LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Friday,
March 19, 1993
The House met at 10 a.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Helen Marie Sinclair, Leonard Carlson, Marlene Hall and others, requesting the
Family Services minister to consider restoring funding for the friendship
centres in
PRESENTING
REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the First
Report of the Committee on Economic Development.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Economic
Development presents the following as its First Report:
Your committee met on Thursday, March 18,
1993, at 10 a.m., in Room 254 of the
Mr. Bob Sparrow, Chairperson, and Mr. Bill
Podolsky, Executive Director, Administrative Services, provided such
information as was requested with respect to the Annual Report and business of
Venture Manitoba Tours Ltd.
Your committee has considered the Annual
Report of Venture Manitoba Tours Ltd. for the year ended March 31, 1992, and
has adopted the same as presented.
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), that the report of the
committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
morning 24 adult visitors from the Kirkness Adult Learning Centre. They are under the direction of Lenore Wiebe
and Laurel Johnson.
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this morning.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Sunday
Shopping
Legislation
Enforcement
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier.
Mr. Speaker, today we have two
Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious
issue. When we had court decisions in
1987, and former House leader Mercier, now a justice of the court, when he was
in this Chamber asked us to pass the law to make sure that we were not breaking
the law over a weekend in one day, we all gave leave to do that because of the
precedence of having a law in this province.
Today, we have a situation where the
government has notified the public of a law, has tabled the bill in the
House. We have passed it to second
reading. It has not passed, and the
police are not asked to fulfill the existing law passed in this Legislature. This law provides a consensus between small
communities and large communities, between small employers and large employers,
and we believe the existing law is a good consensus.
I would like to ask the Premier‑‑[interjection]
Well, Mr. Speaker, I know they want to stifle speech on this, without having
public hearings‑‑what legal authority does the Premier have to
require that the law not be fulfilled and the prosecutions not take place in
the
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, last fall when this matter
came up, the government made clear its intentions with respect to this matter,
which is a regulatory matter as opposed to a criminal matter. It made its intentions known in the throne
speech, and by early tabling of legislation in this House with respect to the
government's intentions.
Notice is thereby given that the
discretion, which is appropriately and ordinarily exercised by police
authorities, in this matter ought to be used, having in mind the intentions
that were made well known by the government of
* (1005)
Sunday
Shopping
Standing
Committee Referral
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we have, in a court case,
He very clearly states, on a provincial
matter‑‑this is a provincial law, that: You cannot exercise the law one day and
exercise it a different way a different day.
Tomorrow, it may be exercised in favour of Protestants, the next day in
favour of the Jews. Our laws cannot be
so treated. The Crown may not, by
executive action, dispense with the laws.
The matter is as simple as that, and nearly three centuries of legal and
constitutional history stand as a foundation for that principle.
I would like to ask the Premier why he is
directing the Crown not to follow the 1987 law passed in this Legislature, and
why he is not directing that we deal with this piece of legislation in terms of
public hearings in the
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of the Premier
directing anything. The member knows
full well that the Premier does not do those things and does not direct the
law.
What it is, as the Attorney General (Mr.
McCrae) has explained, is a matter of the discretion that the law enforcement
officers have.
I might tell you that‑‑[interjection]
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) could keep
himself under control and listen to the response.
Mr. Doer: You are such a controlled member.
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I assume that the member for
Concordia (Mr. Doer) does not want to sit there and just cheap‑shot all
the time, but he wants to get some information.
The member might want to consult his
colleague Bob Rae about this issue. I
might tell him that, under very similar circumstances, a bill with respect to
opening up Sunday shopping was introduced into the Ontario Legislature‑‑
Some Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Filmon: The bill, on a very parallel sense, was
introduced into the Ontario Legislature on the 2nd of June, 1992, indicating
the intent of the Ontario Legislature with respect to legislation, and that
bill has still not been passed by the
Again, prosecutions are not being
proceeded, charges are not being proceeded because of the discretion that law
enforcement agencies show when legislation has been introduced that indicates
the intention and, in fact, states the date on which the bill will be
effective.
That is the situation with respect to
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, this is a Manitoba Court of
Appeal decision dealing with
This is a
I remember that advice from now‑existing
Justice Mercier when he was the House leader of the Conservative party. That is why we all gave leave, so that the
Crown and the police would not have to decide whether to prosecute or not.
I would like to ask this Premier, in light
of the fact that even his own people are saying the law is an open question‑‑I
am not talking about
I would like to ask the Premier to
immediately instruct his government to have the public hearings and have the
vote on third reading on this bill, respect the legislative process in this
Chamber. You have had four months to
deal with this. We passed it in
December. Have the courage of your
convictions. Let us have the public
hearings next week across
* (1010)
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, the member knows full well that
in the days in which his party was in office, they regularly introduced tax
measure increases as parts of budgets, tax measure increases‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mr. Doer: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Premier will know that there is a whole
series of legal precedents dealing with tax measures that are different than
legislation. The Premier should know
that.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Leader does not have a point
of order. It is clearly a dispute over
the facts.
* * *
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, this is not the courtroom, and
neither the Leader of the Opposition nor I are lawyers. I do not think that we want to do this on the
basis of that.
Mr. Speaker, every time they introduce‑‑[interjection]
I think I had better reconsider my position, given the offered support of the
member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock).
The member knows full well that every time
they introduced a budget they introduced tax measures that took effect the very
day the budget was introduced, despite the fact that the budget was not passed
into law, Mr. Speaker.
Those who have jurisdiction and control of
the law are those who make these recommendations and these analyses, not politicians
looking for some political angle on a story.
It is the lawyers who make those decisions, not because they want to
make a political interpretation or they want to quote out of context or they
want to do all of those things.
The member for‑‑
An Honourable Member: Boy, are you in bad shape.
Mr. Filmon: Well, Mr. Speaker, we will see who is in bad
shape when the member takes on his leadership mantle. The fact of the matter is that the member for
Human
Resources
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Can the Minister of Family Services tell
this House how the elimination of this service is going to help people,
particularly at a time when there is an increased caseload‑‑more
and more people are facing unemployment‑‑and in light of the fact
that the
What is this going to do to help the
people of the
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, the member's Leader on Monday said there are many difficult choices
that have to be made.
I refer you to the one line in an
editorial in a local paper. It
says: No Canadian politician from any
party who is actually in office pretends anymore that there is any choice but
to cut spending, reduce the deficit and get the debt under control.
We know that Premier Romanow did not take
any great delight in increasing the sales tax in
* (1015)
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, the government has tough choices,
and people are finding out that Tory times are tough times.
How can the minister justify this cut in
services that they provide for people on probation and single parents trying to
get back into the workforce? How are
these people going to get out of the poverty cycle, or is that where he wants to
keep them?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, all week the members opposite
have criticized any budget reductions that have been made on this side or even
the increases that we have offered in the Estimates for Family Services, yet
have offered no other alternatives within this department, no other
alternatives of how to address the deficit issue.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that Premier Rae
in
These are difficult decisions. We have to attack the deficit and the long‑term
debt. I say to you that all of the
suggestions coming forth from the other side are to increase costs, increase
spending and with that, of course, comes the increase in taxes.
Alternative
Programs
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): I am
pleased that the member is now a proponent of decentralization. I remember well
the major criticisms of having any positions move out of the city of
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the‑‑
Point of
Order
Ms. Wowchuk: On a point of order, the member implies that
we have not been in favour of decentralization.
We have never spoken out against‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order. It is a dispute over the
facts.
* * *
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, I might instruct the member to
read some of her Leader's comments. He
was clearly against decentralization.
Surely, members opposite must realize that
the greatest economic opportunity for
The member, in asking us for additional
expenditures, is clearly asking for an increase in taxes, an increase in the
sales tax. These are not in the cards,
Mr. Speaker.
Universities
Visa Students
Tuition
Increase
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I believe the minister just said
cut spending, reduce the deficit, get the debt under control‑‑tough
decisions. I would like to ask the
Premier a question about a couple of the decisions they have made that seemed a
little inconsistent with this goal. I
would like to ask him: How much
additional revenue will this province receive as a result of their decision to
increase the fees of visa students 75 percent?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, again, we deal with a situation
in which the member is asking us to assume responsibility for policy matters in
which we are the only province in the country that is providing a reduced rate
for visa students. At one time, there
was not a differential rate across the country and, province by province, that
matter has changed to the point that now we are the only ones. The evidence seems to be that it does not
affect the number of students who come, regardless of the policy because‑‑
Some Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Filmon: This is a question for Estimates debate, Mr.
Speaker. If you want to get into a
debate on the issue then give us the chance to give you all of the
information. You obviously do not
operate with all the information; we are trying to give you the
information. Let us get down‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we were certainly willing to
debate the Estimates, but I should point out that the Department of Education
Estimates were not ready last week. So I
think the Premier should‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Leader does not have a point
of order. It is a dispute over the
facts.
The honourable First Minister, to finish
his response.
* (1020)
* * *
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I assumed that was not a point
of order.
The fact of the matter is that these are
questions that we should discuss in detail.
We should debate and we should put all the facts on the table. One of the facts that has to be put on the table
is that no other province provides for that basis. Every other province now
applies differential rates for tuition.
School
Divisions
Property
Tax Cap
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, the fact is this decision has no
impact on the provincial budget, zero‑‑‑but there is another
one. Let me ask the Premier this: What is the impact on revenues or
expenditures, the provincial budget, by the decision to limit increases to the
special levy by 2 percent, to take away the responsibility of school boards and
freeze the increases to the special requirement at 2 percent? How does that affect your budget in this
province?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question
about the differential fees, again, that is not a matter that has been imposed
by this government. It has been
recommended as a source of revenue because every other province is taking
it. Their universities are taking it as
a source of revenue. It is not something
that is forced upon them. They can
choose whether or not to do it. That is
No. 1. Number 2‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mr. Alcock: Mr.
Speaker, that is absolutely untrue. The
university has been told if they do not do this, their grant will be clawed
back by‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Osborne does not
have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Filmon: The other aspect, of course, of the question
is one as to whether or not this government has a responsibility to the
taxpayers to keep their taxes down. That
member, who is going to run federally, assumes that there is a whole host of
different taxpayers, that there is a different person at the municipal level, a
different person at the provincial level, a different person at the federal
level. It is all the same taxpayer.
When we put that limitation on the amount
of increase of property taxes, it is because we are concerned with the
taxpayer, that same taxpayer. Not only
do we want to ensure that we are not raising the burden on that taxpayer
through our direct actions, we do not want to indirectly increase the burden on
that taxpayer. That is why we are doing
what we are doing, and if he cannot understand that, he should resign instead
of trying to run for a higher level.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that those same
taxpayers elected the school trustees.
Those same taxpayers want them to make those decisions. We have a board of governors at the
universities. They can make those
decisions, not this Premier (Mr. Filmon).
It does not affect his budget one bit.
I have a very simple question for the
Premier. Why is he depriving the duly‑elected
representatives of those taxpayers of their right to exercise their judgment on
behalf of the people who elected them?
Who does he think he is?
Mr. Filmon: I would say that the taxpayers of
Health
Care System
Pediatrics-Centralization
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, it is ironic. In the morning they say, do not enforce the
law; in the afternoon they tell trustees, this is what you must do.
My question is to the Minister of
Health. The minister has decided to
shift 2,000 to 3,000 children's operations per year from community hospitals to
Children's Hospital.
He is shifting operations from rooms that
are quite adequate and meet modern operating standards to hospital operating
rooms that do not meet modern operating standards, and there is scrambling to
find different and new operation rooms at Children's Hospital.
My question to the minister: Why is this minister making this decision when
proper facilities are not in line and when waiting lists and difficulties will
ensue?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, let me be unequivocal and direct
with my honourable friend. I reject
totally his preamble, his allegation and his frivolous fear‑mongering
campaign.
* (1025)
Mr. Chomiak: Is the minister aware that four of the five
operating rooms at Children's Hospital do not meet the standards of the
minister's own department in Health and Welfare
They are far below the standards as
adopted by the minister's own department, page 50 of the standards adopted by
the Manitoba Health Services.
Mr. Orchard: My honourable friend must have a very
interesting approach to the issue because y honourable friend might recall that
construction started on Children's Hospital as recently as, I think, 1982. I think the previous government commissioned
it and I think the previous government approved the plans. I think the previous government measured the
size of the operating rooms. I think the
previous government approved the air exchange system, et cetera.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to try to be as
fair as I can with my honourable friend.
My honourable friend is attempting to say that the facility that does 75
percent of pediatric surgery in the
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I will reword my question so the
minister perhaps will understand it.
Why is the minister taking an additional
2,000 to 3,000 procedures from excellent facilities, state‑of‑the‑art
facilities, to facilities at the Children's Hospital, which are already
crowded, which do not meet the minister's own standards. These are the
minister's own standards; we obtained this from the minister's department. They do not even meet the minister's own
standards. He will not acknowledge it. He will not even deal with it, and he is
moving these facilities in there. Why
will the minister not answer the question?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, because when I have answered the
question for my honourable friend in the past, he chooses not to accept the
answer. Three‑quarters of the
surgery on children is being performed at the Children's Hospital, has been for
the last number of years. It has been a
growing shift to the Children's Hospital.
That has been accommodated in four surgical theatres operating at eight
hours per day, five days per week.
We have, with the acceptance of this
decision by the Urban Hospital Council‑‑November, unanimous
decision‑‑all urban hospitals saying, shift the inpatient surgery
to the Children's Hospital. We have
since then commissioned a fifth surgical theatre. We have expanded the hours of the existing
first four by two hours per day, for a total of 50 more hours of surgical
capacity per week, which will accommodate the balance of the inpatient surgery
for children in the
That answer has been given to my
honourable friend. He chooses not to
believe it for ignorance rather than fact, Sir.
* (1030)
Sustainable
Development
Poverty
Eradication
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, the Premier keeps talking about
sustainable development. Then he will
talk about how there is no money for agencies like the Anti‑Poverty
Organization, the Minister of Environment's (Mr. Cummings) advisory council or
Girl Guides. Then they will give money
to Atomic Energy of
I would like to ask the Premier: Has he read the annual report for the
International Institute for Sustainable Development, which has one of its
principles as poverty eradication and where it says that: The demand for local control over the well‑being
of current and future generations and an effective voice in decision making
which affects the lives of people in local communities is essential to
sustainable development?
How does what he is doing fulfill that
principle?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, of course, the best thing that we
can do for poverty eradication is to strengthen the economy and that means not
mortgaging our future.
If the member opposite wants to see what
happens to countries that run their deficits up and their debt up to the point
that the bankers of
That is why we are doing this, so that we
will have the investment and the job creation and the opportunity to see this
province grow, and that will eradicate poverty better than any programs that
she wants to put of government spending on people. They do not eradicate
poverty. All they do is perpetuate
poverty amongst people.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it,
Atomic
Energy of
Funding
Justification
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, why, if the Premier (Mr. Filmon) is
concerned about federal cutbacks and federal offloading, are they giving
$25,000 of Environment money to AECL?
An Honourable Member: Hot potato, throw it over.
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): This one is not even
warm.
Mr. Speaker, it is rather baffling to
listen to the members of the opposition talk about how they are concerned about
environmental matters and how the ability to test, the ability to monitor is so
crucial to establishing the level of environmental protection and whatever potential
damages may occur as a result of particular actions. That is the kind of work that was being done
at AECL to further research on better development of research into the area of
determining levels of particular contaminants.
That is the kind of work we need in order to have the information to
protect our environment, and they are too shortsighted to see that.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, I just want clarification from
the minister. Why is it that they are
giving $25,000 to an industry that already receives $150 million from the
federal government? Is it being used to clean up the radioactive oil that AECL
is putting in the
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, we have one of the most
technologically advanced centres in the country, perhaps in the world, being
able to minutely measure contaminants and other scientific activities that we
use to protect the environment. It has
nothing to do with nuclear reaction. It
has everything to do with the intelligence and the knowledge that is lodged with
the people there, and we will be able to keep it resident in this province so
we can continue to do the good job of looking after the environment.
School
Divisions
Property
Tax Cap
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, many colleagues in the Legislature
this morning attended the MAST breakfast.
My colleagues and I spent the hour and a half talking to school trustees
from across this province. Not one of
the trustees was aware of any consultations that this minister had had with
school divisions. Not one of the
trustees was aware of this minister's education reform plan. They did say that the 2 percent cap creates
inequities and unfairness across school divisions, because some school
divisions will be cutting transportation, some will be cutting teachers, some
will be cutting services to special needs.
My question for the Minister of Education
is: Is this minister willing to accept
these consequences of the 2 percent cap which is creating not only inequities
across school divisions but a deterioration of the education system in
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, I do not think that the member did have a chance to speak with all of
the trustees this morning because my colleagues and I certainly were at the
same breakfast the member was at, and we got a completely different message
than that member got.
In addition, again, the 2 percent cap has
been placed, as I have stated before, on the special requirement, and the
special requirement has been different, obviously, for each school division as
they look at what their expenses are going to be.
Ms. Gray: If this minister and her Premier (Mr. Filmon)
seem to support control and local autonomy, can this minister tell us why she
has imposed a 2 percent cap on the school divisions which basically impedes
their ability to make their own decisions and in fact will create a
deterioration?
Can this minister tell us why the
contradiction? Either you are giving
them autonomy or you are not. Which is
it?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, we acted in the interests of
taxpayers of
We have seen that in
Ms. Gray: It certainly disturbs me that this government
continues to base their decisions on what
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Crescentwood, with
your question, please.
Point of
Order
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): The
member for Crescentwood is well aware of the rules with respect to preambles in
her supplementary question. We would
ask, on this side of the House, that that be enforced, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): I think it was a well‑drawn‑out,
clever sentence and therefore within the rules, Mr. Speaker, asking the
minister.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
I had already asked the honourable member for Crescentwood to put her
question.
The honourable member for Crescentwood,
with your question.
School
Divisions
Autonomy
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): My final supplementary is for the
Premier. Can the Premier tell this House
today a very simple answer? Does the
Premier support the ability of the school divisions to be autonomous and make
decisions which they were elected to do?
Does he support that concept?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, what I do not support is the tax
and spend policies of the Liberal Party of Manitoba. I think the taxpayers are
fed up with parties such as the Liberals who only want to tax and spend their
money all the time. They are fed up with
that. They have had enough of it. They
need some common sense in government, and that is what we are doing.
* (1040)
Funding
Reinstatement
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): The people of
My question is to the Premier. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) and his Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) have said on a number of occasions that the
cuts to the friendship centre in
Mr. Speaker, given the fact that there are
very few government services in
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, we have a Department of Family
Services and a Department of Health and departments of government that deliver
all of the services to people throughout this province. Departments such as Family Services have had
annual increases under this administration averaging 10 percent to provide so
many different services to people.
We are in a situation in which governments
today, in the '90s, governments of Liberal, New Democratic stripe, regardless
of their politics, cannot afford to provide all of the services that were
provided in the '70s and the '80s, when revenues were increasing by 10 and 15
percent annually.
As difficult as it is, we have to face the
same realities that Roy Romanow does, the same realities that Clyde Wells does,
the same realities of every single administration in this country, and that is
that governments, without raising taxes, cannot do everything that everybody
would like them to do.
The answer, of course, is the answer that
is always provided by the New Democrats opposite in our House, and that is to
tax more and spend more.
That, Mr. Speaker, has to come to an
end. We cannot keep doing that. This administration is determined not to
continue to raise taxes. We have not had
to do it in the five previous budgets.
We have kept down personal income taxes, corporate taxes, the sales tax.
We have maintained our commitment to the
people of this province to keep their taxes down. Regrettably, we are going to have to evaluate
every single expenditure and find out how they stack up against keeping
personal care home beds open, keeping hospital beds open and doing the
fundamental things that people expect us to do.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, no one has denied that choices
need to be made.
My question to the Premier or to the
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) is: How can they justify cutting 35 jobs to
organizations like the friendship centres, which provide services to hundreds
of thousands of people, grants which support perhaps as many as 40 or 50
additional jobs? How can the First
Minister tell this House that the province is saving money when it is providing
an $80,000 grant to the friendship centre in
Mr. Filmon: Those hundreds of thousands of people draw
services from every single government department. They draw services from the Department of
Family Services, from the Department of Health, from the Department of Justice
and so on, Mr. Speaker.
All of those 17,000 public servants who we
have in our employ are providing all of these services that people in
In terms of the friendship centres, from
their annual reports for the 1990‑91 fiscal year, 13 percent of their
revenues came from the provincial government.
Now, if he is telling us that because of that 13 percent reduction they
will no longer be able to do anything, the fact of the matter is that that is
not the case, and the reality is that the services that he talks about are
services delivered by government departments throughout the public service.
Those are things that regrettably, in the
final analysis, we cannot do everything.
We cannot fund everything. We
cannot support every program. We cannot
do everything that he would demand upon us.
The only way we could do it would be to
continue to raise taxes and continue to place a greater burden on all working
Manitobans, Mr. Speaker, and that, frankly is not what most Manitobans want
today.
Meeting
Request
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): The First Minister obviously has never been
to
Will the First Minister join me in meeting
with the friendship centre board, with the LGD of Lynn Lake, with the
If the First Minister can be convinced
that this reduction of $80,000 will not only jeopardize the quality of life for
thousands of people but will actually cost the province more money, will he
reinstate the $80,000 to the Lynn Lake Friendship‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, the preamble of the member
opposite is absolutely inaccurate. I
have indeed been in the friendship centre at
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
Nonpolitical Statements
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Niakwa): Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make a
nonpolitical statement?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave to make
a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my
strong support for the International Day for the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination. I do so at this time
since the House will not be sitting on Sunday March 21, the actual day of the
United Nations designation in 1986 to recognize this very important goal.
That UN declaration commemorates those
killed and wounded on March 21, 1960, as they participated in the peaceful,
anti‑apartheid demonstrations in
I am a strong advocate for the removal of
the barriers that bring about racial discrimination, and I express our desire
that United Nations and all member states and countries will follow these
principles of co‑operation and respect for others in its deliberations
and actions.
We need to eliminate racism. It is an abhorrent monster that will defeat
all of its forms. We must bring all
possible resources to bear on this target.
I also want to acknowledge all the
nongovernment involvement in our efforts and thank all the people, groups and
organizations for their participation.
This includes the Manitoba Multicultural Resource Committee, the Coalition
for Human Equality, the Citizenship Council of
As we all know, much as we might wish otherwise,
racism does exist in
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for
Ms. Becky Barrett (
It is a 365‑day, 24‑hour‑a‑day
job for all of us and while there may be events that go on over the weekend and
into next week, it is up to each one of us as individuals, each one of us as members
of organizations, each one of us in this House, particularly as legislators, to
do all that we can to support the groups and the organizations that are working
towards the elimination of racism and to see that in these times, which are not
only difficult economically but also difficult for us as a society to work
toward the elimination of racism, that we redouble our efforts in every area of
our life and with all of the resources and prospects that we have to eliminate
the scourge of racism. Thank you.
* (1050)
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker, racism is a very serious
issue, and I believe all members of this Chamber treat it just as that. I know it varies from different degrees. If I may, I just want to comment on some of
the degrees of it. I have had individual
members or colleagues, not only from within my caucus, from all caucuses that
have come up to me and said, you know, I represent a multicultural riding. I do represent a multicultural riding, but
each and every one of us in this Chamber represent a multicultural riding.
Even though it is not meant to be a
negative, in fact it is meant to be a positive thing when they make that reference
that I represent a multicultural riding.
What is really meant is that in the riding that I represent, there is a
higher percentage of visible ethnic groups, Mr. Speaker. I look to my colleague for Osborne (Mr.
Alcock) who has maybe more Italians in his riding than I have. I might have more Filipinos in my riding than
many other members inside this Chamber, but we all represent a multicultural
riding.
Mr. Speaker, I had an incident awhile back
where I was standing beside a lady from the black community in which someone
approached her and asked her the question how long have you been in
Mr. Speaker, when you have those differing
degrees, I would suggest to you that there is an issue of racism that has to be
addressed. There have been reports and
the minister has acted on some, and we as a Legislature no doubt want to do and
to participate in whatever fashion we can, to alleviate or to allow more
tolerance and to provide more education.
There are many different ways in which we can do this.
I would just like to leave on a note of
encouraging all of my colleagues in the Chamber, and, in fact, encourage
organizations that are out there to talk about education and to ensure that we
combat racism together. Together we can
combat it and encourage all of us to take an active role in doing just that.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Does the
honourable member for Emerson have leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
[agreed]
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): As you know, the
I stand here with great pride to represent
that area that is traditionally known to have brought forward a great group of
entertainers historically. This group of
young ladies, by the names of Sheila Friesen, Wanda Friesen and Sandi Klassen
have been nominated to receive one of those Juno awards, and I ask all of us in
this House to wish them well to bring home a Juno.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for The Maples
have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, I would also like to join with
the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), the member for
Mr. Speaker, I have a very different view
about the whole issue. I think it is a
learned behaviour. This behaviour does
not really belong to one section of a community, not on the basis of colour or
race. I think it is across the world,
depends on where you are; wherever you are a minority, you are a part of that
kind of terrorism.
That is why there are individuals who are
being oppressed in one country. They are
doing the same things in their own countries.
So it is more an issue of economy, more an issue of self‑esteem
and more the issue of power and more the issue of taking control of others.
So, to say that we can eliminate racism, I
would say we are dreaming. It is not
going to disappear and never disappeared for the last centuries. It will last.
As long as we can try to learn from each other, try to learn some of the
positive things.
Mr. Speaker, there I have difficulty with
what has happened with multiculturalism, that we have been able to point out
all the differences possible, but we never concentrate on the positive things
that we all contribute. We know that,
whether under this different name or different skin, we still are the same
people.
What I feel very strongly for the last
five years at least being a member of a visible minority‑‑so‑called
visible minority‑‑I think I have done this, at least in my view of
the job, in terms of at least taking some of the fears away, some of the
misconceptions away. I think that we can
do that part in our own way.
* (1100)
I think this is the only Assembly in this
country where you have not only the coloured or the noncoloured people, but
almost every community is represented by us here. It is very positive. I think we should take
pride in that, especially during the Meech Lake debate when we saw that
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Culture,
Heritage and Citizenship have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to rise to join with all the members in
the House today who have spoken already, and I am sure with all members of the
Legislature, when I stand and indicate that I too only hope and pray that
indeed some day we will come to an understanding among each other as Manitobans
and Canadians and there will be a slowdown, I suppose, of racism and racial
incidents. I know it is incumbent upon
all Manitobans and all Canadians to work extremely hard throughout the year,
not only on one day that has been designated for the elimination of racial
discrimination but indeed throughout each and every day of the year with each
and every fellow Manitoban.
Mr. Speaker, I think the key word in the
whole educational process of working towards a better understanding is
respect. I think it is respect for each other
as human beings. I think it is respect
for each other in the workplace, in the school system and right throughout the
activities that we do and participate in on a daily basis. I understand that there have been incidents
in the past, and I know that we will continue to hear about incidents that do
discriminate, but I would encourage all of us here as leaders within our
province to set an example on how we can co‑operate and work together and
learn to understand and respect each other.
Indeed, I think as we continue along that path and encourage all
Manitobans to do so, we will notice on a year‑to‑year basis that
incidents will become less and less that will ultimately lead towards a
community with complete racial harmony.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for St. Boniface
have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Monsieur le president, il me fait plaisir
aujourd'hui d'adresser la parole a cette auguste assemblee afin de celebrer et
de perpetuer la Francophonie au
Demain, le 20 mars 1993, sera la Journee
Internationale de la Francophonie.
Dans pres de 50 pays du monde, des femmes
et des hommes, des jeunes gens, et des enfants de tout age, vont celebrer la
Journee Internationale de la Francophonie.
Le Secretaire general parlementaire de
l'Assemblee internationale des parlementaires de langue francaise, Monsieur
Andre Delehedde, explique clairement l'importance significative de la
Francophonie dans le monde entier.
Monsieur Delehedde disait dans l'editorial
de la revue de l'Association internationale des parlementaires de langue
francaise et je cite:
"Lorsqu'Onesime Reclus inventait le
mot "Francophonie", il depassait les classifications habituelles
s'appuyant sur la race, l'ethnie ou le degre de developpement et fondait un
rassemblement non seulement a partir de la langue mais aussi et surtout a
partir des valeurs qu'elle vehicule et a partir de l'ideal commun qu'elle est
capable d'engendrer.
Le mot existant, le constat etabli, une
volonte s'est manifestee pour sortir des cadres anciens nes de l'histoire et
pour promouvoir une solidarite active a partir des liens nes de l'usage en
commun de la langue francaise."
Monsieur le president, le 20 mars est un
grand jour pour la Francophonie mondiale, la Francophonie canadienne et pour la
Francophonie manitobaine.
De la meme maniere que cela paraissait
dans une recente publication de "une lettre de la Francophonie",
j'aimerais repeter dans cette chambre qu'en Afrique et dans l'Ocean Indien, en
Amerique du Nord et aux Caraibes, en
En celebrant, chacun a sa maniere, mais
tous avec le meme enthousiasme, la Journee de la Francophonie, de Moroni a
Monsieur le president, je termine en
citant une phrase prononcee par Monsieur Georges Pompidou, alors president de
la Republique francaise, qui prononcait une allocution le 25 mai 1971 a
l'Ambassade de France a Bruxelles. Tout
en parlant de l'aspect fondamental de la langue francaise, il definit tres bien
a mon avis le vecu journalier des francophones canadiens et des francophones
manitobains.
Le President Pompidou disait: "Le role de la langue n'est pas un
simple moyen d'expression, c'est un moyen de penser, un moyen d'influence
intellectuelle, et c'est a travers notre langue que nous existons dans le monde
. . . ."
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased today to speak to this august assembly to celebrate and perpetuate the
Francophone community in
The Parliamentary
Secretary General of the International Assembly of French‑Speaking
Parliamentarians, Mr. Andre Delehedde, clearly explains the significant
importance of Francophone communities throughout the entire world. Mr. Delehedde stated in the editorial of the
review of the International Assembly of French‑Speaking Parliamentarians,
and I quote, "When Onesime Reclus invented the word 'Francophonie', he was
going beyond the usual classifications that are based on race, ethnicity or
degree of development and was founding an assembly based not only on language,
but also and above all, based on values for which it acts as a vehicle and on
the basis of the common ideal that it can engender.
The word now existing,
the acknowledgement made, a desire has been shown to break out of the old
framework born of history and to promote an active solidarity based on the
links born of the shared use of the French language."
Mr. Speaker, March 20 is
an important day for the world Francophone community, for the Canadian
Francophone community, and for Manitoban Francophone community. In the same manner as in a recent publication
of "A letter from the Francophone community," I would like to repeat
in this House that in Africa and the Indian Ocean, in North America and in the
Mr. Speaker, I will
close by quoting words pronounced by Mr. Georges Pompidou who was, at the time,
president of the French Republic in a speech made on May 25, 1971, at the
French Embassy in
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Crescentwood
have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to pay tribute to a special group of volunteers in our province. Those volunteers are the school
trustees. As all members of the Chamber
are aware, the Manitoba Association of School Trustees is holding their annual
conference here in
I would like to pay tribute to this group of
volunteers because I think, as all of us know, there are very many individuals
who must work very, very hard in communities, whether those communities be in
rural
It was certainly a pleasure for me to talk
with school trustees from all across this province, from Morris to
Mr. Speaker, I grew up in a rural
community, so I certainly am aware of the importance of people in the community
who must give of their time to volunteer for whatever type of
organization. School trustees are
certainly no exception, and I would ask that all members of this Chamber this
morning join with us in saying thank you to volunteers, such as school
trustees, and to wish them well in their conference and to wish them well in
the future years to come.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Government House Leader: Mr. Speaker, will
you please call Bills 2 and 3.
DEBATE ON
SECOND
Bill 2‑The
Endangered Species Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns),
Bill 2, The Endangered Species Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
especes en voie de disparition, standing in the name of the honourable member
for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 3‑The
Oil and Gas and Consequential Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), Bill 3, The Oil and Gas and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant le petrole et le gaz naturel et
apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois, standing in the name
of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain standing?
[agreed]
The honourable acting government House
leader, what are your intentions, sir?
Mr. Ernst: Please call Bills 5, 8 and 10.
Bill 5‑The
Northern Affairs Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister
of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Downey), Bill 5, The Northern Affairs
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les affaires du Nord, standing in the
name of the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 8‑The
Insurance Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh), Bill 8, The Insurance
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les assurances, standing in the name of
the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 10‑‑The
Farm Lands Ownership Amendment
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), Bill 10, The Farm Lands Ownership
Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la
propriete agricole et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois,
standing the name of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed]
The honourable acting government House
leader, what are your intentions, sir?
Mr. Ernst: Please, Mr. Speaker, call Bills 11 and 12.
Bill 11‑The
Regional Waste Management Authorities, The Municipal Amendment
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), Bill 11, The Regional Waste
Management Authorities, The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments
Act; Loi concernant les offices regionaux de gestion des dechets, modifiant la
Loi sur les municipalites et apportant des modifications correlatives a
d'autres lois, standing in the name of the honourable member for the Interlake
(Mr. Clif Evans).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 12‑The
International Trusts Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), Bill 12, The International Trusts Act; Loi sur
les fiducies internationales, standing in the name of the honourable member for
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain standing?
[agreed]
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, will you call Bills 13, 14 and
15.
Bill 13‑‑The
Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), Bill 13, The Manitoba
Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi
constituant en corporation le Fonds de participation des travailleurs du
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Adjourn it for the member for St. James.
Mr. Speaker: This matter is standing presently in the name
of the honourable member for St. Boniface.
Stand?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak about
the precise details of this piece of legislation, but I do want to speak to the
concept and the fund that it establishes in this province. I think it is an interesting and an important
piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I want to, in particular,
focus in on the use of this fund as a vehicle for pensionable savings. My only concern is that the fund is unduly
speculative as a vehicle for pensionable earnings. The key principle behind pension funds is
obviously security of asset value for an individual's retirement years. One must always be careful, therefore, in
terms of the investment vehicle that one uses, because while speculative
ventures are important to have within the range of investment opportunities for
various investors, generally speaking, someone investing for retirement
purposes does not want a speculative investment. They want a secure investment and are
generally prepared to accept less of a return in order to guarantee that
return.
Mr. Speaker, I note that one of the goals
of this fund, the Crocus Fund, will be to so‑called save or bring back
failing businesses. Now, that is a very,
very important thing to have a fund for.
Is it appropriate as a pension investment? I am not so sure. Perhaps at committee we can discuss this in
greater detail. My only concern is that
those investing are made completely aware of the risks associated with
investing in this fund, that they are completely aware of the type of
businesses that this fund is going to invest in, because if they are
speculative, if they are not so‑called blue chip investments, then people
should know before they invest their pension earnings.
* (1110)
Mr. Speaker, let it not be misunderstood
that I in any way do not support any tool, any mechanism, whereby Manitobans
are encouraged to invest in
Mr. Speaker, it is my view and that of my
federal counterpart, Mr. Axworthy, the M.P. for Winnipeg South Centre, that it
is essential that
Mr. Speaker, I know from experience
dealing with local companies who want to expand, who want to retool, explore
new markets, that they have an awfully difficult time leveraging public
investment, because if it is under $10 million that you need, you cannot even
get the time of day from the investment brokers in
That is the reality. They do not look at you unless you are
floating a bond or a stock offering in excess of $10 million. The fact is that
most
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker,
in the Chair)
They have a real problem, so how do
I believe that our companies in
Mr. Acting Speaker, the truth is that
there is just not enough of a critical mass in this province to substantiate
our own stock exchange. We just do not have
the size required. But if we were to get
together with our neighbours in
Mr. Acting Speaker, I for one am a
proponent of that type of move. We need to
have a vehicle to attract local investment into local companies. It cannot be a vehicle which does not allow
for a secure return on investment.
Vancouver Stock Exchange has a very high cash flow, very high flow
through of capital, but it suffers from a lack of reputation in the world
market.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Why?
Because it is, by and large, a mining and natural resources based stock
market, the result of which is that those companies, those stocks tend to be
highly speculative. You invest in that
stock market, by and large, if one is willing to take those types of high
risks. It serves a specialty market, a
niche market in
Now, I must say that with respect to this
fund, the Crocus Fund, when I first saw the television ads I was attracted to
it. I looked at the potential savings.
The ads claim, spend $1,000, get $800 back. I think it was the way the advertisements
went. That assumes an accumulative tax rate of about 40 percent, so the first
400 out of the 1,000 one gets back under the normal RSP scheme. Then the provincial and federal governments
kicked in another 20 percent tax credit, as I understand it.
I looked at that because, of course, like
most Manitobans I am keen to make investments that save as many tax dollars as
possible. That is the way the system
works. But, Mr. Speaker, when I looked
closer I chose not to invest in that fund, and for the very reason that I
outlined at the beginning. My concern is
that this fund, by being sold on the mass market as a pension fund, is not
adequately telling those potential investors of the risks associated with this
fund. If that was happening then I do
not have a problem with it, but education is the key to this. People must know
what they are investing in, and they must know and have advice about what the
risks are because these are their pension savings.
Most people when they make pension
investments want secure investments above all else. They will forfeit some of the returns in
order to get security because it is a pension savings fund. It is not for immediate return. It is for return down the road, 10, 20, 30
years, and, Mr. Speaker, that is a concern which I look forward to some debate
on at the committee stage. I think it is
very important that this fund be forthright with potential investors about the
risks associated with investment, and be able to provide potential investors with
the security of knowledge of what their returns are going to be, and if there
is no security of return, then that has to be made clear. If the return just is not there and cannot be
guaranteed at all, then I have some concern about this vehicle of investment as
a pension fund.
As an investment fund it is quite another
matter. If people want to choose
investment funds that are risky that is their right. They get for that, one assumes, a higher
potential for return, but that is not the case here. This is being sold as a pension investment
fund.
* (1120)
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken about my view
of some of the other vehicles we need to attract investment in
The third way, Mr. Speaker, is to increase
the tax base, increase the number of companies and individuals who are paying
taxes. The advantage of that is you do
not have to cut services nor do you have to increase taxes, you have a larger
base from which to draw. That is the
goal ostensibly of this government and I believe even their predecessors, the
NDP‑‑increase the tax base.
Unfortunately, they both failed. Quite badly they both failed. Now, I believe we have to go back to Ed
Schreyer as Premier to find a balanced budget in this province. That is consecutive since that time. These other two parties really have not found
the solution. I think it has been a long
time since Ed Schreyer. To his credit, I
think he had some fiscal responsibility.
You must be fiscally responsible in order to be socially
responsible. This cannot go on
forever. How many decades and decades
are we going to allow governments in this province to run large deficits? How long is it going to go on?
The surest sign of failure of this government
is that the way it has chosen to be fiscally responsible, it says, the way it
has had to choose is to hack and slash services. That is the clearest sign that they have
failed, abysmally failed, to increase the tax base, to grow, to recruit
investment, to keep investment and to keep people in this province. They would not have to resort to this if they
had had any success doing that. They have failed to increase the tax base. In fact, it has eroded substantially.
Investment in this province is still
leaving in droves. People are investing all kinds of other places. Around the globe they are investing. They are not investing in
Who are we losing? Who are the people who are leaving more often
than any other group in our province?
The young people. The young people who have gone through university, the
young people who have entrepreneurial drive, who have professional skills, they
are leaving. In droves they are leaving
to take up residence in other provinces, in other countries where they raise
their children that fill the schools where they earn their incomes and pay
taxes. You have to retain those people
if you have any hope of paying for these services into the 21st Century. That is the fact. This government has failed to do that.
What is clearer than anything else is that
the fundamental assumptions about financing government are not working. It is not unique to this province. They are not working anywhere.
Mr. Mulroney is running up the deficit
faster than any Prime Minister in this country.
He is spending over $5 billion on helicopters. That is what he is doing. Is that responsible government? Kim Campbell, the heir apparent, wants to
spend $5 billion on helicopters, Mr. Speaker.
Our education system is crumbling, our
health system is crumbling, our social welfare net is crumbling, and they want
to buy helicopters, Mr. Speaker. It is
outrageous, and it is high time we got rid of Mr. Mulroney, and I can hardly
wait to do it. If anybody thinks that the former executive assistant to Bill
Vander Zalm can save this country, they are sadly mistaken. The only reason people are swarming to Kim
Campbell is that they know nothing about her.
The truth be known, she will be worse than the rest.
She is prepared, Mr. Speaker, in her
wisdom as Defence minister, to squander $5 billion on helicopters when kids in
Davis Inlet and around this country cannot get enough help to stop them from
committing suicide. We have a health
system and an education system that is turning people away in droves, dooming
them to lives of unfulfilled potential.
Is that the kind of country we want to live in? No.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this government has not
been able to recruit investment. Worse
yet, it has not been able to even retain local investment. It is time to question the fundamental assumptions
that both of these other two tired parties in this House function under. It is time to look beyond some of the
assumptions that they have brought to this House, that extreme positions help
us at all. They do not.
It is time to start balancing the
interests in this community with a view to lasting, just lasting, through the
21st Century with some of the things we all claim are essential, like universal
health care, high quality education. We
all compete in this House to see who defends those best, who knows most about
those.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we are losing the
forest for the trees. This has been, I believe, and I stand to be corrected, 16
or 17 years in a row that this province has run deficits‑‑in a row.
The New Democrats ran deficits of $300 million and $400 million in some of the
best years this province ever had.
What ever happened to the guru of left‑wing
politics, Mr. Keynes? He said, you are
supposed to pay it back when times are good.
Did they do that? No. They set up things like a Jobs Fund to give
people work putting up green signs for 10 weeks so they could get on to
UIC. Did they give them any skills? Did they give them any lasting hope of a job? No.
Mr. Speaker, this party to my right, the
New Democratic Party, had one thing in mind‑‑to my physical right‑‑in
their entire tenure in government, the next election. That is all they cared about. They planned everything for the next
election. Power first, foremost and always was the hallmark of that government.
Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude my
comments on this bill by simply‑‑[interjection] Well, the Minister
of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) [interjection] Centre Enns, yes, has just made
a very prophetic announcement. He said,
absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I believe that, and that is why this
government was so much better when it was a minority, because since they have
become a majority government, they have learned that lesson all too well and
shown incredible disdain for not only the rights of members in this House, but
for the rights of people in the community, like school trustees, for instance.
* (1130)
The arrogance of this government‑‑how
would they deal with this? How would
they feel if
What happened to responsible
government? School trustees are duly
elected people in the community, and they face the taxpayer when their turn
comes up for election. The taxpayer
questions them. They have to account for
their taxation.
The arrogance of this government I believe
is unmatched in the history of this province.
They want essentially to play big brother all over this province.
What is next? What are they going to say next? Is it going to be city councils and R.M.s
next? Are you going to tell them how to
do their job? What is next? This is a precedent which is unmatched in its
dangerousness to the future of our system, which has a multilevel democratic
process at work.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is they would never
tolerate this type of incursion into their powers. The fact is this majority government believes
it can do anything. They believe that
they can ride roughshod over the democratic rights of democratically elected
school trustees.
I had some discussions with some members
of the St. James‑Assiniboia school board, not exactly a school board
leaning toward my political persuasion.
I had some discussions with them this morning. They accepted and understood, of course,
because they are loyal Conservatives, most of them, that there were some
serious financial constraints, and the government had to do what the government
had to do.
But you know what? They, even they‑‑
Point of
Order
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on a
point of order, I would ask you to comment on the relevance of the speech of
the member for St. James.
They were talking about the employee
ownership act. He is talking about
something totally different.
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to
what the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) is saying about this. He is talking about a fund that is purported
to play a role in the management of businesses, so he is talking about
management. He is talking about the
principles of management and how we manage in this province on behalf of all
people in the province. So I think his
remarks are exactly relevant to the question.
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised, I would like to
remind all honourable members that the question before the House at this point
in time is The Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment Act.
I believe the honourable member for St.
James has been quite relevant. He has
digressed a little bit at this point in time, and I would ask the honourable
member to get himself back on track.
* * *
Mr. Edwards: I will just finish off this point and then
move on.
Just to finish off the point, the fact is,
in my discussions this morning with those school trustees, they were offended
by this government's lack of willingness to respect their democratic right as
elected people in their community to manage their little portion of the
taxation system and to account to the public after they have done that for what
they have done. They are willing to do
that.
They could have said, listen, this takes
the heat off. Now we do not have to
answer the taxpayers because the provincial government has forced us to do
that. That might have been the
politically smart thing for them to say, but they have not; they have accepted
their responsibility to the taxpayer.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the bill at
hand, I think it is important that the government accept its role and
responsibility in this province to do more than hack and slash and play big
brother around this province. They have
totally failed, totally, to attract outside investment. They have totally failed to even retain
investment of Manitobans in
The biggest group of people leaving this
province are under 25 years of age, the people who should be staying in this
province if we had a future for them. If
this government held out any hope for those people, we would not be losing
them. [interjection] Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey)
points out, where are they going? Well,
you know what? He points to other provinces that are having problems too, but
you know what? Nobody is doing worse
than
As my colleague the member for Osborne
(Mr. Alcock) pointed out last session, and it continues to be true, you can go
down the line on the economic indicators.
These guys finish last all the way down the line. We are worse off‑‑[interjection]
The member for
In rural
Point of
Order
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker,
I noticed you were listening intently to the honourable member for St. James'
(Mr. Edwards) remarks. I just want to
remind you not to take him too seriously.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable minister does not have a point
of order. The honourable member for St.
James, to carry on with his remarks.
* * *
Mr. Edwards: The minister proves his point as to why the
members should not be taken seriously, Mr. Speaker. He lives that every day.
I know I have said this before in these
comments, but I do want to conclude my comments on this issue by simply
highlighting the fact that if this province is going to be able to pay for
these services that this side and the other side say we all defend‑‑education
and health care and social services and that‑‑these people have no
solutions.
I believe that the next budget will show
the deficits in this province are going to be higher than they have ever been
before. As a sorry excuse for their failure, they are resorting to crass
political opportunism. They are starting
to slash these agencies that they know full well do very good work, and they
are doing it, they are slashing agencies.
Why? Because they are playing to
a constituency that does not use those services. The people they are playing to do not need
the friendship centres or the antipoverty league. That is why they are being cut.
What about all the corporate grants? What about all those millions and millions
and millions of dollars we were going to give to Repap, we were going to spend
on corporate investment? What about those?
What about $25,000 to AECL, all of those monies?
I know the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr.
Praznik), mostly what he needs in his life is to hand out a cheque a week in
his constituency, and I believe, Mr. Speaker, whether it is $2,500 or $25,000
that has got to happen. I am very, very
saddened to see that the member for
* (1140)
The people of
Mr. Speaker, I see I have hit a sore spot
with the member, and I would welcome him standing up and putting some comments
on the record. Ninety‑nine percent
of what he has said in this House is off the record. Why does he not stand up and put something on
the record? People want to be able to
read what he says. He does not need to
ask these people in the front row before he stands up and makes some comments. It is time to do it. It is time to put his comments on the record.
We are all equal in this House. Nobody can tell him what to do. He can stand up, and he should stand up, and
if he is making comments from his seat I welcome them. That is fair ball, but I think he should put
them on the record. I think his
constituents would want him to put them on the record. There are all kinds of bills here. Lots of opportunity to talk about the
interests of the people from
Again, I would be pleased to hear from
these members. I just wish they would
put something on the record. I mean, we
can throw things around this House, that is one thing, but you know, the point
of accountability, which this government does not seem to understand, is that
you put things on the record so people can measure what you have done, can
judge what you have done.
These members of the back bench in the
Conservative caucus, I believe, have lots to say. Why do they not say it? They represent constituencies around this
province that have very, very serious problems.
They have depopulation running rampant in rural
The rural economy is suffering around this
province, and what do these members do?
They sit silent. They let the
people in the front row do the talking.
Well, they are not here just to sit and stand up when they are told
to. They are here to do a job.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is a bill which I
will want, and I know the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) will want, to
question. The member for
It is not enough just to sell this
investment as a lucrative investment in terms of the immediate tax
advantage. There must be adequate
education of the prospective purchasers of these RRSPs about the real risks of
purchase, and the small print is not enough. This fund must be prepared to be up‑front
about what it is investing in and the security or insecurity of the
investment. That is my only concern
about this fund.
I am pleased about any fund that attempts
with government assistance to recruit internal investment. I am.
But, Mr. Speaker, these are pension savings. This is not a short‑term investment
people are making. When people buy
pensionable investments, they are doing it with a view to the long term. They
want security of return, and this fund is not as secure, does not offer a
secure return, as many, many others in the marketplace. It offers much higher immediate returns in
terms of tax savings, but the tradeoff for that must be made clear.
So, Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude my
comments by indicating that we will have some questions at the committee on
this act. More importantly, we will have questions about the way this
government thinks it can govern this province.
By casting aside parliamentary convention,
casting aside democratic principles about accountability of different levels of
government, the arrogance of this government will come home to haunt it, Mr.
Speaker. I believe that. There is no crisis of the moment worthy of
the incursions into other levels of government that this government is
proposing, worthy of the breaching of democratic principle because of the
incompetence of the government and its inability to come forward with a budget.
There is no excuse for that.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry).
Bill 14‑The
Personal Property Security
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister
of Justice (Mr. McCrae), Bill 14, The Personal Property Security and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant les suretes relatives aux biens
personnels et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois,
standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
Bill 15‑The
Boxing and Wrestling Commission Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), Bill 15, The Boxing
and Wrestling Commission Act; Loi sur la Commission de la boxe et de la lutte,
standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
The honourable deputy government House
leader, what are your intentions, sir?
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): I would
ask that you call the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness).
* (1150)
Point of
Order
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I know the government's urgency in terms of trying to deal with Bill
16. Are they not wanting to call Bill
16?
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable deputy government House leader has called the proposed
motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness).
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I can indicate that we would be
prepared to call it if the member for
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I believe the discussion that is taking place
at this time would serve our time in this Chamber better if House leaders could
make that sort of agreement outside of the Chamber.
DEBATE ON
PROPOSED MOTIONS
Mr. Speaker: Presently, I have been asked to call debate
on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness),
that this House at this sitting will resolve itself into a Committee to
consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty, standing in the name of
the honourable Leader of the second opposition party.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker,
as I was pleased to join in this debate yesterday, I am equally prepared to
join in this debate today, as I will be on Monday and Tuesday and Wednesday and
Thursday and Friday of next week on this particular motion.
The motion is that at this sitting, the
House will resolve itself into the Committee to consider of the Supply to be
granted to Her Majesty, and those of you who were in the House yesterday
afternoon‑‑
Some Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mrs. Carstairs: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The question before us is an important one in
terms of parliamentary tradition.
As I indicated yesterday, and I took the
members through the evolution of Parliament and parlement, first of all the
Magna Carta, the great charter of 1215, and the Petition of Right of 1628 and
the Bill of Rights of 1689 and the reform acts of 1837, 1867 and 1884.
I showed them how the whole concept of
Supply was directly attached to the right of Parliament, because that is and
was the entire purpose for the formulation of Parliament, so that they could,
rather than the king or the queen, as the case might be, grant Supply, and that
this evolution through the historical traditions became such that only
Parliament could grant Supply.
Not only in
Those of you of course who know and
understand Canadian history know that the first settlers to
So the arrival of John Cabot on our shores
in 1497 in Newfoundland and the arrival of Jacques Cartier in the settlements
of Hochelaga and Stadacona in 1534, '35, '37, those particular evolutions were
such that we had the bringing to this nation of an English parliamentary
tradition and also a French system which, of course, was the original concept
of the word "parliament" because it came from the French
"parlement," to speak.
When the French of course first settled in
The evolution of the government of what we
now refer to as the
That is the motion that we are debating
today, the imposition of Supply. In the
early French settlement days, there were in fact a triumvirate of governing for
the territory known as
A similar phrase comes to mind, of course,
with the Sun King in France who ruled in the early days of the foundation of
It is ultimately the people in that
society who get to determine issues like Supply, because either they do it
directly or they do it through their elected representatives. The issue of Supply is granted by those of us
who sit in this Chamber, and that is where our heritage and our tradition
comes.
Mr. Speaker, the governing triumvirate of
New France, if you will, was made up of the intendant, who was to look after
the economic affairs, much like our Minister of Finance is supposed to look
after the affairs of finance in the
That council, and only that council, could
determine matters of Supply, matters of Supply that were related to the
collection of taxes, of the imposition of those same taxes. So therefore comes into our parliamentary
tradition not only the British parliamentary tradition, but also the French
parliamentary tradition. We know that in
1759 the French were defeated in the
It was some years between 1759‑‑even
though there were certain rights granted to those in
The next settlement in fact, in terms of
Nova Scotian history, was at the fort of Louisbourg. It was the fort of Louisbourg which, for many
who perhaps do not know their geography of Canada too well‑‑the
Nova Scotia peninsula literally juts out into the Atlantic, and the tip that
juts out at its northernmost end is the island of Cape Breton, now also in
itself a peninsula because a causeway has been built between that island and
the mainland to Nova Scotia. At the fort
of Louisbourg, it acted as a fortress for entrance into the St. Lawrence, so it
could warn very quickly those who were in New France that ships of a foreign
nationality, particularly
The British realized that they too should
have some presence in
* (1200)
So representative government came to
We know that there were rebellions in
I think it is important that he recognized
that one of the most important concepts of responsible government was the right
of the people to be represented in issues of taxation, that in issues of
taxation and the levying of taxation, in not only taxation but the expenditures
of government, that the people had to have the right to participate. They had to be given the authority, the time,
the energy, to devote to the examination of those new taxation
regulations. They had to be given the
time, the authority, to investigate the expenditure programs of government.
That is why we today have Supply motions,
that we go into Supply so that the governing party can present their plan, if
you will, their list of expenditures, and the opposition parties can examine
those lists of expenditures in detail.
That is what the Supply motion is all about. That is why the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) has requested that this House deal with the concept of Supply, that we
go into Supply. That, Mr. Speaker, is
why we are preventing this motion at this particular point in time, because we
have not been given the information with which we can deal with a Supply motion
in the legitimate fashion which has been the legacy of our ancestry in the
whole concept and evolution of responsible government.
I think it is interesting, Mr. Speaker,
that one of the first test cases on responsible government was an issue which
is not all that different than the issue that we are dealing with, I would
suggest to you, in the House today. In
1849, there came the very first test of responsible government. It was called the Rebellion Losses bill. The purpose of the bill was to compensate
people in Canada East, which had formerly been known as
The rebellion of 1837, the Tories charged
that the rebels would be among those receiving money, and thus would be paid
for their past disloyalty.
Now that is a very interesting question
because what the parliamentarians of the day were asked to debate in terms of a
motion of Supply‑‑because that is what it was‑‑was if
people caused a rebellion and in their very act of causing that rebellion they
had undertaken a disloyal act, should they receive compensation for the fact
that their houses were destroyed or that they might have lost a loved one, or
that they may have suffered physical injury as a result of the rebellion that
had taken place in 1837?
Lord Elgin, who was the governor of the
time and, interestingly enough, the son‑in‑law of Lord Durham,
indicated that he had a tough time with the wisdom of this bill. He knew that trouble might result if he
passed the Rebellion Losses Bill, but he decided that he had to sign it anyway
because he was following, he said, the advice of his ministers who had
submitted the bill to the Assembly, and where the bill had duly passed.
Now the question here is a critical
one. If Lord Elgin had taken the
decision, as perhaps our Lieutenant‑Governor could take now because he
occupies much the same position as Lord Elgin did at this particular point in
time. He receives notification that a
bill on Supply has been passed by the Assembly.
He receives notice that his ministers of
the Crown are in favour of this particular bill‑‑otherwise, they
would not have introduced it‑‑and the Governor‑General, or a
Lieutenant‑Governor in a province, duly decrees that he will not sign
this into law.
We still have the custom, and those of you
who have been here the closing night of sessions know that the Speaker comes in
and moves out of his seat in order for the Lieutenant‑Governor to move in
to that particular seat, and all of the bills are read by title to the
Lieutenant‑Governor. At that
point, the Lieutenant‑Governor gives consent.
Now we know that consent today is more
form than substance. We know that Lieutenant‑Governors have not refused
bills, particularly of Supply nature, for a very long time. But the moment that they could no longer do
that, I would suggest, on the basis of the evolution of custom and precedence
and convention in this country, was that they made this decision in 1849.
Lord Elgin very judiciously and very
carefully said, I have no choice. I must
accept the opinion of those duly elected to the Parliament of Canada, duly
elected to the Legislature at that time, which sat in
Mr. Speaker, the evolution of our
parliamentary system continues, and, of course, we find that evolutionary
parliamentary tradition found very carefully in the British North America Act,
which became our constitution for the first 100 years plus of Canadian
parliamentary life.
The British North America Act was an act
which was passed in
We took a step quite different from that
taken in the
* (1210)
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
We took a different approach. We said that because our tradition is
parliamentary, and we want it to remain parliamentary, and because the Mother
of our Parliament is indeed the Parliament of Great Britain, then we will go to
the Parliament of Great Britain. We will
ask them to pass an act, which became known as the British North America Act,
which will in fact set up the constitutional legal authorities of the governing
of this nation.
It is also interesting to note, of course,
Mr. Acting Speaker, that the British North America Act did not give
We had control over our internal affairs,
and one of those very critical areas of which we got control over our external
affairs in 1867 was in the whole issue of Supply. The issue of Supply was addressed in several
places in the British North America Act, but particularly in Sections 91 and
92, because it was in Sections 91 and 92 that we outlined the authority and
powers of the provinces.
It talked about, in 91, the powers of
Parliament. When they referred to the
powers of Parliament in this particular section, they were referring to it, and
I shall read from Section 91: It shall
be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and the consent of the Senate
and the House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order and good government
of Canada in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects
that this act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the provinces; and
For greater certainty, but not so as to
restrict the generality of the foregoing terms of this section, it is hereby
declared that notwithstanding anything in this act, the exclusive legislative
authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the
classes of subjects next hereinafter remunerated.
Mr. Acting Speaker, what do we see at the
very top of this list? We see Section
1(a), The public debt and property. We
then go on to see that they have the right to issue and establish interest
rates and legal tender, that they have the right to establish currency and
coinage. We see that they have the right
to establish savings banks, that they have the right to incorporate banks, that
they have the right to impose a criminal law.
What we have, in essence, is the right of
the Parliament of Canada to deal with Supply, but that is not the only
group. That is not the only level of
government that is given some control over the ability to implement and to give
to a governing authority the right to deal with Supply because one also has to
look at the powers which are given to the provinces in Section 92. In Section 92 of the British North America
Act, which has now been taken in its entirety into the Canada Act, in each
province, the Legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters
coming within the classes of subject next hereinafter enumerated, that is to
say, direct taxation within the province in order to the raising of a revenue
for provincial purposes.
So the province was also given the
authority within its jurisdiction to raise revenue and to make expenditures on
behalf of people living within that provincial jurisdiction. That is the basis upon which the issue of
Supply came to the provinces in 1867.
What we have, Mr. Acting Speaker, in terms
of the Supply motions therefore is the ability of a provincial government to
introduce Supply, and so we do not question as a party in this Chamber their
ability to introduce Supply, but we do question in this Chamber the way in
which the Supply motion is being introduced in this particular session of the
Legislature.
I mentioned yesterday that the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) met with the House leader for the Liberal Party, as I
understand he did with the House leader of the New Democratic Party, and he
indicated, of course, that he had some very serious problems in presenting the
budget as quickly as he had hoped to present the budget. He said that the information which had come to
him from the federal government with respect to the cutback in transfer
payments would make it difficult for him to present the budget that he had
originally planned.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
We have some difficulty with that, because
we do know that the Minister of Finance had knowledge of this change in federal
government policy as early as December and, in having that knowledge, we do not
quite understand why at that particular point the Minister of Finance did not,
with his cabinet colleagues and Treasury Board, develop a best case, worst case
scenario. We understand he did not do
that, or perhaps he did and did not get it completed, because we are not privy
obviously to the goings on of Treasury Board, but we do know that he told us
that he was unable to present a budget.
Now, we find that somewhat ironic because
yesterday we had the presentation of two provincial budgets, one in the
In his discussions and debates with the
House leaders of both the official opposition and the second opposition party,
he indicated he could not do this and that he wanted to introduce Estimates in
a piecemeal basis and that he was in the first instance prepared to introduce
the Estimates of Highways and Family Services and gradually that became
extended to Agriculture when he recognized apparently that Highways may not use
as much time on one side of the Chamber or in the sitting of the second room
within which we debate Estimates, as would the Estimates of Family
Services. He wanted to keep both
Chambers equally occupied, so he was prepared to also give us the Estimates of
the Department of Agriculture.
As soon as it was possible for us to raise
our objections to this, Mr. Speaker, we did so last Friday. The member for
You, Mr. Speaker, took that under
advisement and you took a look at your references and you dealt with references
with respect to notice. We grant that
that was quite a legitimate ruling that the government of the day did not
require notice to introduce the motion other than the notice motion which they
had put on the Order Paper on the Wednesday.
We are still concerned with the other
aspect, however, not just on the notice of motion. That other aspect is the actual fact of the
notice of motion or of the motion itself, not in violation of our parliamentary
rights and traditions.
I would like to deal, Mr. Speaker, with
the citations that you yourself used in your analysis of the judgment last
week. You cited the first one as being one in 1883, and so I asked my research
staff to learn just what that citation indeed was. I learned with great interest that that
citation had to do only with the rules of the House. It had nothing to do, of course, with the
Estimates process and the way in which Estimates were brought in.
I would like to read to the members just a
brief reference from that ruling of 1883.
It says: Ordered that the 78th
rule of this House as to the selection of committees be suspended and that the
special committee to whom has been referred the said paragraph be composed of
Messrs. Blake, Ross, McCarthy, et cetera, and then the House adjourned till
Monday next.
What happened as a result of that
particular reference, of course, was that it was allowed that they would
suspend the rules of the House on the fact of the message that had been
brought, and it is interesting, because nobody in the House objected. They did
not question that this was going to be an imposition on their parliamentary
rights and traditions, and I can understand perhaps why, because it certainly
had nothing to do with their function.
They had apparently got an all‑party agreement that this would go
forward.
That was not the case with respect to the
motion that had been introduced on the Supply motion.
The second one which the Speaker made
reference to was in 1898. In this case,
it was ordered that all rules and orders of this House be suspended as regards
a bill to amend the act of the present session, entitled An Act to Incorporate
the London and Lake Huron Railway Company and that Mr. Lister have leave to
bring in the bill respecting the London and Lake Huron Railway Company.
* (1220)
Well, interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker,
yet once again we see that there is total unanimity in the House of the day in
the suspension of those rules so that there can be the immediate debate. Obviously there was an interest in this
particular bill, an interest on the part of every single member of this
Chamber, an interest on the part that all of them get on with the establishment
of the
Again, I would suggest to the members of
this House, that is not the case in this Chamber. There are seven members of this party, the
Liberal Party, who sit in this Chamber, members who received, I would suggest
to you, only .65 percent less of the popular vote than was received by the New
Democratic Party in the last election campaign.
Despite the fact that they managed to send 20 people to this Chamber, it
cannot be argued that they represent any more electors out there in terms of
the popular vote than we represent in this Chamber. So we have‑‑[interjection]
I have always believed in proportional
representation. The member for Burrows
(Mr. Martindale) asks that question. As
he will note, if he ever gets around to reading my book, I make some reference
to that in my book, about the need for proportional representation.
In terms of the next reference, it was a
ruling on Thursday, the 8th of April of 1948.
That one, interestingly enough, the House resumed the adjourned debate
on the proposed motion of Mr. St. Laurent for Mr. Mackenzie King that
notwithstanding any other order passed by the House in relation thereto, and
after Thursday, the 8th of April and every day thereafter, until otherwise
ordered during the present session, government notices of motions and
government orders shall have precedence over other business except the
introduction of bills, questions by members and notices of motions for the
production of paper, and from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Fridays private bills.
Well, again, Mr. Speaker, it is quite
interesting, of course, that this particular motion was to make the function
more efficient within the House. We
would suggest that again. However, this had nothing to do with Estimates,
nothing whatever to do with the Supply bill, nothing whatever to do with a
government wanting to do away with the tradition which abrogates the rights of
opposition members in this Chamber.
The fourth citation which was made
reference to by the Speaker was in the Journals, No. 89, in the year 1961. This will, I am sure, be of some interest,
particularly to the member for
It then goes on to give the hours for
Wednesday, the hours for Thursday, the hour of Friday, and to the provisions of
Standing Orders 2 and 3 be suspended in relation thereto. Well, there was a movement to amend that
motion, that the motion be amended, adding additional hours. It was ordered that provisions of the same
orders be dealt with, and the vote appears again to have been made with some equanimity,
some agreement among the members of this Chamber, or the Chamber of the day,
being the Parliament of Canada. So we
have a ruling which appears to have met the needs and the objectives and the
passion and the rights and responsibilities of the member of the Chamber of the
day. We are dealing with quite a
different issue.
Finally, the third citation which the
Speaker referenced was Thursday, the 14th of May, 1964. This one, interestingly enough, deals with
motions which are in the interests, again, of the members of the Chamber on a
motion by Mr. Favreau, seconded by Mr. McNaught (phonetic): It was resolved that on Friday next, the
hours of sitting shall be from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. without interruption; and,
when the House adjourns that day, it shall stand adjourned until Tuesday, May
19, 1964, at 2:30 p.m., and that in relation thereto the provisions of Standing
Orders 2 and 6 be suspended.
So, yet, once again, Mr. Speaker, we have
changes to the rules which, for the most part, got all‑party consent,
unanimous consent of the Chamber, changes to the rules that had absolutely
nothing to do with Supply, nothing to do with our ability to debate the motion
that is before us now and will be before us, if indeed, this motion passes.
I would suggest to you that this motion in
and of itself is an extremely dangerous motion.
It is an extremely dangerous motion not in and of itself, because this
motion will be made over and over and over again as long as Supply comes before
us. It is a dangerous motion because of what would happen to this Chamber if
this motion passed. If this motion
passed and the subsequent Ways and Means motion, if they bring it, and the
subsequent further motion of the tabling of Estimates, what will happen is that
the government in this Chamber will table only three Estimates.
It will not table the Main Estimates book,
which has been a part and parcel of the Supply motion, I would suggest to this
Chamber, since the days of 1689 and the Bill of Rights in Great Britain, that
it is a Supply motion that lays before parliamentarians of whatever their
stripe, whatever their political allegiance and whatever House that they are
located in. It brings into the
Parliament or the Legislature the Supply motion in its entirety so that, when
we have a Supply motion on Estimates, it is not the cherry‑picking of
Estimates, it is, in fact, all Estimates.
Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that
when I took a look at the history of the formulation of Estimates, I came
across some very interesting references.
I am sure that many of the members of this Chamber who took degrees in
political science‑‑and I know there are a great many‑‑probably
used as their text or they certainly had as one of their reading assignments R.
McGregor Dawson's The Government of Canada.
This is a foreknown text. Certainly, it was the text that I had when I
studied government of
We have a reference in here to how the
Treasury Board goes about formulating its Estimates. It says that the development of Estimates
through Treasury Board is often a rather fractious process, that the ministers
of the day sit around the table trying‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
This matter will remain standing in the name of the honourable Leader of
the second opposition party.
The hour being 12:30 p.m., the House is
now adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m., Monday.