LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Monday,
March 22, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Brenda McBride, Alfred Coumont, Maureen Paskaruk and others, requesting the
Family Services minister (Mr. Gilleshammer) consider restoring funding for the
friendship centres in
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Dean Bird, Catherine Bird, Conrad Demetruk and others, requesting the Family
Services minister (Mr. Gilleshammer) consider restoring funding for the
friendship centres in
* * *
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Helen Pydee, Yvonne Wall, Pete Letkeman and others, requesting the Minister of
Labour (Mr. Praznik) hold public hearings on wide‑open Sunday shopping
throughout
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member (Mr. Dewar). It complies with the
privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS the United Nations has declared
1993 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme
"Indigenous People: a new
partnership"; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and
WHEREAS the elimination of all funding to
friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as the services
and programs provided, such as:
assistance to the elderly, the homeless, youth programming, the socially
disadvantaged, families in crisis, education, recreation and cultural
programming, housing relocation, fine options, counselling, court assistance,
advocacy;
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* (1335)
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 Second
Report of the Standing Committee on Economic Development.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Economic
Development presents the following as its Second Report:
Your committee met on Thursday, March 18,
1993, at 8 p.m. in Room 255 of the
Mr. Dale Smeltz, Chairperson, Mr. Ray
West, President and CEO and Mr. Ken Robinson, Vice‑President, Finance,
provided such information as was requested with respect to the Annual Report
and business of A.E. McKenzie Co. Ltd.
Your committee has considered the Annual
Report of A.E. McKenzie Co. Ltd. for the year ended October 31, 1992, and has
adopted the same as presented.
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for
Motion agreed to.
TABLING OF
REPORTS
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the report of The Trade Practices
Inquiry Act and, as well, to table the report of The Insurance Act.
INTRODUCTION
OF BILLS
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
If you are already past Introduction of Bills, could we have leave to
introduce a few bills?
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave to revert to Introduction of
Bills? [agreed]
Bill 19‑The
Court of Queen's Bench Amendment
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I
thank my honourable colleagues.
I move, seconded by the honourable
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 19, The Court of Queen's Bench Amendment
and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Cour du Banc, de
la Reine et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), be
introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 20‑The
Social Allowances Regulation Validation Act
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 20, The Social
Allowances Regulation Validation Act (Loi validant un reglement d'application
de la Loi sur l'aide sociale), be introduced and that the same be now received
and read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 18‑The
Corporations Amendment Act
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), that Bill 18, The Corporations
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les corporations, be introduced and
that the same be now received and read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Aboriginal
Friendship Centres
Funding
Reinstatement
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, today we heard comments from a
number of people, dealing with the Indian‑Metis friendship centres across
People spoke today about the fact that the
aboriginal population, in the last census, has doubled in the city of
People also spoke eloquently about the
fact that the government did not understand their own criteria. The government stated that they were going to
maintain support for organizations that were dealing with children and dealing
with elderly who are vulnerable, yet the friendship centres that are dealing
with children who may be dealing with the substance abuse challenge, or dealing
with people looking for jobs, or dealing with people looking for housing, or
dealing with elderly people dealing with health, that those people are being
dealt with on the front lines by the friendship centres.
In light of that information so eloquently
stated, Mr. Speaker, today by the people on the front lines, would the Premier
now agree to reinstate the funding for our friendship centres, keep the 33
people hired across
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I note that we have an unusually large number
of visitors in the gallery here this afternoon.
I would like to remind all the visitors that you are not to participate
in any way, that even includes applauding.
I would expect that from all the members of this Chamber.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I accept the question of the
Leader of the Opposition, and I suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that we
are in unusually difficult times vis‑a‑vis the budget of the
In those difficult circumstances, we have
to make difficult choices, difficult choices that I might say are being shared
by all governments across the country. I
note, for instance, that in introducing reductions in health care, education
and social services in the
* (1340)
I could quote from other First Ministers
of Liberal persuasion, Mr. Speaker. The
fact of the matter is that faced with incomes that are not rising, every
government in
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I would note in the
Mr. Speaker, we had suggested last week
that there are some alternative places to find the money, the $7‑million tax
change that the government made that would have produced that revenue for
training in our society for corporations.
We had suggested last week the $15 million in the Vision Capital Fund
which the government has unfrozen for those kinds of grants. So there are some choices.
Mr. Speaker, I have a letter from the
Conference of Mennonites in
This letter went to the Premier, and it
further goes on to say: With the small
amount of dollars involved, I cannot see you cutting this program. It will not save you any money. These extra dollars are needed for social
assistance, health care, law enforcement, and a lot of pain and even bitterness
are generated in the process. At the end
of the process, you may be in fact spending more dollars and just shifting the
dollars from one place to the other.
Mr. Speaker, would the Premier not find it
in his ways to look at the long‑term economic benefits of Indian and
Metis friendship centres, the long‑term economic benefits of social
assistance training? Does it not make
sense to have people working with people to get people working again, to give
them jobs and give them opportunity, rather than having the short‑term
cuts which will create long‑term pain for many thousands of Manitobans?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, the sad reality is that the
member talks in conflict. The area that
he is talking about of training people so that they can be employed is exactly
the area that he is asking us to cut.
Those areas in which we allow firms to train people in lieu of having
payroll tax payments, last year trained 22,000 Manitobans, and he is saying,
cut out the training for 22,000 Manitobans.
That is the most shortsighted thing that any government could do, and I
just say that the Leader of the Opposition cannot understand what he is talking
about if he would say that we should cut out training grants for 22,000
Manitobans. That is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Mr. Speaker, 22,000 Manitobans were
trained under that program, and he is saying to cut that program out. I say that is misplaced priority to the
greatest degree. I say that you cannot
always be saying, well, cut out somewhere else.
Just last week the Leader of the
Opposition condemned us for cutting $10 million of highway construction. There is not an area in which we have reduced
that the Leader of the Opposition agrees.
Day after day, anything that is reduced, he says we should restore. How can there be any credibility, how can
there be any sense or fairness when all he wants to do is argue against every
reduction that is brought forward by this administration?
* (1345)
Mr. Speaker, I say to you that every other
government in this country has made difficult choices. Every other one has made choices that affect
health care, that affect family services, that affect education. New Democratic administrations, Mr. Romanow,
all of the others have made the difficult choices, because those are the areas
in which government spends its money, and we do not have enough money to spend
on all the things we would like to do.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, all we are suggesting to the
government is the training and orientation programs the corporations are
responsible for, they will pay for it, so that we can put the money into
people's training programs in the friendship centres, in the social allowance
programs, in the Anti‑Poverty Organization, and the people working with
aboriginal and grassroots people right across our province. That is what we are talking about.
Funding
Reinstatement
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the government cut the
equivalent amount of money from the Anti‑Poverty Organization; some
$60,000 is exactly the same as the amount of money that they gave to Northern
Telecom, which laid off 45 people last month, in terms of a training
grant. The government has said it was
first of all an advocacy body. Then it
stated the services were provided elsewhere, but it relied on the statement
that these advocate bodies must be closed down.
Mr. Speaker, the government has not cut
the grant from the Consumers' Association.
The minister stated last week the reason they are not cutting the
Consumers' Association but cutting the Anti‑Poverty Organization‑‑this
is real work that I am talking about; I am talking about detailed work into
legislation. In fact they helped us
draft The Business Practices Act. Is
this not true, that the government is cutting back the groups that are working
in the grassroots area, like the Anti‑Poverty Organization? Will the government treat the Anti‑Poverty
Organization the same way it is treating other organizations, and will it
reinstate the money to the Anti‑Poverty Organization so it can speak out
for the most vulnerable people in our communities?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I repeat for the edification of
the Leader of the Opposition, these are not decisions that any government,
least of all our government, would like to make. We have, during the past five budgets, for
instance, increased our spending on Family Services by an average of 10 percent
annually, increased our expenditures on health care by more than 6 percent
annually, increased our expenditures in Education by 5.3 percent annually.
Mr. Speaker, we have done throughout the
past five budgets everything possible to preserve our spending on the social
safety net. We are at a stage where we
cannot continue to justify all of the things that we have done in the past,
because we simply do not have the money, and the alternative would be to drive
up the deficit or increase taxes. We
will not do that.
The Pas
Friendship Centre Role
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): I would like to ask the First Minister a
question.
Last week the Premier erroneously stated
that friendship centres such as the one in The Pas did not provide services and
were only being cut by 10 percent when in actuality the cut to The Pas
Friendship Centre represented about 35 percent of its budget.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the First
Minister: Does he now realize that The
Pas Friendship Centre and other centres are not merely advocacy groups but in
fact provide a wide variety of vital human services?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, we have said time and time again
that we are faced with circumstances that have not been faced by this province
ever in terms of the lack of growth in revenues, the clawback of equalization
payments from Ottawa and the necessity to try and preserve our health care, to
preserve our education, to preserve all of those things that people‑‑[interjection]
* (1350)
Mr. Speaker, the average of the provincial
funding as a percentage of the budgets of our Indian and Metis friendship
centres in
We recognize that everybody would like us
to keep all of the expenditures of government up. We cannot.
We have made difficult choices, and regrettably, those choices are the
ones that we have put forward in the budget.
We have said before we would like to follow the easy course; we could
follow the easy course that has been followed by previous governments and just
drive up the deficit‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The Pas
Friendship Centre
Meeting
Request
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): Mr. Speaker, there are 15 community
organizations in The Pas, including the town council, The Pas band, the local
RCMP, Swampy Cree MMF, the chamber of commerce, the hospital in KCC, which are
going to be attending an event on Wednesday called The Pas Friendship Centre
Day, which incidentally was declared by the town council and The Pas band.
I would like to ask the minister: Would he be interested in attending or
sending one of his cabinet colleagues to attend that event in The Pas on
Wednesday?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): The
Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) was right last Monday when he indicated
there were many difficult choices that have to be made in putting together a
budget. I also indicated last week the
tremendous increases in funding that this Department of Family Services has
received over the last five budgets.
Unfortunately, governments right across this land, whether they be
municipal governments, provincial governments or the national government, have
to make those difficult choices so that we can preserve the vital services‑‑
Point of
Order
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): On a point of order,
our rules are very clear. Government
does not have to answer questions, Mr. Speaker, but answers should be related
to the matter raised.
The member for The Pas just asked the
minister if he would attend in The Pas to maybe learn something about
friendship centres. We would appreciate
an answer from that minister.
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised, I would like to
remind the honourable minister to deal with the matter raised, and it should
not provoke debate.
* * *
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, I think that in discussion last
week, in answer to questions, we indicated that these difficult decisions were
being made right across the country.
I will examine my schedule and see if I am
available to do that.
Mr. Lathlin: I will even give him a ride to The Pas, Mr.
Speaker.
The Pas
Friendship Centre
Funding
Review
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): My question is again directed to the First
Minister.
Given that the decision to cut funding to
friendship centres was made without an in‑depth review of the effects
that that cut would have on the friendship centres, will the Premier now review
the decision to cut funding to friendship centres?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I have said before that these
are difficult choices that are being made by governments right across the
country. In response to a similar criticism,
Premier Romanow said just a short while ago, and I quote: If anybody thinks you lie awake at night
thinking of ways to hurt people, say in the budget, forget it. I lost a Minister of Finance who was lying
awake at night trying to figure out ways not to hurt people.
The fact of the matter is, these decisions
are not taken lightly. We do everything
we can to try and preserve services to people, and we simply do not have enough
money to do everything we would like to do.
* (1355)
Government
Grants
Public
Service Definition
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, today we have heard the Premier say, these are difficult times; he has
to make difficult choices; no decisions are taken lightly. So I would like the Premier to provide the
House today with an explanation.
On the one hand, his ministers have chosen
to cut Indian and Metis friendship centres, the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty
Association and the child care association.
On the other hand, they have said that the Consumers' Association of
Canada provides, quote, an invaluable public service.
Can he give us a definition of what
"invaluable public service" is?
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if members opposite realize that some of the
comments they are making, perhaps not by intent, are maligning hundreds of
volunteers who give freely of their time, with no recompense, to provide
product information, for one example.
This work that they do in countless ways helps, and I quote, lower
income people who are vulnerable, voiceless and powerless.
If the member for
They have done a number of things in terms
of bringing down legislation and bringing down information for those consumers
who are powerless if not protected, as the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway)
constantly tells me, that we need to do more to protect the consumer.
They are a valuable counterpoint, in fact
the only counterpoint, between the interests of big business and big unions who
are concerned with big profits and big wages.
There is no one to work in an official way, except for this group, for
the protection of consumers, who include the poor and the vulnerable.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, all of the words out of the
minister's mouth supporting volunteerism are equally applicable to all of the
agencies which this government has cut.
Aboriginal
Friendship Centres Role
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): I ask the
Premier for a definition of "invaluable service." Can the Premier tell us if he does not
believe that the service that is provided to the people who seek service at the
Indian and Metis friendship centres throughout this province, that they do not
consider that work invaluable?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before, there are
a number of aspects to it; firstly is that the friendship centres get the
majority of their funding from other sources.
They do provide very much benefit to people. On the other hand, they also have other
sources of revenue. So we have said, we
have to look at all of these things with a view to the fact that we do not have
enough money to do all of the things that we would like to do. In making those difficult choices, some of
these things are matters that we, in lieu of raising taxes further, just simply
cannot go any further in doing all of the things that people would like us to
do.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, maybe the Premier's logic would bear some telling factor if in fact
MAP0, the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty Organization, did not get two‑thirds
of its funding from this government, funding which it will now not get.
Can the minister explain to this House why
the work that is done in advocating on behalf of the poorest of the poor is any
less valuable than the work of the Consumers' Association?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, one of the criteria that we used within our department was to look and
see what other advocacy groups are also providing the same service.
In terms of MAPO, the social allowance
coalition of
The WORD group have brought forward their
concerns to the ministry, and we have made changes based on some of the
information that they bring forward.
We have to, in these very difficult times,
in the 90s, be able to fund those who provide direct service that we want to
maintain, whether it be in health, education or family services.
* (1400)
Aboriginal
Friendship Centres
Funding
Reinstatement
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, since the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
and his caucus continue to claim wrongly that the friendship centres are an
advocacy group, maybe they are not aware that friendship centres provide
services for reconciliation, restitution, suicide prevention, crisis
counselling, working with the children, working with the elderly.
Also, I wonder, of the $7 million that was
spent by Workforce 2000, how many aboriginal people were trained with those
dollars? Because the Premier says that
aboriginal issues, aboriginal concerns are very important to us, I ask the
Premier, will he now review the funding to friendship centres in
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): The
funds allotted through Workforce 2000, through which business, industry and
labour do make application for, also must meet a certain criterion for as well,
I would remind the member, is also a cost‑shared training program. As I said the last time we spoke about this,
Mr. Speaker, governments across
Mr. Hickes: Mr. Speaker, as usual, we never got an
answer.
Aboriginal
Friendship Centres
Meeting
Request
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): I would like to ask the Premier‑‑it
is so obvious, to us people who have been in friendship centres, the important
services that they do provide. It is obvious that the Premier has not met and
stepped foot into those friendship centres to look at the programs and support
services they provide, not only to aboriginal people. I was informed this morning, and from living
in Thompson, I know, that the friendship centre in Thompson gives services to
at least 50 percent of nonaboriginal people.
It is not‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Question, please.
Mr. Hickes: Will the Premier agree today to meet with the
friendship staff to look at trying to help them to get some funding to continue
this valuable service to all Manitobans, not only aboriginal people?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong in his
preamble. I have visited friendship
centres throughout the province in the past.
Dauphin
Friendship Centre
Funding
Elimination Justification
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about and
what the issue is here today is one of wrong decisions and wrong choices by
this government. They talk about
choices. This is a wrong choice.
Now the Minister of Finance‑‑and
we cannot let him off the hook; he has played a small role in this. The Minister of Finance, on March 15, put out
a news release saying that priority will be given to organizations providing
key human services. He mentions the
frail, elderly and child protection, and then he proceeds to slice the heart out
of the Dauphin Friendship Centre, which provides services to youth,
counselling, meals, the frail, elderly, those suffering from elderly abuse, Mr.
Speaker, and many other essential services to disadvantaged people in society,
in the communities in the
How can this Minister of Finance justify
taking a position, when he on the one hand talks about these key human
services, to cut $101,000 out of the Dauphin Friendship Centre, which
represents 73 percent of their programming budget?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister
of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I am not asking to be left off
the hook, to use the member's words. When I made that announcement, I indicated
fully and clearly that given the state of the finances of the
Mr. Plohman: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the most vulnerable
in society will feel comforted by those words.
Human
Resources
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Can the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey)
justify the closing of the Parkland Human Resources Opportunity Centre, which
she has just now become responsible for, has closed it down, with 10 employees
being thrown out of work, the Parkland Human Resources Opportunity Centre which
provides key human services, to use the Minister of Finance's (Mr. Manness)
words, acting on referrals from probationary services, for single parent job
access and other agencies which refer people who are attempting to break the
cycle of poverty, crime, substance abuse, hopelessness and despair? How can this minister justify the cutting of
that essential service in the
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) has just indicated, there are
many very difficult decisions that cross all departments of government. I challenge the Leader of the New Democratic
Party (Mr. Doer) to indicate areas within Family Services where they would make
some recommendations for savings. This department has seen a constant increase
in spending every year. In order to preserve
many of the vital services that we want in Health, in Education and Family
Services, we have to make some downsizing in other areas of these departments.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, I want the minister to justify
the cutting of this essential service. Stand up and justify it.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, one of the challenges that
governments across this country are facing is to rationalize the training
programs that we offer to Canadians, and
Government
Grants Fairness
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the Finance minister talks about fairness and that everybody is going
to share the burden.
Can the Minister of Finance explain to
this House today why some grants were eliminated‑‑not cut‑‑but
absolutely and totally eliminated? Where
is the fairness in immolation?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): I do not know the
term that the member uses, Mr. Speaker, but let me say that the answer provided
by the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) and indeed the Minister of Family Services
(Mr. Gilleshammer) still holds.
Again, Mr. Speaker, today the
I also say to the Leader of the Second
Opposition (Mrs. Carstairs), I say to her very clearly and concisely and in the
general thrust behind the decisions, that those agencies where the grants were
going to advocacy, Mr. Speaker, we sensed that during these very, very
difficult times that that money for a period of time, maybe a year, maybe two
years, could be held back. That was the
basis of the decision.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, that does not make any sense.
Consumers'
Association of
Funding
Justification
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Let me
tell you that the mandate of the Consumers' Association is that it is an
advocacy group, that it is a lobby group, the very definition that this
government has used for the elimination of cuts to organizations like the
Manitoba Anti‑Poverty Organization.
Now either they have that definition or they do not.
Why does that definition apply to some but
does not apply to others?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Well, Mr. Speaker, we
try and bring the best judgment possible forward. Now the members today have taken issue with
the grant that we provided the Consumers' Association of Canada. I would say, when we made the decisions at
Treasury Board with respect to providing that level of grant, we did so on the
basis that the knowledge had come to us that that organization is doing an
awful lot of research work in support of legislation that ultimately is going
to be for the well‑being of consumers in the country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if we did not provide
that, then obviously we would have to hire the resources in government to do
that same type of research for the development.
That was the reason in that case why the grant for the Consumers' Association
was maintained at last year's level. So
we try and bring forward the best criteria possible to, first of all, set into
place a decision‑making process, and after that, we take all the
information and ultimately we make our decision.
* (1410)
Government
Grants Fairness
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, can the minister tell this House today why the decision was made to
cut entirely the grants to some organizations that provide advocacy work and
the maintenance of others that provide the same advocacy work? Why was the decision not made, in fiscal
responsibility, to cut everyone, as the letter they sent out in November from
the Family Services ministry would lead people to believe, that everybody was
going to take a cut?
Why was it decided that in some cases it
would be eliminated altogether?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Firstly, let me
correct the record, Mr. Speaker. The
Consumers' Association is not a straight advocacy group. More importantly, the depth of our financial
difficulties today would not allow us to make a decision based on everybody
sharing at a 2 percent or 4 percent level.
We have practised that, more or less, over
the course of the last four or five budgets, but just as other provinces in
this country, particularly those that have brought down budgets to this point
in time,
Mr. Speaker, I say to the member, if she
would just wait until the full Estimates package is tabled, she will see that
we have had to make difficult decisions, not on blending or diluting across‑the‑board
cuts of 2 or 4 percent, that indeed, in some cases, after program evaluations,
we have taken out entire programs. That
is happening across the breadth of the land.
Aboriginal
Friendship Centres
Funding
Reinstatement
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr.Speaker, it is unfortunate that earlier
the Premier (Mr. Filmon) did not have the time to go and speak to people on the
front steps of this Legislature and has yet to agree to meet with friendship
centre representatives.
I would like to ask if the Pages can
deliver from northern Manitoba, petitions with several thousand names from
communities such as Thompson, Garden Hill, Gillam, Split Lake, Cross Lake, Lac
Brochet, York Landing, Ilford, South Indian Lake, Pikwitonei, Wabowden, Norway
House, Lynn Lake, The Pas, Nelson House, Chemawawin, Gods Lake, Gods River,
Leaf Rapids, Thicket Portage, Oxford House, Pukatawagan, Moose Lake, Churchill,
St. Theresa Point, Shamattawa and Shoal River.
I would like to ask just one question, Mr.
Speaker, of the Premier: Will the
Premier just take the time to look up in the gallery, look in the faces of the
people‑‑since he would not take time earlier today to do that‑‑he
is cutting, the people he is laying off, the boards that have worked hours and
hours to provide the needed services offered by the friendship centres?
Will he have a heart, look in their faces
and reverse the cuts to the friendship centres in
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, our government has said that we
do not relish having to make difficult choices, and only when you are in
opposition can you have the irresponsibility to say to people, we would give
you all the money you want. Only then,
when you do not have to raise taxes because you do not have to do anything, can
you say that.
His colleague Premiers, the New Democrats
such as Roy Romanow, are reducing expenditures on health care by four percent,
on universities, on all of these areas, because they have the responsibility to
face the people.
Mr. Speaker, we are not going to be in a
position of mortgaging away the futures of the children of
Mr. Speaker, these are difficult
choices. We have done what we have to do
in order to preserve our health care, our social services, our education for
the children.
Aboriginal
Friendship Centres
Funding
Reinstatement
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, the Premier and then the Finance
minister talked about the difficult decisions that they are facing. The decisions they are facing have been more
difficult because of five years of economic failure on the part of this
government‑‑five years of putting people out of work, five years of
cutting services.
Mr. Speaker, my question to the First
Minister is: Will he now acknowledge
that the friendship centres in Flin Flon,
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, when the member for Flin Flon
took office in the government of Howard Pawley, the annual interest costs in
If we had that $350 million per year, we
would not have to make any cuts. Thanks
to their spending, they have put the government of
Health
Sciences Centre
Emergency
Ward Closure
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister
of Health.
Mr. Speaker, this Sunday, March 21, the
emergency ward at Health Sciences Centre was forced to shut down due to lack of
beds available. Is the minister aware of
this? Is he aware that the ward may be
forced to close again today? Will he now
admit that it is due to his bed closures with no resources in place in the
community?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend's connection
of events is inappropriate. From time to
time, across the whole system, from Concordia and other hospitals, occasionally
they are overloaded with emergency cases.
To make the connections my honourable friend makes would be an
inappropriate analysis and conclusion.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, the Health Sciences Centre
emergency ward has closed three times since the minister announced his bed
closures.
Will the minister now undertake to do what
the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis) called for, what the task
force called for, what his own action plan called for, and that is to put in
place resources in the community so that these kinds of measures do not have to
take place in the future?
Mr.
Orchard: Mr. Speaker, surely my
honourable friend is not suggesting that emergency wards, which presumably deal
with patients who need admission to hospital, can be dealt simply with
community‑based services. I would
suggest that is an inappropriate health policy analysis that my honourable
friend has made.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Nonpolitical Statements
Mr. Brian Pallister (
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for
Mr. Pallister: It is with great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, that
I announce an important sports accomplishment in my community today. Our
This was due to the successful and
dedicated efforts of a number of players from our community. I would like to list them. Catherine Peters, Christy Erickson, Jamey
Gumowsky, Melanie Young, Kristina Bradford, Sherry Diggle, Carol Oldford,
Bonnie Hiltz, Rochelle Lequier, Kirsten Quigley, Amy Lequier and manager, Dana
Human, coaches Jim Lehman and Cheryl Buczynski.
It is only through the efforts of the dedicated volunteers, the coaches,
and through the strong efforts of all the players, that successful teams like
this can come to be.
I would like to again congratulate this
team and reaffirm the fact that, of course,
House
Business
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, before Orders
of the Day, I would like to announce that the Standing Committee on Public
Utilities and Natural Resources that was previously scheduled for Thursday,
March 25 at 10 a.m. to consider the 1991 Annual Report of the Workers
Compensation Board and the 1992 Five Year Operating Plan will be cancelled and
rescheduled for a later date.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable
government House leader for that information.
* (1420)
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Messages
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government
House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I have a message from His Honour
the Lieutenant‑Governor. Everybody rise.
Mr. Speaker: To the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly:
I have been informed of a proposed bill,
The Interim Appropriation Act, 1993, which will provide interim authority to
make expenditures from the Consolidated Fund effective April 1, 1993, pending
approval of The Appropriation Act, 1993.
The bill will also provide for payments
against certain liabilities accrued and unpaid as of March 31, 1993, and will
provide a portion of commitment authority and borrowing authority required for
the 1993‑94 fiscal year.
I recommend the proposed bill to the
Legislative Assembly.
Dated at
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that the said message be
referred to the Committee of Supply.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister
of Finance (Mr. Manness), seconded by the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr.
McCrae), that the said message be referred to the Committee of Supply. Agreed?
Point of
Order
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): No, it is
not agreed, point of order.
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that
we do not have a Committee of Supply in this particular Chamber at the present
time and that, therefore, this motion cannot be moved to the Committee of
Supply.
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised, I would like to
remind the honourable member that I am informed that this has been the way that
it was set out for us. There are many,
many instances where the procedure, as described to us here as we are looking
at it today, has been the way that has been done in the past.
For whatever reason it has been done this
way I am not aware of, but it is the way that we have traditionally done it
here in the House. Therefore, I must
rule the honourable member does not have a point of order.
* * *
Some Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Now we do have a debatable motion. The honourable Leader of the second
opposition party (Mrs. Carstairs), is this on a point of order?
Mrs. Carstairs: Just a point of clarification, if I can have
a point of clarification.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, you can.
Mrs. Carstairs: When I was presented with the procedural
information from the Clerk's Office last week, I was told that the motion that
was introduced was a motion to establish the Committee of Supply. If that is correct, then how can we now be
referring a matter to a Committee of Supply when the motion to establish that
Committee of Supply is still on the Order Paper?
Mr. Speaker: The honourable government House leader (Mr.
Manness), on the same point of order.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Liberal Party
(Mrs. Carstairs) most likely asks a very good question. I, too, conferred with the Clerk last week
and had it indicated, at least to me, that normally when we enter into the
process of setting up the Committee of Supply that this is the process that is
followed.
The Leader of the Liberal Party reminded
me all last week, and all Manitobans, that I was stepping out of the normal
process, and I acknowledge that. Part of
stepping out of that normal process was to try and set up a Committee of Supply
by way of motion, which I did try to do and have failed to do at this point in
time. I acknowledge that.
Today, I am trying to bring in Interim
Supply, as I said I would two weeks ago, following the process that this House
has used for 30 years or more. Mr.
Speaker, I am following the Rules, parliamentary precedent and democracy, and I
cannot see how there can be a point of order.
Mrs. Carstairs: I did not ask for this to be a point of order.
I asked for it to be a point of clarification.
Very clearly, that is what I asked for it to be, and I am still looking
for that clarification.
In other words, I want to know if we, in
fact, now establish a Committee of Supply, have we, in fact, negated the motion
that we were debating Thursday and Friday of last week, and if we have, how can
we do that?
Mr. Speaker: To clarify for the honourable Leader of the
second opposition party (Mrs. Carstairs), our records indicate to us that we
have consistently done it this way, for whatever reason. That is the way it has
been set out in our Rules. [interjection] Order, please. She simply asked for clarification.
We have a debatable motion before the
House. It was moved by the honourable
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), seconded by the honourable Minister of
Justice (Mr. McCrae), that the said message be referred to a Committee of
Supply.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to put a few words on the
record.
Mr. Speaker, once again, we see a
government demonstrating very clearly to Manitobans that, in fact, they do not
have the ability to be able to bring forward a plan, at least a strategic plan,
that will work. [interjection] I think if the Minister of Finance checked
parliamentary procedure, that particular word might be ruled as being somewhat
unparliamentary. It is a good thing I
have thick skin, so I am not going to be overly concerned about what the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) says, because I know that this is a sensitive
issue for this government.
An Honourable Member: Look up.
Look up.
Mr. Lamoureux: Well, the government caucus seems to have a
fixation on the press gallery. I do not
believe that fixation is something that necessarily they should be focused
on. What they should be focused on is
what we have before us.
I want to talk about procedure, because
this is what the government is talking about when they are suggesting that we
now go into‑‑or send a message to the Committee of Supply. I have a number of words that I would like to
say on this particular issue. I know
that the government has been feeling somewhat frustrated as of late, frustrated
because they have been trying to accomplish something that has not been done in
the history of this Chamber. In fact, in
Mr. Speaker, what we are asking‑‑
An Honourable Member: It is irrelevant.
Mr. Lamoureux: The member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau)
should be somewhat patient and he will see how relevant it is.
What we want to do, Mr. Speaker, is to
send something to the Committee of Supply.
I am telling you, in particular for the member for St. Norbert, why it
is that we should not even be going into the Committee of Supply, because as
the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) articulated through
clarification, I believe that we have, and we should not be going into the
Committee of Supply. The moment that we
go into Committee of Supply, what prevents the Minister of Finance from
bringing in the Estimates of a department prior to the Main Estimates being
tabled? There is no assurance.
Once we enter into it, the minister can
then choose to call in the different departments, as he has indicated he wants
to do. For us, as an opposition party,
we believe that the tradition of this Chamber should be adhered to, much like
the government House leader said that he is not breaking tradition by bringing
in this particular motion at this point in time because it has been done in the
past. Mr. Speaker, it is that same sort
of tradition that we are talking about when we are saying that we should not be
talking or going into debate on certain departments prior to having the overall
picture, the Main Estimates, itself, before us.
* (1430)
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to go over
parliamentary tradition and some of the things that have been going on. I could nowhere near speak as thoroughly, as
eloquently as the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) has done over
the last couple of days in terms of parliamentary tradition. I do know that there were a great number of
people who were listening to what it was she had to say, because what the
Leader of the Liberal Party was talking about made a lot of sense.
I think that even in the backs of their
minds, they too believe that what the government is doing is not right, that in
fact the government should be thinking twice before they plow ahead and try to get
what they feel they are entitled to.
Mr. Speaker, I know when we had the first
motion, when we first heard that what the government was wanting to do was to
split up the departments and to introduce them prior to the Main Estimates,
they introduced a motion in which the minister or the government did not even
want me to speak on.
Mr. Speaker, I felt at that time it was
somewhat unfortunate because it provided me the opportunity to be able to go
into commenting on the budget in all different aspects, all the different lines
and so forth. But the government
intentionally made a decision not to allow me the opportunity to speak on that
particular day.
I find that somewhat unfortunate. It is something that has not been done
previously to the best of my knowledge.
I know I have sat inside the Chamber over the last four and a half years
and I have seen individuals who want to be able to speak, were allowed to
speak, that the debate was not necessarily adjourned for the sake of not
allowing another member to speak.
Mr. Speaker, this is something in which we
saw relatively minutes later‑‑and it was not even five o'clock and
the government was wanting to call it five o'clock. So what it does is it clearly demonstrates,
even if you peruse through Hansard, that they did not want me to be able to
speak on that particular motion.
So when the government tries, and it did
try, to bring about discussion about debate or at least allow for us to slip
into the debate on departments‑‑they were Highways and Family Services‑‑prematurely,
once they felt frustrated that they were not going to be able to do that, then
what do they do? Then they tried to form
the Committee of Supply.
Mr. Speaker, when they tried to form the
Committee of Supply, their intentions at that point in time‑‑and
that would have been last Monday evening when the government introduced going
through step by step, and tried to get us into the Committee of Supply in hopes
that no members would stand up. In fact,
I believe that they had departments outside of the Chamber ready to come into
the Chamber because they believed that they would be able to slide us right
through.
Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending
on where it is that you are coming from in this particular debate, the
government failed in accomplishing what it was hoping to do on that particular
evening, because we did stand up and we did start to debate the issue of
tradition inside this Chamber and the importance of abiding by that tradition.
As the week went on, what we saw was the
government was quite content to start calling some bills, all the bills except
for what was potentially the most controversial bill, that being Bill 16.
Now, the government, once we went through
those bills, would then call upon the resolution that would have seen us going
into Committee of Supply, at which time the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs.
Carstairs) had the opportunity to be able to articulate and articulate well on
why it is that we should not be going into the Committee of Supply at that
point in time.
Now, here we have the government that
wants once again for us to go into the Committee of Supply in order to deal
with Interim Supply. Well, if the third
party, the Liberal Party, allowed the government to go into the Committee of
Supply‑‑you know, I guess the government can argue you have
grievances, but grievances are very limited‑‑what prevents us from
allowing the government to bring in a department?
After a bill or Interim Supply is, in
fact, passed, there is nothing there if the government changes its mind on
April 6. Nothing prevents the government from bringing in a department.
Mr. Speaker, we know that the government
will try and do that. If they are not
ready, they in fact will try to do that. We know that because the government
has already attempted to do that. It
does not matter what tradition this Chamber or other jurisdictions have,
whether it is in
It does not matter what we have practised
over hundreds of years for this government.
They are quite content to try to accomplish what they feel is in their
short‑term benefit without any respect for what has taken place through
the years in the province of Manitoba.
One would like to believe that what we
have is a government that is just trying to accomplish its responsibilities
through administering and going through the process of passing a budget, of
bringing forward legislation that they want debated and passed where there is a
majority of individuals in this Chamber who would support it. But as much as I too want to see the
government fulfilling their responsibilities, there is an onus on us to ensure
that those responsibilities are being fulfilled through the rules of this
Chamber.
This is where, I believe, that we are
starting to set dangerous precedents.
You know, we have Beauchesne's.
There is Erskine May. These are
rule books that ensure that the rights of opposition members, the rights of all
members of this Chamber are, in fact, protected. So we should be upset when we see a
government that is trying to go around the rules or break tradition. We need to respect those rules and traditions.
It was interesting I know when we had a
vote just recently with respect to the rules or tradition, that the dean of the
Chamber the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) was very hesitant in
getting up to his feet in supporting what the government was doing. I believe that the Minister of Natural
Resources is very sympathetic to what it is that the third party in this
Chamber is doing, because what we are doing is fighting for a principle of
parliamentary tradition.
* (1440)
Point of
Order
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I gather the member for Inkster is attributing some motives to the
Minister of Natural Resources and the manner in which he votes, and I think he
is also‑‑because the member for Lakeside, the Minister of Natural
Resources (Mr. Enns), rises to vote just before his vote is registered, he
practises an old tradition of this House that the member for Inkster would not
be aware of, he is trying to imply to this House that that is a reflection on
some sort of support for the third party.
I can assure him that the Minister of Natural Resources has no sympathy
or support‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable deputy government House leader
does not have a point of order. It is a
dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat interested that
the deputy government House leader is so sensitive on that particular
issue. I have stood inside the Chamber
or sat inside the Chamber and listened to many different members of this
Chamber comment on actions of what members do within this Chamber. I find it somewhat unfortunate that he would
take offence to it. Well, it is not
necessarily too bad for me. It is too
bad for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) if his patience has gone so thin
on such a parliamentary issue such as this.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that what we have
to do is to ensure that the government does behave in a responsible fashion
when we go into the Committee of Supply, that it would not be responsible to
allow the government to be able to break the departments and then bring them into
the Committee of Supply prior to the Main Estimates being tabled.
As I say, it has been very clearly
demonstrated, through a number of different speakers from our caucus, as to why
it is that we need to see the whole picture before we can go into the line‑by‑line
questioning of a particular department.
That is something that is not new.
This is something which we believe as a principle should be adhered to. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the government can
provide mechanisms that would allow us to enter into the questions and answers
so that we could ask questions of the different departments. Interim Supply is in fact one of them.
The concern that we have about the Interim
Supply is that we need to have an assurance from the government that once we
are into Interim Supply that the government is not going to try to bring in a
separate department prior to the Main Estimates. I do not believe that is an unrealistic
position for us to take in terms of saying, before we can see this government
go into Interim Supply and the questioning of Interim Supply, because
ultimately we want the civil servants to be paid and so forth. But before we do
that we need some sort of an assurance from the government that they will not
continue to want to violate a parliamentary tradition that we have been
following throughout the years.
Mr. Speaker, I look to the government and
anxiously await the government House leader (Mr. Manness) getting in contact
with me, with respect to how it is we can deal with this particular issue that
we have before us, because I do believe that there is a way in which we can get
out of it.
We have been responsible in terms of
saying: Here, there is an alternative
for the government to consider or some options. One of those options is to
recess. If the government is not
prepared to bring forward or to table the Main Estimates, why do we not recess
the Chamber and come back when the government is prepared to table that
document?
I read an article that was in one of the
papers, and it made reference to the cost of this Chamber every day we
sit. Mr. Speaker, that is in fact a cost
that could be saved. I fail to realize
why it is that we have to be able to sit today, or tomorrow, if in fact the
government's agenda is to debate and to talk about the budget.
I can understand why the government might
want to eat away some of the 240 hours that are out there that have been
designated for the Estimates. I can
understand why they feel it is important to a certain degree that we stay and
continue to sit.
I look at the Order Paper, and I see that
we are already on Day 31. I realize that
once we get close to that 90‑day mark, there is an additional pressure
for us to recess‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): On a point of order, I think there are some
impugning of motives in terms of the legislative session.
I am from the city of Winnipeg, and I have
never yet heard a rural member mention the 90 days as a reason to extend or not
extend a session. I think it is very
important that we collectively protect the integrity of all our members, rural
and urban, because we are all out to fulfill the public, and I do not like any
impugning of people's motives.
I do not live in rural
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr.
Doer) does not have a point of order. It
is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued with the remarks
from the Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer). I do treat it very seriously, and for him to
stand up and say that on the record, I am somewhat surprised. I know that there have been some discussions
that have been ongoing, as well as he knows, in terms of some of the other
pressures that are there.
If he is not prepared to be able to say
what is actually going on inside this Chamber, that is not my problem. If he feels that the public does not have a
right to know in terms of what is going on, that is not my problem; it is his
problem.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
I must remind the honourable member for
The honourable member for
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I was making reference to the
need of why it is I believe that we should be recessing, and it was the Leader
of the official opposition (Mr. Doer) who stood up and brought in the rural
versus city of‑‑
Point of
Order
Mr. Praznik: On a point of order, again, Mr. Speaker, the
issue before this Chamber is moving into the Committee of Supply process to
deal with Interim Supply to be granted to Her Majesty, not an issue of recess
or anything else. There is other
business before the House. I wish the
member for
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised, I have already
cautioned the honourable member for
* * *
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, what the government is doing‑‑and
I am going to continue on this line even though members apparently are very
sensitive to it, why it is that we feel this government has an option. That option is to recess.
This government can save dollars, if that
is what they want to save, by recessing and coming back into this Chamber when
the government has its act together. The
government does not have its act together.
The official opposition can try to prop up the government all it wants,
but the bottom line is, Mr. Speaker, that this government does not have its act
together, is not prepared to be inside this Chamber at this point in time.
If they wanted to do the honourable thing,
Mr. Speaker‑‑
* (1450)
Point of
Order
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, again, the
question is the formation of the Committee of Supply, which is a matter that
always arises at this time of the year as we end the fiscal year of the
province. There is plenty of business
before this House to deal with.
If the member could stick please to the
issue of whether or not this House should create Committee of Supply to deal
with Interim Supply.
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised, I would like to
remind the honourable deputy government House leader that I believe the remarks
coming from the honourable member for
* * *
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Labour's
edification, there is an option. We do
not have to go into the Committee of Supply.
Does that now make it relevant for the Minister of Labour?
Mr. Speaker, if the government had that
plan and was prepared to go into debate and was prepared to have a budget, or
at least a Main Estimates like every other Legislature has done through the
years, then in fact we could be inside the Chamber going into the Estimates
process, going into Committee of Supply to deal with Interim Supply and so
forth.
What we see is a government that does not
want to be able to address the issues that are before us. This is the reason why the government has
decided to try to go into the Estimates prematurely. I say prematurely because if, in fact, the
government was ready it would have the Main Estimates there for us which would
then allow us to thoroughly ask questions, debate and so forth the different
departments.
Mr. Speaker, I have to ask myself the
question why it is that the government does not take the option of
recessing. There are a couple of things
that came to mind. The first one was
because they want to whittle down the 240 hours. By doing that, towards the end of the session
you will see that after the 240 hours has come to an end the Chamber tends to
speed up in terms of its process. That
is one.
Another suggestion, and I am sorry that it
is so sensitive amongst the other members, is the question of that 90
days. Now, the 90 days, it is not
something that has just been around for one or two years. I can say, first as acting House leader and
as a House leader, that in fact that does have an impact.
So I am concerned that the reasons why we
have not recessed is all for the wrong reasons, that in fact we can, if the
government does not have the Main Estimates ready to be debated or ready to be
tabled, that there is a valid argument to recessing and not in fact continuing
through this charade.
Now having said that, Mr. Speaker, I realize
that the Interim Supply does have to pass in order to have the paycheques in
the mail, if you like, for the civil servants.
We are willing to co‑operate in terms of ensuring that Interim
Supply does in fact pass but, before we can do that, I think that there is a
responsibility that we have to ensure or at least we have to seek some
assurances from the minister, from the government House leader, that once we go
into the Committee of Supply to deal with Interim Supply that we not deal with
departments after Interim Supply has been dealt with, that we do not go into
the Department of Family Services or the Department of Highways without having
the Main Estimates being tabled.
This is the reason why we have to be very
cautious with what we do and what actions we take, because, Mr. Speaker, there
are only seven individuals in this Chamber who recognize the importance of a
tradition that we feel has to be adhered to. What assurances are the government
going to give us that if in fact we sit down and we allow us to go into Interim
Supply, that the government is not going to bring in those other departments?
What assurances are there? There have
not been any.
If the government was wanting to deal with
Interim Supply and to be able to get out of the Chamber‑‑you know,
there was some talk about having a recess, a spring recess and, if in fact we
are going to have that spring recess, well, then what we need to do is we need
to have the assurances that we would not go into the departments prior to the
Estimates being tabled.
Once we have had that assurance, Mr.
Speaker, then I am sure that we will see the Chamber go into the Committee of
Supply, as I am sure we will, whether we are actually into the Supply or
debating the motion or asking the questions or prior to passing the motion at
the end of Friday or sometime early next week, but we as a caucus had decided
that we have to follow the principle of the issue that we have before us of
parliamentary tradition.
I know that the Department of Education,
the Department of Housing, all of the departments, have to be dealt with
through Estimates, and we need to be able to know what the different ministers
are doing in each and every department.
How can we tell if in fact the government is being fair in the different
departments if we do not know what some departments are doing?
The other day, the government House leader
(Mr. Manness) heckled from his seat that if he supplied us, the Liberal Party,
with a summary of the expenditures, would we be happy with that as opposed to
tabling the Main Estimates. I soon found
out what the Minister of Finance was referring to was a two‑page or a
three‑page document which is a far cry from the Main Estimates.
Mr. Speaker, I think that at least we see
some movement, and if the government was willing to move on allowing or giving
us that assurance, then we could go into Committee of Supply to deal with
Interim Supply, which is something I am sure all of us want to do. I do not think there is anyone inside this
Chamber, at least I hope not, who wants to stop the government from being able
to issue out cheques to all the different programs that are out there, all the
different individuals who are on salary.
In fact, we are quite prepared to sit
right up to March 31 and allow Interim Supply to pass at that point in time,
unless, of course, the government is able to give us the assurance that it will
not enter into a department prior to us having the Main Estimates being tabled.
Now, I know that through the Clerk's Office,
we are all provided a sheet which goes through the step-by-step procedure of
Interim Supply. I have seen it, or I
have been inside the Chamber where we have seen us speed through those steps. The government does not need to fear because
the government knows full well that when there is co‑operation within the
Chamber, we can speed through it and we can get things done.
* (1500)
We, as a caucus, are not asking for much
other than that we respect the traditions of this Chamber, and we will continue
to ask for that.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I believe
that there is an onus on all members of this Chamber to debate, when we can, on
moments such as this. Once we go into
Interim Supply, if we have different questions‑‑one of the
wonderful things about Interim Supply is that it does allow us to ask unlimited
questions of the different ministers on the many different departments. That does provide for us the ability to be
able to ask not only on one department or two departments, as I know that the members
of the opposition would like to be able to do, but in fact all of the
departments.
Through that, we can still respect the
traditions of the Chamber once we do get into that stage of Interim Supply,
that we are allowed the opportunity to ask each and every department the
questions that we feel are necessary, or where we feel maybe somewhat
frustrated because of Question Period and the answers that we have received,
because you have a different format and the ministers are allowed much more
time to answer a question, and the opposition members are given that much more
time in order to pose a question.
When we pose a question, Mr. Speaker, it
is good to be able to explain yourself in detail so that the minister knows in
terms of where it is that you are coming from.
I know quite often in a Question Period forum, we are only given a very
limited, very small supplementary, very small preambles, to be able to explain
the questions that we want to ask of the minister. So the Interim Supply does allow us to ask
those questions in as detailed a way or manner in which we decide to forge
ahead.
Mr. Speaker, I think that this would even
alleviate some of the concerns that the official opposition has, because I know
that they, too, would like to get into the questioning of the ministers on
specific departments. This is something
that would allow them to do that, but it would allow us to ask‑‑and
because we have more questions than just one or two departments, it would also
allow us in the Liberal Party as opposition members to ask questions of all the
different ministers. I know offhand that
I do have concerns if in fact we are going to proceed ahead dealing with the
education issues, dealing with rural
You know something, Mr. Speaker, you might
listen to me and you say, well, why is it then would the member for Inkster
stand and decide to talk on this particular bill at this time as opposed to
allowing it to pass and then going into committee where I could ask all these
questions that I say are important? The reason why I feel that it is so
absolutely necessary is because, as I have talked about earlier, it is a
question of maintaining tradition inside this Chamber.
The concern is that if we do not get the
assurances from the government that once we enter into Committee of Supply to
deal with Interim Supply, and Interim Supply passes, and the government decides
not to table the budget until after April 6‑‑even though I find it
would be very hard for them not to do that‑‑but what prevents the
government next year from coming in and saying, well, we are going to be
tabling the Main Estimates in May, but we will go into this department and this
department and so forth.
This is the reason why you have to look at
the broader picture of tradition inside this Chamber, and that is really what
concerns me. That is why I feel that we
need to talk on or debate this particular motion at this point in time, because
if we in fact allow it to go into committee, how then do we get that assurance
that we are not going to go into the different departments? Can the Speaker of this Chamber give us the
assurance that will not happen? Mr.
Speaker, you cannot do that. You cannot
give us that assurance.
If we allow it to slip by this time and we
say, well, you know the government is in an awkward position, what prevents the
government from next year doing the very same thing? There is nothing that does that, Mr.
Speaker. In fact, they will be able to
stand up in their place and say, well, it has been done before.
Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared‑‑and
I do not think it is in the best interests for us to allow that to occur. That is the reason why, even though as much as
I would like to go instantly into the Committee of Supply and start asking
questions of the ministers, I need to get some form of a comfort level coming
from the government saying that the government will not pursue trying to bring
in the Estimates into the Committee of Supply, the Detailed Estimates of
specific departments.
Mr. Speaker, the committee‑‑Interim
Supply, as I say, will be dealt with‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, I just want to briefly reiterate
where we are coming from on this particular motion, because I am not going to
suggest that we remain at this particular level of debate for any length of
time. I think all of us would like to
get into Interim Supply, and we would like to debate with the ministers the
processes of their budgetary decisions.
Mr. Speaker, what we have watched over the
last week or so, I would suggest to you, is an attempt on the part of the
government to thwart the meaning if not the letter of the rules of this
Chamber. We have watched them introduce
motions on two occasions now. Then they
have withdrawn those motions, in essence, with the introduction of yet another
motion. That surely is the issue here.
Are they taking the attitude that they are
going to get their way no matter what, no matter what the rules of this
Chamber, or are they going to try and work with opposition members in order to
achieve the flow and ebb which we understand is part and parcel of this
particular Chamber?
We have a situation in which we had a
motion about a week and a half ago now, which asked us to suspend the
rules. When that motion did not work,
Mr. Speaker, we had another motion that said let us go right into the Committee
of Supply. When that motion was
thwarted, then we found ourselves with yet another motion, the one that was
presented this afternoon. What this
really means is that they are prepared, by whatever measure that they can use,
to make their way through this legislative process their way and only their
way.
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of questions
to be asked in Interim Supply. We will
ask those questions. I want to give fair
warning that those questions will not stop on Friday unless we get agreement
from this government that they are prepared to back off their original desire
to go into the individual Estimates of departments without the Main Estimates
book.
* (1510)
None of us want to do that. Members of this Chamber have travel
arrangements. They want to spend time
with their children. I think that is
valid. I think they should be allowed to
do that.
If that is the case, then they also have
to meet what we think is a fundamental requirement from our side of the issue
too. That is that we are not prepared to
debate Estimates until we have the Main Estimates book.
They do not need Interim Supply until
March 31. I will guarantee here in the
House they will have it by March 31, but I will not guarantee it before that.
If that means keeping the members in this
Chamber and away from their vacation plans, then so be it, because there is a
matter of principle here, and it is a matter of principle that I intend to
adhere this government to as long as I possibly can.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The question before the House was that the
said message be referred to the Committee of Supply. Agreed?
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable
Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), that this House, at this sitting,
will resolve itself into a committee to consider of Ways and Means for raising
of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to.
DEBATE ON
PROPOSED MOTIONS
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Energy and Mines
(Mr. Downey), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair, and this House resolve
itself into a committee to consider‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The motion has been presented by the
honourable deputy government House leader.
I would remind the honourable deputy government House leader that we
still have another motion which is on the Order Paper that this House at this
sitting will resolve itself into a committee to consider Supply to be granted
to Her Majesty.
Mr. Praznik: I am not following Mr. Speaker's instruction
or comment?
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. For edification purposes for the honourable
deputy government House leader, the procedure as set out, and I believe the
honourable deputy government House leader has that same procedure where you, I
believe, are looking at No. 7 at this point in time.
Mr. Praznik: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: Right.
Between Nos. 5 and 6. It is not
on your paper because it is already on the Order Paper, the Committee of Supply
motion for the committee, to set up the committee. So it would be very difficult for us at this
point in time to move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and for the House
to resolve itself into a Committee of Supply when we do not have a Committee of
Supply at this point in time.
Mr. Praznik: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the answer would‑‑is
Mr. Speaker suggesting then that the appropriate mechanism to deal with Interim
Supply would be to call the current resolution on the Order Paper for that
debate? Then I would so ask that he do
so.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable deputy
government House leader‑‑
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, can we clarify this by having, at step 7 of Interim Supply‑‑and
this is just a comment‑‑that the Committee of Supply for the
purposes of Interim Supply? Would that
make it then a different motion and therefore enable Interim Supply, leaving my
original motion that I am debating to remain on the Order Paper?
Mr. Speaker: On the suggestion by the honourable Leader of
the second opposition party, that would be a totally different motion to
propose to the House.
At this point in time, the honourable
deputy government House leader has called a 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. We have to set up that committee
first. So now we are calling that one.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate. The Minister of Finance, the House leader,
and the deputy House leader are in the Chamber at the present time. I have no difficulty, at this point in time,
in going into Interim Supply. I am not,
however, prepared to go into Supply for the purposes of debating the Estimates.
That seems to be the dilemma that is presently
before us, because in order to get past that Committee of Supply I want to have
a guarantee from the Minister of Finance that he will not use this Interim
Supply to go into a debate on the Estimates.
If he is prepared to give us that kind of guarantee, then I am prepared
to immediately go into Interim Supply this afternoon and to debate Interim
Supply until it comes to its logical conclusion, which is the granting of
Interim Supply. Presumably, since that
is not the desire of the minister at this particular point in time, then I am
prepared to continue to speak on the original motion.
Mr. Speaker, last time I spoke on this
motion I mentioned that the presentation of Estimates is not an easy
presentation on the part of any government, no matter what their political
stripe. I would like to read from Norman
Ward's book,
I am quoting, Mr. Speaker: "After their troubled passage through
Treasury Board, the Estimates are approved by cabinet (where a disappointed
minister may take a last stand for a larger appropriation), and are recommended
to the governor general for his approval"‑‑in our case this
would be the Lieutenant‑Governor‑‑"which is given as a
matter of course. They are then
transmitted to the House of Commons early in the parliamentary sessions and are
at once referred to the relevant standing committees"‑‑in our
case, the Committee of Supply.
Mr. Speaker, what is clear in this
particular quotation is that there are certain processes which are done in the
committee of the Treasury Board, a committee of the ministers of this
government. The Treasury Board does not
do them individually. The Treasury Board deals with them as a package. It is that package that then goes to the
ministers, all of the ministers together, i.e., the cabinet, in order to make
the relevant decision as to whether they are approved or whether they are not
approved.
Mr. Speaker, if indeed they are not
approved, then what we have is a situation that there appears to be, in this
government, the approval of some ministers to their departments, but there is
not the approval of other ministers to their departments. I find that very strange, because what the
problem is here is that if one reads Mr. Ward's book, he says: "where a
disappointed minister may make a last stand for a larger
appropriation." So what are we to
believe, that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), the Minister of Family
Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr.
Driedger), have given up the ghost, that they are prepared to accept whatever
appropriations this government chooses to give them? They are not prepared to fight for their own
particular departments, but that the other ministers, some 15 in number, are
prepared, because they still have not been approved. Well, perhaps that is one case scenario.
* (1520)
The other scenario, of course, Mr.
Speaker, is that they have been approved, that it is not just those three
departments that have met the approval of Treasury Board and have met the
approval of cabinet, but it is all departments that have met with the approval
of Treasury Board, and it is all departments that have met with the approval of
the cabinet. Now, if that is the case,
then there is absolutely no reason why we cannot have a Main Estimates book.
If, indeed, the departments have all been
approved by Treasury Board, and if, indeed, it is appropriate that they have in
turn all been dealt with by cabinet, what are we waiting for? Why are we still
left in this dilemma that we are being asked to go to Committee of Supply where
we only have three Estimate books? We do
not have the Estimates of all of the other departments.
I find it inconceivable to believe that
the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) has not been able to
advocate on behalf of his department for the kinds of cuts which have been made
to his department. Mr. Speaker, we know
of massive amounts of cuts that have been done to the Minister of Family
Services' budget. Most of the cuts that
have been announced, at least in terms of grant levels that are to be reduced,
are grant levels reduced to the Department of Family Services. If those grant levels are reduced to the
Department of Family Services, is it fair to say that the other departments
have not yet had to deal with their grant level reductions? I find that inconceivable.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
stood in the House today, and he said, we will be able to prove that there has
been fairness. Well, how can he prove that
there has been fairness when, according to the information that we have been
given as members of the opposition, only three departments have been
approved? If more than three have been
approved, then where are they? Why are
they not available to us?
Is the Minister of Family Services
expecting us to believe that the grant of $105,000 which was eliminated
completely for the Association for Community Living, that the grant to the
Manitoba Anti‑Poverty Organization of $63,000, the grant to the Manitoba
Child Care Association of $60,000, the grant to the Manitoba Foster Family
Association of $373,000, the grant to the friendship centres which amount to
$1.3 million, that those are the only grants that have, to this point in time,
been cut with the approval of Treasury Board?
Well, I think that is highly unlikely.
I find it is inconceivable to believe that
those grants have been cut and yet grants to other departments have not been
cut in the same way. Yet that presumably
is what we are to believe when the Minister of Finance tells us that he has
only three sets of Estimates ready, that he does not have any of the other
Estimates ready, and that it is not that he is not willing to give us the other
Estimates, it is that they are not ready.
That leaves me with the only conclusion
that somehow or other the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), the Minister
of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) and the Minister of Highways (Mr.
Driedger) were prepared to bite the dust.
They were prepared to say, that is it; I am not prepared to fight any
longer for my particular department; I have no grounds for pushing this
government any further.
If one is to read this well‑known
work, it says, in essence, that when they are approved by cabinet, this is the
time, and I quote again: where a
disappointed minister can make a last stand for a larger appropriation.
Well, that last stand for a larger
appropriation has presumably been taken by the Minister of Highways, the
Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Family Services.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
One presumes it has not been taken by any
of the other ministers because if it has been taken by all the other ministers,
then we should have a Main Estimates book, and we do not have a Main Estimates
book.
We presumably have three ministers who
have given up on their departments, have given up on the ministers of the
Crown, have given up on the Treasury Board, and have said, that is it; we do
not have any more fight left in us; we are going to roll over and play dead.
Well, the tragedy of that is that Family
Services, and the Ministry of Family Services, is the department that deals at
the bottom level with those in genuine need of support, those in genuine need
of help, those who are among the most disadvantaged in our society.
When one looks at the Department of Family
Services, one looks at line after line which goes to vulnerable people. It does not take very careful examination of
those Estimates to recognize that this is the department that deals with the
most vulnerable people in our society:
Rehabilitation, Community Living and Day Care, vocational programs,
Adult Services, Children's Special Services, the Manitoba Developmental Centre,
Child Day Care, the Seven Oaks Centre, Child and Family Support, Family
Conciliation, Family Dispute Services, Vital Statistics, Residential Care
Licensing, Income Maintenance Programs, Income Supplement Programs.
There is no question that this entire
department deals with vulnerable people, poor people. It deals with children who have been
abused. It deals with those who have
been victimized by this society. It
deals with those who have been physically handicapped. It deals with those who have been born with
mental handicaps or have suffered mental handicaps during their lifetime. It deals day after day with those who are in
their role usually through absolutely no fault of their own. I find it inconceivable that the Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) has said, I do not have any fight left. I am not prepared to ask Treasury Board for
any more work on my department.
Yet, if one believes that logic, the
Department of Education is still fighting for its appropriations. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) is
still fighting for his appropriations. The Seniors minister (Mr. Ducharme) is
still fighting for his department. The
Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson) is still
fighting for her department. The
Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) is still fighting for his
department. The Minister of Northern and
Native Affairs (Mr. Downey) is still fighting for his department, but the
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), the Minister of Highways (Mr.
Driedger) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) have said, we are no
longer prepared to fight for our departments.
It is inconceivable that they have decided that they can do that kind of
thing.
I want to deal, Madam Deputy Speaker, with
the whole concept today of why I am taking the stand that I am taking on this
particular piece of activity before the House, because it is a motion. If one is to listen to the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) in the press scrums outside of the House, he refers to it as ego run
wild. One is not supposed to impute
motives, but that is the way it is on certain days and certain occasions.
The bottom line is that, if any of this
Chamber had been observing my activities since the 5th of November, they will
note that I have asked fewer and fewer questions, that I have made fewer and
fewer speeches in this Chamber, and the reason for that is because of the
announcement that I made on the 5th of November. I made the announcement that I was going to
retire. I was looking forward to a
session with a lighter load, quite frankly, a session in which I would not feel
that I had to make the same kind of long speeches that I had made in the past
as the Leader of the second party in the Chamber and would give those Question
Period times and those longer speech times to members, some of whom are vying
for my leadership position and some of whom are supporting those particular
individuals.
I do not need this particular aggravation,
I should suggest, at this particular point in time. I have other things that I would much prefer
to do with my time, things that I would prefer to spend my time doing than
standing up in this House as I have now on two different occasions, this being
my third, and speaking to this particular motion. It is not that I do not have an ego. I think
everyone of us has an ego. I would
suggest to the members of this Chamber that if we did not, we would not find
ourselves in these positions. It is a
very difficult concept for many people, not only to stand in this Chamber, but
to stand before an electorate and to seek electoral support. You have to have a relatively good self‑image
if you are going to go out there and sell yourself to the public.
Lynne Axworthy, my campaign chairperson,
ruefully puts it that being a member of the Legislature or being a politician
at any level is one of the few occupations in which 300 or 400 people go out
and work for you so that you get a job.
I think that is a pretty fair reflection on the fact that most of us
have hard‑working volunteers who struggle very hard to assure our
election to these Chambers, no matter what our political stripe. They work very
hard to see to it that we get elected.
* (1530)
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
The purpose of my debate on this
particular motion is because I think what the government is doing is very dangerous. I think it is a very dangerous precedent, and
I am not prepared to sit back and allow that precedent to be undertaken without
fighting it to the very best of my ability.
That is the reason why I have stood here on two occasions, this being my
third, and why I will continue to stand here in order to press upon this
government that this is not simply a move to thwart their activity. I want us to get into a debate of Main
Estimates, and if the Main Estimates book was in this Chamber today, we would
be in Committee of Supply and the debate of Estimates.
If there was some procedural way the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) can work out so that we can get into Interim
Supply today, I would be delighted to get into Interim Supply today. But I am
not prepared to allow us to go into a debate on Estimates before the Main
Estimates book has been tabled, and this is one of the few ways that I have
left to me as a member of this Chamber to prevent that activity from taking
place.
The powers of the opposition are very
limited. I would like to read to some of
the members from a book called Parliamentary Government in
The opposition‑‑this article
says, and again, I am quoting‑‑must have the right to criticize the
government openly and the ability to make that criticism felt. In Parliament, the government explains and
justifies its action or inaction not to an audience, sympathetic and anxious to
offer assistance, but to an organized, institutionalized opposition bent on
demonstrating the inappropriateness and inefficiencies of government policy.
Though it may never have the votes
necessary to defeat the government, the opposition is nonetheless charged with
ensuring that the responsibility of the government to the House of Commons or
to the Legislatures is more than a formality.
As John Stewart has put it: It is
this public testing of governance with the government and the opposition as
institutional adversaries that is the hallmark of contemporary responsible
government.
The eye of opposition was not always so
compatible with parliamentary government.
Parliaments in
Parties, moreover, might prove
advantageous if they could be used as a bulwark against the danger of
concentrated power. This bulwark would
take the form of a recognized and legitimate opposition eager to secure office.
With the government facing the opposition
in parliament and two teams of party leaders struggling for support in the electorate,
have we at last defined the essence of responsible government? Defined, perhaps, but this system has to work
before anyone can feel completely satisfied and there are several obstacles to
its effective operation.
First, the opposition in Parliament,
because it is not in control of the parliamentary agenda, cannot insist that
pressing issues be addressed immediately on the floor of the Commons. Because
of this, and the demands of government business, many issues of general concern
are not debated in parliament for weeks or months after they have come to the
attention of the public. Thus, for instance, the Ocean Ranger tragedy was never
properly addressed in Parliament, and the McDonald commission on the RCMP
received no statement from ministers or any debate until months after its
report was tabled.
Too often, Parliament appears to be very
ponderous, unable to react quickly or to act at all as a forum for serious
debate of important public issues. Yet
it is in this environment that the opposition must do the work assigned to it
under the
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
That is exactly, Madam Deputy Speaker,
what I am trying to do. I am trying to
do my role as a Leader of a second opposition party in order to thwart the
government from introducing a precedent which is dangerous and which can have
effects well beyond the particular measure that is being taken by this
government, because the impact of their decision is not only to establish a
precedent in this House with respect to Supply, but to establish a precedent
with respect to Supply which can impact future generations in this Chamber but
also impact on decisions made by other parliaments, not only in this nation at
the provincial level but at the federal level and, indeed, any other government
that has a parliamentary tradition.
Second, and I am now quoting again: The opposition must compete with other bodies
capable of offering compelling criticism of government policy. The C.D. Howe Institute, the Economic Council‑‑unfortunately,
now no longer‑‑The Fraser Institute and the Canadian Labour
Congress are all capable of supplying policy analyses that are more stimulating
and informed than those produced by the opposition.
Opposition can use these studies, but in
spite of over a million dollars allocated to caucus research units‑‑certainly,
considerably less here at the provincial level‑‑opposition parties
have been unable or unwilling to generate their own economic analysis. They are without the information and
expertise the government is able to marshal on virtually any specialized
subject, and they appear to be convinced that the resources they do have ought
to be used to exploit short‑term partisan opportunities.
I think we see that fairly daily in the
Question Period, that it tends to be short‑term opportunism for whatever
parties are in the opposition at any particular point in time.
I would suggest to you, Madam Deputy
Speaker, that the particular motion to which I am standing has nothing to do with
opportunism. This is not an issue that
is affecting the six o'clock news. This
is not an issue which is garnering us a lot of ink. It is not that kind of bread‑and‑butter
issue. It is an issue of precedent, it
is an issue of rules, it is an issue of procedures, but it is, having said all
that, a very vital and significant issue of procedures. That is why we are debating this particular
motion on Supply.
Let me return, quote: Nowhere is the irreverence of opposition
criticism more apparent than in the realm of federal‑provincial
relations. For instance, because
provinces own and control the development of most natural resources, debates on
the floor of the Commons about the price of oil have the quality of a side
show, compared to the negotiation and debate that take place between the
federal government and the producing provinces.
The major issues of centralization and decentralizing in the Canadian
federation are also debated outside of Parliament.
In
But here we are in a unique situation with
respect to the Supply bill, but we are in danger of doing it the opposite way.
Not will federal government establish a precedent for the provinces, but we, by
doing what we are doing in this particular time in this Chamber, could set a
precedent on Supply which would go the other way and which would find its way
in the journals of Beauchesne, and Erskine and May in perpetuity because this
government has chosen to act in a way which is clearly outside of the
parliamentary tradition.
Quoting again from Parliamentary
Government in
For the greatest part of Canadian history,
the opposition has been comprised of those elements left out of the governing
coalition. With little to unite them
other than their antipathy towards the government, both the Liberal and
Conservative Parties in opposition have experienced wrenching divisions over
policy and leadership. They have seized
opportunities such as the Free Trade debate to distance themselves from
government policy only to experience strong pressures for conformity once the
debate was over.
* (1540)
Only the New Democratic Party has
succeeded in supplying an ideologically consistent critique of the governing
parties but, ironically perhaps, at the expense of appearing unnecessarily
rigid and uncompromising.
In
Achieving policy distinctiveness under
these circumstances is understandably an uncommon occurrence and one that is
fraught with electoral dangers. Yet,
without policy innovations the opposition begins to surrender to interest
groups and provincial governments the task of offering creative responses to
government policy.
Bernard Crik (phonetic) has described
Parliament as ideally a permanent election campaign. But to make Parliament work that way requires
the capacity to find acceptable alternatives, a capacity that Canadian parties
in opposition have not had in abundance.
Finally, what strength the opposition in
Madam Deputy Speaker, let me read that
sentence again, because I think it is highly clear that this is exactly what I
am trying to do in this particular motion.
It says:
Finally, what strength the opposition in
They cannot ignore it. They may sit in their seats and chat with one
another. They may leave the
Chamber. They may do what they want in
terms of listening. That is completely
up to them and well within the rules and the authority of this Chamber, but
they cannot ignore it, because the very fact that I am on my feet speaking to
the motion means that the government of the day has to be cognizant of the fact
that they cannot proceed unless they come to some agreement.
Parliamentary Government in
This is what the minister wants to do
today. He wants to appropriate some
funds, but he cannot get that appropriation of funds until he can shut down the
opposition, and he cannot shut down the opposition until he comes to his
senses, I would suggest, and recognizes that what he is trying to do is
unprecedented, which he has already admitted to, that it is unparliamentary,
which he has already admitted to, and that it is simply not going to proceed if
I can manage to prevent its achievement.
In the course of doing so, opposition
members engage in lonely debates. Well,
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is certainly what I am doing at the present
time. I am engaged in a lonely debate.
It goes on to say: In the hope that their ideas and reservations
will be communicated beyond the Chamber to an alert and interested public.
In this case, I would have to say that it
is not that I am interested in allowing this to be heard by an alert and
intelligent public because I do not think that, quite frankly, they are
particularly interested in this issue.
They are not interested in this issue because it is not a bread‑and‑butter
issue. It should be a bread‑and‑butter
issue, because what we have is announcements by this government of cuts to
particular departments, three in particular, announcements of budgetary lines
for three particular departments. We
have the Premier (Mr. Filmon) standing at his place today talking about
fairness. We have a Minister of Consumer
and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) talking about fairness. We have the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
talking about fairness, saying the cuts have been broadly based, that they have
been spread across the whole range of government departments. We would know that if we in fact had the Main
Estimates book.
My argument has been all along, that how
can I as an individual member of this Chamber reasonably and rationally debate
Family Services, for which I am the critic, until I know that there has in fact
been fairness? I already know, in light
of the announcement made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, that
she thinks it is entirely fair to give a grant to an advocacy group, a lobby
group. That is its definition. It is in its opening mission statement that
it is a lobby group. The Consumers'
Association of Canada, Manitoba Division, is an advocacy group. It is a lobby group.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs says it is perfectly logical, perfectly reasonable, perfectly fair for
them to get a grant at the very same time that the Minister of Family Services
(Mr. Gilleshammer) is saying it is not logical and it is not reasonable to
believe that the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty Organization is doing good
advocacy work; that it is not, according to the Minister of Family Services,
reasonable to assume that the Indian and Metis friendship centres are delivering
services; that it is not logical, according to the Minister of Family Services,
that the Manitoba Foster Family Association is providing service to foster
families; that it is not reasonable to assume that the Manitoba Child Care
Association is providing valuable advocacy on behalf of its clientele. It is reasonable, according to the Minister
of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to think that the Consumers' Association of
Canada is providing reasonable, rational advocacy.
It is very difficult for us to comprehend
that it is fair to cut one but it is not fair to cut the other. Where is the rationale, the
reasonableness? What is the definition
of valuable that this government has? To
ignore that debate, I think, is one which is unacceptable.
Let me repeat that, Madam Deputy
Speaker. In the course of doing so,
opposition members engage in lonely debates in the hope that their ideas and
reservations will be communicated beyond the Chamber to an alert and interested
public. Is this a reasonable expectation? Is electoral choice influenced by the
performance of the opposition on the floor of the House of Commons? A strong, affirmative answer is impossible. In spite of the televising of Parliament,
which is selective in content and distribution, there is no evidence that the
electorate has an improved awareness of opposition policies and attitudes. The press gallery persists in concentrating
on spectacular developments, scandals and human interest stories, while
election campaigns continue to be contests among party leaders not alternative
ministerial teams.
Opposition parties exacerbate the process
by resisting the creation of a small and stable shadow cabinet in favour of
balancing regional claims to positions of prominence on the opposition front
benches. These objections and the
opposition in
Madam Deputy Speaker, one of the severe
institutional restraints that this government would like to impose upon us at
the present time is debating the Estimates in vacuums, debating the Estimates
of certain departments before we have seen the overall picture of the
government of the day, and that is an unacceptable option. That is why we are debating this Supply
motion, because it is an unacceptable option.
It is not something to which we are going to agree.
In summary, and I quote again: The Westminster model promises decisive
governments, political accountability, the open debate of legislative changes,
spending decisions and controversial government actions.
* (1550)
The
Well, that is what Estimates are all
about. Estimates are the means by which
we can openly debate spending decisions, but how can we openly debate spending
decisions when we do not know what all of the spending decisions of this
government have been? How do I know if the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has cut back on
his staff? I would like to think that
perhaps the Premier has cut back on his staff, but I am not going to know that
until I get the Estimates of the Department of the Executive Council.
In going through past indications, this
particular Department of Executive Council, I find 45 staffpersons and I find
11 staffpersons with salaries over $50,000 a year. My question is that if there are 11 people,
perhaps more this year, on the Premier's staff, $50,000 each, then surely one
of those staffpersons could have been cut.
The money for that particular staffperson could have gone to the
Manitoba Anti‑Poverty Organization in order to keep that poverty
organization alive and active, an advocacy on behalf of those who are the poor
in our community.
I mean, we have staff salaries. I am quoting from '91, because unfortunately
I could not find '92, so I know they are even higher, of staff salaries of
$68,711. That is staff salary for
Barbara Biggar. I know it is higher, because
I have seen subsequent materials. That
staff salary is $5,000 higher than the grant to the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty
Organization.
I see another one at $88,608. That grant is $25,000 almost, well, $25,000
exactly, actually, larger than the grant to the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty
Organization. One at $57,000, one at
$103,000, another one at $68,000, another one at $56,000, another one at
$51,000, another one at $51,000, another one at $65,000‑‑45
staffpersons‑‑[interjection]
Well, you know, it is interesting. The member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) asks how
many staff I have, and that is fair. Perhaps he does not know how many staff I
have. I have three staffpersons in the
Leader's office, the Leader of the Opposition.
Excuse me, I have two staffpersons.
The Leader of the official opposition has three staffpersons. The Premier has 45 staffpersons. Ministers of the Crown have special
assistants and they have executive assistants.
I do not have an executive assistant; I have a special assistant. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) has a
special assistant; he also does not have an executive assistant.
So the two Leaders of the opposition
parties work with less staff than any minister of any department, no matter how
small the budget. I am suggesting that,
as we have accepted staff cuts‑‑we have in my office and in the
office of the Leader of the Opposition and in our caucus offices and in our
salaries and in our access allowances‑‑before I make judgments, I
want to know where other cuts have been made, because I think that is a
legitimate debate and discussion. [interjection]
If I had the Main Estimates book, as the
member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) seems to point out, that we should have that
valid and good information, then I would be able to make those value
judgments. I would be able to say
whether, in fact, this was a legitimate cut, because I have to suggest that
there were cuts announced by the Finance minister last week that I have full
support for the Finance minister in making.
I can see absolutely no rationale, let me
be perfectly clear, to The Manitoba Teachers' Society getting a grant in times
of restraint. I see no justification for
that whatsoever. I see no justification
for the principals' association getting a grant. Those are cuts which I think
are legitimate, should be appropriately made and should, in fact, have been
done by this particular government in times of restraint. It is fair.
It is legitimate. But when the
government also cuts advocacy groups that are out there defending the poorest
of the poor then, no, I cannot justify the elimination of their grants. I could perhaps even justify a cut in the
grants.
I met with the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty
Organization. They had been warned last
November that there was a possibility that their grant would be cut. They were expecting a cut in the grant. They
would not have been happy with a cut in the grant, but they were expecting
it. They were expecting to perhaps be
taken from $63,000 down to $60,000 or even down to $55,000, or one of them even
said to me, even down to $50,000. They
were even expecting that. They knew it
would have meant tough times for them.
It probably would have meant their laying off one staffperson, but they
were prepared to accept that the government was in tough financial
difficulties.
They were prepared to accept that these
were very difficult times, and that is why I specifically put the question
today to the minister which was, why were these grants totally eliminated? Why did you choose to wipe them right off the
face of the Earth? The Indian and Metis
friendship centres were totally eliminated.
They were not cut; they were eliminated. The grant to the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty
Organization was not cut. It was eliminated.
The grant for the Manitoba Foster Family Association was completely
eliminated. The grant to the Child Care
Association was completely eliminated.
They were not cut. A 5 percent cut I think most of them would have
understood. It is tough financial
problems. We are all in it.
You know, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) likes
to talk about what Mr. Romanow did in
I am not going to justify the decisions
made in Saskatchewan because I do not know them all, but I do recognize that
because of the announcement, there seems to be a little bit of fairness and
equity in what they were trying to do out there. This government came along and completely
eliminated grants to organizations which service the most vulnerable within our
society. That, I think, Madam Deputy
Speaker, is that part which I find the most disagreeable and the most
indefensible.
I want, Madam Deputy Speaker, to now get
into a debate and a discussion of the history of Supply. I took the members last week through a
somewhat detailed account of the evolution of responsible and representative
government both in
I am quoting now from a book called, The
Canadian House of Commons, and anything which is applicable to the House of
Commons, I would suggest, is equally applicable to the Legislature of this
province. Already we have noticed that
in 1867, the Canadian House of Commons adapted a standing order under which the
House would not deal with any request for Supply or taxation until that request
had been considered in a committee.
Under the standing orders in effect before the 20th of December, 1968,
each request for Supply, the Main Estimates, Interim Supply and any Supplementary
Estimates, was considered, then approved or disapproved by a particular
Committee of the Whole House, namely, the Committee of Supply.
* (1600)
Is it not interesting that in this
particular reference to the operations of the Canadian House of Commons, it
only makes reference to Main Estimates.
It never makes reference to individual Estimates, only Main
Estimates. That is nub of the issue
here, Madam Deputy Speaker, because we have a situation in which this government
would like to separate Main Estimates from individual Estimates, and that is
where we have a true dilemma because it has never been done before, and we
would suggest that it is a very dangerous precedent that it is going to be done
now.
Under the standing orders in effect before
the 20th of December, 1968, each request for Supply, the Main Estimates,
Interim Supply and any Supplementary Estimates was considered and then approved
or disapproved by a particular Committee of the Whole which recommended to the
House that the Supply request be granted.
If the House had concurred, the members went into the Committee of Ways
and Means, where they resolved that the money should be appropriated from the
fund.
This is the dilemma we are faced with
right now, because all we need from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), in order
to proceed with Interim Supply, is his guarantee that he will not then use that
motion in order to get us into the Estimates.
If he is prepared to then return to the Estimates debate and the motion
to go into Estimates Supply and we can again debate this issue, he can have his
Interim Supply bill and motion, and he can have its debate, but he is not
prepared, at least to my knowledge at the present time, to give way on this
particular issue.
Then an appropriation bill passed on that
resolution was introduced. Here then was
one of the main Supply proceedings, the consideration of Supply votes in the
Committee of Supply, Supply votes which are never differentiated from the Main
Estimate book.
The other main proceeding used in Supply
business before the 20th of December, 1968, was the Supply motion: If the members having met as the House are to
take up work of a kind that is only done in the Committee of the Whole House,
they must cease to be the House and become a committee. What signals this metamorphosis is the
departure of the Speaker from the Chair.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is why I will
not allow the Speaker to move from the Chair, is that the Speaker do now leave
the Chair was always debatable and amendable and always could be moved.
The result, especially after 1906, was
that the members often got into the Committee of Supply only very late in the
day and sometimes not at all. In other
words, the principle of grievance before Supply was taken so seriously and the
members found that they had so much about which to grieve that consideration of
the Estimates was pushed aside as secondary.
Then at the very end of the session, the Estimates would be rushed
through a few long sittings.
In 1913, the standing orders were changed
so that on Thursday and Friday, the Speaker would leave the Chair without a
motion, if the business ordered for that sitting was Supply business or Ways
and Means business. However, the
Committee of Supply was not to consider any proposed vote unless it had been
first seized of it on one of the other days of the week; i.e., every vote had
to be entered into consideration on a day when the opposition or any private
member could mount an attack on the government in relation to its conduct or
policy in the field or fields to which the votes to be entered that day
related.
This new arrangement a) retained the
constitutional right of the members to state and publicize their grievances,
great or small, before they dealt with the Crown's request for money, but b)
assured that the Crown's request for money would be considered on at least two
days of the week. These Supply motion
debates dealing with a motion to change the House into the Committee of Supply
came to be of great importance.
When the government sought to have the members
turn to Supply business by moving, other than on a Thursday or a Friday, that
the Speaker do now leave the Chair, the House could react in four ways. The members could let the motion carry
without debate. Second, they could debate the motion with each member free to
raise his own grievance or topic because of the procedural nature of the
motion. Third, an amendment which did
not raise the question of confidence could be moved. In that case, the debate had to be relevant
to the topic of the amendment until the amendment had been disposed of by the
House. Fourth, the amendment moved could
be to the effect that for a stated reason, the House did not have confidence in
the government.
In 1927, the standing orders were changed
so that a relevant subamendment could be moved.
Thus it became possible for a third party to seek, by moving a
subamendment, to put its own special edge on the amendment. The importance of Supply motion debates was
enhanced by the fact that after the motion for an address and reply had been
dealt with, Supply motions provided the opposition with its chief opportunities
to initiate debates on topics of its choice.
In 1955, another important change was made
in the standing orders. Thereafter
Supply motions were to be moved only six times in each annual session. The group of proposed votes to be entered
into the Committee of Supply and each of the six occasions was to be specified
in advance, and the debate on each of the six motions was to be limited to two
days. The main motion was to be moved as
the first Order of the Day on a Monday, and the questions on any subamendment
and any amendment were to be put to the House on Tuesday evening at 8:15 p.m.
If such amending motions were defeated,
the House would debate the main motion with the members free to raise diverse
grievances until immediately before the hour of adjournment when the question
was put on the main motion. If it
carried, the Speaker left the Chair, the list of votes were taken up cursorily
by the Committee of Supply. The
committee then rose. The Speaker resumed
the Chair, and the House adjourned for the day. When next the Committee of
Supply met, it was free to deal extensively with the votes that had been
entered in this way. Although the government almost always voted against any
amendment, it was free to support an amendment.
The first session after Mr. Pearson became
Prime Minister affords an interesting example.
On February 12, 1963, the Minister of Finance moved that Mr. Speaker do
now leave the Chair. The Progressive
Conservatives moved to replace after all the words THAT‑‑so that
the amended motion would read‑‑THAT this House condemns the
government for its failure to carry out the spirit of co‑operative
federalism and for its neglect to consult with the provinces before announcing
or undertaking programs which fall wholly or partly within the provincial
jurisdiction. The NDP proceeded to move that the amendment be amended by
substituting the words, urges the government to carry out more fully, for it
condemns the government for its failure to carry out, by deleting the words,
for its neglect, and by substituting the words, to any extent for wholly or
partly. The Pearson government decided
to vote for the subamendment which was carried by 128 Yeas to 60 Nays. Then the Progressive Conservative amendment
as amended was carried by 187 Yeas to zero Nays.
The Diefenbaker government had not been so
fortunate. Earlier in the year, on Monday, February 4, 1963, the honourable
George Nowlan, Minister of Finance, moved that Mr. Speaker do now leave the
Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of Supply. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Pearson,
moved that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after THAT, and
substituting other words so that the motion as amended would read, THAT this
government, because of lack of leadership, the breakdown of unity in the
cabinet and confusion in the decision in dealing with national and
international problems does not have the confidence of the Canadian people.
The Leader of the Social Credit Party, Mr.
Robert Thompson, then took advantage of the right to move a subamendment. He moved to delete all the words in Mr.
Pearson's amendment after government and to substitute the following, has
failed up to this time to give a clear statement of policy respecting Canada's
national defence and has failed to organize the business of the House so that
the 1963‑64 Estimates and budget could be introduced, and has failed to
outline a positive program of follow‑up action respecting many things for
which this Parliament and previous Parliaments have already given authority and
does not have the confidence of the Canadian people.
Madam Deputy Speaker, is this not
fascinating? This was a Supply motion
that actually resulted in the fall of the government‑‑a Supply
motion. All that Mr. George Nowlan had
done was to introduce a motion that the House go into Committee of Supply. That motion for the House to go into
Committee of Supply led to a nonconfidence motion.
* (1610)
Pursuant to standing orders, at 5:15 on
Tuesday, the 5th of February 1963, the Speaker put the question of a
subamendment. It carried by 142 to 111.
Mr. Pearson's amendment as amended then carried by the same vote. The next day Parliament was dissolved. The government was defeated on a Supply
motion because the opposition parties said, you are not ready to go into
Estimates, you are not ready to go into the budget. Therefore, we are going to bring down the
government. And they brought down the
government in an amendment to a Supply motion, the very Supply motion that I am
debating in this Chamber and the very same issue. They are not ready for Estimates‑‑only
three. They are not ready for the
budget, and yet they would have liked us to go into Committee of Supply‑‑dangerous
precedent, Madam Deputy Speaker, very dangerous precedent.
By 1965, both these Supply proceedings
were under strong criticism from all sides of the House. Let us begin with Supply motion debates. First, one result of the change made in 1955
was that each of the six motions became the occasion for what generally
amounted to a nonconfidence amendment.
The official opposition, regardless of its own wishes, felt obliged to
move an amendment because, if it did not, one of the third parties would grasp
the role of the opposition. Second, if
the six debates came on in a period of a few weeks in the late winter and
spring, as they would if the Supply business was dealt with in an orderly way,
the government was immune from nonconfidence attacks throughout much of the
rest of the year. Third, since no notice
was given of the opposition's motion to amend the Supply motion, the House did
not know what the topic of debate was going to be until the debate was
underway. Fourth, the crucial vote came
on so early on Tuesday evening, the value of the debate on Tuesday was reduced
sharply, especially if the routine proceedings had been long.
Criticism of the work of the Committee of
Supply was even stronger. From about
1945 the view had grown that even when the committee was at its best, for
various reasons its operations were an ineffectual exercise in tedium.
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have to
suggest that I have sat in this Chamber on many a day and while the Estimates
debates were going on, while I listened to a minister of either the present
opposition or the now government pat himself or herself on the back ad nauseam,
it is a pretty tedious debate. There is
no question about that.
It was too large a body to be
effective. The Chamber was too large a
setting. The meetings were dominated by
the same small group of members who monopolized the time of the House. In addition, only ministers and parliamentary
secretaries, not deputy ministers and other public servants, could answer
questions about proposed expenditures, which of course is still true in this
House.
The inadequacy of the procedure was made
manifest by the practice of allowing a minster to bring one or two department
officials into the Chamber. They sat at
a small table on the floor of the Chamber to prompt him or to give him answers
which he then relayed second‑hand to the committee. Sound familiar? The work in short was done
poorly and it was done in such a way that all members, save those few who saw
themselves as the star performers, were bored.
Moreover, since there was no limit on the time the committee could take
for its work, since the House could not sit and do other business while the
committee was at work and since the committee met in the Chamber in the full
glare of publicity, the committee had ceased to pay much attention, if any, to
the spending proposal and had become a cockpit in which the opposition parties
waged a war of attrition against the government. I think we are fairly used to that kind of
Supply debate in this Chamber.
From the ministerial viewpoint, Supply
business had become a wearisome ordeal, which I am sure most of the ministers
would concur with. It dragged on for
months, but rarely had the government any reason to fear that the members would
turn their attention to the policies behind the Estimates.
The special committee on procedure, 1967
to 1968, outlined all of the major features of a fully reformed Supply business
procedure. In the fall of 1968, its
successor, the Special Committee on Procedure, drew up and recommended to the
House a new standing order is required to bring in the reforms.
On the 20th of December 1968, both
standing orders were accepted unanimously by the House but not before they had
undergone harsh criticism from some members of the opposition. Indeed, it is
doubtful that they would have been accepted short of the use of closure if the
opposition had not concentrated its main attack elsewhere on the proposed
Standing Order 16(a), a time allocation rule that the Trudeau government was
prepared to jettison.
The new procedure is designed to produce
four effects:
(a) to give the members an opportunity to
examine the Main Estimates early and thoroughly‑‑again, absolutely
no reference to individual Estimates.
Every time it is addressed in any of the documentation that I have been
able to read it always makes reference to the Main Estimates. It is the Main Estimates which is the reason
why I am on my feet today and the lack of those Main Estimates having been
properly filed in this Chamber before this government chooses to put this
entire House into Committee of Supply for the purpose of debating the
Estimates.
So the new procedure was supposed to
accomplish just what I want to accomplish in this House, that we be given the
Main Estimates, the opportunity to examine the Main Estimates early and
thoroughly.
(b) to give the opposition opportunities
less ponderous and more numerous than the old Supply motion debates, to elaborate
a complaint or charge against the government and perhaps subsequently to test
the confidence of the House and the government.
(c) To give the government some certainty
as to when the House will decide whether or not to grant Supply.
(d) To provide a reasonable structure for
annual sessions of Parliament.
All reasonable goals, all reasonable
objectives, all reasonable ideas, but none of it can take place before the
government has tabled the Main Estimates book.
That is what is required. It is not
just precedent of this Chamber, it is precedent nationwide, it is precedent in
the House of Commons, it is precedent in
We are choosing in this Chamber to change
the precedent and, I would suggest, for absolutely no good reason and with
serious jeopardy to the authority and power of members of the opposition, both
the official opposition and any other third‑party opposition in our
democratic system throughout this nation.
The basis of the reform was the view that
the examination of the policy and details of the government program, on the one
hand, and the highly institutionalized and publicized contention between the
opposition and the government on the other are distinct operations, and that under
the old procedure, neither was successful because the two were badly confused.
It was hoped that by separating the
operation, each could be made more effective.
That is not to say that under the new procedure, the opposition cannot
raise in the House matters first approached during the examination of the
Estimates. Indeed, as we shall see, the
new procedure was contrived to make it very easy for them to do so.
It is assumed that about the middle of
February, the Crown will present the Main Estimates for the fiscal year to
begin on the first day of April. They
would have the Main Estimates books for six weeks was the proposal‑‑six
weeks. They would be able to examine
those Main Estimates in detail before the detailed examination of those
procedures were going to take place. Let
us compare that with what was happening here.
We were not even given copies of partial
Detailed Estimates until Question Period of the day the minister wanted to go
into Estimates. We were not given the
rest of them until two or three days later.
We were not given Detailed Estimates of any of the other government
departments. We were not even given
their Main Estimates, and yet we were supposed to debate with some reason, some
rationality and some logic the plans and the policies of this government.
* (1620)
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker,
in the Chair)
I have sat with the Minister of Family
Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) in the past doing Family Services Estimates. I have done Family Services Estimates back
all the way to 1986 when I did them with the then Minister of Family Services
for the party that now sits as the official opposition. I have done Family Services Estimates
probably three or four times, but I have never been asked to do Family Services
Estimates without being able to compare the expenditure of that department with
the expenditure of other departments.
As I said once before in comments not in
this particular motion but in a point of order, Mr. Acting Speaker, I take my
duties as a critic of one of the government departments very seriously. If anyone wants to look at materials which I
have kept since 1986, they will see that in areas that I do not critique, I
have checked percentages, I have looked at grants, I have looked at where the
government has chosen to cut here or where it has chosen to give there, because
that, to my mind, is the only way that one can delve into priority
setting. If the government stands, as it
has now in four budgets in a row, and says, our priorities are Family Services,
Health and Education, and I do not see those priorities reflected in the
budget, then that becomes the basis for my debate and my discussion and the
questions that I may ask.
So I do not do it in isolation, and I do
not like to think that any reasonable member of this Chamber does, that you do
not go into a debate of Agriculture Estimates‑‑and I have also done
Agriculture Estimates‑‑without looking at what is happening in
other departments, either related to Agriculture or, quite frankly, not related
to Agriculture.
I have not done the Highways
Estimates. I must admit, that is one I
have managed to avoid. I do not have a
great deal of interest in Highways, and I always felt there were others that
were more interesting, but you know, I see a capital line in the Highways
budget, because I have those Estimates, going up by 5.3 percent‑‑I
grant you, primarily because of money from the federal government‑‑but
it is going up by 5.3 percent, but I do not have the capital budget for
Education. I do not have the capital
budget for Health. I do not have the
capital budget for Government Services.
I do not have the capital budget for Housing. What am I supposed to compare that 5.3
percent with? Is it a valid capital budget, or is it an invalid capital
budget? Is it reasonable? My critic for Highways, the member for St.
James (Mr. Edwards), is it reasonable for him to into Estimates and lambaste
the Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger) for perhaps not having a large enough
capital budget, or is it unreasonable?
Maybe he has ended up getting the highest
capital percentage budget of any government department. I do not know, because I have not seen
it. What I do know, according to the
book which I read earlier into the House, Ward's book, Norman Ward's book,
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Sharon, Sharon,
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, the Minister of Highways says, Sharon,
Sharon, Sharon, because he obviously finds what I have just said very distressing. I find it very distressing, but as I quoted
earlier and I will quote again: After
their troubled passage through the Treasury Board, the Estimates‑‑not
one Estimate, not two Estimates, not three Estimates‑‑but the
Estimates are approved by the cabinet, where a disappointed minister may make a
last stand for a larger appropriation.
Well, presumably, if we have three
Estimates that have been approved, they have given up fighting. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay),
the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), the Minister of Highways
(Mr. Driedger) literally gave up the ghost, but the Minister of Environment
(Mr. Cummings), the minister for the city of Winnipeg (Mr. Ernst), the Minister
for Seniors (Mr. Ducharme), the Minister for Government Services (Mr.
Ducharme), they have not. They are still
in there scrapping, apparently, because if they are not then one can only
assume that the entire Estimates have been approved, and if the entire Estimates
have been approved, then there is absolutely no reason why we should not have
the Main Estimates book.
That is not my opinion, and I remind the
Minister of Environment that this is Norman Ward,
Mr. Acting Speaker, it is assumed that
about the middle of February, the Crown will present the Main Estimates,
present the Main Estimates, the Main Estimates.
I cannot repeat that often enough, because this is the nub of my entire
position on this. The Crown will present the Main Estimates. It is also assumed that Supplementary
Estimates may be presented during the ensuing months, and that a set of final
Supplementary Estimates will be presented shortly before the end of the fiscal
year to enable the Crown to finish the year without unpaid bills. In addition, it is assumed that the Main Estimates
will not have been dealt with before the end of the first pay period in April
so that the Crown will require an Interim Supply to cover expenditures during
the first part of each new fiscal year.
Now, Mr. Acting Speaker, this is the
point. The Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness), we know, would like to go into an Interim Supply motion. He would like to have this Chamber debate
Interim Supply, and I think the debate of Interim Supply is worthy.
[interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Order, please.
Could I have those honourable members who are trying to carry on a
conversation across the way go to the loge and carry it on so that I can hear
the honourable member for
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Acting Speaker, it is interesting that the
Minister of Finance would like an Interim Supply bill. We know why.
He needs the appropriation, and he needs it before the 31st of March,
and that is fair and that is legitimate, but it is also very clear that either
it is presented in isolation or it is presented as part of a Main Estimates
package, but it is not presented as we are presenting it in this Chamber, as a
group of single Estimates, and then we want an Interim Supply bill, when we
know about some changes but we do not know about all changes.
The standing orders now provide that on or
before March 1, all proposed votes in the Main Estimates are to be referred by
the House to appropriate standing committees.
These committees are to complete their examination of them before the
1st of June. Any Supplementary Estimates
are to be referred to a standing committee immediately, they have been
presented to the House, and that committee is to report then to the House not
later than three sitting days before the last sitting day for Supply business
in the current period.
In this way, provision has been made for
the performance of the work formerly done by the Committee of Supply. Consequently, that committee has
vanished. Instead of the old arrangement,
under which the opposition brought on debates in the House by moving amendments
to Supply motions, a total of 25 days in the House has been put at the disposal
of the opposition in each annual session.
On those days, they are referred to
variously as allotted days or as opposition days. As Supply days, the opposition, after having
been given 24‑hour notice, may move motions relating to any matter within
the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada.
The 25 days are divided into three groups,
five days during the period ending on the 10th of December, seven days during
the period ending on 26th March, and 13 days during the period ending on the
30th of June.
* (1630)
It is the kind of thing that I know that
our House leaders are debating along with the caucus participation about
changing rules in this House so that there will be opposition days, a concept
which I very much approve of, to get us rid, hopefully, of the acrimonious
debates sometimes on Matters of Urgent Public Importance.
At that very moment, at the very end of
the sitting, on the final allotted day in each period after the motions put
forward during the period by the opposition have been dealt with, the House is
asked to decide all questions relating to requests for Supply and subsequently
for the appropriation of money then before the House.
In short, the House does not vote to grant
or to refuse Supply until the opposition has had opportunities to demonstrate
to the House and to the country why Supply should be refused.
There was disagreement in 1968 as to
whether the total of 25 days would be too few or too many for the purposes of
the opposition. From the viewpoint of a
government, the number of days makes relatively little difference as long as
the work of a session can be completed in seven or eight months, but some of
the Liberals held that an opposition ought not to be expected to initiate too
many debates under conditions requiring that those debates be well planned,
well conducted and noteworthy. Otherwise, the records would appear trivial or
ill‑tempered and Supply days would lose their importance.
In the fall of 1968, the Liberals
suggested that 15 days would be enough.
This was met by a suggestion from the Progressive Conservatives that
there should be 35 or 40 days. Predictably, the figure finally agreed upon was
25 days.
So we have, therefore, in our
parliamentary tradition, a clear evolution of the concept of Supply and the
concept, very clearly, that in
I think it is important also to go and
look somewhat further at some of the basis upon the Supply motions and where it
has caused real problems for governments when they have chosen to break with
tradition and to try and introduce Supply motions that, quite frankly, are not
considered acceptable to members of the opposition.
Although unhappiness with the procedures
of the House of Commons was quite prevalent among the members during the last
years of the war and throughout the postwar years, little of their criticism
was aimed at the way the House dealt with public bills. For the most part, the complaints related to
the maintenance of administrative responsibility. The heavy reliance on rule by delegated power
during and after World War II, together with the vast increases in the amounts
of money voted annually, aroused and sustained a gnawing dissatisfaction.
The feeling was that the House had allowed
itself to become only an observer, indeed, at best, merely a half‑blind
observer of the activities of the government.
The great criticism was that as long as the procedure by which the House
approved the Estimates remained obsolete, the government's administrative
activity, its use of the power conferred on it by the statutes and by common
law, would remain largely concealed from the House. Almost inevitably, the proposed solutions
involved a greater use of the committees.
From 1908, even before the British House
introduced its sessional committees on Estimates, complaints were voiced in
A beginning was made in 1924 when the
House appointed a sessional committee to examine the financial circumstances
and requirements of the railways and shipping lines taken over by the
Crown. Thereafter, that committee, for
years referred to as the committee on railways and shipping‑‑and I
find that interesting, and I will digress for just a minute, because there is
actually a railway committee room in
So for years after, it was referred to as
the Committee on Railways and Shipping, owned, operated and controlled by the
government, but after 1958, the Committee on Railways, Airlines and Shipping,
owned and controlled by the government, was established annually. To it were referred those items in the
Estimates relating to the corporations operating the services. Clearly, a
foremost purpose of this innovation was to make the corporations assume some of
the burden of justifying their demands on the public purse.
In 1950, the Estimates of the CBC relating
to its international short‑wave services were referred to a Special
Committee on Radio Broadcasting. In
1952, the votes relating to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation were
referred to the Committee on Banking and Commerce.
In both those instances, as in the case of
the nationalized transportation companies, members were being put into direct
contact with agencies not under the administrative responsibility of a
minister. In each instance, the motion
referring the items made it clear that no derogation from the power of the
Committee of Supply was intended. The
smaller committees were to examine the Estimates, but each vote would have to
be carried later in the Committee of Supply.
More significantly, because an ordinary
department of government was involved, the Estimates of the Department of
External Affairs were referred to the new Standing Committee on External
Affairs in 1945 and in subsequent years.
Here again, there was a special reason.
The Committee on Industrial and
International Relations had been a dismal failure insofar as international
relations were concerned. One reason for
this was that the committee rarely had anything related to external affairs
before it.
By referring the Estimates of the
department to the committee annually, the government sought to interest the
members and the public in its bold initiatives in the field and to recruit
support for them. Again, the Estimates
had to go later to the Committee of Supply, but, Mr. Acting Speaker, they could
not even go to these committees until the Main Estimates book had been tabled.
Yet another special reason for referring
Estimates to a small committee was exemplified in 1951, when a vote to provide
assistance to unemployable, pensioned veterans was referred to a Special
Committee on Veterans Affairs. Since the
committee was composed of veterans and others keenly concerned for the well‑being
of that particular group, the reference at once gratified the committee,
demonstrated the solicitude of the government for war veterans and enlisted the
support of the committee for the government's efforts. In this instance, too, the rights of the
Committee of Supply were saved explicitly.
During World War II, when the money to
wage the war was appropriated without Estimates, the House had appointed a
Special Committee on War Expenditures at each session. The work of that committee met with general
approval. Against this background, after
1945, several leading Progressive Conservative spokesmen revived the early criticism
of the Committee of Supply as a body high unsuitable for detailed inquiry into
administrative activity even in peacetime.
The sound work of the Committee on External Affairs, they argued, was
convincing evidence that a standing committee could do that kind of work better
than a Committee of the Whole House.
*
(1640)
Satisfaction with the work of the
Committee on External Affairs led some of them to propose the creation of a
standing committee system parallelling the departmental structure of the
government so that most of the Estimates could be examined by specialized
committees. Later, they shifted back to
the idea of one standing committee, a committee modeled after the British
sessional committee on the Estimates, as recommended by Speaker Fauteux in a
report and procedure in 1947. Such a
committee would have only one duty, namely, to study in an intense way each
year the Estimates of two or three departments.
By 1955, the Liberal government, which
over the years had felt uneasy about the propriety of sending Estimates to
committee, at least committees operating as suggested by the official
opposition, was all ready to make a timid attempt to meet the constant
complaint about the uselessness of the Committee of Supply.
It proposed the establishment of a
sessional committee on Estimates. The
committee was appointed in 1955, 1956 and 1957. However, to the great annoyance
of the opposition, the committee was not given the power to send for persons,
papers and records, nor did the government allow it a free hand in deciding
which departments it would study.
The way in which the standing committees
were employed after the Diefenbaker victories in 1957 and 1958 was
predictable. The main emphasis was on
parliamentary control of expenditures.
The Prime Minister never had had much use for the committees. Either the majority party would make the
committees serve the government's purposes or, alternatively, the committees
would come to challenge the government's right to make decisions and to
lead. Yet Mr. Diefenbaker had denounced
the Liberals unceasingly in the elections of 1957 and 1958 for arrogant
contempt of Parliament, and had promised that under a Diefenbaker government
the rights of Parliament would be revived.
Is this not fascinating?
Many of the government benches, of course,
consider Mr. Diefenbaker to be an authority on parliamentary tradition. Mr. Diefenbaker very clearly said: The job of Estimates is the job of the
Committee of Supply. The job of the
Committee of Supply is to receive a Main Estimates book, and then the debate on
Estimates can take place until the Main Estimates book has been tabled.
He had colleagues with high hopes for the
committee system. Naturally, said the government House leader, the Honourable
Howard Green, one way of making the House more efficient is to give every
private member, no matter to which party he may belong, the greatest possible
scope in taking part in the government of the country.
That is a Conservative that said that, Mr.
Acting Speaker. It is a Conservative defending the right of parliamentarians to
give their greatest possible scope in taking part in the government of the
country. That is what we in the third
party are urgently recommending, that they be allowed to do just that.
This is something that should have been
done by the former government and why they were not bright enough to see the
need for it, I never could understand.
About his own attitude, the Prime Minister
was candid: As a matter of fact,
defending the more extensive use made of committees, I speak as one who was not
a very good committee man. Over the
years, I have more or less cast out in the efficacy of the committee
system. However, others whose experience
is wider as committee members than is my own were able to convince me that the
committee system could indeed be incorporated into our system without borrowing
anything from the constitutional position of the Congress of the
Before 1958, the examination of the
Auditor General's report and of the Public Accounts by the Public Accounts
committee was not regarded as one of the regular sessional activities.
Ordinarily, over the years, the opposition had little interest in the
committee, unless there were accusations to be made against the government. That is not unlike what happens in this
Chamber as well.
I want to focus all of my comments today
on the Committee of Supply. Therefore, I
am not going to get into the Public Accounts debates, but I will just reference
that it would be very difficult to debate Public Accounts in this province if
we did not have the Public Accounts books.
I do not think any minister of this Crown, or at least I would think
there would be no minister of this Crown who would be prepared to call a
meeting of Public Accounts before indeed the Public Accounts had been
tabled. Yet that is exactly what they
are asking us to do in terms of the Estimates.
They are asking us to debate Estimates of three departments even though
we have yet to see the Main Estimates book.
Let me continue with the history of the
Committee of Supply. Before 1955, the Committee of Supply normally dealt with
Interim Supply requests and with Supplementary Estimates with great
dispatch. These items raised few policy
questions. A request for Interim Supply
ordinarily took less than an hour and a set of Supplementary Estimates about a
day. The committee moved slowly only
when the Main Estimates were under consideration but on even that business its
pace became faster and faster as the prospect of escape from
Not unlike what happens here, and I know
that some of the members did not particularly like the member for Inkster's
(Mr. Lamoureux) comments, but I think it is true that as we get farther and
farther and father into the session, Estimates go faster and faster and
faster. Some do not get debated at all,
we have to do that in the concurrence motion, but in the first few Estimates
that hit the Order Paper, there always seems to be weeks and days to give to
those particular Estimates. As the
crunch comes down and summer holidays approach or the 90‑day rule comes
into effect, we see a movement towards more and more speed.
This pattern changed with the
intensification of the political contention in 1953‑54. Then and thereafter the members in
opposition, when required to do so by party strategy, were prepared to spend
extra days, even weeks in the summer and fall on the Main Estimates to prevent
the House from advancing controversial government measure, to vent their
hostility to the ministers and to create the impression among the electorate
that the government of the day was all chaos and inefficiency.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I remember spending
the summer of 1959 in
On the other hand, if the government was
to carry on without an election, it had to get the requested Supply before its
deadline, generally the date of which the mid‑month or end‑of‑month
pay cheques had to be available for the public servants. That is exactly the dilemma the minister
finds himself in this week. He wants to
break for spring break‑‑I think we all do, he needs to get an
Interim Supply bill. We are prepared to
let him take the Interim Supply bill, but we are not prepared to allow him to
go into the Detailed Estimates. Until he
makes it clear that he is not prepared to go into the Detailed Estimates, once
we grant him permission to go into an Interim Supply, then we are simply not
going to give him permission to go into Interim Supply. It is very simple.
If he grants our request that we will wait
until after spring break or he will present the Main Estimates‑‑I
mean, he has several choices here, and let me make it absolutely clear what
those choices are. He can file in this
House tomorrow the Main Estimates book.
If he does that, we will go into Estimates as soon as he wants. If he is not prepared to file the Main
Estimates book, then let us go into Interim Supply. Let us pass Interim Supply, and let us
adjourn until the 5th of April. It would
only be a one‑ or two‑day adjournment anyway, because I am sure the
Interim Supply bill is going to take us all Tuesday and Wednesday.
If he wants, he can even do condolence
motions on Thursday. He has been wanting to do those for some time. He can discuss bills on Friday if he wants to
do that. We are agreeable to anything he
wishes to do, with the exception of debating the specific Estimates of specific
departments without the presentation of the Main Estimates book.
So there are options. Let the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
know clearly, as the House leader, that he has options, and we will be most co‑operative
if he uses some of those options that are available to him.
* (1650)
Let me continue: On the other hand, if the government was to
carry on without an election, it had to get the requested Supply before
deadline, generally, the date on which mid‑month or end‑of‑month
pay cheques had to be available for the public servants. Just when the deadline would be passed, the
date on which the Crown became insolvent was kept a secret.
We do not know when this government is
going to be insolvent. We can only
assume, since he desperately wants an Interim Supply bill, that he feels he is
going to be insolvent relatively soon.
Thus, the tension in the committee was
heightened by uncertainty. On the other
hand, the opposition could argue that, constitutionally, it was obliged to use
these occasions, unlike Interim Supply requests made at the beginning of the
fiscal year, as opportunities to appraise the conduct of the government. The question of how long all the annual
Supply business, Main Estimates, Supplementary Estimates and Interim Supply
would require always remained important.
Frequently, it was shaded by the far more dramatic question, whether the
opposition would permit the current request for Interim Supply to come to a
vote or whether it would talk beyond the deadline, thus plunging the government
into an election.
We are not proposing this, Mr. Acting
Speaker. We are proposing that we get on
with Interim Supply, but under certain circumstances.
During the period of procedural reform
that began in 1955, the newspaper headlines were dominated by the battle over
defence production powers, 1955; the pipeline debate, 1956; the Coyne affair,
1961; the controversy over atomic weapons, 1962‑63; the flag debate, 1964
and various scandals, 1964, 1965 and 1966 and the unification of the armed
services, 1966 and 1967.
As is inevitable under our Constitution
the basic question throughout was whether or not the circumstances created by
those divisive issues, the government of the day, with or without a majority,
could obtain from the House of Commons the money to meet the commitments of the
Crown, because without that money we can do nothing.
This meant that the rules of the House
governing the Supply business were crucial to the political developments. Year after year, the question of whether or
not there would be an election at a time fatal to the government depended on
the rules.
Table 12, covering the period from 1952,
before the adoption of the rule that all the Main Estimates would be entered by
six Supply motions, to the 20th of December 1968, when the Committee of Supply
was abolished, shows the number of days taken on Supply business in the House
and the committee during each session.
What is noticeable is the close
relationship between the intensity of political contention and the total time
taken by Supply business. The committee
moved far more slowly when highly controversial measures, i.e., the Pipeline
bill in 1956; the flag motion in 1964; and the armed forces unification bill in
1966 were to the fore and when the members of both sides of the House were
making ready for an election.
The attack by the Progressive
Conservatives and the CCF on the
In the former year, two requests for
Interim Supply were dealt with in the usual expeditious way at the end of May
and June, but the Main Appropriation Act was not law until the 28th of July of
that year.
In 1956, Parliament provided an Interim
Supply for the months of April and May.
The pipeline debate ended on Tuesday, the 5th of June, and the main
business for the rest of that week was the debate on the motion of the Leader
of the Opposition, George Drew, to the effect that the House no longer had
confidence in the Speaker.
On Friday, the 8th of June, Prime Minister
St. Laurent indicated that on Monday the government would seek an Interim
Supply for June. It was clear that
unless the House acceeded quickly to this request, the government would have to
bring on an election or resign.
Evidently, it was the intention of Mr. Stanley
Knowles of the CCF, now the NDP, and Mr. E. D. Fulton of the Progressive
Conservatives, who together had conducted the defence against the Pipeline
bill, that those two parties would continue their resistance to the St. Laurent
government to the end by delaying Supply beyond the date and the government
would run out of money.
On Monday, the 11th of June, the Leader of
the Opposition informed the House that the official opposition would consent in
the usual way to Interim Supply. Mr.
Knowles went along almost reluctantly.
The Supply requested for June was granted immediately. During the next few weeks, two more one‑month
Supplies were granted. The Main
Appropriation Act was enacted on the 14th of August.
If Mr. Drew had not drawn back early in June,
if the government had been forced to dissolve, and if the election outcome had
been the same as it was in 1957, Mr. Drew and not Mr. Diefenbaker would have
been Mr. St. Laurent's successor as Prime Minister.
In 1960, the Liberals and the CCFs, sensing
that the popularity of the Diefenbaker government was waning rapidly, extended
the work of the Committee of Supply so that the Main Appropriation Act was not
enacted until the 10th of August 1960.
As a precaution, Prime Minister
Diefenbaker started the next session in the fall of 1960, but by the 13th of
July 1961, when James Coyne, a good Winnipegger, finally resigned as the
Governor of the Bank of Canada, the mood of the House was far from conducive to
the dispatch of business. Consequently,
he had the House adjourned from the 13th of July until the 7th of September.
The Main Appropriation Act for 1961‑62
was not enacted until the 29th of September 1961.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
In the following session, during the
winter of 1962, the opposition, in preparation for the forthcoming election,
the election of the 18th of June 1962, spent 27 days on two sets of
Supplementary Estimates.
The implication of prolonged deliberation
over Interim Supply requests came to be appreciated fully during the session of
1962‑1963. Prior to the
dissolution of Parliament on the 18th of April, 1962, two Interim Supplies had
been granted to cover the requirements of the first seven months, April through
October, of the fiscal year 1962‑63.
The Diefenbaker government, a minority
government after the election of the 18th of June, did not meet the new House
until the 27th of September, 1962, and then failed to press ahead with main
Supply business. The House granted three
Interim Supplies: one for the month of November, one for December, and one for
January.
Over the years, as we have noted, Interim
Supply requests coming at the beginning of the fiscal year as they did
ordinarily had been dealt with by the Committee of Supply. The consequent bill had been dealt with by the
Committee of Supply, and the consequent bill had been passed in less than a
hour.
The opposition saved its criticisms,
questions and condemnations until the votes in the Main Estimates were before
the committee. The first Interim Supply
request in the fall of 1962 was dealt with in less than two hours. The story does not end there.
On February 5, 1963, for the first time in
the history of
Since the 18th of June, 1962, the
Diefenbaker government had been in a minority position, but if the defeat of
the 5th of February had not occurred, a distinct possibility, as we now know,
Mr. Diefenbaker probably would have been forced to the country by the
Liberals. All that they would have had
to do was to prevent the request for an Interim Supply for February, Interim
Supply for the 11th month of the fiscal year which was then before the House,
from coming to a vote.
Moreover, either the small opposition
parties could have done the same thing at that time or during the previous
fall. As it was, the defeat on the 5th
of February removed the need to obtain yet another Interim Supply.
* (1700)
PRIVATE
MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., time for Private
Members' Business.
PROPOSED
RESOLUTIONS
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that
WHEREAS the Lockport Bridge will lose its
status as a safe bridge on January 1, 1993, and will therefore be closed for
repairs; and
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS as many as 200 full‑time
jobs will be affected by the closure of the Lockport Bridge, with direct and
indirect economic loss to the entire region estimated to be between $8 million
and potentially as much as $17 million; and
WHEREAS residents, local businesses, the
town of Selkirk and Lockport as well as other affected organizations such as
the Triple S Business Development corporation all need to be kept informed as
to developments on the repair of the bridge; and
WHEREAS the level of ambulance and school
bus services to
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the governments of Manitoba and Canada to
quickly resolve their differences over the repair of the Lockport Bridge and
inform the public as to the timetable for construction and alternatives planned
for residents affected; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly
request the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) to take
immediate action in order to minimize the economic dislocation suffered during
the closure by considering increasing support for tourism in the Selkirk region
during this period.
Motion presented.
Mr. Dewar: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to
speak on this particular resolution, a resolution that has serious implications
to residents of Selkirk and Lockport, St. Andrews and individuals on Highway 44
East, a resolution that calls for the two levels of government to resolve their
differences over the issue of the Lockport Bridge and calls upon the Minister
of Industry, Trade and Tourism to begin a campaign of tourism promotion in that
particular area.
Like, I believe, a few of the members
opposite, I attended a number of different meetings in the
Mr. Speaker, the bridge itself and the
closure has been well documented by groups in the Selkirk area about the negative
impacts that this will have upon the community.
The Triple S Business Development corporation in Selkirk conducted a
survey of affected residences and businesses, and they had serious economic
impacts associated with the bridge closure.
They have estimated that 85 to 150 direct jobs within the local
community of Lockport could be lost, and I know after the initial closure, I
believe it was January 4 or 5, there were immediate and negative effects to the
local businesses and this, of course, to businesses on both sides of Lockport.
Only the west side of
Mr. Speaker, again dealing with jobs, it
has been estimated that 150 to 250 direct and indirect jobs are at risk in that
particular region. The economic loss to
the local community is estimated to range between $5 million and $10 million. In broader implications to the entire region,
the direct and indirect economic loss could go up as high as $17 million. These are all estimates by the Triple S
investment corporation in Selkirk based upon a survey of all the businesses and
other residents in the area. Of course,
I think they said 86 percent of the businesses and residents surveyed are very
concerned about the closure of the bridge‑‑fairly obvious. They feel that the
I believe the RCMP stated that it would
take an extra five to 10 minutes to attend to the needs of
For one thing, when the
There is a debate here, of course, as to
who actually has responsibility of the bridge, and I understand and I
appreciate the provincial government's concern that it is a federal
structure. The federal government is
responsible for dams and locks, Mr. Speaker, and this is why their M.P. in the
area‑‑I was the one who approached his colleagues in
He supported him by his money. Of course, the most fundamental support that
a politician seeks is electoral support and the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr.
Praznik) more than adequately supplied his electoral support to the M.P.
Actually, the M.P. of the area wrote a
letter‑‑it has been published in our local paper‑‑where
he says: In early October the provincial
ministers publicly stated that the province would not negotiate. Regrettably, however, the province has now
indicated it no longer wishes to discuss accepting its responsibility for the
bridge, but rather is of the opinion that even though highways are a provincial
responsibility, that the federal government should have responsibility for this
bridge.
* (1710)
I am convinced that both the federal and
provincial governments have responsibility in relation to this structure. The
federal government is to fix it up, as legally it is the property of the
federal government. We have accepted
this responsibility. The province,
however, after spending the last two years indicating otherwise, has chosen not
to accept their responsibility, putting in jeopardy all the work done to
accommodate their conditions.
I will continue to strive to ensure that
the
It is a shameful comment, but that was
only one issue. Now, of course, the
bridge closed; some of the demolition work has now taken place. The tenders, I believe, will be going out at
the end of this month. We are not
certain exactly when repairs will begin.
The concerns of residents are still compounded by inaction of the
federal government, and as Mr. Bjornson clearly indicates, there is a
responsibility, as well, placed upon the provincial government.
If that is the case, and it is very
obvious that the provincial government does have a clear responsibility in
tourism promotion here in
They did not even know that the bridge was
going to close. He indicated clearly to me that he thought that the bridge
would not close. Clearly, they were not
aware of the issue, how it relates to the Selkirk area, but we are again
actively here today mentioning and bringing this issue forward, so the Minister
of Tourism will begin tourism promotion of the Selkirk area, the Lower Fort
Garry area, the Lockport area to develop a plan. I understand there is some work being done
now which is fine, we accept that, to again actively promote this particular
part of
The other issue, of course, and the final
issue I would like to raise is the potential for a link to be developed between
the two areas, so we can link east
There was some talk about a cable ferry
linking the two areas. I understand that
the Minister of Highways has within his department a number of these in
northern Manitoba, so I would urge him, if that is the case, to bring the ferry
down into the Lockport area to allow us to link those two areas, to help
continue to maintain the businesses in that particular area, allow traffic to
go over the area in the summer months, Mr. Speaker, to maintain the tourism
development that this area has been renowned for.
Well, Mr. Speaker, with those few
comments, I know that the government, I know that the opposition, the second
opposition party will be very eager to support this resolution.
Thank you.
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity
to make some comments on the Lockport Bridge issue, but one regret I have is
that the member for Selkirk, in bringing forward this resolution, did it more
of trying to get some politics out of it than actually addressing the problem.
I wish that during his comments, and he
still had some time left, that he would have maybe wanted to correct some of
the things in the resolution which was obviously drawn up many, many months
ago. Many things have happened since
that time, and he should have maybe tried to make an effort in correcting some
of the things that are on the resolution either by amending the resolution
himself or by clarifying the changes that had taken place since that time. Seeing as he has not done that, I will be
making an amendment at the end of my comments.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to go into a
little bit of the past history of the
Over the many years, and I think it
probably could even go back to beyond the time that the member for Dauphin (Mr.
Plohman) was the Minister of Highways and Transportation, efforts were made by
the federal government to try and see whether they could offload that
facility. That was part of the policy
that the federal government had, that certain public works structures, they
would try and offload them to the provinces.
That conversation surfaced about two times during the time that I was
minister until ultimately things got serious.
My criticism has been all the time with
Public Works Canada that, realizing the condition of the structure, they did
not do preparatory work beforehand. It
is a federal responsibility, and they have them all across
It deals with the Navigable Waters Act,
the control of the level of the water.
Things have changed, and when Public Works came forward asking for us to
accept responsibility for it, we had put out certain conditions specifically
some time ago as to when we would give consideration, if we would give
consideration, because we felt we had an obligation to the ratepayers of
Manitoba in terms of financial responsibility.
This was a federal responsibility.
There was an offload considered.
We said you bring it back to 50 or life in terms of lock and dam as well
as the bridge and offer us some operating money and we will consider that. We thought this was a good first
approach. Mr. Speaker, this never
happened, and ultimately in very short notice all of a sudden we find that they
have done inspections‑‑engineers‑‑and they say that the
bridge is not safe and that as of the beginning of January it will be closed.
Our normal approach‑‑and I
just want to illustrate that this summer I opened up the bridge going to East
Selkirk which had been closed for quite a period of time. Months, in fact, years before we started
talking with the community and the people involved, the councillors involved,
and gave them an impression of what was going to happen, the impact of it. We tried to alleviate it as much as possible,
work with them. There was concern. Naturally there was concern, Mr. Speaker,
because it is a very active thoroughfare, the
* (1720)
Invariably when you close a bridge, Mr.
Speaker, there are going to be people hard done by it. In this particular case, the same thing
happened, and the merchants, realizing that this was coming down the line,
organized. I have had many meetings with
them. Initially, when we had the discussions
with the federal government in terms of whether we should accept the offload or
not, we put our conditions forward‑‑[interjection] The member for
Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), if he does not know, then obviously his people in Lockport
do not have much confidence in him. He
should have known the process of what we went through. I do not know whether they really
communicated with him that well. He has
been trying to stick‑handle around an issue in this area, but I do not
think they ever gave him the confidence that they really had confidence in him.
[interjection] That is another thing.
They had a federal member there.
However, what happened, Mr. Speaker, they
were rightly pushing us and saying resolve it.
It is government, we do not care whose responsibility it is, federal,
provincial. Resolve it, because it is
going to have an impact. We had put our
conditions forward. We were not making
much progress.
An Honourable Member: What year was that?
Mr. Driedger: That was last year, and then December 2, Mr.
Speaker, actually something happened.
The federal government, Mr. Mazankowski, made an economic statement at
which time the lack of a‑‑the announcement for a national highways
program, but there were certain conditions put in there where they were going
to refurbish two bridges in
That raised our hackles up, and right the
next day I had conversations with Jake Epp on the matter, the representative
member for
The feeling was it does not do the
merchants any good, but for Manitobans at least it was an acceptance by the
federal government of their responsibilities.
They started outlining the timetable.
We know basically what is going to happen. It got closed on January 4, I believe. It is now closed. They have taken out the west approach because
that was where the main problem was.
They will be letting a contract very shortly. The member is correct in that. At that time, the bridge should be
refurbished to the point where we can open it up in November sometime, or they
will be opening it up in November sometime.
Mr. Speaker, many meetings took place between
my department and some of my colleagues and the people from
An Honourable Member: Kim Campbell.
Mr. Driedger: No, we met with Jake Epp, and‑‑
An Honourable Member: Did you go or not?
Mr. Driedger: Yes, we did go‑‑the Minister of
Public Works.
We took these people along, and they
finally had an insight into the difficulties in terms of dealing with
that. The commitments were made at that
time by the federal minister that they would accept their responsibilities, and
then it waffled again. So it has been a
very tough convoluted process that we have gone through.
Mr. Speaker, the bridge is closed. The resolve was there, the responsibility of
the federal government to repair the bridge, and it will not be until November.
What the community is facing right now is
a very difficult summer, for tourism reasons.
I would beg to question some of the figures that the member has here,
because they are not an isolated community.
They have access on both sides.
They just cannot access community to community, but there is access on
both sides. So the impact of $17 million
on the community, without having actual figures, I think is a stretch, and 200
jobs at stake, I think that is maybe a stretch as well.
There will be an impact on the
community. That is why, Mr. Speaker, we
have encouraged the community to try and do their promotions in such a way that
it will have less impact. They are
working with I, T and T. They have an
application in there.
In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, they came up
and said, we want an ice road across there.
The implications of my doing it, I could not get the approval of my
engineers at that particular site to do it in a safe manner. Not only that, we would have to deal with the
environmental people, as well as the Navigable Waters Act. What the community did was they took it on
themselves and they made a winter road, which basically I think is on the verge
of maybe not operating any more. With
the mild weather that is coming it is not going to take very long.
They have to be a little careful in terms
of the liability aspect of it if they encourage it and somebody is going to go
through driving too long, so I cautioned them, and I talked to them about it,
that they better close it at the time appropriate so there is not going to be
any life at risk.
Subsequent to that, Mr. Speaker, we also
met again, because now the community has come forward and said, well, during
the summer there is going to be an economic impact; we would like to have a
ferry. We met just the other day. The conclusion of the meeting was that I
would get more information for them, but I was not prepared to take and make a
commitment to have the ferry that we have up north brought down here, because
the problem that we have is again, where do you put this ferry? As a provincial government, we are going to
be subject to the environmental considerations, federally and provincially, and
it is private property. There are many‑‑
An Honourable Member: Just temporary. By the time they catch up with you, you will
be finished.
Mr. Driedger: Well, Mr. Speaker, I suggested to them, by the
time I get all the necessary approvals‑‑
An Honourable Member: You just run that back and forth. By the time they figure it out it will be
over.
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I mentioned
to the group. By the time we go through all
the process as a province, because we have to do it much more meticulously than
anybody else, by that time the bridge is going to be open.
An Honourable Member: Well, just give it to them for a dollar for
the summer.
Mr. Driedger: The member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) is giving
me all kinds of advice. These are all
considerations that we have been looking at.
I just want to raise some of the concerns
here. In terms of doing it, if you have
a cable across the river at an angle‑‑and also I have to deal with
my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), where they want to
take and put an access road through his park.
I can see major concerns developing there.
The other areas, if you do not do that,
you have steep banks, if you are going to start cutting down the banks, you are
now dealing with the federal government on the environmental issues, the
Navigable Waters Act, and by that time the whole process is through.
The problem with the little ferry that
they have up north, it will cost me $30,000 to fix it up. It will take four to six vehicles at a
time. If you consider the time it would
take, most people will not stand and wait half an hour to take a ferry because
they can whip around either way, by way of the Perimeter or by way of Selkirk,
in 20 minutes and be there.
We have had these discussions with
them. One thing, my colleagues the
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik)
and myself have always tried to work with them.
We try and be as reasonable as possible in terms of the impact that it
will ultimately have on the community. Even now, there are various proposals
that we are looking at with them.
I repeat again that I think the big
victory was when finally the federal government accepted the responsibility
that this structure was their structure and they would repair it. I think they have handled it in a very, very
shoddy manner in terms of the way they dealt with the community.
I just wanted to basically bring these
issues to light to some degree, because perception sometimes, especially the
way the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) left it here, I do not think it is quite
accurate, so I wanted to put my information on the table.
Mr. Speaker, based on the misinformation
that is there, I want to move an amendment.
I move, seconded by the member for
THAT Resolution 10 be amended by deleting
all words following the first "WHEREAS" and replacing them with the
following:
WHEREAS the St. Andrews Lock and Dam and
the
WHEREAS the federal government has closed
the St. Andrews Lock and Dam for safety reasons as of January 4, 1993; and
WHEREAS the government of Manitoba has
worked with the community to impress upon the federal government the need to
schedule the repairs to the structure in a manner so as to minimize the impact
on the communities on either side of the lock and dam; and
WHEREAS the government of
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Government of Canada to proceed
expeditiously with the renovation work in order to avoid any unnecessary
inconvenience and impact on the local community.
* (1730)
Motion presented.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
An Honourable Member: It was the people there who did it.
Mr. Lamoureux: Well, all those who were involved in ensuring
that the federal government lived up to their responsibilities should be
commended for their effort, because in fact it is a responsibility that the
federal government was responsible for, and they are doing it. That is the most important thing.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in
the Chair)
Mr. Acting Speaker, it would have been
good to see a bit more in terms of discussions prior to towards the end of '92
to have lessened some of the concerns, because I know that there is a number of
questions that were out there and have been there over the last couple of
months, one dealing in terms of construction, why it had to be done during
June, July, August, the peak months.
There were a number of questions that were there as to why it was that
there was no indication coming from any level of government addressing the need
to see this bridge, in fact, refurbished.
It was positive to see that we did get the
government onside, and the commitment is there to have it finished by
November. We trust that what can be done
will be done to minimize the impact, the negative economic impact on the local
communities, much like when a bridge in the city of Winnipeg needs to be
repaired or a road needs to be resurfaced, that there are businesses that
suffer, unfortunately, as a direct result.
What government can do is to ensure that that damage, that economic
damage, is minimized by providing certain things. I understand that the minister is in fact
looking into other possibilities to minimize that damage, and we look forward
to hearing from the minister as to what those plans are to minimize it.
Having said those very few words, Mr.
Acting Speaker, it would have been good to have had this particular discussion
prior to January, but failing that, we do support the amendment and
congratulate all those involved in getting the federal government to live up to
its responsibilities. Thank you.
Mr. Dewar: I would like to put a few words on the record
dealing with this particular amendment.
As a matter of fact, it caught us quite off guard. It was not the usual type of amendment
brought forward by this government on our resolutions. As a matter of fact, we on this side of the
House support the amendment, and I urge all members to as well.
An Honourable Member: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Marcel Laurendeau): The question before the House is the amendment
moved by the honourable Minister of Transportation (Mr. Driedger) to Resolution
10:
THAT Resolution 10 be amended by deleting
all words following the first WHEREAS and replacing them with the following:
WHEREAS the St. Andrews Lock and Dam and the
WHEREAS the federal government has closed
the St. Andrews Lock and Dam for safety reasons as of January 4, 1993; and
WHEREAS the government of Manitoba has
worked with the community to impress upon the federal government the need to
schedule the repairs to the structure in a manner so as to minimize the impact
on the communities on either side of the lock and dam; and
WHEREAS the government of
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Government of Canada to proceed
expeditiously with the renovation work in order to avoid any unnecessary
inconvenience and impact on the local community.
All those in favour of the amendment.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Marcel Laurendeau): All those opposed.
The amendment is accordingly passed.
All those on the resolution as amended,
please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Marcel Laurendeau): All those opposed.
Carried.
Six o'clock? The hour being six o'clock, I am leaving the
Chair with the understanding that the House will reconvene at eight o'clock.