LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Friday, June 17, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND
TABLING OF REPORTS
Manitoba Builder Bonds Series II
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I have
a ministerial statement for the House.
On April 25 of this year, I announced that due to the
enormous success of the initial offering of Manitoba Builder Bonds and the
continued desire of Manitobans to invest in their province, the second issue of
Manitoba Builder Bonds would go on sale May 24.
It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to
announce that over 16,000 Manitobans have purchased in excess of $300 million
of Builder Bonds Series II.
The combination of HydroBonds and Builder Bonds has now
generated in excess of $230 million in interest for Manitobans. Proceeds from the sale will provide a local
source of funds and go to work right here in Manitoba and will help the
province to create new jobs in a variety of capital and provincial projects.
I would like to extend my thanks to the people of Manitoba
who have shown pride and confidence in their province by investing in Manitoba
Builder Bonds. Thank you.
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): I thank the Minister of Finance for that good‑news
statement. It is certainly good to hear
that Manitobans are prepared to buy the Builder Bonds, and as the minister
inferred, the interest payments on those bonds go to Manitobans and hopefully
are retained within the province, as opposed to interest payments paid to
foreigners or people out of the province.
To that extent, the idea is good, and I am pleased that
Manitobans have seen fit to invest in them.
We do have concerns that there is not sufficient capital investment in
this province. The forecast by Stats
Canada of capital investment for this year is that there will be virtually no
growth, and that is bad news. That
should concern all of us.
There are other signs that our economy is not as active as
it should be. We are not getting the
growth that we should. Hopefully, these
particular Builder Bonds and the revenue from them will assist in government
financing. We certainly are pleased with
those Manitobans who were prepared to buy those bonds. We are very satisfied, but we would like to
see a little bit more action on the economic front. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I have
spent a lot of time in this House, as have members of my party, talking about
the retention of capital within this province‑‑our own investment
dollars. Therefore, it does give me
great pleasure to acknowledge and recognize that the HydroBond and now the
Builder Bond program is obviously a very, very good idea. I am very pleased to see that it is successful.
My predecessor as Finance critic, Mr. Alcock, recognized
that when these issues first came out, Mr. Speaker, and we continue to feel
that way. I do, however, want to leave
on the record that in new investment dollars in this province, there are
approximately $640 million invested in new investment dollars through pension
funds, through RSP funds, and we are still retaining a very small portion of
those over the long haul. Every year, we
see that drain of capital. This is an
important start. It should be seen just
as that, however‑‑a start.
There is a need to continually be proactive and creative in retaining
those investment dollars for our own people.
I am interested in the Finance minister's comments that
these funds will help the province to create new jobs. One hopes that will occur. It certainly has not occurred yet, but the
retention of capital is a start. I think
we are all looking forward now to any indication that those funds would be put
to use by this government to, in fact, create jobs. It has not happened yet, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): I am pleased today to table the 1994‑95
Capital Program for the Department of Health.
* (1005)
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 26‑‑An Act to amend An
Act to Protect the Health of Non‑Smokers (2)
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), that leave be given to introduce Bill
26, An Act to amend An Act to Protect the Health of Non‑Smokers (2) (Loi
no 2 modifiant la Loi sur la protection de la santé des non‑fumeurs), and
that the same be now received and read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention
of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this morning from
the Sir William Osler School 45 English Language students under the direction
of Ms. Elaine Dale. This school is
located in the constituency of the honourable member for River Heights (Mrs.
Carstairs).
On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to
welcome you here this morning.
* (1010)
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Health Care System
Disease Control
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier.
Daily in this House and over the last couple of years, we
have been asking questions about the government's cutbacks in the Department of
Health, and the government has repeatedly said that they are allegedly putting
resources into the community for disease prevention and for early detection of
disease.
Today, unfortunately, and yesterday, unfortunately, we
learned through testimony at a public inquiry dealing with the blood supply
that senior health consultants and former senior Assistant Deputy Ministers of
Health have given testimony that early intervention programs have been gutted
by this provincial government, preventative programs have been reduced by this
provincial government and that we have been placed at risk by the reductions in
services by the provincial government.
I would like to ask the Premier, why has he allowed the
situation to deteriorate in this province of Manitoba in terms of overall
health, and as the testimony suggests, why has he weakened our ability to fight
and respond to communicable diseases in Manitoba at the earliest possible
point?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we see it as our duty to be as
prepared as we can for whatever kinds of epidemic situations might present in
the future, as governments have tried to do in the past. In spite of that, there have been medical
problems that have developed in the past, although I can say to the honourable
member the recent meningitis vaccination program I think by all accounts has
been run very well in conjunction with the federal, provincial and aboriginal
leadership in this province.
We certainly take seriously any comments made in this vein
in front of a public inquiry. We, of course,
await like everybody else the recommendations and outcomes that will flow from
the Krever inquiry. I think in light of
the history of the HIV infection, there is nobody in this country who should
claim to be ready as we would like to be ready.
So, Mr. Speaker, we will pay close attention to the
comments that have been made and have a look at our prevention programs and our
immunization and our disease control programs and monitor them carefully, as we
have been doing all along.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the testimony goes on to say in
terms of Manitoba labs‑‑and we have asked the question about labs
on four or five occasions. We have
tabled the Hammond report. We have
tabled the Bass report. We have talked
about the Anderson consulting report.
The testimony goes on to say that spending cuts by the
provincial government and provincial laboratories strip our provincial
laboratories of basic tools of surveillance and testing that serve as a front‑line
defence against epidemic. We have raised
this question in the Chamber before to the government. We have quoted the reports that have talked
about the skimming that is going on in provincial labs in terms of the rural
lab situation, or its creaming, I might say, specifically in the report, the
Bass report.
Mr. Speaker, at the same time that we have been raising the
question of labs and early defence and prevention, the government has cut
positions. In this year's budget alone,
they cut 11 positions dealing with the screening of population groups for
various indicators of health disease, specifically cholesterol and HIV.
I would like to know, how can the government square its
policy of massive cutbacks in our institutions with nurses being laid off and
at the same time, cut back community preventative resources to deal in our
provincial labs with detection of diseases?
* (1015)
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the honourable
member that never before in the history of health delivery in Manitoba has
there been so much consultation and work being done and networking and
integrating of services than presently.
I am afraid that what the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues
keep recommending day after day is a further gutting of the health care system
in Manitoba which we will not tolerate.
The honourable Leader of the Opposition has made it clear
that he is happy to defend the health care policies of the Province of
Ontario. He has said that. Each day that he raises questions, I attempt
to engage him in debate on issues in Ontario, and he refuses to take part, yet
he says he is proud and happy to do so.
He is proud and happy to defend the closure of 52 hospitals in
Saskatchewan, proud and happy to defend the closure of 5,000 hospital beds in
Ontario, and then he and his colleague for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) have the
nerve to stand in this House and be critical of the meaningful change that is
going on in Manitoba to place the appropriate emphasis on prevention and
promotion and community care.
You cannot come from all directions at once, Mr. Speaker,
and be believed.
Mr. Doer: That is the most pathetic answer I have ever
heard in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker. You
have‑‑
An Honourable Member: It matched the quality of the question.
Mr. Doer: Well, if the Premier (Mr. Filmon) cared about
the situation in health, he would be worried about former ADMs saying that we
cannot fight disease anymore. If the
Premier had the guts to stand up and answer what is going on in his Health
department, you would not have reductions in staff in the labs dealing with
AIDS detection.
I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for the use of‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Thank you.
AIDS Prevention Programs
Government Strategy
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): This is a very serious situation, Mr.
Speaker. You have a lab body that is
saying they cannot handle the cuts anymore.
Our defence is gone. You have
people in community health who are experts saying that we have gutted the system
so much that we cannot deal with the prevention of disease and epidemics at the
first line. This is very, very serious.
Mr. Speaker, we have asked questions before about AIDS, the
fact that AIDS is spreading, according to Health and Welfare Canada, and has
the potential to spread at a rate equal to the rate of AIDS that was contracted
in the AIDS community 10 years ago in our aboriginal population. It talks about the tremendous at‑risk
situation here in the province of Manitoba, including in many of our urban
centres.
Mr. Speaker, Manitoba is one of only two provinces in
Canada that does not have a formal AIDS strategy. We have also gutted all our preventative
staff and now gutted our lab staff to deal with the situation.
I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon), will he
instruct his Minister of Health to reinstate our resources to prevent disease,
to prevent disease spread, to prevent epidemics and to develop an intelligent
and forthright and honest and aggressive AIDs epidemic strategy prevention
program in the province of Manitoba?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): The honourable Leader of the Opposition
should have a chat with his spokesperson for Health, Mr. Speaker, because
during the Estimates process, we discussed at some length the development of
epidemiology services in Manitoba and the department's intention to make that
service more effective, so that we can have a better understanding than in past
generations of the development of disease in Manitoba.
So, Mr. Speaker, while I have said that we will look
carefully at what Dr. MacDonald and others have had to say before the Krever
inquiry, it ought not to come as any surprise to the honourable member that the
reason for having inquiries is finding out those things that we need to find
out in order to make improvements.
That is exactly what we have been embarked on in the last
few years here in Manitoba, improving our health care system. I mean, you cannot defend Ontario and
Saskatchewan on the one hand and then come along and suggest that we should be
criticized here in Manitoba.
When you look at the levels of funding for health care
services in Manitoba over the last number of years, when you look at the
percentage of health care spending in Manitoba as a percentage of total
spending, which is the best measure of the commitment of any government, you
will see that never before in the history of Manitoba has any government been
more committed to a safe and effective health care system than the present
government right here in Manitoba.
* (1020)
Laboratory and Imaging Services
Layoffs
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, the minister refuses to answer
the question. The minister completely
misses the point. It had to come out at
a federal inquiry what is wrong in the department, and still the minister does
not acknowledge the difficulties that were raised by our Leader and the
problems in the department. At least the
minister could acknowledge the problem, but, no, he is keeping his head in the
sand and refusing to acknowledge it.
My question to the minister is, why did you cut 11 staff
from your Laboratory and Imaging Services department, which undercuts the
ability of the department to screen for diseases like HIV?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): You see, Mr. Speaker, the difference between
my approach and that of the honourable members opposite is that they will
defend the approach in Ontario and the approach in Saskatchewan. I will acknowledge that in Manitoba, there is
always room for improvement. That is the
difference in approach.
I remember honourable members, when they were going around
hacking and slashing here in Manitoba, defend, defend, defend or deny, deny,
deny, and that is not the right approach either, Mr. Speaker.
Working together with health care professionals, with
health care providers, with health care consumers, acknowledging where you are
weak, building on where you are strong, that is what you should be doing in
building a good health care system that will be sustainable for generations to
come, but I reject the approach that chokes the health care system to death
being advocated by honourable members opposite.
AIDS Prevention Programs
Government Strategy
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, when we asked the minister on
May 19 why Manitoba was one of two provinces without an AIDS strategy, the
minister would not answer the question, and he has refused to answer the
question today.
Why, given what we know, given what has happened, given
that we are supposed to be emphasizing prevention, why does this government not
have an overall AIDS strategy and approach to this disease?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the honourable member raises the
issue of an AIDS strategy. I have met
with the AIDS Advisory Committee. That
committee continues to do its work and to advise the government. We will pay heed to the AIDS Advisory
Committee in the development of programs.
We have programs in operation now which are having an
effect, and if the honourable member would care to look back on our discussions
in the Estimates discussion, I can also bring forward facts and figures for the
honourable member about the number of people who have been contacted, people we
have worked with in this particular area, at a time when the honourable member
can ask those questions, and I will make that detail available to him.
Mr. Chomiak: The members of the minister's own advisory
committee are angry at some of the things he has done with respect to
AIDS. Mr. Speaker, we will provide the
minister with an example of an AIDS strategy from other provinces at some later
date, so he can finally start to work on that process.
Public Health Services
Government Support
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): My final supplementary: Will this government now enhance the ability of
public sector labs, public nurses and others involved in the public sector to
carry out their functions adequately so things like Chagas disease and other
things can be screened for and so that the health and protection of Manitobans
can be foremost in the minds of this government, not simply cutbacks?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, again, you cannot come in here
and suggest that our laboratory advisory committees are not appropriate and
then come along and say you have got to do something about labs.
You cannot have it both ways, and, by the way, there is
staff of private labs, people who day in and day out provide services in
laboratory services who want to meet with me, because they are very upset with
some of the things that the honourable member and his colleagues have been
saying about the services provided by the good people who work in private and
public labs.
Health Care System
Privatization
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, last
night, the chief of medical staff at Brandon General Hospital, a Dr. William
Myers, made some very interesting comments, and I have a transcript of them
because when I first heard about them, I was concerned about those statements. I want to very briefly ask the Minister of
Health what he thinks of them.
The chief of medical staff, Dr. Myers, said private health
care is inevitable. He went on to say
that the sooner people accept that reality, the better off they would be, and
he went on to say that it has become a very sacred issue for politicians, but
they have found they cannot afford it, so they are contracting the service and
still maintaining the front that they are providing the same level of
care. It is simply not true.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very influential doctor in the
Brandon community and indeed in the province.
He has made those statements at a public meeting, the annual general
meeting of the Brandon General Hospital.
Will the Minister of Health today put on the record if he
disagrees with those comments, put it on the record publicly today, because a
very influential man in this community has said specifically that we must, he
believes, move to private health care?
* (1025)
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I was not at the meeting. I did not hear what Dr. Myers had to
say. It may be that Dr. Myers has
personal opinions. I am sure the
honourable member has personal opinions, and other people have personal
opinions.
What we are committed to here in Manitoba are the principles
enshrined in the Canada Health Act. What
we are committed to is the best‑‑and I will quote Dr. Bill Myers
from a conversation I had with him one day:
We are going to have the best health care system we Canadians can afford
to have. That is the way Dr. Myers put
it when he was talking to me.
I cannot account for anything he might have said last
night, but we are committed to the principles enshrined in the Canada Health Act
and the best possible health care system we can provide, working with all
manner of health care professionals. I
am happy to work with Dr. Myers. I have
had many conversations with Dr. Myers about some of his views.
I do not accept that private health care is inevitable, not
as long as we have a will, as we do on this side of the House, to preserve our
health care system. There are some on
the other side of the House who would move to destroy our health system, Mr.
Speaker, and I will not tolerate that.
Mr. Edwards: I appreciate the latter comments of the
Minister of Health which are in direct contradiction to what Dr. Myers has
said.
I would ask the Minister of Health to communicate those
comments to Dr. Myers who, agreed, has a right to private opinions, but he is a
very public man. He stated it in a
public venue, the annual general meeting, and he does have a significant amount
of respect in the medical community, Mr. Speaker.
He went on to say that if you believe that, that is, that
you can avoid a two‑tier system, you are very gullible, and I do not
think people are. He argued a two‑tier
system would allow people to obtain services that medicare has had to ration or
cut.
Will the Minister of Health‑‑obviously knowing
Dr. Myers very well‑‑speak to him and specifically indicate to him
that this type of theory, that we have to move to a two‑tier system, is
simply not on in this province and that he should refrain from comments such as
that in public venues when they are so at odds with‑‑when he is the
chief of medical staff at a hospital, and he is speaking to the annual general
meeting?
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is right
about Dr. Myers. He is an extremely well
respected practitioner in Manitoba, and he certainly enjoys my respect. There is no question about that, and his
services in the Westman area are valued very highly by many, many people in
that area.
I might not agree with everything Dr. Myers says, but I
sure do not agree with stifling him and gagging him so that he cannot
speak. I always thought, Mr. Speaker,
that one of the things about liberalism was that people were entitled to
express their opinions, and now the honourable member wants me to stick a gag
on Dr. Myers. Well, no, I will not be
doing that, I can tell you that.
Mr. Edwards: This government has placed more gag orders on
the thousands of employees they have in government than any other government in
the history of the province.
The record will reflect that I certainly did not ask the
minister to impose a gag order. What I
am asking this minister to do is to publicly express his rejection of the
theory that we must move to a two‑tier private health care system, and he
should contact Dr. Myers in his very influential position with the Brandon
General Hospital and make that view known publicly in Brandon and around this
province today, Mr. Speaker.
Point of Order
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether this
question, in fact, is in order. The
individual whom the Liberal Leader is talking about is a private citizen. I am not sure that it is within the
government's purview to control what someone thinks or says in the province of
Manitoba. Is that in order? Is it in within the area of the government's
competence?
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order.
* * *
Mr. McCrae: Well, Mr. Speaker, to use an expression often
used by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), the Leader of the Liberal Party
seems to be suggesting that I take Dr. Myers to the woodshed.
Point of Order
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(River Heights): Mr. Speaker, we have had enough of the use of
that phrase in this House to last in perpetuity. You have it within your power to make that
expression unparliamentary, and I would ask you to do so.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the
honourable member for River Heights, it is indeed unfortunate that the word as
clearly enunciated by the Minister of Health, referenced by the honourable
member for River Heights, does not show up in Beauchesne's under
unparliamentary language.
But, again, I would remind all honourable members to pick
and choose your words very carefully.
* * *
Mr. McCrae: In any event, Mr. Speaker, when I said what I
said, the Leader of the Liberal Party said:
Yes, I do suggest to take Dr. Myers to the woodshed.
Point of Order
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have
asked this minister to call Dr. Myers and tell him that he is wrong that we
must move to a two‑tier‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order. That is clearly a dispute over
the facts. There is no point of order.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Now, the honourable Minister of Health, to
finish with his response.
* (1030)
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member may know
Dr. Myers, but if I were to do as the honourable Leader of the Liberal Party is
suggesting I do, use my muscle as a Minister of Health to go and tell Dr. Myers
what he should or should not be saying in this free country of ours, I can tell
you, Dr. Myers would waste no time dispatching me on the point, and I would
respect him for it if I ever tried to do such a thing.
Dr. Myers is entitled to his opinion. I disagree with the opinion as expressed by
the Leader of the Liberal Party today. I
do not know how much more public I can be, Mr. Speaker, than to‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Community‑Based Policing
Government Strategy
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St.
Johns): Mr. Speaker, this week, Mr. Chris Braiden,
the former superintendent of the Edmonton Police Service and the acknowledged
expert on community‑based policing in North America was in the city to
advise the Winnipeg Police Services. Mr.
Braiden makes the point that policing is off the rails here and that we must
get officers out of their cars and into the community and working with neighbourhoods.
My question for the Minister of Justice is, would she
explain why her department does not have a single program in place to ensure
that Manitoba police forces can be transformed to community‑based
policing?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows and this government has demonstrated,
we have a very strong commitment to community consultation, to working with
communities. The member, I am sure,
knows that the RCMP has a system in place in which they do work with
communities, where communities have the opportunity to determine what kind of
services they would like to have, what would best serve their community.
I meet both with the chief of the Winnipeg Police and also
the head of the RCMP and make sure that I am aware of issues of concern. However, the departments themselves have to
look at an internal management strategy and a direction that they wish to go in
and how they will actually achieve it.
Mr. Mackintosh: Would the Minister of Justice explain how a
move to community‑based policing can be listed in her Detailed Estimates
as an objective of her department when there is no action plan, there is no
program in place, either taken or planned?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, the member obviously paid no
attention in the course of Estimates. I
wonder where he was in the course of Estimates in terms of his thinking,
because he did not hear any of the discussion when we discussed the Law
Enforcement line, when we discussed the RCMP's work with the community, with
the community groups that they report to and that they continually work
with. It is through those groups‑‑and
there were examples raised in the process of Estimates‑‑that
citizens had the opportunity to speak about the type of policing they want.
So that certainly is in place. The member obviously just missed it, like he
misses a lot of other things.
Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, I resent those personal remarks,
and I think we should talk about the issues.
I reviewed Hansard this morning and the Estimates and, given
that the minister said that all she was doing for community‑based
policing was encouraging the RCMP to work with community advisory groups, I ask
the minister, will she assure Winnipeggers that she will now meet with the
chief of the Winnipeg Police Services and help him and help the department so
we can achieve community‑based policing in Winnipeg, we can get officers
continuously visibly deployed in communities?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member made
reference to the earlier discussion. It
seems that one question says it did not happen; another question says it
did. So, in fact, we did discuss
community‑based policing. We did
discuss the RCMP's role in this area in terms of the City of Winnipeg
Police. As the member knows, they also
report very directly to the Winnipeg City Council and that they are, in fact,
employees of the City of Winnipeg.
I have the opportunity to meet with them to discuss issues
of importance, but this is also an area of their own internal management, and
they have to work at it also with their own employers.
Blood Transfusion Recipients
Communication Policy
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, today we learn at the Krever
inquiry that Dr. John Guilfoyle indicated he attempted to contact all individuals
who had received blood transfusions in Manitoba between 1985 and the present.
Can the minister advise the House what the departmental
strategy has been and is with respect to notifying recipients of blood
transfusions between '85 and the present?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I am just as uncomfortable as
before in discussing matters that are presently before a commission of
inquiry. The honourable member asks
questions that flow from testimony being given before a commission of
inquiry. I recall many times during the
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, the Hughes review, questions arising as a result of
testimony given before those inquiries, and I tried very hard to stay away from
getting involved in something that is presently before a commission of inquiry.
Needless to say, I think the previous questions asked by
the honourable member, are answered in a general way, as I have tried to answer
them, to assure the honourable member and everyone else that as these
allegations get made in front of a commission of inquiry, we certainly do look
into them as they come up, but we try not to engage in a whole lot of comment
about them, as they are properly before Mr. Justice Krever.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, these are the minister's own
officials, and these are health policies that apply today.
My question again to the minister is, what steps has the
department taken to notify individuals who have received blood transfusions
prior to 1985?
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, I will get the detail for the
honourable member and discuss it with the honourable member outside the realm
of the Chamber, as these matters are presently before the Krever inquiry.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, maybe also, can the minister
explain why Dr. John Guilfoyle who testified today was stonewalled by the
department last year when he attempted to notify individuals about blood
transfusions, why the department stonewalled his attempt to notify the public?
Mr. McCrae: As I said, Mr. Speaker, these questions are the
subject of discussion before the Krever inquiry. I do not mind having a private conversation
with the honourable member about this, but I do not want to say anything that
might jeopardize the work of the Krever inquiry. That would be the inappropriate thing to do,
and I am a little bit surprised that the honourable member, with his particular
training, would raise the matter in the way he has today.
* (1040)
Training/Employment Creation
Federal Discussions
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Newfoundland and the
federal government announced a strategic initiative in education and job
creation‑‑$4.4 million to assist students to attend universities
and colleges and $3 million for jobs for recent graduates.
The needs in Newfoundland are obvious, but in Manitoba, our
youth unemployment rates have at times climbed to over 25 percent, and in
northern Manitoba, the unemployment rates are extremely high.
I want to ask the Minister of Education and Training, what
specific proposals have been made by the government of Manitoba to the federal
government for post‑secondary education and training for young
Manitobans?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, firstly, I want to correct part of the record when the member talks
about youth unemployment rates. I
believe that our youth unemployment rate in Manitoba for the last census is
around 16.5 percent, one of the best in the country and dropping significantly
from where it was several months ago. So
Manitoba virtually leads the land with respect to the low ranking of the
unemployment rate with respect to the youth category.
We continue to work closely with the federal
government. Just yesterday, I was
involved in a signing with the federal government with respect to the health
care products industry and training associated with, again, that industry. We continue to try to work together to find
those areas, Mr. Speaker, where indeed there will be jobs upon further training
opportunities, and we continue to contribute significant amounts of money under
our budgetary responsibility.
Unemployment Insurance Commission
Training Freeze
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, has the minister then, since he
has been in conversation with the federal government, yet prepared a response
to the question I put to him at the beginning of the week, asking about the
impact of the de facto freeze in unemployment insurance training monies in
Manitoba, what the impact of that is on the community college enrollments for this
fall, and what the impact of that is on the thousands of unemployed Manitobans
who cannot access any training funds from the unemployment insurance funds?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, the member is well aware, through the social safety net reform, that
this is a broader issue. The member, if
she was reading the paper at all, would know that my colleague the Minister of
Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) was meeting with other ministers across the
country with respect to the whole reform process, and obviously some dimension
of the time was directed to that point.
Specific to her question, we are still no further ahead
with an understanding as to how the federal government is going to revamp this
whole program.
Labour Force Strategic Plan
Development
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Will this minister make the commitment that
he has refused to make for every single year that this government has been in office,
and that is, to prepare a labour force strategic plan for Manitoba which will
inform the public discussion, which will enable Manitobans to understand what
opportunities can be made available to them and which will give some
educational direction which is absolutely lacking in this government in its
discussions with the federal government?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, I categorically reject the comment and the assertion made by the
member for Wolseley. There is not a lack
of direction as presented by this government.
As I indicated to the member over and over and over again
in Estimates review, the thrust is contained within the Framework for Economic
Growth. Those are the strategic areas of
growth. We are trying to make our
educational institutions understand that in greater measure, and with respect
to setting forth a labour market development board, we have tried to do that,
but that has not been as easy. As a
matter of fact, there has not been a province over the course of the last
number of months that has been able to, itself, come around.
So this whole process of trying to marry supply with demand
within the labour market development area is certainly understood by this
government, and I dare say with respect to the approach that we put forward
through the Framework for Economic Growth, we have gone further than any other
province in this country.
Income Security Program
Pending Bodily Injury Claims
Ms. Norma McCormick
(Osborne): My question is to the Minister of Family
Services.
This week, I received a letter received by an income
security recipient who was injured as a passenger in a motor vehicle
accident. On May 30, she received a
letter from Winnipeg South Income Security office advising her that she was to
provide detail on a pending bodily injury claim and that future benefits would
be on hold until this information was provided.
Is it consistent with department policy to interrupt this
family's income awaiting the adjudication of a pending bodily injury claim?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Family Services): I will
take the detail of that question as notice and provide information back to my
honourable friend, but I would hope that if there are specific issues and there
are people in Manitoba who are suffering financially as a result of some
decision that has been made, that this would be brought to my attention
personally at the very earliest opportunity, so I could look into and
investigate that circumstance and ensure that Manitobans are being treated with
compassion and with fairness, Mr. Speaker.
Communication Policy
Ms. Norma McCormick
(Osborne): My supplementary is to the same
minister. I am going to table this
terse, five‑line form letter which shows no sympathy or understanding for
this mother's situation. This was the
first communication from the Income Security office. It simply tells her she has no immediate
income.
What can be done to improve the way in which our bureaucracies
and those who represent them communicate with Manitobans and ensure that at
least there is some level of humanity and compassion?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Family Services): Again, I
will say that if there is a Manitoban who is suffering financially as a result
of any decision that has been made in the department, I would be very
appreciative of that information being brought to my attention at the very
earliest convenience, so that I could look into the matter and try to resolve the
problem.
I will take the specifics of the individual case as notice
and ask my department for some detail.
Ms. McCormick: My final question, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister work with Winnipeg South
Income Security office to improve the tone of the communication from Income
Security, so that it shows greater respect for the program's clients?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, I have always said, and I think
the message that has gone out from me into the department is that we are there
to serve the clients in the best and most respectful manner possible.
I will take the letter that has been tabled back to the
department and ask for some details around the circumstances.
Economic Growth
Provincial Comparisons
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister of Finance.
The current economic indicators that we have from
Statistics Canada show that Manitoba is performing below the national average
in 10 out of 13 economic indicators‑‑10 out of 13. Building permits have declined year after
year for the past four years, and now this year, Mr. Speaker, there has been a
decline in building permits of 21.6 percent.
That is the first few months of this year. Not only that, we are rating 10 out of 10 in
terms of what is happening in building permits.
My question to the Minister of Finance is, why is
Manitoba's economy performing so poorly?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker,
obviously, I disagree entirely with the preamble of the member for Brandon East. I would be more than pleased at any point in
time to sit down, when we have ample time, to debate the economic indicators in
Manitoba to point to how well Manitoba is doing in a relative sense.
The number of housing starts we have this year‑‑we
are certainly leading the nation in terms of housing starts in our
province. In terms of investments in
Manitoba over the last five years, we have been in the top half of Canada in
three out of those five years. Our job
creation performance last year was the third best in all of Canada. Since May of last year, Mr. Speaker, there
are 16,000 more full‑time jobs in Manitoba today than there were back in
May of last year.
So there are many very positive economic indicators in our province,
and I would gladly discuss them at length with the member for Brandon East.
Youth Unemployment Rate
Provincial Comparisons
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister
specifically, why has the youth unemployment rate jumped so drastically in the
first five months of this year?
Last year, the first five months, the youth unemployment
rate was 14.9 percent. This year, it is
18.5 percent. As a matter of fact, the
Canadian average for youth in this period of time has actually declined a bit,
and yet we have jumped up about three or four points. Why?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker,
traditionally, our youth unemployment rate has been amongst the best of all
provinces in Canada. There are a series
of initiatives that we have done to enhance employment opportunities for youth,
initiatives like the Green Team proposal, not only in rural Manitoba, but now
reproduced here in Winnipeg which will employ hundreds of young people in the
city of Winnipeg, many initiatives in terms of dealing with youth unemployment.
But one of the single most important things we can do for
the youth of Manitoba is to create the right positive economic climate by
holding taxes down, by reducing taxes to create long‑term economic growth
in Manitoba, and that is exactly what we are doing. That is the best thing we can do for the
youth in this province.
* (1050)
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister of Finance
would read the statistics because last year, we were far better off than the
national youth unemployment rate. This
year, we are about the same as the Canadian average; in fact‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Question, please.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, my last question: How does the minister expect any significant
economic growth if we do not have an increase in total capital investment which
Statistics Canada is forecasting‑‑no increase‑‑and I
note construction levels have dropped in the past three years. As I said, building permits are down 21.6
percent this year. He talks about
housing starts. We are only a fraction
of what we were five years ago. Why have
we become a no‑growth province?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the member for Brandon
East is very selective, and he is pointing to 1994 where capital investment is
expected to be flat in Manitoba.
If you look over the last five years in Manitoba, we have
led the nation in three of those five years.
Last year, 1993, the highest capital investment growth in all of Canada in
manufacturing investment was right here in the province of Manitoba.
So, again, he did not raise capital investment last
year. He did not raise capital
investment the year before. He raises it
now when it is flat, but the figures he is quoting from do not include the
infrastructure program that we were one of the first provinces in all of Canada
to get off the mark on, and those numbers do not include the $24 million that
we are investing directly in the infrastructure program here in Manitoba. So I suggest that that number will be higher
than zero growth in 1994.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
Speaker's Ruling
Matter of Privilege‑‑Minister's
Comments
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I have a ruling for the House. I am ruling on the matter of privilege raised
by the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) on June 15.
In raising the matter, the member alleged that in the
Committee of Supply on Monday, June 13, the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr.
Orchard) made comments to her, including the phrases, and I quote, "you
need a slap" and also quote "you need to go to the
woodshed." This is a serious
allegation which has affected the House and has generated a great deal of media
attention.
As I ruled on a somewhat related incident on June 2, 1989,
because the matter arose in a committee, the correct procedure for the member
would have been to raise her concerns in the Committee of Supply. My ruling was based on Beauchesne Citation
107, which reads that "breaches of privilege in committee may be dealt
with only by the House itself on report from the committee." Also, Beauchesne Citation 760.(3) clearly
states that the Speaker cannot exercise procedural control over committees.
Therefore, I am ruling that this matter is out of order as
a matter of privilege. The honourable
member may, however, wish to raise the matter in the Committee of Supply and
the committee could decide whether or not to report it to the House.
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENT
Winnipeg General Strike
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Burrows (Mr.
Martindale) have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, in the early hours of June 17, 1919,
under the cover of darkness, 10 men were arrested for their involvement in the
Winnipeg General Strike. The stage had
been set shortly before when, with undue and very unusual haste, the federal
government amended the Immigration Act.
In less than one hour, an amendment was rushed through three readings,
Senate approval and Royal Assent.
The amendment permitted the deportation, as an undesirable,
any immigrant, British or foreign born, regardless of the length of time he or
she had lived in Canada, by the Immigration department and without a trial by
jury.
Another amendment to the Criminal Code permitted a person
to be arrested on a suspicion and guilty until he or she could establish his or
her innocence, a complete reversal of British tradition.
Those arrested included R.B. Russell, John Queen, William
Ivens, George Armstrong, A.A. Heaps, R.E. Bray and four so‑called aliens
who had nothing to do with the strike leadership. The purpose of the arrest was to settle the
strike in favour of the employers or crush it by force, but being arrested had
a profound effect on the individuals concerned, on their future, the course of
politics in Manitoba and on organized labour.
As J.S. Woodsworth, who was arrested on June 23, said, when
the Meighen government arrested me, it nominated me to Ottawa.
In the next provincial election in 1920, Fred Dixon, George
Armstrong, John Queen and William Ivens were elected to the Manitoba
Legislature, three of whom were still in jail.
These Labour Party representatives were four out of a possible 10 MLAs
in Winnipeg and received 42.5 percent of the votes cast.
What began as a strike for collective bargaining, better
wages and safer working conditions was propelled into a determination by the
working class to support its own representatives who could give voice at
Winnipeg City Council, this Legislature, and the federal Parliament for the
rights of all working people.
Member's Statement
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr.
Speaker, may I make a statement to the House, with leave?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave to make
a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, on occasions, statements have
been made by honourable members in this House to which objection has been
raised. These issues have been resolved
by a ruling of the Chair, but in most cases by a simple clarification or
withdrawal and an apology where appropriate.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let us get some clarification here. I asked for leave for the honourable minister
to make a nonpolitical statement.
Mr. Orchard: I just said a statement.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, I understand that now. Are we going to grant the honourable minister
leave? Apparently he wants to make a statement
to the House. [agreed]
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I will commence from the
beginning.
Mr. Speaker: Please.
Mr. Orchard: On occasions, statements have been made by
honourable members in this House to which objections have been raised. These issues have been resolved by a ruling
of the Chair, but in most cases by a simple clarification or withdrawal and an
apology where appropriate.
I have withdrawn statements that I have made both inside
and outside the House and made specific apologies to any individual personally
offended.
The member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) raised a matter of
privilege, which is her right, alleging statements were made by me in committee
which the honourable member found offensive.
I have acknowledged what I said to the member, and my
statement had no connotation other than that intended by the author of that
statement, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Doer), who has often used
the phrase, taken to the woodshed.
Now, if that often‑used phrase has offended the
member for Radission, then I apologize to her for any offence taken, since no
offence was meant.
The member for Radisson further alleged that I said, quote,
unquote, she needed a slap, which I did not say. If such language was used as alleged, the matter
should have been raised immediately, yet was not. In fact, the matter was not raised the next
day but rather the following day, Wednesday.
The MLA for Radisson made her accusations with a full
knowledge that neither Hansard nor the tape had any such statements
recorded. I suggest the member for
Radisson raised the matter of privilege with the expectation that Mr. Speaker's
ruling would not sustain her motion since that was the advice given to her at
her caucus meeting on Tuesday.
I further suggest that the member for Radisson made the
allegations with the full knowledge of how it would be used by the media. In that regard, I suggest the member abused
her privilege of the House and indeed mine.
For many years women have served this House with distinction,
including the former member for your constituency, who also was the Speaker of
this House. There are more women elected
today because their predecessors have earned through achievement the respect of
the people of Manitoba. They gained that
respect through their performance and their strength of belief, which proved
them to be equals to all honourable members.
They did not achieve that respect on the sole basis of gender, Sir. Thank you.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition
House Leader): Mr. Speaker, when we gave leave for the
member to make a statement, we did not anticipate that it would be in many ways
a continuation of argument on a matter of privilege that was raised.
Your ruling, Mr. Speaker, indicated that the matter should
be raised in the committee, but I want to express concern, that I believe that
many of the comments made by the minister are out of order, because it is
reviving a matter on which you made a ruling in terms of it being raised in this
House, in terms of procedure, which may still be raised in the committee.
Quite frankly, I am disappointed that after giving the
leave for what we thought might be a statement of clarification, that we are
once again engaging in debate on a matter of privilege, and I would therefore
indicate that we feel it very unfortunate the minister used the leave that we
granted to the minister‑‑it was a common courtesy‑‑to
again raise the matter, Mr. Speaker, which you have dealt with in the
procedural matter, which may still be before this House.
So we want to place that clearly on the record.
* (1100)
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I have to rule on whether or not the
honourable member did have a point of order, and I am having great difficulty
at this time because, as the member for Thompson clearly indicates, and I will
use his terminology, an abuse of‑‑the member has granted the right
or the privilege to the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Orchard) to make a
statement to the House which, sir, does not breach any of our rules in our rule
book.
Therefore, the honourable member, I guess, does not have a
point of order, because the minister did not breach any of the rules, but I do
note that the comments made by the honourable minister are such that‑‑I
caution all members, because it is a privilege granted by the House, and I am
sure the minister is quite aware of that.
We had gone through a scenario here years back where a particular member
had been denied leave for many, many days.
So I just caution all honourable members when you ask for
leave to make a statement, the statement that you make is a privilege granted
by this House. Therefore, I guess, on
the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton),
he does not have a point of order.
Point of Order
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): I really want to raise a point of order, Mr.
Speaker, to ask that you explore the options with respect to the minister
imputing motives with respect to the matter of privilege that I raised. I want to respect your ruling. I did not prejudge your ruling, and I think
that the ruling indicates that I still have the option of going to the
Committee of Supply, an option that I will consider. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the
honourable member for Radisson, I will take this opportunity to take this
matter under advisement. I will peruse
Hansard as to exactly what was said by the honourable Minister of Energy and
Mines (Mr. Orchard), and I will come back to the House with a ruling on that
matter.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, House
leaders have had a number of discussions with respect to certain adjustments to
our schedule for next week.
First of all, I would like to announce that the Public
Accounts committee will sit on Monday, June 20, at 10 a.m., to continue
consideration of the report of the Provincial Auditor and related documents.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the government House
leader for that information.
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, there is general agreement, and
I wonder if you would seek unanimous consent to set aside the regular business
of the House on Monday, June 20, in the afternoon in order to consider Motions
of Condolence.
Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to
allow the Chamber to‑‑I will use the terminology‑‑debate
condolence motions Monday afternoon? Is
there agreement that we will do condolences Monday afternoon? [agreed]
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, then would you also seek
unanimous consent of the House to set aside in the Chamber the Estimates of the
Department of Justice for consideration of the Estimates of the Department of
Highways and Transportation?
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to set aside the
Department of Justice and bring forward the Department of Highways and
Transportation? [agreed]
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, I also advise that the Committee
of Supply will sit in two sections, if there is unanimous consent to have Committee
of Supply sit in two sections on Thursday morning, June 23, at 9 a.m. until 12
noon, to consider matters of Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to sit on June 23
two sections of the Committee of Supply from 9 a.m. till 12? [agreed]
Mr. Ernst: With respect to Monday evening and the
sitting of the Committee of Supply in the Chamber, it is anticipated that, in
the Chamber, should the Department of Highways Estimates be concluded either
before or after ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, that we would then resume the
Estimates of the Department of Justice either before or after ten o'clock.
Similarly, Mr. Speaker, in the order of Estimates
consideration in the Committee Room, as agreed to earlier, is first the Status
of Women and then Natural Resources.
Should the Status of Women Estimates conclude either before or after 10
p.m., we would then start the Department of Natural Resources.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave now, whether the Department of
Highways and Transportation ends here in the Chamber either prior to 10 or
after 10, to continue on discussion on the Department of Justice? We will clarify that one first. [agreed]
In Room 255 in committee, I understand we will be doing the
Status of Women and if that department would conclude either prior to 10 or
after 10 that we would resume with the Department of Natural Resources.
[agreed]
Now we will get back to Orders of the Day.
Mr. Ernst: In that case, Mr. Speaker, would you call
Debate on Second Readings in the order that they are listed in the Order Paper.
DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS
Bill 3‑‑The Cancer Treatment and
Research Foundation Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), Bill 3, The Cancer Treatment and Research
Foundation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Fondation de traitement
du cancer et de recherche en cancérologie).
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, we have perused this bill, and
we are prepared to pass it through to committee.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second‑‑
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I would move, seconded by the
member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 4‑‑The Energy and Consequential
Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Orchard), Bill 4, The Energy and Consequential
Amendments Act; Loi sur l'énergie et apportant des modifications corrélatives,
standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain standing?
[agreed]
Bill 5‑‑The Highway Traffic
Amendment and Consequential Amendments Ac t
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay), Bill 5, The Highway
Traffic Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant le Code de la
route et apportant des modifications corrélatives, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
* (1110)
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave? [agreed]
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Inkster): Mr. Speaker, it is actually with pleasure
that I could stand here today and speak on Bill 5. Bill 5, we would argue, is a bill that is
probably long overdue.
There are a number of changes that we have been wanting to
see brought to MPIC over the last number of years, and this particular bill
does address one of those changes.
That, of course, is something which a former colleague of
mine, current City Councillor John Angus, as I can recall, sitting at our
caucus table talking about the need to have those time payments so that
individuals would not necessarily have to pay at one time in the year, thereby
taking so much out of the disposal income of the citizenry at one point in time
of the year, which would have a very negative impact on all the different other
sectors that are out there. So I recall
quite clearly some of the arguments that were being made forward from our then‑critic
Mr. Angus talking about why we would benefit consumer‑wise, how the
different industries, in particular the retail industry, would be able to
benefit.
I know, Mr. Speaker, working somewhat in the retail sector
a number of years back that when Autopac came around what would happen is we
knew that was likely going to be the month in which we would do inventory, or
plan on taking some inventory, because there is a noticeable decrease in
consumer spending at the different retail sectors.
This is the primary reason why the Liberal Party, at that
time and since then, has continuously fought to try to get the government to
acknowledge the need to have insurance renewal periods, something as I say that
the caucus has been demanding for years, and we are quite pleased. We know that even I believe Autopac or MPIC
in itself has been requesting a change of this nature. So it is a very positive thing.
I also understand that there are some other changes to the
legislation that allows for a transfer of ownership document which would be
provided for potential purchasers of vehicles, and this will better the assurance
of the credibility of the seller and the accuracy of the odometer.
Again, I have some first‑hand experiences in terms of
the issue of the rigging of odometers, not in a negative sense, of course, my
first‑hand experience. I also had
worked in an occupation in which it was brought to our attention on numerous
occasions in terms of some of the problems of those unethical sales people or
backyard garage men. People were
actually changing back the odometer in hopes that by doing this you are better
able to get a price that is maybe inflated over what the car actually is worth
because, in fact, Mr. Speaker, the car has a lot more mileage on it than the
odometer was showing.
So anything that moves in the direction of trying to
protect the consumer, once again, in an area that comes up time in and time and
time again, because this is not something in which you can just say, well,
consumer beware. Then it is the
responsibility of the consumer to watch out for because, because, quite
frankly, the average consumer does not have the expertise to be able to tell if
in fact an odometer has been tampered with or changed, as some cases in the
past you have seen a straight transfer from one vehicle to the next
vehicle. Just a part replacement, but
the impact of that part replacement would enhance the value of that vehicle by
showing a reduction of thousands of miles when it is not appropriate.
For the average consumer, they would never know this. You do not go behind the dashboard to see if
an odometer has been tampered with. In
some cases, when they have the odometers rolled back, you just cannot tell.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
If there is a better way in which vehicles of all makes can
be tracked or better certification being provided to ensure that the tampering
of odometers is, wherever possible, limited to a relatively small number of
incidents, that would be a positive thing.
We were quite glad to see that.
Madam Deputy Speaker, my intentions were not to speak at
length on this bill. I am not the
critic. I believe the member for River
Heights (Mrs. Carstairs) was also wanting to put some words on it, but I did
want to comment specifically on this bill primarily because it is a bill,
which, I believe personally, is something that is long overdue.
I do even believe that the government in the past has
talked about introducing this particular bill, or a bill of this nature. Having heard the many different arguments as
to why a bill of this nature is warranted, I do not have any problem in terms
of supporting the principle of the bill.
As for the actual details, I have not read the bill from cover to cover,
I must admit; but I do believe that the principle of it is something that I
personally can support. Thank you for the
opportunity to be able to put those few words on the record.
Madam Deputy Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter remains
standing in the name of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar).
Bill 7‑‑The Crown Lands Amendment
Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 7
(The Crown Lands Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les terres
domaniales), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Natural
Resources (Mr. Driedger), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
[agreed]
Bill 8‑‑The Fisheries Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 8 (The
Fisheries Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la pêche), on the proposed
motion of the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger), standing
in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
[agreed]
Bill 10‑‑The Wildlife Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 10
(The Wildlife Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la conservation de la
faune), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Natural Resources
(Mr. Driedger), standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr.
Ashton).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
[agreed]
Bill 12‑‑The Provincial Auditor's
Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 12
(The Provincial Auditor's Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le
vérificateur provincial), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ernst), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
[agreed]
Bill 13‑‑The Condominium Amendment
Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 13
(The Condominium Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les condominiums), on
the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs (Mr. Ernst), standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows
(Mr. Martindale).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 14‑‑The Real Estate Brokers
Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 14
(The Real Estate Brokers Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les courtiers
en immeubles), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Consumer
and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ernst), standing in the name of the honourable
member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 15‑‑The Law Society Amendment
Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 15
(The Law Society Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Loi Société du
Barreau), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mrs.
Vodrey), standing in the name of the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr.
Mackintosh).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 16‑‑The Provincial Court
Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 16
(The Provincial Court Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Cour
provinciale), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice
(Mrs. Vodrey), standing in the name of honourable member for St. Johns (Mr.
Mackintosh).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 17‑‑The City of Winnipeg
Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 17
(The City of Winnipeg Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant
la Loi sur la Ville de Winnipeg et apportant des modifications corrélatives),
on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs (Mrs.
McIntosh), standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr.
Martindale).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 18‑‑The Insurance Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 18
(The Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les assurances), on the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs
(Mr. Ernst), standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr.
Ashton).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
* (1120)
Bill 19‑‑The Mental Health Amendment
Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 19
(The Mental Health Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la santé mentale),
on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae),
standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? Leave?
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill
19, The Mental Health Amendment Act, and I can say that I have read this entire
bill. It is sort of typical of the
legislation on the Order Paper for this session. It is two pages.
I think everyone here acknowledges that all of the bills in
this session, or almost all of them, are housekeeping bills, they are minor
amendments. That is the main reason why
we are going to have a short session this year.
We know that the government got its major piece of
legislation and its controversial piece of legislation through in the last
session. This session, for various reasons,
the government wants to keep controversial things off the Order Paper, and they
have done a very good job of that. They
have also kept the number of bills down to a minimum. I am sure that took some doing in their
caucus, but if that was their agenda, they seem to have succeeded.
This bill has two main parts to it. The first is to provide for a second opinion
on a review board on someone who has been determined incompetent. I think this is a reasonable amendment. I think all of us are entitled to a second
opinion. Certainly, when we go to a
doctor, we frequently want to have a second opinion and, because of medicare,
we are able to go to another doctor and get a second opinion‑‑
An Honourable Member: Right.
When I go to a minister, I get a second opinion.
Mr. Martindale: As the honourable Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey)
says, if you go to a minister‑‑I think he meant a clergyperson‑‑and
you do not like what you hear, you can go to another clergyperson and get a
second opinion. This reminds me‑‑
An Honourable Member: It is that final opinion I am worried about.
Mr. Martindale: Well, we are getting into some interesting
theological debate here now. I would
like to spend 40 minutes discussing theology.
An honourable member just said, it is the final opinion that is the
problem. I think he is referring to the
final judgment, and all of us should be worried about that opinion. Yes, I agree.
I do not often agree with this government, but I agree with that
statement.
Getting back to Bill 19, I think that just as all of us
agree that it is a reasonable thing that we have access to a second opinion
with a medical doctor, I think it is reasonable that psychiatric patients
should be able to have access to a second psychiatric opinion. I do not think that is an abuse of
medicare. I think where the abuse comes
in is people that visit 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 different medical doctors in a
year, and I know that the Manitoba Medical Association and the Minister of
Health (Mr. McCrae) are working on that problem.
In fact, yesterday the government put out a press release
on the Pharmacare Smart Card, which is going to cut down on abuse of
individuals going to numerous doctors to get double prescriptions or even
triple or quadruple prescriptions and have all of them filled. Because of the wonders of computer
technology, this problem should be completely eliminated.
In fact, it is really quite impressive when you read the
government's information about the amount of money that this will save. I am just going by memory here, but I believe
the figure was something like $50 million in the first five years, and that is
a considerable saving to the taxpayers of Manitoba and to the public
purse. It is because of this
computerized system whereby, when people fill their prescriptions, the
pharmacist can immediately check and see if people have got another
prescription at another pharmacy.
The second area that it will save money is that the
pharmacist will be able to check on whether this prescription will be in
conflict with or have side effects, harmful side effects, because two or more
medications are being used. The
government also has projections on how many millions of dollars they can save
by this, and we commend the government for this. This is something I think that all three
parties were in agreement, that we should go to this system.
Of course, the biggest benefit is that seniors and other
low‑income people will not have to apply for their rebate and wait until
they get the rebate cheque in the mail.
They will be immediately paying their deductible and then the amount
over that, I think, in Manitoba 40 percent of the cost, is reimbursed and so
people will not have to wait for that reimbursement. It is a big improvement. It is a good system and I think all three
parties had been urging the government and the government I think agreed‑‑obviously,
they agreed. They changed the system to
allow for this new Pharmacare Smart Card.
So the first part of this bill providing for a second
opinion on a review board seems to be a reasonable change to The Mental Health
Act.
The second part provides for confidentiality under the act,
and I think all of us would agree that confidentiality is very important. I had a recent experience whereby someone in
the community who worked at an institution funded by the Department of Family
Services was discussing over coffee the names of clients. I was very upset by this. I assumed that this employee was violating
their oath of confidentiality and so I phoned the executive director of this
organization and, basically, put in a complaint.
The executive director treated this violation of
confidentiality extremely seriously. In
fact, the individual was called into the office and reprimanded and reminded
that he or she could lose their job for violating this policy. In retrospect, I probably should have handled
it a little differently. I should have
confronted the individual and pointed out that they were violating this
confidentiality policy, because now the individual is very mad at me and so is
the spouse. They live in my
constituency, and I probably lost two votes.
If they tell all their friends‑‑however, I would be very
surprised if the individual would tell anybody the details of what happened,
because I think anyone in our society would know that the individual was wrong,
that they were violating confidentiality.
I guess we learn from our mistakes. I think I learned from the way I handled
it. I could have handled it
differently. But I think the employee learned
that it was a serious breach of confidentiality, and I am quite sure that it
will not happen again.
I find that being a United Church minister is actually
quite helpful when it comes to confidentiality as a member of the Legislature
because, from time to time, I talk to civil servants and I talk to people in
the community and frequently they share information with me.
They say, you know, please protect me as an
individual. I do not want to be fired by
the government for talking to a member of the opposition. I assure them that I am trained, as a
clergyperson, to keep confidences, and I think people find that
reassuring. People share information
with me on an almost daily basis, and that is often the basis on which I bring
questions to the House or bring up questions in Estimates.
So it is very helpful to be in an occupation where people
have the degree of trust in me as an individual. As one of the government ministers points
out, there are two sides to every story.
That is very true. That is one of
the things that you learn as a critic in your first term. So more and more often now I phone the
director of a department, and Family Services is a big department, or I phone a
deputy minister or assistant deputy minister and get the other side of the
story.
Frequently the two sides of the story are like night and
day or black and white. Even my
constituents, when they phone me, they tell me half the story. They do not tell me the whole story. So I phone the department, and I get the
other half of the story.
I am one of those individuals who prefers to do their
research before I bring questions to Question Period and ask questions in
Estimates.
An Honourable Member: And I suppose you are asking a lot less
questions this term than the last two.
* (1130)
Mr. Martindale: The member remarks that I am asking fewer
questions, but that is not the reason.
The reason is that there have not been nearly as many cutbacks in the
Department of Family Services.
Last session the government gave me all kinds of questions
as a result of their budgetary decisions.
This year there have been relatively few decisions regarding cutbacks in
funding in the Department of Family Services.
So of course that means fewer questions.
Not that there are not any. I
mean, I have raised questions about the $300,000 taken out of the Child Day
Care budget and the decrease in foster family rates, and the decrease in
relatives rates, and there will be more questions. I have two or three that will get asked in
the next week.
An Honourable Member: All of which have nothing to do with The
Mental Health Act.
Mr. Martindale: One of your colleagues got me sidetracked,
Mr. Minister.
Speaking of Bill 19, The Mental Health Amendment Act, I
have found it very helpful to have a friend who has had some mental health
problems. I have great admiration for
this individual and for her honesty and her courage. This individual admits that she has a problem
and that she has received some counselling and, in spite of this, has overcome
many obstacles. Currently she is working
on a university degree.
One of the things that she did quite successfully was, she
appealed a social assistance decision.
She went to the appeal board and she won. Not very many people win on a social assistance
appeal.
I asked the minister questions about this in Estimates this
year, and I believe it is around 15 percent of all appellants win on
appeal. I also asked how many appellants
represented by a lawyer win. I am just going
by memory here so I could be wrong, but I think fewer people win on appeal with
a lawyer than without a lawyer, which is rather interesting. I usually advise people to get a lawyer
although you do not need one.
This individual prepared her own case with a little advice
from me and went and argued and won. I
think that one of the reasons that she won was the subtle sort of bias of the
appeal committee members. These are individuals
who are chosen from the community. They
are government or political appointments.
I think they were rather surprised when this individual
showed up and did not fit the typical stereotype of an individual on social
assistance. She was a university
student. She was white. She was well educated. She was articulate. She prepared her case well. She spoke well and clearly, and I think that
was probably the key reason why she won.
I was not there, so I am not sure of all the dynamics. I do not remember the particulars of the
appeal.
It is possible that she had a good case before she even
went, but that was the feeling that she got, that she got a lot more respect
because she was an educated person. I
just wish that happened more often, because many, many of my constituents phone
me with social assistance problems and, particularly where they have been cut
off or there seems to be some glaring omission, I always encourage them to
appeal the decision of the Income Security staff.
Getting back to my friend with mental health problems, I
think that she does some very good things.
She talks about herself and her problems, and that is helpful, because
in the past we have tended to put mental health patients in the closet, so to
speak. There has been a very negative
social stigma to people with mental health problems and that has not been
helpful. I think it is more helpful when
we as individuals and we as a society acknowledge that many people in our
society have mental health problems and we talk about it openly and we accept
these individuals.
In fact, I think acknowledging the problem is probably key
to the acceptance in society and in our families and in our community, of these
people. Once we can get rid of the
social stigma and we can accept these people, then I think the next step is
understanding, and when we have more understanding, we are more likely to be
part of the solution rather than part of the problem. I think we as individuals and as a society
are part of the solution. We cannot just
rely on mental health professionals and on psychiatrists to solve an
individual's problems. I think it
involves all of us.
This individual is like many other people. She reaches out for support and friendship
and she does it by telephone, which I think is probably a little less
threatening and easier than meeting friends and supporters on a face‑to‑face
basis. I have a number of individuals
who phone me from time to time, and I think I am part of their support
network. I listen patiently. There is not a lot that I can do other than
listen, but I think that is helpful. I
think that keeps these individuals on a steady course.
There is a good program in the Department of Mental Health,
and I have talked to the director of this program several times. In fact, I have tried to recruit individuals
for this program, because it is called the Proctor Program. What the department of mental health is doing
is recruiting individuals in the community who are called proctors. They are assigned to an individual with
mental health problems, someone who is living in the community. The proctor is paid for the time that they
spend with the individual.
The idea is that instead of using only professionals to
help individuals with mental health problems that nonprofessionals who are
friends, who are both a proctor and a friend, can be helpful. The director of the program says that it is
very successful. I met her at a banquet
a week ago and I said when an individual has a proctor who is also a friend, does
it keep them out of expensive psychiatric care?
Does it help in keeping them out of being hospitalized or out of being
institutionalized? The director of the
program said, yes, it is successful. It
does mean that there are fewer admissions.
This is a program that is expanding. They are recruiting more proctors, and I
think that is a good thing. It means
that individuals can continue to live in the community. They can try to get their lives back in
order. They can go to school. They can find a job and establish some
stability in their lives. The
alternative is a much poorer alternative.
I think all of us would agree that we need psychiatric facilities in
hospitals and psychiatric beds in the community and psychiatric institutions
that when they are needed, it is helpful, they must be there.
If we can keep people out of those institutions and
psychiatric beds, I think there are many, many advantages. I think it is better for the individuals and
it is, of course, less costly to government because there is a huge cost to
staffing facilities, three shifts a day and hiring psychiatric nurses and
hiring psychiatrists, because all of these professionals are very well
paid. Not to say that the proctors do
not have to have standards and some training, my understanding is that the
proctors must have a university degree and/or experience in the social services
sector. So these individuals are
screened and are chosen carefully.
Another reason for wanting to commend the Proctor Program
is that in Manitoba and probably across Canada and the United States, we have
seen a very large shift in probably the last 25 years whereby psychiatric
patients in hospitals have been deinstitutionalized and returned to the
community. While it is good to see the
number of people being reduced in psychiatric institutions and facilities,
there have been problems because while governments said we are going to put
more resources into the community, we are going to follow these individuals and
provide support in the community, that has not always happened. So there is considerable evidence that one of
the results is that many of these people end up on the streets. Amongst the numbers of the homeless in our
society, the problem of homelessness is a very big problem, even in Canada, and
particularly in our major cities. I am
not sure of the extent of the problem in Winnipeg, but I think the last figure
I heard was something like 150,000 homeless people in Canada. If that is true, that is a huge figure. Sounds a little high to me, but if it is
true, it is a very, very large figure.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
* (1140)
When people have both psychiatric problems and they are
homeless, there are many, many problems for those individuals and for our
society. It is very difficult if an individual
is homeless and they are on medication for them to take the medication
regularly. If they do not take the
medication regularly, then that causes problems for these individuals. It is very hard to have any sense of
stability or any kind of hope if one is homeless. This is a problem that we as a society should
be doing a lot more about.
Unfortunately, we have two views or two models in our
society of what to do about the homeless.
One model is to warehouse these individuals. Basically that is the model of the Salvation
Army and other organizations that put up shelters, frequently subsidized by
provincial and federal governments.
Individuals can stay for one or two or three days, whatever the policy
is, and then they are out on the street.
They have to spend time out of the facility before they get back in
again. It does not do anything for the
problem of homelessness. It only
provides a roof over their head and a temporary shelter.
But there is another model.
I have been involved with people supporting the alternative model, who
are part of an organization called the Urban Core Support Network. They have been working with psychiatric
patients and others who are homeless on the model of building permanent housing
for homeless people.
There are many success stories in this regard. For example, the Fred Victor Mission funded
by the United Church in downtown Toronto, which for many years was based on the
warehouse or shelter model, was transformed into permanent housing. The success stories here are quite
interesting and wonderful to hear.
Basically it is based on an empowerment model whereby the
homeless people themselves are involved right from the beginning in planning
and designing the permanent housing and then occupying it. Some of them have also gained employment in
terms of being managers or security guards or maintenance staff.
I have heard some of these stories. One of the more interesting ones told by
Reverend Paul Webb is about an individual who was a client at Fred Victor
Mission, a homeless person, had lived there for a long time. No one had ever heard this individual
speak. Then they started having meetings
with the homeless people to plan their permanent shelter. This individual started to speak at meetings
and started to speak more and more. He
came out of his shell. Once it was
built, he became the person who ran the laundry facility. That is one small example of the
transformation that occurred in an individual.
In Toronto there are two or three organizations that have
built permanent housing for the homeless.
In Vancouver there is Seven Sisters Housing Co‑op which houses
people who used to live in hotels and rooming houses, I believe, on the
downtown east side.
One of the examples that was used whenever I went to these
meetings of the Urban Core Support Network in Toronto was Jack's Place on Main
Street in Winnipeg. People were
constantly saying, well, CMHC funded Jack's Place in Winnipeg; why do they not
fund similar places in other cities?
My understanding is that Jack's Place, when it opened, was
made available for people who were living in hotels and rooming houses on Main
Street in Winnipeg. I have toured the
facility, and it seems to work well. The
problem is that the rooms are very small because it was a small hotel that was
converted to Jack's Place. So
consequently they have had a problem with vacancies.
But it is interesting, Mr. Acting Speaker, to look at the
attitude of the people who work in these organizations. For example, there was an incident involving
an individual who took a hostage at the Salvation Army, I believe at the Booth
Centre, within the past week. I have
been to the Booth Centre, and I know that when you go into the lobby, the staff
person is behind plexiglass, or whatever it is, and they press a button to open
the door. There is a lot of security
there already. Some of it is
understandable, because you have to protect your staff, and I guess this
incident showed that.
At Jack's Place‑‑I have met the manager at
Jack's Place. She used to come
occasionally to the North Winnipeg Co‑operative Community Council for
Seniors. She works in an office on the
main floor at the front of Jack's Place, you know, 10 feet from the sidewalk on
Main Street, and works all day with her door unlocked. So people said, well, what happens if there
is a fight? She said, well, occasionally
a fight breaks out, and I just go out and lock the door.
Now I see they have got wrought iron gates. I guess that they close at night, in front of
the facility, but I think the attitude is quite significant, that people who
work with the poor, who are empathetic, are not afraid of them. Maybe they are willing to take more
risks. I do not know.
That was our attitude when I was at the North End Community
Ministry. We did have a security policy
for the staff, but when there were two or more staff there, the door was always
open. We made it a place that was
hospitable even for people that were inebriated or high on sniff. We took certain precautions, but they were
always welcome.
One of these individuals is one of my constituents now and
lives in the north end. Just the other
day, he was walking down our back lane.
He does this every day. He opens
the garbage containers and takes out plastic bags, and he goes to a store on
Salter Street and buys sniff products. I
happened to be talking to one of my neighbours, and I said hello to him. This individual has a great sense of humour. He went back to the garbage bin and opened
the lid and looked in, and was looking for me in the garbage bin. She said, do you know him? Because I called him by name. I said, yes, I have known him for about 10
years. He is a sniffer and this is what
he is doing and this is where he is going.
I have never been afraid of this individual. So I think attitude is very important.
I digress from Bill 19.
I do have many articles here on homelessness, and I thank the staff of
the Legislative Library for digging up many, many articles on mental health
problems. Unfortunately, I did not have
time to read them before I gave my speech, so I am not going to be able to use
many of these, but the librarian's time was not entirely wasted, because I will
put this in our file for other speakers on this bill.
Since I did not have time to read all these very
interesting articles on mental health care and mental health reform and the
area that particularly interests me, and that is the problem of mental health
patients and former mental health patients who are homeless, I think with those
remarks I will conclude now, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Thank you.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): As previously agreed, this matter will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
Committee Changes
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts be amended as follows: the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine)
for the member for Arthur‑Virden (Mr. Downey); the member for Gimli (Mr.
Helwer) for the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose).
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Agreed?
Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 20‑‑The Municipal Amendment Act
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), Bill 20 (The Municipal Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les municipalités), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 21‑‑The Manitoba Medical
Association Dues Act
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), Bill 21 (The Manitoba Medical Association Dues
Act; Loi sur la cotisation de l'Association médicale du Manitoba), standing in
the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 23‑‑The Manitoba Historical
Society Property Act
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ernst), Bill 23 (The Manitoba
Historical Society Property Act; Loi sur les biens de la Société historique du
Manitoba), standing in the name of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr.
Lamoureux).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 24‑‑The Waste Reduction and
Prevention Amendment Act
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), Bill 24 (The Waste Reduction and
Prevention Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la réduction du volume et de
la production des déchets), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Is it the will of the House to call it 12:30? The hour now being 12:30 p.m., this House now
stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m., Monday, June 20.