2nd-36th, Volume 24a - Private Members' Business

VOL. XLVI No. 24A - 10 a.m., THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 1996

Thursday, April 25, 1996

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Thursday, April 25, 1996

The House met at 10 a.m.

PRAYERS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS

PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS

Res. 3--Recycling for Apartment Dwellers

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), that

WHEREAS the provincial government has committed to the provision of recycling services for all Manitobans and the reduction of waste by 50 percent by the year 2000, based on 1988 figures; and

WHEREAS the provincial government, in conjunction with the City of Winnipeg, has established a recycling program that is woefully inadequate as it neglects and excludes 30 percent of Winnipeg householders, roughly 90,000 residents who live in apartment complexes or townhouses, by disallowing them from utilizing the recycling services; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has been charging and continues to charge a 2 cent environmental levy on all purchases of beverage containers which all consumers are required to pay, and which continues to raise a revenue of over $400,000 per month for the provincial government; and

WHEREAS recent indications support the forecast that the projected surplus from the 2 cent beverage container levy will be $1.5 million; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has failed to collect $863,000 in fines from soft drink companies; and

WHEREAS all Manitobans who are taxed for a service should have the opportunity to utilize that service without being discriminated against based upon their residence;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the provincial government, working in conjunction with the City of Winnipeg, to consider establishing a recycling program that is accessible to all residents of Winnipeg regardless of whether they live in a house, townhouse, or apartment; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly urge the provincial government to consider introducing a comprehensive province-wide recycling program, which will be fully accessible to all residents of Manitoba whether or not they live in a urban, rural or northern area.

Motion presented.

Mr. Dewar: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak on this resolution and to encourage all members of the House to support this resolution. It is members on this side of the House who bring forward serious resolutions when it comes to any issue, really, but when it comes to environmental issues in particular, so it is very important, I know, for the government opposite to read the resolution, and when they see the serious concerns that we raise in it and the practical solutions that we offer that they will stand up and take this to a vote and support it.

Madam Speaker, the government decided a number of years ago to place on beverage containers in this province a 2-cent levy, and the levy was used to initiate recycling programs throughout the province based upon a partnership with municipalities. The problem is that all of us pay that levy. I know I do, and I know all members in this House do, and my constituents do, and the residents of the city of Winnipeg do. They pay that 2-cent levy, but there are 90,000 residents in this city that do not receive any type of recycling service. We feel that this is wrong. That is why we brought forward this resolution today to encourage the government, to urge the government to work with the City of Winnipeg to introduce a comprehensive recycling program to ensure that all residents of the city of Winnipeg receive a recycling program.

When you consider, Madam Speaker, that all residents of the city pay a 2-cent levy on every beverage container, we feel that they are entitled to be receiving this program. The government opposite, when this legislation was introduced--that was, I believe, before we were elected. I believe it was in ’89-90, but I want to just quote from a memorandum I have here from a Michael Bessey. At that time Mr. Bessey was secretary to the Treasury Board, and he sent this memo off to the Honourable G. Filmon, Premier. It is dated October 30, 1989, and I just want to quote under legislation, and I quote: The legislation is, as drafted, for the most part cosmetic. He goes on to say: That is, it does not provide government with the ability to do anything new.

Madam Speaker, that, I think, explains a lot about this government when it comes to environmental issues. For the most part, what they do is cosmetic, and we have a memorandum from the secretary to the Treasury Board confirming that. He writes to his Premier saying that they do not require this legislation. In fact, they have the ability by regulation to do everything that the act proposes to do. So that I think speaks quite clearly as to the government’s commitment on environmental issues.

Madam Speaker, the government is bringing forward this 2-cent levy, or they have a 2-cent levy in place, and we know that that levy itself is taxable, which at one time the minister was saying, well, no. He is flip-flopping on that issue. One time he sort of disagreed with it and the next time he was not sure, but you go out and you pay a 2-cent levy on the beverage container. You also have to pay both the PST and the GST on that levy. So you are paying a tax on a tax, and the government is collecting, we estimate, around $300,000 I believe a month, if I am not mistaken from this tax on a tax. This is from an administration opposite that claims repeatedly in this Chamber and throughout this province that they do not tax.

Madam Speaker, under The WRAP Act, the government at one time established recycling or recovery targets for the beverage industry. In fact, the large bottlers in this province did not meet their targets and they were fined, and I have an Order-in-Council here from the government, $862,397.17, and I believe by all estimations that the figure was, in fact, well over a million dollars. So instead of collecting this money from these large beverage bottlers, they simply wrote it off. They waived the penalties, and this again from a government that--members opposite are rising in their seats to our questions claiming that there is no money left in this province to fund any of the vital services that Manitobans deserve.

* (1010)

Here is an example, Madam Speaker, of this government writing off $800,000 to their friends. You look at the donations to the Conservative Party and it comes as no great secret that, in fact, they received, I believe, close to $16,000 from Blackwoods Beverages, which manufactures Pepsi and Coca-Cola Bottling. They have donated close to $16,000 to the members opposite between the years 1988-1992. So, in fact, they have a very special relationship.

This government has a very special relationship with the large bottlers in this province, and I think that special relationship may have had something to do with the fact that they decided to waive this $800,000 in penalties that these bottlers owe to the people of the province. That is just another example of this government protecting and working with their corporate friends. We see that every day in this province.

As we know, this government is now working with their corporate bosses to privatize home care in this province, and this is just another example of that. As a matter of fact, they have decided over the last while that they have to reward their friends. They reward their friends that have supported them over the past number of years, whether it is the bottlers or whether it is the providers of private home care services. We are seeing now the government forcing a strike, Madam Speaker. They are simply doing that because they know that this is payback time. This is the time they have to pay back their corporate friends.

Madam Speaker, in 1989, the NDP at the time established a task force on the environment. We held public hearings throughout the province, and some of the recommendations that came back--[interjection] I could go on and on about the inadequacies of this government when it comes to environmental issues, but I want to offer some positive alternatives, as well. At that time that NDP task force recommended that the province move far more aggressively in terms of waste reduction. They proposed that, in fact, not 50 percent of the waste should be reduced by the year 2000. They suggested that 75 percent of the waste be reduced, which is far more significant than what this government has suggested.

We hope, Madam Speaker, that the government is on target with that 50 percent. I think we are a little bit concerned about that. I know I will be joining the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) this weekend at the waste reduction conference in Portage, and perhaps he will provide us with an update as to the progress of his government when it comes to dealing with the waste management issue in the province.

Madam Speaker, we also feel that the government must move more aggressively in the area of the four Rs of recycling, and that is, reduce, reuse, recycle, and recover. There are some innovative suggestions out there in our society to actually recover some of the waste, to actually mine some of the landfill sites across this country.

Madam Speaker, we as Canadians recycle only 2 percent of the waste compared to the United States which, in fact, recycles 10 percent, and the Japanese recycle 50 to 60 percent of their waste. It is my understanding that in Japan waste disposal sites are illegal. That is the way that we should be moving here in this province.

The government opposite, they have placed upon the residents of this province a 2-cent levy on containers, but the money from that tax was to be used to fund recycling services for all Manitobans. Several of the municipalities across this province have joined in, which I think is a great idea, but we are finding that here in the city of Winnipeg, 90,000 dwellers--individuals who live in townhouses and apartments and so on--do not receive the service that they are paying this tax on. So, Madam Speaker, the point of our resolution is to urge the government opposite, and I know the members opposite take this issue very seriously, and they will join with me this afternoon in putting pressure upon the Minister of Environment to pass this resolution to ensure that all Manitobans receive the service that they are paying for.

Thank you very much.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Let me first of all indicate that there are a number of elements in this resolution that I could support, but when I look at the approach that the member has taken, then, obviously, I am not in its entirety going to accept all the whereases and the premises and the thoughts that he has introduced around speaking to this resolution.

Let me be very clear. The fact of whether or not there is available recycling in the multifamily dwellings in the city of Winnipeg is of considerable concern to this side of the House, as it is to the member for Selkirk, but he should not be quite as adamant about the fact that that leaves an enormous percentage of the population of Manitoba unable to access recycling, No. 1; and secondly, the City of Winnipeg has finally agreed to allow some private-sector--and there is that nasty word again. I am sure the members across would not want to be too involved with it, but they have agreed to allow some private-sector recycling to go into the multifamily and apartment blocks in the city of Winnipeg.

In fact, the figures very much reflect the opposite view from what the member was trying to portray, inasmuch as 90 percent of the population of Manitoba now has or should have available to it recycling capability. One of the problems associated with this, of course--and it is directly related to the delivery of the recycling program--is that we must have the co-operation and involvement of the local municipality. That, quite frankly, is one of the unique aspects of the program that we have put forward. It is there to provide a fund to support the collection of recyclables within the various jurisdictions, but waste management is still mainly the responsibility of the local jurisdictions, and we have fought for eight years, since the very first discussion of the MPSP program, to make sure that principle was not violated or strayed from to any great extent.

I would directly refer the member to the high percentage of households that do have recycling capability available to them and reference directly the fact that 85 to 90 percent, if they were to access the fund, that we could, in fact, under what could be negative margins in the recycling materials that we see these days, use all of the reserves that are sitting in the fund or come very close to using them all.

That, I think, is the other part that concerns me about the approach that the member has taken in putting together this resolution, and that is that the funds are somehow, in his eyes, or in the eyes of those who are the critics of the program, seen to be collecting dollars which are not being put back to work on behalf of the recycling program across the province.

Sixty percent of all municipalities have signed up, and as I have said, that provides between 85 percent and 90 percent of the population of this province with access. There is no other jurisdiction that I am aware of that can match that percentage or certainly none that can exceed it.

The fact is we have paid over $1.6 million to the municipalities, including a million dollars which has already been paid to the City of Winnipeg. When this motion was put together, I think the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) would agree that this is now stale in some of the information that is included in the motion because if the research department for the opposition primarily uses the Free Press and The Sun as their sources, the fact was for months on end they said we were collecting money and were simply building a slush fund. I do not know if they thought it was for my personal re-election or what, but the fact is now that the fund is being called upon by the City of Winnipeg, and it appears that we have accidentally or by good management, depending on which side of the House the member sits on, we will find that the fund and the demand is pretty much in balance.

* (1020)

If we do not see further deterioration in the value of recyclables, then I think the approximately $5 million annually that is collected through the 2-cent levy on beverage containers is, in fact, working very well in enhancing opportunities for recycling.

I would be the first to admit that on beverage container percentages of return that this system does not provide the same rate that a return-to-deposit would achieve on specific items, but in total tonnage, as collected, this system provides a far more proactive basis to bring in glass and tin and aluminum and all of the other varied products that are out there and particularly newsprint.

Everyone, I think, concedes that newsprint is a major part of the recyclable materials that are available out there, and it is also very recyclable. What we see today in the city of Winnipeg alone is about 120 tonnes of materials being collected daily. We know that the newspaper prices have dropped, and there has always been some debate about whether or not there should be a levy against newsprint to further enhance the recycling fund.

We have resisted doing that up to this point, but the fact is the newsprint in the early stages of the program had enough value that it was more than carrying its own costs of recycling, plus it was providing stability to the industry that it might not otherwise have, but the program is designed and is open to entry of any household product that has a good recyclable market.

As long as we maintain that flexibility, this program will be able to respond to the recycling demands into the foreseeable future. One of the concerns that has been expressed, as well, is that somehow there is a perception that the beverage container industry avoided costs in the past. The members across love to refer to corporate welfare bums. I think that was sort of a 1960s war cry for the NDP. But the fact is what we have seen for once is industries working proactively with government to get involved in a program that they wanted to see achieved just as much as we wanted.

The fact is, and this is a fact that was so conveniently forgotten by those who were the advocates of return-to-deposit, it costs about 4 cents per container to run a return-for-deposit system, and, fortunately, this system obviously is 2 cents a container, but it has a much broader base, and it includes tetrapack and other containers that would not normally be in a return-for-deposit system.

The fact is we acknowledge the high antiseptic quality of those containers, but the fact is if they are not recyclable, they should at least be recognized that they are a factor in the litter and the waste accumulations within the waste stream, and they contribute as a beverage container to the fund. Ultimately, there may well be a use for that material, but at the present time they pay towards the fund as an indication of their responsibility in the system. As far as I know, and to the credit of that industry, this has not been a detriment to its sales or the material being changed in any way that would provide increased cost or manufacturing problems for them, but it has been a very important recognition on the part of the consumer that when they are buying a product, they are buying it knowing what the impact of that product is.

That was an issue, frankly, that I was not in total agreement with my advisory committee about, whether or not containers that were not recyclable should be included or whether or not there was, in fact, a consumer information and education issue to putting the 2 cents on either visibly or having it included in the price of the product without necessarily making it a visible levy.

Those who were on the advisory committee in structuring this program were adamant in saying that we had to have, as much as possible, a visible levy. In the end, it was left to the retail chains and the local retailers as to how they would display that. As the members opposite may recall, there was some significant disagreement on the implementation and start-up, but I can tell you that when we now have a product or a program that is pulling in about, oh, 12,000 tonnes of aluminum, steel, glass and plastic containers, magazines and boxboard that we have collected since the beginning of this program, then I would suggest that we are on the verge of having a program that everyone in this province can stand up and be proud of, as I am sure the members opposite are. They only wish that they had the opportunity to implement it rather than our administration which has been working on the enhancement of the product stewardship concept since we came into office.

I think I would like to add one other broad general comment in relationship to this motion, Madam Speaker. What that comes down to is that The WRAP Act and the Product Stewardship program that we have put in place allows itself to be open to influence other areas of collection and recyclables, and, ultimately, we have been able to use the same principles for the collection of tires, collection of pesticide containers from agricultural production, and I would suggest that we have the flexibility and will in a short period of time not only to be collecting the long list and large tonnage of materials that I referred to in the last few minutes, but I fully anticipate that we will be able to use this same legislation and regulation to move into oil and oil container recovery and oil filters, an area which in many respects the public out in rural Manitoba and in the service section of the city of Winnipeg are ahead of the province already in terms of wanting opportunities for ability to recycle in a larger volume the materials which they today have some difficulty in dealing with.

Madam Speaker, the other aspect of the motion that is put forward is--and when I referred to this being a stale motion, I did not mean it in a derogatory sense. I fully understand that this was presented a year ago and that we are now picking up on the motions that were presented then, but the fact is the numbers have been one of the most difficult responsibilities we have had, conveying those numbers to the general public and how they may be used. I would encourage the members opposite, as we look to bringing other materials in, or whether there are questions being raised about whether other materials should contribute to the fund, by legislation this fund cannot be allowed to go into a deficit. It also follows that it needs to have sufficient cushion to have flexibility within the marketplace as the cost of recyclables rise and fall.

The City of Winnipeg took a unique approach to theirs whereby the city, as I understand it, accepts responsibility for marketing of the recyclables after they have been collected. In my view, that was a mistake. I think that the collector, being private sector, should have also been responsible for accepting some of the risk that went with the marketing of the product. Nevertheless, this fund was here to protect the City of Winnipeg and assist them when the markets rise and fall and the value of the recyclables fluctuates.

That is one of the problems in recycling everywhere, the wide fluctuation in the value of the products. As we bring those products on stream, they have to be brought on stream at the same time, as much as possible, as we are able to bring on market forces or attach them or encourage them to be part of market forces out there that are driving the value of the product.

It is very simple when you look at boxboard and cardboard being another product that was very much carrying its own weight at the time that this program was put in place. There was at that time no need to put a levy against cardboard because it was being collected in very large volumes for the value that was in it because the people who were able to access the markets were able to pay sufficiently to cover the cost of the collection and encourage the retail sector, or wherever they were getting the product from, to set it aside and allow them to collect it.

* (1030)

The issue of whether or not we have seen sufficient movement and whether we are going to achieve our 50 percent goal in the Product Stewardship program, I would only close with these comments, that the stewardship program is a partnership and it is working as a partnership. The program does not differentiate between single and multifamily dwellings, but we do need to have the multifamily dwellings brought on more aggressively. With that I concur.

The recycling payments have been made available to all municipalities, to all First Nations who are interested in being involved in the program regardless of their geographic area. I think we have seen enormous growth in the last year. I believe we will see continued growth in the next six months to a year, and I would encourage the members to continue to support this program. I hope that this debate has answered the questions they have raised by way of this motion.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this morning and put some comments on the record on the member for Selkirk’s (Mr. Dewar) private members' resolution on recycling.

I would like to first focus on the first WHEREAS for a few moments. WHEREAS the provincial government has committed to the provision of recycling services for all Manitobans and the reduction of waste by 50 percent by the year 2000.

I think that the resolution, even in its more current format, and also the government’s own actions, show that the government, we believe, is not moving fast enough or thoroughly enough or broadly enough to be able to meet that goal of 50 percent reduction by the year 2000. As the resolution states, there are still people in the city of Winnipeg who are unable to access recycling programs because they do not live in single-family dwellings, and I think that it is essential that the province address this issue more aggressively than it has to date.

The percentages may be slightly smaller than the 30 percent discussed in this resolution, but as long as there are any residents of a community, particularly a community the size of Winnipeg, that are not able to access easily the recycling processes that single-family dwellings can, the government will not be able to meet its target. It is very unfair to those residents who wish to recycle to not be able to do so.

It is an interesting thing, there are recycling bins throughout the city. I know there are a series of recycling bins in St. James at the St. James Civic Centre and that is all well and good, but you have to have access to transportation to be able to take your recyclables to that location and others that are throughout the city. People who live in apartments often do not have access to their own transportation. I do not know what the statistics are, but I would venture to guess that the proportion of people who live in multiple-family dwellings and do not have their own transportation is much higher than those who live in single-family dwellings. That, being the case, and as I said I do not have statistics, but my sense is that is probably the case, the current recycling depots are inaccessible for these people in virtually all cases.

I suppose you could say, well, they could get a bus and go out to St. James, but we all know that the transit support from the provincial government to the City of Winnipeg has been cut and cut and cut and that our transit systems in the city of Winnipeg do not allow for the kind of flexibility that would enable people, even if they could carry their recyclables, to get to those locations which are largely in more suburban areas.

Unlike European cities, and I will talk just briefly about the city of Nice that I had an opportunity to visit several years ago. The City of Nice recognizes the fact that many people do not have their own transportation, that people need to have easily accessible recycling bins available. On virtually every street corner outside the core of the downtown area, there are three or four bins that are available for glass and aluminum and newsprint; very small, they are not huge. They are not any bigger than the waste bins that we have on virtually all of our street corners. People in Nice then can literally go out their front door and deposit their recyclables, and they have a much higher recycling rate than we do here in the province of Manitoba. It is something that needs to be looked at and needs to be addressed, and this government has not yet addressed that need.

The other issue I would like to speak about also is in the first WHEREAS, and again it is the reduction of waste by 50 percent. Recycling is one part of that reduction of waste, and we have suggested ways that that could be better achieved. Another major part of the reduction of waste is making it more appealing not to use and making it less appealing to use. Both sides, both the carrot and the stick need to be present.

I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that the current government in its deliberations, or actually the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) in his deliberations on the Clean Environment Commission recommendation about the BFI landfill site in Rosser is a huge component of this resolution.

If the provincial government, if the Minister of Environment listens to the Clean Environment Commission and grants BFI a licence to build a waste facility in Rosser, just north of the city, there will be no way that this government can anywhere approach a 50 percent reduction in waste. There is absolutely no way that will happen. Now why is that? Why does the fact that you have more available landfill for waste mean that you are not going to meet your waste reduction cycle?

It is very simple. Having another landfill in competition with the city-owned Brady landfill will mean that there will be more land available, thereby meaning that there is less reason, for particularly businesses, to recycle, to reduce, to not go into the BFI landfill and say, we can dump it here because it is close.

The other thing that BFI will do is they will reduce the tipping fees. That tipping fee issue is the stick that is currently undertaken by the city and is used quite effectively by the city, something that the government members seem to forget. One of the major reasons for the high tipping fees currently in place by the City of Winnipeg is not only to provide revenue for the city, but there is another very important reason for that and result of those tipping fees being fairly extensive.

Those tipping fees being high gives more of an incentive to corporations and businesses to recycle, to have less material going into the landfill sites. It is a basic economic principle that I am surprised members opposite have not been able to quite understand, or maybe they do understand, and they say it does not matter because they are basically not concerned about the environmental issues facing the province of Manitoba today. I would suggest that may very well be an underlying theme, that the government talks about recycling, they talk about waste reduction. They talk about solid waste management. They talk about co-operation between the city and the province and the other municipalities throughout the province, most particularly in the capital region. They talk and talk and talk.

Madam Speaker, as has been said in this Chamber and elsewhere many times before, talk is cheap. They talk the talk but they are definitely not walking the walk. Most particularly, if this Minister of Environment and his cabinet colleagues approve of the BFI Rosser landfill application, we will see a degradation of the environment in this province. We will see an increase in the waste cycle of material that will go into the waste stream, not a reduction of the material going into the waste stream.

Businesses will be able to say it is cheap. We can afford to go to BFI and dump our waste. We do not have to worry about the costs and look at how we can recycle and reduce and reuse. There will not be that incentive. There will not be that stick. There will be the carrot of small cost and for many corporations probably a very easily incorporated cost.

* (1040)

So there will be an increase in the waste stream. That is not going to help us reduce our waste by 50 percent--four more years to go, less than four more years to go. By giving BFI this landfill that they are asking for in Rosser, we are not only increasing the waste stream, which is something we do not want to do, but we are also degrading the environment of our province because it has been categorically proven by opponents of this landfill site, the environmental opponents who have come from across North America, that this particular landfill site is very dangerous, potentially very dangerous for the degradation of the water supply there.

This exact site was looked at 20 years ago for a landfill and guess what? It was turned down. Why was it turned down? It was turned down because there is potable water under that ground. Not only is there potable water, a resource that is essential for life on this planet, there is potable water under that ground and it is too easily accessible to leachates. Even with the new technology that BFI is trotting out, there are serious questions about the ability of that liner to withstand the leachate process that will happen. There are serious concerns about the land there, the depth of acceptable land before you get to the water base and guess what, Madam Speaker? The water that is under that potential landfill site goes in a southeast direction and guess what? That is one of the fastest growing areas in the province when it comes to new development, and there is another area that I would like to discuss at some length, and perhaps we will have a chance to in Estimates with the Minister of Urban Affairs.

There is upwards of 3,000 new buildings, new residences between Winnipeg and Selkirk that potentially could be built in the next few years if the province and the municipalities give their approval. That is right in the area where this water from this Rosser landfill site will filter into. Madam Speaker, we are asking for an environmental disaster to take place. We are virtually ensuring that this environmental disaster will take place if this government allows BFI to go through with its landfill in Rosser.

So in conclusion, I would like to say that while some of the numbers in this resolution may be out of date, the principles that are in this resolution are even more important than they were when this resolution was first put forward, and I implore the government to listen to the concerns that are being raised not only by us but by many residents and citizens of the province of Manitoba. Take a look at the planning. Take a look at what you are doing. Take a look at what you are not doing, and let us work together to achieve this waste reduction. The best way we can do that is by not agreeing to allow the BFI landfill site to go ahead. Thank you.

Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): I am certainly pleased to be able to put a few comments on record this morning regarding the whole area of waste management. Certainly this is something that is important and something that we need to address and certainly all of us should be very concerned about.

I have been listening intently to the members opposite, the criticisms that they have been presenting to our minister regarding the whole area of waste management. Certainly, the whole area of recycling and waste management are important items that we need to look at as a government and are continuing to do so.

I would like to give a little bit of historical background as to where my interest in this whole area stems from. First of all, it was a number of years ago, I had two brothers who were studying in England, and their concept of recycling and waste management, I would say, at that time, and this is many years ago, was well ahead of where we as a province were. So that is where my interest started in looking at the area of what we, and at that time it would have been what we personally, could do at home.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to just continue and put on the record some of the things that happened within the Pembina constituency and have happened over the last number of years. I would like to start with the organization known as the Valley Rehab Centre, and before I give more detail of what they, in fact, are doing there as a centre, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the founder of this organization. His name is Dr. C.W. Wiebe. By the way, in the last I think it is two weeks ago he celebrated his 103rd birthday. He was the doctor who brought me into this world, so, you know, that was certainly an accomplishment. So, certainly, I am very much indebted to him as a doctor.

But his interest to this day is still vital in the whole area of recycling. As I said before, he was the founder of Valley Rehab. The reason that he looked at this, and I believe it is about 25 years ago that he started talking about the concept of recycling, but this was initiated and motivated by the fact that, as every community has their special needs people, and he had a real heart for these people in wanting to give them employment, employment that they were capable of doing, employment that they felt comfortable in doing, at the end of the day they felt rewarded in being able to work and to be able to contribute to the communities that they were in.

So he started Valley Rehab Centre. I am not sure at the time how many special needs people were involved in the project, but I know that today there are 107 clients, special needs people working at this centre, and they are being supervised by 14 staff. Now, what they do is anything from making rubber floor link mats to taking coat hangers and making them into wiener sticks or, for the community, and there are a number of industries within the area, they are doing custom packaging. Then when we talk about recycling, and this is where the recycling efforts of the community come in, we have what we know as the blue-box recycling program in the area.

So what happens is that these special needs people, assisted by some of the management people within the organization, go throughout the community on a weekly basis and they collect all the recyclables that are available. These recyclables then are brought back to the centre and these people working there are asked to sort anything from glass to plastic to different types of paper.

I believe it was last year that through the initiation of this government and through the minister they were given an opportunity to purchase a bundling machine, a packaging machine, and they package the different materials that they collect. They sort them, they package them, and then, of course, they are sold.

* (1050)

Madam Speaker, I am extremely impressed with what has happened in this organization and the support that they have received from our government and from this minister in being able to, on an ongoing basis, expand and improve the operation that they are involved in. I believe, ongoing, certainly, in my opinion when it comes to recycling and waste management, can we ever do enough? I would say, possibly, no; on the other hand, we must continuously work and improve what we are doing.

Having been able to witness what has taken place at Valley Rehab, I am certainly impressed with what they are doing. Just to continue in that same vein, also in the area, we have what we know as the Tire Recycling Corporation through the entrepreneurial spirit of a gentleman named Dave Dyck, and he is no relation of mine. However, he got involved in the area of tire recycling several years ago; and through, again, the initiation, the support from this government and through research and development, he has gotten involved in the recycling of tires that he collects throughout the province.

I do not have the numbers at my fingertips as to the number of tires he is moving through his organization, but certainly I know he is moving an awful lot of tires. He is recycling these. These are no longer burned as they used to be and are also being put to use in an area where they can be used.

Madam Speaker, he is making a variety of items through the recycling of tires, one again being floor mats. He is also making other items that are being sold worldwide. Just to again congratulate Mr. Dyck on his efforts. I know he has been asked to go throughout the United States and, in fact, has been overseas and has been talking to a number of different governments and government agencies regarding the recycling that he has been working with, the machinery that is involved in order to be able to do this.

I believe that ongoing we are showing that we are assisting those communities and municipalities in becoming the recyclers of waste materials. It is interesting that, as of March 1996, 123 or 60 percent of all municipalities have registered and are involved in the recycling of products. Madam Speaker, 86 percent of the municipalities with populations greater than 5,000 are participating in this program, and so, ongoing, there is a real interest in recycling.

I believe that, certainly, it is important that we as government continue to work hard at improving and encouraging communities to be involved in the recycling organization, but, certainly, we have to have the support of the local communities, as well, and also individual families.

I know, speaking from experience, it takes an extra effort to put your recyclables into different packages rather than to throw everything into one bag and chuck it out onto the curbside, so certainly we need to educate the people, and we need to encourage them to become more involved all the time.

Almost 90 percent of the population of Manitoba and 87 percent of the households in the province are represented by municipalities registered with a program, so, again, Madam Speaker, we can see that this is taking place, and the encouragement certainly is there. As far as our participation as a government, $1.6 million has been paid to municipal corporations who are with eligible recycling programs, including $1 million to the City of Winnipeg. So, again, ongoing, we are encouraging communities, municipalities and the urban area to become involved in this organization and to be responsible recyclers.

The other area, Madam Speaker, that I would like to address, and the minister just briefly commented on it, is the area of waste oil recycling. Coming from a farming background and being involved in business, our machinery, our motors, they use a lot of oil, and as we do oil changes, we need to have some place where we can leave this product, so in the Pembina constituency a number of individual farmers and businesses are using the waste oil.

They are either recycling it through the use of chemicals and then being able to reuse the oil again, or there is also a number of them who are burning the waste oil and using it as heat for their buildings. With that, of course, stems the whole concern of environment. However, the technology that is out there in the burning of this product is unbelievable, and this technology is being expanded almost on a daily basis, where we are getting to be very close to where 100 percent of that oil is burned and reused and is not in any way being sent into the environment.

So I think, Madam Speaker, it is important that as more oil is being used throughout the country, more vehicles are driving, we need to, in a very responsible way, look at the waste oil management that we have. Again, the minister made mention of this, and I think, if I am correct, a committee has been established which is looking at the waste oil management and is going to be giving support to those who use it in a responsible way. So I am excited as to what I see and the way we as a government and our minister are continuing to work in the area of recycling and waste materials.

The other thing I would just like to add, and for the information for all of us, is the fact that about 12,000 tonnes of aluminum, steel, glass, plastic containers, newspaper, magazines and boxboard have been collected to date, and this double the reported tonnage in 1994. For those who need the information and are interested in it, the City of Winnipeg is collecting 120 tonnes per day, so certainly there is work that is taking place in this area. So, Madam Speaker, I would like to say that certainly I believe that we are responsible in what we are doing.

In conclusion, I would just like to say that as far as the Manitoba Product Stewardship program, the MPSP, it is a clear example of government, both provincial and municipal, where they are working together with industry to provide solutions to a long-standing common problem, the diversion of packaging and paper waste from landfill.

The Manitoba Product Stewardship program is already providing the elements of the proposed resolution, specifically the MPSP is, No.1, a partnership with industry, consumers and municipalities to recover materials from the waste stream. The program does not differentiate between single-family and multifamily sources, and recycling support payments are available to all municipalities, as well as First Nations communities in Manitoba, regardless of geographic area.

Again, Madam Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to be able to address the resolution, and I certainly want to support our minister in the efforts that he is making in regard to recycling and waste management.

* (1100)

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): I notice that I do not have much time left, so the next time this matter is before the House, I know I will truly enjoy getting into this debate.

I only wish the honourable member would have done his research, Madam Speaker, because there are a number of points in this resolution that are inaccurate, and I will really look forward to putting the correct information on the record the next time this matter is before the House. I appreciate him bringing forward this type of resolution because we, under this government, support recycling and all its components.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for St. Norbert will have 14 minutes remaining.

Pursuant to Rule 21, the House will now consider Private Members’ Business scheduled in the rule book to be considered on Thursday, public bills by private members.

DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS--PUBLIC BILLS

Bill 200--The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act

Madam Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), Bill 200, The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l’assurance-maladie, standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Praznik).

An Honourable Member: Stand.

Madam Speaker: Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Well, the bill will remain standing in the name of the member for Lac du Bonnet. We would be happy to grant leave to the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) to speak on this bill today.

Madam Speaker: The honourable government House leader does not need leave. The honourable member for Wellington is indeed entitled to speak to the bill.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the support of the government House leader in being willing to grant me leave if I needed it, but it appears that I do not, but I appreciate the support anyway.

Madam Speaker, when I saw this bill being introduced by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), I was, I must admit, flabbergasted. I could not believe the gall of a member of the Liberal Party introducing a bill to enshrine the five principles of the Canada Health Act in The Manitoba Health Services Insurance Act, when his federal government has eviscerated those same principles from the federal Canada Health Act.

I would like to know why the member for Inkster feels that he needs to bring in this piece of legislation on the provincial level. The only reason that I can think that he needs to bring this piece of legislation in on the provincial level is that he knows what a dreadful job the federal Liberal government has made of protecting the health care of Manitobans and Canadians.

It is just the height of hypocrisy, unbelievable, that the member would do this, but I am glad to be able to put on the record a few of my concerns about this piece of legislation and how it fits into the federal context. I would suggest that we would not need to be debating Bill 200 in this session of the Legislature if the federal Liberal government had not gone a long way toward destroying the health system in Canada as a whole, and now this member is trying to put his finger in the dike after the holes have been drilled time and time again by the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister of Canada.

The federal government says that they will provide a floor to cash transfers to the provinces by 1998 and '99, and, again, the CHST, as we all know, does away with tied money to programs to the provinces. It is the Canadian version of States' rights legislation, and this is not what Canada is all about.

The whole point of the Canada Health Act, the whole point of the Canada Assistance program, the whole point of the Canada Pension Plan, the whole point of the Old Age Security system, the whole point of all of those--[interjection] Oh, all Liberal initiatives, the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) said.

I am so glad he brought that up because I was wondering if I was going to get an opportunity to tell the member for Inkster, those may have been implemented under Liberal governments, but they would never, ever have seen the light of day if it had not been for New Democrats in the Parliament of Canada like Stanley Knowles and David Lewis and Tommy Douglas, and he knows that. [interjection] Oh, the member for Inkster is calling Stanley Knowles and Tommy Douglas and David Lewis a loser. I think that is great. That is despicable, and the member for Inkster ought to apologize for that. That shows the level of his thinking and his discourse in this Legislature.

I would like to continue my discussion about the federal government and the context within which the member for Inkster brings in this piece of what should be unnecessary legislation. The floor that Paul Martin Jr. is putting in place for social programs and health care in this country should not be called a floor. It should be called a sub-sub-sub-subbasement.

By 1998-99, when the elevator finally hits the sub-sub-sub-subbasement, the floor for support for social programs in health care in this country will be $11 billion less than it is now, and it has been cut by billions by this government in the last three years. This means there is $11 billion less in the economy to spend on programs and services in the social services, health and education, the programs that have been the glue that has held Canada together, programs that have been in place for 30 and 40 years because Canadians understood the importance of those programs.

Canadians understood that there were some things that their citizens had a right to expect, whether they had money or did not have money, whether they were healthy or ill, whether they were young or old, whether they lived in Winnipeg, Toronto, Vancouver or Rankin Inlet. They had a right to expect that. They still have a right to expect that, and the member for Inkster's (Mr. Lamoureux) federal cousins have destroyed those expectations.

Madam Speaker, if it had not been for that federal Liberal government behaviour, then we would not need to be debating Bill 200 today. Do you know what the impact of this sub-sub-sub-floor is going to be on the provinces and, by implication, all the citizens? It is not just the reduction in services and the fact that we are going down to the Americanization of our health care system, partly by this and partly by the actions of the provincial government, but that would be out of scope of the discussion in this bill, another huge impact that people I do not think are as aware of as they should be of this $11-billion reduction is the impact it is going to have on jobs.

Statistics show that for every billion dollars cut out of the economy, and this is $11 billion removed from the economy, it is money that is not going to be spent. It is money that is not going to be going to pay for jobs for people to provide their services. It is not going to be spent for people who have those jobs to put into the economy.

For every $1 billion removed from the economy there is a loss of approximately 30,000 jobs. So if you remove $11 billion from the economy you are losing, in effect, the ability of the economy to provide upwards of 200,000 jobs. Now, that is an enormous social cost, because you are not providing the services. It is an enormous economic cost, because for every one of those jobs that is not maintained, is not created, you are not paying income taxes, you are not paying sales taxes, you are not providing the spin-off jobs that we all know we need in this economy.

This cut that forms the basis and the background for the member's bill is not an agenda for Canadians, as Canada Trust has said. Canada Trust, that bastion of social democratic thought, has said in response to this last federal Liberal budget, this is not a budget for Canadians.

This is not a budget for Canadians. It is a budget, however, for banks, big corporations and the very wealthy. This government in the last budget cut the heart out of social programs, health care and education while it retained virtually every tax loophole for wealthy Canadians and large corporations. Corporations can still lobby. There is a huge amount of money in our system, in our society that is not being fairly recaptured to enable all Canadians to live the good life the way the big banks can, the big corporations can and the very wealthy.

* (1110)

The Bank of Montreal said that this last federal budget was a good budget for business. Canada Trust's complete statement was that it was a budget for financial markets, not for Canadians. We all know what is happening. We all know that it is the glue that holds Canadians together, whether it be the privatization of CN, the potential privatization of Canada Post, the evisceration of our health care system, the reduction in our education system. No matter what it is, this is only good news for transnational corporations. It is only good news for power corporations. It is only good news for Magna. It is only good news for those tens of thousands of profit-making companies that donate heavily to the federal Liberal government.

We know and we are seeing day after day the true colour and the true picture of the federal Liberal government, and it is not Liberal red, it is Tory blue. It is actually more Tory blue than even the Tories are. Jean Chretien and his federal government have gone further to dismantle the Canada that we have grown to know and love and respect than even Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservative government did, and they have done it in the guise of caring about Canadians.

Paul Martin Jr.'s father must be looking down on what his son has done to the country that Paul Martin helped develop and the programs that Paul Martin helped put in place. He must be wondering what on earth has happened to his country and what responsibility has his own son, the federal Minister of Finance, played in this destruction of what used to be the best country on the face of the earth, and a large part of that responsibility rests with this current federal government.

Madam Speaker, just to close my remarks, to reiterate again, this piece of legislation would not be necessary if the member for Inkster’s (Mr. Lamoureux) federal government colleagues had not done such a good hatchet job of destroying the five principles of the Canada Health Act. If they had been in place, we would not need provincial legislation to attempt to bolster our sagging health care system.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Praznik).

SECOND READINGS--PUBLIC BILLS

Bill 201--The Aboriginal Solidarity Day Act

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), that Bill 201, The Aboriginal Solidarity Day Act (Loi sur le jour de solidarité à l'égard des autochtones), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

Motion presented.

Mr. Robinson: I just want to make a few remarks about Bill 201.

June 21 has long been regarded as a very special day among the first peoples of this continent, and people that regard themselves as members of First Nations, including myself, refer to North America as Turtle Island, and among the traditional element of our communities, it is still regarded as such. There is a long story attached to the meaning of Turtle Island, and, of course, now we know it as North America, but there is a long story that would take a long time to describe about the significance of the story of creation among First Nations people in the continent that we all know now as North America.

The day that we know as June 21 is also regarded as the summer solstice in other cultures, and for aboriginal people, before there were calendars available, it was also a day that was regarded, according to oral tradition that has been passed on by the elders and the keepers of knowledge among the First Nations of this country--the day, first of all, being the longest day of the year, secondly, as a signal for the changing of the seasons and a beginning of our Mother Earth’s replenishment of medicines and also the food for sustenance for humankind, the four-leggeds and also the winged ones, and, thirdly, a reminder to us humankind about the power from the Creator or the Great Spirit, of the supreme power that governs all colours and races of humankind

on Mother Earth.

In recent years, however, Madam Speaker, most particularly in the early '80s, when First Nations and other aboriginal people were working hard in ensuring recognition of their rights in Canada's Constitution--of course, we now refer to that as the Canada Act of 1982--prior to its patriation in 1982 and on the 17th of April of that year, First Nations peoples in this country felt betrayed because of the notion of unilaterally transferring Crown obligations to Indian nations based on treaties to the federal Crown in Canada without the input of First Nations people.

So when it became evident that First Nations were not going to be a part of the decision-making process in patriating the Constitution, and it was going to occur without the consent of First Nations and other aboriginal peoples, the National Indian Brotherhood, which was the forerunner to the Assembly of First Nations, a cross-lands Indian organization in this country, those of us who were involved in that organization at that time, including the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), endorsed a resolution which in part read that we declared a national day of solidarity for First Nations and other aboriginal people, that June 21 is the longest day of the year and marks the changing of the seasons; it is also the time when the seeds of our future sustenance have been sown and grow in this land which is ours since time immemorial. That was a statement made by the First Nations leadership at that time.

Aboriginal people have also contributed to this land in many, many different ways. Unfortunately, many people often do not take that into consideration when decisions are made that affect the lives of all Canadians, and, for the most part, it is aboriginal people who feel the negative elements of decisions that are made perhaps in Ottawa or perhaps here in Winnipeg.

So many aboriginal men and women, as well, served in the great wars of years gone by in the defence of this country, and I know that members of this House were solid in coming together and endorsing a private members' resolution declaring the 8th of November as Aboriginal Veterans Day, and I want to thank all members when they did that some time back in this House, Madam Speaker.

* (1120)

I refer to the men and women who served in the great wars, because many of these people I have an opportunity to visit still to this day, many who served in the Second World War. Many of the promises that were given to them for serving their country never came about, and they never fully realized many of the promises that were given to them. Unfortunately, many of our soldiers are now in unfortunate situations, not only in the city but across this country in First Nations communities and also in many of the urban centres. Many came home shattered after fighting for the freedom that all of us now enjoy in this country.

I want to make it clear, Madam Speaker, that this particular bill will not be a drain on the public purse, sometimes the incorrect perception of aboriginal people whenever they ask for something. This is simply going to acknowledge aboriginal people’s contribution to the province of Manitoba and also to the country of Canada.

I am going to look forward to the support of all members of this House on this particular bill, and I call upon colleagues to not only do themselves proud but also all Manitobans and especially aboriginal people by being the first group of legislators to acknowledge and recognize Canada’s original peoples, the first people’s history and their aspirations. Perhaps other provinces and hopefully our national government will follow our lead in declaring and acknowledging the contributions of aboriginal people across Canada, but I want to ask all colleagues to be the first group of people to acknowledge the contributions of aboriginal people in this province, because in this province we have a lot to be proud of, all of us as Manitobans, including the aboriginal people and other First Nations people, not only in this province but across the country.

So I am asking for the support of all members that this be referred to a committee, allow the people, the aboriginal representatives of this province, to make their views known to the committee, and let us do something meaningful and extend that support, that we do acknowledge June 21 as Aboriginal Solidarity Day.

With that, Madam Speaker, I am going to conclude my remarks by thanking all members for allowing me to present this bill, and I ask now that after some debate here that it now be referred to committee. Thank you.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, I want to stand in support of Bill 201, The Aboriginal Solidarity Day Act, and I want to congratulate the member for Rupertsland for bringing it to the Legislature for our consideration, and I hope for the support of all members of this Legislature.

I think it is a very important step that the bill is taking us along. I want to make sure that we as legislators do not miss this opportunity to recognize the important contribution that the original inhabitants of Manitoba have brought to our province well before our province even existed. I think it is absolutely clear that the society before 1870 in what is now called Manitoba was a very organized, very egalitarian, democratic form of government that I do not think receives the type of recognition, I do not think it has ever received the type of recognition that it properly deserves, and we have an opportunity in this House with this bill to finally recognize the important contribution of the original inhabitants of our part of the world.

I think also what this bill will allow us to do as legislators on behalf of all Manitobans is to express our commitment to the aboriginal people in Manitoba. Since 1870 the aboriginal people have been an integral part of our province. I think they have made great contributions to the benefit of all the people of Manitoba through their hard work, their culture, and I think part of their culture provides a diversity in Manitoba which is unequalled in all other areas of the world. I think what we should be doing and what we can do through the adoption of this Aboriginal Solidarity Day Act is make a commitment to not only continue the steps that have already been taken to incorporate the aboriginal views within our province but that we will also be committing to improving our commitment to including aboriginal people in decisions that are made throughout Manitoba.

I want to speak on a very personal level when it comes to this Bill 201. I grew up in rural Manitoba, I think maybe sort of in my own little bubble. It was like in the old Get Smart show with the cone of silence coming down. It encased me into a very narrow way of thinking. I did not understand how other people outside of my own little world were living. I assumed that since I was doing okay, everybody else in the province must be doing okay, too. What really opened my eyes was when I was hired on as a schoolteacher on the reserve at Norway House, at Rossville School, and I went and I lived on the reserve and taught school there.

Madam Speaker, probably no other event in my life has taught me so much as the four years that I spent at Norway House. I learned all kinds of things about a totally different way of life, and I consider myself a much further enriched person for the experience that I had in the North.

Some of the things I learned were very positive. Some of the things I learned disturbed me greatly. On the positive side, I learned, unaware to me beforehand, that native people on the Norway House reserve and, I eventually learned, throughout Manitoba have a great deal of pride in what they do. They have a very diverse and interesting culture that we can all learn from. What struck me most was their determination to make things better for the next generation coming behind.

The leadership that I met at the Norway House reserve was a leadership that was concerned about leaving a world better for their next generation than the one that they had grown into. I think that is something that all leaders should have as a goal. I think leaders throughout the province have that as an objective. It was something that struck me in Norway House, though, because of the conditions which young children were being born into, through no choice of their own, born into a reserve at Norway House, with high unemployment, a reserve that was located in the middle of the Canadian Shield, no opportunities for agriculture, a reserve that was located in an area where resources such as timber were not available to them.

The primary industries had been trapping and fishing. Well, you know what happened. Everyone knows what happened to the trapping industry. Through no fault of their own, the folks who were making a decent living on trapping ended up losing that as an industry, as a form of income. A number of guidelines were put in place that really restricted the amount of commercial fishing that went on in that area.

Through decisions that were taken outside of the band government, the decisions were producing negative effects on this particular reserve and reserves throughout Manitoba. But through it all, I was very encouraged with the positive attitude that the leadership at the time, at Norway House, throughout the four years that I was there, the positive attitude that they had towards building a better future for their children.

* (1130)

As a schoolteacher, I was also very impressed with the attitude that the students themselves brought to the classroom, yet you need to understand that on the reserve I was the only nonaboriginal person within that classroom. I had, in some cases, 25 or 30 students who were very mature in their ways. They were very caring and compassionate, and what I learned was that they had learned that caring, co-operative, compassionate way from the type of democratic form of government that they had on the reserve and the type that they actually lived with in their houses in the family units.

On the negative side, one of my students was a young woman by the name of Joan Osborne, who was Helen Betty Osborne’s youngest sister. It was through Joan and parent-teacher interviews that I got to know Justine Osborne and where I first learned of the tragedy that had taken place in the town of The Pas in 1971.

I will never forget the first time that Justine talked to me about it. She had asked if I could stay a little late for a parent-teacher intereview. So everything was dark; it was the middle of the winter, and Justine came up to my Grade 6 classroom. We were the only two in the building, so it was quite an eerie feeling, and she started to tell me all about the events of 1971. What struck me the most, outside of the horrific act that was taken by the murderers of her daughter, what struck me the most outside of that fact, was the coverup that came out of, that sprang from the very violent act itself.

That, Madam Speaker, indicates to me very much a lack of understanding on the part of nonaboriginal people, a very hideous lack of understanding and a lack of compassion and a lack of recognition. I think the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry that eventually did spring, at least in part, from the murder of Helen Betty Osborne was in some way, and once the recommendations are enacted upon, part of the process that we need to go through in order to say to aboriginal people that there have been wrongs committed against aboriginal people as a nation and that we are willing as legislators to own up to the things that have gone on in the past. Example after example has come to me as cases where aboriginal people have been treated differently and negatively by us as nonaboriginal people.

This bill that we have placed before us today will give us one more opportunity to say to aboriginal people that we recognize that your struggle has been one which you have been fighting. It is an honourable struggle, and it is something that we are now committing to work together with you on. The whole Helen Betty Osborne affair was something that nonaboriginal people in this province have got to belly up to the bar on and take responsibility for. It happened in The Pas. I think it could have happened anywhere in our province. It is something that never should have happened in the first place. It is something that never should have been covered up after it had happened. It was yet another example of how we have mistreated aboriginal people throughout the history of our province.

That, Madam Speaker, is sort of a very, very personal connection that I have to supporting The Aboriginal Solidarity Day Act. It is a very personal reason why I think at least I will be standing with my colleague for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) when the vote on this does come. I think what we should do, each of us as 57 MLAs, is to think back ourselves to our own experiences with aboriginal people. Think about the negative things that have happened to aboriginal people over the years, but also what I would like to stress is that we need to think back to all the very positive contributions that aboriginal people have made over the years in building the province that we have today.

This bill will provide us with an opportunity to move on, not only correcting the mistakes of the past that we have all made, but also another step in ensuring that maybe we will get to a day sometime in our history, in our future, that we will not be making those kinds of mistakes over and over again, and not just in relation to the aboriginal people of the province.

Maybe, through these sorts of acts and these sorts of days, through this kind of recognition, there will come a day in our province where we will treat all people fairly, where we will actually be committed to treating people equally, a day when discrimination, racism, sexism, all of those things that we consider so abhorrent, we actually will not participate in, because we have in the past.

I look forward to a day when we do not have those kinds of problems, and I think that by supporting The Aboriginal Solidarity Day Act we can take a step in the education of all the people of Manitoba as to the very positive contributions that aboriginal people have made to our society.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe), that debate now be adjourned.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I believe there is a will of the House to call it twelve o'clock. [agreed]

Madam Speaker: This House is accordingly recessed until 1:30 p.m. this afternoon.