.
It is a very serious problem for the
province. You know, there is a
philosophical question that I want to diverge on. It is funny how this government sort of
shifts back and forth. Remember, it was no grants to companies, then it was
grants to companies, then it was no involvement, one day no ownership, the next
day 24 percent ownership in Linnet. When
you get that cork floating on the ocean, you get that kind of response, and you
get that situation where one day it is the Research Council, and the next day
it is the Economic Innovation and Technology Council, maybe in another year we
will hear an announcement of something else.
Members on this side of the House have
spoken quite accurately about the redirection of money, previously directed
from the Research Council, into another one.
I guess that is one of the reasons why we, on this side of the House,
have concerns about the rhetoric, and about how this might appear to be more of
a PR gesture than anything else, because we see money withdrawn from one area
and reintroduced with much fanfare, and more bells and whistles in another
area.
*
(1540)
I suspect we will see a lot of that next
week in the provincial budget. In
several days we will see money taken from one hand and given out with another
hand, and saying, hey, look everybody, look at what we are doing now for development. There is nothing wrong with that except state
it clearly and be upright and be forthright about it. Do not play politics with it. I guess that is one of the reasons why
members on this side of the House are again concerned about this bill and the
direction that it is taking us, Mr. Acting Speaker.
The government says that innovation is the
cornerstone of economic framework of the province in the 1990s. I mean, what does that mean? Again, I have to come back to basic questions
and fundamental questions. What does
that mean? What is the direction? What is the basis? What is the context it fits in? Where are the
studies? Where are the sectors that this
should proceed in? Where are the ailing
industries? Where are the traditional
industries that are having trouble, that need new innovation? Where are the industries that might have
future and potential growth?
Are those outlined in here? Do we have any concept? Have we heard anything from the other side
that identifies that? No, Mr. Acting
Speaker. All we hear is that innovation
is the cornerstone. It is much like the
other rhetorical phrase we often hear, that competition is the key. We do not know exactly what they mean by
that, but they keep saying competition is the key. We see no flesh tied to that particular
course of action.
This rush toward understanding and dealing
with technology and innovation is something that has clearly been identified,
but again, what is missing in terms of this rush to it, Mr. Acting Speaker, are
the goals and where we should be proceeding.
Let me perhaps illustrate by way of
example what I am trying to outline in terms of my criticisms of this
particular bill. We hear over and over
again, Mr. Acting Speaker, that we need technical training, we need professional
training. We have a myriad of
programs. We have programs offered in
some institutions, we have programs offered in other institutions, we have some
that have withdrawn here, some that are there.
We do not even have something as basic as an inventory, Mr. Acting
Speaker, of what programs are available, what the waiting lists are, what
opportunities are provided for you, whether there are jobs available once you
get this training in the first place.
We do not even have the basics, and we are
talking about doing all this technical innovation. We are talking about developing these jobs
when we have not even identified what they are.
We have not identified the training that is necessary, and we have not
even provided the public with the means to obtain that, Mr. Acting Speaker.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker,
in the Chair)
I get very frustrated when I hear this
refrain and this constant reference to technologically innovative or being
innovative or being technologically advanced, specifically along the lines of
training, Mr. Acting Speaker, and the basis upon which it is made. We just do not know.
It is because the government has not done
its homework, Mr. Acting Speaker. It is
because the government does not really know, and that is why the public
perceives that the ship of state is adrift, and that is why we on this side of
the House recognize that the ship of state is adrift. That is what causes great concern in a bill
of this kind.
Let me illustrate again, Mr. Acting
Speaker, by way of example, in dealing with the whole area of training and the
whole area of training individuals and programs, we do not even know the
Department of Education, the number of students we have or the dropout rate.
We talk about vocational programming and
technological training, that there are 300,000 jobs in this country that go
unfulfilled because the training is not there.
We have not identified what that training is, where it can be obtained,
who should be providing it, who should be taking it. It really strikes me that, frankly, the
government does not know where it is going.
It brings out a bill, it reconstitutes
another council, another committee, Mr. Acting Speaker, another organization
that is somehow going to tell us what we are going to do, and where we are
going to go. I am happy to hear the
member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) is with me on this entirely.
One of the things I like about the bill,
Mr. Acting Speaker, and unfortunately it is not in the bill, but I picked it
out from the comments of the Premier (Mr. Filmon), in fact the press releases
of the Premier, that they are going to adopt a co‑ordinated approach of
government departments. Now I do not
know if members on that side of the House have heard my broken record references
time and time again to the co‑ordinated approach that must be taken in
many areas of government, but I have done it constantly with the Minister of
Education. I am happy. I welcome the initiative to co‑ordinate
the approach of all departments. In
fact, I would like to see the government go much further.
I will use the opportunity, since I am
talking about the co‑ordinated approach, to urge the government to
respond to an initiative in that area, which was a joint presentation of the
Manitoba Teachers Society, the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, the
Manitoba Association of School Superintendents and MTS to the government of
Manitoba to adopt a co‑ordinated approach and a co‑ordinated
strategy by December 31, 1991, to education programs and delivery of services
to children. Unfortunately, Mr. Acting Speaker, even in this area, which is
probably more readily identifiable than the co‑ordinated approach that
one could take for the Economic Innovation and Technology Council initiative, even
in that limited educational area the government has not met that
guideline. It has not met that deadline,
and again does not know where it is going.
Having said that, at least the First
Minister (Mr. Filmon) in his press release indicated that there was going to
be, and there is, a council or board I guess of ministers of those government
departments that are working together in this area. I actually welcome that co‑ordinated
approach and co‑ordinated initiative, and I would urge on the government
in fact that they go much further in this area, because it is an area that
clearly‑‑the time of pigeonholing problems and pigeonholing things
approach, the one department versus another department versus another
department, are over. It is my viewpoint
that approach to problems is something that perhaps was sufficient in the
1930s, in the 1940s and the 1950s, but it is not appropriate to the needs of
today. I welcome that approach, Mr.
Acting Speaker, and I hope that it works.
You know, as we talk about economic
development and economic innovation one cannot help but comment about the
devastation and the terrible effect that the economic recession, and I dare say
the Tory policies or lack thereof, is having on rural
While I am on that point I will again
repeat, there is not a street in my constituency that I have door knocked on in
the last two years that I have not met a family, and it is usually several
families, that there is unemployment. In
20 years of door knocking and campaigning politically, I have never seen that.
Now I was not around in the 1930s, Mr. Acting Speaker, but I expect that is
sort of akin to what happened then.
There have been people in my constituency that have had their homes
foreclosed and lost through no fault of their own. That is the human toll that cannot even be
reflected or cannot even be articulated in this Chamber.
I diverged, Mr. Acting Speaker, but I
return to the effects of what is happening in rural
They asked why the government has
forgotten rural
*
(1550)
I sincerely hope that what is happening,
and the government's lack of any kind of real initiative in rural
Mr. Acting Speaker, as you can see, I have
a lot of concerns about this particular bill, and I want to reflect a little
bit on something. One of the things that
we always forget when we talk about technology and innovation is something that
is our basic resource. I know it is trite
to say, but it is our people. One would
hope that the strategy tied in with this will address that resource, will tie
in with the education and training strategy.
An Honourable Member: Indeed, it will. You can take that as a given.
Mr. Chomiak: The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns)
has indicated to me that that is a given.
I certainly hope that it is the case.
I certainly hope that it is tied in with the training policy and the
initiative that should be undertaken, and not just for those that qualify under
federal government programming, but many, many thousands that have fallen off
have no means and no ability to qualify, because they are hurting.
I hope that it has something to do with
that, because the best investment we can make, if we have to invest that 10
million in people, then that is where the 10 million should go‑‑that
is where it should go.
An Honourable Member: David, when you hear the budget next
Wednesday, you will burst out with applause.
Mr. Chomiak: I just hope, Mr. Acting Speaker, that when
the budget is announced, as the minister indicated, it does not induce in me a
seventh, another sleep, when it is introduced.
I spoke earlier about the linkage in what
would appear to be another shortcoming of the bill, the linkages between the
federal government and its international activity and how we are going to co‑ordinate
that. I have to comment that a part of
the difficulty, of course, is that the federal government is supposed to have a
strategy and an initiative of this kind too.
We all know, and even members on that side of the House will agree that
the federal government and the Conservative government strategy has been a
disaster for this country, it has been a disaster for this province.
Part of the credibility problem that this
government has, in introducing a venture of this kind, is the fact that the
federal government said, talk the same show.
They talk the same act, and we did not see any results from this
government.
I have limited time, Mr. Acting Speaker,
and I have many topics to touch on. One
of the points I wish to urge the government to consider, and I know they will
be scrupulous and that careful scrutiny will be paid to my comments by all
members on that side of the House. I am
sure around the cabinet table the lights will be burning late at night as they
read my comments. I hope the government
just does not forget some of the traditional industries which have been the
basis of this economy like they have forgotten the transportation industry in
the city of
I hope that the government, in looking at
new technical innovations and new developments, does not forget some of our
traditional industries which are still viable and take some stands on them.
The transformation we have seen in the
economy in the city of
I think the government has to take a look
at that and has to take a very serious stand, because it is one of the bases of
our economy, as well as the whole area of manufacturing, which I will not
probably have the opportunity to get into.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I think I will
basically close my comments now just by taking it back to where I started. There are too many questions that are
unanswered about this bill. It is very
unclear to me what they want to do. I am
very concerned about the accountability with respect to the fund. There are a good deal of questions that
require answers, and in fact the fact that these questions exist unfortunately
may doom this enterprise right from the start.
It appears to be, at least on the
information which has been provided in the bill and provided from my reading of
the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) speech, that if these questions have not been
fundamentally dealt with before the introduction of this bill, before the
establishment of this council, that it might be seriously hindered right from
the very start.
I urge members on that side of the House
to address some of these questions, table some of the information, table some
of their economic analysis upon which they are going to proceed, outline for us
the objectives. Then perhaps we could
deal with some of the real difficulties that are occurring in this economy, Mr.
Acting Speaker. Then somehow we can deal
with getting the
Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): Mr. Acting Speaker, I move to adjourn the
debate.
An Honourable Member: Seconded by whom?
Mr. Santos: Seconded by the member for
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).
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 Dauphin (Mr. Plohman). Stand?
Is there leave that this bill remain standing? Leave?
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Agreed.
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): I really appreciate the opportunity to speak
on Bill 10 today, although I think I should start off with a little history
lesson and maybe start off by renaming this bill. This bill, I think, should be called the
"let us re‑elect a Conservative government in
*
(1600)
Now, I am not as long in the tooth as some
members in this House. I have not been
in this House for as long as, for example, the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif
Evans), but I have been in this province as long as he has been in this House. I recall a time when there was a Conservative
government back in the '60s that won a mandate and served four years and came
close to re‑election. In order to
facilitate that re‑election it built a dam. It built the Kettle Rapids dam. In fact, I was up north working on that very
project. They won re‑election. They won a second mandate, and they went on
to govern for four more years.
Now, they did not build a dam in that
second mandate. The Schreyer government
came in, it served its four years and then prior to its next election it built
a dam. It built the Long Spruce dam and
it won a second year. Then it left, and
in came the
An Honourable Member: Built a dam‑‑
Mr. Alcock: ‑‑built a dam, and got re‑elected.
But now, prior to the re‑election,
prior to the fall actually of the Pawley government, the then opposition party
said, no, we have a plan. We have a plan
for
Some Honourable Members: Build a dam.
Mr. Alcock: Build a dam.
Mr. Acting Speaker, it is unfortunate but true, that the only economic
stimulation that has been effective in this province in the last 30 years has
been these massive hydro development projects in the north of this
province. It is unfortunate that for
those same 30 years, we have had the promise of great benefit from all of this
expenditure in the northern part of this province.
We have always said that this would
provide us with a cheap, renewable source of energy, that would allow us to
build a manufacturing and development infrastructure in this city and others in
the province that would carry this province into the next century. The unfortunate and unavoidable fact is that
has never happened. As soon as the
expenditure tails off, as soon as the construction of the dam is over with,
this province once again goes into a very serious economic decline, because no
government, on either side of this House, has had the vision to invest those
profits, to reinvest in this province in a way that allows the other sectors of
the economy to gain some of the vitality that the construction and
manufacturing sector will have when this dam comes on stream.
The question before us with Conawapa is,
at what price? If there was a strong
economic case to be made, that we needed that power, and it was in our economic
best interest to spend $5 billion next year, I would stand in this House and
say, let us build this dam; but all of the evidence we have suggests that we do
not need to build this dam for a few years.
We will have to build it eventually, but we do not need to build it now.
We do not need to carry the investment and
financing costs of that dam. We do not
need to inflict the additional damage on the environment. We can take the time to look at what the
conservational alternatives are. We can take
the time to look at the long‑term needs of this province, and we can
build that dam at a time that is more appropriate to the needs of this
province.
What does this bill ask us to do? This bill asks us to grant nearly a 225
percent increase in the borrowing authority granted to Manitoba Hydro. That is on top of an increase in The Loan
Act. We gave them authority to borrow
$500 million in The Loan Act that we passed in the last session of this House.
The question is, and the fear that I have,
is that the government is going to ignore the environmental processes that are
before us, is going to ignore any of the economic data that is before us, is
going to ignore any of the analysis that has been put before the government on
the need for this dam at this time, and go ahead with it, because like every
government that has won a second term in the last 30 years, they need this dam
to get re‑elected. I think that is
the wrong reason to do it. Every election for the last 30 years has been a
"dam" election, it seems.
What they are asking for in this bill is
authority to increase Manitoba Hydro's ability to borrow without the scrutiny
of this Legislature, $500 million, a half a billion dollars. With a half a
billion dollars in operating authority dealing around the fringes, putting in
the roads, putting in some of the infrastructure, putting in some of the
preparation work for Conawapa, they can make the final decision on Conawapa
much more difficult by simply raising the stakes. I think that is wrong.
(Madam
Deputy Speaker in the Chair)
We saw them go before the Public Utilities
Board with incorrect information. We
have also seen them faced with a situation where they have the opportunity to
renegotiate the deal with
Why would a collection of sound business
people with good economic experience, people who have met a budget‑‑as
the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Connery) always tells us‑‑why
would they look at the numbers, become aware of what the financial implications
of this proposal are, this dam is, and still go ahead with it? What could be their motivation? There is not an economic rationale for it;
there is not a need for the investment at this point, so what could be their
rationale? No businessman who has met a
payroll or otherwise would spend money he does not have to spend, or buy
equipment in advance of his need‑‑
Mr. Edward Connery (
Mr. Alcock: But if you bought carrot seed‑‑now,
the member for
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that the
government needs to reconsider its intentions relative to Conawapa, and it
needs to take the very good advice that has been offered by a variety of people
in this Chamber on all sides of the House.
It needs to make the proper, sound economic decision rather than allow
its own political ambitions and its own failures with the economic management
in this province, to drive it towards a decision that is not going to be in the
best interest of the people of this province.
* * *
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
An Honourable Member: Which bill were you talking about?
Mr. Lamoureux: The City of
* * *
Madam Deputy Speaker: As previously agreed, the second reading of
Bill 10 will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Dauphin
(Mr. Plohman). Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member for
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
The government has put in a request from
the oppositions if we could possibly start debating Bill 45 in the hopes that
we could pass the bill into at least the committee stage, hoping for Monday or
possibly Tuesday. We are going to do our
darndest to ensure that we can have a couple of speakers. That is why I thought maybe I would speak today
to this particular bill as opposed to waiting the next couple of days, because
I know my colleague from St. James (Mr. Edwards) is going to be speaking on the
bill tomorrow and we will likely have a speaker or two on Monday. We hope that Bill 45 will be on the top of
the Order Paper so that, in fact, we can get a number of concerns that we have
on the record.
We have a lot of concerns regarding Bill
45. It is suffice to say, Madam Deputy
Speaker, that this is a piece of legislation that should have been introduced
last December. We have a number of
concerns regarding the bill. In a
nutshell, this is a bill which has a lot of flaws in it. It is flawed to such a degree that it would
probably be best to start over from scratch and to have it more of a Headingley
bill, as opposed to a City of
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that
everyone inside this Chamber would acknowledge the fact that Headingley is in a
very unique situation. There are not
very many communities such as Headingley that have the same type of
circumstances that have caused the concerns that have come up over the last
little while.
*
(1610)
In fact, the Cherniak report had
recommended a number of things that the City of
In fact, we had agreed wholeheartedly with
the referendum that the government had put forward and a very strong message
was sent to the government, in fact, to all political parties in the province,
that Headingley overwhelmingly decided that they wanted to go their own way.
Because there was a commitment from the
government and, I know, from the Liberal Party to the referendum, we have to
live up to that commitment, Madam Deputy Speaker. We concur with the thought that the municipal
board is now to go over and come up with recommendations in terms of a
boundary, and we support the fact that they are the ones that are going to be
coming up with the recommendations.
We have some questions in regard to how is
Headingley going to be established as a rural municipality. Because I do not have the expertise, as my
colleague for St. James (Mr. Edwards) does, I am not going to go too deep in
terms of the secession and some of the technicalities of it, Madam Deputy
Speaker. I do not want to embarrass
myself primarily, but because it is such a very sensitive issue.
There are some very potential problems
that come out of this particular bill in the way in which the bill is being
presented before us. It is a bill which
is saying, in essence, it is coming up with a strategy, or not necessarily a
strategy‑‑it is making statements within the legislation, that
promote the secession of other areas of the city of Winnipeg. As Headingley is unique, there are other
unique communities in the city of
What we have done in this particular piece
of legislation is, we have allowed the government to really plan the course of
the future of the city of
What is important here is that we have to
do what we can to ensure that the problems that are in the different areas of
the city, whether it is St. Germain or Transcona, whatever the area might be,
and if they feel that there are some injustices, natural injustices, that are
there that are leading to the debates of seceding from the City of Winnipeg,
that we should be doing what we can to encourage, to resolve some of those
issues, so that in fact the city can stay together.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it was a number of
years ago back in the early '70s in fact when we heard all of the arguments for
and against the need to have a unicity.
We saw which arguments had in fact won out. [interjection] The Minister for Government Services (Mr. Ducharme)
points out that Headingley should not have been in there. I think that the residents of Headingley have
come to that conclusion and, because of the commitments, as I say, from all of
us that we should have to live into those commitments.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we should be looking
in terms of what it is that we can be doing to reflect on the debates that were
brought forward back in the early '70s as to why the city needed to become one
urban centre and the benefits of having one urban centre. Now if there are areas of the city that feel
for one reason or the other that it is in their best interest to secede from
the City of Winnipeg, then we need to be sitting down, particularly the
department needs to be sitting down with those communities and going over what
the issues are in an attempt to try to alleviate the concern so that we do not
see the City of Winnipeg breaking up.
That is why, when we look at this
particular bill, what it does is, it leaves it too wide open. I think it would have been more appropriate
to have this bill dealing strictly with the municipality or the future
As I say, we believe that the bill needs
to be rethought completely and, in fact, redrawn. If at all possible we will do whatever we can
as the third party of the Chamber to ensure speedy passage of such a rethought‑out
bill. We are not too sure if the
amendments that we would want to propose or could possibly propose would address
the concerns that we have. I believe,
Madam Deputy Speaker, that a majority of the people, both in the city of
A bill that we are really looking for
should provide only what is necessary for the secession of Headingley, such as
the redrawing of the boundaries for elections to occur in the rural
municipality or what it would take for the rural municipality to come into
force, that there should be something there for the transition of powers to the
rural municipality from the City of Winnipeg.
Madam Deputy Speaker, those are the things
we believe any bill that allows Headingley to secede should be addressing, that
it does not need to be as thorough as it is being proposed from the government,
that as the bill is currently read many would read that it is in fact an
invitation for many residents of different communities to apply for
secession. That causes a great deal of
concern to all of us, at least in the Liberal Party, and I would argue to a
great number of the constituents that I represent and to the other constituents
that the minister represents.
The bill is too wide open. The bill needs to be changed in a very major
way, and I would encourage the minister to rethink the wording, the fundamental
structuring of the bill itself, and to do what ultimately he feels is in the
best interest of the city of Winnipeg as one urban municipality, not in terms
of how a government, whether it is this government or any future government
here, might be able to facilitate future secession.
*
(1620)
This bill in large part, Madam Deputy
Speaker, takes out the debate of any future secession for some of the
communities within the urban city line away from this Chamber. I believe that is wrong, because at least as
an opposition party we had an opportunity when we made a commitment in terms of
the referendum and a commitment to live up to the results of the
referendum. At least we have an
opportunity to put our comments, our debates, on the record, because the bill
is required.
If other areas of the city, and I made
reference specifically to St. Norbert or St. Germain, were to decide that they
want to go in this same direction, we are not convinced that the government of
the day, whatever stripe it might be, would be obligated to bring it back to
the Legislative Chamber. That is in
principle where I personally disagree with it wholeheartedly, because any
debate that would see the potential demise of the City of Winnipeg causes a
great deal of concern, Madam Deputy Speaker, to each and every individual, not
only in the city of Winnipeg but in the province of Manitoba, because it has an
impact on all of us.
We have infrastructures that we have to
maintain and, as I say, I am sure I cannot speak as eloquently as our member
for St. James (Mr. Edwards) will tomorrow if the bill is introduced at that
time or brought first on the Order Paper, and we are anticipating that it will,
but suffice it to say that this bill does need to be changed.
I did want to get those very few comments
on the record and to encourage the minister to, in fact, take very seriously
the need for any future debate on secession, however minor it might be, that
that debate should be inside this Chamber, that it should not be within the
confines of a cabinet room.
We will be seeking those types of
assurances from the minister once we go into the committee stage. If the minister is unable to assure us of
that commitment, then I would hope that the minister would give serious
consideration to changing the legislation in its entirety if necessary.
I believe it is safe for me to say that we
will, as the Liberal Party, facilitate or do whatever we can to ensure that the
residents of Headingley achieve what it is that they are trying to do, because
we did make a commitment to it as a third party. We are willing to live up to that commitment,
as the government itself is doing but, by doing that, let us not in any
irresponsible or unintentional way take the debate outside of this Chamber from
any potential other community or group of residents that might want to secede
from the City of Winnipeg in the future.
We have a major role to ensure that the City
of Winnipeg stay together as one, and I believe with this restructuring of this
particular piece of legislation that we can achieve that and to assure the
minister that he will have the support of the Liberal Party in the changing of
the bill that would make it more a Headingley bill than a City of Winnipeg,
that will leave it wide open and would take the debate outside of this Chamber,
something that we could not support.
The debate of the future of the City of
As a closing remark, I would say that we
do want the residents of Headingley to have what they have justifiably fought
for and we had concurred with.
On that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you
and thank the House for allowing the leave for me to speak on Bill 45.
Madam Deputy Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen).
Bill 12‑The
Animal Husbandry Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion, the honourable
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) to resume debate on second reading of
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).
An Honourable Member: Pass.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Bill 14‑The
Highways and Transportation Department Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion, the honourable
Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) to resume debate on
second reading of 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 Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
An Honourable Member: Pass.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Bill 15‑The
Highway Traffic Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion, the honourable
Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) to resume debate on
second reading of 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).
An Honourable Member: Pass.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Bill 20‑The
Municipal Assessment Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion, the honourable
Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) to resume debate on second reading
of Bill 20 (The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
l'evaluation municipale), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Wolseley (Ms. Friesen).
An Honourable Member: Pass.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Bill 21‑The
Provincial Park Lands Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) to resume debate on second reading of
Bill 21 (The Provincial Park Lands Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
parcs provinciaux), standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake
(Mr. Clif Evans).
An Honourable Member: Pass.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Bill 22‑The
Lodge Operators and Outfitters Licensing
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) to resume debate on second reading of
Bill 22 The Lodge Operators and Outfitters Licensing and Consequential
Amendments Act), standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake
(Mr. Clif Evans).
An Honourable Member: Pass.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Several of my colleagues and one member of
the third party have already spoken on this bill, on the general outlines of
this bill and what we are concerned that it will do for the tourism industry in
the
I would like to begin my remarks, Madam
Deputy Speaker, by putting this bill in the larger context that we in this
House have been talking about for several years now, that is, the larger
economic context. The economy of our
country, and most certainly the economy of our province, is in very bad shape.
We have been attempting, largely without
success I might add, to convince the government that the government must take
some specific proactive actions in order to give the economy of Manitoba a
boost, in order to give the people of Manitoba some hope that their government
is responding to the needs of all Manitobans including the needs as we have
mentioned very extensively in this House of the 57,000 unemployed Manitobans,
as today was mentioned during Question Period, the 17,000 unemployed youth of
this province, an enormous increase over past years.
We have been asking the government to
act. We have been asking the government
not to just study and consult and establish groups and round tables and
advisory committees. We have been asking
the government to actually take action to facilitate the recovery of the
economy of the
Tourism in the
Madam Deputy Speaker, we do have many
natural resources in this province, natural resources that can be used very
effectively as tourist attractions that can be used to bring more people to the
province to enjoy what we have to offer in the area of natural beauty, natural
wonders, one might almost say. The
potential is vast and largely intact.
*
(1630)
In the city of
As someone, on a personal note, who has
organized at least four major events in the Convention Centre, I have only the
highest praise for the Convention Centre facilities and the staff. I have heard it said that
We also have, Madam Deputy Speaker, one
million people, and people that visitors have stated on many occasions have
proven to be one of our best tourist attractions. The hospitality and the kindness and the
openness of the people of
One area of our province, the central and
northern part of our province, is the area of the province that relates most
closely to Bill 22. The largest
percentage of lodge operators and outfitters perform their livelihood in the
central and particularly northern areas of this province. They are justifiably concerned, as are all
members of the province, certainly all business people in the province and all
residents of
They are justifiably concerned, many of
them, with the impact that Bill 22, if passed unamended or without certain
major clarifications, will have on their ability to operate first‑class
facilities that will attract, not only the people who have come to their lodges
before, but will enable them to attract an ever‑increasing number of
people to their recreational facilities.
Madam Deputy Speaker, Bill 22, in the
beginning talks about the resource‑based tourism industry of the
province, and that it is in the interests of all Manitobans that these
resources are conserved and maintained in a sustainable manner, so that the
industry can continue to be a vital part of the
The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) put
on the record several days ago comments and statements and personal examples of
his having talked with lodge owners, with his having participated as a member
of a northern constituency, and also as a person who is out for a good
recreational experience with the northern lodges and with the northern lakes
and beauty of the north of Manitoba.
I, Madam Deputy Speaker, have had the
opportunity to spend a fair bit of time outside the city of Winnipeg and in the
northern parts of this province and can from my own personal experience attest
to the beauty and the magnificence of the natural land that we have been given
and for which we must remain accountable.
We do, on this side of the House have some
concerns about the general outlines of the bills. While we need to expand and enlarge our
tourism facilities in the province of Manitoba, with particular emphasis on
these facilities outside the Perimeter and perhaps more emphasis outside the
communities of the southern and central part of the province which do have a
fair amount of publicity and activity taking place in festivals and activities
that each area puts on very successfully every year, we need to look in the
context of Bill 22 at our northern lodges and outfitters. We need to spend a great deal of time and
energy and resources on promoting those lodges and those outfitters, those
recreational activities which have proven to be so successful to date. However, the major concern that we on this
side of the House are expressing on second reading of this bill is the impact
that this bill will have on those lodges and outfitters, particularly in light
of the fact that the licensing and regulations and regulating and rating of
these lodges will now be done by the Department of Natural Resources as opposed
to being continued as a part of the Industry, Trade and Tourism department.
*
(1640)
On the surface of it, Madam Deputy
Speaker, it may appear to be a very small, insignificant, administrative,
housekeeping measure. However, as we
have found to our chagrin on many occasions with this government, things that
on the surface appear to be innocuous, simple and not very important often have
enormous implications when you dig a little deeper. When you think about actually implementing
the changes that the government anticipates, it becomes clearer and clearer
time after time that there are additional problems that on first reading might
not have been apparent.
One of the major concerns that we on this
side of the House, and concerns that have been expressed by lodge owners in the
change of mandate from the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism to Natural
Resources, is the whole area of accountability, of expertise, of the ability of
the Department of Natural Resources to be able to undertake the role that this
bill will require of it. We must look,
Madam Deputy Speaker, in the context of the Department of Natural
Resources. This government has consistently
cut back the resources available to the Department of Natural Resources. We have discussed in Estimates, and in the
House have had question after question in debate after debate, that concern.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Did they answer your questions?
Ms. Barrett: My honourable friend from St. Boniface asks
if they have answered the questions, and I think he and I would agree on the
fact that they have not only not answered the questions, but whether they
attempt to answer them directly or not, they manage more often than not to
skirt the issue, to skate around any straightforward answers. When we do get information through Estimates,
et cetera, we find out that in actual fact the Department of Natural Resources
is being cut back in numbers of staff, in resources allocated to the
requirements of that department.
Now I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in
that context, in the context of a need for good solid statutes and regulations
dealing with this important tourism industry, and in the context of the fact
that this government has over time cut back very severely on the ability of the
Natural Resources department to do even the jobs that it had been assigned to
it before Bill 22, how can we have any sense of security in the ability of this
government's Department of Natural Resources to be able to undertake what Bill
22 will require of them?
They have cut back, Madam Deputy Speaker,
on the people who clean the provincial parks.
They have cut back on the people who groom cross‑country ski
trails. They have cut back on the people
in the Natural Resources department who have been attempting to make our
tourism industry an effective, positive part of our economy of the province.
How can we then count on them to be able
to provide what is essential for the lodge owners and the outfitters of
northern
We would ask, is the Minister of Industry,
Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) prepared to move those staff years that are
currently now providing that licensing, rating, and regulation of the lodge
industry in northern Manitoba to the Department of Natural Resources? Have they consulted with each other? Do they know the impact this Bill 22 will
have on the staffing requirements of both of their departments?
If past history is any indication, Madam
Deputy Speaker, regrettably the answer to those questions is most likely to be
no. This government appears to make
changes to bring out new initiatives, minimal though they may be, without
consulting among themselves and without an understanding of the global context
within which these changes are being implemented.
The current members and staff of the
Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism who deal with the lodges and
outfitters in northern
The rating of a lodge in northern
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Mr. Speaker, a tourist who comes from
somewhere outside the province of Manitoba or even outside the country to
northern Manitoba anticipating staying in a five‑star lodge had better
have five‑star accommodations or that person will never come back
again. Not only will we lose that
person's repeat business, but we will certainly lose the word‑of‑mouth
advertising which is the lifeblood of this industry.
Can we count on Natural Resources staff,
who are totally overworked and understaffed now, to be able to take on those
additional functions? Will there be
training? Will there be a guarantee on
the part of this government that additional staff years will be put into the
Department of Natural Resources to undertake the provisions of Bill 22? Will it just be a transfer of staff years
from Industry, Trade and Tourism with the people in those positions just going
from one department to another? Then one would ask, if that were the case, why
change at all? Why have Bill 22? Those
things will become clear, I am sure, as we move into committee hearings and
debate on third reading.
The other side of the equation is not only
the Industry, Trade and Tourism people who currently have the expertise and for
whom these jobs are part of their mandate, but it is the Department of Natural
Resources.
As I stated earlier, the Department of
Natural Resources is already understaffed.
The Department of Natural Resources now has a mandate to ensure that
licences, laws and regulations are enforced as they respond to fishing and
hunting, not as they respond or are a part of or look at the lodges or the
accommodation or the facilities, but just that the regulations governing
hunting and fishing are observed.
*
(1650)
These are two very different parts of the
tourism industry in northern
I would like to put on the record several
other areas that we have a great deal of concern about that I hope the
government will be able to address to our satisfaction as the legislative
process goes forward.
What has the government done in the way of
consultation regarding this Bill 22? The
government has said that it is in response to our concerns. Members of the government side have stated
off the record that the lodge owners want this legislation. We know for a fact, having consulted a number
of lodge owners, that they have very serious concerns about the legislation as
it has been drafted. We would like to
know what the consultative process was.
Did the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), did the Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) actually consult with lodge owners
and outfitters about the specifics of this bill, about the implications of this
bill, about who actually will be implementing this bill before they made this
change? We are not at all clear, Mr.
Speaker, on this point and have some very serious reservations.
Mr. Speaker, consultation for this
government has often been used as a reason to help them avoid decisions, to
help them be seen to be doing something without having done something. I have put on the record several examples of
ostensible consultation that has been undertaken by this government that has,
in fact, turned out to be a method whereby the government is able to hide
behind its very high degree of inaction.
Mr. Speaker, there is a role for
consultation in the legislative process.
We are asking this government to inform the House as to that
consultation process, if any, that was undertaken before Bill 22 was presented
to the House. Consultation, if it is used properly, can help in making good
legislation and in making good governing decisions. As I have stated before, we are not at all
clear on this side that that process has been undertaken. We will look forward very much to the
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) and the Minister of Industry, Trade
and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) sharing their consultative processes with us.
Another major area that concerns us in
Bill 22 is the large amount of discretionary power given to the minister in
this bill. We will, as I have stated
before, be making those concerns very clear as we get into third reading where
we can go clause by clause.
The member for St. James (Mr. Edwards),
several days ago, put these concerns on record where he talked about the
granting of larger and larger amounts of discretionary authority to the
government itself, which is something that we on this side of the House are
very concerned with as well. I will only
give the House one example of where that has taken place. Where you have enormous amounts of
discretionary power in the minister, in the administration, in regulation,
rather than in statute, you do not have accountable government.
Accountable government requires statutes
brought before the Legislature that can be debated, that go to public committee
hearings, that can have a full airing.
This is something that the government has
done in many, many cases. One that
particularly stands out on this side of the House and in the community at
large, and that is the government's high‑handed, undemocratic use of The
Child and Family Services Act when it recentralized the Child and Family
Services agencies through regulation.
Over a weekend, it implemented this decision which had clearly been
underway for many months without public consultation, without going through the
legislative process, without allowing the public and the community and those
most concerned with this issue an opportunity which should have been theirs by
right to participate in a debate and a discussion.
The government's behaviour in only this
one case, if it was only this one case, would be cause for alarm, but there are
other instances where the government has been high‑handed, undemocratic
and uncompassionate. Mr. Speaker, I
would suggest to you that when we allow decisions to be made more and more by
fiat, by regulation, by the ministerial good will, then we are running the risk
of losing one of the main tenets of democracy and that is the ability and the
responsibility of the governors to be held accountable to the governed. The minute we start doing that, we are losing
as a citizenry.
Bill 22, Mr. Speaker, with the enormous
discretionary power it gives the minister, the enormous power it gives
regulations, is very much of concern to members of the official opposition. We
will be speaking at much greater length on this issue at committee hearings and
third reading.
I appreciate the opportunity to have put
my concerns on the record. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
Is it the will of the House to call it
five o'clock?
An Honourable Member: Five o'clock.
Mr. Speaker: Five o'clock.
Okay. The hour being 5 p.m., time
for Private Members' Business.
*
(1700)
PRIVATE
MEMBERS' BUSINESS
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).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr. Speaker: It is agreed.
Bill 31‑The
Municipal Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), Bill 31, The Municipal Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les municipalites, standing in the name of the honourable
member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed.
SECOND
READINGS‑PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 16‑The
Health Care Directives Act
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable
member for
Motion presented.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to
introduce Bill 16. This bill is about
the dignity of individuals in the health care system. This bill is about the reform that is
intended to put people first. Bill 16
will give people the right to control their own destiny in health care. It will also allow a person to make his or
her wishes known before the person is too sick to speak for himself or
herself. It will also allow one to
appoint a trusted person to act as a proxy to make decisions after one is
incapacitated and unable to speak for himself or herself.
These rights of self‑determination
have existed for a long time in the unwritten common law. However, Bill 16 will affirm them and make
them more clear for the first time in
Mr. Speaker, I was deeply troubled recently
to watch the young woman in
Bill 16 confronts situations like that
one, but it also deals with less dramatic situations as well. The concept is a very simple one. You can put down on paper your wishes, and
the document will be used to determine what treatment you will receive if you
are too sick to speak for yourself. Mr.
Speaker, that can cover a wide range of different instructions, as any
individual can choose what is desired.
The key is individual choice and individual free will. It is a fundamental principle in a free society,
and it is time to entrench it in the law that governs our health care system.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen more and more
cases in the news recently about people struggling to assert their right of
self‑expression in the health care system. It is an issue that should not be avoided any
longer in the political sphere and the legislative sphere. Bill 16 will help deal with the problems we
have seen in many jurisdictions before they occur. It will empower people to decide for
themselves, and that is precisely what the recent controversies have been
about.
I would like to mention some interesting
survey results from a recent issue of Family Practice magazine. A survey was conducted involving
This
Mr. Speaker, this bill will also help many
other individuals to decide the outcome of their treatment and also help us to
make a decision as a lawmaker that at times patients and their families do not
want to carry out certain forms of treatment in their terminal stages, so the
patient can have the final say that will give them the dignity and also it will
help to save millions and millions of dollars.
Mr. Speaker, we hope that we will get
support from both the government as well as from the NDP to have this bill go
to the committee stage and ask the individuals who are going to be affected by
this, the physicians, the patients and the other interested organizations. I have taken that opportunity to send the
bill to the various organizations and we will be very open for any
suggestions. It is not a permanent
one. We can improve upon this and we
welcome any suggestions.
Thank you.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 18‑The
Franchises Act
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), that Bill 18, The Franchises Act (Loi sur les
concessions), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this
House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Maloway: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise today to
introduce this bill into the House, in fact a bill that I think is long overdue
in terms of being on the statute books of this province.
In fact, franchise legislation, the whole
area of franchises, is a recent phenomenon.
It has only been the last 20 to 30 years that franchises have come into
their own in a big way. In fact, more
and more people are buying franchises as the time goes by. I do not know what
the exact statistics are, but I do know that because of the proven ability of
franchises to be more successful on average than a regular business venture,
there is a tendency for people to gravitate towards them, also the selling
point, that they have that proven record and that there is a formula that one
buys with the franchise. In other words
buying the whole package, essentially a turnkey operation, provides more
incentive for people to be buying franchises.
Having said that, we have to recognize
that what we have in terms of regulations in this province in the whole
franchise area is just the law of the jungle, it is buyer beware. What you have are people who have worked all
their lives as school teachers and truck drivers and other occupations reach
retirement‑‑and I run into people like this all the time. As they reach retirement many of them
consider early retirement. In that
process, many of them think of getting involved in a business, and a franchise
comes to mind.
What you have is a situation where people
are taking early retirement. They are
taking their retirement income essentially and using it to kick‑start a
business proposition. Although the
failure rate is not as high as normal businesses, it is still high. We find growing numbers of people two or
three years into a franchise and losing all of their retirement savings, and
that is something that is going to happen even under franchise legislation.
What we are trying to do is lay down the
ground work, the guidelines to have a consistency in the franchise
business. When you consider the amount
of money that is involved in here and how much of a person's savings can be involved,
you will understand how important this act is for people in this province.
Let me tell you some of the things that
franchise companies have been found to do in this province and do not do, by
the way, in Alberta where they have a franchise act. In
*
(1710)
We had a case not too long ago with a
company called Travel Smart. It was written
up in the paper where the person operating that franchise essentially sold the
franchise for whatever he could get for it.
He would find one person, and the more gullible people would pay him
$100,000 for the franchise, whereas people who were maybe a little more careful
would get that very same franchise for $30,000 or $40,000. In other words, he set his fees based on the
ability of the person and willingness of the person to pay. We say that is wrong, that franchise
legislation has to have a consistent price for those franchises.
Another area that is important is to have
a proper defined territory. In
Another major area of concern is that
franchise companies in
Now, what the prospectus process does is
to require the company to sit down and spend some money and draw up its
offering, its game plan similar to securities, the Securities Commission's
requirements in this province when one is selling securities in this province,
or any other province for that matter.
It is the same process that takes place in drawing up a prospectus.
Another major area of concern for
franchise, particularly new franchise people, is the prospect of losing one's
money because the franchise company does not honour its up‑front
promises. Franchise companies in a number of businesses have been known to make
promises, such as a promise to spend a million dollars in advertising in
Another element here is the fact that the
franchise fees are put in trust. We feel
that is very important. In
I know of an Ultracuts franchisee who was
very, very pleased that that was the case, because he ran into some problems in
I have mentioned that all franchises in
The cash investment requirements. Once again we have the Travel Smart situation
here in
There are guarantees in the contract in
terms of the type of equipment, the type of fixtures, the type of
royalties. A franchised company cannot
take three percent of the gross sales from one operator and maybe five or six
percent from somebody else, based on what the market will bear.
There are other very alarming examples
here in
Mind you, he went on to say further on in
the article that he did not have a lot of faith in the legislation, so that
would indicate his position, in reality.
His position seems to be that he would have to have an army of
inspectors to enforce the legislation.
Let me tell you why the government should
not only consider franchised legislation but should in fact introduce and enact
franchise legislation, if not simply pass our bill.
*
(1720)
I have here articles going back a couple
of years when we have one person by the name of Frank Massey, who has quite a
history in this province of selling franchises.
Here was a man who had a company called Technithon. It was a computer consulting company. He was taking $7,500 from people, promising
them that they would earn $5,000 a week.
He was to provide them with a computer and software and different type
of training and a minimum client base of 10 clients. He had a number of businesses. One of them was called Conex, which, in his case,
is very appropriately named, Golden Leaf Insurance, and others.
In this computer operation, I do not
believe that more than one or two people upon giving him the $7,500 ever did
see a computer. None of them got the 10
customers that they were promised, and, in fact, they all lost their
money. These are people of modest means,
most of whom had to borrow the money to put up this $7,500.
This man also had a company called
Telalert where he would sell smoke alarm systems. Once again, he was charging $2,500 for those
franchises. You can see that we are not
talking about businesses of $100,000 and big‑time operators like the
member for
As it turned out, most of these alarms
were alarms that were bought from the United States, that were out of date, so
they were not up to today's standards to begin with. In fact, when the sales people went out and
sold them they had to buy them from him at very inflated prices. They sold them to people. They sold people monitored alarm systems
which in fact proved not to be monitored at all. In fact, he was charging people $20, $30 a
month for the alarm charges, and in fact he was not providing any alarm
monitoring whatsoever. These are just
some of the escapades that this particular gentleman has been involved with
over the years.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on. I have a very thick file. In fact it is getting thicker all the time,
and the thicker it gets, the more I would think this government would be
inclined to listen, but this government is not inclined to listen to this. This government has no interest in protecting
the consumer. This government has proven
it time and time again that they are prepared to let people lose money on
franchises‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Niakwa): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Gimli (Mr. Helwer), that debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 27‑The
Business Practices Amendment Act
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for
Motion presented.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, we thought we will try it
again. We have tried this bill twice,
two sessions ago. One was in 1990, and
at that time the government did not approve of the amendments, but our
amendments were also supported by the NDP at that time. This bill will address many issues in the
business act.
One of the main areas in this bill will
give the directorate of business practices a stronger mandate. We think that the directorate is an important
tool in the ongoing battle against exploitation of consumers and should have a
stronger mandate possible.
The Business Practices Act as it now
stands says that the directorate may refuse to mediate or investigate a
complaint on several grounds, including the catch‑all reason for refusing
to act, that is to quote from the act, for any other reasons. We do not believe that there is a huge number
of reasons why the directors should refuse to act on consumers'
complaints. There are only a few reasons
and they should be spelled out in this act.
The present act does that, but then it adds the catchall phrase to give
the director nearly unlimited discretion to refuse to take action. We want that changed.
We also want to have a stronger and a
clearer mandate for the director. The
director should be able to choose not to act on a complaint if the matter is
clearly not in the jurisdiction of the provincial government or if it is
immediately clear that the complaint is groundless. This should be very clear in the law.
Mr. Speaker, the other major aspect of
Bill 27 is the protection of employees acting in good faith who accidentally and
unknowingly commit an unfair business practice as defined in The Business
Practices Act. The act, as it now
stands, contains a reference to such a situation. It says that when a person is charged under
the act, one of the factors to be considered will be, well, the person simply
made a mistake, or the unfair business practice is the result of an
accident. This only applies to the
penalty to be imposed after the person is found guilty. We must insert this consideration for the
employee acting in good faith before he or she is found guilty.
Mr. Speaker, this bill will ensure that we
have an effective protection of
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Niakwa): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 50‑The
Beverage Container Act
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for
Motion presented.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce The
Beverage Container Act in second reading today, so that I have the opportunity
of explaining in more detail the intent and purpose of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, we have begun more and more
frequently to talk about the three Rs of good environmental practice. They are to reduce, reuse and recycle. I believe that The Beverage Container Act in
its form that we have presented here today in fact does all three. It seeks to reduce the amount of litter that
we have watched throughout our province as a result of people throwing away
bottles and containers because there has been no deposit paid on them, and therefore
there is no deposit payable when they return them.
This legislation also meets the criteria
of reuse, because when those bottles are presented back to the companies that
have produced them, many of them can in fact reuse those same containers. We believe it also meets the criteria of
recycle, because the recycling aspect is for those containers that cannot in
fact be reused, can be recycled.
We know there are some products for health
reasons that cannot be reused, and that is appropriate, but then they can be
recycled. So this beverage container
legislation that we propose to this House does meet the criteria of reduce,
reuse, and recycle.
As I was preparing some notes to speak
today, I thought back on my days of summer cottaging on Grand Lake in Nova
Scotia, and remember often that as one of six children, who quite frankly did
not get allowances because there was not any money to give six children
allowances, one of the ways in which we got some spending money was to return
bottles to the local store. It was
always quite a contest between my brothers and my sisters as to which ones were
going to get the 2‑cent bottles, and which ones were going to get the 5‑cent
bottles. It often was based quite
frankly on who was bigger, and who could carry the most amount of big bottles,
as opposed to small bottles. Because I
tended to be the fifth of six children, I usually ended up with the 2‑cent
bottles rather than the 5‑cent bottles.
*
(1730)
It was a practice that‑‑let us
be honest‑‑we did because we knew there was a value in having that
bottle possibly returning to us some cents.
We have watched this happen with beer bottles in the
It makes sense to want to have deposit on
containers. This is not the first time
this bill has been ready for production. It was ready in our first session as
the official opposition, but that was the year the government came forward and
proposed a
The reality is that in this province, even
the most wildly optimistic know that only 50 percent of the soft drinks are in
fact brought back for recycling, and that is a very optimistic figure.
In
It is regrettable the experiment did not
work, but we have to accept the fact that it did not, and we have to move on so
that we have a piece of legislation that will guarantee that containers that
have within their contents soft drinks or juices, iced tea or iced coffee, can
be returned and will in fact not add to the litter problem presently throughout
all communities.
Our young people today, particularly those
in schools, welcome the opportunity to reduce, reuse and recycle. I think any of us who have watched the
emphasis placed on these things within our schools are struck by the fact that children
are really leading the way in terms of a new way of thinking about the world
that they live in. They have had to
teach us many things. It is in teaching
us many things that they have shown, I think, a very clear path to solutions in
this area.
They do not understand, when I talk with
them, that
Young people are telling us that we must
change. They want a world that, quite
frankly, is in as good shape as their parents inherited it. Quite frankly, our track record is not very
good between ozone depletion and litter and environmental damage, we are not
going to give to our young people the same kind of planet that we inherited.
I think it is time to learn directly from
them. It is time to implement this
legislation. I welcome the support of
the government and the New Democratic Party in ensuring that we have this kind
of positive beverage container legislation in the province of Manitoba and that
we do it with some dispatch, so that our young people will know that their
efforts in recycling, their efforts in reusing, their efforts in reducing will
in fact, meet with the approval of their peers and is recognized through the
passage of this legislation.
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital
(Mrs. Render), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 51‑The
Health Services Insurance Amendment Act
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for
Motion presented.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to
speak on this very important bill. I
think this bill, basically what it will do, we have a Canada Health Act that
was enacted in 1964 and later on affirmed in 1984. There are five basic principles of the Canada
Health Act. They are: comprehensiveness, universality, portability,
accessibility and public administration.
So far no province in this country has
those five basic principles entrenched in the law. That is one reason that each and every
province does have its own definition of what is the accessible health care
system. That is why we can see disparity
between the provinces of
They have not given us the funding to fund
that kind of program. If we have these
five basic principles entrenched in our law, then each and every province,
specifically I am talking about Manitoba, would have more power to tell Ottawa
that we have your same principle. Why
cannot you fund our health care system the way you were supposed to? Last year they passed this bill, Bill C‑20,
and this bill will eventually eliminate any transfer payments within 10 to 15
years.
Basically, we may have a law in this
country, but we will not have the money to fund our programs. That is why I think it is very essential, if
we have those five basic principles affirmed in our
I think that is the reason here. That is why we are stressing that this will
give some more power to a province to argue to have more funding. It is not an issue of any single political
party. It could have been brought by
anyone of us, but we are simply asking that each one of us has a responsibility
to tell the people of
To abide by the five principles, we must
have a law so that nobody, no Health minister, not this or the other Health
minister, can ever touch some of the essential services. I think that is the issue here, and that will
give people some hope that eventually, maybe, we can save the health care
system, which at this date looks, the way the federal government is going, that
it is going to be dead in about 10 to 15 years time.
Mr. Speaker, there is a perception in this
country that we have one of the best medicare systems in the world, and that
may or may not true. We may have in
definition one of the best systems, but in a practical sense we do not have,
because the federal government is shrinking from the responsibility to fund our
health care system, as they have outlined in their own law. I am repeating
again and asking the members of this House, please consider it on a noncritical
basis and see that we could send a strong message that the Minister of Health
and this government is serious to protect our health care system.
I think after that then we can debate the
issue of what are essential services. I
think that is the next point.
Eventually, people are going to discuss what is the acceptable level of
health care services, what is the minimum level of health care services. I think eventually people have to discuss
that. It is going to come. It does not matter how long we wait. Eventually each and every party, not only in
the province, but all across this nation, has to come up and tell people how we
are going to carry out all these principles that I am talking about.
*
(1740)
It is going to be a very difficult
task. As long as we have a common base
that we have these five basic principles and we can define them, what is
accessible, what is the minimum level of acceptance of the health care system,
that will probably lead us into another direction. It will be a major debate how we are going to
fund. I think the funding part could be
helped to some extent by this, but the most important thing is to give real
meaning to the five basic principles.
I want to talk about something else as I
start initially. I think each and every
party, and we have been debating this for almost four years, have to tell
people of Manitoba if we truly believe in this principle, then how are we going
to fund, how are we going to even fund the basic necessities of the health care
system? That, I think, is very crucial.
I mean, we can all talk about the best
medical system we have, but eventually we are all paying for it. We are trying our very best to tell, in our
own way, to the people of
I think as long as that message is getting
across, I think people want to start realizing that this is a very, very
expensive system. In our own ways, it is
very expensive. I do not think anybody
can argue against the fact that with our population growing at the rate of 6
percent for the last 10 years, and we have funded our health care system by
more than 180 percent, that something has gone wrong. We want, from our point of view, the people
to know that we are serious about the five basic principles, but at the same
time let us look at each and every issue very carefully and see what is a
necessity, what is a luxury.
I think that issue is going to come. It may not be a very critical problem, but if
any one of us who deals with the health care system is serious, and I
personally feel very strongly and I have repeated that many times, that this
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and this government is serious in many
ways. Anybody in their shoes has to make
major decisions, so that is why we do not want them to make any decision or a
knee‑jerk reaction, because it does not serve any purpose at all. You can set up a system today, you can ask a
number of questions, and tomorrow things are going to change. That is why a solid policy direction has to
be developed. When you are developing
the policy, you must tell people that we have to make some choices. Those choices are going to be tough. It may not happen in this four years, but
eventually it is going to happen. No
question that any political party, any person in this country can say, well,
this is a free lunch. We are paying
through our noses. This is a very, very
serious matter.
I was talking to one of my constituents
who has lived in this country for more than 75 years, a second generation, and
he was telling me in a very‑‑he gave me an example. He said, when you go to a dentist you go to
buy something, you know your bill, but when a patient is going to have access
to service, why should that person not know how much taxpayers are paying on
his behalf? I do not think there is
anything wrong with that. I think that
is why we are stressing the education of the public is very essential, because
once they start realizing how much it is costing probably they will be more
cautious. I am not saying that it will
stop all the difficulties, but we have to go one step further and that is the
education of the public.
I know the minister is listening very seriously,
and I know it is a very risky, slippery slope.
You have to be very careful because political parties can come and say,
well you are going to have to stop our access to the health care system. That is not the issue here. The issue is your taxpayers must be told how
you are spending money. They must know
exactly so that they will remember when they go home, so that when they go and
have access to other services they will tell, look here, I had this test done
and it cost that much last time. Can you
make a phone call and find out? Those
are the minor things. They are very
minor things, but I think it will save a lot of money in the long run.
Let people think that this is a very
important issue. I think after the
Constitution this is going to be a major issue of health care in this
country. I do not think any politician
can stand up at his seat and tell they are going to save it until major changes
are made. Major changes will only be
made if people can have the courage and also take political risks for a short
term, but please think of the taxpayers who are funding our health care system
so that eventually we can save for the next generation. I think that is the issue. I would like the members to think very
carefully and also consider that.
Let us work first on these five basic
principles, entrench them in our law and then start working on issues of what
is a necessity. What are the services
which can be done in a different way?
What are the services we can deliver in a more cost‑effective
fashion? I think the issue of bed
closing, a political issue, which was very popular in the '80s, is gone. Bed
closing is not a risky thing as long as you are doing it properly. I do not think anybody can stand in this
House and say if one or two beds are closing you are going to shut down the
health care system. That is absolute
nonsense. It does not work. If you have extra beds they are going to be
occupied no matter what the reasons are.
So we have to be very careful.
I think that is why, as we have said many
times, this minister has two or three years more left, and he can do very well
as long as we can keep a bifocal policy, short term, but also continue to
develop a long‑term policy, keeping in mind the five basic
principles. I do not think we should
deny anybody primary access to the health care system. For some of the services, if they have to go,
probably they would go eventually anyway, so why not take a bold step and tell
the taxpayers that this is your tax money, and we are spending it this
way. They should know it. I think they have the right. If I was not in this House I would have never
learned those things, but it is very painful when people are paying so much
taxes. Some of them are saying, I do not
go to the doctor's office, why should I pay?
Those questions are coming. I
think they are going to be coming more and more because people are fed up.
It is very essential that we continue to
work toward a long‑term policy but also keeping a few things in mind for
the short‑term things that are going to change. I mean there are going to be a few problems
but keeping in mind the five basic principles.
We do not have a problem with that.
I think it is very, very healthy that we
are dealing with the issue. That is why I
think we are asking that when we get calls from our constituents or
organizations, we are asking them, please ask us what we will do differently
and how we are going to fund that. I
think that is the issue. Thirty‑five
days of campaign does not do a damn thing.
It is very short‑sighted.
We can fool people‑‑politicians have done that for years and
they will continue to do it‑‑but on this issue we must be very,
very careful. It may be risky for a
short while, but people will realize in the long run that this is probably the
best thing we can do.
*
(1750)
We have no problem with that in terms of
telling publicly when things are right.
I do not think anybody in their right mind would think that any
minister, any government would like to harm anybody. The issue is how you are going to fund. As long as we can continue to find the
necessity in the medicare system and keeping, as I said earlier, the five basic
principles and try to understand how we are going to spend the taxpayers' money
effectively, we may have a chance to survive.
Otherwise, I think we should say goodbye to the health care system. It is going to eventually die a death which
is going to be very, very painful.
We hope that in the next federal campaign
each and every party would let the people know what their stand is on the
medicare system. That is why I think the
Reform Party's stand is just zero, because their policy is if everyone
functions‑‑there is no way that their policies are going to ever be
respected by the majority of Canadians.
It is not the case. We have a
certain basic principle in a society and a nation, so those have to be kept in
mind. All three parties will see how
they perform. If our federal party or
other party‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr. Speaker: Leave?
Leave is granted. The honourable
member for The Maples is granted leave to close his opening remarks.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I will just take a couple of minutes.
I would again urge all members in this
House, please think very carefully when you are demanding or you are asking
things for health care, so that at least if we have to save the essential
services in keeping with the spirit of the five basic principles, then I think
we will do some service. Otherwise, we
will be doing a disservice to the people of
So we have a minister who has been here
four years. We hope that he stays so
that people who at least have understanding can develop a policy for the long
run. We may disagree with him on many
points, but at least we have a continuity of the policies. It has been
happening in many, many provinces; ministers are being changed right and
left. You know why? First of all, they do not know what they are
doing; second, they do not have the courage and conviction to change the
system. They want the jobs, and they
have to serve themselves. I think we
have a responsibility and an especial example in
Mr. Speaker, I will end by saying again
that I will request each and every member in this House to support this bill so
that this government can have more power to deal with the federal government,
so that they can tell them: You have
your five principles given to us; we have the same principles‑‑why
can you not fund our health system on an equal basis?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Inkster): Mr. Speaker, there are a number of bills that
are being introduced on behalf of the Liberal Party and private members' hour,
and this is the single bill that I feel most concerned in terms of this being
an issue that a majority of Manitobans would like to see addressed.
The bill will entrench the five basic
principles of medicare as established in the Canada Health Act. Every one of us inside this Chamber, no
doubt, at one point in time, has stood up and has talked about the importance
of medicare, of our health care services that we have in
What the member for The Maples (Mr.
Cheema) has offered us is an opportunity to do something that is very positive,
because I really and truly believe that there is not one member inside this
Chamber who would oppose a bill of this nature.
All it really is doing is reinforcing what all three political parties
have said in past elections, what parties say in between elections.
Mr. Speaker, I know that at times it is
difficult to get private member bills through the Chamber, but in the spirit of
co‑operation I would encourage the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) to
give it very serious consideration. In
fact, the bill is worthy of the support of this whole Chamber; we have seen
bills go through this Chamber; and all three political parties can take some
credit for what has been done. It is not
only private member bills; we only need to look at government bills. Contrary
to the Attorney General, I like to take some responsibility, some credit for
the drinking‑and‑driving legislation as amended.
I would like all members of this Chamber
to take some credit for the passage of this particular bill, because I can
assure you, Mr. Speaker, that health care is the No. 1 issue of my
constituents. I have consulted my
constituents in many different forms, and the one message that has come out in
very clear terms is that health care is the No. 1 priority. Number 2 and No. 3 have switched, I must say,
between job creation, deficit control and education. The No. 1 concern has been health care.
I believe this particular bill will
alleviate a lot of the concerns of the constituents that I represent. I can assure this Chamber that by supporting
this bill they will be able to alleviate the concern of all Manitobans, because
I believe that my constituents really do reflect the majority of all
Manitobans.
There are some very positive things that
can come out of passing this particular bill.
I know that I do not have very much time today to speak on this bill,
and I will continue my debate later on, the next time. Hopefully, Tuesday or whenever it is called
up next I will be sure to speak to it. I
would like for members of this Chamber to think about this bill very seriously‑‑it
is a very high priority for us‑‑and to at least speak on the bill.
There has been somewhat of a tradition in
the past that bills be introduced and then they be adjourned and they somewhat
die on the Order Paper. I would
encourage all members of this Chamber to stand up and speak, because I can
assure you all of our members will speak on this particular bill if at all
possible. I would encourage all members
of the Chamber to stand up to speak to it so that we can see‑‑or
better yet, Mr. Speaker, have representatives from all three political parties
speak on it, allow it to go to committee and then allow everyone an opportunity
to speak once again to it on the third reading.
I sincerely believe that it is definitely
in the interest of all Manitobans and all of us who are elected here to see a
piece of legislation such as this go through the entire process and be
proclaimed, because the five principles are based on public administration,
comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility. I do not believe one member in this Chamber
would say no to any of those five principles.
Having said that, I would suggest to you
that this is one of those bills which each and every one of us could in fact
support, and it is only a question in terms of good will. So I will ask, Mr. Speaker, that all members
of this Chamber look, read through this bill‑‑it is very short but
to the point‑‑and it will alleviate the concerns of a majority of
Manitobans when it comes to‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hour being 6 p.m., when this matter is
again before the House the honourable member for
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is now
adjourned and stands adjourned till 10 a.m. tomorrow (Friday).