LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
MANITOBA
Wednesday, June 29, 1994
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
ACCESS Program Funding
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Lisa Jablonski, Helen Egyed, Ellen Olfert and others requesting the Legislative
Assembly request the Minister of Education and Training (Mr. Manness) to
consider restoring funding to the ACCESS program.
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
George Munroe, Laurie Wesley, Andrea Asham and others requesting the
Legislative Assembly request the Minister of Education and Training to consider
restoring funding to the ACCESS program.
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Vincent Stamler, Loni Beck, Buffie Macklin and others requesting the
Legislative Assembly request the Minister of Education and Training to consider
restoring funding to the ACCESS program.
PRESENTING REPORTS BY
STANDING AND SPECIAL
COMMITTEES
Standing Committee on
Economic Development
Mr. Jack Reimer (Chairperson of the Standing
Committee on Economic Development): Mr.
Speaker, I beg to present the Second Report of the Committee on Economic
Development.
Mr. Speaker:
Dispense.
Your Standing Committee
on Economic Development presents the following as its Second Report.
Your committee met on
Tuesday, June 28, 1994, at 9 a.m. in Room 254 of the Legislative Building to
consider bills referred.
Your committee heard
representation on bills as follows:
Bill 18, The Insurance
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les assurances
Mr. William O'Brien ‑
Insurance Brokers Association of Manitoba
Bill 28, The Off‑Road
Vehicles Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les véhicules à caractère non
routier
Mr. William O'Brien ‑
Insurance Brokers Association of Manitoba
Written Submissions
Received:
Bill 10, The Wildlife
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la conservation de la faune
Ms. M. Scott ‑
Union of Manitoba Municipalities
Your committee has
considered:
Bill 7, The Crown Lands
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les terres domaniales
Bill 8, The Fisheries
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la pêche
Bill 9, The Convention Centre
Corporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Corporation du Centre
des congrès
Bill 10, The Wildlife
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la conservation de la faune
Bill 11, The Legislative
Assembly Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Assemblée législative
Bill 12, The Provincial
Auditor's Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le vérificateur provincial
Bill 13, The Condominium
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les condominiums
Bill 14, The Real Estate
Brokers Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les courtiers en immeubles
Bill 18, The Insurance
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les assurances
Bill 23, The Manitoba
Historical Society Property Act; Loi sur les biens de la Société historique du
Manitoba
Bill 28, The Off‑Road
Vehicles Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les véhicules à caractère non
routier
has agreed to report the
same without amendment.
Your committee has also
considered:
Bill 5, The Highway
Traffic Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant le Code de la
route et apportant des modifications corrélatives
and has agreed to report
the same with the following amendments:
MOTION:
That clauses 171(2)(c) to
(e) of the French version, as set out in section 7 of the Bill, be struck out
and the following substituted:
c) d'enlever une plaque
d'immatriculation ou une vignette de validation de la plaque d'immatriculation
d'un véhicule automobile ou d'une remorque, sauf si le propriétaire y consent,
que le registraire l'autorise ou que le présent code ou les règlements le
prévoient;
d) d'apposer ou de
permettre que soit apposée sur un véhicule automobile ou une remorque une
plaque d'immatriculation qui ne peut être utilisée pour le véhicule en
question, sauf si le présent code ou les règlements le prévoient;
e) d'utiliser ou de
permettre que soit utilisé un véhicule automobile ou une remorque sur lequel
est apposée une plaque d'immatriculation qui ne peut être utilisée pour le
véhicule en question, sauf si le présent code ou les règlements le prévoient.
MOTION:
THAT clause 29(e) of the
French version of the Bill be amended by striking out "eee.i)" and
substituting "eee.1)".
Mr. Reimer:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for St. Vital
(Mrs. Render), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Standing Committee on
Law Amendments
Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Acting Chairperson of the
Standing Committee on Law Amendments): Mr. Speaker,
I beg to present the First Report of the Committee on Law Amendments.
Mr. Speaker:
Dispense.
Your Standing Committee
on Law Amendments presents the following as its First Report.
Your committee met on
Tuesday, June 28, 1994, at 9 a.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to
consider bills referred. At that meeting
your committee elected Mr. Penner as its Chairperson.
Your committee heard
representation on bills as follows:
Bill 19, The Mental
Health Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la santé mentale
Ms. Nancy Davids ‑
Private Citizen
Mr. Bill Martin ‑
Canadian Mental Health Association
Bill 21‑‑The
Manitoba Medical Association Dues Act; Loi sur la cotisation de l'Association
médicale du Manitoba
Mr. John Laplume ‑
Manitoba Medical Association
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
Ms. Jane Stewart ‑
Council for Tobacco Free Manitoba
Written Submissions
Received:
Bill 2‑‑The
Prescription Drugs Cost Assistance Amendment and Pharmaceutical Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aide à l'achat de médicaments sur ordonnance et la
Loi sur les pharmacies
Mr. Peter Sim ‑
Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties
Ms. Michelle Scott ‑
Union of Manitoba Municipalities
Bill 4‑‑The
Energy and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi sur l'énergie et apportant des
modifications corrélatives
Mr. Peter Sim ‑
Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties
Your committee has considered:
Bill 2, The Prescription
Drugs Cost Assistance Amendment and Pharmaceutical Amendment Act; Loi modifiant
la Loi sur l'aide à l'achat de médicaments sur ordonnance et la Loi sur les
pharmacies
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
Bill 15, The Law Society
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Société du Barreau
Bill 19, The Mental
Health Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la santé mentale
Bill 21, The Manitoba
Medical Association Dues Act; Loi sur la cotisation de l'Association médicale
du Manitoba
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 has agreed to report
the same without amendment.
Your committee has also
considered:
Bill 4, The Energy and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi sur l'énergie et apportant des modifications
corrélatives
and has agreed to report
the same with the following amendments:
MOTION:
THAT the English version
of subsection 7(3) be amended in the part preceding clause (a) by striking out
"a prescribed energy‑using product is" and substituting
"prescribed energy‑using products are".
MOTION:
THAT the English version
of clause 10(1)(b) be amended by striking out "that" and substituting
"than".
MOTION:
THAT subsection 10(2) be
amended by striking out ", employee".
Mr. McAlpine: I
move, seconded by the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay), that
the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Negotiations on Internal
Trade Barriers
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade
and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I have a statement for the House.
I am pleased
to rise in the House today as co‑chairman of the Committee of Ministers
of Internal Trade to announce that the federal, provincial and territorial
representatives have reached an agreement in principle on a comprehensive
agreement to reduce and eliminate internal barriers to trade within
Canada. I believe that this is a truly
historic event for Manitoba and for Canada.
At the
outset, I would like to acknowledge the negotiators for the Province of Manitoba,
particularly my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), who was the
co‑chair of the negotiations prior to my taking on the
responsibility. As well, I would like to
acknowledge Paul Goyan and Allan Barber for their hard work and their commitment
in the negotiations. I would like to
also acknowledge and thank Mr. Arthur Mauro, who has done a tremendous job of
chairman and chief negotiator, for his excellent work on behalf of the people
of this country.
* (1335)
In 1992,
First Ministers set a deadline of June of 1995 for dealing with internal trade
barriers. Ministers for internal trade
launched comprehensive negotiations in March of 1993 to conclude an agreement
by June 30, 1994, and to be ratified and implemented by June of 1995. A comprehensive agreement to reduce and
eliminate interprovincial trade barriers that have emerged over the past 127
years is vital to the economic well‑being of Manitoba and of Canada.
Manitoba is a
trading province and our continued prosperity is directly dependent upon an
open and efficient internal market.
Internal trade barriers are estimated to cost Canada almost $7 billion
annually. These costs are particularly
important to Manitoba since we are one of the provinces which depend upon
trading within Canada. Manitoba exports
over 60 percent more within Canada than it does internationally. Removing barriers to this trade will enable
Manitoba business to grow and prosper.
Internal
trade barriers cost Manitobans an estimated $300 million each year. Enormous progress has been made with the
agreement reached yesterday in Ottawa.
The agreement includes: a
framework based upon general trade rules applicable to all governments; a
dispute settlement mechanism for resolving issues on internal trade matters
including access to this process for the private sector; the opening of a
public sector procurement market of almost $50 billion to all businesses in
Canada and commitments to continue negotiations to open the procurement of
Crown corporations; a code of conduct to prevent destructive competition for
investment and put an end to the senseless bidding wars pitting province
against province and wasting taxpayers' dollars; a framework and a commitment
to deal with differences in occupational standards and qualification
requirements that limit the mobility of workers and professionals within
Canada; and an agreement not to create any new barriers to internal trade.
Mr. Speaker,
this agreement represents an enormous breakthrough in an area that all
governments have been wrestling with since 1985. There remain some matters which we will work
to resolve in the near future. We have
agreed to continue negotiations on internal trade barriers in the area of
agriculture and food products, energy and alcohol beverages, to resolve
outstanding issues in these areas in time for them to be part of our formal
agreement.
Mr. Speaker,
I truly believe that this agreement represents a crucial step in restoring the
faith of Canadians in the functioning of the Canadian economic union. It demonstrates the commitment of all
governments to work together to address the issues that have arisen over the
past 127 years. The lowering of trade
barriers within Canada will allow Manitobans to reap the benefits of a unified
Canadian market. The opening of
previously restricted markets in Canada will create new opportunities for
Manitobans and the elimination of procurement barriers, and the establishment
of a code of conduct and investment will directly benefit taxpayers. This agreement will reinforce Manitoba's
efforts to make efficient use of every tax dollar.
It has been
my privilege, Mr. Speaker, to represent Manitoba in these negotiations, and I
am proud to announce to this House the conclusion of what I believe is a
historic agreement. Thank you.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Deputy
Premier and the co‑chair of the national committee for his statement
today in the Chamber. I want to pass on
our best regards to Mr. Mauro and members who represented Manitoba in these
negotiations.
Mr. Speaker,
I know that every agreement that is reached in Canada is called historic, and I
know that I have perhaps used that term myself, but certainly this agreement
does produce some results, and it does provide a number of exceptions, and it
provides a number of challenges that are still unresolved in this trade
agreement. So I think there is a lot of
work ahead, if I must say so to the members opposite and to the trades
ministers across the country.
First of all,
Mr. Speaker, I have always been opposed to provinces bidding for jobs through
taxpayers' money and taxpayers' grants.
If you just look at the telemarketing situation in Canada today, we have
a Liberal government in New Brunswick that put money into jobs for Federal
Express. We have a Conservative
government in Manitoba that put money into GWE, and we have an NDP government
in Saskatchewan that put money into the Sears marketing operation, all of which
is wrong because, ultimately, those are three different governments, three
different political stripes with the same problem.
A code of
conduct, Mr. Speaker, will not deal with that problem, and there is no real
teeth in this measure that has been agreed to by provinces. As we have lost a number of jobs to Alberta
through the former Conservative government putting in tremendous public support
to the Cargill plant and we have lost jobs potentially with the Simplot plant
in Brandon, I do not think this problem has been solved, quite frankly, in the
communique issued today.
* (1340)
Secondly, Mr.
Speaker, there are exceptions for Crown corporations, but there are no
exceptions for social priorities of provinces.
The whole area of regional economic development which was put on the
table by some provinces, the whole area of northern unemployment and northern
aboriginal hiring was not dealt with, I think, adequately by the
ministers. It has been an area which we
believe should be part of a trade agreement, an affirmative action program, to
hire and train northerners and northern aboriginal people, and we think that is
missing.
Thirdly,
there is no strategy to deal with making sure that the floor of trading for
goods and services is equal, Mr. Speaker, that labour laws, workplace safety and
health laws, minimum construction laws, have a national agreement to them, so
that we are truly competing on an equal basis.
There are
jobs now in Manitoba that are being filled by construction firms from
Alberta. Even I believe the latest
national disease headquarters has a number of jobs being fulfilled not by
Manitobans but by companies from Alberta.
It is important. I know when I
was Minister of telephones, companies in Saskatchewan would bid into Manitoba
and be part of the tendering process, yet we could not bid into
Saskatchewan. I think progress in this
area is really important.
I want to
congratulate the minister in his work.
As I say, I think we have a lot of challenges to meet still on this
very, very important item of having fair treatment of goods and services, of
fair trading practices between provinces and an aggressive approach to dealing
with taxpayers' money going to, as David Lewis used to say, corporate welfare
bums who just up the ante in terms of grants from the public. Thank you.
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second
Opposition): We, too, would like to join with the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) and the Leader of the Opposition in thanking the participants, on
behalf of the Province of Manitoba, who have been down at these negotiations
most recently, but have been involved in a very real way and through some very
difficult negotiations for a number of years.
They have served us well and, I think, kept cool heads throughout.
I think we
are all very pleased the parties‑‑and we have all seen over the
years the very different approaches that were taken and the very different
philosophies that came into these negotiations.
Really, to see progress like this is encouraging. Is it as much as was hoped for? Clearly not, Mr. Speaker, and I think we hope
it will continue and set a precedent for further discussions.
It is indeed
anomalous and I suggest quite damaging to our country that we are now and have
been for some time making it more difficult to deal with each other than it is
with the rest of the world. The way the
world is evolving is clear and that is towards a freer trade between nations,
between peoples of all continents, and it was becoming easier for us to trade
with Mexico than Saskatchewan.
Mr. Speaker,
many have suggested and I think quite rightly that if we were going to tolerate
that for the long term, we deserved our fate in this country. I am very pleased that the governments have
worked together across this country from the various political perspectives to
come up with an agreement which I hope sets a precedent for future agreements
that have more teeth.
I do share
the comments of the Leader of the Opposition that I think it is an agreement in
principle. It is going to rely on good
faith, a commitment from all the provinces, but ultimately, I think, we do want
to see a more stringent agreement between the provinces in this country that
will not be at the mercy of the particular ups and downs of the political
situation in each province but will serve us well into the next century.
Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to have seen the governments work together, obviously very
much appreciate the efforts of the negotiators here in Manitoba and, as well,
the efforts of Mr. Mauro and the efforts, I think, of the federal government as
they brought this to a conclusion.
Indeed, it was started under the prior administration but was continued
and to a successful conclusion in a very, I think, co‑operative
fashion. Thank you.
* (1345)
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 220‑‑The
Elections Amendment Act
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): I move, seconded by the member for Point
Douglas (Mr. Hickes), that leave be given to introduce Bill 220, The Elections
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les élections, and that the same be now
received and read a first time.
Motion presented.
Mr. Mackintosh: This bill gets patronage out of the
administration of elections insofar as it takes the power to appoint returning
officers from the cabinet and gives that power to the Chief Electoral Officer
to be exercised by considering merit.
I cannot
imagine an area where patronage is more repugnant than election
administration. The bill will ensure
that returning officers are both seen to be, and are actually, impartial and
makes a move to a timely appointment process and professionally trained
administrators.
This measure
is recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer and was most recently urged in
regard to last year's by‑election in St. Johns.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 31‑‑The
Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment and Income
Tax Amendment Act
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we might have leave
to introduce for first reading, Bill 31, The Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund
Corporation Amendment and Income Tax Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi
constituant en corporation le Fonds de participation des travailleurs du
Manitoba et la Loi de L'impôt sur le revenu).
Mr. Speaker:
Is there leave to introduce Bill 31 for first reading at this time? [agreed]
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade
and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Health (Mr. McCrae), that leave be given to introduce Bill 31, The Manitoba
Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment and Income Tax Amendment Act (Loi
modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation le Fonds de participation des
travailleurs du Manitoba et la Loi de L'impôt sur le revenu), and that the same
be now received and read a first time.
His Honour
the Lieutenant‑Governor, having been advised of the contents of this
bill, recommends it to the House. I
would like to table the message as well.
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 afternoon from the Winkler
Elementary School seventy‑five Grade 5 students under the direction of
Mr. E. Claassen. This school is located
in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr.
Orchard).
On behalf of
all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Pukatawagan, Manitoba
Health Emergency
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First
Minister (Mr. Filmon) or Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae).
Last week, I
had the opportunity to travel to the Mathias Colomb Band or the Pukatawagan
community, along with the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), the member for
Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) and the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin). I was quite astounded by the health
conditions in the community and the situation with the sewage lagoon and the
water situation. It was astonishing for
me to find out that the water was being boiled for over six months and, of
course, the member for Flin Flon raised this with the Minister of Health last
week in the House and, before that, privately.
Today we have
received a copy from the Minister of Health of the chief medical officer's
report, Dr. John Guilfoyle, dealing with the Pukatawagan situation. He confirms our concerns last week, concerns
raised by the member for Flin Flon, that 1,100 people had suffered from skin
disease out of a community of 1,700.
This is an absolute
national disgrace of major proportions in terms of that many people being
affected.
* (1350)
Mr. Speaker,
the chief medical officer of Manitoba concludes that a health emergency does
exist in this community due to its lack of a safe supply of drinking water, a
very, very serious situation for any Manitoba community.
I would like
to ask the Minister of Health: Has he
been in contact with the federal government, and what action is either he or
the Minister responsible for Federal‑Provincial Relations, the Premier
(Mr. Filmon), taking with the federal government on this very, very important
health emergency.
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the honourable member for Flin
Flon (Mr. Storie) appropriately raised this matter with me. Working together, we asked Dr. Guilfoyle to
look further into this situation. The
day before yesterday, Dr. Guilfoyle and two others travelled to Mathias Colomb
and looked at the situation. Dr.
Guilfoyle reported to me yesterday, and I shared the report with the honourable
member for Flin Flon.
Dr. Guilfoyle
does not have very nice things to say, Mr. Speaker, about the circumstances
that have existed at Pukatawagan‑‑very strong language to describe
the way he feels about whoever it was who designed the water system in that
area, and very strong language also with respect to whose responsibility it is
to do something about that and to do something about it immediately, so the
situation can be remediated for the people who live in that area.
That system
is serving supposedly 1,700 people, Mr. Speaker, and is designed to serve
250. It is just totally
unsatisfactory. Dr. Guilfoyle has agreed
to prepare a communication for me to send to the federal officials, the member
of Parliament for that area and anybody else who needs to be alerted to the
situation so that something can be done immediately.
Mr. Doer: If this
situation existed in any southern community in Manitoba, any of our communities,
Mr. Speaker, it would be an absolute emergency that would be dealt with
immediately, and the fact that the people of this community have had to boil
their water for over six months, and 1,100 cases have been reported by that
community is, as I say, a national disgrace.
Mr. Speaker,
the federal government designed a plant that according to Dr. Guilfoyle, the
sewage treatment plant is designed to deal with the sewage from 70 homes, this
peculiar design which seems to be uncommonly inefficient in dealing with
sewage. Tests have revealed that the
bacterial contamination of sewage after treatment is actually higher than
before treatment. This plant currently
discharges sewage approximately 20 metres off the shore into an area where
children swim.
Now, when I
visited that community, you could see it.
I certainly did not know it was this bad. It is a health emergency for all citizens of
Manitoba, and I thank the minister for getting involved in it.
I would like
to ask the Minister of Health: What
response has the minister received from the federal minister responsible and
from the federal government of Canada?
Mr. McCrae:
Mr. Speaker, we know the response since last fall has been zero to a
situation which leaves the people of Pukatawagan in a health emergency
situation, according to Dr. Guilfoyle.
As I say, Dr. Guilfoyle and I and no doubt the member for Flin Flon (Mr.
Storie) are making every effort to ensure that we are not going to allow the
federal government or the local government for that matter to allow this matter
to persist. It is not appropriate for
the people who live in that area.
This water,
Mr. Speaker, is not even good enough to bathe in. The people there have to buy their water in
bottles. That might be all right for consumption
purposes, but when the water is so unsafe that you cannot even bathe in it
without putting your health at risk, it seems to me the authority that has the
responsibility for it ought to waste no further days in addressing the problem.
* (1355)
Mr. Doer: I thank
the minister for that answer.
Capital Funding
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): In the last paragraph of Dr. Guilfoyle's
report, he mentions very clearly that‑‑prior to that, he mentions
the whole fact that the capital design by the federal government was totally
inadequate both in size and also in design.
He goes on further to say that the band has no other capital to deal
with this issue, and he states that they plan to access emergency funds under
the transfer agreement with the federal government.
I would like
to ask the Minister responsible for Federal‑Provincial Relations (Mr.
Filmon): Will he facilitate this
transfer under this agreement with the federal government? The lead minister or the Premier has dealt
with other transfer agreements before with the federal jurisdiction.
Would he also
work with the Minister of Health to make sure that this health emergency gets
the emergency funds that may be available from the federal government and must
be available for the federal government to deal with this health problem?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): If in our inquiries today from the federal
government there is not a willingness to move immediately, I will call on the
services of the department of federal‑provincial relations to assist me
in getting that job done.
It is not
appropriate or acceptable that the federal government allow this matter to drag
any further. I do not really know whose
fault this is, whether it is the band's fault or the federal government's
fault, but the fact is, the federal government has a responsibility for First
Nations in this province. If they can
negotiate self‑government agreements, that is fine and dandy, Mr.
Speaker, but right now we have a problem that needs to be addressed
immediately.
Goods and Services Tax
Replacement
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I have a question for the Premier.
All major
media reported today that the federal Minister of Finance, Mr. Martin, has
floated the idea of a single, national harmonized sales tax pegged at 10
percent to replace the GST. You might
want to call it son of GST, maybe, Mr. Speaker.
The provinces
would get 60 percent of the revenue from such a tax. However, there could be a shortfall as a
result of such a tax change. In return,
the federal government apparently would give the provinces the right to impose
a flat tax on income.
My question
to the Premier is: Can he confirm that
the federal government has indeed offered to create a single tax of 10 percent,
and can the Premier indicate whether the 10 percent rate would be applied to
food and other items not now covered by the provincial sales tax?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I just caution the member for Brandon
East for putting on the record what might be considered a sexist remark. It could also be the daughter of GST. Having said that‑‑[interjection]
I will not engage in any discussions with the member for Wellington (Ms.
Barrett) on that.
Mr. Speaker,
I cannot confirm the veracity of those newspaper reports with respect to the
federal proposal, but I can confirm that a quick analysis of what that would
produce would be a shortfall to the Treasury of Manitoba of I believe just
under $200 million annually.
Therefore, we
would be put in a position of having to take the responsibility to raise the
funds and, presumably, the federal government would give us some initiative or
assistance in raising the funds by raising some other taxes to supplant the loss. It looks very, very much as though it is a
proposal that is not in the best interests of Manitoba. That is all I can say.
I expect to
get a full report from our Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), who is
currently in the midst of meetings with his federal and provincial counterparts
on the issue.
* (1400)
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to agree with the
Premier and his answer in this case about the loss of sales tax revenue.
I appreciate
this is very early, but I wonder if the Premier could indicate what impact this
would have on income tax. If there was
this loss of $200 million, can he imagine to what degree individual income tax
rates would have to be increased as a consequence of the federal proposal?
Mr. Filmon: I
want to emphasize that we are talking in hypothetical terms. I am reluctant to do that other than to say,
yes, the counter side of the proposal, as I understand it, would require us to
make major increases in personal income tax rates in order to supplant the loss
of revenue from that proposal. That
simply is a very, very bad proposal, from our perspective.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, my final question then is: Will the Premier now reassure Manitobans that
his government will not give in to pressure from the federal Minister of
Finance and Mr. Chretien to broaden the base of our provincial sales taxes and
indeed the national sales taxes so that food and medicine and other vital items
would be included in the future?
Mr. Filmon:
Mr. Speaker, as I have said in this House earlier this week and late
last week, we are adamantly opposed to the proposal that has been put forward
by the federal Liberal committee that studied the replacement for the GST that
would call for its application to be broadened onto groceries, medical
supplies, all of those areas that were rejected in the first round of
discussions that led to the GST as we now know it.
All the most
damaging and negative aspects of the original GST proposals now appear to have
been reborn in this proposal along with the proposal to hide it and bury it
within the prices so that people are not aware when taxes are increased, along
with the other element of the proposal, which was to harmonize it, again with
the negative impacts on our Treasury and on consumers in particular, as it
implies a transference from businesses to consumers of the burden of the tax.
All of that
is so negative that I find it difficult to believe that the new federal
government would even consider that and is, in fact, realistically proposing it
to Canadians.
Winnipeg Jets
Government Position
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in the last 48 hours, the
Premier has been making comments about the status of negotiations that he is aware
of that are going on between the majority shareholders of the Winnipeg Jets and
others to find out whether or not some reconciliation can be made to keep the
team in the city for a further year, as recommended by the Burns report.
Mr. Speaker,
my question for the Premier: The
assumption that I think all in this Chamber are functioning under and indeed I
think has been the message that has been sent to the public is that the
government will have nothing more to contribute to the Winnipeg Jets with respect
to this deal that is ongoing. Yet the
Premier, obviously, and the various levels of government have to be involved,
as they have certain rights under that initial agreement, but it does not
involve further money.
I would like
the Premier just to, if he would, confirm that, that this is the approach he is
taking in these negotiations and, if possible, identify for members of the
Chamber what the status of those discussions are, to his knowledge.
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I thank the Leader of the Liberal Party for
the question, and I am happy to share all the information that I can. I will say that I hope to have a letter in my
hands‑‑if it arrives before the end of Question Period, I will
table it; if not, I will deliver it to the offices of both opposition caucuses‑‑from
the majority shareholders of the Winnipeg Jets confirming that they have, in
effect, given an option to purchase all or part of their shares in the club to
a private‑sector‑based group.
I met with
three representatives of the private‑sector‑based group yesterday
afternoon to confirm that they were making this offer on the condition that the
clause that allows for the exercise of the option at an agreed‑upon price
is extended to May 1 of 1995, which time extension is intended to give the
opportunity for the ability to prove whether or not the seats in the arena, the
boxes and all of the premium seating that is contemplated in Burns can be
achieved to allow for $27 million of annual revenue to flow and for this
private sector group to demonstrate whether or not they can also find private
sector capital to contribute towards the construction and development of a new
arena and to allow for the time that is necessary to prove whether or not a
salary cap on players' salaries will come to the NHL during the immediate
future.
Finally, I
would say that this private sector group who are putting up their own capital
towards this venture are also proposing to take the responsibility for the
design and engineering developments that have to take place over the next year,
concurrent with this, so that a year of construction is not lost if a go
decision is to be made next spring.
The private
sector group, I am satisfied, not only has the wherewithal, but I am satisfied
that they have the motivation to make all of this work and to prove and
demonstrate that private sector funding is available for the process.
I would just
say to the Leader of the Liberal Party that, as I believe his party has gone on
record, we have indicated that some limited support as was contemplated by the
Mauro committee that contemplated up to, say, $30 million of federal,
provincial and municipal money, the provincial share of course would probably
include the value of the land, which I think is worth about $5 million as part
of the provincial contribution. That
remains on the table as part of a potential mix of funding. It has not changed.
I might say
as well to him that our hope of course is that all of the money necessary for
the arena can be found through the private sector and creative financing
sources.
Economic Viability
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second
Opposition): Just to clarify, Mr. Speaker, the position
which has been articulated previously in this Chamber on behalf of our party
has been that any contribution from the levels of government, from this level
of government, the provincial level, must be cost neutral. We all know the construction itself produces
revenues directly over the construction period.
Cost‑neutral contributions have been what have been talked
about. Of course, I share with the
Premier the‑‑we have suggested the bond issue idea, that it be
raised from the private sector.
My
supplementary question for the Premier is:
Underlying all of this, and he has indicated it is the ultimate economic
viability of the Winnipeg Jets over the long term, in a year's time how does
the Premier propose, or has he thought about it at this point, to assess, how
will governments assess whether or not this team is economically viable for the
medium to long term, which might warrant the construction of a facility?
That is the
critical, underlying precondition of this whole debate.
* (1410)
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, our assessment will be based on
the achievement of three things.
One is a
salary cap, because I think even the Burns proposal says this razor‑thin
marginal deal that they see coming together would not be doable without a
salary cap.
The second
thing we have to assess is whether or not this private sector group who are
going to attempt to go out and market boxes and luxury seats to raise the
income from the team to $27 million can achieve that target.
The third
thing is the degree of private sector capital available for the construction
and development of the new arena facility.
All those three things will be the basis upon which we will make our
evaluation.
The member is
quite right when he says there are significant revenues that accrue, even aside
from the construction of the arena, which will produce not only thousands of
construction jobs but at the same time of course direct revenues to
government. All of that is part and
parcel of the equation.
The final
parcel of the equation of course is that this team currently provides an
average, over the last three or four years of the agreement, of $14 million of
annual direct revenues to government, which is expected to rise to $20 million
by 1996‑97‑‑direct tax revenues to government. The question is, what are we going to do to
replace that to provide the funding that we need for government services‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
Winnipeg Arena
Design Costs
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second
Opposition): I have a final question for the Premier, Mr.
Speaker.
There has
been much discussion in the last 24 hours about the amount of money that is
going to be required to satisfy the government's initial designing of a
facility, should it go ahead, and the figure $750,000 has been kicked around in
the press.
My question
for the Premier: What is his information
as to the amount, and where is that money coming from? I think I heard him say it is coming from the
private sector, but can he indicate where the money is coming from, and if he
could also indicate what his information is as to the amount that has been
committed of preliminary work?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Initially, the three levels of government
were proposing that they would be responsible for the cost of design. In my discussions yesterday, the people whom
I spoke to indicated they felt that the money could come from private sector
sources.
Seven Oaks General
Hospital
Private Home Care
Services
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, this government has said their
bottom line in health is patient care.
Yet, even the president of a major hospital has said the government is
only interested in cutting costs. This
year Seven Oaks has over a million‑dollar cut from this government, has
been forced to close the hospital on Filmon Fridays, yet the government has
found money to pay for their friends at We Care private nursing services.
Since the
Premier is so forthcoming about the Jets and all the financial information, can
the Minister of Health tell us how much the government is paying to We Care
Health Services for that contract at Seven Oaks?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): I agree, Mr. Speaker, that the bottom line is
patient care. As a result of a question
raised yesterday by the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans),
the issue became rather clear that patient care is the bottom line.
I would like
to quote from a letter in relation to the issue raised by the honourable member
with respect to patient care, and it is from Jack Litvack, the president of the‑‑Oh,
I am not going to have time for that, Mr. Speaker? It is very relevant. [interjection]
I think maybe
I will deal with that in another way, Mr. Speaker. The issue that the honourable member asks
about‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I believe, Mr. Speaker, that when a member
references a letter, they must table it in the Chamber, please.
Mr. McCrae:
On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would love to table this
letter. It is so positive. It is so positive, I am afraid honourable
members in the New Democratic Party would refuse to read it.
Mr. Speaker:
Are you going to table it? Do you
want to table it? You do not have to,
but I am asking.
Mr. McCrae:
Yes, I will read it. I will just
read the last‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
Minister of Health, carry on with your response, and you want to table the
letter.
* * *
Mr. McCrae:
Yes. In concluding my response,
Mr. Speaker, I will read the last paragraph of the letter referred to. It says:
The leadership which was shown by Manitoba Health staff and others was
most gratifying. I wanted you to be
aware of our appreciation for this constructive and collaborative
assistance. Thank you. Sincerely, J.T. Litvack, President, St.
Boniface Hospital.
I would table
this letter for honourable members to read, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Chomiak:
Mr. Speaker, they will give us the money on the Jets, and the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) can go on for five minutes on the Jets, but the minister refuses
to tell us.
Will the
minister tell us how much his friends at We Care are getting for their private
nursing contract?
Mr. McCrae:
Mr. Speaker, the people at We Care Health Services, which is carrying
out this pilot with Seven Oaks Hospital, their friends seem to be the patients
who are being served by them and who speak very highly of the work being done
in this project. The people who are
being served under this project have very, very high praise for the
service. As one of the local
broadcasters‑‑I think it was CKY TV‑‑said, the patients
love this service; the NDP hates it.
Well, Mr.
Speaker, that says a lot to me about where the NDP is coming from in this whole
discussion.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr.
Speaker, my final supplementary to the minister: Will the Minister of Health tell this House
how much this government is paying We Care Health Services to carry out the
government's pilot project, which probably is in excess of $100,000?
Mr. McCrae: It would probably be more accurate, Mr.
Speaker, to discuss the savings and the relief to patients in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars than it would be to the company that is involved.
It just goes
to show you, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to patients and the bottom line, we
know where the NDP is. They are not on
the side of the patients, never have been.
They have made their position very clear. They are on the side of their union boss
friends.
Farm Safety Net Programs
Manitoba Position
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, this coming week the Ministers
of Agriculture are going to be meeting in Winnipeg. The minister has indicated that safety net
programs will be on the agenda. Other
provinces have put together proposals, have held public meetings for farmers to
have input on how these programs should be designed, but we have not had that
in Manitoba.
Can the
minister indicate what position he is taking to these meetings? Has he given any consideration to base
Manitoba's proposal on the cost of production or capping the amount of money
that can go to each farm, thus targeting more family farms in this province?
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, allow me simply to correct the
honourable member's implication that meetings have not been held throughout
Manitoba.
We have had a
very well‑comprised committee representing different commodity producer
organizations assisting in the development of a Manitoba position. In addition, of course, we have ongoing
meetings with the premier farm organization, namely, the Keystone Agricultural
Producers organization whose president, Mr. Ransome, serves on this committee.
So that kind
of discussion has taken place. Of
course, at the different farm meetings that I have attended throughout the
province during the course of the last five or six months, this issue has
always been on the agenda, so there has been lots of input from the various
primary producers, agricultural producers as to the Manitoba position on these
matters.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised. I
have not heard of any public meetings being announced to discuss this issue.
[interjection] The Minister of Highways (Mr. Findlay) had his chance at
Agriculture.
Since it is a
fact that a large percentage of the funds in safety net programs is benefiting
a small number of farmers to a greater degree than the majority of farmers‑‑large
operations are getting more of the money‑‑and since the federal
budget will be cut by up to 40 percent, farm safety net programs will be
greatly reduced.
Will the
minister agree that it makes sense to cap the amount of public money, so that
we can help more farmers, so more people can stay in the rural community, and
this would tie into the sustainable development‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
member has put her question.
* (1420)
Mr. Enns: Mr.
Speaker, I would just gently remind the honourable member to look at one of the
major safety net programs involving most of the farmers, say, in the provinces of
Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the GRIP program, and ask her colleagues in
Saskatchewan how they fared and how the coverage fared under those two equal
programs.
I have said
before and I am pleased to say again, that is a single success story for us,
although I would hope, quite frankly, that that kind of level of support
harvest conditions would mitigate from happening again. The support was there, and that is what
safety programs are for. That is why the
GRIP program continues to be a major portion of the programs that I am putting
forward into next week's conference.
We are
looking very seriously at the suggestions that are coming forward from other
provinces, as well as from the federal government about what Mr. Goodale calls
a whole‑farm support program, support to replace the outgoing tripartite
programs that were there certainly, for instance‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. You will have
another opportunity.
Ms. Wowchuk:
Mr. Speaker, the minister says he is looking for suggestions, and I am
offering suggestions about capping‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. This is not a time
for debate. Question.
Ms. Wowchuk:
My final supplementary: In light
of the fact that the pay‑the‑producer panel projects a minimum loss
of $43 million to Manitoba, and this will result in losses of $1,700 to $3,100
per farm and we cannot afford that loss in rural Manitoba, will the Minister of
Agriculture be taking forward the position that change to pay‑the‑producer
is not acceptable in Manitoba and it will destroy the economy in rural
Manitoba?
Mr. Enns: Mr.
Speaker, I can only reply by saying that the very wide range of issues
extremely important to agriculture in Manitoba and to Canada will be discussed
next week. They include the
transportation questions; they include the safety net programs. They include supply management programs
ordering the marketing programs. They
include our ongoing trade difficulties with our major trading partner, the
United States.
I will
undertake, Mr. Speaker, to provide, because I am just that kind of a guy, a
summary of the deliberations of the conference to my critics, both of the New
Democratic Party and of the Liberal Party, at the conclusion of the conference.
Rural Development Video
Production Costs
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural
Development): Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to questions
from the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) on June 28, which was yesterday, to
which I took notice.
First of all,
I want to reject any and all of the statements that were made with respect to
the video by the member for Flin Flon.
It is obvious that this member and his party do not support
entrepreneurship and small business in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, and it was evident
by the questions that were posed yesterday.
Mr. Speaker,
the video produced by my department that the member refers to was entitled
Strong People Building a Stronger Tomorrow and was designed to support rural
Manitoba entrepreneurship and small business.
It did feature a segment with the individual identified by the member as
the owner of Kitemandu, a kite manufacturer from Neepawa.
My department
contacted Mr. Bell yesterday regarding the question from the member for Flin
Flon. Mr. Bell confirmed that he is
intending to move to Ontario. Mr. Bell
confirmed that his move has nothing to do with his business. As a matter of fact, his move is regarding a
family matter and a recent death in the family.
Mr. Bell expressed his disappointment that anyone would depict his move
as a negative commentary on the business climate in Manitoba. He said‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. Hold it for a
minute.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
opposition House leader has the floor.
Order, please, the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), the
honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman).
Order, please, the honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation
(Mr. Findlay). Now we will hear your
point of order, sir.
Mr. Ashton:
Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne Citation 417 is very clear, that answers to
questions should be as brief as possible and deal with the matter raised and
should not provoke debate.
Mr. Speaker,
this is particularly true of questions that are taken as notice, and we would
appreciate if the minister would simply provide the information and perhaps
also indicate in his answer, the member for Flin Flon was absolutely right in
indicating that the video gave a false‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. On the latter part
of the comments of the honourable member for Thompson, they are not relevant to
the point of order. There is no point of
order. I believe the honourable minister
was dealing with the matter raised.
* * *
Mr. Derkach:
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bell expressed his disappointment that anyone would
depict his move as a negative commentary on the business climate of
Manitoba. He said the reasons he came here
three years ago are still valid for the kite manufacturing business today in
Manitoba. As a matter of fact, he came
to Manitoba because of the environment, because of the good labour force and
because of the Central Time Zone in Manitoba.
Mr. Bell is a
native of Neepawa, and he was happy to come back to Manitoba three years ago to
start his business.
Victims Assistance Fund
Status Report
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, many nongovernmental agencies
who provide much needed services to victims of crime have had grant
applications into the Victims Assistance Fund, some of them for as long as two
or more years.
Will the
Minister of Justice tell the House today if there are external agencies who
will be receiving funds from the Victims Assistance Fund?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and
Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I believe we covered this issue
in the Estimates of the Department of Justice.
At that time, I explained to the member that there had been some
applications which were in and others which had been grandfathered in. I understand at this point all of those
agencies have had some notice as to whether or not they would be receiving
funds or not.
If the member
has an indication of an agency where it is outstanding still, I would be very
pleased to know about that, those applications which she is speaking about
which have been of long standing.
Ms. Barrett:
Mr. Speaker, when will these external agencies that are going to have
money granted by the Victims Assistance Fund be informed as to when the money
will actually flow so that they can make plans for their programs that they
would be undertaking with these funds?
When will they know when the money is coming?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding for those agencies which are to be
receiving money, of those outstanding applications‑‑not the new
applications, but outstanding applications‑‑they have been
contacted, and to the best of my knowledge, they were required to meet certain
criteria.
Within their
application, they were required to clarify or to make certain accommodations in
order to actually receive their money, and that process, to the best of my
knowledge, is ongoing. Until they have
agreed to meet those conditions, I am not able to tell the member today exactly
the date that the funds will flow to those agencies.
Ms. Barrett:
Mr. Speaker, when those funds finally flow, some that are over two years
in the pipeline, how much money will the Victims Assistance Fund be granting to
external agencies for services to victims of crime?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Speaker, when that money flows, I will be able to give the member an
amount of money which has flowed to agencies.
The member
speaks about applications which are outstanding, some of which because they are
required to meet certain criteria or conditions to have the money flow, and
then we will be looking at any new applications which come for further funding
in a new fiscal year.
* (1430)
Social Assistance
Welfare Abuse Reporting
Ms. Norma McCormick (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier.
For weeks now
we have been asking for details of a number of Family Services announcements
intending to remove barriers to employment.
Few if any details were forthcoming.
Today we have a completely mean‑spirited announcement of a 945‑STOP
line to encourage the public to report on potential welfare abuse.
My question
to the Premier is: How is this snitch
line a priority for the expenditure of money in the Family Services department
when a statistical analysis on founded cases of welfare fraud between 1991 and
1993 reveals that fraud is not an increasing or even significant problem?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult to
accept from the member for Osborne that she supports letting any fraud, any
fraud whatsoever go on in the welfare system.
In fact, even if it is $1, it is taxpayers' money that is not well
spent.
What we are
attempting to do is ensure that the very scarce dollars we have are given to
those who need it, not those who willingly abuse the system. I think she ought to be ashamed of herself.
Ms. McCormick:
Mr. Speaker, the tone of the Premier's response and the tone of this
press release is further‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. This is not a time
for debate. We are out of time. The honourable member for Osborne, kindly put
your question now, please.
Ms. McCormick:
The tone of this press release is‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. We are out of
time. The honourable member for Osborne,
kindly put your question now, please.
Ms. McCormick:
Given the tone of this press release, which is further indication that
this department holds its citizens and its clients in contempt, what is the
basis of this latest attack on the most vulnerable people in our community,
when study after study, including one by this‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
member has put her question now.
Mr. Filmon: Mr.
Speaker, we want those who legitimately are entitled to receive social
allowances to receive the most that they can receive of the scarce dollars we
have. The people I hold in contempt are
those who support fraud.
Mr. Speaker:
Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think the
Premier in his response was certainly unparliamentary in suggesting that anyone
who raises a question about a matter‑‑and the Premier may just
disagree in terms of the question, but to cast aspersions and suggest that any
member of this House would support fraud, as indeed the Premier did in his
final comment, is unacceptable and I believe that the First Minister should
withdraw those comments.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I clearly listened to the
Premier's response, and I can tell you, he cast no aspersions on anyone in this
House. He referred to people who are
abusing the welfare system, which he finds and our party finds unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker: I
do not believe there was a point of order, and I tell that to the honourable
member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
I heard the
remarks of the honourable First Minister and, clearly, I do not believe the
honourable First Minister attributed them to anybody, but what I will do, sir,
I will take this matter under advisement.
I will peruse Hansard just for clarification. That will settle that one.
Point of Order
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order,
unfortunately, yesterday's Hansard is not available, at which time I directed
questions to the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach). Had they been available, the record would
show that the minister did not answer the questions yesterday, and he did not
answer the questions today.
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. For sure, the
honourable member for Flin Flon does not have a point of order. The reason that Hansard is not available is
because we have had so many committees sitting at this time.
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS
Portage Collegiate
Institute‑‑100th Graduation Ceremony
Mr. Speaker:
Does the honourable member for Portage la Prairie have leave to make a
nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, last night I had the great
privilege of attending the 100th graduation ceremonies‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. Just hold it for a
minute.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe
in the confusion starting the points of order, the member for Osborne (Ms.
McCormick) had only placed two questions.
I would ask perhaps if there might be leave that she be allowed to place
the final supplementary.
Mr. Speaker:
Okay. Well, I had clearly
indicated at the time I had recognized the honourable member for Osborne that
the time had actually expired at that time, and I was giving her that
opportunity to ask that question. I did
do that.
Now it
appears that they are asking for leave to extend Question Period to allow the
honourable member for Osborne to ask a question. Is there leave?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker:
No, leave is denied because Question Period is 40 minutes long.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Now,
we already have leave for the honourable member for Portage la Prairie,
nonpolitical.
Mr. Pallister:
Thanks again, Mr. Speaker.
Last evening,
I had the privilege of attending the 100th graduation ceremony at the Portage
Collegiate Institute, my old school. At
this graduation ceremony, there were 118 graduates. I will not share with the House all 56 award
winners, but I would like to tell you that there were four principal award
winners, some of whom who will be known to members of this House.
Certainly,
Sean Rooke received a $24,000 scholarship to attend the DeVry Institute. I believe Sean will be pursuing studies in
Calgary. Bjorn Christianson whose mother
Roberta is the chairman of the Manitoba Arts Council and whose father is Barney
Christianson received nine awards including the Governor General's Medal for
the highest overall standing at the Portage Collegiate and a $22,000
scholarship for McMaster University. We
are very proud of young Bjorn.
Two other
young gentlemen who served here as Pages last year both received four
awards. They were Jeff Peters, who
received a University of Winnipeg entrance scholarship and, as well, Trevor
Rudge, whom some of the members of this House will remember, who received a
University of Manitoba entrance scholarship.
We are very proud of these young people, and it is indeed a privilege to
mention their names and put their names on the record.
As well,
Portage Collegiate will be celebrating its centennial this coming week, July 7
to 9, and there are presently over 4,000 delegates registered. So we are quite excited in Portage la Prairie
to be hosting the reunion of this fine school.
Thank you.
Committee Changes
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Mr. Speaker, during the meeting of the
Standing Committee on Law Amendments on June 28, 1994, at 7 p.m., the following
substitution was moved, by leave, with the understanding that the same
substitution would be moved in the House:
the honourable member for Rossmere (Mr. Schellenberg) for the honourable
member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
In order to
ensure that the substitution is entered into the official record of the House,
I would like to move, seconded by the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), that
the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, as of the 7 p.m.
meeting on June 28, 1994, be amended as follows: the member for Rossmere (Mr. Schellenberg)
for the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
Motion agreed to.
Negev Dinner
Mr. Speaker: Does
the honourable member for Kildonan have leave to make a nonpolitical
statement? Leave. [agreed]
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, together with the
member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), together with the member for Point Douglas
(Mr. Hickes), together with the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) and with
the First Minister (Mr. Filmon), I had the pleasure of attending the 42nd
Annual Negev Dinner that honoured and congratulated Morley Blankstein.
I want to
commend all of the organizers and participants from the Jewish National Fund
and the organizers of this dinner, Mr. Speaker.
The theme of the dinner was From Holocaust to Hope and it was a rousing
success, raising money for the Jewish National Fund.
In addition,
it was a very moving occasion because one of the speakers in attendance had
been one of the individuals on Schindler's List, and the entire 1,300
individuals in attendance were moved by his eloquent statements and his
experience.
The second
speaker dealt with the hopes and the aspirations of the people of Israel and
the Jewish population in general following the terrible tragedies of the late
1930s and 1940s.
I am sure all
members of the House join in congratulating with me the Jewish National Fund of
Winnipeg and the Negev organizers for a wonderful and very moving evening. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
* (1440)
PRESENTING REPORTS BY
STANDING AND SPECIAL
COMMITTEES
(continued)
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there is leave for
reverting to the Presentation of Reports by Standing and Special Committees in
order to allow the presentation of the reports of the Committee on Law
Amendments which met last evening at 7 p.m., and the Committee on Private Bills
which also met last evening at 7 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:
Is there leave to revert to Presenting Reports by Standing and Special
Committees to deal with the two committees that were sitting last evening? Leave?
[agreed]
Standing Committee on
Law Amendments
Mr. Jack Penner (Chairperson of the Standing
Committee on Law Amendments): I beg to
present the Second Report of the Committee on Law Amendments.
Mr. Speaker:
Dispense.
Your Standing Committee
on Law Amendments presents the following as its Second Report.
Your committee met on Tuesday,
June 28, 1994, at 7 p.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider
bills referred.
Your committee heard
representation on bills as follows:
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
Nick Ternette Private Citizen
Jae Eadie City of Winnipeg Councillor
George Fraser City of Winnipeg Councillor
Shirley Lord Choices
George Harris Private Citizen
John Prystanski City of Winnipeg Councillor
Written Submissions
Received:
George Stewart Winnipeg in the Nineties
Bill 20, The Municipal
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les municipalités
Reeve Ron Renwick Union of Manitoba Municipalities
Your committee has
considered:
Bill 16, The Provincial
Court Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Cour provinciale
Bill 20, The Municipal Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les municipalités
and has agreed to report
the same without amendment.
Your committee has also
considered:
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
and has agreed to report
the same with the following amendments:
MOTION:
THAT the following be
added after Section 2 of the Bill:
2.1 The following is added after section 15:
Quorum of committee
15(3) A by‑law under
subsection (2) may provide that an ex‑officio member of a committee may
be counted for the purpose of constituting a quorum.
2.2(1) Subsection 28(3) is amended by striking out
"four".
2.2(2) Subsection 28(4) is amended by adding
"including exercising the right of the mayor under subsection (2)" at
the end.
2.2(3) Subsection 28(5) is amended by adding
"including exercising the right of the mayor under subsection (2)" at
the end.
2.3 Clause 29(1)(c) is amended by striking out
"four".
2.4 Subsection 33(1) is amended by adding
"not more than" after "establish".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed
subsection 89.2(4), as set out in subsection 6(3) of the Bill, be amended by
striking out clauses (a) and (b) and adding "made in writing and signed by
not less than 250 electors" after "shall be".
MOTION:
THAT the proposed
subsection 89.2(5), as set out in subsection 6(3) of the Bill, be struck out.
MOTION:
THAT Legislative Counsel
be authorized to change all section numbers and internal references necessary
to carry out the amendments adopted by this committee.
Mr. Penner: I
move, seconded by the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that
the report of the committee be now received.
Motion agreed to.
Standing Committee on
Private Bills
Mr. Jack Reimer (Chairperson of the Standing
Committee on Private Bills): Mr.
Speaker, I beg to present the First Report on the Committee on Private Bills.
Mr. Speaker:
Dispense.
Your Standing Committee on
Private Bills presents the following as its First Report.
Your committee met on
Tuesday, June 28, 1994, at 7 p.m. in Room 254 of the Legislative Building to
consider bills referred.
Your committee has
considered:
Bill 206, The Coat of
Arms, Emblems and the Manitoba Tartan Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
les armoiries, les emblèmes et le tartan du Manitoba
Bill 300, An Act to
amend an Act to continue Brandon University Foundation; Loi modifiant la Loi
prorogeant la Fondation de l'Université de Brandon
Bill 301, The
Misericordia General Hospital Incorporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi
constituant en corporation le "Misericordia General Hospital"
Bill 302, The Manitoba
Historical Society Incorporation Act; Loi constituant la Société historique du
Manitoba
and has agreed to report
the same without amendment.
Your committee
recommends that the fees paid with respect to the following Private Bills be
refunded, less the cost of printing:
Bill 300, An Act to
amend an Act to continue Brandon University Foundation; Loi modifiant la Loi
prorogeant la Fondation de l'Université de Brandon
Bill 301, The
Misericordia General Hospital Incorporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi
constituant en corporation le "Misericordia General Hospital"
Bill 302, The Manitoba
Historical Society Incorporation Act; Loi constituant la Société historique du
Manitoba.
Mr. Reimer: I
move, seconded by the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), that
the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, there is agreement, I believe,
amongst all members of the House to convene the House tomorrow at 10 a.m. and
sit until 1 p.m, rather than our normal sitting hours for a Thursday.
Mr. Speaker:
Is there unanimous consent of the House to begin the sitting tomorrow
morning at 10 a.m. and to conclude at 1 p.m.? [agreed]
Mr. Ernst:
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would seek unanimous consent for
consideration of Estimates today as follows:
in the House, Department of Justice and the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry
Estimates. In Committee Room 255, the
Department of Urban Affairs, followed by the Sustainable Development Fund,
followed by the Civil Service Commission, followed by the Department of
Highways, and followed by the Department of Health.
Mr. Speaker:
Is there leave to alter the sequence of the departments to be considered
in the Chamber? I believe we are going
to do Justice in the Chamber, followed by the AJI. Is there leave for that? [agreed]
In the
Committee Room 255 to deal with Urban Affairs, Sustainable Development, I
believe, Civil Service, Highways, Health, et cetera. Is there leave? [agreed]
Mr. Ernst: I
move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr.
Findlay), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve
itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty
with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for
the Departments of Urban Affairs, Sustainable Development Innovations Fund,
Civil Service Commission, Highways and Transportation; and the honourable
member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair for the Department of
Justice and Aboriginal Justice Initiatives.
* (1450)
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order.
This
afternoon this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will
resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Urban Affairs.
When the
committee last sat, it had been considering item 1.(b)(1) on page 146 of the
Estimates book.
Item 1.
Administration (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits
$171,000‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $43,700‑‑pass.
Item 2.
Financial Assistance to the City of Winnipeg (a) Unconditional Current Programs
Grant $19,987,500.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I was going to ask the minister to give a
detailed explanation on that item, but I will perhaps do it in writing.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I thank the honourable member for that. Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed.
Item 2.(b)
Unconditional Transit Operating Grant $16,672,500‑‑pass; (c)
General Support Grant $8,090,400‑‑pass; (d) Dutch Elm Disease Control
Program $700,000‑‑pass.
Resolution
20.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to
Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $45,450,400 for Urban Affairs, Financial
Assistance to the City of Winnipeg, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of
March, 1995.
Item 3. Urban
Affairs Program Support (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $517,200‑‑pass;
(b) Other Expenditures $222,200‑‑pass; (c) Capital Region
Sustainable Strategy $75,000‑‑pass.
Resolution
20.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to
Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $814,400 for Urban Affairs, Urban Affairs
Program Support, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.
Item 4.
Expenditures Related to Capital (a) Financial Assistance to the City of
Winnipeg $16,000,000‑‑pass; (b) Urban Initiatives $1,000,00‑‑pass;
(c) Canada‑Manitoba Winnipeg Core Area Renewed Agreement zero.
Resolution
20.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to
Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $17,000,000 for Urban Affairs, Expenditures
Related to Capital, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.
Item 5. Lotteries Funded Programs (a) Unconditional
Grant to the City of Winnipeg $4,000,000‑‑pass.
Resolution
20.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to
Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $4,000,000 for Urban Affairs, Lotteries Funded
Programs, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.
We will now
move back to the Minister's Salary.
Item 1.(a)
Minister's Salary $10,300‑‑pass.
Resolution
20.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to
Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $225,000 for Urban Affairs, Administration, for
the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.
This
concludes the Department of Urban Affairs.
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
INNOVATIONS FUND
Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): We will now move on to the department of
Sustainable Development, page 144.
Item 1.
Sustainable Development Innovations Fund.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Just on behalf of our critic, I want to indicate
that some the issues that relate to this were raised in the Department of
Environment, which had fairly extensive Estimates scrutiny. There may be further questions in other forms
that will be asked in this session, in other ways, but we are prepared to pass
this item due to time constraints to move on to the remaining departments.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed.
Resolution
32.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to
Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $4,911,500 for Sustainable Development
Innovations Fund for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.
This
concludes the department of Sustainable Development.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): We will now move on to the department of
Civil Service Commission on page 21 of the Estimates book.
Does the
honourable minister have an opening statement?
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just by way of
an explanation, this department was commenced the other night. The Liberal critic asked a number of
questions and my intention was to make a short statement and ask a few brief
questions. I believe the minister is en
route. I would suggest we maybe recess
until the minister gets here.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Why do we not just talk it through.
Mr. Ashton: I
would suggest we recess for five minutes.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Recess for five minutes? [agreed]
The committee recessed
at 2:57 p.m.
After Recess
The committee resumed at
2:59 p.m.
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister charged with the
administration of The Civil Service Act):
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I believe we already are well advanced into the
Estimates of the department, and my critic, Ms. Gray of the Liberal Party, had
completed a number of questions, and we had adjourned in anticipation of the
member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), who joined our committee from other duties,
giving him a chance to peruse Hansard and return to ask a number of questions that
may not have been dealt with.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would just like to
make a brief statement. I appreciate the
co‑operation of committee members in terms of this scheduling. I know we have had to do that quite a bit the
last number of weeks for both ministers and opposition critics, and I certainly
appreciate the fact that accommodation was made.
I just want
to briefly mention a number of issues that are of continuing concern to us in
the New Democratic Party in terms of the Civil Service Commission. First of all is the ongoing situation with
the affirmative action side of the department.
We have had an affirmative action policy and program in this province
since the mid‑1980s certainly in the form of the agreement that was
reached at that time with the MGEA. It
was basically structured to over time bring greater equity into the hiring of
the provincial government.
There has
been some progress, and certainly I look forward to the continuing updates I
have requested from the minister in terms of affirmative action and
particularly following last year when concern was expressed, certainly by
myself as critic and others, about the fact that given the downsizing, both the
layoffs and the reduction in the number of employees, that we have seen some
slippage in terms of the representation of target groups in the civil service.
* (1500)
We certainly
would appreciate any information, not only of the current numbers, because I
believe some of that may have been discussed the other night, but in terms of
some of the concerns that were expressed about the process for hiring as well,
because certainly we have done better, for example, in terms of aboriginal
people than we have in terms of visible minorities traditionally the last
number of years, and that is a concern that I want to place once again on the
record.
I also want
to express some concern too that with the general downsizing of departments
that in the case of the Civil Service Commission there is a reduction in terms
of the Civil Service staffing itself, and I am particularly concerned in terms
of the provision of services to both departments and to employees. I think that the Civil Service has been under
a great deal of pressure, quite frankly, generally‑‑I am not
talking about the Civil Service section of the department‑‑the last
number of years because of the reduction in numbers and in some cases through
the direct layoffs that did take place, although by and large what we have seen
has basically been the result of reduction in numbers of employees in either
early retirements or other employee adjustment mechanisms. So I certainly want to place that concern on
the record.
There is a
significant amount of pressure being placed on many people, and it was interesting
today, I thought, that the government has announced this 1‑945‑STOP
number, targeting welfare fraud because, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think it
should be placed clearly on the record that one of the worst, most horrendous
situations of overload is in terms of Income Security, the government's Income
Security department.
So I think it
is absolutely bizarre that we now set up a phone line when the government has
seen fit, through its reduction in the number of civil servants in this
province, not to deal with the horrendous welfare load that exists. I have had repeated constituency concerns
involving Income Security, and I will publicly commend Bill Ghostkeeper, the
director in Thompson, who has been of tremendous assistance in often
straightening out situations of Income Security.
But I can
tell you that staff are burdened to the degree that I think that the
government, if it is serious about making sure there is no fraud, but also just
as importantly, if not more importantly, to make sure there is fair treatment
of people on Income Security generally, which includes providing the benefits
that people are entitled to when they meet the criteria for welfare, that one
place to start is by looking at the staffing side.
I, by the
way, do not believe that the phone line is appropriate. I believe that, I mean, what are we going to
have next, a 1‑945‑STOP number for people who are abusing the
Workforce 2000 program? Are we going to
do the same in terms of other government programs and initiatives? Are we going to have a fraud line set up for
someone who might go and fraudulently claim money from the Home Renovation
Program? I think there are some
questions that could be asked.
But my
concern, because this is the Civil Service side, is in terms of the pressure
that is there. I want to also raise this
concern and perhaps the minister can respond, as to whether the minister in
being responsible for the Civil Service Commission has, whether it be through
his position in cabinet as another minister, whether it is through any internal
committees, but more specifically as the Minister responsible for the Civil
Service Commission, I think looked at the fact that there are departments where
clearly there are problems in terms of understaffing, and I use the department
of Income Security because‑‑and Family Services by the way is very
much in the same category‑‑there are situations where people are
dealing with caseloads that are absolutely impossible for anyone to deal with
on a fair basis.
I would
suggest, when we are dealing here with the whole question of Income Security
and the government which has raised the issue of fraud, one way to assure that
there is not fraud, and one way to assure that there is fairness for all people
is to have proper resources put in place.
So I want to raise that because I think that is important.
I want to
deal also with the implications of Bill 22 and ask the minister in terms of the
specific action he has taken as Minister responsible for the Civil Service
Commission with regard to Bill 22, because I have received numerous calls from
civil servants over the past year in particular pointing to some of the
difficulties it has provided in terms of service. There are clear examples on the Justice side. I have talked to people who have said that
because of Bill 22 and the closure of courts on the Fridays, in some cases the
RCMP have had to charter aircraft because of the closure. Also on the correction side, on the intake
side, they have had to charter aircraft to move people from one community, move
them down south just for questions of public safety. I am wondering if the minister has reviewed
some of those concerns.
There have
been concerns put in place in terms of other essential services, and a lot of
them, by the way, are coming from the Justice system. There is a very real concern in terms of
that.
I am
wondering if the minister can update the whole question of Bill 22 in reviewing
the initial year in which‑‑regardless of our position on Bill 22
and our party opposed it, I think the minister obviously is quite aware of that‑‑but
regardless of that, in terms of the implementation of Bill 22 whether any
changes were made, and whether the Civil Service Commission played any role,
the Minister responsible for the Civil Service, in ensuring that there was some
greater flexibility in terms of its implementation, because I know there have
been some initiatives that have improved the situation somewhat but there were
significant problems.
I want to
indicate also, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that I would still appreciate
information. I do not believe I did get
it following the Estimates last year, perhaps through an oversight, in terms of
the number of employees, the breakdown of employees in this province currently
in comparison to the number over the past 10 years. One of the concerns we have expressed in
terms of decentralization is the fact that while the government has talked
about decentralization, there have been some initiatives, and we have supported
decentralization initiatives, in many communities there are actually fewer
civil servants today than there were when the government announced this whole
policy just prior to the 1990 election.
I know in my
own community where there have been some departments moved up. CEDF is relocated to Thompson. It had a small office previously; now it has
relocated all its staff there which is very positive. The Department of Energy and Mines has also
done so with about eight or nine staff.
The bottom line, Mr. Deputy Chairperson‑‑and this is ironic,
by the way. When the Department of
Energy and Mines was originally coming to Thompson there was a discussion of
the need for additional office space. By
the time they came to Thompson there was no need because the provincial
government had eliminated so many positions in the Provincial Building that
there was empty space. So I am looking
again for a breakdown in terms of the number of employees over the past 10
years in different regions of the province, more specifically between Winnipeg
and rural and northern areas. I think
that is important, because when we are assessing decentralization we have to
have those figures available to us.
There are a
number of other issues that I will raise at another time in other forums, and I
know the Liberal critic raised a number of issues as well which I was going to
raise questions on. I wanted to put
these comments on the record. I would
appreciate response on a couple of the items I mentioned either now, if the minister
wishes to put some comments on the record, but I would certainly be willing, in
terms of any detailed questions, if the minister could provide me with that
information in writing whether it be in terms of Bill 22, whether it be in
terms of affirmative action, which I know has been raised to a certain extent,
or whether it be in terms of decentralization.
Mr. Praznik:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, first of all, with respect to the area of
affirmative action, I can advise the member that we had a very long discussion
about many of the issues that he raised in the earlier part of the discussion,
and many of the answers he is seeking I think he will find in Hansard if he has
not had a chance to peruse it. But the
one thrust or question that I just reiterate, because I know it is of interest
to him on how affirmative action was affected by downsizing, I am advised that
proportionately there was no effect on our numbers, and in fact in some areas
they have gone up. What all that means I
am not quite sure, but our declared numbers have not changed in terms of their
proportions with the downsizing.
* (1510)
With respect
to pressures on employees, and particularly Income Security, it may be
interesting to note that my staff advised me that they are not aware of any
overall reductions in Income Security offices.
In fact, Income Security offices have been areas that have been one
which have offered redeployment opportunities as people have left, bringing
people from other areas that positions have been eliminated and moving them
into Income Security offices. It has
been one of the better areas for moving people.
Now, I
recognize fully that caseloads have increased over the last number of
years. Obviously, that does put some
increased potential, but they have not been the subject of downsizing in terms
of those offices.
One area in
Income Security that the member raises that was brought to our attention last
year was the closure on Fridays of Income Security offices, which tend to be
their busiest days. In keeping with the
flexibility that we wanted in those areas, that problem was taken back to the
department, and we have given a great deal of flexibility in ensuring that we
meet essential needs. I believe at
Christmas that was changed last year for the three days, and there will be a
variation in those days this year in the program for the summer and the
Christmas periods so that we, again, provided the flexibility. The rules are not so rigid that they become
silly.
Just on that
point, the member raised some issues with Justice and RCMP, and I can tell him
from my experience, I get those kinds of calls that he does, that often there
are some legitimate cases that come forward where Bill 22 has caused some
difficulties. When those are brought to
our attention, we raise them with departments because we have, from cabinet
level, said very clearly that we want departments to develop plans for
implementation of Bill 22 that make common sense, that are realistic, that
minimize the impact on service delivery and provide employees with as most
useful time as possible. So the
departments themselves are the people that develop the plans to ensure that
they make common sense. We found after
last year's experience, particularly after last summer, that there were some
problem areas, and we worked with departments to address them, and made
improvements in the Christmas closure.
We have made some more refinements for this coming summer that are in
place.
I have to
tell the member that from time to time Bill 22 becomes the excuse for issues
that have nothing to do with Bill 22, and I say to him that I had a call last
summer, after the second Friday, from a Workers Compensation claimant. He called my office, and he talked to one of my staff. He said:
Please tell your minister, I am not stupid. I was not born yesterday. There has been a six‑week or eight‑week
delay in my adjudication of my claim.
The employee at the Comp Board who was dealing with him blamed it on the
Filmon Fridays, and I think this was only into the second Friday. He said, they must sure do a lot of work on
Fridays down there to be six or eight weeks behind, because they had lost two
Fridays.
Ultimately,
we know that there is some impact on service, but there always will be people
in human relations who use something else as an excuse for other problems. So one has to sort those out. But the gist of the member's comments is
certainly valid. We should provide
flexibility to ensure that common sense prevails in the application of these
days, and that is what we have tended to do.
I say to him
that, as a northern MLA, where service in the North and service patterns may be
somewhat different than other parts of the province, if there are particular
areas of operation that come to his attention, we would be prepared to look at
them. In fact, some of the changes that
were made were the result of my information that came to me as an MLA or came
to me as a minister. In checking with
departments, we were not comfortable with the plans that they met, and we asked
them to review them again. They made
changes, because they were not particularly interested in necessarily
accommodating the best service.
One area that
we have offered again that was a problem last year was in the area of licence
renewal, and what we have done is, I believe, that the motor vehicle branch
will be open at 1075 Portage on the Friday, the 29th of July, for renewals at
the end of that particular month. We
have also just, not as part of Bill 22, but in that particular area, gone to a
Saturday opening, generally on the last Saturday of the month, I believe, at
one of our other locations, which is now advertised in St. James, so that we
better accommodate. We had some
resistance within the department having a Saturday opening to accommodate
customer service, but it has worked out very, very well and, you know, through
the work of the minister and his staff, that is again another service
improvement.
Just one
comment I make to the member on affirmative action, and I know that he is
probably aware of this and it does pose a problem, and I call upon him through
his good offices and connections with the labour movement, but one of the
ongoing thorns, I guess, in the side of affirmative action for the moment has
been the official position of the Manitoba Government Employees' Union to only
want affirmative action at entry‑level positions. I know there is a rule or a theory or a
principle there that they have embraced very strongly. What it has meant is that the central
affirmative action committee, the union‑management committee that we have
had in government, that goes back I believe to the times his party was in
power, has not been a really effective tool in affirmative action because of
the position of the MGEU. I recognize
there is a conflict of two principles, but at some point that has to be sorted
out.
I think just
touching the areas that the member has raised, I hope I have given him some
sense of where we are in those areas that he has raised.
Mr. Ashton: I
thank the minister for that response. I
would appreciate once again a response on the decentralization, the breakdown
of employees. I realize the minister
said last year it would be very difficult, but an attempt would be made to provide
that information. I will accept whatever
response the minister can give me in writing on that.
In the
interest once again in terms of time I am prepared to pass this part of the
Estimates.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 1.(a) Executive Office (1) Salaries and
Employee Benefits $264,100‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $57,600‑‑pass.
1.(b)
Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $619,800‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $397,500‑‑pass.
1.(c) Human
Resource Management Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,242,900‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $689,700‑‑pass.
1.(d) Labour
Relations Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $937,800‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $224,700‑‑pass.
1.(e) French
Language Services Secretariat (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $168,000‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $21,800‑‑pass.
1.(f)
Organization and Staff Development Agency (1) Salaries zero‑‑(pass);
(2) Other Expenditures zero‑‑(pass); (3) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations zero‑‑(pass).
Resolution
17.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to
Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $4,623,900 for the Civil Service Commission for
the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.
This
concludes the Estimates of the Civil Service Commission.
HIGHWAYS AND
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): We will now move on to the Department of
Highways and Transportation on page 95 of your Estimates book.
We are on
Resolution 15.5, item 5. Transportation Policy and Research (a) Salaries and
Employee Benefits $766,600.
* (1520)
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, when we last met on
the Estimates, I had asked the minister questions pertaining to local airport
control towers in the province that were potentially under threat at that time,
the issue that I raised with the Thompson tower.
I learned
just today that the federal Minister of Transport is now talking about cutting
funding to local airport operations throughout the country and, in particular,
tower services. I am wondering if the
minister has had any communication from the federal minister on this issue.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and
Transportation): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, at this time I
would like to introduce Joan Sunderland, manager of Management Support, who has
joined us here this afternoon.
The member
for Transcona (Mr. Reid) is referring to what we have all seen in the press,
which seems to be the way Mr. Young wants to communicate with ministers and the
citizens across the country. He makes
statements; we have no way of knowing whether they represent policy, decisions
made or decisions intended, because at this point, as minister, I have received
nothing in the way of a letter or anything official, nor has the department.
The
department has been involved in discussions with Transport Canada staff around
the issue. We have written a letter as
of June 2, I believe; I wrote a letter raising concerns about the airport
control tower at Thompson regarding, first, safety at the airport and,
secondly, the potential of interfering with economic development opportunities
for Thompson and the North.
There are
three towers currently in operation in Manitoba. Those are Winnipeg, St. Andrews and
Thompson. Again, referring to the media
commentary or report, it looks like they are looking at towers with less than
60,000 airplane movements per year, and it looks like Thompson's record is in
the range of 34,000 to 37,000 movements per year.
So if you are
looking at the criteria he has set, and again I want to remind the member it is
simply media comments that he has made, which he has consistently done, we have
no verification that it is policy at this current time, that there was a
decision by the federal cabinet or it is one that is imminent. It does raise concern to us, and we have
certainly raised those concerns with the federal minister.
I know the
mayor of Thompson has raised those concerns, and the MLA for Thompson has
written me, and I have expressed precisely to him what we have just talked
about.
Mr. Reid: I thank
the minister for that. We are still
concerned that the federal minister is continuing to make those comments as
recently as today, and it causes us concern that he has not had the decency to
even contact the provincial ministers of transport to make them aware of any
items that he is contemplating at this time.
It would seem only fair that he would that.
I want to
switch for a minute and go to a consultant firm that was hired by the western
provincial governments to look at the pending merger between CN and CP
Rail. There was a meeting that was held
in the province here, and the minister‑‑I know we have raised this
point in Question Period‑‑through this firm has only included the
shippers in the process of consultation.
We had asked that the rail employees and members of the public at large
be included.
Can the
minister tell me how many people attended the meetings? What was the cost of the contract for this
company? Is it shared equally amongst
the provinces? When will they be
reporting back to the minister?
Mr. Findlay:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member asked quite a few questions
with regard to the consultant that has been hired by the three prairie
provinces to prepare some understanding of the implications of the CN‑CP
merger.
The total
contract is $65,000, which is being shared 50 percent by Alberta, 25 percent by
Saskatchewan and 25 percent for the Province of Manitoba. That consultant will be consulting all groups
which have interest in the topic, and we are expecting him to report at the
Council of Ministers meeting next week in Calgary.
The meeting
that the member refers to here in Winnipeg, 37 people attended the meeting.
Mr. Reid: Other
than what this firm is undertaking, have any studies been done in the past to
look at any impact that the change in the method of payment is going to have on
transportation jobs, and in particular, rail transportation jobs in the
province?
Mr. Findlay:
With regard to the merger, if that is what the member is talking about,
the MOP, we had what was called, when I was Minister of Agriculture, a
ministerial advisory committee, which held meetings across the province of
Manitoba over a course of probably at least four years. It had civil servant membership from both
Agriculture and Transportation.
I think there
were three or maybe four studies‑‑I think it was four studies were
done, commissioned by the advisory council, which throughout its course was
chaired by the dean of the Faculty of Agriculture in Manitoba. First it was Mr. McGinnis, and then when he
retired as dean, Mr. Elliot was the chair.
There was
broad membership on that committee, from agribusiness and farmers. I think there were four farmer
representatives and four agribusiness representatives, and they held a large
number of meetings across the province to get input on the various proposals
that were coming from the federal government on the method of payment.
At no time
during the course of that discussion was there ever any reference to or
analysis of the impact of the MOP being eliminated, which seems to be the
mission that the federal government is on.
If you can believe the comments of Mr. Young over the past, oh, going
back to the 3rd of June when he started in Thunder Bay, and we had the
emergency debate here on the 9th, and there was some concern whether he really
meant what he said. But Mr. Young has
consistently made the same comments at speeches in Toronto, that as far as he
is concerned, it can be eliminated. It
shows very, very clearly his lack of understanding of the importance of that
particular federal government program on the economy of western Canada.
* (1530)
Mr. Reid: The
question was more targeted to not the elimination of the method of payment,
because we know what that impact is going to have, not only on the railways but
the producers, as well. At least, we can
assume there is going to be a significant impact.
My concern
here is if we change the method of payment from pay‑the‑railways
position to pay‑the‑producers position, the railways are now saying
that there is going to be a significant impact on the employment levels within
the railways. I want to know what studies
have been done within the province of Manitoba to determine what the impact is
going to be on rail employment within this province if we move from an MOP of
pay‑the‑railways to MOP of pay‑the‑producer.
Mr. Findlay:
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I have already given the member an
indication of a fair number of studies that were done, and as a follow‑up
to those studies we did in this province and what other provinces did and what
the federal government did, the federal government appointed the producer‑payment
panel, which has gone through the analysis of the question the member is
referring to. To my knowledge, at this
point in time, the federal Minister of Agriculture or the federal Minister of
Transport has not released the final outcome of that producer‑payment
panel study, whose job it was to make a recommendation on what would happen
with MOP changes.
The member
says, what would happen to railway jobs?
Well, I think the member is fairly well aware that a change in MOP will
not change the amount of grain grown, and if grain continues to be hauled by
railroad, there should be little or no impact on railroad jobs, because the MOP
is in place to support the transportation costs of moving grain from the
Prairies either to Thunder Bay or to Vancouver for export. If the same amount of grain is grown, the
volume on the railroads to be hauled will not change.
The issue is
not so much what will impact on the method of payment change. The issue is, if the payment is removed
entirely, what will the impact be, not only on the rail industry, but on the
farm economy and the impact on rural communities across western Canada? I mean, it is a massive impact, and the
federal Liberal government has taken a stance that is totally contrary to
anything that had been discussed or analyzed in the past.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
There is no
question that, if they follow through, there will be a drastic change in what
we do, and there will be a very heavy call to change the way in which we handle
grain and export it from this part of the Prairies, because if we are not
nonviable today, we are very much nonviable after that happens.
Mr. Reid: The
minister, then, should maybe look at the comments that have been made by the
CEO of CP Rail and the CEO of CN Rail, wherein they talked about the impact of
changes in the method of payment, which is pending. I mean, these people are obviously
knowledgeable about the railway industry and, I would expect, would have a significant
number of people who could study this issue and who have determined that there
is going to be some effect on railway jobs, and they think it is going to be
some significant effect. That is why I
wanted to know about Manitoba, but I will not belabour that point.
Can the
minister tell me what assurances he has had from the federal minister for the
volumes of grain to flow through Churchill for this year? Has he received any correspondence, any
indication, from the federal minister?
Mr. Findlay:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the federal minister, neither of Agriculture nor
of Transport, has given us any confirmation at this time of any volume moving
through. There has been speculation of
certain volumes to certain locations, but not confirmed by either federal
minister or the Wheat Board at this time.
I might say
that the speculated amount is at least equal to last year's amount, but I
cannot comment on it, because it is not official. It is just a speculated amount, and there is
no confirmation of the sale or where it will be shipped through. We are hopeful that the speculation is true,
but, at this stage, no confirmation.
Mr. Reid: I have
many more questions dealing with Transportation Policy and Research, but they
are going to have to wait until we move through to concurrence, which, I
believe, will give us another opportunity to ask some of those questions. It will be dealing with the merger, the CN‑CP
merger, when I will be asking those questions.
I will have
some questions regarding the VIA Rail operations, whether or not there has been
any other meetings that the minister has had with his federal counterparts or
VIA Rail to determine what changes are anticipated, since there were some
documents that were leaked or released earlier this year, indicating that
Manitoba is going to potentially lose some of its service.
We will be
asking again at that time to see if there are any changes with respect to
Churchill grain volumes for this year. I
think it was 288,000 tonnes last year; that is not an adequate amount and will
leave the port in a deficit position for the second successive year and will
only be a further nail in its coffin, which is something I am sure, hopefully,
no member of this House would like to see.
With that I
am prepared to pass Transportation Policy.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 5. Transportation Policy and Research
(a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $766,600‑‑pass; (b) Other
Expenditures $336,800‑‑pass.
Resolution
15.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to
Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1,103,400 for Highways and Transportation,
Transportation Policy and Research, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of
March, 1995.
Now I move on
to Resolution 15.6, item 6. Driver and Vehicle Licensing (a) Management
Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,860,800.
The
honourable minister, did you want to introduce your staff present?
Mr. Findlay:
At this time, Mr. Dan Coyle has joined us. I am sure that both our critics know Mr.
Coyle.
Mr. Reid: I have
no questions under Management Services, Mr. Deputy Chair.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed.
6.(a)(2)
Other Expenditures $2,546,100‑‑pass.
6.(b)
Licensing (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,676,200.
Mr. Reid: I am
going to put some questions on the record, and once again I will attempt to
raise these during the concurrence motion which hopefully the minister will
have some answers for me at that time.
The Photo
Licensing Project, I would like to know, and it is my understanding that that
has been completed in '92 and it is now a fait accompli. I want to know the revenue that is being
generated from that program over and above the costs. I would like to know the costs of the program
for sustaining it in its ongoing basis; the number of vehicles that are
registered in the categories; questions regarding the staggered vehicle
registration program that we are about to enter and any impacts that it may see
on the staff; whether or not the minister has any anticipation or any policy
intention of moving towards a graduated licensing program or system that has
been developed in other provinces. With
that I am prepared to pass that section.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 6.(b) Licensing (1) Salaries and Employee
Benefits $1,676,200‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,367,200‑‑pass.
6.(c) Safety
(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $4,876,200‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $1,253,800‑‑pass.
6.(d)
Manitoba Public Insurance Cost‑Sharing Agreement $3,521,400‑‑pass.
6.(e)
Transport, Safety and Regulation (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,041,800.
* (1540)
Mr. Reid: Again,
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will raise these questions in concurrence. I will just put them on the record now for
the minister's information.
I would like
to know, since the province is now moving to the private vehicle inspection
program, does the minister or the department keep any number of vehicles or
have any estimation of the number of vehicles that will not be changing hands,
that will not fall under the criteria established for the private vehicle
inspection program?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed.
6.(e)(2)
Other Expenditures $457,700‑‑pass.
Resolution
15.6: RESOLVED that there be granted to
Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $19,601,200 for Highways and Transportation,
Driver and Vehicle Licensing, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March,
1995.
We thank Mr.
Coyle for taking the time to come and join us today.
We will now
move on to Resolution 15.7. Boards and Committees (a) Motor Transport Board (1)
Salaries and Employee Benefits $321,500‑‑pass.
7.(a)(2)
Other Expenditures $148,500.
Mr. Reid: Again, I
will put questions on the record for the minister's information. I am looking for, as I had last Estimates,
information relating to the Motor Transport Board's cost recovery. The Taxicab Board is moving towards a
position of full cost recovery, and I want to know if the Motor Transport Board
is taking similar steps. I see the
monies that were allotted, but I want to know what their other operations
entail, regarding their costs and whether or not they have achieved full cost
recovery.
There was
supposed to have been an interprovincial report on Motor Transport Boards, and
I can raise that issue with the minister in concurrence, and I am prepared to
pass this.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed.
7.(b) Highway
Traffic Board (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $207,500‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $67,700‑‑pass.
7.(c) Licence
Suspension Appeal Board and Medical Review Committee (1) Salaries and Employee
Benefits $210,600‑‑pass.
7.(c)(2)
Other Expenditures $88,300.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have a couple of
questions that might not necessarily be related to this line, but it is an
important issue for me. If the minister
is prepared to entertain the questions‑‑he indicates yes.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Is there leave of the committee to allow the
honourable member for Inkster to ask a question that is not relevant to
this? Leave? No?
Leave is not granted.
Leave is
necessary for you to ask any questions that are not falling within the
Licensing Board.
Mr. Lamoureux:
Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, can I ask then which line we are currently
on?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We are currently dealing with Licence
Suspension Appeal Board and Medical Review Committee.
Mr. Lamoureux: I
will wait until we get to the Minister's Salary. I could not deal with the taxicab industry at
this point in time?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed.
We are now
dealing with 7.(d) Taxicab Board (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $231,000.
Mr. Lamoureux:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I wanted to ask the minister, last year we had a
piece of legislation that passed. There
were some negotiations between myself, the minister, and the New Democratic
critic was brought in towards the tail end, and the member for St. Norbert (Mr.
Laurendeau), where we came up with what was believed a compromise in which we
saw a commitment from the former minister to set into process a structure that
would allow for input from drivers, driver owners, other stakeholders within the
industry before that particular bill would in fact be proclaimed. Given the importance of that particular bill
and the need for some changes, I am wondering if the minister can give some
sort of indication what the current status is.
In particular, is the government still considering the proclamation of
that bill? Maybe he can comment in terms
of some sort of an update.
Mr. Findlay:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I happened to sit in on some of the committee
stage of the bill last year he is referring to and saw some of the input and
the comments of people in the industry, so I can appreciate the circumstances
that existed at that time. Since the
compromise that the member refers to where all three parties were involved
along with the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), there was a committee
struck of four people from the industry to be able to communicate directly with
the Taxicab Board.
Mr. Orle is
now the chairman of the board, has been for some time now, and my understanding
or my office's understanding is that there is, dare I say, much better harmony
in the industry. Things seem to be going
respectably well, considerably better than they were at the time that bill was
being discussed, and I guess I am quite pleased personally that there is some
harmony in the industry, some better understanding.
The Taxicab
Board, I would like to commend them for the way they are conducting
business. It seems to be creating that
sense of understanding maybe that is out there in the industry, and until there
is a recommendation from the board that it is time to proclaim that bill, we
are not proceeding to that proclamation at this time. It is step by step, see if we can continue to
have the success on an ongoing basis that we appear to have out there right
now. I have to commend all the
participants in the industry and the role that the board is playing to achieve
that calm that we now have, or relative calm.
Mr. Lamoureux:
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there was indication that this ad hoc committee
that was being put together from the former minister would also have some
responsibility in terms of looking at other aspects of the legislation that
could have an impact. I am wondering if
the minister can indicate whether, in terms of both the short term or long
term, what the government's intentions are.
Are we going to see some additional changes to the legislation in which
there were, as I say, specific concerns brought up? Is this group going to be able to develop,
for lack of a better word, a blueprint or a white paper on what they believe is
necessary in legislation?
Mr. Findlay:
At this point we have not received anything, or there has not been any
desire expressed to us to do anything in the way of legislative change. I prefer to allow the relationship between
the board and the industry to evolve and develop, and if they come forward with
some recommendations that I have comfort with that they are broadly supported,
we would be prepared to act upon them.
Nothing has come forward yet, and we will await recommendations from any
component of the industry through the board to determine if there is any need
in the near future or distant future for any changes.
* (1550)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. I am interrupting the proceedings of this
section of the Committee of Supply, because the total time allowed for
Estimates consideration has now expired.
Our Rule 64.1 (1) provides in part that not more than 240 hours shall be
allowed for the considerations in Committee of the Whole of ways and means and
supply resolutions respecting all types of Estimates and of relevant Supply
Bills. Our Rule 64.1 (3) provides that
where the time limit has expired the Chairperson shall forthwith put all
remaining questions necessary to dispose of the matter and such questions shall
not be subject to debate, amendments or adjournment.
I am
therefore going to call in sequence the questions on the following
matters: Highways and Transportation,
Resolutions 15.1, 15.7, 15.8; Health, Resolutions 21.1 and 21.9.
I would like
to remind members that these questions may not be debated, amended or adjourned
according to the Rules of the House.
Resolution
15.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to
Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $5,024,600 for Highways and Transportation,
Administration and Finance for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March,
1995.
Resolution
15.7: RESOLVED that there be granted to
Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1,353,900 for Highways and Transportation,
Boards and Committees for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.
Resolution
15.8: RESOLVED that there be granted to
Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $117,032,100 for Highways and Transportation,
Expenditures Related to Capital for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of
March, 1995.
Resolution
21.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to
Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $14,361,700 for Health, Administration and
Finance for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.
Resolution
21.9: RESOLVED that there be granted to
Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $65,552,000 for Health, Expenditures Related to
Capital, for the fiscal year ending 31st day of March, 1995.
This
concludes our consideration of the Estimates in this section of the Committee
of Supply. I would like to thank the
ministers and the critics for their co‑operation during this committee
process.
Thank you
very much. Committee rise.
JUSTICE
Madam Chairperson (Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order.
This section
of the Committee of Supply will continue to deal with the Estimates for the
Department of Justice.
We are on
item 5.(d) Judicial Services. Would the
minister's staff please enter the Chamber.
5.(d)
Judicial Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I am wondering if the minister could tell us
if on May 24, the day before Judge Meyers was reassigned, the deputy minister
met with Chief Judge Judith Webster.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and
Attorney General): The answer is no.
Mr. Kowalski: I
am wondering if the minister could tell me if she has seen a report of the
Provincial Judges Association of Manitoba to the Canadian Association of Provincial
Court Judges, St. John's, Newfoundland, September 21, 1993? Has the minister seen this report?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Yes, I have seen the report.
Mr. Kowalski: I
have a question about the hearing officers.
I understand they are now at the St. Boniface District 5 area. In regard to a report done by Greg Yost, I am
wondering if the minister could share any of the information or findings that
came from that report that was done, I think, in the latter part of last year.
Mrs. Vodrey: I
am told that this is a discussion document, one which is being continually
worked on to reach an end, that we have not yet shared an updated report with
the police and Corrections and believe that that is a place where we need to
start in order to keep the process one in which we had agreed to in the working
relationship.
Mr. Kowalski: I
just had some other questions in regard to the reassignment of Judge
Meyers. Did the chief judge inform the
minister or anybody in the minister's department of the reassignment prior to
May 25?
* (1450)
Mrs. Vodrey: A
day ago, the honourable member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) and now today the
member for The Maples have asked questions, and yesterday the member for St.
James, I believe, attempted to accuse this government of interfering with the
work of the Provincial Court of Manitoba.
He said that
the Deputy Minister of Justice had met with the Chief Judge of the Provincial
Court near the end of May. He said
further that as a result of the meeting a judge of the Provincial Court was
reassigned from the area of domestic violence to another area of the court's
work.
Madam Chair,
this allegation is not only untrue, I think it borders on the scandalous, that
a suggestion of this sort is made against public officials who at the time were
not even in this House and that it could be made without a shred of evidence to
support it.
I would like
to be absolutely clear and unequivocal in my report to this House on this
issue. As Minister of Justice, I had
absolutely nothing to do with the decision that was taken by the Chief Judge of
the Provincial Court, nor did the Deputy Minister of Justice, nor did anyone in
the Department of Justice or, for that matter, the government of Manitoba. The decision was taken by the Chief Judge of
the Provincial Court and was taken by her alone.
Madam Chair,
when an outrageous suggestion of this nature is made, it is tempting to simply
be dismissive of the allegation. I must
say that I am sorely tempted to say to the honourable member that he is simply
wrong in his allegation and get on with the business of this House.
The
allegation, however, is now a public one.
It is on the record. It has been
made against senior officials responsible for the administration of justice
throughout the province of Manitoba. It
is important that I set the record straight and be perfectly clear on the
circumstances here, and that is precisely what I intend to do now.
Madam Chair,
I first intend to comment on the applicable law on this issue. Under The Provincial Court Act, this
Legislature has entrusted the chief judge with full and exclusive
responsibility for the supervision over judges and the assignment of their
work.
Section
8.1(1) of The Provincial Court Act reads as follows and I quote: "The Chief Judge (a) has general
supervisory powers in respect of judges, magistrates, justices of the peace and
other staff in matters that are assigned by law to the court; and
(b) is
responsible for the judicial functions of the court, including direction over
sittings of the court and the assignment of judicial duties."
The law,
therefore, is quite clear. The chief
judge has full and exclusive responsibility for the assignment of judicial
duties to the judges. That is something
that I as Minister of Justice scrupulously respected since my appointment, and
I certainly intend to follow that principle for as long as I am a law officer
of the Crown.
Madam Chair,
I would now like to outline to this House the sequence of events surrounding
the reassignment of the chief judge of the judicial duties to be performed by
the judge in question.
On the 22nd
of May, 1994, articles appeared in the local newspapers concerning Judge
Meyers. They are a matter of public
record. In part they concern his early
life. They also detailed an interview
with a journalist, one that that journalist had with Judge Meyers.
On the 23rd
of May, 1994, after reading these articles, the Chief Judge of the Provincial
Court, Judith Webster, took a decision to reassign Judge Meyers to other
judicial duties. That decision was taken
by her alone. She did not consult me
before taking that decision, nor would I expect her to. She did not consult or even discuss the issue
with the Deputy Minister of Justice or anyone else in the government of
Manitoba. I cannot put it more simply
than that. She was dealing with an issue
that fell exclusively within her assigned area of responsibility. It was a decision for her to make, and she
made it in accordance with the facts before her.
On the 24th
of May, 1994, after she had decided to reassign Judge Meyers, the chief judge
telephoned the Deputy Minister of Justice.
She informed him that she had taken the decision. This information was provided as a matter of
courtesy, as the Department of Justice is responsible for court
administration. No comment or advice was
sought by the chief judge and none was provided by the deputy minister.
On the 25th
of May, 1994, the Manitoba Court Executive Board met to discuss a series of
issues concerning the administration of justice in the province. This board meets every six weeks or so and is
composed of the Chief Justice of Manitoba, the Chief Justice of the Court of
Queen's Bench, the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court, the assistant deputy
minister in charge of Court Administration and the Deputy Minister of
Justice. Its mandate is to consider
broad issues affecting the administration of justice with a view to
streamlining the court system.
Madam Chair,
this may well be the meeting to which the honourable member referred. He is very much mistaken, however, when he
suggests that the issue concerning Judge Meyers was discussed. It was not on the agenda, nor was it
discussed by anyone at the meeting. It
was quite simply not discussed by the participants at this meeting before,
during or after the meeting. The
honourable member's information on this point is erroneous.
Later on the
same day, at approximately 3 p.m., the chief judge held a meeting with Judge
Meyers. At that time Judge Meyers was
informed of the reassignment by the Provincial Court Chief Judge.
It has often
been said in this House, Madam Chair, that honourable members of the Assembly
bear a heavy responsibility to ensure that suggestions or allegations made by
them are accurate and based on fact. The
honourable members have come very close to breaching this principle. I believe the honourable member for St. James
(Mr. Edwards) and the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) have cast a pall
over the integrity of my office and that of senior public officials charged
with the responsibility of administration of justice in this province. This is a serious state of affairs.
I have taken
some time this afternoon to deal in detail with the real facts in a way that some
may say are unnecessary. I think that a
detailed account is necessary. I think
it is important to set the record straight when the integrity of public
officials is impugned. The true
circumstances, as I have related them, are sufficient to dispel any concern of
impropriety. There was none here at
all. In reality there was never an issue
to begin with. I call on the honourable
members to reconsider their allegations to retract and to, at the very least,
indicate to you, Madam Chair, that they are now satisfied with the facts that
have been detailed to this House.
Mr. Kowalski: I
am also offended by the questioning of my privilege as a member of the
opposition whose duty it is to monitor the different government departments, my
right as a member to ask a question and give the government an opportunity to
put on record the facts, as I have done today, knowing that the government
official about whom we were questioning their conduct would be here to answer
the question, just as a police officer.
Anyone who is not guilty when a police officer investigates and asks
questions should not be offended. Just
as the old common law principle of the judge's rule is that a police officer
has a right to ask any person a question to investigate a case, so has a member
of this House. As a critic, I feel I
have the right when information comes forward, such as the fact that on
September 21, 1993, Judge Meyers released a report to the Provincial Judges
Association, the Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges, that was
highly critical of the government and received other information. I had the right and the duty to ask those
questions as a member of the opposition, as a critic, giving the minister and
her staff an opportunity to put information on the record. I think that is my duty to do, and I do not
feel ashamed in any way to ask a question, for those without guilt do not have
to feel any guilt whatsoever.
So with those
comments I will end the questioning on this matter.
Madam Chairperson: Item 5.(d) Judicial Services (1) Salaries and
Employee Benefits $7,427,000‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $609,400‑‑pass.
Resolution
4.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to
Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $26,642,800 for Justice, Courts, for the fiscal
year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.
* (1500)
Item 6.
Protection of Individual and Property Rights (a) Manitoba Human Rights
Commission (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,104,000‑‑pass; (2)
Other Expenditures $357,800‑‑pass.
6.(b) Legal
Aid Manitoba (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $4,961,300‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $8,325,600‑‑pass.
6.(c) Public
Trustee (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,756,300‑‑pass; (2)
Other Expenditures $787,700‑‑pass.
6.(d) Land
Titles Offices (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $5,521,500‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $1,642,200‑‑pass; (3) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations
($90,000)‑‑pass.
6.(e)
Personal Property Registry (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $660,300‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $485,600‑‑pass.
Resolution
4.6: RESOLVED that there be granted to
Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $26,512,300 for Justice, Protection of
Individual and Property Rights, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of
March, 1995. Shall the resolution pass?
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Just a quick question for the minister on
this line. Would the minister advise if
she can right now, if not by taking it as notice, how much less Legal Aid
Manitoba will receive in this fiscal year?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Madam Chair, there is an increase to Legal Aid of $337,300.
Mr. Mackintosh: No, I admit I was a bit sloppy in my
question. I understand that there will
be about a quarter of a million dollars less from the Law Foundation to Legal
Aid Manitoba this year, and I am just wondering what the net difference will be
to Legal Aid Manitoba as a result.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Madam Chair, I am informed that there may be a decrease from the Law
Foundation to Legal Aid but there will be no net difference because the
government has made that up. Is the
member referring to the direct grant to the Public Interest Law Centre?
[interjection] You are?
Madam Chair,
I am informed that the funds to the Public Interest Law Centre are still under
discussion at the moment, and so I do not have a definitive answer for him
today.
Madam Chairperson: Shall the resolution pass? The resolution is accordingly passed.
At this time
I would ask that the minister's staff please leave the Chamber so we can deal
with item 1.(a).
1.(a)
Minister's Salary $20,600.
Mr. Mackintosh: We are nearing the end of a very interesting
road, and I wanted to comment on the responses both in Estimates and in
Question Period and what our understanding is of the minister's performance,
particularly with regard to areas that I set out when I began remarks on the
Estimates, and that is with regard to family or women's issues, in particular,
and with regard to youth crime.
Before we get
into that, I want to comment on the response of the minister today to remarks
made by the members for Maples (Mr. Kowalski) and St. James (Mr. Edwards), and
I think as well she made reference to remarks or a particular question raised
by myself with regard to the government's role in Judge Meyers' effective disciplining.
I want to
reiterate what I said in response to the matter of privilege that the minister
raised in the House. The context of the
questioning of the government is very important to this issue, and I reference
the First Minister's (Mr. Filmon) response to my question on April 26 in this
House when I asked the First Minister to table any legal opinion the government
had advising it that it can conclude the retirement package without approval
and knowledge of the Assembly. In
response the First Minister said: the
member opposite should know that matters of employment between employees of the
government of Manitoba and the government of Manitoba are matters that can be
dealt with by any administration in power.
Madam Chair,
that is an absolutely astounding, astounding remark by a First Minister in this
country, to think that judges are employees of the government. If the First Minister and this government is
of the opinion that judges are employees of the government for the purposes of
a benefits package, one must ask and be vigilant as to whether it also thinks
judges are employees for the purpose of discipline. So with that context in mind, opposition
members have every obligation to ask the questions that were asked. It is their obligation on behalf of Manitobans.
Having made
that remark, I want to go back and talk about the minister's responsibilities
and duties and her record, particularly with regard to family issues and to
youth crime issues.
We have
brought in evidence before this House about the backlog in the Domestic
Violence Court. This government on its
own initiative set certain objectives when it established that court for a
three‑month backlog. That was one
of the reasons why the court was established.
It was to fast‑track the serious, serious charges which, by the
way, have ramifications for youth crime, ramifications for family unity in this
province. Indeed, it is said that a
young boy who witnesses his mother being struck by his father is a thousand
times more likely than one who has not witnessed that to be a violent young
offender. Indeed, the people that are
involved in the youth justice system say that virtually all young violent
offenders come from backgrounds of abuse.
* (1510)
We know from
the anecdotal evidence that the backlog in the Domestic Violence Court is up to
one year, and it can be more in certain circumstances, but there are a great
number of cases that are waiting one year.
I am certainly aware of one incident from New Year's Eve and the hearing
will not be until late December. The
minister has in Question Period in response to questions said that, oh, the
backlog was only four and a half months.
I cannot tell the minister the reaction that got from people who are in
the justice system. Then the next day,
on the Monday night in Estimates, she admitted that it was actually about seven
months' backlog with six weeks of waiting time from the time of the offence to
the time that the trial date is given.
So she admitted only one day later that the backlog was in fact about
eight and a half months. We know it is
longer in fact.
We also are
aware, both from the Jane Ursel report and from anecdotal evidence, that there
is an 18‑month wait for child abuse cases in Manitoba in that Domestic
Violence Court, in some cases, and I am certainly aware of one that went
longer.
We have
become aware that the government has apparently made a decision, and I hope it
will change its mind, not to continue to support the victim services units
projects in seven Manitoba communities.
This will have a direct impact, particularly on women and children in
domestic violence cases, but indeed on all victims.
As I said at
the outset, it is time for a new role for victims in the justice system. They have been left out, and the victim services
units are just one step toward a greater role, one step toward greater justice
for the party that is most affected by crime.
I know the
minister's response, that these victim services units were part of a pilot
project. Well, the pilot project has
exceeded anyone's expectations. There
are, I understand, up to 800 hours of volunteer work being put in in some of
these units, just with the spurring from one staff member. These communities have given it their all
through their volunteer efforts, and they cannot find the kind of resources
necessary to ensure that these programs continue.
These victim
services units and the mayors of the towns and villages have pleaded with the
minister, and they will continue to plead with the minister, that she not
offload this essential component of the justice system onto the community or
simply abandon it. There must be a
commitment of this essential service.
There is a commitment through the Women's Advocacy Program in the city
of Winnipeg and there will be in three other communities. Let us not have this hodgepodge attempt to
deal with victims' issues. We have to
have a comprehensive province‑wide approach.
We have seen
a pilot project commence in the Domestic Violence Court regarding zero
tolerance whereby the victims of domestic violence can have the charges dropped
if they advise they will not be testifying.
We have said that this is not zero tolerance in that case, it is the new
tolerance policy, it is the get‑soft approach to domestic violence.
We have
talked in Question Period and in this committee about the Maintenance
Enforcement office. As I have said, they
are shovelling water over there. People
are going without return phone calls for months.
A young brave
woman came into this Chamber, she was so distraught, and talked about her
experience about 20 messages left over the course of three weeks, and then she
got a return call. That is a modest
example of what is happening at that office.
The minister
said in the throne speech that she would be bringing in new measures to ensure
that the financial responsibilities of families are met. My understanding of throne speeches is that
that announces the government's program for the pending session. Yet the minister has since confirmed that in
fact she is not bringing in any measures but she is engaging in some
consultation process. This is an urgent
matter. There are innovations to
maintenance enforcement in other jurisdictions which provide great examples for
Manitoba.
We talked in
Question Period about Wisconsin and Australia and Ontario's deduction‑at‑source
programs. There are many other examples
of ways to prioritize enforcement. It
bothers me when I hear about the First Ministers or the Ministers of Trade and
they make it a priority to get together and discuss how they can break down the
trade barriers in Canada. Why can that
not be done by the Ministers of Justice to break down the maintenance barriers
in Canada so that maintenance enforcement can occur across this province
without some artificial barriers?
In youth
crime, the minister has failed to heed, virtually, every recommendation made by
her own summit on youth crime and violence, and she has failed to implement
even most of the programs set out in her nine‑point plan. There was a one‑day workshop on
violence in schools, which had been planned in advance. It was piggybacked onto that nine‑point
plan. Finally, yesterday, the minister
announced the gang phone line. That is
like raindrops on the fire, Madam Chair.
Some bells and whistles here and there.
At the same
time, there are backlogs of up to 11 months in the youth court, so that
consequences are not following the offence in the mind of youth. The minister has failed to work with the
government, push the government and take whatever action she can to reverse the
cuts that this province has seen over the last six years to family and youth
supports. There has been no enhancement
of preventative and rehabilitation programs for young offenders. We have seen severe overcrowding at the Youth
Centre, which will take away from the rehabilitative and counselling efforts
provided by staff, which will threaten security.
The minister
has failed to bring in the report on the War on Drugs so that we can test any
government policies against what Manitobans have advised. We have seen the failure to fully implement
the recommendations in the Pedlar report, and we note, in particular, the need for
a long‑term program for spousal abusers.
We have seen the government pay about $1 million to eight judges so they
will retire and, as the minister says, refresh the bench. As I said in Question Period a few days ago,
when a government refreshes the bench nearing the end of its mandate, Manitobans
have a word for that.
But these
judges are bought out at a time when there are terrible backlogs in the courts,
at a time when we are facing summer, at a time when we are facing increased
numbers of charges, at a time when there are 10 days for which the courts are
shut down. We have seen the response to
auto theft and vandalism with a bill, again a bell and whistle. We support that bill, but no comprehensive
approach, no approach to encourage people to take preventative measures under
The MPIC Act or otherwise to deal with what is a very, very serious problem out
in the neighbourhoods. We have seen
applications for Victims Assistance funding go on for years without a response. We have seen the Dakota Ojibway Tribal
Council fold without an active role by this minister, immediately, to ensure
that service continued and was revitalized, and let alone the Aboriginal
Justice Inquiry, which, I think, is one of the darkest clouds over this
government. This afternoon my colleague
the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) will be commenting on that or asking
questions‑‑but the virtual abdication by this government of the
opportunity and promise that is contained in that report.
Therefore,
Madam Chair, I move that the Minister's Salary at line 1.(a), under the
Department of Justice Estimates, be reduced to $1.
* (1520)
Madam Chairperson: It has been moved by the honourable member
for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) that the Minister's Salary, line 1.(a) under the
Department of Justice Estimates, be reduced to $1. All those in favour‑‑
Mrs. Vodrey:
Madam Chair, may I speak to the motion?
I am happy to
take a little time to speak to the motion to correct on the record some of the
information that the member has put. As
people read Hansard, they are amazed to see how many times the member has to be
told and how many times the member has just completely failed to understand the
answers that have been given.
Madam Chair,
let me start with some of the issues that were raised in the member's
speech. The member speaks about the
Family Violence Court. The Family
Violence Court, which, I am more than happy to remind members opposite, was
started by this government, the Family Violence Court which was developed by
this government and implemented by this government.
Madam Chair,
let me remind the member that under the previous administration, there was no
Family Violence Court. Under the
previous administration, there was no special attention to spousal violence and
partner violence, there was no special court to deal with children who were
victims, there was no special court to deal with elders who were victims. The other side, the previous administration,
the party to which that member belongs, did nothing, absolutely nothing, and
when this government came into power, this government moved, this government
acted. This government set up the Family
Violence Court. This government made
efforts to deal with this most serious situation. It was an area which sorely needed
assistance; it was completely neglected by members opposite when they were in
government, and this party and this government did not neglect it.
The member
speaks about the Family Violence Court with what he calls anecdotal evidence,
no hard evidence, no facts. Madam Chair,
in this House, during the course of Estimates, I presented for the member facts
which came from the Courts Division of the Department of Justice, which
provided a very clear update as to the progress of cases through the courts,
with the due process of justice, what exactly the time frame was, and I
provided that on a regular basis.
Madam Chair,
the member opposite did not even raise it in the discussion of Courts, but I
put that information on the record when we discussed Prosecutions.
Madam Chair,
the member relies on anecdotal evidence.
He does not put forward any details of a single case he knows in which
he claims took a particularly long time, and as the member knows‑‑he
has a legal background, he should know unless he has forgotten everything‑‑reasons
for delay are many. They are not just a
result of the court system or the court's operation, but they also are a result
of requests by the defence, agreement by the defence as to when they will bring
a case forward. He knows that there are
a great many reasons, a long list of reasons why a case may take such a long
time, but as I raised in the course of Estimates, there were court dates
available within that five‑ to seven‑month period, and that it is
our goal.
The three‑month
period was one which this government set for itself. That three‑month period was not set by
any other body. It was not set by the
Supreme Court; it was not set by any other group. That three‑month time period in which
this government would like to deal with cases and which we aim to have court
dates available was set by this government.
Now, when defence lawyers or for other reasons of examination cases are
outside of that three‑month period, it does not mean that the court has
been ineffective.
As the member
knows, the Supreme Court ruled that it is in the range of 11 months that we
would expect cases through the due process and that, outside of 11 months, yes,
questions might be raised if all cases and first‑court‑date
opportunities were set after 11 months.
But, Madam Chairperson, that is absolutely not the case here, and the
people of Manitoba should understand the facts that court dates are available
within the five‑ to seven‑month window and some court dates before
that time.
Now the
member speaks about the pilot project that has been set up. I have explained to him that, because this
government is so concerned about the Domestic Violence Court and the progress
of cases, but with respect to due process we have looked at several points in
which to attempt to make improvements so that cases can be seen in its most
expedient way, one was to look at the prosecutions area.
There is a
pilot project, but it is not operating as the member characterizes it. A stay within the pilot project may occur if
the individual‑‑with the full assistance of Women's Advocacy and
supports available, the woman then says that she simply is not going to testify
and that there is not other evidence which is available which will allow the
case to proceed. So that case is then
dealt with within the three‑month window which the member has felt was so
important. Also, cases in which the
accused pleads guilty are dealt with within this pilot project. It is required co‑operation between our
Crown attorneys and some private law firms to look at how this pilot project
will operate, but where an individual says that she has every intention of
testifying and that she wants the case to proceed and that the accused has not
pled guilty, in that case the case will proceed, and it will proceed through
the court system.
The effort of
the pilot project was to look at one point within the system and attempt to
look at efficiencies which might be drawn, but never to overlook the rights and
the needs of the individuals, the complainant or the accused.
So the pilot
project has begun, and we will be looking to evaluate the pilot project to look
at its success, but we have not stopped there.
The Domestic Violence Court which was developed by this government will
continue to look for every way possible to deal with these cases in the most
efficient way.
The member
speaks also about victims services. We
did spend quite a long time in the process of Estimates looking at victims
services and what is able to be funded under the criteria. As the member knows, the program which he has
spoken about is, to the best of my knowledge, a contract agreement between
communities and the RCMP. It was entered
into with the full understanding that, should communities find this
particularly helpful, should it actually work in these areas, then other
funding would be sought which would be ongoing funding. And that is, to the best of my knowledge
again, exactly what the communities are in the process of doing.
The member
attempts to characterize this. He is wrong. People know he is wrong. And I am happy to put on the record again
what the terms are so that there is not any question about government making a
decision or changing its mind in this area to the detriment of
communities. That is not the case, and
the member knows that to be true also.
* (1530)
The member
knows that we do continue to offer a great deal of support to those people who
are victims across the province. He has
overlooked, or forgotten to say, or perhaps he did not think it was important
to mention, that our Women's Advocacy Program has expanded across the province,
that there are three new positions in the Women's Advocacy, that it has
expanded outside the city of Winnipeg, and that the Women's Advocacy Program is
now available in Brandon and Thompson and The Pas. That probably was not important to the
member.
The whole
area of the needs of the family violence court and the supports necessary to
operate the family violence court have been considered by this government very
closely, and that is what led to the enhancement of that program.
The member
also knows that there will be an enhancement to child witness and child victim
programs so that the counselling and the support will be available to those
young people, that that is now going to be available outside of the city of
Winnipeg.
The member
had this explained to him fully, but he seems to have forgotten to mention that
as an important initiative on behalf of victims. The numbers of victims who have been served,
if I remember correctly‑‑I do not have the exact figure in front of
me, but I believe that I remember‑‑it was over 50,000 individuals
who had been assisted through the Victims Assistance program. This government continues in its commitment;
in fact, it has enhanced its commitment.
Let there be no mistake about that enhancement, because that is exactly
what has occurred.
Madam Chair,
the member then speaks about Maintenance Enforcement and a commitment to
provide measures to improve the Maintenance Enforcement Program. Somehow, to that member, measure has a very
narrow meaning and includes only legislation.
Yet, when we spoke about Maintenance Enforcement in this House and when
I have answered in Question Period, I have very thoroughly explained to the
member the measures which have been taken, which include enhancing the staff of
the Maintenance Enforcement area. We
enhanced it by two this year, by three last year. That is five additional staff.
We have
added, over the past two years, $50,000 for computer enhancement. That is important. That allows us then to make sure that the
information is readily available, that it does not require a hand search, that
it can be pulled up electronically and more quickly.
The member
seems to have forgotten the $70,000 advanced to the Maintenance Enforcement
area for the automated‑voice system so that people, 24 hours a day, seven
days a week, can make phone calls to the Maintenance Enforcement office and get
information, information about the status of their particular account. By and large, the biggest number of phone
calls which we receive in the Maintenance Enforcement office are phone calls
about the status of a particular account.
This new voice‑automated system will now allow for the Maintenance
Enforcement officers to be available to do casework which is more complex than
simply the checking of the balance of an account.
We recognize
that people in Manitoba who depend upon the Maintenance Enforcement system have
sometimes some very significant needs.
When they can be met, that allows families to go on with their
lives. That is why this government has
brought in measures to enhance the Maintenance Enforcement area.
In the area
of legislation, I explained to the member that, yes, through Family Law and
Maintenance Enforcement, we are meeting with the community. We are asking the community, what kinds of
changes might be useful and helpful for Maintenance Enforcement; how can we
improve the act.
Madam Chairperson: The honourable minister has 30 minutes.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Madam Chair, 30 minutes remaining?
Madam Chairperson: Thirty minutes in total.
Mrs. Vodrey:
And the amount of time remaining, Madam Chair?
Madam Chairperson: I believe the honourable minister has been
speaking for approximately 10 minutes, but we will be checking the time and I
will give you adequate notice.
Mrs. Vodrey:
Thank you, Madam Chair. It is
important that I know that because the member made a number of very spurious
allegations, and I would like to make sure that I have the opportunity to
answer each and every one of them fully.
In the
Maintenance Enforcement area, the member speaks about measures, and I am very
happy to describe to him the kinds of measures that this government has
taken. Now, if we could look back, what
was it like when the previous administration was in government? How much money did they advance? How many staff were available to them? What kind of enhancements did they put into
the Maintenance Enforcement? It was left
to this government to provide the enhancements for Maintenance Enforcement, to
increase the staff and to put forward the measures which were spoken about in
the throne speech.
The member
also has spoken about some measures which are being taken in Ontario, a
garnishment process in Ontario, and I have answered that at the time. They have a different system in Ontario. They do not have the same system that we have
here at all, and because of that different system, they have brought in a
different measure. We still have the
opportunity to garnish, but we also have other systems in place in this
province which we believe are more effective, and I believe other provinces
look to and would like to have the opportunity to put in place where their
system is more like ours.
The member
speaks about policing, and he references in particular the Dakota Ojibway
Tribal Council police service which collapsed itself towards the end of
1993. I would like to put on the record
again, because the member has not taken this in, that the DOTC police service
was a 100 percent federally funded police service, federally funded now by the
new federal Liberal government.
The federal
Liberal government did not agree to come forward with any enhancements for the
approximately $500,000 shortfall for the DOTC police service. So the member also should really be looking
to ask these questions of the federal Liberal government, the Solicitor General
of Canada, and ask why did they not agree to continue the DOTC police service.
The
government of Manitoba was not the funder of this police service, but Manitoba,
this government, did take the issue very seriously, in fact, the issue of
policing in aboriginal communities across the province very seriously. What we did was meet with the Solicitor General
and advise the Solicitor General that this government was prepared to move
ahead into the First Nations policing policy.
The First
Nations policing policy, Madam Chair, is a tripartite agreement. It requires agreement from the federal
government, the provincial government and also the aboriginal community
involved. It requires a consultation
through the aboriginal community to determine what type of police service that
community would like to have, whether they would like a stand‑alone,
whether they would like a mixed police service or whether they would like to
have a policing by the RCMP. It also
allows for long‑range planning in the community so that officers can be
trained, if they choose a mixed police service, with the end goal of having a
stand‑alone police service.
This
government supported a movement towards the First Nations policing policy. We worked very hard and very carefully with
the Dakota Ojibway Tribal Council to come to a signing agreement, an interim
agreement for policing on the DOTC reserves, but at the same time we are
working with other aboriginal communities across this province to look with
them at what kind of policing they would like to have and move into other First
Nations policing agreements across the province.
* (1540)
I would
remind the member that this requires agreement by three parties. It requires the communities to determine what
they would like. It also requires that
police services be set up which will be effective, which will protect the
people of that community and which will also allow for fiscal
responsibility. So we are working
closely with the other two parties involved to move ahead in the policing
agreement. But make no mistake, Madam
Chairperson, the DOTC police service was a 100 percent federally funded police
service and the federal government decided that it was not prepared to move
ahead into providing the approximately‑‑and again I believe I am
accurate, but this is to the best of my memory‑‑$500,000 shortfall
that the DOTC communities had.
Madam
Chairperson, I would like to spend a little bit of time now speaking about
youth crime, because the member has spoken about his concerns about youth
crime. I can tell him I am concerned,
too, and I am concerned about a lack of support that has come from members
opposite in dealing with this very serious nonpartisan concern of Manitobans.
They are
looking for members who are elected to help them come to some ways of dealing
with youth crime and violence. Well,
this government has taken an extremely active and vigorous role in dealing with
youth crime and violence and we have heard nothing from the other side‑‑both
parties. Both parties have failed to
either be supportive of the ideas put forward by this government or to come up
with any of their own.
We know that
the foundation of dealing with youth crime and violence is the law that covers
it, and the law that deals with and covers youth crime and violence is the
Young Offenders Act. The Young Offenders
Act, Madam Chairperson, was brought in when the previous federal Liberal
government was in power. It was brought
in by the federal Liberals, and now we have the federal Liberal government
again, and it is amazing that I have had petitions brought forward from across
Manitoba. I have over 8,000 names. Members in Manitoba know how important the
issue of youth crime and violence is, and I have not had one approach or any
support from members in this House or from the federal Liberal members who
represent us to Canada.
I have not
had the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy or the member for Winnipeg South come forward
and say that they will take the names and the concerns of Manitobans to Ottawa
and encourage changes to the Young Offenders Act‑‑not once. Not once.
The Liberal opposition, the NDP opposition simply do not care.
So the
underpinning to managing youth crime and violence being the act, the law, this
government has taken a very strong position across Canada in asking for that to
be changed, because we want to have respect for the law, and because we want to
have changes to the law, which, we believe, will make it the most effective law
that it can be at this time.
I was very
pleased that the federal Liberal Minister of Justice has agreed to put forward
some changes. I am very pleased that they
reflect closely what Manitoba has proposed.
However, it will be now up to the political will of the federal Liberal
government to actually put those changes through, and we will be watching,
because we do not know if they, in fact, do have the will to put those through.
Madam Chair,
this government held the first‑ever summit on youth crime and
violence. We brought forward Manitobans
from across this province to deal with this most serious issue, because we
recognize that this requires many minds around the problem, that this requires
community members, parents, young people, educators, all community members,
business people, to come together and to look to find solutions. They worked in small groups, and they brought
forward 700 recommendations to be used across this province.
Those
recommendations were in categories for use by families, by the media, by
schools, by community groups and also by government, and governments paid
attention to those recommendations which are directed to them, and we look for
other members, other participants, to also look at what is directed to them and
to act on it. We look for the media's
support in being positive in terms of highlighting very positive actions of
young people.
From those
recommendations, Madam Chair, this government came forward with a nine‑point
plan. A nine‑point plan is a
starting point. It was never meant to be
the total plan. It was a good
start. It is a good start, and we
continue to add to it. We have added to
it already. We have added to it with our
amendments to The Highway Traffic Act, which deal with public safety, and the
nine‑point plan deals with the prevention, the intervention and the
consequences of youth crime.
We are very
interested in the prevention side, and in dealing with prevention, I was very
pleased yesterday to make the announcement on behalf of this government of the
youth contact line. That youth gang
contact line will be able to be used by young people, young people who feel
they are concerned about gang activity, they are concerned for themselves and
they want assistance in being able to withdraw, or they want to have assistance
and give information about activities they are concerned about, or parents can
call the line. Parents can get
information or referrals which will help them with a young person known to them
who may be involved in youth crime and violence. This has been a very successful initiative in
British Columbia, and we are looking for it to provide assistance in Manitoba.
Before I go
on to describe the other parts of the nine‑point plan, I think it is
important that I am able to say: Each
initiative on its own may look like a small initiative; each initiative on its
own looks like perhaps a part of a puzzle; and it is when you put all of those
pieces together that you have the real force of the effort that this government
has put behind combatting youth crime and violence; each part on its own is
important and forms a part of the whole, but it is all of those initiatives
that are put together that will make a difference in the area of youth crime
and violence.
We were very
pleased with the youth gang line, Madam Chair, that it also met the
requirements that had been put forward in the summit. The summit said: In any initiatives put forward, involve
youth; in any initiatives put forward, look at creating perhaps a new type of
activity; involve the police; involve the business community; involve
citizens. The youth gang line which was
announced yesterday meets those criteria.
Young people came forward to workshops.
They became very involved and concerned about the issues of youth crime
and violence. Some of those young people
had first‑hand experience with gang activity. They worked through possible scenarios so
that they had had experience. Then they
sat down, and they did the graphics work.
They created the posters, and they looked at what would be an effective
name for the youth gang line.
Madam Chair,
I am very pleased to say again today that the young people of Winnipeg have
named this Street Peace. The line will
operate first in the city of Winnipeg, and then we will look at its success‑‑it
is a pilot project‑‑and then we will look at moving‑‑
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. I am interrupting the proceedings of this
section of the Committee of Supply because the total time allowed for Estimates
consideration has now expired.
Our Rule
64.1(1) provides, in part, that not more than 240 hours shall be allowed for
the consideration of Ways and Means and Supply resolutions respecting all types
of Estimates and of Supply bills. Our
Rule 64.1(3) provides that where the time limit has expired, the Chairperson
shall forthwith put all remaining questions necessary to dispose of the matter.
I am,
therefore, now going to call, in sequence, the remaining questions. I should point out at this time that these
questions may not be debated or amended.
* (1550)
Resolution
4.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to
Her Majesty‑‑
Point of Order
Mr. Mackintosh: There is a motion before the committee. Surely the motion has to be dealt with and
dispensed with.
Madam Chairperson: The interpretation of the rule regarding the
disposition of remaining questions has always been interpreted that the remaining
resolutions only will be dealt with.
* * *
Madam Chairperson: Resolution 4.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $4,145,100 for Justice, Administration and Finance, for the
fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.
Shall the resolution pass?
Some Honourable Members: Pass.
An Honourable Member: No.
Voice Vote
Madam Chairperson: No?
All those in favour of the resolution, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Chairperson: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. On division?
Formal Vote
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): I request a recorded vote.
Madam Chairperson: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.
Order,
please. Will the Committee of Supply
please come to order.
The question
before the Committee of Supply is Resolution 4.1. Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $4,145,100 for Justice, Administration and Finance for the
fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.
A COUNT‑OUT VOTE was taken, the result
being as follows:
Yeas 24, Nays
25.
Madam Chairperson: The resolution is accordingly defeated.
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I was paired with the Minister of Housing
(Mrs. McIntosh). Had I not been paired,
I would have voted no.
ABORIGINAL JUSTICE
INITIATIVES
Madam Chairperson (Louise Dacquay): Resolution 27.1. RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $1,000,000 for Other Appropriations, Aboriginal Justice
Initiatives, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.
This
concludes Committee of Supply. Committee
rise.
Call in the
Speaker.
IN SESSION
Committee Report
Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has
adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to
sit again.
I move,
seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the
report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I wish to seek leave of the
House in order to have Bill 31 read for a second time.
Mr. Speaker:
Is there leave of the House to allow the honourable government House
leader to bring forward Bill 31 at this time?
Leave? [agreed]
SECOND READINGS
Bill 31‑‑The
Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment a nd Income Tax
Amendment Act
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade
and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I thank honourable members for
providing me leave to introduce the bill.
I move,
seconded by the Minister of Education and Training (Mr. Manness), that Bill 31,
The Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment and Income Tax
Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation le Fonds de
participation des travailleurs du Manitoba et la Loi de L'impôt sur le revenu),
be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Downey:
Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments to The Manitoba Employee Ownership
Fund Corporation Act and The Income Tax Act respond to a range of issues that
have emerged in the administration of the fund.
Essentially, they allow the administration of the fund to flow more
effectively to the benefit of the people of Manitoba who invest in the fund,
the fund itself and other Crocus shareholders.
The proposed amendments to The Income Tax Act respond to changes in
federal legislation whereby money invested in a registered retirement savings
plan will now be able to be used to purchase shares in Crocus directly rather
than through a multistep process.
The proposed
amendments to The Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Act will limit
the requirement for a re‑evaluation of an asset to circumstances where
the change in the asset will have a material effect on its value; ensure that unnecessary
administration costs are avoided while still preserving the purposes for which
the fund was created; and ensure that the value of Crocus shares are not
falsely represented by allowing the fund to segregate fixed income securities
purchased to hold until maturity from the short‑term market
fluctuations. As well, the amendments to
this act ensure that the estate of any deceased shareholder will be able to
redeem Crocus shares without waiting the minimum seven‑year waiting
period and eliminate confusion about the minimum waiting period before which a
person who is retired or deemed to be retired must hold his or her share.
I commend
these amendments to the honourable members of the House for speedy approval so
that the administration of the Crocus Investment Fund may flow as smoothly as
possible for the benefit of both investors and our province as a whole through
the investment objectives of the fund.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), that debate on Bill 31 be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
DEBATE ON SECOND
READINGS
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you call Bills 22, 25 and
27.
Bill 22‑‑The
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1994
Mr. Speaker:
On the proposed motion of the honourable Attorney General, Bill 22, The
Statute Law Amendment Act, 1994; Loi de 1994 modifiant diverses dispositions
législatives, standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to allow this
piece of legislation to pass through to committee to give members of the public
the opportunity to come out so that we might hear their concerns. We look forward to those committee hearings and
meeting members of the public who may wish to do so. Thank you.
* (1640)
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, this type of bill, I have been
told, appears at every session. It is
supposed to correct minor errors and omissions and clarify previously unclear
provisions. This bill corrects a mistake
with respect to residency requirements for Brandon city councillors. It amends The Civil Service Superannuation
Act to require that fund monies be invested only in investments authorized
under The Pension Benefits Act. It
changed the name of the Credit Union Stabilization Fund to the Credit Union
Deposit Guarantee Corporation. The
balance of the bill is housekeeping.
Mr. Speaker,
we welcome passing this bill on to committee where we can hear public
submissions and further debate. Thank
you.
Mr. Speaker:
Is the House ready for the question?
The question
before the House is second reading of Bill 22, The Statute Law Amendment Act,
1994; Loi de 1994 modifiant diverses dispositions législatives.
Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [agreed]
Bill 25‑‑The
Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1994
Mr. Speaker:
On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.
Stefanson), Bill 25, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1994; Loi de
1994 modifiant diverses dispositions législatives en matière de fiscalité,
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 27‑‑The
Highway Traffic Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker:
On the proposed motion of the honourable Attorney General (Mrs. Vodrey),
Bill 27, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act; Loi modifiant le Code de la route,
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]
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I believe if you check the
clock, it is five o'clock.
Mr. Speaker:
Is it the will of the House to call it five o'clock, or is it the will
of the House to call it six o'clock? [interjection]
Order,
please. Let us get this clarified
here. Is it the will of the House to
call it five o'clock?
An Honourable Member: Five.
Mr. Speaker:
The hour being 5 p.m., time for Private Members' Business.
PRIVATE MEMBERS'
BUSINESS
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 25‑‑Aboriginal
Veterans Day
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for
Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson):
WHEREAS
aboriginal veterans have served in the defence of Canada since the Battle of
the Plains of Abraham; and
WHEREAS
aboriginal service in the Canadian Forces was on a volunteer basis; and
WHEREAS
aboriginals' service in the Canadian Forces resulted in the loss of their
aboriginal rights and their acceptance in the aboriginal community; and
WHEREAS these
aboriginal veterans had for many years failed to receive recognition of their
service in the Canadian Forces and to the country of Canada; and
WHEREAS the
Government of Canada has declared November 8 as an official day of recognition
and remembrance for aboriginal veterans; and
WHEREAS the
City of Winnipeg has also recognized the significance of November 8 for
aboriginal veterans.
THEREFORE BE
IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba support the designation
of November 8 as Aboriginal Veterans Day.
Motion presented.
Mr. Hickes:
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to stand up today
and speak to this resolution, a resolution which seeks to formally recognize
the sacrifice and contribution of aboriginal veterans who have served this
country.
The formal
recognition and remembrance of the commitment and courage of aboriginal
veterans is long overdue here in Manitoba.
Most Manitobans are familiar with the vast sacrifices made by war
veterans in both world wars and the Korean War, the many lives which were lost
to the ravages of the war, the loss of years with friends and family and often
the loss of health and sense of security.
These are losses which all soldiers experienced during the wars and
losses which we as Canadians have all been made aware of.
During this
year in particular, Mr. Speaker, 50 years after the date of the D‑Day
invasion, the media coverage of D‑Day memorials has heightened the public
awareness of the horrors of war and the stories and experiences of Manitoba's
war veterans. Yet few Manitobans are
aware of the full extent of the losses which were endured by aboriginal
veterans and the difficult situations which many aboriginal veterans faced when
they returned home to Canada.
Unlike many
of the soldiers they fought alongside, aboriginal soldiers were not always
treated as heros upon their return to Canada.
After sacrificing years of their lives to fight for this country,
aboriginal soldiers returned to Canada with nothing. Stripped of their aboriginal status after
volunteering for the forces, many aboriginal veterans were unable to even
return to their own communities following the war. Without a chance to return to the life they
had lived before going off to war, these same veterans remained unrecognized
and unaccepted by the nonaboriginal community.
Clearly, for
aboriginal veterans, their sacrifices did not end once they had returned to
Canadian soil. Mr. Speaker, while
nonaboriginal veterans were eligible for a land grant provided by the
Government of Canada after returning from the war, aboriginal veterans were
never offered these same land grants and often lost their previous land rights
along with their treaty status.
Even today,
with the renewed focus on veterans and the anniversary of the D‑Day
invasion, many people are still unaware that in order to serve in the Canadian
Forces to serve their country, aboriginal soldiers were forced to give up their
treaty status and their rights which went along with this status. I believe many Manitobans are unaware of this
fact, because our province has never had specific recognition of aboriginal
veterans and of the great sacrifices which they made in their service to
Canada.
In going off
to war, aboriginal soldiers put more than their lives on the line. By giving up their status as aboriginals they
put their own cultural identity in jeopardy in order to serve their
country. When people think of aboriginal
veterans, often the only person they can name is Tommy Prince. They cannot name George Myron, George Mann,
John Charles Spence, Bill Daniels, Walter Daniels, Bill Sinclair or the
countless other Manitoba aboriginals who bravely served their country during
each of the world wars.
Mr. Speaker,
125 Manitoba aboriginals lost their lives in the service of their country during
World War II. It is time that the
Province of Manitoba formally recognize these veterans and the great losses
which they endured in order to serve their country.
In order to
better explain the extent of the sacrifices which were made by aboriginal veterans,
I would like to read to this Legislature an excerpt from a presentation made by
the National Aboriginal Veterans to the standing Senate committee on aboriginal
peoples earlier this year.
In his
presentation to the Senate committee, Sam Sinclair, the president of the
National Aboriginal Veterans, stated: I
remember while in the service we were treated as equals, because one bullet can
kill you as well as another person. Once
we returned home, we were treated as nobodies again. People were denied jobs. We thought that some of us were qualified for
these jobs. We were denied at other
levels involving land, education, health and responsibilities all the way down
the line, because people were not told exactly what their rights were as
aboriginal veterans. They did not know
what was available to them.
Another
presenter explained how many aboriginal veterans did not even get compensation
money, explaining monies that were due to veterans on reserves, if they were
overseas or had an allotment coming to them, were generally sent to a person in
authority, not to the spouse, not to the veteran, but to a person of
authority. This usually meant the Indian
agent or the Bay store or whoever happened to speak English, French or German.
Since the
earliest battles on the Plains of Abraham, aboriginal people have served in
defence of our country, and I believe it is time that these veterans were
afforded the recognition and respect which they deserve.
Mr. Speaker,
the City of Winnipeg has proclaimed November 8 as an official day of
recognition and remembrance for aboriginal veterans, and I would hope that this
government would follow the city's lead by passing the resolution put forward
today.
Mr. Speaker,
I would like to table for the House the mayor's proclamation, which reads:
WHEREAS
aboriginal veterans have served in the defence of what is known as Canada since
the Battle of the Plains of Abraham;
AND WHEREAS
service in the Canadian Forces was on a voluntary basis;
AND WHEREAS serving
in the Canadian Forces meant the loss of aboriginal rights;
AND WHEREAS
upon discharge the volunteers were not accepted back into the aboriginal
community or recognized by the nonaboriginal community;
AND WHEREAS
the aboriginal men and women who have served have not received the recognition
due them;
AND WHEREAS
the Government of Canada has declared the 8th day of November, 1993, as an
official day of recognition and remembrance for aboriginal veterans;
NOW,
THEREFORE, I, SUSAN THOMPSON, Mayor of the City of Winnipeg in the province of
Manitoba, do hereby proclaim Monday, November 8, 1993, as Recognition and
Remembrance Day for Aboriginal Veterans.
It is dated
in Winnipeg the 8th of November, 1993, and signed by the mayor of our city.
Mr. Speaker,
I think this is a resolution that all parties could support. There is no politics in this. It is just to honour a lot of the aboriginal
veterans who stood up and fought for our country in order to give them
recognition, as the Government of Canada and the mayor of Winnipeg has
done. I think it would be righting an
undue wrong that has been created from the past.
So I would
encourage all members of this House to support this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
* (1650)
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister responsible for
Native Affairs): I am very pleased to rise to speak on this
resolution today. I think its aims are
indeed very noble and worthy of support by all members of this House.
I do wish,
though, the member for Point Douglas, in his discussion of this resolution,
would have spoken in a little bit greater detail about the loss of status,
because I must admit I fall into the particular category that he spoke of, of
many who are not aware of that.
Many of the
aboriginal veterans that I remember as a child, particularly from the First
World War, it never appeared to me that they had lost status, and I look
forward‑‑perhaps the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson), who, I
understand, will be speaking on this resolution, will be able to provide some
more information.
One thing I
am aware of that the member did not mention in his remarks, and I think it is
important to be on the record in terms of context, is, I understand, that
aboriginal Canadians who served in our Canadian Forces during the war were
granted the right to vote in federal elections, which status aboriginal people
did not have at that time. This may be
part of the explanation on the status, but that right was granted to aboriginal
people who served in the Canadian Armed Forces.
Mr. Speaker,
this is an opportunity for me for a few moments to recollect about an
individual I knew as a very young child.
The member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) made reference to a number of
aboriginal veterans. When I was a young
person growing up, a very good friend of our family was a Mr. George Williams
from Peguis. Mr. Williams was a very old
man, when I remember him, in the 1960s.
I believe he passed away in the early 1970s, but Mr. Williams had served
in the Canadian Army during the First World War in France. My grandfather, my mother's father, an Albert
Hargreaves, had also served in the Canadian Army. Whenever Mr. Williams was at our home and my
grandfather was there, the two of them would reminisce considerably about their
common service in the defence of Canada and Canadian interests in the first
great war.
The fact, of
course, is that there were many aboriginal Canadians who have served
Canada. As the member references the
Battle of the Plains of Abraham, I am sure there were aboriginal Canadians on
both sides in that particular battle for Canada. I think, if one goes into history, one will
find that the service of aboriginal Canadians fighting along either French or
English armies prior to the Plains of Abraham is also evident. So the tradition of aboriginals fighting with
European armies in the interests of one side or another in those early battles
in Canada goes back beyond the Plains of Abraham.
Certainly, in
the Canada that we know today, aboriginal Canadians have always played a part
in the defence of an independent Canada.
Certainly, when one looks at the War of 1812‑‑and it is
obviously not recent history, but in that very important war in the history of
this country, when British and Canadian forces repelled invasion by American
troops, the role of aboriginal units fighting with the British Army was one of
the key successes in the ability of a very small British Army to repel much
larger American forces in the Niagara Peninsula.
Obviously,
aboriginal Canadians of that time made a choice as to whom they wished to fight
and defend and chose the British, at that time, made the choice of whom they
would support and chose the British who ultimately maintained control of Canada
so that inevitably, in the march of history, we were able to have the country
that we have today.
I think, when
one looks at aboriginal servicemen who fought in both world wars, the name of
Tommy Prince, who comes from my constituency, certainly stands out. I know the member for Point Douglas (Mr.
Hickes) made reference to Mr. Prince.
Mr. Prince also has the distinction, of course, of being the most
decorated Canadian servicemen, I believe, in the history of our armed forces,
having served in both the Second World War and Korea.
There are
others, as the member for Point Douglas has mentioned, who certainly have done
service for Canada and served very nobly, honourably and bravely in the defence
of our country and the principles for which it stands.
I say to the
House, as well, I had the opportunity last year of attending the first annual
inspection of the Hollow Water corps in the constituency of the member for
Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson). I remember,
during the course of that very proud event, a group of a dozen or so veterans
from the community who had seen service in the Second World War and Korea. I could see the pride on their faces as they
assembled to watch the young people in that community serve their country in
the army cadet corps that is resident in that community. It reminded me again of the common bonds that
we all share as Canadians, whether we be of aboriginal or nonaboriginal
descent.
There are
many things that divide us in this country, but there are certainly many things
that unite us, and the common service to our nation in times of war is one of
the bonds that certainly ties Canadians together very strongly.
It is with
great regret, quite frankly, that many members of our aboriginal community paid
a fairly hefty price in loss of status, as the member for Point Douglas (Mr.
Hickes) has pointed out, by serving our country in our armed forces. Through this special recognition for
aboriginal veterans, it provides an opportunity somewhat to recognize their
contribution. But as many in this House,
I am sure, would want me to point out‑‑certainly on this side‑‑we
as Canadians owe a great debt of gratitude to all our veterans of whatever
background who have served the interests of this country under arms.
Today as we
speak, we read in the newspaper of the funeral of one of our brave armed
services personnel who lost their life in the cause of peacekeeping in
Croatia. We should not forget the
sacrifices and the risk taken by those who serve our country in our armed
forces. Although none of us in this
House, I am sure, like war, like fighting and violence, we recognize there are
times when one must take a stand, when one must be prepared to put one's life,
health at risk for the betterment and protection of society.
The fact that
so many aboriginal Canadians took it upon themselves in the most difficult of
circumstances to offer themselves, offer their services to the monarch and to
the country certainly must be recognized, and I am pleased to offer the support
of this side of the House to this resolution.
I look forward to the comments of the member for Rupertsland who will
shed some more light on this particular area of history that is not well
known. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few
comments to the resolution sponsored by the honourable member for Point
Douglas.
Allow me to
begin by expressing my gratitude for the kind words that have been spoken by
the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Praznik), responsible for Native Affairs
as well.
This
resolution, I believe, is long overdue.
Many of our veterans were willing to give the ultimate sacrifice in
defence of this country and the freedom that all Canadians now enjoy. Even though as treaty Indians and based on
our treaties it was not necessary for us to go to war, our forebears
nevertheless felt it was a responsibility on their part based on a treaty
relationship that does exist between the British Crown. Of course, I have mentioned it in this House
before and elsewhere that the responsibility of the relationship was later
transferred to the Canadian government in later years.
* (1700)
Our treaties,
beginning with treaty No. 1 in Manitoba, signed in 1871 at Lower Fort Garry,
based on that treaty relationship and the recognition by the aboriginal veterans
or forebears as Britain being a treaty partner, the First Nations people
particularly felt it was an obligation to defend the British Crown. Many of our men and women came to the defence
of Canada in the time that Canada needed men and women to enlist in the armed
forces during the First, Second, Korean Wars.
Of course, that tradition continues, and many of our people have
enlisted in the armed forces. Most
recently, some of our people have seen service in the Gulf crisis in recent
history.
The enfranchisement
of treaty Indian people, particularly who served in the armed forces‑‑many
things were promised to First Nations people upon entering the service that
they would be given land, they would be given certain things in return for
their service in the Canadian Armed Forces.
Unfortunately, when they came home they found themselves in greater
despair and the respect that was due to them was never fully rendered by the
Canadian government. The consequence of
their service in the war was that treaty Indians serving side by side with
nonaboriginal people, to enter bars and establishments like that in Europe and
elsewhere in Canada during training camps, made it necessary for a lot of our
forebears to forsake their treaty status and enfranchise in that fashion in
order for them to be with their comrades at these places. That is how the enfranchisement came about,
Mr. Speaker. These people who did
enfranchise were then considered blue‑card Indians because they carried
blue cards as identification, identifying them as Indian people but non‑Status
Indians.
The other
thing, up until early 1960, it was necessary, particularly for First Nations
people, to get a permit signed by the Indian agent in order for us to leave our
reserves. I did not personally experience
that, but certainly my parents and grandparents and my great uncles, my great
aunts experienced that.
It has only
been in recent years‑‑in 1960, as I said before in this House, Mr.
Speaker, was the year that we were given the recognition and the ability to
vote in Canadian politics. We have only
realized this in the last 34 years.
There was a lot of discrimination that was faced by our forebears, even
though they had laid their lives on the line for the freedom that everybody
enjoys in Canada. We should all be proud
of that fact that we are a free country and maybe many people do not realize
that, but First Nations people, aboriginal people certainly had a role to play
in this.
The Union
Jack‑‑I would like to talk about that‑‑is still held in
high regard and in high reverence by First Nations people particularly. It is only fitting that we in Manitoba should
remember that the Union Jack is part of the provincial flag. We should never forget that, and, again, it
goes back to that relationship with Great Britain. Many of our First Nations veterans tell us
never to forget who we are and never to forget about our veterans. So whenever we gather at celebrations and at
gatherings of First Nations people, a song similar to Canada's national anthem
is sung to remember the veterans who laid down their lives for the freedom of
this country.
The
opportunity is here for me, Mr. Speaker, to put on the record some of the
veterans who were willing to give the ultimate sacrifice from the community I
was born in and the First Nation that I am a member of.
In World War
I‑‑and all these veterans are deceased now that I would like to
read into the record: Matthew Neckaway;
John James Menow; Thomas Charles Evans; Sandy Laugher; Alex Saunders; Charles
Whiskeyjack; Henry Swanson; Jude Swanson; Walter Keeper; Joe Keeper, my great
uncle, a recipient of the military medal and, after the First World War, an
Olympian in the long distance, I should add; George Cromarty; George Brown;
Willie Crate; Andrew Crate; John Robertson; Alec Whiteway; Alfred Settee,
another great uncle; Charles Wesley; Willie Robinson, a great uncle; Donald
Robinson, my great grandfather; and, while fighting for the freedom of this
country, some of the warriors who did not come home: George Campbell, Murdock Cromarty, Eric
Olson, Elijah Tait.
World War
II: Thomas Duncan; Jack Thomas Osborne;
John James Quaskekapow; Andrew Robertson; Stanley Settee; Murdo Scribe; Alpheus
Wilson; Charles Wesley; Paul Daoust; Robert Robertson; John James Menow; John
Robertson; Thomas McLeod; Frankie Paupanekis, my great uncle; Willie Paynter;
Donald Paynter; Stanley McLeod, my great uncle; Thomas Muskego; John Muswagon;
Alfred Quaskekapow; Charles Quaskekapow; Sandy Gunn; Denny Allan; John Lowe;
George Lowe, killed in action; Charlie Mowatt, killed in action; John Angus
Muswagon, killed in action; Kenneth Scribe, killed in action; Phillip Jones,
killed in action; Joe W. McKay; Joe McKay.
All these men
that I mentioned from Norway House are all deceased with the exception of Sandy
Gunn, John Lowe and Denny Allan.
In the Korean
War as well, many of our men got up and were prepared to again defend this
country: Kenneth Budd; James Robert
Hart; Joseph Irvine Keeper, my uncle; Skeegix Darcy, who is now deceased.
From Cross
Lake, all these World War I veterans are now gone on to the spirit world: Archie Halcrow, James McLeod, Stanley McLeod,
Happy Jack Ross, St. James Whiskey, Edward Thomas.
In World War
II from Cross Lake: Rose Beardy was
killed in action; Sandy Beardy; William Cook; Ruebin McKay, an elder that I
still visit periodically and I consider an uncle is still with us; Ernest
McLeod, another uncle is still alive, but nevertheless talks about the
significance of the aboriginal veterans and the role they played in the defence
of this country; Stanley Mercer, killed in action; Peter Halcrow, now deceased;
George McIvor, now deceased.
In the Korean
War: Ernest McLeod, Donald McKay, Thomas
Albert Ross.
In Nelson
House, Mr. Speaker, in World War I we had Edwin Swanson; World War II, a great
uncle of mine, William Thomas, Tommy Linklater, both deceased, George Spence,
John Charles Spence, Alex Flett; in Korea, Russel Gossfeld. These warriors are still alive and still
provide a lot of guidance and direction for our young leaders in the Nelson
House community.
In Grand
Rapids we have Alex Mercredi, who was a World War II veteran. In Gillam, a man who was also willing to give
the ultimate sacrifice, George Dion, whom I have periodic contact with, served
during the Korean conflict.
This is also
a list of the veterans who served in the First World War. These veterans are from Sioux Valley: Samuel Dowan, Manus Merrick, George
Blackface, John Taylor, Tom Kasto, Rufus Williams, Fredrick Essie, Herbert
Happa, Norman Chaske, Zeph Sioux, Charles Happa, Johnny Noel, John Doota,
Gilbert Moore.
In World War
II, and also Korea: John Sioux, a good
friend of mine was a Hong Kong veteran and a prisoner of war; Lawrence Antoine;
Alfred Antoine; Herman Essie; Frank Happa; Henry McKay; Ralph Merrick; Abe
Mini; Willim Mini; Stanley McKay; Alfred Tacan; Morris Tacan; Allan Pratt;
Peter Whitecloud; Albert Elk; Joseph Runearth; Solomon Hall. This is just a partial list of the men and
women who served in the great wars in years gone by.
* (1710)
I would like
to ask for the support of all members of this House, so finally this province,
which should be very proud of its aboriginal veterans, recognizes November 8 as
Aboriginal Veterans Day. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words in
support of the resolution. It is always
difficult following the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) because of his
oratory skills. In the brief time he has
been in this House, I am impressed by his oratory skills, and it is difficult
to follow someone like that.
I just want
to add our words of support for this resolution. By the fact that the Government of Canada has
already declared November 8 as official day of recognition and remembrance for
aboriginal veterans and that the City of Winnipeg has likewise done, it is only
befitting that members of this Assembly declare this day, November 8,
Aboriginal Veterans Day. I support the
resolution, as do the other members of our caucus. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker:
Is the House ready for the question?
The question before the House is the resolution of the honourable member
for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), Resolution 25, Aboriginal Veterans Day. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion? Agreed? [agreed]
Is it the
will of the House to call it six o'clock?
Some Honourable Members: Six o'clock.
Mr. Speaker:
Okay. The hour being 6 p.m., this
House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Thursday).