Manitoba Hansard — 23 June 1987 (Sitting 77, 33rd Legislature, 2nd Session)

33-2-77

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 25 June, 1987. Time - 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phillips: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. M. DOLIN: Madam Speaker, I'd like to present the Second Report of the Committee on Statutory Regulations and Orders. MR. CLERK, W. Remnant: Your Committee met on Tuesday, June 23, 1987 in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider Bills referred. Your Committee heard representations on Bills as follows: Bill No. 3 - The Manitoba.Advisory Council on the Status of Women Act;

Loi sur le Conseil consultatif manitobain de la situation de la femme. Ms . Joan Butcher, Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba; Ms. Margaret Cogill, Manitoba Action Committee on the Status of Women. Bill No. 29 -

An Act to amend The Condominium Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les condominiums. Mr. A. Thawni, private citizen; Mr. Fred Breurkens, Winnipeg Condominium Corporation No. 6; Wr itten Submission: Winnipeg Condominium Corporation No. 71. Bill No. 31 -

An Act to amend The Community Child Day Care Standards Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les garderies d'enfants. Mr. Abe Arnold, Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties; Ms. Rosemary Hnatiuk, Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties. Your Committee has considered: Bill No. 3 - The Manitoba Advisory Council on the Status of Women Act;

Loi sur le Conseil consu1tatif manitobain de la situation de la femme; Bill No. 11 - The Change of Name Act;

Loi sur le changement de nom; Bill No. 18 -

An Act to amend The Securities Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les valeur mobilieres; Bill No. 29 -

An Act to amend The Condominium Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les condominiums; Bill No. 45 -

An Act to amend The Lotteries Foundation Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Fondation manitobaine des loteries; And has agreed to report the same with certain amendments. Your Committee also considered: Bill No. 31 -

An Act to amend The Community Child Day Care Standards Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les garderies d'enfants; Bill No. 36 -

An Act to amend The Religious Societies' Lands Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les biens-fonds des communautes religieuses; Bill No. 44 -

An Act to amend The Coat of Arms, Floral Emblem and Tartan Act; Loi modifiant la Loi concernant les armoiries, l'embleme floral et le tartan du Manitoba; Bill No. 50 -

An Act to amend The Consumer Protection Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection du consommateur. And has agreed to report the same without amendment. All of which is respectfully submitted. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. M. DOLIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, seconded by the Member for Elmwood, that the report of the committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MADAM SPEAKER: Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . . . Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills ..

INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MADAM SPEAKER: Before moving to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members, first, to the gallery where we have 30 students from Grades 7, 8 and 9 from the Oakville Junior High School, under the direction of Ms. Rose Hilliker. The school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Morris. On behalf of all the members, we welcome you to the Legislature this afternoon. May I also direct the attention of honourable members to the loge to my left, where we have Ms.

Beatrice Anne Firth, who is a Progressive Conservative Member of the Yukon Legislative Assembly, and the Opposition critic for Education and Human Resources. On behalf of all the members, we welcome you to the Legislature. SPEAKER'S RULING MADAM SPEAKER: Also, before moving to Oral Questions, I have a ruling that I'd like to present to the House. On Friday, June 19, 1987, the Deputy Speaker took under advisement a point of order raised by the Honourable Government House Leader respecting the words "messes caused by speakers in this House," allegedly spoken by the Honourable Member for 3372

Thursday, 25 June, 1987 Pembina during debate on Bill 61 , which constituted a reflection on the Chair. By reviewing Hansard and listening to the recordin g tapes , I have determined that the Honourable Memb er for Pembina used the following words : "messes caused by speakers on his (meaning the Government House Leader'

s) side of the House ." Immediately prior to the matter being taken under advisement, the honourable member clarified that he had used the word " speakers" to refer to members speaking in debate . Beauchesne Citation 322 states , in part: " It has been formally ruled by Speakers that a statement by a member respecting himself and particularly within his own knowledge must be accepted." I have concluded, therefore, that the Honourable Member for Pembina was not reflecting on the Chair. Consequently, I must rule that there was no point of order.

I have another Ruling that I'd like to present, as well, this afternoon . On June 22 , 1987, the Honourable Minister of Government Services raised a point of order respecting the words, "The Minister is lying through his teeth" and "Now you're lying ," uttered by the Honourable Member for Pembina on June 19. As all members know, Beauchesne Citations 235, 237 and 323(2) prescribe that points of order must be raised at the time they occur and not afterwards .

These Citations read: 235 -" The Speaker's attention must be directed to a breach of order at the proper moment, namely the moment it occurred." 237 - "A point of order against procedure must be raised promptly and before the question has passed to a stage at which the objection would be out of place ." 323(2) - "The proper time to raise such a point of order is when the words are used and not afterwards. " I have consistently applied them in the past and must therefore rule against the Honourable Minister 's point of order.

The words spoken by the Honourable Member for Pembina on June 19 were blatantly unparliamentary as all members know. Had my attention been drawn to them at the time they were spoken, or had I been able to hear them over the noise level then prevailing in the House, I would have immediately insisted that the honourable member withdraw them . I am sure the honourable member would not wish to leave unparliamentary language on the record. The House would, I am sure, welcome a voluntary withdrawal at this time. Recently, I have noticed an increase in the use of unparliamentary language by members.

Perhaps it is the summer heat; perhaps it's the length of the Session , or a combination of both. In any event, I would caution all honourable members that comments made from their seats may be picked up by a neighbour 's microphone, if it is open, or by the interject mike . If the words used are unparliamentary, they may then become a subject of a point of order . I would urge all members to use care and disc ret ion in their choice of language when speak ing in debate or commenting from their seats . The Honourabl e Member for Pembina . MR. D.

ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, as you have so capably invited me to do, since the words - and I should pull out Hansard to make sure that they are right - I do admit to some intemperance in Friday's question period where we were attempting to clarify the veracity of an answer given by the Minister , the Honourable Mr. Harapiak, and as the record shows from my seat . .. MADAM SPEAKER: May I remind the honourabl e member , we don't use members ' names. MR. D. ORCHARD: I'm sorry - the Member for The Pas.

I did, from my seat , Madam Speaker, indicate as is quoted in the Hansard on page 3236 , indicating in strongly unparliamentary language that cannot be used, as you well know , in this Chamber, Madam Speaker; and I apologize to the House for using that unparliamentary language in such an intemperate way from my seat. ORAL QUESTIONS MPIC - preference that $12.3 million be reported in financial stmt - was Premier informed MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition . MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker . My question is for the Deputy Premier acting on behalf of the Premier , Madam Speaker .

The Auditor this morning has indicated, Madam Speaker , that when the question of the non-reporting of $12.3 million of losses at MPIC was referred to senior accounting staff in the Department of Finance in the late fall of 1984 by the then Minister of Finance, the Member for Rossmere, that senior staff indicated a clear preference that the $12.3 million IBNR be reported in the financial statement, contrary to the decision that was taken at that time by the Minister responsible for MPIC . Did the Minister of Finance report that to the Premier at that time?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: I'll take that question under advisement. MPIC - non-reporting of IBNR reinsurance losses in financial stmts of 1984 MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker , my question is to the Minister of Finance. I wonder if the Minister of Finance would consider tabling the opinion of the senior accounting official s in his department that was contained in a communication from his predecessor , the Minister of Financ e, to the Minister responsible for MPIC which, according to the Mini ster of MPIC this morning, was sent on the 15th of January, 1985.

It was with respect to the non reporting of $12 .3 million IBNR reinsurance losses in the financ ial state ments of 1984 of MPIC. 3373

Thursday, 25 June, 1987 MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was not in committee this morning so I don't know precisely what responses were provided by the Provincial Auditor with respect to questioning on his report. But, as I under stand it, the Provincial Auditor has ind icated that he has reviewed all documentation, has dis cussed all matters pertaining to his report, and is satisfied that he had access to all information, and has based his report on that.

So I do no t see that there is any need for documentation that flows between Ministers to be made public. Obviously, the Provincial Auditor has reviewed that and has found nothing untoward in that. MPIC - opinion of senior accounting officials re not reporting MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker , in fact, he has found a great deal untoward in that the senior officials of the Department of Finance ind icated· a clear preference that the $12 million be reported, not as the political decision was made by the Minister.

Madam Speaker, among other things this morning, the Provincial Aud itor ind icated that he had not communicated with the senior departmental officials who the Minister's predecessor ind icated gave that opinion. So I wonder if the Minister would table that opinion of the senior accounting officials in the Department of Finance with respect to the appropriateness of not reporting the $1 2.3 million lBNR reinsurance losses in the fall of 1984. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Again.

I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that it was the government that requested the very intensiv e review and audit by the Provincial Auditor with respect to all matters regarding reinsurance. The Provincial Auditor did have an extensive study into the matter, did have access to all documentation that he requested, had access to any and all staff or other people that he felt was necessary for the purpose of concl uding his report.

He has provided to the government a very detailed comprehensive report with respect to the reinsurance issues and other issues regarding the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. The government has provided that information to the Opposition, to the public, so that all can be informed as to the Auditor's observation. The Auditor obviously was satisfied with the degree of documentation and the degree of his investigation. The member is suggesting an inference with respect to the Auditor's comments, which I do not believe are the inference that the Auditor put on them in committee this morning. MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, I won't criticize the Minister for indicating that he disag rees with what he says is an inference. But I was at the committee and the Auditor clearly said that the Finance Department's preference was that that 12 .3 million be shown. MADAM SPEAKER: Order, order please. MR. G. FILMON: It's exactly what he said; it's exactly what he said. MADAM SPEAKER: The committee is the time for debate. Question period is not a time for debate. MR. G.

FILMON: Further, the Auditor ind icated that he did not talk to the Finance Department officials and so, therefore, he has not obtained the analysis that they did. MPIC - tabling of opinion of senior accounting officials MR. G. FILMON: My question to the Minister of Finance is: Will he table the documentation as to the opinion or the recommendation that was made by those senior accounting officials in the Department of Finance with respect to the non-reporting of that 12.3 million of reinsurance losses at MPIC in the fall of 1984? HON. E.

KOSTYRA: Again, I believe that the Leader of the Opposition is providing information which isn't full and accurate, in terms of what was said in committee this morning. The advice that was provided was that there was a variety of ways of looking at those losses, and that none of them were necessarily inappropriate. The other point that should be made is that information was communicated sometime after the decisions were made with respect to those annual reports. Again though, Madam Speaker, the Provincial Audit or has the authority, un der

an act of this Legislature, has the ability to carry out whatever investigations that he deems are necessary. He was given direction by the government to do a comprehensive special audit into Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. He had access to all and any information that he requested. He had access to all and any staff or others that he felt was necessary for the purpose of him concluding a report. He has filed a report to the govern ment which he believes is comprehensive and concludes his activities in this area.

It's obvious, Madam Speaker, he is satisfied with the degree of inv estigation and access that he had. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the Auditor said that the qualification that they placed on the opinion was that if the premiums earned and the claimed losses could not be balanced in the near future, then obviously they couldn't deal with the matter, and the fact of the matter was . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. G.

FILMON: . . . they were dealing with a report that said that they would not be balanced even up until 19 89, that the losses would by far exceed the premiums. MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. G. FILMON: Therefore, they said clearly the way to go was to report the losses. 3374

Thursday, 25 June, 1987 MADAM SPEAKER: Order please , orde r please. Does the honourable membe r have a ques tion? Please place it. MR. G. FILMON: My question to the Ministe r of Finance is: What does he have to hide ? Why will he not prov ide that information to the House on the opinion of the senior accounting officials in his Department of Finance? HON. E. KOSTYRA: This government has noth ing to hide, Madam Speaker.

This government has consistently not only in this matter, but in other matters , provided full and complete documentation to the Provincial Auditor, where he found it necessary, for purposes of his reviews to members of the Legislature when we've been dealing with matters in committee, or indeed in this House. In fact, I would suggest to you, Madam Speaker , there has been far more information provided by this government than any other government in the history of this province in terms on ensuring that people have access to information.

But your main point, I think, in terms of the question of the Leader of the Opposition, and I think he admits it himself that there were a variety of options and ways of dealing with those losses, and that's confirmed by his very question, Madam Speaker . The Freedom of Information Act - proclamation of MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, a question following to the Minister of Finance . If, indeed, as he indicates, this government has nothing to hide, why are we still waiting on The Freedom of Information Act to be proclaimed if you have nothing to hide?

MPIC - tabling of opinion of senior accou11ting officials MR. D.

ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, the question I'd like to ask of the Finance Minister is given that yesterday the former Minister of Finance indicated clearly that the opinion he sought from the Finance Department staff on the three options given by the Minister responsible were reviewed by Finance department staff and all were found acceptable, would the Minister of Finance, since he does nothing but confirm what his former colleague has said , not be prepared to table that opinion from senior finance department staff , giving an acceptable standard to those three options that the Minister put to his staff?

MADAM SPEAKER : The Honourable Min ister of Finance . HON. E.

KOSTYRA: Madam Speake r, in terms of a date for the proclamation of The Freedom of Information Act, I would suggest that that question should be properly put to the Minister responsi ble, but I would again remind the member that it was this government that brought in that legislation, and the Member from Brando n West may not be aware of that , but it was this government that brought that legislatio n in and it is this government that is work ing to have it as an effective vehicle to provide informa tion to the public , and it will be proclaimed, and it will be effective during the time that members on thi s side are in government.

In terms of the quest ion, again, I repeat the answer that has been provided previously : The Provinc ial Auditor did an extensive review of all documentation, had access to any documentation, whether it was Cabinet material, whether it was other material , with regard to his audit , his review. He had access to individuals that he felt were necessary for the purpos e of concluding his report. He has concluded his rep ort; he indicates that is his final report and he is sat isfied with the degree of cooperation , the degree of information, and he adds that documentation in his review.

So, Madam Speaker, he has been satisfied . I don 't know why members opposite aren 't satisfied . MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker , given that the Provincial Auditor this morning at committee indicated that he did not speak or review the opinions offered by those officials in the Finance Department , given that he didn 't make 'that review, why would the Minister - (Interjection)- Well, the former Minister of Finance says it's irrelevant. . If it's so irrelevant, why are you hiding it from the Opposition? MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. D.

ORCHARD: Why will you not provide those opinions , if they're so irrelevant , to the members of the Opposit ion? What are you hiding? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. That question is repetitious . MPIC - provision of accounting analysis given to Min. of Finance MR. D.

ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, given that on page 20 of the Provincial Auditor's Report , wherein the Provincial Auditor indicated that the method of covering up the losses - and the "covering up " are my words , not the Provincial Auditor's words - as recommended by the former Minister of Finance, does not meet acceptable accounting practices; and given that the former Minister of Finance has said his departmental staff agreed with not only the option he chose, but all presented as acceptable accounting practices , surely the Minister of Finance would want to clear the professional reputation of members in his staff . . .

MADAM SPEAKER : Does the honourable member have a quest ion? MR. D. ORCHARD: . . . and prov ide us with the analysis they gave to the Minister of Finance which the Auditor has said was not according to general accounting prin ciple s? 3375

Thursday, 25 June, 1987 HON. E. KOSTYRA: Madam Speaker, again, the Member for Pembina is attempting to reflect, or put words on behalf of the Provincia l Aud itor. If the Provincial Aud itor had any concerns about the professional capabilities of staff in the Department of Finance, or in other areas that pertained to his report, he would have brought those matters to either our attention di rectly, or, if he thought that they were matters that should be included in his report, they would have been included in his report. Those matters were not in his report, Madam Speaker.

For the member opposite to suggest that is the case is simply doing damage to the Provincial Auditor and to his report. MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, I regret that the Minister of Finance does not read and adhere to what the Provincial Auditor said on page 20. MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. D. ORCHARD: Yes, Madam Speaker.

Given that the Minister responsible for MPIC, and the former Minister of Finance, elected to choose a political option of not reporting losses, thereby my words "cover them up from the people of Manitoba," is the Minister of Finance satisfied, and does he believe that the proper reporting procedures were followed by his Minister when the Provincial Auditor has said they were not? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. As the honourable member well knows, words like "satisfied" and "believe" ask for opinions. MR. D. ORCHARD: Okay, Madam Speaker. I'll just change the wording 1hen to something suitable.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina with a question. MR. D. ORCHARD: Is it the policy that the Minister of Finance now end orses, tolerates, whatever word he wishes, that Crown corporations will report financial losses accord ing to the Provincial Audit or, not in compli ance with generally accepted accou nting principles? Is that the policy that this Minister of Finance is now putting to all Crown corporations? HON. E. KOSTYRA: Madam Speaker, the Member for Pembina asks whether or not I have read the Provincial Auditor's Report.

The answer is, yes, in its entirety, not simply looking at specific sections, but looking at all aspects of his report. I remind the member for him to do that and to look at what the Provincial Auditor is saying with respect to all matter regarding reinsurance. He ind icates that it is a very complex matter, that there's a lot of difficulties with it, that there has been a lot of inappropriate procedures in place over a number of years with respect to reinsurance. He has suggested some specific action for the government, for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation to take, and the government is acting on it.

In fact, indeed, in his report, he ind icates that much progress has been made with respect to deal ing with these losses, dealing with the situation of reinsurance at a time when the Minister responsible for MPIC was the one who was involved and responsible for taking those corrective actions.

I can tell the member that we will continue to do whatever is necessary to improve the operations of all Crown corporations in all government with respect to financial and with respect to other matters; and that is why we asked for the Provincial Auditor's advice in this, and that is why we will respond positively to his recommendations. MR. D. ORCHARD: If the Minister of Finance were truly pursuing that, he'd ask the Member for Gimli, the Minister of MPIC to resign. MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. D. ORCHARD: That would bring control to Crown corporations . . .

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MPIC - contact made with Mr. Sigurdson or Rev. Malinowski re investigation MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Premier. Madam Speaker, can the Deputy Premier ind icate to the House whether any member of the government, or any of their staff in their employ, contacted the former chairman of the Board of MPIC, Mr. Sigurdson, or ind eed the former member of the board, Reverend Malinowski, regarding the investigation into the MPIC and the cover-up by the Minister responsible?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Commun ity Services. HON. M. SMIT H: Madam Speak er, I reject the assumptions in the question, but I will, in the absence of the Premier, take those questions, if such they can be dignif ied, under advisement. MPIC - discussions with Mr. Labossiere MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina with a final supplementary. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, whilst the Deputy Premier is taking that question as notice, would she also take as notice whether any member of the government, or any of their staff, including staff in the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, di scussed, prior or during the Aud itor's review, any of the implications of the loss cover-up with Mr. Labossiere, board member of MPIC? HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, once again, I reject the assumptions made in the question by the member. Once again, apologies, Madam Speaker; I will take that alleged question again under advisement. 3376

Thursday, 25 June, 1987 MACC - Interest Rate Reduction Program number of farmers accepting MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. G. FINDLAY: Thank you , Madam Speaker . My quest ion is to the Minister of Agriculture . Madam Speaker, MACC clients have been offered an Interest Rate Reduction Program with several options to buy-down their interest rates. Myself and other members on this side have received numerous phone calls from frustrated farmers who usually have two complaints.

Firstly, Madam Speaker , they can't afford additional money right now to buy down their interest rate; and, secondly, they really call it a rip-off when their accountants look at what it's going to cost them relative to the mortgage, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, we all know that farmers cannot MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. G. FINDLAY: Madam Speaker, we all know the farmers cannot pay additional money right now.

I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture, since he sent out the information on April 28th, how many farmers have sent in their election form indicating that they will accept any option in this program? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture . HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, I know that most farmers read and understand better than the Member for Virden . There are five options in the program.- (lnterjection) Obviously, the member himself has not read the document very well. The honourable member alleges that the program is a rip-off .

The program is a buy down from interest rates as high as 13 percent down to 8 percent, and there is a cost to buy that interest rate down . Madam Speaker, the fifth option does not require any immediate payment. In fact, it can be financed for a minimum of 10, to a length of 15 years, and results in a saving to those farmers, provided of course, as I've indicated, that the interest rate is substantial, that the length of mortgage is at least 10 years or longer , and that will result in a saving. The original option, the first option is one for immediate cash payment. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please , order please .

HON. B. URUSKI: I'll take the other portion of the question as notice, Madam Speaker. MACC - has Min. considered major changes to Interest Rate Reduction Program MR. G.

FINDLAY: Madam Speaker, given that the Minister recognizes the farmers have to pay a lot of mone y up front for the first four options, and they cannot afford it, has he considered some major changes to the program, such as, I will recomme nd to him that the interest redu ction fee be charged to the farmer at some time late r in the mortgage, say, three or five years down the road , or even added on to the end of the mortgage when farmers are much more able to pay this additional cost? HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker , I find suggestions - and I like the suggestion that we can consider from the honourable member - but I want to tell him that it was his party , his group sitting on the other side that supported the federal Liberals that interest rates of this country should remain high. And now we have Conservative members in this House standing up here saying interest rates are too high.

Madam Speaker, at least now one member on the opposite side has, in fact, repudiated the stand taken by his former leader, his present leader and members on that side who were on Executive Council when they were in office between '77 and '81 . MACC - interest rate reduction - how calculated MR. G. FINDLAY: Madam Speaker, I would like to tell the Minister that I am genuinely concerned about Manitoba farmers today and I'm not worried about the past. Madam Speaker , this Minister took as notice, some three weeks or more ago, questions that I raised in this House and he still has not given me the answer .

I asked him if he was sending a second letter to the MACC clients to tell them how the interest rate reduction fee was actually calculated, because they 're phoning me and asking me how is this fee calculated? Has the Minister ever sent that letter, and has he answered other questions like, is it income tax deductible? Has he got those answers yet? HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, I want to tell my honourable friend that the Minister of Finance answered that question about the income tax matter that was posed by himself and the Member for Morris some time ago.

But I want to tell my honourable friend who says he doesn't care what happened in the past. Madam Speaker, unless we know the past and we know the reasons why thousands of Canadian farmers are in financial difficulty are as a result of the monetary policies of Liberal and Conservative Federal administrations that have thousands of Canadian farmers in financial difficulty and on the verge of losing their farms. That's the past, Madam Speaker . They want to forget that past and I won't let them forget that past .

It's a result of those insane high interest rate policies supported by colleagues on the opposite side that thousands of Canadian farmers are losing their farms , Madam Speaker. Manitoba Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation Board - why purge without consultation MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights . 3377

Thursday, 25 June, 1987 MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Health with regard to the purge of the Manitoba Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation's Board. Madam Speaker, the Minister abruptly dismis sed seven out of the nine members of that board, making it the single -largest turnover in 57 years, and it was done without consultation with the chairman of the board or with the chief executive officer. Why did the Minister feel such a massive purge was necessary at this particular time, and why without any consultation with the officials involved?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, first of all, it certai nl y wasn't a purge because no body was dismi ssed. Some members were not automatically reappointed, that's a big di fference.- (Interjection)-You don't see any difference in there? Well, that's odd. A MEMBER: Explain it to them, Larry. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes, I'll explain because I don't think that they'd understand. We have many boards, by law, that cannot serve more than two terms. We've had some of the people on that board that have been sitting there for up to 15 years.

We felt that we needed new blood, other people -(Interjection)- That's right. MR. D. ORCHARD: They should get rid of you. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Anytime they want to get rid of me, they can. I go every four years, and I'm not automatically reappointed. I only serve one term, then I have to be reappointed, not automatically. Madam Speaker, I want to say also that I had long discussions with the present chairman, who is a very responsible and very well respected and I'm talking about Dr. MacDiarmid. This is something that I would have preferred to keep in the department quietly, but things are not all that rosy.

Things are not all that rosy in that department. There has been some problems between the chemotherapists and the radiotherapists, and we are getting to the bottom of that and there has been a meeting, just a couple of days ago, with the executive di rector and the new chairman and I think that we've got things back on track. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Madam Speaker , with a supplementary question to the same Minister.

Given the fact that the foundation was fiscally responsible and that the patient care is generally recognized as exemplary, and that the doctors are among the best trained in the continent, and that there is a research capacity which again is exemplary for all of North America, why did the Minister choose this way to do it, instead of the gradual removal and new appointments of board members which would have made for a carryover of experience? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, there has been, there are still members that were there. There is continu ity. There has been improvement on some of the members.

Other members - they have changed. For instance, Cam Mclean, who I felt would be a good person to chair that committee, had been approved by the three levels of government to chair the East Yard group. There has been conflict of interest with people who have received new positions and we felt that it is a very good board. We have also, and we're not going to hide from that, we also have a policy that we want people who work with the Cancer Foundation to be represented on the board. That has been done. We have also tried to have more women on the board. That has been done which was in the case before.

So I do not apologize for that all. Now, my honourable friend said that everything was going fine. Everyt hing was not going fine according to some of the mem bers and some of the doctors themselves. There have been problems. There have been problems between chemotherapists and radiotherapists and we're trying to get to the bottom of that. We must have people who can give us the advice and we feel that now with the chairman, with the discussions we have had with the executive director, fine.

I don't want to be receiving a phone call every night by either the wife of a doctor or somebody who is accusing a member, either the executive director or somebody, I feel that they have to answer that and I think that this board will. Manitoba Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation - assurance of quality of treatment MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: With a final supplementary to the same Minister. With such a large removal, Madam Speaker, of seven out of the nine members, what measures will this Minister put into place to ensure that the quality of treatment remains at the high and exemplary level that it has been to date?

HON. L. DESJARDINS: In fact, I will want to ensure that it will be improved, the quality of treatment be improved. I've set up a committee to know exactly where the new equipment should be going. There have been some recommendations that some people didn't approve with. We've tried to get the best people on that committee, where everything is brought in the open and this will be done and we'll increase the facilities, the equipment that is needed. We're spending, as I say, 92 percent more in that than was spent in 1981 when we took over and as I say with the quality of Dr.

MacDiarmid, the executive di rector and so on, we're satisfied that we're going to get the best service available for Manitobans. Med-Stop Medical Clinics - can quality of care be assured MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. M. DOLIN: Madam Speaker, my question also is to the Minister of Health. On Tuesd ay, I noted an ad in the paper advertising for physicians which says, "Med-Stop Medical Clinics, 3378

Thursday, 25 June, 1987 a Calgary based organi zation, in conju nctio n with Real Can adian Supers tores , i s pleased to announce the open ing of a fir st in-store medical centre to be located on McPhillips St. and Stardust Ave.," at the Supervalu store in my constituency. I wonder whether they 're going to put the physicians between pablum and poultry. My concern is, Madam Speaker - my question to the Minister of Health is: Are the College of Physicians and Surgeons goin g to be looking at the quality of care and continuity provided by this clinic? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: It will probably be between washers and windows because we're talking about walk in clinics, but , Madam Speaker, this is something that concerns all of us, I'm sure, for many of us. I know that it concerns the medical profession also. I have met with five different groups representing the medical profession in Manitoba ; that is the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Faculty of Medicine at the university, the MMA, the medical students , the interns and residents . We were loo ki ng at the main question of the surplus of doctors in Manitoba for one thing.

There has been cooperation, especially with the university in that , they 've reduced the number of students in the first year. Still , I have concerns with the walk-in clinics . It seems that there is very little we can do. It was suggested that there be no advert ising . I don't think that would do that much , but we're very concerned about the ad tha t you 're talking about . I hear that they might have - every one of these stores will have a walk-i n clinic , com e around September or November , and I think that wou ld be a disaster . Unfortunately, we haven't got all the information .

The impact that this will do - we're studying that at thi s time . We hope that we would be ready with some kind of legislation , to prevent that at least for the next Session, and to get the information , the report on the impact on the care of health and so on of these walk in clinics . I might say, Madam Speaker . that one of the concerns that . .. You seemed so interested that I thought I'd give you a little more . Madam Speaker , I might say that there 's quite a concern on health .

Just yesterday I heard again that somebody took one of the doctors to task , because he felt that they should have tests and so on ; they should make sure that there 's at least . .. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please , orde r please . The Honourable Member for Kildonan . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please , order please . The Honourable Member for Kildonan with a supplementary. MR. M. DOLIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. A supplementary to the same Minister . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Ste . Rose on a point of order . MR. G.

CUMMINGS: I clearly heard the Member for Ellice tell members on this side to sober up. I would like to know who he's referring to? MAD AM SPEAKER: The Honou rab le Member for Ellice . MR. H. SMITH: Yes. I was basically referring to the whole Oppo sition of t he Conservatives on that side of the House for being so noisy and not t reating it serio usly. In my out look, sober means to be seri ous. They took it the wrong way. Med -Stop Medical Clinic - medical profession to control MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kildonan with a supplementary question . MR. M. DOLIN: Thank you , Madam Speak er.

I'm pleased to see the Minister and his department is looking into this . One of the things that concerns me, Madam Speaker, is up to now all walk -in clinics that I'm aware of, having been in that business of being a clinic director for some time, have been doctor-owned and operated. MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a ques tion? MR. M. DOLIN: Yes, Madam Speaker . Med -Stop , I am not aware is doctor-owned and operated . So it is not physicians. to my knowledge , who are running this clinic.

Will the Minister ensure that there's a policy decision made on that basis to ensure the medical profession control s, if we are going to continue walk-in clinic s, that they con trol the walk -in clini cs rather than private entrepre neurs? HON. L. DESJARDINS : That , Mada m Speak er, is very difficult because fir st of all there is no - we don 't know of any correct definition of a walk-in clinic. We know where they are; I know tha t they are called that or t here might be other names .

The situation that we can 't prevent a doctor from doing is open ing a clinic near a shopping centre , nor can we prevent them from saying , we're going to be open two or three hours at night . So that is the impact that we're saying we're looking at. The quality , we're a little concerned abou t the quality, as I mentioned, but we're looking into that - trying to get as much information as possible . MACC - re-examination of computer printouts re interest rates MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste . Rose. MR. G. CUMMINGS: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture.

He's quite proud of the Interest Rate Buy-dow n Program, and maintains that there are no prob lems in it . I wonder if he will instruct MACC to re-examine their computer printouts so that those farmers who have paid their arrears since November 1 are not now being rebilled at the previous level on the offer that they 're being given for their interest rate b uy-down? 3379

Thursday, 25 June, 1987 MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Min ister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, I want to ind icate to my honourable friend that the program that we announced is one of a number that we have, in our limited way, to try and assist Manitoba farmers. We have called in the past for other institutions to lower their interest rates, and we have written down interest rates in the past. We now are attempting to provide in as meaningful a way as we can - without taxpayer infusion into subsidies - by this Buy-Down Program.

If there are any di fficulti es that the honourable member points out about a computer program that somehow we are now charging for arrears that we ought not to, I would hope that the honourable member would draw the specific cases to my attention. I'll be pleased to investigate that matter because if there are some errors in terms of some of the cases that arrears may be outstanding on a portfolio and someone is taking advantage of this program, and there is some problem there, I'd like it drawn to my attention. I'd be very pleased to take it under advisement and investigate it.

MACC - how many are awaiting report re lease-back of land MR. G. CUMMINGS: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that the whole program is one big computer "glitch." But I wonder if the Minister would inform this House how many people now - how many clients of MACC - are presently waiting for a report from MACC regarding lease-back and possible purchase-back of some of their lands that they are in fact losing at this point. HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker, there is no doubt - and I think during our Estimates I spoke about clients who were in arrears, and I believe, and I say this from memory - over 20 percent of our clients would be in arrears in MACC and some of those would be in stages of negotiation either through the federal mediation board or the provincial mediation board, and of course, the quitclaim with lease-back is an option that we have put out through MACC. As well, we are attempting to encourage private financial institutions and of course the Federal Farm Credit Corporation to do lik ewise.

I understand they are doing like wise but they're as well placing farmers through the process of the mediation board which ought not to be necessary, if in fact quitclaims and lease backs could be offered on a negotiated basis. MACC - farmers awaiting answer re Debt Review Board MR. G. CUMMINGS: Madam Speaker, previously the Minister had taken as notice a question about how many farmers are waiting for an answer from MACC after appearing before Farm Debt Review Panels.

I have not received that answer yet, and it appears that there still is a backlog of responses to these farmers who have had negotiations that were fruitful with FCC, with the private institutions.

There is a backlog there that the Minister is not prepared to give us a number on and I wonder if he would commit today to talking to the directors of MACC and ask them to put in place a single desk through which could be coordinated those files where people have gone before debt review panels or where they are asking for an opportunity to use the quitclaim system and then buy back part of their property; if he would be prepared to ask them to give these people a priority so they can clean up their affairs, so they can start over again and so they do not lose the benefits of the negotiations that went on before the panels.

HON. B. URUSKI: It appears that the honourable members opposite wish to put in place a negotiation position on behalf of whoever appears to the board, that MACC should have - when it comes before any panel, whether it be provincial, federal - its final position right at that point in time. Madam Speaker, that will not occur. It will not occur either by MACC nor will it occur with the private institutions.

I want to tell my honourable friend that I have had discussions with the general manager and the assistant general manager of MACC on this very matter; and, in fact, financial institutions have told the Federal Debt Review Board, which he makes reference to, that if they want decisions made relatively quickly to the Federal Debt Review Board, whether it be MACC or the private institutions, they'd better have the hearings in the City of Winnipeg where, in fact, decisions can be made very quick ly. The alleged hold-b ack or non-decision-making on MACC, Madam Speaker, is not accurate.

All institutions are in fact not making their final positions on the one time that they appear before the board. MR. G. CUMMINGS: Madam Speaker, would he then instruct MACC, when they hold the mortgage to the land, to have their appraisals done when they go before the boards? HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, I know that, in terms of negotiations, there are a number of matters that have to be cleared up. I certainly do not want undue delay in terms of holding up any settlements or any agreed upon settlements, and I will certainly take that portion of his question under advisement.

MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. NON-POLITICAL STATEMENT MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker . Could I have leave to make a non-political statement? MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have leave? (Agreed) MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Madam Speaker, at lunch time today, the Premier and I attended a 91s t birthday party for Mr. Tom Hill house who was a long-term member of this Assembly from the Town of Selkirk. Tom is now a resident of the nursing

section of the Seven Oaks Hospital, and I'm sure all honourable members would join with me in wishing him a very Happy Birthday. 3380

Thursday, 25 June, 1987 ORDERS OF THE DAY HOUSE BUSINESS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker, I believe there is an inclination on the part of all members to have Private Members' Hour today, just so that be noted. In the meanwhile, Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture, that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MOTION presented. MATTERS OF GRIEVANCE MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Springfield. MR. G.

ROCH: Madam Speaker, I rise today on a grievance. I'd like to grieve on behalf of all the people of Manitoba, but especially on behalf of the many different groups in our society who have been misled by this government who pretend to know all and be all to all of them. Madam Speaker, I get tired, I get fed up hearing comments from members opposite, especially the Minister of so-called Culture, Heritage and Recreation, who keeps referring to members on this side, when we debate other issues . MADAM SPEAKER: May I remind the honourable member to address all honourable members by their proper title in this House.

The Honourable Member for Springfield. MR. G. ROCH: Madam Speaker, when we debate other issues, I don't like it when the Member for St. Johns refers to us as racist, . whether it be in the press as being against women, as being against Natives, as being against the disabled. Madam Speaker, there has never been any member on this side who has ever said anything against the disabled in Manitoba, and that Is a fact. No member on this side is racist, is against women, is against the disabled. I do not like it.

The Minister of Hig hways is shooting off something from his seat, but he's a lightweight so it's of little importance in any case. Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that every time a different issue comes up that the Minister and members opposite generally try to lump other groups into the debate, groups which are not relevant to that particular debate or issue. I refer specifically, when we refer to homosexuals or other matters, somehow to div ert attention away from the issue, this Minister and other members always have to lump in Natives, minority groups and the disabled. The Minister once said in a Free Press

article of May 2, 1987, that we have demeaned Natives and women 3381 in past questions. Madam Speaker, in going through back issues of Hansard, I cannot find anywhere where members on this side of the House have demeaned Natives or women. I quote from the Free Press's infamous

article that this same Minister said, "She later said she has no written record of the Conservatives' intolerance towards certain individuals and minorities but has noticed it through their line of questioning on subjects, their behaviour and heckling." That is being rather presumptuous, I would say. I think it's the old fascist tactic, Madam Speaker, that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will come to believe it. I believe that is the tactic that is being used. Madam Speaker, I did not accuse anybody of lying. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please.

I do hope that the honourable member was not accusing anyone of lying. MR. G. ROCH: Pardon me? MADAM SPEAKER: I do hope the honourable member - I'm sorry. With all the noise, I couldn't hear ... MR. G. ROCH: I did not accuse anybody of lying, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. I would like to hear the Honourable Member for Springfield. MR. G. ROCH: No, Madam Speaker, I did not accuse anyone of lying. I accused them of using certain tactics to try and get a statement or answers which we have not done across to the public.

By repeating and repeating and repeating certain statements, they hope that the public will come to believe it. Madam Speaker, those tactics were used years ago with dir e consequences.- (I nterjection)- Madam Speaker, they'd like to try and take credit for the Advisory Council on the Status of Women when it's a fact that it was during Tory years that such an advisory committee was set up. (Mr. Acting Deputy Speaker, C.

Baker, in the Chair.) If one would peruse Hansard, one would know that it was the then-Minis ter, the Hono urable Ken MacMaster, here from the Hansard of March 6, 1981, when the ministerial statement was made. He ind icated, "I would be negligent, Mr. Chairman, if I did not mention the Advisory Council on the Status of Women which our government established last fall.

Members of this House will recall that a variety of women's groups and organizations had recommended the council be formed as far back as 1972; yet it took a Conservative Minister and a Conservative Government to appoint an Advisory Council to the Minister on the Status of Women." That, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the fact. When it comes to The Family Maintenance Act, Mr. Deputy Speaker, here again, it was the Progressive Co nservative Government that brought in this legislation.

Women's groups were pushing him to do it, and so it should be; but a Conservative Government deserves the credit for The Family Maintenance Act

Thursday, 25 June, 1987 and I have to give credit to the women of Manitoba for pushing it. But again, I want to point out that whenever they like to take credit for all these programs, they conveniently forget that many of the initiatives took place during Cons ervative years. Mr. Deputy Speaker, as well, when it comes to shelters, when did it start? Osborne House, for example, was bought in the Conservative years. What condition is it in today? It's not in the best of condition.

Apparently , people say it's dingy; it's dark; you've got two, three families in one bedroom; it's crowded; there's no private space for anyone anymore - a far cry from during the Conservative years when there was a 30-bed emergency shelter for women and chil dren who were victims of family violence. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the record speaks for itself. It goes on to say that there are insufficient bathroom facilities for 20 people, let alone 30. Madam Speaker - sorry, force of habit. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, when it comes to other groups, the hand icapped, for example, it says, "There is not room for the handicapped in that particular area." There are no services for the handicapped and this is a government who talked about the handicapped; yet they're allowing people on their side to say that women who are hand icapped are not abused. That contradicts the facts. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we've heard far too often from members on the other side about what a terrible bunch we are. I'd like to point out that the first woman Speaker in the Canadian Legislature was the Honourable Mrs.

Thel ma Forbes, appointed by a Con servative Government; the first black Cabinet Minister was the Ho nourable Lincoln Alexander , appointed by a Cons ervative Government; the first black Lieutenant Governor in this count ry, again the same Lincoln Alexander , was appointed by a Con servative Government. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it gets to a point when you've heard it once, twice, thrice, you hear it all the time, you just get fed up with hearing it, because this government likes to think that it has a monopoly on minority groups. Well, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , let me point out that many of the new Canadians - the immigrant people - are not their national constituency. They maybe voted for them now at times, because if they go out and campaign with those people the same way that they campaigned in Manitoba, generally, a campaign of deceit, not telling everything the way it is, maybe they can fool them. Abraham Lincoln once said: You can fool all the people some of the time, you can fool some of the people all of the ti me, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, these people, many of whom have fled from socialism in many cases, are very family oriented, very church oriented, very enterprising people. They will not be fooled for long. You can only fool them for so long before they wake up and they realize that this government is not a friend like they try to pretend they are; that this government, if you compare socialist governments throughout the world, in fact, try to take over by di viding - and I'm going by socialis t governments the world over - rather than encouraging them to hold down to their cultures and lang uages, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

They have in fact forced them to assimila te, not to be confused with economic assimilation, which is what many new Canadians want to do. They want to become part of mainstream Canada, economical ly, socially and otherwise, and there's nothing wrong with that. They also want a common bond with other Canadians. Therefore, they get together as multi-ethnic groups. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I have met many different groups both before and since I've been appointed critic for Cultur al Affairs, and it's amazing how many of them, maybe because in some cases of the background and the types of government they have in their country, it's amazing how many of them don't know the real reason for being of this particular party. The reason for being of this particular party is to bring into this country, slowly but surely , what they have run away from.

We see it through the introduction of some things, such as Bill 47, which will do nothing else than contribute to the breakdown of society which is already breaking down. We see it as deli berate deficit financing, the whole purpose of which is to break down the economic system. Mr. Deputy Speaker, not all members there are there for that reason. They may think that perhaps they are there for a bona fide social purpose, but in fact the people behind this party have ulterior motives and we see it coming slowly, slowly, slowly , what used to be referred to as creeping socialism. A MEMBER: Galloping. MR. G.

ROCH: Mr. Deputy Speaker , it's not creeping any more. As my colleague has said, it's starting to gallop. It saddens me when I heard the Member for St. Boniface the other day somehow justify - to himself I suppose - voting for a piece of legislation that in his heart he knows is wrong, completely wrong. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we on this side also believe it is wrong, and because of that, we get accused of being racist. Never will I buy that argument, never - not now, not in a thousand years. What? What was that, Harry? The Member for The Pas says things from his chair, but he dares not repeat them into the mike.

Maybe if we're lucky, it's been picked up by Hansard and we can read about it tomorrow. Mr. Deputy Speaker , there have been a lot of items done and not done by this government in the past. There are so many, I don't know where to start. One of the best examples I can see of this government talking out of both sides of their mouth, especially when it comes, for example, to visible minorities, on the one hand saying how much we are for you, how much we'll do for you, but then we recall not too long ago when there was a certain issue of the telephone book that came out what happened.

Of all the people on that cover of that issue, none were black, none were East Indian, and yet they go out to these communities and they say, "We're on your side." This is just one of the examples. Mr. Deputy Speaker - the Minister says, "Am I lost?" No, I'm not lost. There's so much on this government that I don't think there's enough for 40 minutes. But the fact is that Mr. Wade Williams once said, and I've got it quoted here somewhere, who is a former 3382

Thursday, 25 June, 1987 member of the Liberal Party and not a member of our party, who once said that the best hope for minorities in this province was through the Conservative Party. Instead of being paternalistic and patronizi ng, they should be treated like people. Mr. Deputy Speaker , day in and day out, the members like to make out as if - I point out the example of Mrs. Thelma Forbes, Mr. Lincoln Alexand er, then there was Dr. Joseph Du, who is a member of our party and who was awarded the Order of Canada. He was, I believe, the first non-white Canadian to be awarded such an order .

Again, this was done by a Conservative Government. Mr. Deputy Speaker, to set the record straight, what is our party's policy? What are the statements we've made in the past in regard to the various minority groups in society?

We have said that Manitoba employers will be consulted to develop greater fairness in employment practices for handicapped persons; women will be encouraged to participate more fully in the government decision-making process; child care services will be expanded to provide women and single parents with realistic opportunities to seek employment; a clear strategy will be developed to deal with family violence; crisis centres in residential shelters for battered women and children will be more fully funded; homemaker pensions will be introduced as part of a program of pension reform. For populations at risk, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, we have said, in the case of Native people, pre-natal and neo natal service will be developed for Native mothers and children. Leaders of the Native communities allowing professionals from the health and related areas will be consul ted in the development of projects to provide a coordinated approach to Natives in our province. These, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are all on the record. When it comes to our multicultural mosaic, what have we, as a party, we, as individuals, said in the past? We have said in regard to multiculturalism, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that when we talk about future prosperity we must remember the traditional and historic commitment of this party to those people who made the future possible. We have said that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We've also said statements both during and after and prior to elections that this is a Manitoba where everyone has their da y in ensuring fairness in employment practices, in working with our employers in this province to ensure that fairness. That is why we are committing ourselves to a program of encouraging broader participation by women in government and by all sectors of society. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, our leader once said in an address that Manitoba's great strength is her people. Manitobans represent the broadest cultural and ethnic mosaic in Canada, and it is the quality and strength of our people that has built this province's economy and its institutions.

Despite our different backgrounds and heritage, we all share a number of fundamental goals: first and foremost, a desire for better economic and social opportunities; opportunities to work and live in a free and tolerant society; opportunites to live in a house and live comfortably; opportunities to have children educated; opportunities to have access to a modern, comprehensive health care system; an opportunity to work hard and prosper. What's happening in this province is the opportunities are not happening.

I have said it before, other members have said it here, and our leader has said it, too, in the past that our goal is to ensure that new Canadians are integrated as quickly as possible into the mai nstream of our province and can participate fully in the opportunities available to them. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it seems that one of the largest barriers for some new Canadians is to be fluent in the English language. Therefore, one of our first priorities has to be able to expand and improve English as a second language program. This doesn't seem to be happening or not happening as fast as it could be happening. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the problems with the programs that now exist is that they often assume - often correctly but not all the time - that the head of a household is male and, therefore, that person right away gets into the program,

whereas the women in those families do not have the ability or the opportunity right away to have the program at their disposal; and yet, although it is their right to have it, because of some of the countries they come from, they dare not ask for it. Assuming that governments, as they have known them, to be all powerful, they dare not ask. We, as a party, have said that we would encourage them to go out and seek what is rightfully theirs. I don't see this happening right now, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Deputy Speaker, visible minorities currently make up less than 2 percent of the Civil Service.

We, as a party, are on record as being committed to doubling that participation; not have them included because they are visible minorities, but have them included because they are qualified, employable, visible minorities. Unlike the government opposite, we don't believe in tokenism; we believe in using the people's abilities to the best of their ability. That is the significant difference. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, when it comes to maintaining cultural backgrounds and heritage languages, let us not forget it was us, as a Conservative Government, that introduced the heritage language programs to ensure that those different groups had the opportunity to maintain their languages. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this government said, in its Throne Speech, that it would also promote, in reference to their multicultural policy, would also promote equal access and participation by them in the workplace, but it seems that they have not brought this around to reality.

On Tuesday of May 21, 1985, the then-Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation said that Manitoba took a unique step in the formation of the Manitoba lntercultural Council, the majority of whose members are elected by the ethnocultural community, brought in to form a government as they are in other provinces. He went on to say that the council is truly representative of the community in forms of partnership with government in developing initiatives to strengthen the position of ethnocultural groups to ensure the full participation in the political, social and economic life of our province. Well, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, what is the reality in the province today? It has been reported in the media that Manitoba has a higher concentration of visible minorities and Native Indians in low-paying unskill ed jobs than any other province, and this is according to federal statistics. 3383

Thursday, 25 June, 1987 Therefore, the goals and objectives, or at least the stated goals just prior to elections - the objectives of this New Democratic Party - a party which is neither new nor democratic, and certainly not the party of Ed Schreyer or J.S. Woodsworth - those stated objectives have certainly not been achieved. Those same statistics prove that the province has the worst record in Canada for non-whites and Natives stuck in the unskilled labour pool. This was said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by Vivian Renault of the Federal Employment Equity Division, an employee of the Federal Government.

She went on to say that the Canadian average for visible minorities in unskilled work is 20 percent compared to a Manitoba rate of 32.6 percent - the highest concentration in the country. This was as of the end of last year, 1986. Simi larly , the national average of Native people working in unskilled jobs is 26 percent and in Manitoba it's 32 percent, according to the latest census figures. This would mean that over one-third of the people are concentrated there as opposed to one-q uarter nationally . I'm talking about the unskill ed work force. A past chairman of Winnipeg's Race Relations Committee, Mr.

Osmond Anderson, said he can't explain how Manitoba, with a government that claims to have affirmative action high on its agenda, could be trailing so far behind other provinces. Anderson said although the NDP Government has taken some legislative steps towards affirmative action and pay equity, resistance to those concepts has made it timid. He said they think of the ballot box first and morals and ethics later. Mr. Deputy Speaker, yet when the Member for Sturgeon Creek attacks them for their morals and ethics, they often hoot and holier back all kinds of insults at him.

Here we have a person, a non-partisan person, saying the exact same things. HON. L. EVANS: I wonder if the member would submit to a question on his last statement regarding Mr. Anderson. MR. G. ROCH: I'm sorry; I didn't hear the first part of the question. HON. L. EVANS: If the honourable member would agree to answer a question with regard to a quotation by Mr. Anderson. MR. G. ROCH: I didn't hear the first part by the time I got the earphone on. HON. L. EVANS: Yes. I wonder if the honourable member would accept a question now with regard to the quotation he utilized, related to Mr.

Anderson, regarding the matters of employment opportunities for minority groups. MR. G. ROCH: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I most certainly will at the end of my grievance if there's time permitting, or with leave, whichever may be the case. I would also like to point out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this dismal record happens to be in the province with the only NDP Government in Canada, and yet we are subjected, day after day - not day after day - hour after hour, one might say, at times - it feels like minute after minute - to all kinds of diatribes from the other side.

And yet the best records for hiring the minorities of women, of Natives, happens to be in non-socialist provinces, most of whom are ruled by Conservative Governments. According to federal statistics, it's a fact. (l nterjection)-The Member for Thompson doesn't like to hear that. MR. S. ASHTON: I don't like to hear it because I saw what you guys said about the Native farmers in Thompson in the last election. (Madam Speaker in the Chair.) MR. G.

ROCH: Madam Speaker, need I remind this member that he was part of the government who stirred up all kinds of controversies in 1983 and'84, who turned neighbour against neighbour, brother against brother, sister against sister, in trying to force upon the people of Manitoba something which they did not want. You tore the province apart and you know it, and your Minister who was in charge went down to defeat because of it. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. A MEMBER: Thank the Lord. But he's got 60 grand now, so he doesn't feel too badly ... MR. G. ROCH: Don't forget your record.

Well, Madam Speaker, the Member for The Pas says that the people of Springfield are disappointed. I'm sure that many people are dis appointed that someone who is unable to obtain employment anywhere in the private sector, whom no municipal government wishes to hi re, gets appointed as a flunk y, but has no qualifications, at a $60,000-a-year job. Yes, I would agree with the Member for The Pas that the people in Springfield are disappointed as are probably most Manitobans. The Member for St.

Johns once said, in refernece to the Conservative Club of Greater Winnipeg, that it was a shame that in this day and age that they would exclude women. She conveniently forgot to mention that the federal P.C. Women's Caucus excludes men. So they seem to be quite selective in their

interpretation. But the fact is that there are many different clubs and organizations which, for various reasons, exclude people of one gender or another. Big Brothers of Winnipeg, for example; would we expect them to have women as Big Brothers? Well, of course not; it's not a reality. But right now, as we all know, the main concern of Big Brothers of Winn ipeg is not that they be forced to have women. They're concerned that they'd be forced to have another group of people whom this government considers to be a bona tide minority, and this is where I di sagree with them.

Madam Speaker, my basic grievance is that this government always has a holier-than-thou attitude. This government is always out there trying to preach. They think that they are the end all and be all to all mino rity groups. Madam Speaker, the fact is that they are better at using public funds to throw out propaganda to all these groups, to use grants, to divide, to conquer than we 3384

Thursday, 25 June, 1987 are. Maybe we're more concerned about being able to govern once we win the elec tion. Maybe we're more concerned about having policies in place. Maybe that's our problem, rather than using the public payroll to hire hacks and flacks. Maybe that's our concern, that's our main problem.

But, Madam Speaker, the fact remains, based on our record, whether one goes through Hansard, whether one goes through election promises, whether one goes through the appointments of previous provincial and federal Tory Governments and present ones, there is no legitimate way that this government, its members, or any of its Ministers can accuse us of being racist. I have been personally accused of being racist, and I will not name the member who said it. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Minis ter of Culture, Heritage and Recreation on a point of order. HON. J. WASYLYCIA-LEIS: Yes, Madam Speaker, on a point of order.

The Member for Springfield has continually suggested that I called him racist. I've never in my life used the word "racist," either in the House or outside the House, in reference to any member opposite. MR. G. ROCH: Is that a point of order, Madam Speaker? MADAM SPEAKER: Pardon? MR. G. ROCH: Was that a point of order? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. I can't hear the Honourable Member for Springfield. The Honourable Member for Springfield. MR. G. ROCH: Yes, I'm just wondering if I can continue or if that was a point of order. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Springfield. MR. G. ROCH: Yes, Madam Speaker, I was just asking if I could continue. I was just wondering if that was a point of order. MADAM SPEAKER: The honourable member does not have a point of order. A dispute over the facts is not a point of order. MR. G. ROCH: Madam Speaker, I never said who accused me of being that. If anyone in this House feels guilty about it and if the shoe fits, wear it. It's as simple as that.

Madam Speaker, I would like members opposite, instead of always hurling these insults, making these allegations, making these false accusations against us, I would like them to point out examples, specific cases of what they accuse us of. It never happens, the Minister admits in press interviews. Other members admit too, well it's not really on the record. They say it from their seats, they sit and they're heckling, this and that. The facts are, Madam Speaker, more often than not, the heckles and the barbs which are sent across this House are picked up by Hansard.

The reason they cannot be found is because they have not been said. With the maybe allegations, in nuendo, they keep repeating it and repeating it and hopefully people will come to believe it. But, Madam Speaker, there was a song many years ago that said: "The times, they are a-changing," and they are.

Many more people out there in the multicultural commun ity are starting to know what kind of government we have here in Manitoba, a government that attacks the very moral fibre of this society, its religious roots, its family roots; a government that introduces a piece of legislation that says Bill No. 47 that will not go over well with many people; governments which run up record deficits. These people can start a new life and, after a while, they'll see that they have come here to raise a family.- (Interjection)- What kind of a reference did the Member for Ellice make to blacks?

Would the Member for Ellice care to stand up and repeat the remark that he made about blacks? A MEMBER: Black sheep. MR. G. ROCH: That's not what he said, and you know it. Madam Speaker, I see my light is flashing and my time is almost up. I'd like to conclude my remarks by saying that the reason I got up to grieve - I'll reiterate - I will no longer put up with any of the members opposite constantly accusing us of being racist, being against women, being against Natives, being against the disabled, because it is simply not true. If anything, people who live in glass houses should never, ever throw stones.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Employment Services on a point of order. HON. L. EVANS: Yes, I believe the honourable member agreed to answer a question at the end of his speech if he had time. I don't know whether he has time or not. MADAM SPEAKER: The honourable member has two minutes left on his time. HON. L. EVANS: The member was quoting a person by the name of Mr. Anderson, I think O.T. Anderson, and I believe Mr. Anderson did make a statement with regard to lack of employment opportunities for certain minority groups and so on.

I recall this because I recall reading it in the paper, and I want to ask the honourable member if he could verify the period of time that Mr. Anderson was talking about, because my recollection is the period of time preceded the election of this Pawley administration in November of'81. The statistics they were using were the year 19 81, which is before this government became elected. MR. G. ROCH: Madam Speaker, the period I was referring to was during 19 85. 3385

Thursday, 25 June, 1987 HON. l. EVANS: Excuse me, Madam Speaker. My question was with regard to the quotation of Mr. Anderson because Mr. Anderson did make a public statement, and I remember writing a letter to the editor about the matter. I do recall - and I'm asking if the Member for Springfield could verify this therefore - that Mr. Anderson's reference to this problem actually related to data from the 1981 Census, which of course took place prior to the election of this government. MR. G. ROCH: I'm sorry, Madam Speaker. I didn't hear the whole question. I was trying to locate the quote.

Could the Minister please repeat the question? HON. L. EVANS: My question is, Madam Speaker: Could the Honourable Member for Springfield advise the House with regard to the quotation he made from Mr. And erson about the lack of employment opportunities for minority groups, etc., could he verify that Mr. Anderson's statement related to the 198 1 Census which took place before the election of the Pawley admin istration? MR. G. ROCH: Madam Speaker, I'll go through my notes and I will certainly verify it. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Gladstone. MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Ellice on a point of order. MR. H. SMITH: No, I was rising, Madam Speaker, with a grievance speech. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Gladstone caught my attention first. MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today to exercise my right as a member of this Assembly, namely, to use my grievance time in this House. Madam Speaker, I grieve today for the taxpayers of Manitoba. Those taxpayers, Madam Speaker, are not receiving value for the money that they pay to this province. The taxpayers in this province pay, pay and pay again.

Ever-increasing taxes and ever-decreasing services and benefits are given to them in this province. This government contin ues to spend, spend and spend, ever mindful of their own agenda, and caring little for the very real needs of the people of this province. People are becoming increasingly cynical and dis trusting of their government, and they're giving up hope of any change in the attitudes and the actions of this NOP Government. Several examples come to mind, Madam Speaker, and I'll mention some of them.

During the debate on the Estimates of the Emplo yment Services and Economic Security Department, we di scussed the fact that there are ever-increasing admin istrative costs in every area of that department. While the admin istration costs are rising, Madam Speaker, are we seeing an inc rease in services to the people? Are we seeing massive decreases in welfare rolls because of the programs that this department administers? No, we are not.

Madam Speaker, the Emplo yment Services and Economic Security Department of this government spends the taxpayers' hard-earned money on training and job creation programs, as well as on social assistance. These job creation and training programs, funded by Provincial and Federal Governments and adminis trated by the Manitoba Gove rnment, are supposedly designed to get people off welfare rolls and into the work force. Are they work ing? Are these programs really working? Madam Speaker, if they are, we cannot see any marked effect on the welfare rolls of this province, for one example.

In stead, we see in creased numbers every year. Madam Speaker, in the year, 19 81, the monthly caseload of those on provincial welfare was 19,057. In 1986, the number was 22,665, an increase of 18 .9 percent. This year the prediction is the caseloads will increase by some 13 percent. This is appalling. In 1981, Madam Speaker, the monthly average number of recipients of municipal social assistance was 7, 18 3; in 1985-86, the number was 16,097, an increase from 1981 to 1986 of 124 percent - 124 percent. The municipal rolls are predicted to increase by 10 percent or over 10 percent this year, for 1987.

Where are the results of the training programs? These expensive training programs that are supposedly taking place throughout the province, why are they not working? The Minister tells us that these programs are continually being monitored and studied, but what is the result of all this studying and monitoring? We are not privy to that information of course, Madam Speaker, we in the Opposition. We can only assume, from the burgeoning unemployment rolls and welfare rolls, that the millions of dolla rs spent on training and job creation are simply not working. They're not effective.

I mentioned to the Minister during Estim ates this fact, when we did the Estimates of his department, and he had no explanation. Well he did, in a way. He had an explanation that the welfare rolls were increasing because of single parents and this sort of thing, and because of the Welcome Home Program but, Madam Speaker, the Welcome Home Program would only account for a very small number of those people who would be conside red in this category under social assistance. While we're speaking of unemployment, Madam Speaker, let's look at one of the programs funded by this government.

The Minister of Employment Services and Ec onomi c Security speaks glo wingly of the unemployed help centres in the province. There are two of them in Manitoba, one in Winn ipeg here and one in Brandon. The Minister talks of the great work done by the offices in obtaining unemp loyment insurance payments for unemployed workers, and I'm sure that they do, in many cases, help people to gain their unemployment benefits. In fact, a person in my constituency had occasion to get some help from the Brandon office.

But I am sure that, if those same people were to seek help from the Federal Government, from the offices, or speak to their member of Parliament, they could get that same help. I have sought that kind of help many times and received help. It seems to me that we should not be setting up an expensive bureaucracy in this province to offset some 3386

Thursday, 25 June, 1987 perceiv ed problem with a governmen t departm ent of the Federal Governme nt. It just seems ridiculous . If they 're having problems collecting unemployme nt insurance , then if this Minister thinks it's that serious , then perhaps he would go and speak to, telephone , telex , write or whatever to the Federal Minister and say, look we have a problem here. We do not wish to spend all this money seeking unemployment insurance.

You're not efficient , if that is the case , tell them so and let 's get something done about it, bu t don 't use provincial taxpayers' money to fund something in order to get federal taxpayers ' money . The whole thing becomes ridiculous . The Minister brags about the good unemployment picture in Manitoba in relation to other provinces and then has the nerve to tell us that Manitoba gets the short end of the stick in unemployment insurance benefits. Now, the whole thing becomes ridiculous . Really, Madam Speaker, what is he trying to tell us? He's trying to have it both ways.

He wants lots of unemployment insurance money in this province but he doesn't want any unemployment in this province. Well, let's try and figure out the logic of that if you can . From my questions to the Minister I've really been unable to discover any funct ion that these unemployment help centres do in gaining people employment . Now, that seems strange to me, an unemployed help centre by name implies that you would help people get employment .

In fact , on page 39 of the Supplementary Estimates put out for the Department of Employment Services and Econom ic Security , there are a list of several major objectives of the Division of Unemployment Insurance, on page 39. Major object ives of this division are: (

a) to improve efficiency in the working of the labour market, (

b) to minimize the level of unemployment , (

c) to increase the skill levels of workers in relation to the job marke t demands of Manitoba employers, and there are a couple of others. So, Madam Speaker, we have a Minister of Employment Services bragging about an agency which keeps people unemployed . So, we wonder and I think we have every right to wonder at the logic of this sort of situation. There's something wrong, Madam Speaker, with something like that. There's something wrong with the whole system of employment and unemployment and social assistance and I'm afraid that it is a matte r of attitude.

The attitude of most of us is that everyone wants to work . Some cannot - of course , for obvious reasons cannot work . HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Deputy Speaker , on a point of order. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, C. Santos: A point of order being raised . HON. L. EVANS: I thought I heard the member , and if not, perhaps you could correct me, that I was bragging about these centres, encouraging people to be unemployed. Was that the statement made by the honourable member? I trust she didn 't make that and if she did that is a totally incorrect observation . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Gladstone . MRS. C.

OLESON: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did s ay that the Minister , he's very proud - if you want to call it some other word than bragging , fine - but he's very pro ud of those centres which in turn encourage people , they get unemployment insurance for people because as he says, we are net lose r in unemployment insurance. Do you want mor e unemployment insurance because if you want more unemployment insurance in this province , it would mean that there are more people unemployed . That follows, as sure as night follows day. HON. L. EVANS: . . . deals with the wor kers - (inaudible)- ... MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Disagreements about ideas are not a point of order . MRS. C. OLESON: As I was saying , Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a problem, I think, of attitudes . Some of us, most of us, I think, as I said expect that everyone will want to work . That to me is a given . Som e people cannot work and that is a given . They have a disability , there are many reasons, but everyone in the ir h eart wants to have a job to be able to provide for their own needs and for the needs of their family. So I wonde r, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, if this governmen t, through their social assistance programs and their social tinkering , are they fostering the type of attitude that makes people want to work? Or are they fostering the type of attitude where people throw up their hands and say, well , the government will look after me; I don't need to wor ry about it; I don 't need to work . It seems to me , Mr. Deputy Speaker, tha t this government creates , by its act ions and its atti tudes, a depend ence on the state and, of course , if you control people through their livelihood , you can control them in other ways too .

I've been told of young women - this has not been said to me myself - but I have been told of young women who say they can 't wait to get pregnant and have a baby so that they can go on social assistance and have their own apartment. Well, you know , this is a sad state of affairs if we have gotten to this sort of thinking amongst our young people . What a shocking statemen t for a teenager to make - that is their ambition in life.

How are we as a society, as a government , or whomever, how are we fostering this idea and are we doing anything about it to change it? -(Interjection)- It is not typical but it is happening . What sort of values are we fostering in society if that's the sort of ambition, the main ambition in the minds of some people , is to go on welfare? And I have no reason to believe that the story I have reiterated is not true . We must be making it too easy perhaps .

Where does th is government's social assistance department place the parents of these young people in this whole scenario, for instance, of getting pregnant and going on welfare? Do the parents not feel any responsibility? Are they not requested to have any responsibility in looking afte r these young people ? There 's something wrong here if they're not being encouraged, firm ly encouraged, to look after their own children if they possibly can. Of course, one of the problems which immediately comes to mind is that their parents are also on welfare . 3387

Thursday, 25 June, 1987 But it seems to me a sad state of affairs if we are going to automatically look after all single parents. In this province, they are classified as unemployable. I, as a young mother, would find that insulting to be classed as unemployable. I would like to feel that I could earn my way. There are times, of course, when maybe it wouldn't be possible, but I don't think they should automatically be considered an unemployable person because you have a child.

I think if the government really truly believes this sort of thing and that young people should be treated in this way, then I think we have a deeper problem than we have really been seeing. We are building for the future generations of dependent people, dependent on the state. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Employment Services has a point of order? HON. l. EV ANS: Yes. I wonder if the Member for Gl adstone - she makes some very serious comments here about mothers with children on welfare - I wonder if she would submit to a question on this very important point. MRS. C.

OLESON: I will entertain a question after I'm finished, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, we seem to be, by our attitudes, building generation upon generation of dependency on welfare. So that is one reason the welfare rolls are burgeoning, continu ally going up. I realize it is difficult for people who have been on welfare for many years to get off the welfare rolls and to go out into the work force. I know of women who find it very, very, very difficult to leave their home and look for a job when they have been for years on the welfare rolls, and I understand that sort of thing.

But we must realize that social assistance is a last resort measure and the taxpayers who are obliged to pay for this are beginning to wonder: Where will it end? How much are they going to have to pay? As I say, I am not, for a minute, saying there are people who cannot work. I know there are people who cannot work and I'm not asking them to go to work, but I am suggesting that we should be encouraging the people who are able to go. A moment ago I mentioned young people. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a municipal responsibility to provide social assistance to unemployed employables or people who are able to work.

In the City of Winnipeg, I'm told that 67 percent of the people on social assistance in April '87 were between the ages of 18 and 25. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that's an absolutely shocking number, absolutely shocking. That figure has risen from 41 percent in April of 1983. Winnipeg of course also has training programs in th eir social assistance department and they make an attempt to get these people working instead of on assistance. They are dealing, of course, with un employed employables; so they are attempting to deal with the problem. But other municipal jurisdictions, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, have very little opportunity to plug into work creation or work training and job creation programs. The numbers on their rolls are very small; they couldn't possibly put in, in their municipality or small town or city, a work program, so there's no help for them. And as I say, they can't get into the provincial programs too easily. Also, when you rate people as employable or unempl oyable in the mun icipal setting in rural Manitoba, the fact that there are no jobs - or very few jobs - does not enter into the picture. It's whether or not they have the ability to work.

So the municipalities are left with paying the bills from an already overburdened tax base, and they are telling me it is difficult for them. It's difficult for them admin istratively to deal with it; it's difficult for them to handle the cost because there is a great deal of discrepancy from municipality to municipality in the cost of social assistance. Meanwhile the Minister in charge answers questions from his backbenchers at every opportunity, telling us how great the unemployment rate is in Manitoba.

When you compare it to other provinces, the unemployment rate in Manitoba is not too bad, but it must be cold comfort to the thousands and thousands of people who are, for one reason and another, unemployed. There are those who fall into the category of those on unemployment insurance. They are unemployed, obviously , but there are many that are not counted in the unemplo yment statistics.

We have people on provincial welfare; we have people on municipal welfare; we have treaty Indians - about 8,000 of them - on federal social assistance; and also we have people who are on di sabili ty pensions through the Workers Compensation. So we have all these people who are, in some form or another, on assistance and cannot work or cannot find a job. There are people - and I would suspect that the figures I gave you about the nu mbers in Winni peg, those 18 - 25 year olds, some of them will never have had a job.

If you can't ever find a job, you cannot qualify tor unemployment insurance, and if you haven't been able to get a job and you're 24 or 25 years old, you go to apply for a job and the employer, of course, immediately wants a resume of where you have worked before, what's your experience? They say, they're not able to give a resume of experience, so we have a sad situation. What we have, of course, also, is what we could term as the work ing poor. We have people who are underemployed, people who have part-time jobs, and they have the same needs as the rest of us.

They are, in many ways, worse off than the people who are on welfare because they have their dental and medical costs paid,

whereas the working poor, as we would call them, the people on part-time and minimum wage, don't have that, they have to pay their own. So, in some senses, it's far more of a struggle for those people than it is for the people who are on social assistance. Some of these people have a very, very great difficult time getting just the mere basic needs for their families, but they're trying. Then this government says they care. They're the sharing, caring government. They're telling us, you know you can't really blame a Minister for getting up and gloating about, heaven only kn ows, in this government.

If you have an opportunity to brag about something, I don 't blame them, because there are so few opportunities. But it must really gall the people who are on assistance and having such a dif ficulty to hear how great unemployment is in the Province of Manitoba when they haven't had a job in years. They seem to 3388

Thursday, 25 June, 1987 be the most urgent care - inv olved in caring is convincing people that they should vote for them for the next election. Their idea of sharing is to share this massive debt load that we have in this province. In spite of what the Minister of Finance tells us, everyone is sharing in the debt load of this province, rich and poor alike. He tries to tell us that it's just the rich, oh yes, our tax program and all our taxes and licences and fees, etc., will not affect the poor. They do; of course they do.

So why are we in such massive debt and still are not supplying the need for some of these people? It's hard to unde rstand. You would think, if we were in a massive debt, that everything would be swimming and the people that are on welfare would be getting a terrific deal and everybody would be happy. You'd think that would be the result of spending and spending and spending, but it's not. So somewhere something is wrong. I see in the department and the entire government some mismanagement. There's some mismanagement in every department of this government, and I also see some problem with spending priorities.

There are a litany of examples which have been cited in this House many times about the spending priorities of this government. One exam ple I'l l use is here we have an NO P Government who will fund the Gay and Lesbian Film Festival but they won't fund a project in a Conservative constituency to have a job creation program that would put a new roof on a rink. They won't put in enough Careerstart people in the Western Manitoba Agricultural Museum so that they can keep their programs going properly. This is the sort of thing. They don't look at the overall picture and see what they're doing.

Here we have a government which set up a separate department to serve social assistance needs and has one of its stated priorities as job creation and employment, and yet funds an agency which helps people get unemployment insu rance. A couple of years ago, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this government set up an agency called the Workplace Inn ovation Centre whose function is to study the effects of technology on the work force. That centre is receiving funds amounting to $400,000 a year.

They have a board and they have a staff in place and they're receiving their funding, I believe for three years they're receiving their funding. Now I asked in the Estimates if they had any contracts, any studies, and the Minister said, no, they didn't. Here they are all set up and ready to go. He said that they had contacts with - I believe he said they had contacts with various businesses. Just a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On page 2743 of Hansard, the Minister is quoted as saying, "I don't believe that it had any contracts thus far.

I know they've had a lot of contacts with businesses, all kinds of planned contacts, but there have been no contracts, no agreements to provide services." Well, what are these people doing? And how long are they going to be doing what they're not doing? This centre is supposed to be self-sufficient in three years. Well, it makes one wonder - if they haven't got any contracts, no evidence of activity yet, and it's been in existence for two years - just what on earth is going to happen? It is under legislation. Will it continue to exist if it is not doing anything?

We'd like to know why there is no activity and what will happen after three years? Anyone want to guess what happens after three years? Knowing this government, they'll continue to put money into that project whether or not they're doing anything, and whether or not there are any results. We hope they take a good look at it because there is some money there. Mr. Deputy Speak er, I' d like to have used my grievance opportunity to speak on things in my constituency, and there are many problems in my constituency .

For example, the Mi nister of Agriculture announced with great fanfare an opportunity for farmers to have loans with MACC to buy down their loans to a lower interest rate. Big deal! It would cost a young man in my constituency $25,000 which he would have to borrow to buy down his MACC loan. Now, another large loan is not what a young farmer needs, or any farmer needs these days, when they're saddled with high input costs and low grain prices.

So the fact that the Minister brags about this, he doesn't cease to tell us that this is helping farmers, but we have yet to see anyone helped by it and today's question period did not provide us with any information on how many people have even applied for help through it. People inqu ire, I know, because this young farmer in my constituency did. He inqu ired and this is what he found out. So $25,000 - you know, it wasn't just laying around the house. He would even find it difficult, probably, borrowing it. So I can't see that this is a great help.

This was, I believe, announced in the Throne Speech if I'm not mistaken. It was one of the major thrusts of the government's agriculture policy, and helping no one. Now, a short while ago, I sent out to my constituency an information bulletin on the budget. I don't think I've ever had so many responses to a brochure before. I'd like to read you one which is fairly typical of the responses I received. The writer expresses so clearly what the opinions of many people are when he says as follows, and I'll quote, "It is time that someone put a stop to the squandering of money by our government.

Government has no business in business. Leave that to the private sector. It has been proven over and over again that mismanagement and losses are the government's system. The sooner the government starts running our affairs like a business and not a game, the better we will all be." I think that's a very telling statement. Those are not my words. They are words of a constituent who is fed up with the way the provincial government is operating and wants an end to the way it is operating.

Several people in their responses said that they either wished they could leave the province, or they were going to leave the province. Isn't that a sad statement when a person who has lived all their life in a province, their loved ones, their friends, their family are there, and they want to move away because they can see no future in this their home province. Most people like to stay fairly close to the place in which they were born. They like to work in that area, live in that area, and raise their families. But many people are expressing the thought, "What's the use of staying here?" Now, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I had another letter which expressed very clearly the pain and frustration of the 3389

Thursday, 25 June, 1987 person who wrote it. I'll read it to the House as it's an eloquent appeal by a person who obviously would prefer not to be on social assistance, but for whatever reason has to be. The saddest part of this letter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that it was not signed. So I have no way of knowing who that person was or how I can help them. I've no way to phone them up and say, we do care about you, we'll listen to you. But I'll read you the letter. It says: "I realize our problems do not apply to tax, but we desperately need help and perhaps you'll give this message a little thought please.

My comments are that Canadians who are ill and unable to work are left to starve on $10 0 for food per month from welfare. We're looked down upon, our children are made fun of at school and anywhere we go in general. We're given a number, like a prison, which we must show in order to receive medical cards. We're given $15 0 per year for special needs such as furniture, appliances, etc., and we are not even trusted to handle this $15 0.00. To humiliate us even more, why don't they put us all (welfare bums, as we are called) in prison. At least, we might be treated more like humans.

"Welfare workers receive top wages, etc., and are allowed to barge in on us whenever they want. They sit in our home for hours pretending to help us, but they end up humiliating us. We are constantly being watched to make sure we don't earn an extra 50 cents. We are not allowed to wear new clothes as no extra money is provided for such lux ury. We have to wear dirty clothes from the Salvation Army. We are worse off than animals; as animals have freedoms, we don't. "Thank you for reading this. Just a welfare bum with a number." Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is one of the saddest letters I have ever received.

As I said, the saddest

part is I can't answer it, but perhaps by mentioning it in this House that person may someday kno w that we care. We are, you see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, even though this province pays millions for welfare programs every year, Manitoba pays the lowest or next to the lowest welfare of the four Western Provinces in many categories. The Minister in charge is quick to point a finger and say, how mean Alberta or Saskatchewan are. I heard from the opposite bench, as I knew I would, remarks about Saskatchewan - and what are you going to do, and what about the debt?

I told you earlier in my speech, if you had been listening. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the record speaks for itself. Manitoba is not a good province to live if you have to be on social assistance. If the Minister would reorganize his priorities and cut his administration costs, maybe things could be better. Another item I would mention before I conclude my remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the subject of wife abuse shelters in this province. The Minister made an announcement regarding per die m payments for victims of abuse just this week. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I wonder if the Minister is aware that not only does Manitoba have a poor record in the Western Provinces with regard to social assistance, it also has an extremely poor record regarding wife abuse centres and their funding. I'll give you some figures to support this statement. In Saskatchewan, Mr. Deputy Speaker, $1,8 62,850 is spent on funding for women's shelters. That includes women's shelters, safe homes and second-stage housing. That taken into comparison by population, is $1 8,400 for each 10,000 of population.

In Alberta, they spend $3,723,705 on the same categories of wife abuse centres or women's shelters, which, when you figure it as a per 10, 000 population, it's $15 ,677.00. Then we come to Manitoba, and there's listed here - and of course it may increase with the Minister's statement. This was taken from Stats Canada of 1986, and it may not be exactly on now, but $1 million, which translates into $9,335 for per 10,0 00 population, so comparing it population-wise, we are the lowest of the provinces in Canada when it comes women's shelters.

I think that is appalling when you consider the talk, the rhetoric, the caring and sharing we hear from this other side of the House. You'd think they were the only people in this wide world who ever had a shelter for women or ever did anything about it. The Member for Springfield, I won't go into all what he said about it.- (Interjection)- What are you giving?

The Member for Springfield eloquently stated the remarks passed by the Minister of Cultural Affairs, and reiterated to you, which we've said many times, but you obviously do not believe and do not hear that when the Conservatives were in power in Manitoba we did something about it; and you were building on that, but we started it. And we're not saying you're not building on it, but don't take all the credit for ever having a thought in this world. That is what I'm saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The NDP party like to try to convince people that they're the only people in the world who care.

Well, there's a little more to caring than just standing up and wringing your hands and saying you care. Action is what you want. I would rather have a person who never let on they cared, do ing something, than a person who is continually wringing their hands and saying, we care, and doing nothing. These figures are hard to comprehend when we think of how this government has been acting with regard to wife abuse shelters and the like, and the speeches made to them during the election about how they were talking to the ordinary people and, as I've said before, the sharing and caring. In closing, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I'd like to again state my dismay for what has happened to this province and to the people. I grieve for the young men and women who cannot find a job, but are still expected to pay that $9,500 per person debt which this government has heaped on their head, and the head of every citizen of this province. The people of Manitoba deserve much, much better than what they're getting. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Employment Services. HON. L. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I believe the honourable member agreed to answer a question or two at the end of her speech. I would like to ask her specifically, because she referred to the problem of young mothers, young women with children, 3390

Thursday, 25 June, 1987 that there was sort of easy access to welfare, that they seemed to want to have children to go on to welfare and so on, and she was rather critical of the present situation, the present policy. I'd like to know specifically whether the Member for Gladstone is advocating the elimination of mothers' allowances as a category in our social assistance program as occ urred un der the Social Credit Government in B.C. two years ago. Are you advocating therefore the elimination of mothers' allowances as a category? MRS. C. OLESON: No, Mr.

Deputy Speaker - through you to the Minister - I'm not advocating that because there are some mothers who cannot work, and perhaps their child is ill. Children are much better raised in a home, we all know that; that's a given. Maybe you don't know that, but I know that. The way I understand it, in this province young parents are automatically placed on the unemployable list, and that to me is an insult.- (Interjection)- Well, then, certainly, they shouldn't eliminate the category, no, but you should use it with a little more care and encourage people to go to work. HON. L. EVANS: I just have a second question.

The honourable member, I might say, is contradicting herself because the Mothers' Allo wances category states that if you are a mother with a child - and this has been around for decades, since God knows when, since the First World War in Manitoba - if you are a mother, a young woman or an old woman with children dependent on you and no other source of income, you will automatically qualify for welfare, and she seems to be suggesting that shouldn't be automatic.

So that's why I ask, do you want to eliminate Mothers' All owances as a category, because in B.C. you have to look for work before you get welfare, even if you have a dozen kids. My question, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that - and I agreed with the honourable member's description of some of the difficulties that the municipal welfare governments are having in admi nistration and in handling cases and also even offering them training programs.

What I'd like to know very specifically from the mem ber, because it's a very fundamenta l policy question, is the member saying that she is in favour of elimi nating the two-tier system and therefore introducing the one-tier system into Manitoba? MRS. C. OLESON: I won't categorically say that approve of the one-tier system till I saw exactly what it would cost. And I would say to the Minister as I said to him in Estimates, no matter what system you use, it can be improved.

You can improve delivery of service to the municipalities, to the problems that I stated to you and I read to you and I listed to you in Estimates, you can help them with those problems with the system you're on, if it is too expensive to go to the other system. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's time has expired. The Honourable Member for Ellice. 3391 MR. H. SMITH: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have a grievance today.

You know we heard from the Member for Springfield and he actually challenged us to come out with a number of instances, specific instances, that would prove that some of them on that side are sexist as well as racist. So I have a few specific quotes to prove our case, not that the Conservative Party is sexist or racist, but that some Conservatives are sexists and racists, and that party seems to attract this type of person.- (l nterjection)- So for example, I'm only going to give quotes about existing members in this House but as well existing members in the federal House, to prove the case.

But you had the Member for Springfield get up and he really pretended that these were all sort of false charges, that they welcomed people and they did not show any signs of being racist whatsoever. Mr. Deputy Speaker, let me just refer to a few years ago, the Member for Minnedosa in comm ittee talking about university funding, referred to chinks and niggers. I mean, that's clearcut. And then a few years after that I have a press story from the Globe and Mail . . . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: A point of order being raised by the Member for Minne dosa. MR. D.

BLAKE: It was not a reference in committee; it was an aside remark to one of my colleagues. MR. H. SMITH: Well, an aside remark to one of his colleagues, but he still said it. Then a few years ago, Mr. Deputy Speaker . . . MR. D. BLAKE: Have you ever heard of Archie Bunker? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: A disagreement as to facts is not a point of order. MR. H. SMITH: A few years ago as well, an

article I'm quoting from is the Globe and Mail, May 15 , 1984, and this same Member for Minnedosa even went further and amplified his attitude, which I think is clearly racist, in talking about apartheid in South Africa, he said, they even let them on the buses now. And you know at that time his leader, you had the Member for Tuxedo, did not repudiate, did not kick him out of the party. He still sits to this day as a Conservative member in this Legislature. So it's that type of comment. Now let's deal with a few on the sexist side. Just recently we all heard this.

We had the Member for Pembina referring to the Minister of Culture. He said that sexist, sleazy little girl. We heard it on this side of the House. It did not get into Hansard, but he definitely said it. Then, on May 26, '87, we had this from the Member for Sturgeon Creek . . . MR. F. JOHNSTON: If she acts like a child, she should be treated like one. MR. H. SMITH: He said this, "If you were my daughter, I'd spank you." This is said to a woman who is certainly in her middle thirties. MR. F. JOHNSTON: You're damned right.

Thursday, 25 June, 1987 A MEMBER: Now he said, "You're damned right." MR. H. SMITH: Now he just said that statement was "damn right." Now the fact is this shows the sexist nature of the Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: You should be spanked, too, because you're acting like a baby. MR. H. SMITH: Now it's not just the Member for Sturgeon Creek, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How about the Member for Pembina, when talking about the fact, asking about if there was not a playpen in the Minister's office?

He said, "She must be a high-priced babysitter." That also outlines the attitude of the Conservatives across the way. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Anybody that thinks my remark is sexist is a dirty old man; that's what you are. MR. H. SMITH: Well, it's very, very clear. MR. F. JOHNSTON: You've always been a dirty old man. MR. H. SMITH: Now you notice all the reaction. Make it clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, all the Conservative Party has these attitudes.

I'm saying there is a fair number of Co nservatives who have these attitudes, not the whole party, because that party is an honourable, historical party in Canada, and I don't want to blacken their whole party. I want to just refer to those people who do so, and who still are accepting it within their midst; that I think is the deplorable part. Their present leader has not repudiated, has not set the record straight and I think that is bad. Now it's not just the provincial party, it's the federal party as well. I mean another Winnipeg federal member, Mr.

Dan McKenzie, you can all remember when he was talking about a visit that was paid for, by the way, by the South African Government. He went down to South Africa and he came back here and he said that the blacks can't rule themselves, they're not fit for certain jobs, they're not suitable, they haven't learnt enough. It's a serious problem for that country. I am only referring to things that are on the record. We also had recently the whole question of the leader of the Cons ervative Party provincially, the Member for Tuxedo, who has a membership in a squash club, and it's for men only .

We had Barbara Mc Dougall. (lnt erjection)- The fact is you have . . . A MEMBER: You should be ashamed . MR. H. SMITH: Look, I am not ashamed because there are Cons ervatives - now here we have other Conservatives echoing in support for that position. MR. F. JOH NSTON: What about the men's

section of the Deer Lodge Curling Club? MR. H. SMITH: They're proving my case even clearer, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The fact is the Conservative Party attracts - the Member for Virden is supporting the same sort of comments. Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they don't like to hear the truth. They don't like to go ahead and have it on the record clear-cut that they have - some of them, I wouldn't describe all of them as I said before with that attitude - but some of them are sexist and some of them are racist, very clear-cut, and I think we proved the case by the quotes I've already given. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the member has just made the accusation that some of the Conservatives are racists and some of them are sexist; and this is a point of order. I would ask him to name those that are that way, please. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the member raising . . . MR. H. SMITH: I should say this, they utter statements that are racist and sexist, and I would assume that they are from their statements. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Name them, name them. MR. H. SMITH: The two that I would . . . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: There's a point of order being raised by the Member for Morris. MR. H. SMITH: I was just going to name them.

MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, will the member who made those statements, will he attribute them to specifil should say this, they utter statements that are racist and sexist, and I would assume that they are from their statements. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Name them, name them. MR. H. SMITH: The two that I would . . . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: There's a point of order being raised by the Member for Morris. MR. H. SMITH: I was just going to name them. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, will the member who made those statements, will he attribute them to specific people on this side?

If he can't do that, then I would ask him to withdraw. MR. H. SMITH: I've already done that, we kno w the dates and instances. So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the fact is the Conservatives on the opposite side of the Ho use are not very consistent thinke rs and are not willing to stand up for things that are really worthwhile. For example, now they are in effect controlled by polling companies. Now the latest and perhaps the most tragic example of this is the current Bill C-55 which will stop perhaps as many as 80 percent of refugees from being able to apply for citizenship. Canada is a nation of immi grants, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, and most times in our history we have prided ourselves on our record as a country that takes in 3392

Thursday, 25 June, 1987 refugees and immigrants from around the world. Our record is far from perfect. Four weeks ago, a coalition of over 100 organizations and citizens from across the country was formed to combat aspects of the current federal Bill C-55. In June of 1939, 930 Jewish refugees on the ship, St. Louis, fleeing from Nazi Germany, were rejected in Havana, the United States and in Canada. The boat was forced to return to Germany and the refugees were interned in concentration camps where they died. No one denies that a portion of current immigrants who claim refugee status are not political refugees.

Over the last two years, there have been three well publ icized in cidents where would-be immigr ants pretended to be refugees. These happeni ngs in themselves are no excuse for legislation that will threaten the security of genuine refugees, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The current Bill C-55 is far too wide-sweeping, and will likely cause up to 80 percent of the refugees coming to our border to be turned away without a hearing. That is a mistake of this present Federal Conser vative Government.

It is my hope that, if enough people speak out saying this law must be amended, the Federal Government will have to respond to our concerns. Today, the bill comes up for a Second Reading in the House of Commons. Last night it was reported the United Nations Committee on Refugee

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-2-77
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 2nd hansardpdf 77.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	53ac9dc1bf02cade03fb530b65b1d0ddec41a161

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).