LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday, May 12, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
Speaker's Statement
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Routine Proceedings, I have a
statement for the House. I must inform the
House that Harold Johan Neufeld, the honourable member for Rossmere, has
resigned his seat in the House effective May 12, 1993.
I am therefore tabling his resignation and
my letter to the Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council, advising of
the vacancy thus created in the membership of the House.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Kim Bauch, Shari Kebel, Jacki Meisner and others requesting the Minister of
Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the
level it was prior to the '93‑94 budget.
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Walter Bonkowski, Tannis Wells, Patti Kirkwood and others requesting the Minister
of Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the
level it was prior to the '93‑94 budget.
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Brad White, Greg Cameron,
Rod Tutkaluke and others requesting the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard)
consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it was prior to
the '93‑94 budget.
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Esther A. Inglis, Susan J.
Dobson, Dreena Dobson and others requesting the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it was
prior to the 1993‑94 budget.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Gloria Vanbeselaere, Ollie Bilton, Julie Walker and others requesting the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental
Program to the level it was prior to the 1993‑94 budget.
*
* *
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Marilyn McKellar, Stan Struthers, Vicky Yakemishin and others requesting the
Manitoba Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Ms. Cerilli). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with rules
(by leave). Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant):
The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS the provincial government is
currently reviewing the
WHEREAS the project satisfies the legal
criteria set out in the rules under the federal environmental assessment review
process requiring a federal review; and
WHEREAS there is evidence to indicate that
this proposal will adversely affect the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS there are no plans to hold public
hearings in
WHEREAS farmers in many communities such
as
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* (1335)
*
* *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed
the petition of the honourable member (Mrs. Carstairs). It complies with the privileges and the
practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of
the undersigned residents of the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly urge the government of
*
* *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Ms. Friesen). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of
the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS the provincial government is
currently reviewing the
WHEREAS the project satisfies the legal
criteria set out in the rules under the federal environmental assessment review
process requiring a federal review; and
WHEREAS there is evidence to indicate that this proposal will adversely
affect the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS there are no plans to hold public
hearings in
WHEREAS farmers in many communities such
as
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
*
* *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed
the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Plohman). It complies with the privileges and the
practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of
the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out
the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
*
* *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed
the petition of the honourable member (Ms. Wowchuk). It complies with the privileges and the
practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of
the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS the Canadian Wheat Board has
played a vital role in the orderly marketing of Canadian wheat, barley and
other grain products since its inception in 1935; and
WHEREAS the federal Minister of
Agriculture is considering removing barley from the jurisdiction of the Wheat
Board; and
WHEREAS this is another step towards
dismantling the board; and
WHEREAS, as in the case with the removal
of oats from the Wheat Board in 1989, there has been no consultation with the
board of directors of the Wheat Board, with the 11‑member advisory
committee to the board or the producers themselves; and
WHEREAS the federal minister has said that
there will be no plebiscite of farmers before the announcement is made.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to table the Annual Report of the Manitoba Mineral
Resources Ltd. for 1992, and Moose Lake Loggers Ltd. Annual Report for '91‑92.
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the
Annual Report for the year 1991‑92 of the Manitoba Habitat Heritage
Corporation. Members will be interested
to note that this report is printed with canola‑based printing ink on
stock that consists of 25 percent post‑consumer and 25 percent pre‑consumer
waste.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 32‑The Social Allowances Amendment Act
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill
32, The Social Allowances Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aide
sociale) be introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
* (1340)
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
afternoon from the
Also this afternoon, we have from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you all here this afternoon.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Just prior to Oral Questions, is there leave
of the House to revert to Introduction of Bills to allow the honourable member
for St. James to introduce his bill? [agreed]
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS (continued)
Bill 216‑An Act to amend An Act to Protect the Health
of Non‑Smokers
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), that Bill 216, An Act to amend An Act to Protect
the Health of Non‑Smokers; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection de la
sante des non‑fumeurs, be introduced and that the same be now received
and read a first time.
Motion presented.
Mr. Edwards: Very briefly, Mr.
Speaker, this act amends the Act to Protect the Health of Non‑Smokers by
strengthening it and by assisting in the enforcability of this
legislation. This particular provision
has been recommended to all members by the Canadian Cancer Society, so I
anticipate and am hopeful that it will be passed in a nonpartisan way and with
all due speed, so that the Canadian Cancer Society and so that all Manitobans
can be protected from the adverse effects of smoke. Thank you.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 217‑The
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), that Bill 217, The Manitoba Environmental Rights
Act; Loi sur les droits en matiere d'environnement au
Motion presented.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, this bill
puts forward a bill of rights on environmental issues for all Manitobans and
sets minimum standards of cleanliness of air, water, land and all environmental
aspects of our lives, and recognizes them for the first time in this province
as rights of the individual.
Mr. Speaker, I recommend it to all
members, as the setting of that minimum standard, which is an important right
of all Manitobans. It will assist, I
argue, the government in its work within the environmental field by setting
those standards so that everyone knows and the process can be made more
efficient and more beneficial for the individuals in this province. We should not fear putting rights into the
hands of individuals in this province.
Motion agreed to.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Health Care Facilities
CT Scanners‑Operational Funding
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): My question is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon).
Mr. Speaker, late last week some MLAs
attended a fundraising dinner for the Concordia Foundation. I believe the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey)
represented the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and the Premier at that
dinner. The former member for Rossmere
was at that dinner, and other MLAs from the northeast quadrant of the city of
Mr. Speaker, at that dinner there was
considerable concern raised by the chair of the Concordia Foundation, Dr.
Murray, about the lack of planning and the lack of partnership between the
community hospital and the volunteers who raised $750,000 for a CAT scan, and
the fact that this CAT scan now that has been purchased by volunteer
fundraising in the northeast quadrant of the city is not in operation.
I would like to ask the Premier: What kind of government process allowed for
this kind of situation to develop, where the volunteers and the people in the
community feel totally aggrieved by the lack of government follow‑through
in terms of the program for CAT scans in the northeast quadrant of the city of
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend might
recall similar circumstances previous to this one where fundraising efforts
were engaged in, with all the good faith that is attached to them, raising
money for purposes which subsequently did not receive the approval of
government in terms of their installation and their funding. That was the circumstance, for instance, in
terms of CT scanning equipment in a hospital in the south end of
Mr. Speaker, subsequent to that, we
attempted very seriously to bring the best expertise in
Sir, we have accepted that recommendation
and have followed on it.
* (1345)
Mr. Doer: My question,
again, is to the First Minister.
The people in the community are aware of
the report the government has tabled.
They have disagreed with the data.
They have disagreed with the overall thrust of having patients
transferred from a hospital that has that equipment, being moved to other
hospitals, being on waiting lists, long line‑ups, Mr. Speaker, d, in
fact, occupying beds.
The government said it was going to,
quote, freeze the operational costs at that time.
Would the Premier (Mr. Filmon) please
advise us: When will they advise on the
status of not only this CAT scan at the
There is a state of lack of partnership
between the government and the volunteers right across this province, and, Mr.
Speaker, we would like to know what the status of this is. We have volunteers
who have done work, and they feel very frustrated by the government.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, my
honourable friend, as an opposition Leader, now appears to be changing the
position that was taken by him as a cabinet minister and by the then Minister
of Health under Mr. Pawley's government, wherein they refused a community‑based
CAT scanner, told them directly, do not operate, install, et cetera.
That was a circumstance, Sir, that we
inherited in May of 1988 when we came into office. My honourable friend today wants to now
absolve himself from a decision made by him, as a cabinet minister, and the
cabinet that he served in.
Mr. Speaker, the issue is a very important
one, because in a period of 12 years in the
That is the next engaged goal of a panel
of experts, to guide the province in terms of providing protocols for access to
very sophisticated imaging services.
When that is recommended to government and approved, I am sure we can
move with appropriate decisions, Sir.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I
asked the question to the government, when we could expect the results of their
study and when we could expect some decisions by the government on a state of
suspended animation in many of the community hospitals causing a great deal of
frustration to volunteers.
I would ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon), when
can we expect the definitive decisions from the government in terms of the
status of imaging equipment in our hospitals, the operating costs, the savings
of operating costs from moving patients back and forth? When can we expect this
whole situation to be resolved, Mr. Speaker, so the volunteers and the people
in the community know where they stand?
*
(1350)
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker,
that process is, again, being engaged in by experts in the field of imaging in
the
Mr. Speaker, let me share my frustration
with this issue as well, because I want to tell my honourable friend that prior
to the purchase orders being placed for those CT scanners in those respective
hospitals, there was a meeting held with myself wherein I asked them not to
purchase those scanners until we received our imaging report and the
recommendations from our expert panel.
Unfortunately, the advice given was not
acceded to. I can do no more than
provide the best advice to those good‑intentioned fundraising
organizations as to what would be an appropriate goal of private fundraising to
enhance health care. In that case, the
advice, unfortunately, was not acceded to.
Children's Dental Health Program
Funding Reinstatement
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, at a meeting in Minnedosa
yesterday, over 200 people unanimously passed a motion asking the government to
review its decision to cancel the Children's Dental Program, based on the fact
that the government had not considered much information. In fact, the minister had a paucity‑‑had
a real lack of information. Based on
that fact, they asked the government to reconsider its decision to cancel the
program and consider other alternatives in the department to save money without
doing it on the backs of rural
Will the minister reconsider that decision
today, Mr. Speaker?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend and I were
at the same meeting, but I almost wonder whether it was the same meeting. He is slightly in error, factually, in terms
of the size of the meeting and certainly factually in error in terms of the
information presented by myself at that meeting.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I indicated at the
meeting that the decision that we incorporated into this year's budget in terms
of funding of the treatment program for the Children's Dental Health Program
was not a reversible decision, that we had to continue with that decision, and
as I have said in this House, no one on this side of the House particularly
enjoyed making that decision.
Let me tell you that the meeting was
productive because a number of individuals made suggestions that I think are
worthy of pursuit and may well enable school divisions to act responsibly on
behalf of their respective citizens, as their parents are requesting in some
areas.
Funding Reduction
Justification
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, yesterday at the meeting we
learned that cost to parents and children who utilize the dental program will
be $22 million over three years.
I would like to ask the minister to
explain to the people of rural
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I heard that comment made at the
meeting last night as well, and this morning, as quickly as I could, I put the
inquiry through to my program specialists to find out whether they were in
receipt of that study because, indeed, we would be interested in seeing it. It
was not presented to either my office or departmental staff.
I am therefore unable to comment as to the
accuracy of those presented figures, Sir.
I do not know whether my honourable friend is helping or hindering, when
I do not think he has even seen the study, and if he has, maybe he could
indicate more details.
Volunteer Services
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary to the
minister: Will the minister consider
reviewing one of the expressed alternatives yesterday, that is using volunteers
to operate the program, and will he consider maybe having someone like his big
million‑dollar American consultants perhaps volunteer some of their time
and save us some money, and we could put that money back‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, it is at least refreshingly
consistent that my honourable friend only has one idea, and he has already
spent the one‑time funding to Connie Curran for the consulting contract
that the two teaching hospitals wanted us to engage in. I think this is about the 41st time my
honourable friend and his colleagues have spent it. Of course, they never quite come to grips
with the issue of what they would do to replace the opportunity of savings
annually of 10 times that amount which would allow the system to operate very
effectively.
Mr. Speaker, I want to offer my honourable
friend my solution to the whole issue around funding of, for instance, the
Children's Dental Health Program. If I
had the ability, I would never have built the $30‑million bridge to
nowhere north of Selkirk, and the interest alone would pay for the program
every year. Well, we inherited those
decisions from Howard Pawley and that incompetent gang‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
* (1355)
Children's Dental Health Program
Future Status
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
The question that I have for the minister
is: Because there was some constructive
criticism that was given to the minister, will he consider acting on some of
those constructive ideas, and when can we anticipate some sort of a report back
to this Chamber as to what plans are going to be there for the future of this
particular program?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, yes, there were some positive
suggestions come out of that meeting and, as my honourable friend well knows‑‑and
incidentally, I am wondering who decides the critic responsibilities because it
has changed for Health. This leadership
aspiration, was the Health critic last night‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Orchard: At any rate,
Sir, there were some positive suggestions that emanated from the meeting last
night. Clearly, I indicated to those attending
the meeting that I would be willing to pursue those ideas, those concepts
expeditiously.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker,
the other consensus was that this program in itself has a proven track record
and is worthy of keeping.
Funding
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member has put
his question.
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, one of the things that my
honourable friend I know will share in the preamble of his next question is
that consistently throughout that meeting the expressed opinion of, I think
almost all, if not all attending, was that the main help of this program is in
the prevention, education, fluoride rinse side, in other words, prevention
rather than treatment. That is why we
made the difficult decision of the elimination of the treatment side of the
program while maintaining the prevention, education, fluoride rinse side of the
program.
I do not think anyone disagreed with that
concept as underpinning the very large benefit of the program. There was concern, of course, as to how it
would be undertaken, and I can understand that.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker,
there was also, to the Minister of Health, a consensus that you cannot have
that prevention with only four staff people administering the program‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Question,
please.
Staffing
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend also
listened to the explanation I gave that health curriculum can incorporate
dental health education and dental hygiene.
Fluoride rinse can and is and can quite consistently be delivered in the
school system without the professional staff as it has been in the past. So I have confidence that this fall we will
be able to implement that prevention and education program.
No-Fault Auto Insurance
Income Replacement‑Seniors
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I took as notice two
questions from the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock). They were with respect to
the no‑fault insurance scheme that is proposed for
The first question was that: In
The answer, Mr. Speaker, is that under the
proposed
This recognizes the fact that most
Manitobans have retired by age 65 and at that point begin to receive pension
benefits. By continuing the income
replacement past age 65 and allowing accident victims to collect pension benefits
at the same time, the no‑fault plan will in fact result in some seniors
receiving more money than if they had continued to work and then retired at age
65.
Anyone who is still employed past age 65
and becomes disabled in an accident will receive income replacement benefits
for a period of four years. Full
benefits are paid for the first year.
The indemnity is reduced by 25 percent at the end of year one and a
further 25 percent at the end of the next three years. Although the income
replacement benefit for seniors is reduced after normal retirement age, they
will continue to qualify for full medical, rehabilitation and personal care
benefits. There is no lifetime limit on
these payments.
The second question is: Will pension benefits be deducted from
payments under the no‑fault program?
The response is no, there will be no
deduction of pension benefits from any of the benefits payable under the no‑fault
program.
* (1400)
Log Book Inspections
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Premier a
question with regard to the Domo gas leak at
The Premier said, and I quote: "I can confirm that there has been
regular examination of those log books as recently as even within the last 10
days. The department did not detect any
leakage by virtue of the measurements in the log book, . . ."
Now, Mr. Speaker, the department spokesman
quoted in the
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member's question
is out of order. I would ask the
honourable member to rephrase his question, please.
Mr. Maloway: Mr. Speaker,
would the First Minister clarify who is correct in this matter, himself or the
department?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, I would rather have taken the question as
notice on behalf of the minister but did indicate that, according to briefing
materials that I did have, the losses that were indicated did not exceed the
limits that are in the regulations.
Mr. Speaker, the storage and handling of
gasoline regulation requires the operator to notify the department when there
are four consecutive days of losses above .75 percent or more. Such a reading would indicate something other
than expansion and contraction.
As the logs show, there were not four
consecutive days with losses at the Domo site in excess of that amount. So I apologize if there was an inconsistency
in what was said, but the response is that it did not exceed the allowable
under the regulation.
Gasoline Stations
Log Book Inspections
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, Domo has been given a variance
under the act. I would like to ask the
minister, how many other stations have been given similar variances in
reporting? I would like to know where
the log book is being kept right now and who has it.
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as
notice.
Mr. Maloway: Mr. Speaker, my
final supplementary is to the same minister.
There are many gas stations that have not
been inspected for the past two years.
Given the fact that there are obvious reporting discrepancies in these
log books, would the Premier attempt to do something to solve future potentially
explosive situations and take action?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker,
without accepting any of the preamble as to the allegations suggested by the
member opposite, he, yesterday, indicated that this was one of the gas stations
that was on a list of sites at which the tanks were to be replaced. I might indicate to him that in fact the
tanks and the piping at this station were replaced, and it was in that process
that it appears‑‑and I cannot say until they complete their
investigation‑‑as though these are new tanks and new piping in
which the leaks have occurred. So it is
not just the existence of old tanks that may lead to this kind of situation.
Employment Creation Strategy
Government Commitment
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister of Finance.
Between the early part of 1988, when this
government took office, and the end of last year, 1992, the
Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister
of Finance is: When will this government
begin to pay attention to job creation in a meaningful way? When will it make job creation the No. 1
priority and stop the outflow of people?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the member
brings up this question, because as a student and indeed an individual who
likes to deal in statistics I would want him to know what I am about to read.
Interprovincial migration, Mr. Speaker,
that is net out‑migration, started to increase in 1985. At that time it was 1,755 and peaked in 1989
when 10,004 net out‑migrated. This
was due to the $800 million in tax increases imposed by the NDP from '82 to
'87.
Mr. Speaker, the government's tax policies
obviously have turned this around, and now this number has been declining
significantly, although still is at somewhere around 6,000 out‑migration,
but certainly the decline is right, and it is a result of tax policies that for
once have been brought back into balance in terms of the last 10 years.
Mr. Leonard Evans: This
government beats the former NDP government because your rate of outward
migration is far higher than anything experienced under the Pawley years, Mr.
Speaker‑‑way higher.
Interprovincial Migration
Provincial Comparisons
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, my question is: Why is our rate
of net population loss so high? In 1992,
only
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the member for Brandon East did
not study the trend in this area.
He praises himself at times for being such
a good student in this area of statistics, but he forgot that recent
information shows that
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr.
Speaker, in the early '80s we had no loss.
We had an increase in population‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please. This is not a time for
debate. The honourable member for
Brandon East, with his question, please.
* (1410)
Mr. Leonard Evans: Why is
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker,
why is the member not so frank as to tell people, when he is asking his
question, that eight out of 10 provinces in
Mr. Speaker, this government does not at
all apologize for all of the policies it has brought into place in support of
investment and, indeed, leading to job creation. If the member wants to ask, if he wants me to
go through the litany of jobs that have occurred as a result of the taxation
measures, the expenditure reduction and the focus on the deficit over the
course of six budgets, I would be happy to do so.
Health Care System
Transportation Issues
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Health. I know he will be happy to
hear.
The Motor Transport Board is currently
considering an application to use stretcher vehicles with untrained attendants
instead of ambulances with trained attendants to transfer patients throughout
rural
This
issue was studied last by the Motor Transport Board in an application about the
city of Winnipeg, when a similar application was made, and that board found
that they were an economic regulatory tribunal, and I quote: That as to the question of patient medical
safety, that has been raised, and the board is not qualified to assess the risk
to patients that may be involved, and it would be irresponsible for us to
proceed to license these vehicles.
Mr. Speaker, my question for the
minister: What action is the Department
of Health planning to take to protect patients' safety and have this matter
reviewed by an appropriate board of qualified medical practitioners, given that
the Motor Transport Board, by its own admission, is not‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member has put
his question.
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my understanding of ambulance
licensing procedures is, they must pass the standards and the regulatory
compliance requirements that are part of The Ambulance Services Act in
Mr. Edwards: The minister
has obviously not studied this issue.
The last Motor Transport Board report
specifically said, because it is a stretcher service it is outside of The
Ambulance Services Act, yet it is transporting patients between facilities in
rural
My
question for the Minister of Health: Why
is the government not taking an active role to learn about this issue and
protect patients going between facilities who otherwise were taken by ambulance
and now are going to be taken in stretcher vehicles with untrained attendants?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker,
each facility, in terms of accessing patient transportation services, for any
variety of reasons, in the provision of care and service, make decisions in
terms of the appropriate method of transportation. For instance, some individuals can be taken
by car for lab tests, et cetera, and often are.
There are a number of services that are supported by fraternal
organizations and others to provide those very services in transportation.
Mr. Speaker, in terms of ambulance
services, I think my previous answer probably provides the information my
honourable friend desires.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, it
did not. I would like to ask the
minister, will he or will he not take a stand on this issue for patient care in
this province, in particular, given that in January of this year the report of
Dr. Moe Lerner on ambulance services specifically says, control should be
established to eliminate the use of nonambulance interfacility transport
services? Is he‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member has put
his question.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, my
honourable friend refers to Dr. Lerner and his report, which will be received
hopefully within the next four to six weeks.
I will be very interested in reviewing the recommendations of the final
report when it is received.
In due course, as has been the pattern of
myself and this ministry, we will announce any recommendations which are
implemented flowing from that report, which I hope to receive in the next four
to six weeks.
Education System
Extracurricular Activities
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, children in our public school
system depend on extracurricular programs to enrich the educational
experiences. These experiences are an essential
part of what many parents would call basic education. They involve such things as providing
supervision for school sports, band and music programs, yearbooks, special
assemblies and events, science fairs, and the list is endless.
In light of the importance of these
activities to the quality of education and the fact that these are now being
jeopardized, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Education whether she
will now admit that through her actions she is directly responsible for the loss
of these extracurricular activities in the public school system.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, again, the decisions made by this
government were made in the light of a fiscal reality that we believe Manitobans
do understand.
I also recognize that teachers are
professionals, and as they work out their agreements with their school
divisions, I am sure they will be professional in doing that.
Funding
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact this
minister said the quality of education would not be affected by her cuts, which
is contrary to what is actually happening, will the minister now take actions
to restore confidence by withdrawing Bills 16 and 22 and restoring funding to
the public education system in this province?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Again, I
have to remind the member of a fact that most Manitobans seem to know very
well, and that is the fiscal situation, the fiscal reality of this province,
also across
I remind him that I believe that teachers
are professionals and will be very considering in terms of any of their
actions, and also that I believe they will work with their school trustees in
making decisions.
Mr. Plohman: This minister
is living in an ivory tower.
Education System
Funding
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): I want to ask the Premier: In light of the fact that this minister has
failed to develop a partnership in education and failed to maintain the
confidence of the education community, will this Premier now direct that these
bills be withdrawn and funding restored for the public education system in this
province?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, the member for Dauphin of course foments discontent at
every opportunity and urges professionals to take actions that are not in the
best interests of education or the children.
Of course, he is the example of leadership that is available for these
kinds of decisions.
Mr. Speaker, I say to you that the public
deserves better than the kind of representation that they get from the member
for Dauphin. They deserve better than
the kind of‑‑
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): On a point of order,
Mr. Speaker, our rules are very clear in two regards‑‑and I would
ask members to consult Beauchesne‑‑first of all, that answers
should relate to matters that are raised and also that members should not make
personal charges or attribute unworthy motives.
The member for Dauphin is speaking on
behalf of a lot of Manitobans, and it is about time the Premier understood that
and started answering their questions.
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member does not
have a point of order. It is not a
personal charge.
*
* *
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, the member for Thompson (Mr.
Ashton), like the member for Dauphin, is speaking on behalf of his union
friends and not on behalf of the people of
Mr. Speaker, we believe that there are
many fine, qualified and committed teachers out in the schools of Manitoba who
are dedicated to the children whom they teach and will indeed not be caught up
in the kind of rhetoric of the member for Dauphin or the member for Thompson.
* (1420)
Aboriginal Friendship Centres
Funding Withdrawal Impact
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, in March, without
any consultation, the Minister of Family Services cut funding to the friendship
centres and instead gave tax breaks to the corporations.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to forward to
the minister several hundred more petitions I have received opposing the
friendship centre cuts.
Has the minister now done a study on what
the cuts have meant to friendship centres in places such as
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Indeed, I have had the opportunity to meet
with the umbrella organization that represents the friendship centres and
acknowledged that the different friendships centres were reliant on provincial
funding at different rates. The average
amount of funding that they depended on was about 12 percent of their budget
from the Province of Manitoba, and we have challenged them to continue to
provide whatever services they deem appropriate with the funding that they have
available to them.
Funding Review
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, unlike the minister, I did
consult with the users and in Point
Will the minister now review this issue?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that we did meet
with the umbrella organization for the friendship centres and have had
discussions with them to look at the programming that they choose to proceed
with. With some 88 percent of the
funding that is in place from other sources, I am sure that they will provide a
valuable service for their communities.
Environmental Review
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, the former MLA for
My question for the Premier: Will the Premier admit that the sale of water
from
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting the tack
that is taken by the member for Radisson.
The member for Radisson on the one hand, like the rest of her party,
says that this proposal should not be reviewed by the Clean Environment Commission
because there is not enough information on it.
Then, on the other hand, she says that she has already concluded that it
is bad and it should not be developed.
Before anything has even happened, Mr.
Speaker, she has already made up her mind that the project should not
proceed. At the same time, she rests on
her defence that she does not have any information on it. I think that is a wonderful example of how
New Democrats make decisions. The people
of
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral
Questions has expired.
Nonpolitical Statements
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have leave to
make a nonpolitical statement. [agreed]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this
opportunity to invite all members of the House to join with me and, indeed, I
think all Manitobans, in celebrating
On our centennial in 1970, this
Legislature recognized the importance of this date in our history and
designated May 12 as Manitoba Day in perpetuity. Every May 12, we formally recognize that with
the passage of the Manitoba Act,
Manitoba Day is a time to reflect on who
we are, where we have come from and what we have achieved. We are many cultures and heritages with a
wide variety of languages and customs, but we are all proud to be Manitobans.
Manitoba Day is also a time to examine our
present and anticipate the future.
Across this great province, Manitobans will be recognizing this
significant day in many different ways.
This evening, the Minister of Culture,
Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson) will host the Prix Awards. These awards recognize the leadership of
individuals and groups who have enriched the lives of all Manitobans by their
contributions in the areas of culture, heritage, recreation and
multiculturalism.
In communities across this great and
beautiful province, Manitobans are celebrating the day in their own unique and
special ways. Manitoba Day is the day we
officially recognize and celebrate our neighbours, our friends, our community
members, Manitobans everywhere, for it is the individual strength, talent and
determination of each
On Manitoba Day, we celebrate the fact
that the incredible talent and ability of Manitobans has been felt in virtually
every facet of life within our
In the process of creating our own
success, together we created a greater opportunity for all Manitobans. Most importantly, along the way, Manitobans
have never forgotten to give something back to the society that has been so
good to all of us.
As Manitobans, we are still dedicated to
our communities, our neighbours and our friends. In this rapidly changing world, this
community spirit is something to be truly proud of. It sets us apart from so many places. This
I know that the ability and the strength
of Manitobans will lead the way in
Today, I ask all members of the House to
join with Manitobans across our beloved province in recognizing
Mr. Speaker: Does the
honourable member for Wolseley have leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
[agreed]
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I rise to reply to the Premier
and his recognition of Manitoba Day.
I want to commend the government for
continuing the tradition that was begun by the New Democratic Party, when in
office, of celebrating Manitoba Day and also of the Manitoba Prix Awards. I welcome the presentation of those prizes
this evening and congratulate the recipients of those prizes.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to take notice of
a new way of celebrating
Mr. Speaker, May 12, of course, is an
invented tradition. It is a tradition
which gives us 123 years of history which, of course, for the aboriginal
members of this Legislature, we all know that there is at least 12,000, if not
many more years of Manitoba history. So
when we celebrate Manitoba Day on May 12, we should be very clear that what we
are in fact celebrating is a European construction of our provincial history.
History, too, is not just a celebration,
which so many people tend to see it as, but it is an intellectual reflection
upon our past. It is the way in which
one generation relates to the other and takes meaning from the actions of the
past. It is so often of course the story
of the victors. Those who win get to
write the history. Whereas the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) has, in all good intentions I think, reflected upon the activities
of individuals in
* (1430)
One of these is the Manitoba Historical
Society, the most long‑lived heritage organization in the province,
originally composed of people who saw themselves as the leading citizens of the
province. They were, of course,
descendants of one particular group within the province, the Anglo‑British
heritage who tried to define
Another organization which I would draw
the members' attention to is on the other side of the coin in a way, the other
side of the river, the Societe historique de Saint‑Boniface, organized in
1902 by Bishop Langevin. Like the
Manitoba Historical Society, the Britannic perspective on
St. Boniface was a small community,
increasingly overwhelmed in the 20th Century by the English‑speaking
people of
There is a third theme in Manitoba history
and that is, of course, the one that the minister and the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
have referred to today, and that is the role of the noncharter groups, as they
are sometimes called, the multicultural perspective. There are so many ways that I could draw the
attention of the House to the activities of the multicultural heritage
societies in
Mr. Speaker, what we have done from these
themes, from the Anglo theme, from the French theme, and from the many
multicultural strands of
If we look again at that often‑quoted
phrase of Sir George Etienne Cartier as he piloted the Manitoba Act through the
Dominion Parliament, I think perhaps he would have welcomed the new sense of
multiculturalism in Manitoba and have seen it as setting us on the way for a
destiny perhaps as yet unfulfilled when he said that he hoped the new province
of Manitoba would always speak to the northwest, the language of reason, truth
and justice. I think the new sense of
multiculturalism in
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable
Leader of the second opposition party have leave to make a nonpolitical
statement? [agreed]
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I rise today along with the Premier
and the member for Wolseley, to celebrate with all Manitobans a celebration, a
true celebration, of
The member for Wolseley made a reference
today to the Heritage Fair which is being displayed at the Convention Centre.
The principal sponsor for that Heritage Fair is the Charles Bronfman Foundation
which was a foundation which in itself has a heritage here in the
They have been responsible for a number of
projects, one of which is the heritage minute project which in turn focused on
two significant events in the
I hope that members here will in fact go
to the Heritage Fair today, because what we are seeing really for the first time
in the
On a personal note, I must say that the
representative for the Bronfman Foundation at the Convention Centre is my
daughter Cathi who works for them on this particular project. So that is where my particular interest lies
in this particular Heritage Fair.
We must remember that in terms of the
activity which takes place in our province, that we have not conquered all that
we would like to conquer. We must strive
together as legislators to ensure that there is in fact the kind of justice
that Etienne Cartier talked about, the kind of forward thinking that he talked
about, so that each and every one of us from our aboriginal peoples to those
who take their citizenship oaths today, will feel that they have a joy in the
participation and equality of opportunity in the province of Manitoba.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would
you call second readings, Bills 30 and 31 in that order, and then following
that, adjourned debate, Bills 16 and 22.
SECOND
Bill 30‑The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental
Disability and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Culture (Mrs. Mitchelson), that
Bill 30, The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability and
Consequential Amendments Act (Loi concernant les personnes vulnerables ayant
une deficience mentale et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres
lois), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr.
Speaker, today I have the pleasure of speaking in support of Bill 30, The
Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability and Consequential Amendments
Act. In very basic terms, this bill is
about respecting and protecting the rights of the mentally handicapped and
their families.
Our government recognizes that vulnerable
Manitobans living with a mental disability have the same rights as all citizens
to participate in making decisions affecting their lives. We believe that individuals with mental
disabilities should have the opportunity to make their own decisions and direct
their own lives with support if necessary.
We recognize that many vulnerable Manitobans have the capacity to make
these decisions on their own or with the support of families and friends. We recognize that other vulnerable Manitobans
may require some assistance at times in making decisions in specific areas of
their lives.
* (1440)
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay,
Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
Some individuals may require help with
personal care or property matters. Some
may require assistance at particular times or in particular circumstances, and
in some cases the support these individuals receive from families and friends
in decision making may need to be legally sanctioned. In these cases we have recognized a need for
a responsive model for substitute decision making. We recognize there are varying needs at
varying times that require flexibility in government's response.
In the past the legislative framework
governing decision making for vulnerable Manitobans has not recognized this
range of capacity and circumstance. In
fact, under Part II of The Mental Health Act, if a mentally retarded person, to
use the language of that act, appeared to require some assistance in making
decisions to meet his or her basic needs, all of the individual's decision‑making
rights were removed through an order of supervision.
Bill 30 takes a very different
approach. It recognizes our government's
preference that individuals should be allowed to make their decisions on their
own or with support from families and friends.
Through Bill 30, our government proposes that when and where an
individual living with a mental disability needs assistance, a process be in
place that provides for the participation of the individual and respects other
tenets of due process. This bill then
recognizes and protects the rights of Manitobans living with a disability to be
self‑determining where possible and to receive assistance where necessary
in a manner which respects their dignity, independence and privacy.
As I referenced earlier, this is a very
different approach from the current legislation and reflects the evolution of
attitudes towards and services provided in support of adults living with a
disability. Prior to 1970, services to
Manitobans with disabilities were delivered almost exclusively by
institutions. In the following two
decades, greater emphasis was placed on providing service in the communities
and encouraging these vulnerable Manitobans to participate more fully in their
communities. In the early 1970s, the
However, providing services in the
community did not necessarily lead to these vulnerable Manitobans participating
to the greatest extent possible in community life. Even with this move to community‑based
services, many Manitobans living with mental disabilities still led largely
separate lives and have often been denied the opportunity to make personal
decisions.
The challenge then was not just providing
services in the community but providing the mechanisms to enable these
Manitobans to live as independently as possible and participate as members of
their communities. For many Manitobans,
the current Mental Health Act Part II was a barrier to the goal of living as
independently as possible. This in part
was due to its scope and intent to establish procedures for providing
supervision and institutional services to adults living with a mental
disability.
Our government recognized the changing
times, changing attitudes and the increasing awareness and application of
individual rights. In response, we
undertook a series of initiatives to support Manitobans with disabilities to
live as independently as possible.
Our strategy began with two important
consultation initiatives. In June 1990,
the Working Group on Community Living was established to explore innovative
ways of enabling Manitobans with disabilities to live more independently, and
in the spring of 1991, a community‑based review committee was formed to
conduct province‑wide consultations to address concerns about provincial
legislation affecting adults living with mental disabilities. The focus of this
review was to examine the present Part II of The Mental Health Act and to
develop new legislation emphasizing the rights of persons living with a mental
disability.
As part of this, a discussion paper was
developed with more than 30 organizations invited to respond. As well, the committee held a series of
public meetings across the province and undertook a satellite cable TV
presentation that was broadcast throughout the province.
During this process, the committee
listened to Manitobans living with a mental disability, to their families and
friends, to those who provided service and to others who advocated on their
behalf. Bill 30 reflects the
recommendations of this consultative process.
The community‑based principles and
values guiding the development of this legislation and our government's broader
approach to improving the quality of life for Manitobans living with
disabilities has roots in a number of factors.
There has been increased knowledge within the field of mental
disabilities.
Families and friends of Manitobans with
disabilities have been advocating to ensure that the rights of mentally‑disabled
persons are recognized and protected, and the implementation of legislation
such as the Human Rights Code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has raised
the general profile of individual rights.
Our government has listened to Manitobans
living with mental disabilities and those speaking on their behalf. In response, we have taken steps to provide
these vulnerable Manitobans with the means to enhance their ability to live as
independently as possible and to participate in their communities. Our government believes the key to this goes
beyond recognizing the rights and abilities of Manitobans living with a mental
disability. Our government also
recognizes and sanctions the role of families and friends in providing a
community‑based network of support.
As we all know, personal relationships
provide needed support in each of our lives.
Similarly, people with mental disabilities benefit from and rely on
their personal support networks in their daily lives. Their network is varied. It can consist of family members, friends and
service providers.
Our
government recognizes the valuable role this network provides in assisting
mentally disabled adults, and we certainly support that network, first and
foremost, as the preferred means of supporting individuals living with a mental
disability. In more formally recognizing
this role, we are embracing a true community‑based approach that we
believe has the greatest potential of ensuring the self‑determination,
independence and dignity of adult Manitobans living with a mental disability.
As I stated earlier, our government's
approach to improving life for Manitobans living with mental disabilities has
been guided by extensive consultations with the community. Through this process, we have developed a
framework of guiding principles which appear in this new legislation. These values are important, not just in
developing Bill 30 but also in providing a framework for our overall approach
to services to Manitobans living with a disability.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I urge the members
opposite to endorse these principles and the overall intent of the bill to
support and protect the rights of persons living with a mental disability. We have listened to the community to ensure
that the legislation meets the needs of persons living with a mental disability. Our government has demonstrated its
commitment to improving the life of these Manitobans in recognizing that
individuals living with a mental disability should have the opportunity to make
their own decisions and direct their own lives.
We are taking another step to the larger
goal to assist these Manitobans to live as independently as possible in their
communities. By helping them reach their
full potential, we are also enriching the lives of all Manitobans. I am confident that after careful review of
this proposed legislation, all members will provide their support for Bill 30,
The Vulnerable Persons Living with a Mental Disability and Consequential
Amendments Act.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for
Motion agreed to.
Bill 31‑The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act
* (1450)
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
Minister of Culture (Mrs. Mitchelson), that Bill 31, The Health Services
Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'assurance‑maladie, be
now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Orchard:
I have on several occasions gone on public
record in stating we will make changes to health care legislation whenever and
however they are required. For these
reasons, we have brought forth proposals for legislation which will enhance our
ability to meet our health care mandate and provide the legislative authority
to facilitate change.
The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act
deals expressly with two provisions of the current act: that of the designating authority of the
minister and matters that can be dealt with by regulation approved by the
Lieutenant‑Governor. This
amendment act will clarify the regulatory powers of Manitoba Health and provide
the legal authority to designate institutions or organizations for funding
purposes.
With the recent appeal court decision,
there are severe limitations on my ability as Minister of Health to determine
the delivery points or locations of insured services essential to the health
care of Manitobans. Under the proposed
changes in this act, the act will broaden the definition of a hospital to mean
an institution or organization that is not a hospital but that provides
facilities or services in Manitoba for, or ancillary to, the treatment or
diagnosis of disease, illness or injury and that is designated in the
regulations as an institution or organization to which this section applies.
Another amended clause has a distinct
inclusion of organizations that will allow the Minister of Health to designate
other approved facilities for funding purposes.
This will then provide the authority to make the budgetary provisions of
the act apply to the approved facility.
The amendment is required to ensure that the wording in this section is
broad enough to allow us to include facilities providing services ancillary to
diagnosis and treatment.
It is an important part of our drive to
provide Manitobans with quality health care, to expand our ability to move
beyond traditional institutions in nonhospital settings where desirable or
potentially more effective.
The new facility proposed for the Canadian
Red Cross is an example of the type of facility we are intending to cover with
this amendment. The proposed change in
this act also extends to the section concerning regulations by Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council. Previously, the Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council
was permitted to make regulations designating the benefits and services a
person is or is not entitled to. The
proposed act before the House requires, as a condition of this entitlement to
benefits, that services be provided in a specified hospital or facility or any
class of hospital or facilities by a specified class of medical practitioners
or other health care professionals or under any other circumstances or subject
to any other conditions or limitations that the regulations may specify.
Under the regulations of The Health
Services Insurance Act in its present form, we are concerned about very
specific limitations placed upon our ability to meet the health care needs of
Currently there are a great variety of
medical and other health services that are not insured unless they are
delivered in a specified facility or provided by a specified practitioner.
Dental surgery, for instance, psychological and dietetics services, audiology,
physiotherapy and occupational or speech therapy are not insured unless
received in an approved hospital.
Mammography and CT scans must be provided
in a designated facility. Complex lung‑function
tests and provocation studies are not covered unless provided by an
appropriately trained physician. The
proposed changes laid out in The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act
provide the express authority to set conditions or limitations on insured
services as well as on excluded services.
These changes are necessary and necessary
now and provide the legal authority for present administrative practices and
will reconfirm the long‑used authority of government to manage
appropriate health care service provision.
The Health Services Insurance Amendment
Act will permit us a greater degree of flexibility in providing the level of
health care Manitobans have a right to expect.
It will provide the government of
I commend this legislative bill, this
amendment bill, to all members of the House and would ask their consideration
and debate for speedy passage of same.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Motion agreed to.
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 16‑‑The Public Schools Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second readings, Bill 16
(The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles
publiques), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Education and
Training (Mrs. Vodrey), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Thompson.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson):
I looked forward to being able to speak on this bill today. Before doing so, I would be remiss if I did
not indicate that it is going to be rather unfortunate that the former member
for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) will not be able to hear my comments today. I could not help but note the significance of
his departure today.
I do think that regardless of some of the
political backdrop that may or may not be discussed, I think it would be remiss
if we did not comment on that, Madam Deputy Speaker, in fact wish the member
well. It has certainly been interesting
the last five years in this House or was interesting with the member for
Rossmere here. He certainly kept this
institution honest, probably internally within his caucus as well, or at least
tried to.
It is interesting, because it was very
much a follow‑up to his career in the accounting field. He certainly raised many fiscal issues over
the five years he was in here. I must
say, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not know if I always agreed with member. I do not know if I often agreed. I do not know if I ever agreed. Well, I guess maybe on a few issues but,
besides that, he was a very outspoken individual, certainly added a lot of
interest to the debates in this House and his comments will be missed.
I wanted to make those comments today in
the preliminary part of my speech, because too often we tend to not mark the
milestones that occur in this House until perhaps a later point in time. I expect that people might comment on that
particular member's contribution and there may be in fact various other people
who will be commented on in the next few months who will be leaving us in terms
of provincial politics.
Certainly, I wanted to begin today and, as
I said, mark this significant occasion.
It is going to be an interesting next few months, shall we say, as we see
what is happening with the government opposite.
I want to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that
speaking of Bill 16 and the situation the government finds itself in, I do find
a tie‑in with what is happening. I
really think this government is beginning to fray at the edges, to come apart
even at the seams on a number of the key issues that are before
Manitobans. I am quite amazed
actually. I have had the luxury, and
certainly it is a luxury in this House, to observe governments come and go in
terms of different political persuasions and the life cycle of governments,
shall we say. Every government does go
through a life cycle. Sometimes there is
something of a second wind, a resurrection even, politically for some, but
governments go through a life cycle.
* (1500)
What I find increasingly, Madam Deputy
Speaker, is that this government's agenda is basically proving to be a weak
one, proving to be one that is not in keeping with the times, and in fact what
they are actually putting in place in terms of policies and programs is not
consistent with what even they were talking about as recently as the 1990
election.
That is becoming particularly clear in
terms of education. Madam Deputy Speaker, this government in the last election
and in the 1988 election was very clear.
They talked about maintaining education standards. We have seen that repeated in throne speeches
and in budget debates, talking about education being a priority.
Oh, I asked the simple question
today. Has this government made
education a priority? Has it improved
standards? Has it been innovative?
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): You have got to be kidding.
Mr. Ashton: Indeed the
Liberal Leader says, you have got to be kidding. Indeed they have done nothing of that
sort. They have appointed a number of commissions,
a number of studies. They have consulted‑‑and
I use that in a quotation marks sense‑‑on issues on the one hand,
but on the key issues of the day, when it comes to funding, when it comes to
working with school boards, working with teachers, staff and parents, we see
quite a different approach from this government. Nothing could be clearer than Bill 16.
Bill
16 is clear evidence of the fact that this government has failed on each and
every promise it has made in terms of education quality and standards and
innovation.
An Honourable Member: And
taxes.
Mr. Ashton: Indeed it is a
question of taxes as well, because one of the other key planks in the last
election was the government basically said they were going to preserve services
and they were not going to raise taxes.
Well, has this government not raised
taxes? I mean, has anyone been into a coffee
shop recently? Has anyone bought a
coffee, a donut, a Big Mac or gone downstairs?
I mean, Madam Deputy Speaker‑‑[interjection] the vending
machines. It is interesting because, you
know, they still have not acknowledged that they raised taxes. Where you were not paying anything before in
provincial sales tax, you are now paying 7 percent. I mean when you paid no provincial sales tax
on meals under $6 because that was considered to be a tax in that case that would
be unfair because it would affect low‑income people, in particular,
people of modest incomes.
There is no new tax over at
This government likes to use the term
"contribution" now. Madam Deputy Speaker, is that a
contribution? Is it voluntary? Well, of
course not. It is a tax, and a tax is a
tax is a tax. A tax increase is a tax increase is a tax increase. I want to put that in perspective because,
when the Tories in the last election said they would preserve services and not
raise taxes, what they have done is they have reduced services and they have
raised taxes. It is as simple as that.
You know, it is even more of a direct tie‑in
with Bill 16. Bill 16 deals with the whole question of education funding and
deals in terms of property taxes, school taxes.
The government has the nerve to say that through Bill 16 somehow they
are preventing property taxes from increasing.
Madam Deputy Speaker, what are they
doing? What they do is they put a cap on
the ability of school boards to raise revenue locally. It is a concern to many school boards. I spoke to my school board on Saturday. I had a meeting with them, and they are very
concerned because it has taken away their right to be able to decide revenue in
co‑operation and conjunction with the people that democratically elect
them, the residents of the local school district.
Is this government actually saving people
money on their property taxes? Is it
saving them money? Well, this government
is also the government that is eliminating $75 of the property tax credit. In the case of people who are paying limited
taxes to begin with, they are now being forced to pay $250 minimum‑‑[interjection]
Well, the Minister of Natural Resources
(Mr. Enns) talks about contribution again.
I am wondering what is going to happen next. Is the government going to issue charitable
status to this government, issue tax receipts for charitable contributions?
It is not a contribution. This is not a charity. If you do not pay it, you are going to have
all sorts of people breathing down your neck saying, wait a sec, you have to
pay that tax. You are not entitled to
the full tax credit that you had previously. A tax is a tax is a tax, and a tax
increase is a tax increase is a tax increase.
It is as simple as that.
So what is happening is, on the key issue
of property taxes, after unloading onto the municipal levels of government and
seeing local property tax rates increase, and after, now saying, oh well, we
are not going to let school districts raise your taxes by more than 2 percent,
they are now cutting in terms of the property tax credit.
So it means if you own a home or if you
are a renter and you pay property taxes, and that includes most people in this
province, the net result at the end of the year is you are going to have less
money. If you are unlucky enough to be
in that group that is going to be subjected to this poll tax, as we have
described it, you are going to pay quite a bit more, hundreds of dollars
more. This is the sense of equity here.
You know, we can debate this on various
different issues. The bottom line is this bill, whatever it does in terms of
school districts, is fundamentally, in terms of the other issues,
antidemocratic. I find it ironic because
one issue that came up when I met with my local school board was the dichotomy
that we see here between the public and the private school systems.
This government has dramatically increased
the funding to private schools, and private schools have an ability to raise
revenue. How do they do it? They do it through tuitions. They do it through tuitions.
They have dramatically increased over the
last number of years the amount of funding that is going to many private
schools. While not all of the private
schools are clearly elite schools, there are a number of very significant
schools that are nothing more and nothing less, charging as much as $7,000 a year
for tuition.
I am not one that criticizes people that
send their children to private schools.
Such is their right. But I do
criticize the government that while on the one hand is cutting back on the
public education system and hamstringing democratically elected school boards,
it is allowing private schools, with the additional funding they are receiving,
to be able to raise their revenues through increased tuitions.
We are already seeing the results. I have seen in my own constituency where
private schools, thanks in no small measure to the provincial government's
increased revenue‑‑do you know what they are doing, Madam Deputy
Speaker? They are advertising for
students.
They have enough money to advertise for
students at a time when some of the most basic needs are not being met in our
educational system. We have a government
that, through the support to private schools, is indirectly supporting private
schools being able to advertise to increase their revenue base by taking more students
out of the public school system, thereby cutting back on the kind of input that
we have in the public school system from those students.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
It is a vicious circle, and I ask, is that
fair, is that equitable? That was one
very major concern. No one is telling
The ironic part of it is those people who
care about their children can go to private schools and pay more than they
would have to if their children went to the public school system, but this
government in this bill is saying that, locally, the parents and, more
generally, the electors in the school districts cannot do the same.
*
(1510)
In Thompson, for example, we are seeing
the impact of budget cuts in my own
Mr. Acting Speaker, let us take that the
next step forward. They also held the line on school taxes last year, and so
when they were faced this year with this cap, the elimination of funding as
well, the combined impact of the 2.7 percent and the 2 percent cap, they are in
a position now where they are being indirectly penalized for having been
responsible last year in not raising taxes to the degree to which they could
avoid it.
Let me take you ahead to the next
year. Assuming this government continues
to show its lack of concern for education and brings in further freezes in
funding or reduction in funding, you are going to have a school board with less
funding. At the same time, you have
inflation in terms of teachers' salaries, in terms of staff salaries, in terms
of costs, so costs are going to go up, funding will either continue to be at
the low levels or will go down. Add in
the fact that they cannot increase revenue by more than 2 percent from that
portion of revenue that is coming from the local ratepayers. What do you end up with? You end up with the situation where whole
programs offered by the school district will end up being potentially cut.
Mr. Acting Speaker, let us put that into
perspective. What kind of programs could
be affected? I graduated from the
Thompson school system in 1972, and I want to indicate that one of the best
things that has happened in our community since that time is some of the
additional programs that have been added and supported by local residents. When I graduated from high school, from R.D.
Parker Collegiate, there was no band program.
There currently is. We have one
of the best band programs, certainly in the province, but within western
I look forward to the time when my
daughter, who is currently in Grade 5, very shortly will be able to become part
of the band program. It has been a very
positive experience. Where would you end
up, if you end up with the kind of circumstances we are going to see in the
next period of time, if the school district had to start looking at programs
like the band program? I hope there will
be continued support. But what do you
do?
There is one kind of program, the TAG
program. You know, one of the biggest
complaints with the public school system is that there is not enough ability to
deal with the special needs of students.
That includes a broad definition of special needs. It also includes gifted students.
You know, Mr. Acting Speaker, the irony is
there are a limited number of school districts that have been able to bring in
TAG programs, talented and gifted student programs, and in many ways provide
what many parents are seeking through the private school system.
There are really two kinds of private
schools in
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay,
Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
Even some of the schools that are elite
schools, that affiliation is certainly there, but there is clearly a difference
in many cases between those schools that market themselves, if that is the
term, because in many cases it is direct marketing, or are perceived or in
actual fact are seen as providing a quality education because of the kind of
resources that they have.
When parents send their children to
Let us talk about other programs in my own
school district. Will French Immersion be impacted? Traditionally what tends to happen when one
looks at programs, the last‑in, first‑out syndrome tends to
develop. French Immersion is having a
dramatic impact on this country. The
number of students enrolled in French Immersion in my own community is very
significant.
The bottom line is, I think, within a
generation if we can keep this country together through such spontaneous
developments as French Immersion with a kind of broader linguistic and cultural
and I believe eventually political understanding that it will bring, I think
there is real hope for this country.
In fact, when I look at what has happened
in terms of Constitutions, it is very clear that Constitutions are not going to
keep this country together, Madam Deputy Speaker. We may not have any constitutional change for
quite some time. What will make the
difference will be that grassroots support that one sees from young people and
the impact of such educational initiatives as French Immersion, a spontaneous
initiative of parents enrolling their children in a program that I think is
fundamentally a Canadian program. I
think it is very unique, and I think it is tremendous in terms of the impact it
can have.
We have two French Immersion schools at
the elementary level and a high school.
What is a school board going to have to do? Close down one of the French
Immersion schools? Cut back in terms of
the program that exists? How do you do
that? You cannot in midstream cut a
grade. You need continuity of people
being able to go through from early entry French Immersion through to
graduation. That has happened.
There are people going through the entire
Thompson school system right now. Both
of my children have been enrolled since kindergarten, and I look forward to the
day when they can graduate in Thompson from that kind of program.
What kind of pressures do you put on them?
[interjection] The member opposite asked if I can converse with them. Let me put it this way, I can understand what
they say probably better than they can understand what I say when it comes to
my level of French. I am absolutely
astounded. My daughter in fact recently
competed again in the provincial Concours d'art oratoire at College St.
Boniface and she came in second for the province. She came in first last year
and, quite frankly, I was amazed. These were both French core programs. There was a specific competition also in
terms of French Immersion.
I was very impressed by the fluency of the
children involved. I am sure there must
be a lot of other parents out there with children enrolled in such programs who
are shaking their heads, because I remember how difficult it was for me in high
school to learn my level of high school French.
When I see children who are in Grade 1 and Grade 2‑‑my
children right now are in Grade 3 and Grade 5‑‑it is tremendous the
language ability. My children are lucky
to be able to speak three languages:
English, French and Greek, my wife's mother tongue. The bottom line is,
it is just tremendous the ability of children.
You know, these are the kinds of programs
that are new. They have really developed
in Thompson, for example, only the last 10 years. I am very concerned about when you get the
combination of a bill like this and funding cutbacks and what it is going to do
for education. Just look at special needs
and children who need greater assistance in school, greater support mechanisms.
Let us take Thompson as an example. Thompson has a significant number of students
that move into the community from surrounding communities. There are often different grade levels, there
are often language adjustments, there are most often cultural adjustments as
well. Very much we are in a very similar
situation in School Division No. 1 in
There is a very high degree of mobility
between outlying communities and Thompson.
One of the reasons why Thompson has continued to steadily grow in
population after dropping to a low of 11,000 is not because of expanded numbers
of jobs at Inco. The actual number of jobs has decreased over the years. It has been because of some of the
educational programs, just the general mobility of people moving to Thompson,
becoming a regional centre.
Madam Deputy Speaker, those resources are
being strained as it is. The bottom line
is, it is a very difficult adjustment process.
If one does not have adjustment programs in place, those children end up
being those that drop out of school, and that is the end result of not having
those types of programs in place.
* (1520)
What is the impact of dropping out of
school? I was reading some statistics on
the impact that one's schooling has on employment. It is really staggering. If you were to go back 10 or 20 years ago and
check the employment rate for those who did not complete high school, you would
find there has been no change. In other
words, over the period of time from 20 years ago, currently, if you have not
completed high school, you have a very poor chance of gaining full‑time
employment. That is particularly the
case amongst women still‑‑I believe the figure is around 30 percent‑‑but
if one completes high school the number increases dramatically.
Over that 20‑year period, the more
one has obtained an education, the more one has been able to get in the
workforce. That has been particularly the case amongst women who 20 years ago
were the minority in terms of post‑secondary enrollments, particularly at
university, and were also even in many cases a minority in terms of high school
completion.
The reason many women have been able to
get into the workforce, and there are still barriers, has often been through
education. It all ties in together. You cannot have a long‑term economic
strategy without having an educational strategy. Madam Deputy Speaker, that became very clear
to me when I recently spoke to students at R.D. Parker Collegiate, along with
the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) and our M.P. for the area, Rod
Murphy. It was interesting. Rod Murphy, a former teacher‑‑in
fact, he was my teacher, myself a former graduate of the school.
Madam Deputy Speaker, people I think have
lost sight of how difficult it is right now for many of the young people going
through high school. It is very easy for
us in this House to try and speak for them, but we are not going through what
they are going through now. I just
compare myself, when I graduated from high school, and the opportunities that I
had then. Even in those days there were
limits because of the single‑industry nature of Thompson, but I could
work at Inco in the summer. I did on
many occasions. I could work full time
and did as well. I could basically work my way through university.
You cannot do that anymore, Madam Deputy
Speaker. Inco does not hire that much in
the summer, has virtually no summer jobs at all, these on‑and‑off‑again
hiring freezes. So even that is not
available. There are a few more
educational opportunities now but not that many for those coming out of high
school. There is the first year Distance
Education program and some IUN courses. Many of the other programs are not
targeted towards those coming out of high school, so the education situation
has not improved that much.
What I find particularly frustrating,
Madam Deputy Speaker, is when I receive the surveys I did. I surveyed all the high school grads last
year. I have done this on a regular
basis since I have been elected. I got a
very interesting response from the only young woman to go through the carpentry
course in high school in Thompson who completed that‑‑certainly a
major achievement‑‑and wrote to me and said she has been unable to
find any job at all using any of the skills she used in carpentry. She said,
what was the point of breaking that ground, as she did, to find only within six
months to a year that she was looking only at the same kind of employment she
would have looked at if she had not made that effort. That is the situation that is happening with
many young women. It is happening with
many young men in communities, such as Thompson, throughout this province.
That is what I want to urge, Madam Deputy
Speaker, is that people view it in that perspective. Education and economic development are
linked. They cannot be separated. I would suggest that one of the major
problems we have in this country right now‑‑I think it is general
to
Many European countries, when you reach
the age of 13‑14, you have a meeting with a counsellor. You are basically offered as many as three or
four different careers, jobs. You are
trained for it. You have a guaranteed
job when you complete the training. How
many young people in this province would love, Madam Deputy Speaker, to be able
to have that kind of opportunity? These
are things that are going to be affected by this kind of legislation as well.
I look at, for example, some of the
discussions I have had with the school district and I have had with teachers in
terms of the appropriateness of curriculum and programs that are offered. Madam
Deputy Speaker, the bottom line is that we are not keeping up with the times in
terms of dealing with some of the changing demands not only of society but of
students themselves.
What particularly concerns me is the fact
that this government, while on the one hand has been appointing various
commissions, including the Roblin commission on post‑secondary education
and others, has sort of a two‑track process for education policy in this
province. There are reports that collect
dust on shelves, while on the other hand we have a Minister of Education and a
government that is cutting funding, that is bringing in Bill 16, which further
handcuffs the ability of school districts to deal with the challenges they face
and, in effect, if anything, is moving our system of education back five, 10,
and 15 years instead of moving into the realities of the next century.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I mentioned earlier
about what had happened in terms of the high school in Thompson and the fact
that there were concerns expressed about cutbacks that had taken place in terms
of the number of teaching positions.
The school district and the Thompson teachers' association negotiated on
that and came up with an agreement. They
also settled outstanding wage questions as well in terms of collective
bargaining but, also, discussed in terms of those particular positions, came up
with a compromise that satisfied the concerns expressed by both sides.
Madam Deputy Speaker, believe you me,
there was a lot of hard feeling for a considerable period of time. I know the school board was frustrated; they
felt a lot of this was driven by provincial government decisions. They did not want to make decisions they made
but felt they were forced to do so. The
teachers felt the decisions were not appropriate, they were hurting educational
quality. Many parents were concerned,
many students, and I have had people, both parents and students and teachers
and school board trustees in Thompson contact me about their concerns.
What they did is, they sat down, they
discussed the concerns, they negotiated, and they came to an agreement that has
seen the reinstatement of a number of positions in the high school. That should be the model for the provincial
government, the Manitoba Teachers' Society and the Manitoba Association of
School Trustees. Discussion,
negotiations, maybe some hard‑nosed negotiations, because no negotiations
are easy when you are dealing with difficult times and difficult decisions, but
negotiations, Madam Deputy Speaker.
That is what is so wrong about Bill
16. Bill 16 suggests that the only way
to deal with the problems in education is to bring in a cap, take away the
democratic rights of local school districts.
This bill goes in tandem with cutbacks in educational funding that
suggests that somehow money and the quality of education are not related. Well, this bill proves, to my mind, that this
government is incapable of working in partnership with people in education.
I think that is the basic difference
between their approach and, say, the approach of the
I believe the way to achieve progress in
education is through a co‑operative approach. Not necessarily everybody is going to receive
what they want or be happy with what happens, but I believe there is a lot of
energy out there for reforming the educational system, but the only way you can
tap into it is if you go to someone and you say, let us work in partnership,
let us work in co‑operation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this government I
think is missing out on what is happening with labour relations, nationally and
internationally, co‑operation between various different sectors. The
bottom line is, there will be disagreements.
I mean, around The Labour Relations Act, the Chamber of Commerce will
take one position and the labour movement will take another, different
Manitobans will have different views.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you are not going to
get consensus on every issue, and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) knows
that. [interjection] Sometimes you do, but I am saying there will be the
ideological issues, the issues that are driven by the real bottom‑line definitions
of what our society is about, the principles on which it is based.
* (1530)
You know, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are
so many issues that fall in a category and so many that do not. In terms of education, there are obviously
some bottom lines, and there are disagreements on principle and educational
philosophy, but surely this is one area where we have one thing in common. We want the best for our children and future
generations. It may sound like a rather
simplistic statement, but that is what drives most people, particularly parents
and students and teachers in the educational system.
So why cannot we harness that energy? Why do we have to‑‑as the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) did today when the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) asked a question
on educational funding and Bill 16. The
Premier got up and talked about the member for Dauphin fomenting unrest. When I got up on a point of order and
suggested that that was not particularly appropriate, Madam Deputy Speaker,
then he said, well, all my union friends.
This may come as a surprise to the
Premier. I have many friends in the
labour movement. I have many union
friends. I would hope the Premier would
try and cultivate a few friendships as well with people in the labour movement
and people within unions because they are Manitobans. We are talking about people, their friends,
their family, their neighbours. Madam
Deputy Speaker, I just go back to what happened in Thompson. People sat down, and they worked co‑operatively. Those union friends, in this case, the staff‑‑I
do not know if teachers could really be classified as a union per se, the
differing views within MTS as to exactly what The Teachers' Society is.
It says a lot about the attitude of this
government. The Premier in Question
Period, with the eyes of the province watching him, can consider the ultimate
insult to say to a member of the Legislature that he has union friends. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am mortally
wounded. I have union friends. I admit it.
I even have some Chamber of Commerce friends as well, but that is
another story.
That really shows the degree to which this
Premier has put his personal stamp on this government. I cannot honestly believe that everyone on
that side has the same degree of paranoia about union friends. I know one member who has been involved in a
union. [interjection] La Verendrye, yes.
The member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), I know, was a shop steward,
I understand. [interjection] Vice‑president. I am not trying to get the member in trouble
with his caucus. I am sure the member
for La Verendrye had many union friends, and I consider that positive.
Point of Order
Mr. Ben Sveinson (La
Verendrye): On a point of order, Madam Deputy
Speaker. The honourable member for
Thompson mentions that I was a vice‑president, and indeed I was. I have also owned three businesses. I have been a federal inspector and now a
member of the Legislature. So there are
many different things that I have done, and I am not ashamed of any one of
them. Thank you.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member for La
Verendrye does not have a point of order.
It is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Ashton: Well, I thank the member for his point of resume.
Indeed he has been many different things.
Really, it was no criticism. I
realize within the caucus that to be a union member at one time has got to be
considered suspect, but, my God, to have union friends, oh, Madam Deputy
Speaker, that is pretty serious, to have union friends, pretty suspicious.
I was just pointing out that there are
people in this Legislature on all sides that have, I would hope, union friends.
But this is typical, as I said, the Premier (Mr. Filmon), when asked about Bill
16, immediately throws back this as if this is some terrible thing, some
terrible threatening thing. Well, there
are many people out there who are members of unions, active in the labour
movement. They are taxpayers, they are
residents of local school districts, they are parents, they may be students as
well. Some are even school trustees, I
know in my own constituency. We are all
Manitobans.
Madam Deputy Speaker, let us face reality
here. We are not a big province, and
according to emigration figures we are getting even smaller, relatively
speaking, over the years. We are a
million people. We are not like some of
the bigger provinces where maybe the people that you can throw these barbs at
are people you do not see or know.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a small
province. If ever there were an example
of a province that could work co‑operatively, this is it. I mean, in my own community, the vice‑president
of Inco will live next door to the vice‑president of the union, and sure
you get variances within town, different areas, different backgrounds and
outlooks. Even if you do not live next
door, you go to the same recreation centres, the same plazas. We have not got to the point of building the
walls yet around different parts of this province that we have seen even in the
Madam Deputy Speaker, on something as
important to all of us‑‑that we all agree on‑‑as
educational reform and educational priorities, why would it be so difficult for
us to sit down and work co‑operatively?
What a novel idea. Instead of
throwing insults at each other, we could say we are all Manitobans; we all have
a concern about the education system; let us put that aside.
I look forward to the comments of the
members opposite on this because I get the feeling, in their heart of hearts,
the Premier does not always speak for them.
Well, we know that was not the case with the member for Rossmere (Mr.
Neufeld) on many issues. But I am
talking about the fundamental issue here of co‑operation on such issues
as education. We do not need the kind of
confrontational approach that we are seeing from the Premier. We need a government that is going to not
bring in the Bill 16s, but it is going to sit down and work with partnership.
It can be done. We are a small province. We are all friends and neighbours and family
in this province. We are really a
province of small communities. Even
That is why, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will
be voting against Bill 16, and I will continue to speak out on what I feel are
the important needs in terms of education in this province, and most
fundamentally a change in approach, a new approach that is going to put co‑operation
ahead of confrontation.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the
House ready for the question? The
question before the House is second reading of Bill 16.
Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to
participate in this debate on Bill 16 concerning the public school system. I would like to start with an analysis of
what is the function of education in our society, what is the purpose of
education, and analyze the question of whether education is a private or public
good, and why is it publicly funded and supported, analyze the primary issue of
the two‑tier type of education that we are developing in our system, the
public and the private system of education, and other related issues of
excellence and equity.
A teacher was once in charge of a
classroom where the students were being asked to write an essay about the most
beautiful thing that they had experienced in life, and while everybody was busy
writing sentences and trying to compose their essay, one student was just doing
nothing and thinking hard, and then he wrote just one sentence in his essay and
he said in that sentence: The most
beautiful thing I ever saw in life was too beautiful for words. And so he did not write anything. It was too beautiful for words.
What is the purpose of education? What is education? To my mind, education is simply a process of
maturation of individual human beings intellectually, and emotionally as well. Education is a continuous process of inquiry
that we pursue in life, and we intend that inquiry to be as free as it can be
and to lead wherever it may lead. It is
an unceasing search for the truth. It is only when we know the truth that we
can truly say that we are free. Seek the
truth and the truth shall make you free.
* (1540)
Education, furthermore, aims to develop
our potential as human beings, our abilities, our latent skills in order that
these potentialities may be developed into actual skills that, if we apply to
the affairs of life, would benefit not only ourselves but everybody else in
society.
The purpose of education therefore is to
teach us how to live life, not simply how to make a living but how to make a
life, how to live life abundantly in order that we may be able to distinguish
what is trivial from what is important, what is incidental from what is
substantive, what is transitory from what is long‑lasting. We cannot say that we are truly educated
unless we can distinguish the important from the unimportant. Education also will teach us how to think,
not only to think, but how to make decisions when we are confronted with
problematic situations in our life.
How do we react, a typically educated
person, how does he react when he is confronted with a problem that cries for
some solution? Well, the first thing he
normally does is, he collects all his information. He collects the facts, all of the relevant
facts that have a bearing to the problematic situation facing him.
When he gets the facts he tries to analyze
all of the information. He tries to
relate one piece of information with another so that they will be meaningful to
him. He tries to find relationships
among all of these categories of factual information. Then he tries to understand what the problem
really is because, unless you are clear about the nature of the problem itself,
you will have difficulty finding any kind of way of dealing with the problem.
I would say that a problem that is well
understood is almost a problem that is already half solved. When you already have stated the problem as
clearly and precisely as you can, then you formulate the various ways of
dealing with a problem. This is coming
up with all the alternative means that you can think of in order to deal with
the problem.
After you have studied the nature of the
problem itself, looked at the problem closely with all the details and also
looked at the problem from a distance, you can see all of the implications with
respect to the total situation, because you may want to see the tree and miss
the forest.
Yes, you have to look at the problem
closely, analyze it as well at a distance.
Every day of your life you make decisions great and small, but you have
to be clear about the facts, about the relationship about the facts. You should be clear about your own values,
your own goal, what it is that you want to achieve because, unless you are
clear about the values that you want to promote you cannot know and cannot
offer any way of dealing with the problem that will be satisfactory to you.
So we come up with various alternative
solutions.
If the problem is one that merely calls
for some kind of hunch or some kind of an instant intuitive choice, you can
just toss a coin and deal with it that way but, if the problem is too complex
for that kind of problem solving, then you have to approach it in a rational
way, and what is the most rational way but to formulate all the various
alternative solutions that are available to you and then look at all these
individual means of dealing with the problem.
So you look at alternative A, and then you
say, what are the advantages of this way of dealing with the problem? What are its disadvantages? You look at alternative B the same way. What are the shortcomings of this way? What are its advantages? What are its benefits? You do all these things systematically. When you have satisfied yourself that you
have looked at all the alternatives and looked at all the advantages and
disadvantages of each one of them, only then are you in a position to make a
choice. When you make your choice, that
will be your decision.
Education teaches all these things. Otherwise, we run away from problems. We hide our head in the sand and we do not
understand the problem.
To face life with all its challenges
requires of us that we have courage.
Courage is one of the highest virtues that we need in life because
without it we will be helpless when confronted with a problem that is beyond
our immediate solution.
Courage does not mean pugnacity. It is not blindness, but it is the highest
virtue based on your conscience when you know that you are right that you do
and decide the way you should. We map
out a course of action and follow it and we are sustained by our supreme virtue
of courage, courage we must not lose in life. There are people who run out of
courage and they simply surrender and give up.
He who loses wealth loses much. He who loses friends loses more. But he who loses courage loses all. We should always be ready and willing to
confront.
Is education a private good, like any
other commodity, subject to the forces of supply and demand in the market, or
is education what they call public goods?
What do we mean by this concept? When you talk to an economist and he says, it
is a public good, what does he mean? A
public good is a kind of service that has these two distinguishing
characteristics at least. That is a type
of service that you cannot provide to one member of society without benefiting
the other members of society. Once you
provide it to one individual, the cost of providing it to other individuals in
society or in the community is practically nil.
For example, security or national defence
is a public good. Once a government has provided security to one member of the
community by having adequate security forces in the form of armed forces to
resist foreign aggression, then the cost to the other members of the community
is zero because, when you are successful in protecting one, you are protecting
everybody.
In other words, there is a spillover
effect of any kind of public good to the rest of the members of the
community. It cannot be provided to one
individual only and exclude the other members of the community. You cannot exclude because they also benefit
from a public good. It is for this
reason that public good is always provided by the government, like establishing
an adequate national defence system for a country.
* (1550)
What is a private good? Private goods are those that are subject to
the forces of the supply and demand in the market. They can be nondurable
goods, nondurable private goods that we use up instantly the moment we use
them, like food items. We consume
them. They are immediately
exhausted. These are the nondurable
goods.
The semidurable goods are those that last
for a reasonably short period of time, like clothing. You can use it more than once, but maybe you
cannot use it more than a year. Then
there are the durable private goods which you can use for more than a year,
generally, like your car, your house, whatever other durable goods you may have
bought for yourself.
Now, what is education like if we try to
analyze education itself? Is it a
private good? If you consume, you
exclude the other people. Education,
apparently, if you look at it, is a kind of service that is initially private
because it can only be provided by a teacher, but it is a service that is so
important that it is invested with an element of public interest. It is important for the survival and faith of
the entire community and the entire country that the people are educated. So we can say that education is some kind of
a semipublic, semiprivate kind of service, what we call a quasi‑public good,
because the very foundation of the state is predicated upon a system of good
education.
According to the Greek philosopher,
Diogenes, D‑I‑O‑G‑E‑N‑E‑S, the
foundation of the state is the education of its youth. If our young people are well educated, these
are the people that will become the citizens of tomorrow, and if they are well
educated in a good educational system, then you will have a stable citizenry
that will sustain the community, the country and the state. Therefore we can say that the quality of the
education of the people in a community, the quality of the education of the
citizens in a state determines the very destiny and faith of a country or a
nation, because in the true sense of the term, only when the people are
educated, can the people say truly that they are truly free.
It is because of ignorance, because of
lack of education, because of illiteracy, because of inadequate education that
people are bound by their weaknesses and they become subjected to exploitation
by others who have more knowledge than they.
They become the victims of exploitations and other acts of injustices in
society when they do not know their interests and do not know how to protect
themselves, their group or their country.
So we can say that as a premise, as a
general principle, universal, free public education is a precondition to the
survival and progress of a people and a nation.
That is precisely the reason why we have
developed, in our western societies, the principle of compulsory, free public
education for everyone. Indeed, in the
early days of the implementation of our educational system, people who refused
to go to school were coerced to go to school, because it was a compulsory type
of education.
Why is this compulsory? How can you reconcile the principle of
compulsion with the freedom of the people to choose or not to choose to be
educated? How can that be reconciled? Is there any consistency here? Can you be forced to be educated?
That is precisely one of the premises of
our educational system. I think the
basis of this is what Jean Jacques Rousseau had stated in his treatise on
social contract when he said that people can be forced to be free.
Sometimes we have to be subjected to a
certain level of discipline in order that we may be able to appreciate the true
meaning of education and the true meaning of freedom. When in the olden days of our grandfathers
and our grandmothers, during their generation when there was a certain level of
discipline in the public school system, they had learned how to discipline
themselves, because they were subjected to a system that had some discipline.
Now it seems to me that there is a gradual
breaking down of this system of discipline in most of our institutions in our
society, a breakdown of discipline in the home, a breakdown of discipline in
the school, a breakdown of discipline in many of our institutions. What else can we expect but trouble and
problems in our society?
When I was in grade school, I had to put
up both my hands if I did something wrong, so that my teacher could use her
ruler and show me that I had done something wrong. Would that harm me at all? Is this physical abuse? Of course not. But what about now? Who, in the public school teachers, now can
say to a little child: Put up your hand,
I am going to teach you discipline? No
one, because he will be marked as an abuser of a child.
That is a wrong perception, because we are
merely encouraging the chaotic, anarchic kind of system where there are no
rules whatsoever. You cannot even tell a
child, now you stay after class, I want to talk to you. They will just ignore you and go home.
An Honourable Member: What
about discipline at home?
Mr. Santos: What about the
home? If you have a nuclear family of
one, with a child, and that parent has to leave it, who will teach the
child? So if the child is in the hands
of a stranger, what kind of interests will the stranger teach the child?
Difficult situation.
There is a gradual inversion of the
traditional values that we understand in society. We tend to value respect. Now you hardly can find any young person who
has that kind of attitude towards their elders.
Instead of respect, they have defiance in the mind‑‑uppermost
in the mind‑‑defiance of all types of authority and that does not
portend any kind of good things to come.
I am not saying that we should return to
the old system, but what I am saying is that we should be able to compare the
general attitude of the generation past, of our grandmothers and our parents,
compared to the present generation and compared to the generation that is
coming up. It seems to me that it is a
worsening kind of situation, from bad to worse and worse and worse. We have to analyze the problem in a very
systematic way.
Therefore, I say the role of the school is
very important in society, particularly the public educational system. Why should the educational system be
primarily emphasized on the public side rather than on the private side‑‑because
as I have said, education is a quasi‑public kind of good, very expensive
to maintain. Indeed, it is so expensive
that only the government, the state, can undertake it and can sustain education
and accomplish all of its objectives and its goals.
When government, because of these looming
deficits, the troubles on the public sector, on the pretext of saving money
would cut the expenditure on education, the money that we shall be saving in
our society is the same, or perhaps greater amount of money, that we shall
later on be spending for the problems that we have to deal with in our society,
the same amount of money we have to spend in our jails, in our reformatories,
in our hospitals in the future, because these kids who will not be educated
properly will be more of a problem and a burden rather than an asset to our
society.
There is a survey of attitudes very
recently, national polling, and because of the trouble economically in terms of
the deficit and the debts, the people in Canada nowadays overwhelmingly are
saying, yes, we agree that we should reduce the deficit. They said we should‑‑overwhelmingly
they say 86 percent support cutting the spending by government because they
perceive the spending by government to be rather loose spending.
* (1600)
So they say, let us cut the spending, but
the same population are opposed to any cut in public education because they see
it as a very important segment of public service. They can allow a cut, for example, in the
arts and culture. They want cuts in
defence spending. About 68 percent of
them say, yes, we should have cuts in defence spending‑‑68
percent. Yes, we should have cuts in
arts and culture, 56 percent. Yes, we
should have cuts in foreign aid, 70 percent.
But they would not allow any cut in
education. They are opposed to any cut
in health spending because they see these two types of public service are
essential to the well‑being of the country as a whole.
Education is simply an investment, because
the money that we will be spending for our children will be doubly rewarded in
the sense that we will have good and responsible citizens and then fewer social
problems in the immediate future.
The moment we cut our public spending on
education, we not only worsen the present generation of students, but we also
will be spending double the amount in the kind of problems that they will bring
about because of our failure in our responsibility to attend to their proper
education and training.
So there is a greater demand for public
education. Yet, somehow people in
society want to make this kind of distinction. They say, oh, the public school
system has a very loose standard, low quality.
I want to send my kids to something which has a higher quality, namely a
private school.
Who can blame any parent who wants the
highest quality of education for their children even if they have to spend
more? So they perceive that there is a
higher quality of education in private sector‑type of education. There is greater demand for it and, of
course, the greater the demand, the higher the price. It follows the law of economics.
You have to spend hundreds and perhaps
thousands of dollars in order to send your kid to one of the best private
education systems. What happens then to
the public school system? It is a zero‑sum
game. The more resources you take from
the public sector and give to the private sector, the fewer resources will be
available in the public school system.
Yet, the opportunity for education, the
element of equality for all the citizens is a more salient characteristic of
the public system of education. It is
there that everybody has more or less equal opportunity to achieve and get the
proper education that they need. Yet,
that is the sector that will be suffering the most.
So what are we doing? We are creating a system of education in our
province and in our country where the best are the fewest, the most able to afford
it, and yet the majority of the citizens who cannot and have not the
opportunity or the resources will have less and less quality of education.
So, in general, what kind of a society are
we creating? It will be a more and more
problematic society than we really want. We say we want excellence for our
kid. We want the highest level of
quality of education for your children.
True?
What is excellence? Excellence means the quality of being
superlatively good. In the nature of
things, anything that is excellent, by definition, is few and scarce. In other words, if you want something
excellent, then you have to pick the cream of the crop, so they say, and the
cream of the crop by definition are few.
Why? Because not all the children
have an equal biological level of ability and intelligence.
Somehow, despite the ethical standard of
equality of all human beings that we talk about, in the very nature of being we
have innate differences in our potentialities and abilities. But the worst thing that could happen is when
those potentialities are in a group of poor school children in the slums. They may have the excellent potential and
level of intelligence that our society may need. These are the future scientists,
mathematicians and great men to be in our society.
Yet, because they lack the necessary
resources, because they were brought up in a home that is not conducive to the
proper rearing and development, because they have been neglected and because
they were poor and deprived, we will be losing all this potentiality. They will never be able to achieve the access
that they need in order to develop the potential that our society needs.
That is the trouble with a two‑tiered
type of education. If we have to improve
the level of education in our system, then we should satisfy ourselves with a
merged system with ample opportunities for choices, but there should only be
one framework, one system that we need to improve in all its aspects.
I do not see any problem here if we
somehow, in the future, would like to integrate the public and the private into
a single type of education that is affordable and reasonably accessible to all
members of society, where the best can excel and the rest can find the highest
level of their development.
Equitable access is an important
issue. Equity is grounded on the ethical
notion of equality, but this is not a biological principle, as I have stated. It is an ethical principle of rightness and
correctness.
Thomas Jefferson, in The American
Declaration of Independence, wrote: We
hold these truths to be self‑evident that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life,
So we have that ideal of equality. It is an ethical standard to which we must
aspire. But then Adam Smith, he also
wrote: Wherever there is property, there are great inequalities; for one very
rich man, there must be at least 500 poor men.
So you see‑‑this is Adam Smith‑‑it is this
possession that makes unequal of those that are created ethically equal.
* (1610)
Question‑‑if people are
ethically equal, but biologically and socially unequal, then what type of
equality is realistically possible? You
see, all of us do not have the same level of intelligence. All of us do not have the same level of
endurance. All of us differ as
individuals. So we are in a sense, in a
physical sense, unequal, but in a moral and ethical sense, we are all equal
because we all have the same two feet, the same two eyes, the same two legs and
the same everything.
An Honourable Member: We do
not have the same ambition.
Mr. Santos: But we do not
have the same ambition. We do not have
the same drive. We do not have the same
potentialities. [interjection] So it depends from case to case. So if we are all morally and ethically equal
but physically, biologically and socially unequal, what kind of equality is
realistically possible to design in our society? What is the answer? Aristotle said‑‑
An Honourable Member: What
is the answer?
Mr. Santos: Aristotle will
answer the question. The only stable
state is one in which all men are equal before the law.
An Honourable Member: And
women?
Mr. Santos: By men I mean
humankind, and if women consider themselves members of humankind, then they are
included, because whenever the philosophers speak of men, they mean humankind.
All men are created equal before the
law. In a precise sense, all men and women
are equal before the law. That is the
precise statement. If we create a two‑tiered
system in our society which is basically based on what Adam Smith had already
identified as the root cause of inequality, namely possessions and wealth, if
that is the root cause of inequality, and we are creating a two‑tiered
system of education, are we promoting through education or are we creating
problems for ourselves?
Despite what Lyndon Johnson may be in
other things, he said this thing that I remember. If we condemn our people to inequality in our
society, we also condemn people to inequality in our economy. If we create a two‑tiered system of
education in our province, one educational system for the poor and one
educational system for the rich, then we are condemning our own people to
inequality in the economy as well. It is
no secret that those who have achieved by their effort, sometimes by luck, the
kind of education that they need and want, it is no secret that generally they
have a higher level of earning than those who do not or were not able to.
Therefore, inequality and educational
opportunity also means inequality in the economy in social status in society
later on in life. Many people will be
frustrated about their inability to develop their fullest potential in our
society, and that they will become antisocial elements in our society that will
create problems for the rest of the community.
Whether equal or unequal, whether advanced or not, there is a kind of
difficulty in the financial support of the government of this province in our
educational system.
For example, the expenditure in education
in this province generally consists of two general groups of programs in our
educational system: What they call the
supportable programs as distinguished from the nonsupportable, otherwise known
as the supportable program at the recognized or mandated program, the regular
curriculum, the regular offering. The
other category, what they call the categorical, nonmandated, allowable,
conditional kind of program which the school board, in their wisdom, in their
knowledge of the local situation, they are willing to support. As distinguished from the nonrecognized,
nonsupportable‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member's time has
expired.
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk):
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for
Motion agreed to.
Bill 22‑The Public Sector Reduced Work Week and
Compensation Management Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 22
(The Public Sector Reduced Work Week and Compensation Management Act; Loi sur
la reduction de la semaine de travail et la gestion des salaires dans le
secteur public), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr.
Reid).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is
there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley):
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on Manitoba Day to
begin debate on Bill 22.
Manitoba Day, as we heard today in the
House, is a day when we draw attention to the achievements of the past, when we
reflect on the accomplishments of Manitobans both directly and indirectly,
individually and collectively.
We reflect, too, on the nature of our
province, the kind of political and social community which has been created
here over, I would say, the last 12,000 years, but particularly in the last two
centuries of European control and impact on the history of this province.
There are, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you
look at the history of
* (1620)
There is the
The French language issue has divided us
in many decades, most recently in the 1980s.
It is an issue in terms of the schools and education which still divides
families and communities. The erection
of a plaque, a statue or even a postage stamp dedicated to Riel as it was in
the 1970s can evoke bitter memories for many Manitobans. The ideology of a peaceful, multicultural
society is one which is relatively recent for us. In fact, there are many
historians and many histories of
There is, however, Madam Deputy Speaker, a
different kind of
We could go back as far as the 1860s and
look at the community reaction to plague and famine which did occur in those
years and the way in which that small community at Red River did bring itself
together across race and language lines to create, in fact, the basis of some
of the institutions which we have today such as our hospitals and,
particularly, the Children's Hospital.
If we look at the 1870s, although we might
there see some of the divisions of the old settlers versus the new Ontario
immigrants, we can also see the community of language, of English‑ and
French‑speaking mixed blood and Metis peoples of that community who did
bring themselves together to create a new province based on very different
principles from those which Ontario and Sir John A. Macdonald had envisioned
for us.
We can look at some of the community
activities of the 1930s, of the Depression, the creation of community centres
and of community action. One which
springs to mind, of course, is the Brandon East community centre. We can look more recently at the 1950 flood
and look at the communal activities and the way in which the community pulled
together during that time of flood and crisis for
We can look even more recently at the
centennial activities in
So there are two
I would like to suggest that that is the
choice we have today. We have a choice
in a time of economic recession and it is a critical time for many Canadians. Under Tory governments and Tory interest
rates we have seen our debt balloon. We
have seen our deficit uncontrolled by many Tory governments right across this
country who speak on one angle the language of restraint but practice in fact a
very different kind of economic policy.
We are in difficult economic times, Madam
Deputy Speaker, and I would suggest that this is not the time for
confrontation. It is a time for co‑operation
and for bringing Manitobans together in the way in which other governments in
other years have sought to do, and which the community itself has shown the way
in difficult times, that co‑operation not confrontation is the root that
we should choose.
It is in that context that I want to look
at Bill 22 to suggest to the government that they have or had a choice of co‑operation
or confrontation. They had a choice of
two paths and they chose the path of confrontation. They chose division. They chose lack of
consultation. They chose to let the
burden of their economic decisions fall unfairly upon one sector of the
population. It is a deliberate choice,
Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is one which I believe has been undertaken with
care, with thought and it is the wrong choice.
We shall oppose this bill, as do thousands of Manitobans from all parts
of this province, from all communities and from all groups within our society.
We shall not oppose the clause which
reduces the salaries of members of this Legislature, and I want that to be
clear from the beginning, but we shall oppose what we consider to be an unfair,
confrontational and divisive bill.
I want to speak on several aspects of this
bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I know that all of my colleagues will want to
speak to this bill as well. They will be
able to speak in areas of their own critic areas and from the perspective of
their own regions and communities, and they will elaborate many other points of
view upon this bill.
I know that when we go to committee that
we are all hearing from the people who are being affected by this bill now and
we are hearing the anxieties and the concerns of those people who will feel the
impact of the loss of services in the future.
I anticipate that when we go to committee with this bill, we shall be
hearing a great diversity of
My view is that this bill represents a
thoughtless policy, that it has been hastily thrown together, that it has taken
a broad sweep, a wide broom and it hits out at the easily available targets, at
the government's own, indeed, our own public service and public servants. It is a bill which has been drafted, I
believe, without any regard for fairness, for the way in which it will have an
impact upon individuals, communities, upon the poor who depend upon government
services and upon our own public servants.
The government chose‑‑and they
chose‑‑to portray this as a holiday, a long weekend, a time to go
fishing. How arrogant, Madam Deputy
Speaker. How arrogant the thought of
that is when you say that to the single parent who is working at $18,000 a
year, and how many of those in this government and elsewhere throughout the
public sector are going to be affected by this legislation?
But, no, the government chose to portray
it as a holiday, a long weekend, just a time to get your fishing line a little
earlier in the water. What a callous,
thoughtless and arrogant government this is, because what this bill represents
is an unfair tax on the public sector worker on the grounds simply of where
they work and whom they serve.
I want to speak first of all of the impact
of this bill upon the communities of Manitoba, the impact on services, because
the effects of this bill will not just be felt by the workers, by the public
servants, by the people who work for municipalities, for school boards, for
hospitals, for daycare centres, the entire public sector, but it will also be
felt by every individual and every community in Manitoba.
Its impact will be felt in both the short
term and the long term. It is still
unclear as we are speaking today how essential services will be defined. We do not know yet what will be defined as an
essential service. We do not know what
the staffing levels will be throughout our hospitals or our care centres, our
personal care homes, or in the essential municipal services of fire or police,
or in the Crown corporations, in hydro, in the telephone services.
* (1630)
All of those areas will be affected by
this bill, and yet as we speak, the government has still made no indication to
us of how those essential services are going to be defined and protected. It is difficult to see how the government can
in fact put this bill, even the principles of this bill, into practice without
affecting the lives of most Manitobans.
If we take, for example, the intention of
the government to suggest to school boards that they use the professional
development days of teachers as a way of cutting their wage bill, as a way of
withdrawing areas of public service, and that is what the government has chosen
to do, it suggests to every school board in Manitoba that professional
development days can be sacrificed, that they are not important. They are the least important aspect of
education. That is in effect what they
are saying.
It seems to me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that
this is an extremely shortsighted view of education, a very shortsighted and
unprofessional view of the role that our teachers play in education. I think the impact of this policy will be
felt for a long term. You simply do not
take two years of professional development away from teachers and expect that
you are going to have enthusiastic, professional, well‑prepared,
energetic and up‑to‑date teachers.
There is a purpose, there has always been
a purpose to professional development.
The government, in fact, by targeting those days, in the eyes of the
school boards, is simply saying that this is one of the least important aspects
of education.
If you believe that, what you believe is
that our school system can be served by teachers who are the same today as they
were when they left their classroom at the university. None of us, I cannot believe that any
Manitoban, would subscribe to that point of view.
Teachers who were trained 10 years ago,
teachers who were trained even five years ago can always benefit and should
benefit from the updating of techniques, from their discussions with their
colleagues, benefit from learning of new techniques and of new procedures,
whatever area of education they serve.
How many of our teachers today in fact are
well trained in computers? Gradually,
the majority of teachers are becoming trained in that area, but it takes
professional development days over a long series of those days to do that. It is not something which happens overnight.
How many of our teachers are trained in the
new multimedia applications? Very few
school boards have that yet, but gradually they will, and teachers need to be
trained in those. It does not happen overnight.
How many of our teachers are trained in
the new developments in Distance Education?
Yet here is a government which on the one hand is saying Distance
Education is due to be the salvation of education in rural
You have to develop, in effect, a new way
of teaching, and the minister knows that.
She has had a number of reports on Distance Education, all of which I
believe should have, if they have not, stressed the importance of teacher
training and retraining if this area of education is in fact to be a success in
the classroom and is to serve the role that the government hopes it will in rural
Manitoba, bringing an equality and trying to maintain a sense of equality in
education across the province.
Now, how do you train those teachers in
Distance Education if you do not have professional development days, if you
take away two years of professional development days? What a shortsighted, unplanned, thoughtless
and arrogant government it is that can propose such a kind of cut to our educational
system.
It is also I think an unfair policy,
because there will be school boards who do have confidence in their collective
bargaining and in their collective agreements who will not proceed with the
cutting of their professional development days. There will be school boards who
have greater financial resources than others who equally will choose not to cut
their professional development days, and who will maintain a sense of pride in
having teachers who are up to date, who are enthusiastic and who do feel that
they are at that cutting edge of their discipline and they are doing the best
they can for the students in their care.
So this bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, I
think is thoughtless. It is unequal. It
will fall heavily on some school boards and some teachers and some students
more so than it will on others. The many other areas, I think, that my
colleagues will touch upon in health care:
How will emergency services be maintained? How will the personal care homes be
maintained on a four‑day week? There are so many areas of service that
have not been examined yet. Will our
laboratories be kept open on Fridays, or will it behoove us in fact to have our
accidents and all our X‑rays and all our problems Monday to
Thursday? What kinds of basic services
are going to be denied to Manitobans as a result of this bill?
One would have expected that a government
which had a plan, which had put some thought into this, would have been able to
come forward with the answers to those questions, that they would have been
able to reassure Manitobans that their basic services and those which are so
important to them in health care and education and throughout the public
service would be maintained, but there is no plan. They are scrambling now as we speak to decide
on who is going to take the four‑day week and who is not.
There is no sense of being able to
reassure Manitobans that those provincial labs, those X‑ray services,
those rural medical services will be available when people need them‑‑a
thoughtless and arrogant government with no plan, just simply a broad broom
that hits out at those who are most easily vulnerable.
The impact on services, Madam Deputy
Speaker, as it always does, will fall most heavily on the poor. The wealthy can purchase alternative
services, but the poor cannot. The poor
are the people who depend most upon the public service in all areas, whether it
is in family service, in medicare, in personal care homes or in daycare or in
other areas of the child care services of
Their crises that they find themselves in
are going to have to be dealt with Monday to Thursday, not on Friday, not on
the long weekend, not on this great vacation that the government of Manitoba
claims it is providing to its public servants, but what it is doing is denying
to the people of Manitoba the basic services which they have paid for in their
taxes and which, in many cases, the poorest of them all depend upon in some
cases for their social survival.
Let us have a look, Madam Deputy Speaker,
at the effect of this bill in the context of the wider Tory policies, because
this is not just an isolated bill. It is
one bill and one policy among many policies.
Let us look at the loss of 10 to 15 days
of wages upon that low‑ and middle‑income family, that same family
which may or may not have lost its baby bonus, whose unemployment insurance has
been cut, who finds that their daycare costs have increased in some cases by
140 percent as a result of the actions of this Manitoba government, and yet
who, even though they must take the 10‑day or 15‑day cut for two
years, must still pay those daycare costs in order to keep those places that
will enable them to return to work once their forced leave or their lockout is
over. Those are people who are facing very severe difficulties. In some cases, it is the difference between
making their rental payment or their mortgage payment and not paying and not
making it.
I wonder if this government talked to
anybody before they implemented this bill.
Did they consult with any of their workers, the people whom they meet in
the daily conduct of their lives as ministers?
Did they have any sense of the impact of taking away 10 to 15 days of
labour, of wages from the secretary who serves in their office, the $18,000 to
$20,000 clerk? Did they have any sense
of what the impact of that is upon that single mother or upon that family of
lower and middle income? I cannot
believe that they have done that. It is
thoughtless. It is an unplanned bill. It is simply a lashing out at the people who
are the most defenseless, choosing a section of our population to bear the
burden of the Tory economic mismanagement of this economy and the Canadian
economy.
*
(1640)
It seems to me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that
this is overall a very lazy government with only one idea, and that is to cut,
no sense of trying to find ways of protecting the weakest, protecting the
poorest people in our province from further hardship, no sense perhaps that
they might have introduced a threshold below which there would have been no
cuts.
Where is the sense of any compassion in
this government? It is arrogant, thoughtless
and turning the burden of its own mismanagement onto those who are the most
poor, the most weak in our society.
Those people on low incomes, those people in care, those people in
crisis are the ones who will bear the continuing burden for two years of this
Tory policy.
I want to speak a little bit about the
impact of this bill as well upon Manitobans' sense of fairness because, here
again, I think we are looking at a choice that the government has made.
There is the
This government has made its choice along
the path of confrontation, of opposition, of choosing without compassion to put
the burdens of their mismanagement on the poorest people in our community.
This bill has many elements of unfairness. It gives on one level an autocratic power to
the employer that has not been there before.
It empowers employers throughout
Look at the City of
It was not a sense of failed negotiation;
this was no negotiation. This was a
government which had no intention of negotiating with its own employees. Yet the City of
If we look at other jurisdictions facing
in some cases more severe problems than we are and in some cases different
problems, we can also see governments which have chosen to negotiate.
In
It was not an easy path. In fact, at times it was very difficult, but
they were successful. They did
negotiate. They went to their employees
and said, there are difficulties and let us negotiate over a series of
years. Nothing like that from this
government because it is at base an arrogant and thoughtless and ideological
government who is choosing very deliberately the path of confrontation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is enabling
legislation, and not all employers will use it.
In so doing, by offloading essentially the role of government to the
employers across the province, what is happening here is in effect the
government is opening the way to unequal use of this particular legislation.
I have already mentioned the way in which
this may well be applied in school boards and in school districts across the
province. Those who have trustees
committed to collective bargaining or who have greater financial resources in
their division will, in fact, have a different kind of education system for
their people.
What we see here, Madam Deputy Speaker, is
a flat percentage reduction. Leave days
are to be imposed without any consideration for existing wages. The $20,000 employee will have to take the
same number of days as a $70,000 employee in many cases. It is particularly hard on health care workers
who have already had their number of hours reduced, many of them to part time
and less. On top of that very real
reduction in wages, they are now being asked to take another hit, another
callous deduction with very little recourse, and certainly no recourse of
speaking to government or negotiating with them.
The right to negotiate a contract, the
right to negotiate hours of work, the right to seniority are all union rights
which have not been won without a struggle, and for each of those rights throughout
the history of
I cannot believe that those workers, many
of them now retired, will find that this is a fair piece of legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I also want to talk
about the question of trust of the Filmon government. Here is government which proclaimed that it
would not raise taxes, and it has broken that promise, and every Manitoban,
whatever condition they are in knows that that promise has been broken.
Who, anymore, trusts this Filmon
government? What is their word
worth? This is a government who signs a
contract and claws it back. This is a
government which proclaims out of one side of its mouth that it believes in the
principle of collective bargaining, and on the other side of its mouth simply
without discussion, without consultation, in the most arrogant manner possible,
simply eliminates the possibilities of collective bargaining for large elements
of the public sector for two years.
* (1650)
The question of trust of governments, I
think, is an important one. One of the
most important things I think that Tommy Douglas ever did, and he said it was
one of his proudest accomplishments, was to say when he left provincial
politics that he had been able to say that the people of Saskatchewan believed
that the government was on their side.
What this Tory government and the Mulroney government in
No public sector worker, no worker in the
health care, nobody who works in the hospitals of
I think that absence of consultation is
another element of that putting aside the question of trust of
governments. People must believe that
they can talk to their governments, that they can consult and that they can
negotiate, and that is something which this government has put on one
side. It is not a short‑term issue. That is a long‑term issue in the
relationships between the people and their representatives.
The attack on the collective bargaining
environment, I think, does not send a responsible message from government to
the partners in the
The government should be very, very
careful in proceeding with it, because the long‑term consequences, I
think, are very, very dangerous. We should
look I think too at the economic impact on
We already have a high rate of
unemployment, and we have a higher rate, in fact, if we look at the youth
unemployment or if we include the people who have stopped looking for
work. What we are doing now is adding an
increasing‑‑and a very large number‑‑of unproductive
hours to our economy. What will be the
impact on lost wages to small towns? I
know that many of my colleagues will speak to this, but I think those people
who live in communities where there is a considerable proportion of public
sector workers, Brandon, for example, Selkirk or The Pas‑‑think
very carefully about this bill, because what you are doing is taking out a good
chunk of disposable income out of that community, and we are already in a
situation in Manitoba where we have amongst the lowest proportion of disposable
income anywhere in Canada.
So small businessmen in those communities
should look very carefully at this bill.
When they look at their balance books at the end of the year or at the
end of two years, I think they should also look at the proportion of their
losses which will be directly attributable to the loss of wages of these public‑sector
workers.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Has the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
looked at what the impact of this bill will be on the Treasury in the lost
taxes to the
What we do see is a government which is
intent upon confrontation, not upon a path of co‑operation which has been
open to it and which it could have chosen.
It has chosen the language of division.
It has chosen to use the language of division. It has chosen to diminish the trust of the
people in their government, and it has chosen to create a political climate
which is very different from a climate of co‑operation, of economic
security which I believe Manitobans need now.
They have chosen, finally, Mr. Speaker, to
diminish the public service. This is truly
a stand‑aside government which in incremental ways is choosing
deliberately to undermine the public sector and the public sector worker. It is here, too, that Manitobans I think will
feel the impact, because as I have said before, these Tories are going to hit
you twice. First of all, when you lose
your job, when they take away 10 or 15 days work from you, and then when you
turn to the public sector‑‑the daycare services, the health care
services, to public transport, to libraries, to cultural institutions. When you turn to those areas of the public
sector, you will find that those have been diminished too. So those people on low and middle incomes in
That I believe is part of the government's
agenda. It is a concerted ideological
attack upon the public sector. It is
what the Tories call‑‑and I have heard them say it in this House,
the public sector is the public trough.
That is exactly what they think of medicare, of libraries, of cultural
institutions, of public transport, of all of the recreational facilities which
this community has built up over the last two or three generations. They are in economic terms the social wage,
which levels the playing field, particularly in health and education.
Many of those public services were built
by activity outside of legislatures, by Manitobans who saw the provision of
social services, equality of access to good health and good education and the
right to bargain collectively and to exert some control over your conditions of
work. They saw this as one progressive
package.
It is clear to me that the Tories see it
as one package too. The reduction of public service, the decline in equality
and the attack on labour are parts of a package which attempt to bring us to
the standards of
Mr. Speaker, we will continue, with the
exception of the clause reducing the salaries of MLAs in this Legislature, to
oppose this bill.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
The member for Wolseley has very
eloquently outlined the concerns of our caucus and our party and, I might add,
the concerns of the people of
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) in
his comments on the budget address spoke about the fact that these were
difficult times, these were tough times, that all Manitobans have to share in
the pain equally.
Well, we agree. These are tough times; these are difficult
times; these are Tory times. Tory times
definitely are tough times and I think that that phrase, I am afraid to say,
has as much credence today as it did when it was first stated in this province.
There are many problems with Bill 22. One of the underlying issues is the whole
concept of fairness, the concept of equality, the concept that all Manitobans
do have an equal share in the rights and the responsibilities of being citizens
of this province.
* (1700)
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please. When this matter is again before
the House, the honourable member for
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., it is time for Private
Members' Business.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 22‑‑Aerospace Training Initiative
Mr. Brian Pallister (
WHEREAS
WHEREAS new entry level courses at Red
River Community College will be developed specific to the aerospace industry
occupational needs in skill shortage areas; and
WHEREAS these educational initiatives will
allow Manitobans greater access to skill training specific to the aerospace
industry, helping curtail possible skill shortages; and
WHEREAS the province of Manitoba, through
the Department of Education and the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism,
along with the federal government and the aerospace industry have joined
together in a creative approach to utilizing the Portage la Prairie base in an
industry‑driven program.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba support this educational partnership between
industry and government to address the skill shortage situation in the
aerospace industry.
Motion presented.
Mr. Pallister: Mr. Speaker, I thank
the honourable members.
In April 1991, a $6‑million initiative
between the
The provincial government's contribution
to this initiative includes three components:
first of all, the provision of $2 million over five years to the
industry‑wide human resource planning component of the Workforce 2000
program; secondly, the relocation of the Stevenson Aviation Technical Training
Centre to my home town, Portage la Prairie, in support of the development of an
aerospace training centre at Canadian Forces Base Portage; thirdly, the
introduction of new and expanded aerospace specific programs at Red River
Community College, specifically aerospace repair and technology, composite and
aircraft materials, post‑diploma aerospace technology, computer numerical
control machinery in avionics technology‑‑a forward‑looking
move, I might add, Mr. Speaker.
The Manitoba Aerospace Human Resource Co‑ordinating
Committee made up of provincial, federal and aerospace industry participants
representing the three parties to this initiative has been formed to identify
the long‑range training needs of
Stevenson Aviation Technical Training
Centre provides specific technical and apprenticeship training to 130
individuals annually who are employed within the aviation industry. There continues to be a national skill
shortage within the air maintenance engineer field. SATTC responds by providing a match between
present and future labour market needs.
The program also develops and updates new training courses in order to
meet the change in skill requirements of the labour market. Through its decentralization to the Southport
Aerospace Centre, Mr. Speaker, in
An Honourable Member: And
where is this again?
Mr. Pallister: This is
If I may, Mr. Speaker, at this time, I
think it would be appropriate to comment a wee bit on
Aerospace, Mr. Speaker, is not new to
Some recent examples of other initiatives
in my community that have come about as a result of these partnerships has been
the waste water treatment plant upgrading, which has come about through a
partnership with the provincial and federal governments, with the city and also
with the private sector; CalWest Textiles, as well, which involves a close‑working
team approach involving the province, the federal government, the city, and of
course the key component to this, the people at CalWest Textiles.
Over a quarter of a billion dollars worth
of opportunity has been created in
An Honourable Member: Good
community.
Mr. Pallister: Yes, it is.
These opportunities have redefined the
outlook that
I think it is fair to note, Mr. Speaker,
that the provincial government has been a key and full partner in this whole
process.
Now the activities at
The community has been extremely
successful due to a number of basic resources that we have been able to co‑ordinate
and I believe begin to market. Late in
1991, CKND, the flagship of the global television network, recognized
The community of 20,000, including the
rural municipality, for the benefit of some of my urban members who may not be
aware, is about 70 kilometres west of the city of
Certainly our central location in
Our experienced and our available
workforce has been utilized to some degree certainly by all the major employers
in Portage la Prairie, such as McCain Foods, Woodstone Foods, Portage
Manufacturing, WMC Industries, Can‑Oat Milling and Westward
Enterprises. It is fair to note that
there is a high degree of employee loyalty, and I think that is at least in
part due to the fact that Portage la Prairie has such a fine, fine standard of
life, a quality of life that it offers its employees, and they wish to retain
their positions of employment in my community and justifiably so.
* (1710)
Certainly, the cost of living in
I guess it is fair to say as well, and I
will make this comment in closing, in terms of the attributes in Portage la
Prairie, that coming from a fourth‑generation family farm, I feel it is
an honest observation that Portage la Prairie is blessed with the richest
diversified agricultural economic presence perhaps in western Canada.
Overall Portage la Prairie's development
has been, certainly in recent months and I expect will continue to be, very
dynamic, very exciting for all the people who choose to make their home in that
region, I am sure for all the people of Manitoba, certainly not just those in
rural Manitoba.
An Honourable Member: They
have a jolly good MLA as well.
Mr. Pallister: I would like
to think so. Like any industry, Mr.
Speaker, aerospace is not a recessionproof industry, and when this is combined
with the downsizing in the military throughout
As we move into the second half of this
decade, I see a great deal of potential certainly for the aerospace training
facility in my own community and for other like facilities elsewhere in this
province and country.
If accurate, these studies suggest that
the shortages will arise from a number of factors such as the increasing age of
the existing trained workforce, the changing technology and the future
increased industry demands. Furthermore,
industry in past years has often attracted personnel from the military, and
there will be less to choose from down the road. I believe that there is reason for good
optimism on that front, Mr. Speaker.
At the Southport Centre, under the
direction of Bombardier's Canadian aviation training program, we have the
privatized military flight training of the Slingsby [phonetic] aircraft for
beginner pilots. We have the Kingair
[phonetic] multiengine and Bell helicopter programs, and expansion could see
these programs extended to include foreign military operations as well.
I would like to, just make a couple of
quick comments on the Southport Aerospace Centre itself. The Southport Aerospace Centre was given the
responsibility of being self‑sufficient in five years. In their first year, I am pleased to tell the
House that they are well ahead of schedule.
In fact, currently they have 57 percent of their leasable space leased
out. That is cause for real
congratulations to those people and, certainly, optimism in the province and in
my community.
The province has recognized
Through the aerospace training initiative,
The aerospace training initiative funding
program is a vital part of the future development of my region, certainly, of
this province, and has been recognized as such by being included in one of the
six major economic thrusts of the province's economic development
strategy. I believe that the success
that we will see at Southport Aerospace Centre in coming years is going to be a
very great boon to our community. I
encourage Southport Aerospace in their efforts and thank them for their
efforts.
Certainly I see our community benefiting
in a number of other areas, but it has been my pleasure to focus on the efforts
in this regard today.
At this time, I also would like to go on
the record as thanking all the members of this House for their support in the
recent loss of my father. It touched me,
and I thank all the members for their expressions of sympathy and
condolence. It is very much appreciated.
Thank you.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
The member for
As a matter of fact I am a bit surprised
that the member for Portage is actually putting them on the record because
these are exactly the kinds of ideas and principles that we on this side of the
House believe in and worked with while we were in government, and have been
urging this government to implement in its deliberations in these difficult
economic times. They are ideas that this
government has chosen not to abide by in the vast majority of instances where
it could have dealt with situations co‑operatively and in
partnership. In our earlier discussion
this afternoon, and in our continuing discussion on the government's Bill 16,
those kinds of elements of co‑operation and partnership are sorely
lacking.
We do not take anything away from what is
happening in the town of
I think the parallels are startling: A community that has had economic troubles; a
community that has relied heavily on transportation; a community that has the
local resources, the local community acceptance and the location to be able to
be revitalized through a partnership with government and industry and the
community. One distinction, the
community of Churchill is located in the northern part of this province, and
the community of
The community of Churchill gets no support
from this government in its work towards the revitalization of the Churchill
rocket range and the revitalization of the bayline and the
I think it is also very interesting that
this provincial government has shown, through the activities that it has
undertaken with the aerospace industry, with Red River and with the community
of
I think we on this side of the House were
beginning to feel that that was an impossibility, and it is a virtual
impossibility, because it is not happening in any other area of this
province. In virtually every other area
of the province, in virtually every other discussion and dialogue that this
government attempts to undertake with groups in this province, there is no co‑operation,
there is no sense of community, there is no sense of partnership.
* (1720)
It is interesting because, when the
government chooses to do so, it can act in a very responsible manner.
The member for Portage (Mr. Pallister)
talks about the fact, and it is a real fact, a fact that is having an impact
throughout the developed countries, the impact of "peace breaking
out" several years ago with the reduction in hostilities among the
superpowers and the increasing recognition on the parts of governments that the
major emphasis and funding that went into the defence industry is no longer
necessary.
There are examples throughout North
America and certainly in the Western European countries of the dislocations
that are taking place by governments attempting to decrease their spending on
military hardware, armaments, expenditures, research and development of all
sorts, the problems that that is having on communities and large parts of
countries that have relied so heavily on that defence spending for the last 45
years.
The member for
Again, one parallel with the
The
Mr. Speaker, as well, the member, in his
actual resolution, talks about new, entry level courses at Red River Community
College to respond to skill shortage areas.
When this resolution was put into the private member's resolution order
I believe it was last November, I cannot believe that the members who placed
this resolution in the hopper for discussion had any concept of what the
Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) and that very government has done to Red
River Community College, has done to those same skill‑shortage areas that
the member for Portage (Mr. Pallister) is talking about. The government taketh on the one hand and
giveth with the other.
Again, the Minister of Education has
eliminated completely the prejob training courses that allowed people to go to
When we have 30 percent of our high school
students not graduating, even though the Minister of Education refuses to
accept that Statistics Canada statistic, we on this side of the House know that
it is upwards of one‑third of the students who matriculate do not
graduate for a number of reasons. They
are missing some of the basic skills they need in order to access this highly
technological and highly changing job market today in
These courses at
We need a skilled work force that can
participate in those changes. This
government says they want to make us competitive. If we are going to be able to
compete in the marketplace in the 21st Century, we have to be able to have
education systems that will allow us to provide the training for our young
people to be able to access those jobs.
Training not only for our young people but
for people who have been dispossessed by the restructuring, the downsizing, the
rightsizing, the massive layoffs that have occurred in our society. Eliminating telecommunications courses from
the
They have completely eliminated the
nontraditional courses that were open for women. This is one of the ones that makes me the
angriest. Talk about women's equality. Talk about the need to make sure that there
is access. The Minister responsible for
the Status of Women (Mrs. Mitchelson) is talking all the time about the need to
make access broader for young women today.
She talks in terms of access to maths and sciences, but at the same time
she participates as a member of cabinet with decisions that are made to
eliminate every single course at
Courses such as baking have been
eliminated from
So, Mr. Speaker, the idea that this
resolution applauds the government for its work in skills shortage areas would
be laughable if it were not so sad. This
government has choices to make. All
governments have choices to make; by definition that is what governments
do. They are either more active or more
passive in making those choices, but every decision or nondecision of a
government has implications for the people, and the implications for the people
in this province for the government's decisions in some cases, like in the case
with the
In other cases, the very similar
situation, the government has chosen not to act, not to participate. The impact of that lack of decision is going
to be devastating for the people of Churchill and northern Manitoba and, by
extension, one could say the people of Manitoba entirely because, without the
Churchill rocket range, without some co‑operative moves with the various
components, the various levels of government in the community, the Churchill
bayline will be eliminated, and the Port of Churchill will be left to wither on
the vine.
One can only assume that perhaps this is
not an error of omission on the part of this government but an active error of
commission.
So, Mr. Speaker, in closing, while we
applaud the co‑operative work of this government in the work with Portage
to help revitalize its aerospace industry and bring much needed economic
development to that community, we still say that the government has made many,
many choices in other areas that have had a devastating effect and will
continue to have a devastating effect and wish that they would be a little more
evenhanded in their decision making.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): I am delighted to rise on this particular
aerospace training initiative, a recognition of a positive move on the part of
the government in the
Those of us who sat in the House, when we
heard the devastating announcement of the closure of the base in Portage la
Prairie, where all three parties worked together to protest with the federal
government about a closure which was disproportionate in relation to the
closure of bases in other provinces, we were experiencing a cutback in the
support provided to Manitoba in terms of the military budget of the federal
government.
All of us would like to, I think, see the
elimination of a military budget if it was possible to so do. I mean, if we could never have a war anywhere
in the world and there was never a necessity for spending money on armaments
and on troops, I think all of us would be quite delighted.
Unfortunately, that is a long way from
today, and we all have to regret that the world, rather than moving towards
more peaceful solutions, seemed to be moving quite often in major
confrontations, perhaps not of a worldwide nature as we experienced with World
War I and World War II, but certainly at a local area.
* (1730) One
only has to watch prime time news or any other news broadcast and to watch what
is happening in today's Yugoslavia and the questions that are being asked on a
daily basis about whether the western world should participate in some way to
prevent the annihilation of people within that community and to recognize that
the military presence is very much going to be with us.
So if the federal government was going to
downsize in terms of military bases across the country, and if they had done that
equally for every province, then Manitobans, I think, would have been prepared
to accept our fair share.
(Mr. Jack Penner, Acting
Speaker, in the Chair)
What we saw with the closure of the
But what we saw within the community of
Portage, as we saw to some degree, by the way, in the community of Summerside
in Prince Edward Island, was a group of people working together who said, look,
we have really been hit, and we have been hit unfairly, but we are going to do
what we can to try and rebuild a community. We are going to try and maintain
some viability within that community, and we are going to look at new ways of
doing things with the facilities that are already in place.
Because of actions taken by the federal
government, much less in the way of funding, I might say, than what had been
formerly going into the base, they did respond.
The fact is that they recognized, after a great deal of persuasion on
the part of the people from Portage la Prairie that they had better do
something, they did respond with some monies towards the development of the
training initiative.
I congratulate this government for also
putting its dollars into a new training initiative with respect to
aerospace. My only difficulty is that I
do not see a consistent policy with regard to the training that is going to be
necessary.
I know that there is a training initiative
going on in the community, but I still know that if you want to be trained in
aeronautical engineering of any kind in the
(Mr. Speaker in the
Chair)
So we have young people who would like to
stay here, who would like to eventually be able to participate in this kind of
aerospace development, who cannot do it because the training opportunities and
initiatives are simply not here for them.
That has been the tragedy, that you have
not carried it as a government all the way through and that young people who
would come in at some of the upper levels in this training initiative are
simply not going to be able to do so because the training opportunities are not
here.
As I have said so often in the past,
unfortunately, when our young people choose to leave the province to seek
training opportunities elsewhere, whether it is for speech therapy because we
do not offer speech therapy in the province or whether it is for an educational
experience that they think is richer in whatever dynamic that may be, they
frequently do not return.
That is one of the implications of not
having the kind of training system in place in Manitoba that will encourage
young people to not only obtain their training in Manitoba, but to remain in
the province thereafter.
We know, for example, that every Canadian,
including young people, has mobility rights and that many of them, no matter
what we put in place in the
We cannot, obviously, provide for all of
these young people, but there are some initiatives and some skills training
that we must provide in the
We know that we are becoming less and less
dependent upon our agriculture sector.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) knows that in terms of new
employment opportunities for young people, if one compares statistics of the
number of Manitobans on farms 20 years ago and compares it with today, we know
we have to find different forms of jobs for those people in alternative sectors
of the economy.
We know that manufacturing is down in
There is one area, however, in which we do
note a rise. That is in high‑tech
industries. The high technologies,
whether they be computers, whether they be in areas like aeronautical
engineering, whether they be in areas of careers which require the use of a
high degree of computation abilities, those occupations seem to be growing in
increasing numbers. They are primarily
service because they do not produce a product, but they are not the service
jobs that we have seen in the past that are the so‑called McDonald's
jobs. They are jobs in which an
individual, in order to provide that service, has to have an extremely high
level of training.
That has to be where we focus the new
initiatives in our community colleges and in our universities, so that those
high level skills can be easily acquired by our young people in our educational
institutions. That will then make us a
province in which we can appeal to potential employers because we have a broad
base of skilled employees. [interjection]
The Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst)
said that we are not competitive. Well,
that is in fact not true.
One only has to look at the bargains
available in real estate throughout
So we are able to sell a lifestyle. I think that we have not promoted it
adequately enough, but we also have to sell the fact that we have a well‑trained,
educated population. It is always tragic
to me when I pick up the statistics and read that
Part of the reason we do that is because
of the number of spaces in our community colleges, which is well below the
number of spaces available per capita even in
That is a legacy that we must seek to
change. We must look at these new
technologies. We must make those two
technologies available to our young people so they will be able to remain at
home, so that they can continue their education, and that they can then remain
in the province to contribute to the very necessary tax base which any province
requires in order to be successful.
So this particular initiative on the part
of the government should not in any way, shape or form be condemned. It should be applauded. It is a positive initiative. It is going to provide young people with some
training. It is going to provide people
in
Well, the other shoe is not going to
drop. The member for
There are many other initiatives of a
similar nature which are required at the community college level that are
required on hands with business and with the other level of government which is
going to be necessary if we are going to turn this province around and have it
as a viable community for employers to come here so that they will have the
kinds of employees that they require.
As this is one initiative in what I had
hoped was going to be a number of initiatives‑‑but it seems to have
come to a bit of a stop‑‑I have no difficulty in supporting this
particular resolution that has been submitted by the member for Portage la
Prairie (Mr. Pallister). I would ask him
to take back the good wishes of the Liberal Party to
* (1740)
I have met with people at the base in
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
The member for
There was the closing down of the military
base in
I
have some concerns about when there are a lot of different areas that you need
training in, that we would be cutting down on the amount of training that we
are doing at our community colleges and not meeting those specific needs
there. We should be looking at enhancing
those training areas as well. I am sure,
as the member for
I can respect the member for Portage (Mr.
Pallister) for fighting for his community and praising the government for
addressing those concerns, but there is a much broader issue that has to be
addressed and that is how we are reducing the opportunities for all people to
get their education and get the skills that they need, for we are getting into
a much more technical age.
There is a higher level of skill that is
needed to take up the jobs in this workforce and those courses should be
available in colleges, and we are having a cutback there.
The member talked about decentralization
and the steps his government had taken in decentralization. We have said that we support
decentralization, but decentralization should be based on areas of the province
where the services are needed but also where there is high unemployment. Although this initiative addresses the
unemployment in Portage la Prairie, there are areas in this province where we
have much, much higher unemployment, and that should be addressed by this
government, but it is not happening, Mr. Speaker. We are not seeing any leadership from this
government on job creation in rural
If we believe in the rural community, and
I often hear the words from this government that they do believe in rural
I think not only about rural
There has been a tremendous lobby by a
large number of people, a lot of hard work that was done by the people in
Churchill to show the value of this facility.
In fact, at last year's municipal convention, there were resolutions
passed supporting the
I was quite surprised to see the amount of
support that was there, particularly coming from reeves and councillors in
southern
Although this resolution addresses the
concerns of the community of Portage, and I recognize the concerns that the
member for Portage (Mr. Pallister) brings for his community to this
Legislature, I am disappointed that when there was a resolution dealing with
another area, and that being the Churchill Rocket Range, the government members
chose to just amend that resolution, that it was a self‑serving
resolution but did nothing to address the needs of those people in that community. It is disappointing.
An Honourable Member: Two
wrongs do not make a right.
Ms. Wowchuk: The member
across the way says two wrongs do not make a right. I want to assure him that we have absolutely
no intention of amending his resolution and that I am sure it will pass. But it gives us an opportunity to raise our
concerns, and in particular, for me, I feel that I must raise the concerns of
other communities in rural
We have to have economic development
throughout this province. We have to
give all people in rural Manitoba the ability to live in their communities, to
give them the opportunities for jobs in their communities, for business to get
started in those communities and to work co‑operatively with them, not
only in one area of the province.
Mr. Speaker, when the member spoke on his
resolution, he talked about co‑operation and working together and getting
the people the skills that they need to meet the needs of the workplace. That is something that has to be addressed. There are changing needs in this world. Jobs have changed. There is a need to educate people and train
people with different skills. One of the places is the base at
In fact, we see a much more
confrontational attitude and agenda approached by this government rather than
working along with the labour force, with the working people, and preparing
them and offering them opportunities to upgrade their skills and work for the
betterment of this province.
* (1750)
We see a more confrontational attitude
being taken by this government, and that is not good. That is not good for the economic growth of
this province, and it is not good for working relationships between government
and the people, and it is not healthy for economic growth.
The member outlined, talked about his
community, and the many opportunities that are there for economic growth. The people of
They have some of the infrastructures that
many other communities would like to have.
I think particularly of my part of the province in the
I would hope as the government recognizes
the needs of the community of Portage and other areas like that, that they
would also recognize that they have the responsibility to offer those
opportunities in other parts of the province, the opportunity to get an
education closer to home. Because when
you look at the North, again I speak about the Swan River constituency, it is
very difficult under the economic times that we have right now for people to go
to the city to the south to get an education.
So
the government has a responsibility to also look at that part of the province
so that people can have the opportunity to get the skills that they also need
to upgrade their education, so then they can also meet the needs and take their
fair place in the workforce.
We have to look at how we can offer that
in the fairest way, the most economical way that all people can have the
opportunities. We have to look at how we
can have economic development in other parts of the province.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to the
community of Churchill, where this community would like to have some growth. I
think that the government should look at what the impacts will be if they do
not take the initiative, do not offer that community support. If they are not prepared to invest in the
northern community and get some jobs there, develop and reactivate the
Churchill rocket range, there will be negative impacts throughout the North.
We are very worried about what is going to
happen with the railway lines, particularly the line to Churchill. If there is not some economic development
there, we are going to see an excuse there to close down that line, and what
will be impacts of that? There are many
communities along the way that are going to suffer, that have no access, so it
all ties in with what happens to the port and what happens to the rocket range.
I can appreciate that the member is
enthusiastic about the economic development and the aerospace industry in his
community. I would encourage him as a
rural member to look at the other communities and speak to his colleagues and
encourage them to look at other parts of rural
I would encourage the government to look
at ways we can get those opportunities into all of our communities. Granted not every town is going to have an
industry build up, not every town is going to have opportunities for people to
have their training right there, but we have to look at how we can expand this
and how we can have the training in other areas as well.
There are other impacts as well that
affect the community and in the community of
Mr. Speaker, as I say, the community of
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member's time has
expired.
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk):
It is a pleasure to follow the thoughtful comments of the member for
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please. I would remind the honourable
member for Selkirk that what is before the House at this point in time is the
resolution about the aerospace industry.
The member for Selkirk, keep his remarks relevant.
Point of Order
Mr. Pallister: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say
that I strongly object to the member for Selkirk attacking me personally and
attacking this government and the vast projects‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member does not
have a point of order. It is clearly a
dispute over the facts.
Mr. Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I
was not attacking the member for
Point of Order
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting
Government House Leader: Mr. Speaker, on a
point of order, the member for Selkirk made a personal attack upon the member
for
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable minister does not
have a point of order. It is clearly a
dispute over the facts. The honourable member for Selkirk, carry on with his
remarks, please.
*
* *
Mr. Dewar: Again, Mr.
Speaker, I was not attacking the member for
Mr. Speaker: The aerospace
industry, please.
Mr. Dewar: The point I am
trying to raise is that the specific resolution before us deals with aerospace
and training in rural
Not only that, again speaking about
training opportunities in rural
Mr. Speaker: Order,
please. When this matter is again before
the House, the honourable member for Selkirk will have 12 minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House now
adjourns and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Thursday).