Manitoba Hansard — 19 March 1998 (Sitting 21B, 36th Legislature, 4th Session)

36-4-21b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session • Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLVIII No. 21B • 1:30 p.m., Thursday, March 19, 1998

Member ASHTON, Steve BARRETT. Becky CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise, Hon. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Alben DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FAURSCHOU, David FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen. Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HELWER, Edward HICKES, George IENNISSEN, Gerard KOWALSKI. Gary LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MACKINTOSH, Gord MALOWA Y, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. McGIFFORD, Diane MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MIHYCHUK.

MaryAnn MITCHELSON, Bonnie. Hon. NEWMAN, David, Hon. PENNER. Jack PITURA, Frank, Hon. PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. RADCLIFFE, Mike, Hon. REID. Daryl REIMER, Jack, Hon. RENDER, Shirley ROBINSON, Eric ROCAN, Denis SALE, Tim SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STRUTHERS, Stan SVEINSON, Ben TOEWS, Vic, Hon. TWEED. Mervin VODREY. Rosemary, Hon. WOWCHUK, Rosann Vacant MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Constituency Thompson Wellington Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Anhur-Virden Steinbach Pembina Lakeside Interlake Brandon East Portage Ia Prairie Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon The Maples Inkster The Pas St. Norbert St. Johns Elmwood Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Osborne Assiniboia St. James River East Riel Emerson Morris Lac du Bonnet River Heights Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Rupertsland Gladstone Crescemwood Broadway Kirkfield Park Dauphin La Verendrye Rossmere Turtle Mountain Fort Garry Swan River Charleswood Political Aff'iliation N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C.

P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. Lib. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. Lib. Lib. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P.

905 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, March 19, 1998 The House met at 1:30 p.m. ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Winnipeg Hospitals Food Services-Privatization Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Kevin So Iinsky, Chad Smith, Fred Pennell and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) to put an end to the centralization and privatization of Winnipeg hospital food services.

READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Winnipeg Hospitals Food Services-Privatization Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

THAT the Urban Shared Services Corporation (USSC) has announced plans to privatize laundry, food services and purchasing for the Winnipeg hospitals; and THAT it is estimated that more than 1, 000 health care jobs will be lost over the next year as a result, with many more privatized in the next two or three years; and THAT under the terms of the contract, Ontario businesses will profit at the expense of Manitoba's health care system; and THAT after construction of a food assembly warehouse in Winnipeg, chilled, prepared food will be shipped in from Ontario, then assembled and heated before being shipped to the hospitals; and THAT people who are in the hospital require nutritious and appetizing food; and THAT the announced savings as a result of the contract have been disputed, and one study by Wintemute Randle Kilimnik indicated that, "A considerable number of studies have compared costs of service delivery in health care between self-operation (public sector) and privatization.

Invariably, privatization is more expensive. "; and THAT no one in Manitoba seems to benefit from this contract, especially patients. WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Health to put an end to the centralization and privatization of Winnipeg hospital food services. PRESENTING PETITIONS Winnipeg Hospitals Food Services-Privatization Madam Speaker: Is there leave to revert to Presenting Petitions? [agreed] I had reverted to Presenting Petitions, and I am not sure if that is the one that was submitted.

An Honourable Member: Probably it is reading and receiving. Sorry, wrong one. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Point Douglas did not read his petition into the record. May I ask him to do so now, please. Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): It would be a pleasure to read it. Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Dana Myrowich, Mark Myrowich, Tannis Drysdale and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) to put an end to the centralization and privatization of Winnipeg hospital food services.

906 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 19, 1998 READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Winnipeg Hospitals Food Services-Privatization Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

THAT the Urban Shared Services Corporation (USSC) has announced plans to privatize laundry, food services and purchasing for the Winnipeg hospitals; and THAT it is estimated that more than 1,000 health care jobs will be lost over the next year as a result, with many more privatized in the next two or three years; and THAT under the terms of the contract, Ontario businesses will profit at the expense of Manitoba's health care system; and THAT after construction of a food assembly warehouse in Winnipeg, chilled, prepared food will be shipped in from Ontario, then assembled and heated before being shipped to the hospitals; and THAT people who are in the hospital require nutritious and appetizing food; and THAT the announced savings as a result of the contract have been disputed, and one study by Wintemute Randle Kilimnik indicated that, "A considerable number of studies have compared costs of service delivery in health care between self-operation (public sector) and privatization.

Invariably, privatization is more expensive."; and THAT no one in Manitoba seems to benefit from this contract, especially patients. WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Health to put an end to the centralization and privatization of Winnipeg hospital food services. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I would like to table today the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review for 1998-99 of the Department of Health, as well as the Addictions F ouridation of Manitoba. Hon.

Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): Madam Speaker, I would like to table the Supplementary Information for '98-99 for the department for Seniors Directorate, also for the Manitoba Housing and also for Manitoba Urban Affairs. Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, I would like to table the '96-97 Annual Report for the Department of Highways and Transportation, previously circulated. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bi11201-The Crime Victims' Bill of Rights and Consequential Amendments Act Mr.

Gord Mackintosh (St Johns): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson), that leave be given to introduce Bill 201, The Crime Victims' Bill of Rights and Consequential Amendments Act;

Loi sur Ia declaration des droits des victimes d'actes criminels et modifications correlatives, and that the same be now received and read a first time. This bill gives victims their right not only to full information about the case that so affects them but to participate in the case, whether regarding the staying of charges, plea bargaining, victim impact statements-and for goodness' sake, we certainly have to catch up with the other provinces there-and restitution, for example, and notably provides for enforcement of these rights.

It is the strongest victims' bill of rights introduced in Canada and sets a new standard for respect for victims of crime. Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable member for St. Johns, seconded by the honourable member for Rupertsland, that leave be given to introduce Bill201, The Crime Victims' Bill of Rights and Consequential Amendments Act;

Loi sur Ia

March 19, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 907 declaration des droits des victimes d'actes criminels et modifications correlatives, and that the same be now received and read a first time. Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have this afternoon twenty three Grades 5 and 6 students from Maple Leaf School under the direction of Mrs. Sally Metcalfe. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson).

We also have five Grade 12 students from Upward Bound Adult Education under the direction of Ms. Bonnie Clarke. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen). Also, ten Grade 10 students from Transcona Collegiate under the direction of Mrs. Colleen Maindonald, Mrs. Linda Wagner, and Mr. Phil Rehberg. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. *

(1335) ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Winnipeg Hospital Authority Interfaith Agreement Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Yesterday, in answers to questions dealing with the breach of agreement with the interfaith hospitals here in Manitoba and in Winnipeg, the Minister of Health indicated that the WHA would have to be the employing authority for staff. Yet, on page 4 of the agreement that the government signed on October 18, 1996, 18 months ago, the government gave the respo nsibility for hiring and dealing with human resources to the faith-based institutions. I would like to ask the Premier (Mr.

Filmon): why did he mislead the faith-based institutions 18 months ago when he authorized his former Minister of Health to sign that agreement that articulates those rights? Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): First of all, within the faith-based agreement, even with the consolidation of employing authority under the WHA, the ability to designate responsibility for hiring, firing and management of staff in facilities certainly exists. That is the way the plan has evolved and one that, I think, will be able to do the things that have to be done and respect the principles of the faith-based agreement.

Surely to goodness, Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition would want us to take the steps that are necessary to ensure that when we have significant staff changes, such as we will have at the Misericordia Hospital, that we can move those acute care nurses to jobs we have in the system where we need them rather than lay them off and re-post positions in other facilities. Mr. Doer: On June 2, 1997, the present Minister of Health said: the deficit issue will have to be dealt with, but is not going to be used to the facilities as part of an agreement to sign and evolve into the WHA.

We will not pick up your deficit; I say that, clearly today, will not be our position. In a letter of February 5, 1998, the Department of Health states that approval has been received to provide for deficit support subject to entering into an acceptable agreement with the WHA. Again, why did you mislead this House last June, and why do you continue to mislead the faith-based institutions? Point of Order Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, on a point of order, it is inappropriate for the Leader of the Opposition to suggest that there has been any misleading going on.

The implication in the question is that this misleading of the House was deliberate, and that being the implication, the honourable member ought to use different language. Mr. Doer: On the same point of order, yes, this is not a dispute of the facts. The minister said in Hansard on June 2 that the deficit issue would not be used as part of the evolution to the WHA for the faith-based institutions. The letter that we tabled in this House, which is available to the Clerk and to the Speaker, says that it is condition one of evolving into the WHA. So, clearly, this government has either misled the House on

908 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 19, 1998 June 2-this minister has either misled the House on June 2, or the letter that they are sending to facilities now is inaccurate. We suggest that this is not a dispute of the facts, because the facts are there in Hansard on June 2, and the facts are in the letter that we tabled two days ago in this Chamber. Madam Speaker: I believe, if I understand the government House leader's point of order correctly, he was disputing the use of the word "mislead" and claiming that the word "mislead" has been ruled unparliamentary.

The word "mislead" in itself is not deemed to be unparliamentary. It is when it is prefixed with the word "deliberately" mislead. The honourable government House leader therefore does not have a point of order. * * * Mr.

Praznik: Madam Speaker, over the course of this transition year, as relationships have been developing with the WHA and the various facilities, as issues and how we need to handle them in order to get the best result have developed, it has become very, very clear, in fact it becomes more clear every day about the necessity, the absolute need to ensure that there is a common employing authority to be able to make the movements of staff that allow us to deliver better patient care.

With respect to the deficit letter, when that letter did go out later on, it was decided that the same conditions that were imposed on facilities in rural Manitoba should also be imposed on urban facilities, and I say to the member that this has been an issue that has evolved over the course of the last year. * (1 340) Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, when you say one thing to the members of this Chamber on June 2 and say another thing to the members of the faith-based institutions in February, the word "evolve" is not the word that we would use on this side of the House.

We would have "changing and breaking your word" as the words that we would use. No wonder the interfaith and the faith institutions, the Mennonites, the Salvation Army, the Catholic church and the other institutions are having such a great deal of difficulty. They have had their Premier (Mr. Filmon) sign an agreement 18 months ago. They have had their minister- An Honourable Member: Did not sign it. Mr. Doer: The Minister of Health signed it on your behalf, so if you want to stand up and answer why you broke your word to those facilities, Madam Speaker. Point of Order Mr.

McCrae: Madam Speaker, honourable members opposite and especi11Uy the Leader of the Opposition have got into the habit of addressing honourable members directly. It is a well-known and very old rule that members ought to address their comments through the Chair. Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable government House leader, indeed the honourable government House leader does have a point of order. All questions and comments should be addressed through the Chair. Now I am not certain if the honourable Leader had posed- Point of Order Mr. Doer: On a new point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: On a new point of order? Mr. Doer: On a new point of order, Madam Speaker, perhaps the House and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) will stop heckling while I am asking my questions that require-if he wants to answer questions, he could stand up and have the backbone to answer on behalf of the signature of his Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik), but if he does not have the courage of his convictions, perhaps you should call him to order when he heckles in this Chamber. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable government House leader, on the same point of order. Mr.

McCrae: Madam Speaker, the rhetoric just displayed by the honourable Leader of the Opposition in no way amounts to a point of order.

March 19, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 909 Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the official opposition did not have a point of order. I am concerned though that the honourable member did not pose a question. Health Care System Bed Availability-Government Strategy Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, it was an intervention from the government House leader. Madam Speaker, today there are 16 people in the hallway of St. Boniface Hospital. Today there are 67 patients waiting for beds in the Winnipeg hospitals.

Instead of this government negotiating in bad faith, breaking their word, breaking their agreement, changing their word, changing their agreements with our facilities, will the government develop a long-term and a short-term plan to deal with the real crisis in patient care, and will it stop fighting everybody in health care and start working in partnership with proper resources to deal with the patients that are in the hallways as we speak here today? *

(1345) Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, there are also thousands of doctors on strike in British Columbia today, too, where a great deal of money has been put in with no avail. Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition does ask a very serious question. When we met with various faith-based boards last year and we talked about the concept of a common employing authority and delegation of authority, it was my sense at the time and my staff that we would be able to have that accommodation as we move forward.

Some of the faith-based facilities, and despite the letter the member refers to and discussions we are having with them, there are different points of view and a different sense of realization of what needs to happen. The member asks for a plan. We have the plan. We are implementing. The difficulty with any major change in a system is that you are going to have people who oppose it, because it is a different way of providing services. We have provided additional resources. Dr.

Blake McClarty, for example, points out the fact that he has a commitment for additional resources to bring down waiting lists, but more importantly, he needs the ability to reorganize the system to be more efficient. That requires the ability to move staff and hence a common employer. We need these tools, Madam Speaker, to do the job the member asks us to do. Minister of Health Apology Request Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Premier. The Minister of Health is fighting with the doctors. He is fighting with the faith based institutions. They have broken their word.

Will the Premier acknowledge and step in and recognize that this Minister of Health cannot negotiate, and I take and cite as an example-will the Premier ask the Minister of Health to apologize for his comments, when the Minister of Health recently attended at the opening for the LPN for the Brandon Clinic, and the Minister of Health compared the situations of nurses in Manitoba with warfare in Northern Ireland and warfare in the Middle East? Does the Premier have confidence in this Minister of Health to carry on negotiations in these times? Hon.

Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the member for Kildonan, when we have very serious issues to discuss here, flags a discussion that was held in Brandon in an attempt to find a solution to the ongoing dispute between two organizations in nursing that has been going on in this province for 20 years, and it has never been resolved. The kind of talent and skill to bring a resolution is quite a serious one. It was taken in good humour. It was part of the event, and I think the member makes far more out of that statement than was ever intended.

With respect specifically to the faith-based facilities, the member says we are not able to negotiate. We have just managed to achieve a negotiation for a change of function at the Misericordia Hospital that governments I believe in this province have been attempting to achieve for over 20 years. We managed to do that, a fundamental change in the system. We need to get on with the task of regionalizing to deliver better health

910 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 19, 1998 services, and we need to make sure the tools are in place to do that. Health Care System Bed Availability-Government Strategy Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Will the Minister of Health, who today said they started on a plan last year-and I heard it from the previous minister and the previous minister about their plan-explain to the 65 Manitobans who are today in the hospital hallways of our urban hospitals waiting for beds-these are admitted patients, Madam Speaker.

Will the Minister of Health explain what he and this government will finally do, given that this crisis has been looming for years and the government has held their noses, not approach a situation and it continues? What is he going to say to those families? Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): The member for Kildonan is right, and right in many of the issues in our health care system that need to be resolved have not been able to be resolved in the past.

I recall listening to ministers of Health, going back even to the Pawley administration, talking about the need to getting our seven or nine hospitals in Winnipeg working together co-operatively, co-ordinating services. And you know what? We relied on those boards, both New Democratic Party and Conservative governments, to see that happen. And you know how much we got out of it? Very little, very little, because the nature of that system does not allow change to take place. It does not allow the changes to take place that deliver better care.

We made a commitment as a government that we had to get into regionalization. That is the most revolutionary change in the delivery of health care since probably medical insurance in the 1960s. It does not happen overnight, but I can guarantee Manitobans this, that it will produce a much better health care system. * (1350 ) Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister explain to this House how their superboard, where the golf buddy of the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) is the chair, that is going to be set up is going to improve everything in Winnipeg, when the superboard in Brandon that has been in operation cannot deal with the pediatrics issue, when superboards across the province in regional health authorities are doing nothing, like in the minister's own region where they are hiring over a dozen vice-presidents, where line-ups continue, and they ask us today to accept on faith what their superboa rd is going to do, when they are the ones who cancelled the personal care home beds, when they are the ones who closed Misericordia Hospital?

Give us a break, Madam Speaker. Mr. Praznik: I have always viewed the member for Kildonan as an individual who wanted to discuss the facts and we have done that on many occasions, but what we see today is the member for Kildonan stretching the facts, maybe not wanting to know the facts in order to paint a picture that is inaccurate. He flagged my own region of North Eastman. I spoke to the chair of the board the other day. They have three staff. They have not hired any vice-presidents, but they have assigned additional operating authorities and additional responsibilities to existing staff.

The chair infonned me that at the end of the day, they will have less administration than they have had in the past. I spoke to the chair of the board, and this is what he tells me. They speak about Misericordia. In all of the planning that has been discussed by planners in our system over the years, no matter who has been in power, the need to find a new role for the Misericordia has been found. We have found it; they have criticized it. We are adding 280 brand-new beds to the system . Headingley Correctional Facility Riot-Early Releases Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): My question to the Premier (Mr. Filmon).

Foll owing the Headingley riot, the Premier and the past Minister of Justice in this House said over and over again that the individuals released after the riot had served the necessary time, were released on humanitarian, rehabilitative, medical grounds and that conditions and supervision would be placed on their release. Then along comes Justice Ted Hughes and reports that in fact inmates were released that did not meet the standards of eligibility. He said, and I will just quote: I have reflected on why that infonnation was not communicated to the public once it must have become known to ministry officials

March 19, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 91 1 towards the end of May. It would have been preferable for the minister to have made a public pronouncement refuting her earlier statements. It is unfortunate that was not done. My question to the Premier is: now, today, would the Premier finally acknowledge the government's responsibility and correct the record, correct the untrue statements made up to 22 times in this House alone by the government? Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I note that the member is quoting from the report that Mr.

Justice Hughes made in respect of the incidents that occurred a little over two years ago now. This government has taken the words, the comments and the advice of Mr. Justice Hughes very, very carefully, has considered them very, very carefully and has taken very proactive steps in order to ensure that the safety of Manitobans is paramount. We will continue to deal in that manner in respect of our correctional institutes. I know the member for St. Johns wishes to turn our prisons, particularly the Brandon Correctional Institute and The Pas, into open correctional, open-door prisons.

We have specifically rejected that recommendation from the member for St. Johns, because we feel that the security of Manitobans is more important than that kind of an ideological position. * (1 355) Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister, rather than engaging in some fantasy, now at least apologize and accept responsibility for, first, releasing Donald Rouire following the riot, and second, releasing him without any supervision, without any conditions, without him even starting his anger management programming, and contrary to his risk assessment and procedures?

Would the minister, the government just acknowledge that it made mistakes, or will it continue this callous treatment of the victims in the Futch family, victims that this government itself created? Mr. Toews: Madam Sp eaker, this side of the House, all members here-our heart goes out to the Futch family. We are deeply concerned when anyone is the victim of a crime.

That is why we have taken very proactive and effective steps to ensure at all times and review on a continuous basis that our correctional facilities meet the needs of Manitobans, that first of all the guards working in those prisons have good conditions, safe conditions, because we know if that is the case then the people of Manitoba are also saf e and secure. So we want to reject the type of position of the member for St. Johns that we should simply be opening the doors of our prisons and letting them out.

That is a recomme ndation that they have urged we follow, and we have consistently said that is not an appropriate way to deal with prisoners in Manitoba. Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister get beyond these silly politics? Because the Futch family says sympathy is not enough. Would your government now show at least some, at least an ounce of sense of responsibility and caring and acknowledge its false statements, its mistakes? Would this government at least apologize, just apologize to the Futch family? Mr.

Toews: Madam Speaker, I have made our position very clear, that our sympathies, our hearts go out to the Futch family, that we are deeply concerned about this matter. The family has chosen to bring this matter before the courts in order that there be a full discu ssion of all the facts, and I, for one, welcome that develop ment. Not only have we had Mr. Justice Hughes thoroughly review the situation with our correctional institutions, but in fact, the Futch family feels that it is necessary to proceed into the courts to have a full airing. We agree.

All Manitobans should know exactly what occurred, and so I am very supportive of that kind of a process. I know they have commenced an action, and I know that all the facts will be del ivered in a dispassionate and an appropriate form. Budget Income Assistance Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, in this year's budget tabled by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stef anson), there were many smoke and mirrors, the biggest one of which was the alleged increase in the health budget of a hundred million dolla rs, which by the time the smoke cleared turned out to be a $1 -million

912 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 19, 1998 increase. Similarly, in the budget of the Minister of Family Services there was an alleged increase in benefits to children and families; however, at the same time this government cut social assistance by $2 1 million. I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services to confirm that in fact there was no new money in this budget for children and families. Hon.

Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I thank my honourable friend for that question, because I really would like to inform him that there certainly was not a $2 1-million cut in supports to families on welfare. Indeed, Madam Speaker, as a result of the economy in Manitoba, the jobs that have been created, many, many people are no longer on the welfare rolls but they are working. So I make no apologies for the taxpayers of Manitoba that no longer have to suppor t welfare payments to the tune of $2 1 million, because those people are now employed and earning money and paying taxes. *

(1400) Child Tax Benefit Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services why she is clawing back a hundred percent of the child tax benefit for families on social assistance in Manitoba when David Northcott, the executive director of Winnipeg Harvest, says people do not need more government programs, they need access to more money in their pockets. People cannot eat programs. Why is she not giving money to the poorest of the poor to enable them to buy groceries? Hon.

Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Again, I thank my honourable friend for the question, because it allows me to indicate on the record for all Manitobans to hear that indeed there is more money in this budget. As a result of more people working and less welfare needing to be paid, we are able to reinvest dollars into additional child care so that people who are now on the welfare rolls will be assured of a space when they become employed, because there are so many more job opportunities today than there were in years past.

Madam Speaker, I am really pleased, because we believe in Manitoba that the best form of social security is a job, and we are working aggressively to ensure that the tools are there and the resources are there so that people can move into the workforce, off welfare, become independent and self -sufficient and feel much, much better about themselves as a result. Mr.

Martindale: Would the Minister of Family Services tell us, and more importantly, tell the 25,000 cases on provincial assistance and over 14,000 City of Winnipeg cases why she and her government did nothing, in spite of very good advice from people like David Northcott, who criticized the government for doing nothing to improve the minimum wage and improve welfare benefits-what is she going to tell these people about her budget and the fact that there is nothing in there for them? Mrs.

Mitchelson: I have to repeat again that the best form of social security is a job, and we are working aggressively to try to ensure that the jobs, No. 1, are available and that people who are on welfare have the oppor tunity to be trained to fill those jobs. I make no apologies for that direction. I would like my honourable friend just to think a little bit about what provinces right across the country are doing as a result of the National Child Benefit. One of the key focuses of the National Child Benefit is to ensure that people are better off working than on welfare.

Madam Speaker, there is not any province across the country, including New Democratic provinces, that is increasing welfare rates, but indeed what they are doing is taking-as the federal government puts more money into children through the tax benefit, we are dolla r for dollar investing in children in other ways in the province of Manitoba, and I make no apologies for that. Education System Closing Exercises-God Save the Queen Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, by government decree back on November 7, 1988, this government stated in regulation: at the close of a school on each day on which the school is in regular operation for instruction or at the close of any opening

March 19, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 913 exercises that the school may conduct, the pupils shall sing the first verse of God Save the Queen. My question to the Premier: does he still believe today that that is necessary, that in each and every school day, at the end of the day, that God Save the Queen needs to be sung? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Sp eaker, the member, I believe, is not quoting the letter in its entirety. When I looked at it a couple of days ago-[ interjection] An Honourable Member: It is in regulation. Mr. Filmon: Yes.

When I looked at it a couple of days ago, the regulation calls for patriotic exercises to be held in all the schools in this province, and it includes of course opening exercises that involve the singing of 0 Canada! and God Save the Queen.

You know, we were just talking about national unity in the House -th ere is a resolution before the House today-and I have often said, you know, there are not a lot of things in the United States that I agree with-there are a lot of things I do, some that I do not-but one of the things that I think the Americans do well is that they instill a sense of patriotism and commitment to their country. They get up every morning in school, and the first thing they do is the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States.

They have ceremonies and symbols to try and ensure that people respect their country and grow up as patriotic citizens. That is why we have the flags on either side of you, Madam Speaker. That is why, I think, it is important that people should be taught patriotism in our schools, that they should have that sense of patriotism, and they should be proud of their country. The way in which you do that is by having them practise the symbols of good citizenship, which include singing 0 Canada! and God Save the Queen, and I am absolutely shocked that the member opposite would take this negative attitude towards that.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, in our schools we sing 0 Canada! in the morning, and that is not necessarily what I am questioning the Premier. We have principais, because of the Minister of Education, that are going out now and being told that they have to start revisiting this whole issue. What we are seeking is direction from the Premier. Is the Premier now saying that all of our public schools in Manitoba have to sing God Save the Queen at the end of the school day? That is the specific question. I do not question about singing 0 Canada! in the morning. Mr.

Filmon: Again, I question the confusion in the mind of the member for Inkster, because I believe this is the same person who has stood up in this House and advocated for our students to be taught more history. He has berated the Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh) for downplaying our history as a country. We are a constitutional monarchy. The head of government is the Queen, Madam Speaker. We have a Lieutenant Governor who represents the Queen as the titular head of government in our province.

In all those cases, it is part of the understanding of what makes us diff erent from the United States and from every other country in the world. For him to belittle that, for him to suggest that that ought to be wiped out of the record and that we should not promote unity and a sense of nationhood by not singing 0 Canada! or not singing God Save the Queen quite honestly is ridiculous, and he should be ashamed about that. Mr. Lamoureux: A touch of reality for the Premier, I think, is needed.

My question to the Premier is: how many public schools do you think today are actually singing God Save the Queen at the end of the school day? If you listen to the Premier, you would think every school in the province is doing that. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. * (1410 ) Mr. Filmon: Again, it is very frustrating to deal with someone who is so inconsistent that he wants to, on one hand, have more history and more sense of country being taught to our children; on the other hand, wipe out all the symbols of that history, including our existence as a constitutional monarchy.

Just last Monday, I believe it was, we celebrated Comm onwealth Day here in this Legislature. We brought in two of the high commissioners, one from the U.K., one from the Bahamas to help us to understand. We had in representatives of school divisions

914 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA March 19, 1998 throughout the province, as well as leaders from our academic community, so that people knew and understood that we are still very much a constitutional monarchy. We are not a republican state like the Americans or so many places in the world. Having our children learn 0 Canada! and be willing to stand up patriotically and sing it, to understand the symbolism of our flags, to sing God Save the Queen is part of all of that. That story was shopped around to the media by whoever it was.

One of the bits of advice I give gratuitously to the member for Inkster is he should not take his political advice and his political lead from CBC Radio. Brandon General Hospital Physician Resources-Pediatrics Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): A pregnant woman in a high-risk category because of an anticipated premature birth had to be airlifted yesterday from Brandon to the Health Sciences Centre because of the lack of on-call pedia tric services at the Brandon General Hospital.

Today I spoke to a woman from Brandon who is very worried because she is expecting her first child around April 22, and she has been told that she cannot be assured that pediatric services will be available at the Brandon General Hospital. She wants to know what will happen if she has unexpected problems in the delivery. There is a great deal of concern in the community in western Manitoba. I ask the Minister of Health: when is the minister going to bring pediatric services back to the Brandon General Hospital? Hon.

Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Spea ker, this is certainly a very important matter that the member raises today, and it is one that is of concern to all of us. The issue fundamentally is one of recruitment, of finding additional pediatricians to come to Brandon to practise. It cannot really be one of money because if the issue is overwork, as the physicians have indicated that they are just too busy, providing additional money to them is not going to solve that problem.

I am pleased to inform the House that we have authorized resources to be able to obtain contract pediatric services, I think in the neighbourhood of about $17 5, 000 a year. That would be not including expenses, so it is a significant amount of money. I understand that the Brandon Regional Health Authority has spoken, I believe, to some three pediatricians that they are attempting to recruit. Mr.

Leonard Evans: Madam Sp eaker, will the minister acknowledge that the minimum number of pediatricians required in Brandon is four, and can he assure us that he will make it a priority to reinstate ped iatric services at the Brandon General Hosp ital at this required level, a hospital that is serving our second largest city in this province as well as a large portion of western Manitoba? Mr.

Praznik: Madam Speaker, I understand from all the conversations and discussions that have gone on between the ministry staff and the Brandon Regional Health Authority that four is the number that is required and that we are prepared to ensure that the financial resources are available, whether on a contract or fee for service to do that. The fundamental issue is identifYing pediatricians who are prepared to come to work in Brandon, and that is the work that is ongoing now by the Brandon Regional Health Authority. Winter Roads Contingency Plans Mr.

Gerard Jennissen (Fiin Flon): Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Highways. With unseasonably warm weather continuing to plague winter roads in northern and remote Manitoba, essential foodstuffs, fuel and building materials are not reaching their destination. Have the federal and provincial governments put forward contingency plans for commu nities such as Tadoule Lake, Lac Brochet and Brochet? Hon.

Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, because of the unseasonably warm temperatures, clearly winter roads, particularly on the east side of Lake Winnipeg, were in jeopardy about three weeks ago. Officials of the provincial government, federal government and the communities that the member mentions have been working together to find ways and means of getting

March 19, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA 915 essential food, fuel, dry goods and nonessential items to those communities. A combination of airlift, which involved up to 16 planes, was moving fuel in. There were no emergencies. Colder weather in the last I 0 days allowed some of the winter road activity to resume, albeit at lower weights than might be desired, but there are many, many trucks involved in getting the goods in while the roads are still passable.

I have staff out there on a continuous basis to be sure the roads are safe, and we will keep them open as long as possible to deliver the goods on the winter roads. Following that, the emergency plan of using airplanes and occasionally our helicopters will supplem ent getting the supply to the communities. Mr. Jennissen: Madam Speaker, suppl ementary.

Given the unfortunate fact that winter roads from Gods Lake Narrows to Gods River, Split Lake to York Landing, York Landing to II ford, Pikwitonei and Thicket Portage are all closing at midnight and Shamattawa is closing tomorrow, I want to ask the minister whether the federal commitment to have essential goods shipped to these communities remains in place, since only a fraction of the normal bulk material has been shipped this year. Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, it is absolutely my understanding that the federal commitment that was previously negotiated is still in place.

Little Grand Rapids Airport Construction Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, it has been about three months now, in December, that the tragic accident occurred in Little Grand Rapids, something that the minister is quite familiar with, so my questions are for the Minister of Highways and Transportation. On December 11, he said that the only realistic option left would be to construct a new airport at the community of Little Grand Rapids. I would like to ask the minister: how much money has been committed in this fiscal year for such a project? Hon.

Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): The issue on hand is safety at airports, some 22 airports in northern Manitoba. In that context, I held a meeting in my office, I believe it was in January, where I had numerous community representatives who were concerned about safety, plus individuals from the aircraft industry that fly planes into those airports. Coming out of that meeting, a group was struck, a task force was struck to discuss how we could maximize safety at those airports.

The committee consisted offour department people or four government people, four people from the aircraft industry and four chiefs representing the communities. That committee has met twice and is looking forward to making the kinds of recommendations to improve safety at all the airports in the North. Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. * (14 20) MEMBERS' STATEMENTS International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Mr.

Peter Dyck (Pembina): I rise in the House as today we observe March 21, the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the 50th anniversary of the United Nations universal Declaration of Human Rights. The purpose of this day is to raise awareness about ra cism and discrimination. We all must dedi cate ourselves to overcoming our fears with truth and understanding on the various cultures that have contributed so much to the building of our great province. The elimination of racism is the responsibility of all individuals and communities.

We must work together to speak and act against racism. The numerous activities scheduled throughout March and April include antiracism displays, youth workshops, films, lectures, rallies, symposiums and conferences. These events are a positive step in our efforts to eliminate misconceptions. I would like to commend the efforts of Manitoba's schools, communities, multicultural organizations, and the Coalition for Human Equality who heighten public awareness through events such as these. Our province is well known for its diversity of cultures, diversity that strengthens us, binds us and sets us apart.

916 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 19, 1998 So I encourage all members and Manitobans to focus on education and understanding to eliminate cultural misunderstandings in our homes, our workplaces, and our communities. The goal of the elimination of racism requires our efforts all year round. Let us make all Manitobans aware that discrimination is not part of our vision for Manitoba. Thank you. Point of Order Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): We certainly support the comments made by the member opposite dealing with fighting racism, but you have made it very clear that it is out of order to talk about racism and racist policies in any previous, present and future governments. The member was mentioning-! was wondering whether you could take under advisement our former concerns on racist policies. We would like you to expunge that former ruling from your rulings and precedents in this Chamber. We think, again, the member's statement today is one which we support.

We have always believed that to fight racism you have to be able to articulate the issues of racist policies in previous, present and future governments. Madam Speaker, I would ask you to look at your ruling, look at your statement and come back and break that precedent that is unacceptable for members of this side. Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I join with the Leader of the Opposition in stating our suppor t for the comments made this afternoon by the honourable member for Pembina (Mr.

Dyck), and on the point of order I suggest that it is poorly advised for the honourable Leader of the Opposition to raise this matter in the way that he has, simply because of the very important mes sage contained in the comments made by the honourable member for Pembina. I would not want a point of order raised for perhaps whatever reason to detract from the importance of the message.

I have no problem, Your Honour, with your reviewing the point raised or ruling on it as you see fit, but I wonder sometimes, Madam Speaker, if our points of order are always raised at an appropriate time in the sense of detracting from an important message of the kind delivered this afternoon by the honourable member for Pembina. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Wolseley, on the same point of order. Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, on the same point of order.

I think that the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition in fact adds to, confirms, underlines, the importance of the mess age that was brought to us today by the member opposite. I think the remarks of the government House leader were somewhat out of order on that, and I think do not help the discussion. But my advice to you, Madam Speaker, is that this is the time, this is a very opportune moment, given the statement of that side of the House and the point that we have raised here, for you to reconsider that very serious decision that you made. Madam Speaker: Order, please.

On the point of order raised by the honourable Leader of the official opposition and spoken to by the honourable government House leader and the honourable member for Wolseley, I personally believe there is a misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the intent of that ruling, but I will take it under advisement and report back to the House. *** Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Madam Speaker, I would like to say a few words on the International Day for Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

One of the important things the House leaders were raising, I think it is very crucial that we do have the right and we do have the obligation to raise issues that are racist to individuals, and if we could raise them in the House or raise them in the public eye in order to correct or to educate individuals who are acting in those fashions, that is our resp onsibility. The reason I state that, I experienced first-hand last night, first-hand, and this was blatant racist action. I was at the Winkler hockey game. There was a busload of fans from Sandy Bay, and there were many, many

March 19, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 917 fans from The Pas. They were all aboriginal. They were lined up along the arena after the game was over. There were about five or six individuals who went right up to the known First Nations aboriginal people and started pushing and shoving and calling them dirty fing Indians for no reason at all. These individuals I know personally, and they do a lot of work in The Pas. They are part of the education authority. I was never so insulted. I was furious and insulted. I am not saying that those individuals were from Winkler or from where.

I do not know where they are from. They were at the Winkler arena, and those individuals should be totally, totally ashamed. Those individuals should be called to order, if known, and those individuals should be totally, totally educated. Those individuals were late '30s and early '40s. They were not children. They were adults. So what happens in those individuals' households? I fear to even think if they are raising families with those kinds of prejudiced and racist views. What happens in their households?

So we have the responsibility as legislators and educators to ensure that racism is taught about in all our schools, so that way it is taught into the families and it is taught into the public, so we do not have to see and experience those kinds of so-called negative, I think, very derogatory actions by uneducated individuals. It is our responsibility. I hope we, each and every one of the 57 members, will go out there and try and educate as many people, so we do not have to see and experience that kind of behaviour from anyone. ;. 0430) 1998 Cadet Honour Band-Prairie Region Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St.

Norbert): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to highlight the efforts and the achievements of two teens in my constituency. It is my honour to congratulate John Weber and Owen Nagy of St. Norbert for being selected as members of the 1998 Cadet Honour Ba nd of the Prairie Region. They were chosen out of 210 sea, army and air cadet units from across the Prairies to represent the region.

Madam Spea ker, John is a skilled saxophone player from the 191 West Winnipeg Rotary Royal Canadian Air Cadet Squadron and Owen is a member of the 177 Air Canada Royal Canadian Air Cadet Sq uadron, performing on the bagpipes. I would like to appl aud John and Owen and all their counterparts in the honour band for their dedication to citizenship and self development through the Canadian cadet organization. On behalf of all members of the House, I would like to wish the 1998 Cadet Honour Band and the Prairie Region luck as it tours the Prairies, holding concerts in Thunder Bay, Winnipeg, Regina and Edmonton.

It is truly a privilege for these young people to represent not only their respective squadrons but also their communities and provinces across western Canada. Thank you, Madam Sp eaker. Maples Collegiate Unity Day Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I rise to say a few words about the Unity Day that the Unity group at Maples Collegiate had yesterday, and I had the honour and privilege of attending their opening ceremonies. This is the third year that this group was formed in Maples Col legiate to combat racism and look at treating everyone as one human race.

Once again, this event was a day-long event at Maples Col legiate, looking at racism and treating everybody as one race. This group, as some members may remember, has sponsored the March for Unity to the steps of the Legislature two years in a row, and I believe they will be doing it for the third year. So I just wanted to commend some of the organizers of this event: Allison Alvarez, Cindy Bl icq, Bryon Chochinov, Fil Costa, Ivan Gibson, Sheila Giron, Don Hoy, Vema Isfeld, David Joseph, Rishma Juma, Mary Lebedynski, Anne Luong, Maridel Margelino, Crystal Perey, Diana Da Silva, Jennifer Sloan, and Lily Tang.

This group gives us hope that in the future racism and hatred for people because of what group they belong to will be eliminated. Thank you. Headingley Correctional Facility Riot-Early Releases Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): I was scheduled to get up on quite a different matter today on members' statements, but after listening to the last response of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) to my questions, I have

918 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA March 19, 1998 to express my dismay, my shock that he would have the gall to say that he looks forward to seeing the Futch family proceed with a civil action against this government. He is saying he looks forward to the survivors and the victims of the murdered Walter Futch being victimized a third time, now at the hands of the civil law system in this province. He said he is looking forward to seeing the Futch family have to pursue this- Madam Speaker: Order, please. Point of Order Hon.

James McCrae (Government House Leader): On a point of order, the honourable member for St. Johns is clearly out of line. I am the first to admit that I did not hear every word uttered in that exchange earlier on, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) is not able to rise on his own point of order at this time, but what the honourable member for St. Johns is saying is simply out of line and a very, very incorrect characterization of the answers given earlier by the Minister of Justice. He can finish his member's statement, Madam Spea ker, of course, but let him not do it and have people believe him.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for St. Johns, on the same point of order. Mr. Mackintosh: What we see here is political spin out of control. Would you please advise the member that just got up, the government House leader, who has commented on my comments, he has no right to do that. It is a member's statement, Madam Speaker. I can say what I want. If he has some concern about what I say, he can get up on a member's statement. Madam Speaker: Order, please.

On the point of order raised by the honourable government House leader, my understanding is, we have not well-defined rules on member s' statements relative to the content of a member's statement. However, the member must be within the context of parliamentary language. So, therefore, I must say that the honourable government House leader did not have a point of order. * * * Mr. Mackintosh: So, Madam Speaker, to continue my remarks, until I was so rudely interrupted, I want to reflect for a moment on the role that this government has played in this tragedy. Mr.

Futch was murdered in no small way, because this government had a responsibility for maintaining public safety. Second of all, the Futch family had to face the criminal justice system and its current disregard for victims. Now because this government would not so much as make an offer to assure Manitoba's victims of crime but most importantly, the Futch family-that there is some justice in this province, they now have to go on to the civil law system. This government forced them to do that, because it would not so much as even apologize for the mistakes that it made. For the Minister of Justice (Mr.

Toews) to now get up in this House and construe their civil action that this government caused is a scandal, Madam Speaker. It is another tragedy. ORDERS OF THE DAY House Business Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, just for clarity, I think that we need to have it on the record that the House is agreed that it will not sit on Easter Monday, and I understand there is unanimous agreement about that.

Madam Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for this House not to sit on Easter Monday? [agreed] DEBATE ON GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION Manitoba Legislative Task Force on Canadian Unity Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on the proposed resolution of the honourable First Minister (Mr. Filmon), standing in the name of the honourable member for St. Vital, who has 12 minutes remaining.

March 19, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 919 Mrs. Shirley Render (St. Vital): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for allowing me to make some concluding remarks. The time just flew by yesterday, and there were a couple of comments that I did want to make. I had talked about some of the themes that had emerged, some of the suggestions that had emerged that were common throughout the hearings, and the last point I would like to talk about, really would like to say in conclusion is that this legislative report is a report on what the task force members heard from Manitobans.

One of the things that many, many people did talk about was that there needed to be better recognition of the aboriginal and treaty rights of aboriginal peoples, and we as a task force agreed to that. In fact, I think the Manitoba Legislature may be one of the only legislatures that actually put in a separate resolution affirming that recognition. So I will conclude by saying that again it was a plea sure to be a part of a task force that was able to come to a consensus.

It was a pleasure to be a part of a task force that worked to see unity across the country, a task force that sends the message out to Quebec that, yes, we want you to be a part of Canada and that also sends some other messages that there are other needs that need to be recognized. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased today to be able to stand in this House and talk about so important an issue as the resolution that has been brought forward to the House by the government. To begin with, let me say thank you to the government for allowing this to occur.

I think it is an important issue that my constituents in Dauphin will appreciate me putting some words on the record on their behalf. Madam Speaker, the first thing I want to say is that I view this resolution as a hand out to our neighbours, a hand out to the aboriginal people in this country, a hand out to the people of Quebec. It is an extension of our friendship, an extension of our goodwill, something which in other constitutional discussions I am afraid has been missing. I think sometimes we get too wrapped up in the legalese.

We get too wrapped up in the partisan politics of nation building, and sometimes we forget the simple things which I hope will be conveyed to all Canadians through this resolution that not only we here in this Legislature but legislators across the country are dealing with and will be dealing with over the next little while. Madam Spe aker, I think it is smart to proceed with this resolution because it is not a constitutional amendment.

I think there is an important difference between the resolution that we are dealing with today and what we have been dealing with in the past in terms of constitutional amendments. So I congratulate all the people who have been involved in bringing this resolution forth for debate in this House. Those people include members from this Legisla ture who travelled the province with Mr. Fox Decent as their chair and Mr. Fox-Decent's staff along with them. I want to pay particular attention to the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) and the member for The Pas (Mr.

Lathlin), who I think so ably represented this side of the House in those hearings travelling across Manitoba. As well, I want to thank the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render) and the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) for giving of their time and putting forth the effort to make this resolution Manitoban. I want to thank the members of the task force for coming to Dauphin and allowing some of my constituents the opportunity to speak with the task force and tell members of the Legislature just what they think Canada is all about.

Madam Speaker, all too often in this country we dwell on the differences between us, the differences amongst us. I think it is time we started to think of what we have in common as Canadians. I think this resolution in its hand out, handshake approach gives all Canadians the opportunity to talk about what we have in common, all those good things that we have been doing for the past 130 years and not just post Confederation but pre-Confederation. This country did not magically appear in 1867. A lot of hard work and sweat, a lot of negotiating went into building this country well before 1867.

920 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 19, 1998 *

(1440) Madam Speaker, I am a firm believer that we are products of our environment, that the events and the people that we meet shape us, shape our thinking, shape our very being. In calling myself a Canadian, I believe that I reflect the Canadian experience, those things that happen in a country that shape me as someone who believes he is the citizen of the best country in the world. Events such as world wars, where Canadians played a prominent role in struggling against tyranny, against totalitarianism, against fascism, those were times when Canadians came together in a common, united cause.

And, yes, Madam Speaker, we succeeded. Canadians can be proud of many achievements. One of the ones that sticks in my mind was back in 1972 when I was in junior high school, when a group of Canadian hockey pla yers took on the Russian best in hockey, the 1972 series. One of the reasons that this sticks in my mind is the importance of this event to our Canadian psyche, to the Canadian experience. When I was growing up, there were not very many events that would persuade my father to move the television set into the kitchen so that we could watch TV while we ate. This, however, was one of them.

The 1972 Canada-Russia series, not only important for us hockey fans, but it was an expression of Canadianism. We had a feeling in this country that we were really good at something. We were good at hockey. And we had a challenge. Madam Speaker, as a nation we met that challenge. The cynics of the world may look at that as not such an important event in the history of a na tion. The cynics of the world would say that it was just a hockey game. I do not think so.

I think it was one of those watershed events that occurred where we, as Canadians again-and we are pretty good at this, we Canadians are-looked at ourselves and used it as an opportunity to evaluate our nation. I want to say that one of the true marks of a mature nation is its ability to look inward and evaluate its performance, to take a good, honest look at the way we behave. Do we behave in a Canadian way? Do we stand out as being different from other countries in the world?

Achievements such as Marc Garneau, Canadian astronaut, something that Canadians can proudly point to and say we have done this; contributions to UN peacekeeping, something we are famous for throughout the world, a model upon which other countries, other organizations have based their own thinking in terms of world peace; a Canadian Prime Minister, before he was Prime Minister, Lester B. Pearson, spearheaded a move that made Canadians proud.

We in this country, from in the past and, I would hope, into the future, can take pride in those kinds of achievements, point toward those achievements, take the confidence that we have gained through those achievements and do greater things as one nation united. Madam Speaker, our country has also been shaped by the laws which we pass in our legislatures and in the House of Commons. Laws are very important to the foundation of any nation. Bu t it is more than just the laws that are important. Laws do not keep a country together.

I have some friends who are lawyers, but I do not think lawyers are going to be the key to keeping Canada in one piece. We have got the BNA Act; we have the Statute of Westminster in 1931. We have got the 1982 repatriation of the Constitution from England. These are all important events along our road to growth, along our road to maturity as a nation. You can take all those laws and toss them out the window if they do not have the suppor t of the Canadian people themselves, however, and that is what is important.

Something else that we can take pride in are the programs, the social programs that we have fought for in this country; a health care system that is national, accessible, affordable. Those are the kind of things that keep a country great. Those are the kind of things that keep a country together. That is what we have in common with aboriginal people. That is what we have in common with the Cree in Quebec. That is what we have in common with the Quebecois. We have national television and radio. We have a national transportation system. We have national education.

It is something that we should be proud of, that we can move from one part of this country to the next and have the expectation that our rights in one part

March 19, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 92 1 of the country will be honoured just as good as they were in the part of Canada that we have come from. We can be mobile. We can move around the country and still have those rights. It does not matter today how thick your wallet is, it does not matter what the credit limit on your charge card is, we should be proud that in this country you can move across the nation and have that kind of security. That is something worth fighting for, Madam Sp eaker.

It has been mentioned here in several eloquent speeches on Canadian unity that a strong national government is essential for this country to prosper and essential if we are going to move into the 20th Century and claim it as Sir Wilfrid Laurier said we would claim the 20th Century. The 21s t Century could indeed belong to Canada, but we have a lot of work to do, and I see this resolution as a step in the right direction. Canada is more than just a number of deals.

Whether you are talking about the Fulton-Favreau or the Vi ctoria agreement in 1971, which came fairly close to being agreed upon in the early '70s, it is more than just the deals. It is more than just rolling the dice several years ago. It is doing what this task force did and going out and talking to people and then reflecting those views through our legis latures. Canadians have a common tradition. We have lived on the same north half of the continent of North America for centuries now. We have been here, we have shared, we have compromised.

Compromise includes, with the people of Quebec, their civil law as opposed to our common law. That is something that was important to the people of Quebec when they entered Confederation, and I would suggest that it remains strong today in Quebec as a right that the Quebecois enjoy and should enjoy. * (14 50) There has been linguistic compromise. There has been religious compromise. We are known in Canada for compromise, and that is what makes our country strong, not any kind of a fascist top-down kind of an approach, but something that people believe in, something that Canadians take ownership of.

That is what I believe this resolution should be striving for. This resolution, I would hope, allows Canadians a chance to have their say in what their country should look like. Madam Speaker, I think it is very important that we, as Canadians, decide what our country should look like, what our country should stand for. I think my preference, my belief, is that what we have strived for is a society based on co-operation. I use the word "co operation" as a noun, not so much as an adjective. Co operation I heard once described as three guys getting together and figuring out how to knock off a bank.

That is not the co-operation I mean. Co-oper ation is a concept. Co-operation means that people are members, are citizens of the country, and those people have a meaningful say in the operation of their country, not just the day-to-day operation of a country, but the long term vision of where the country is heading. One of the biggest parts of the vision of our country must deal with the aboriginal peoples and their recognition as a part of this country. They are part of Canada. It has always been my contention that the Canadian nation never would have got off the ground in the first place, well before John A.

Macdonald, without the assistance, without the advice, and without the good will of the aboriginal people. I heard former police chief, Dale Henry, one time say that the aboriginal people in this country had their own form of government and they passed great laws. Dale Henry once said, though, the only area they were weak in was in their immigration policy.

I think we as Canadians have to take a good, hard look at our history, take a good, hard look at the way aboriginal people have been treated in this country, and I think we as Canadians must, and the sooner the better, we must take seriously the commitments that we made as a nation to the aboriginal peoples of this country. It is my belief that treaties that we signed, that we agreed to-I do not care how many decades or centuries ago- I think we as a nation dealt with aboriginal nations, I think the accords and the treaties that we signed with them need to be honoured.

I think that we have done some things in the past that we need to address here today in the present. Maybe this resolution that we are debating here today in the Legislature is a good vehicle to, once and for all, bring in as part of the process aboriginal nations, aboriginal nations who have, in the

922 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA March 19, 1998 past, given their word to us as a nation, and aboriginal nations who, in the past, have come through with their word.

Madam Sp eaker, some of the flaws that are associated, mostly, I would suggest, with the Meech Lake Accord process, I think the biggest flaw was that it was perceived as being a group of people behind a closed door deciding on what they were going to do with the country, carving it up here and there, connecting with the law here and there, fiddling with a word here and there, and they forgot about those of us who were citizens in Canada, especially forgetting the aboriginal people who, if I remember correctly at the time, did want to be part of that process. So maybe this is our chance now.

This is our chance to right the wrongs that we committed with Meech Lake, again, right the wrongs of what we did with Charlottetown, because although there was an improvement, and I had to admit several years ago when the Charlottetown Accord was being voted upon, I had to admit then that it was a better process than the Meech Lake one, but even at that, my No. I concern was the way in which we again left out the aboriginal community in Canada. Maybe this resolution is the vehicle upon which we can right that wrong. A treaty land entitlement, I would suggest is something that is very important.

It truly is sacred. It is our word as a nation with an aboriginal nation. We do not want to make a practice of breaking our word with another nation. We do not want to make an accord with Britain and break our word. We do not want to make an accord with the United States of America and break our word. We do not want to be breaking accords with any nation in the world. Why then, for heaven's sake, would we break our word with the aboriginal people of Canada?

Why would we now not take the oppo rtunity to address the wrongs that we have comm itted in the past and include native people within the discussion that takes place, I hope as a result of this resolution, gaining the support of every Legisla ture in the country. This, I would suggest, Madam Sp eaker, is our opportunity, and this is the biggest oppo rtunity I see in this resolution. I do not want to take up a whole lot of time because I know there are other people who are waiting to speak, but there is one particular

section of this Calgary Framework that I do want to spend a couple of minutes talking about. It occurs in the third section, No. 3: Canada is graced by diversity, tolerance, compassion and an equality of opportunity that is without rival in the world. There is one word in there that I want to flag for people and that is the word "tolerance." On the surface I admit the word "tolerance" does have a ring to it, but, Madam Speaker, I want to suggest that we should look deeper into this word.

"Tolerate" is putting up with something. 'Tol erate" is suggesting that if I tolerate you, then I figure I am better and you are not quite as good as me, but I will put up with you; I will tolerate you. That is un-Canadian as far as I am concerned. We are a country that has been open to people for centuries. We do not tolerate other groups coming into Canada. I would hope that we try to learn to understand other groups coming to Canada.

When my forefathers came to Canada some six generations ago, I would hope that they were not tolerated; I would hope that they were accepted, that they were understood, that they were made to feel part of the community that existed here before they came to settle in southern Ontario in the early 1800s. I do not want to think of my relatives as being tolerated by somebody else, and I do not look upon people in the country, my fellow citizens, as somebody that I should tolerate. I understand, and if I do not understand, I try to understand, and I accept.

I do not know if that is a big, earth-shattering point to be made with this framework. I support the resolution. I supp ort it because it simply suggests that we here in Manitoba extend our hands in friendship to other Canadians, particularly aboriginal Canadians and people living in the province of Quebec. So with those few words, Madam Spe aker, I again want to thank the people who were involved in organizing the all-party task force that travelled across the province. I want to thank the people in Dauphin who attended and expressed their views to the MLAs and to the staff and to Mr. Fox-Decent.

I want to thank all Manitobans for, again, becoming involved in a debate that seems to go on and on in this country, and I think maybe in the final analysis the conclusion that we can draw is that part of being Canadian is talking

March 19, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 923 about being a Canadian, but I am optimistic and I am positive that as long as we keep talking, keep communicating, keep expressing our views, our opinions, that for another 130 years this country will stay together, it will be strong, and I hope that the comments that we make here today have played at least a small role in fostering a commitment to our nation and fostering a hope that the country will stay together and that we will move forward into the 21s t Century. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. * (1 500) Hon.

Harry Enos (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in my place to speak in support of this resolution. One of the great diversities of our country that-and I am envious in some respects of the speaker who just spoke, the member for Dauphin (Mr.

Struthers), when he can rise in his place as a member, a six-generation member, of this great country, and I rise in my place as a first-generation member of this country, and still I think at the conclusion of our remarks conclude that we share much the same visions and dreams and hopes for this great land of ours that he so eloquently put on the record, Madam Speaker. I wish to indicate, of course, my support to the resolution before us. I wish to express a number of thanks.

I wish to thank in the first instance the First Ministers of this land, who, on their initiative, recognized that this is not an issue that one could hope would go away by simply doing nothing and did gather in Calgary, did work towards hammering out a blueprint for future action which came to be known as the Calgary accord, which is the substance matter of the resolution currently before us here in the Manitoba Legislature.

I want to thank the members of our all-pa rty committee that then took the resolution to Manitobans in different parts of the province in a series of public hearings and were able to, in a manner that is really quite surprising considering the amount of controversy, the amount of division that this issue has on occasion surrounded itself with, not just in the country at large but also right here in Manitoba, were able to recommend under the chairmanship of Mr. Wally Fox Decent and, subsequently, again place it before the Legislative Assembly here for our consideration.

I want to thank honourable members that have already spoken in this debate. I think it is kind of comforting and reassuring to note that from time to time we can, when faced with an issue that is so overriding in its universal appeal to serious consideration and reasonableness in approaching the issue, with what I am rapidly beginning to believe will be a very, very unanimous support of the resolution that we are dealing with.

Finally, Madam Speaker, of course I would like to thank the good people of the constituency of Lakeside that have given me the privilege to stand in my place here in this Chamber and put these few thoughts on record. One never fully appreciates when history is being made. I suppose history is always being made. It is constantly evolving. But certainly, there are times there are certain specific actions in the political history of a country, of a nation, that stand out from the rest of the time.

One senses that we have been engaged in that kind of period for the last little while in the debate and in the discussions and failures of previous attempts to resolve the issue of our nation in maintaining its self integrity to the present moment as we debate this resolution before us, as we will be passing that on to the central government, hopefully for further action, for the resolution. I listen to just one or two of the representations made, although I did not quite hear it exactly expressed by the member who just spoke, but certainly the member that I listened to this morning, the member from Inkster (Mr.

Lamoureux), and perhaps others, made it very clear that while he was pleased to stand in suppor t and speak in support of this resolution involving the Calgary declaration or Calgary accord, he made a point of indicating his ongoing or continued opposition to previous attempts, i.e. Meech Lake or the Charlottetown Accord. My caution to all of us is, be wary. A Meech Lake or Charlottetown Accord is coming as a result of this resolution. Let us be very clear about that. This does

924 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA March 19, 1998 not replace the need for a Meech Lake or a Charlottetown Accord. Coming to an understanding, division of powers, a role for central government, a role for the provinces has yet to be hammered out that will be acceptable to all parts of Canada.

What we have merely done is set down some very solid and acceptable broad principles of what constitutes being a Canadian that has found acceptance in Calgary, in the first instances, by our First Ministers and I suspect, just as it will happen in the Manitoba Legislature, across Legislatures around this land, acceptance, but it begs the question of the Meech Lake that is yet to come. I suspect that current events in politics in the province of Quebec will have a great deal to do about that. That allows me to put on the record a concern that I express.

Although I was pleased to have been and continue to be an original suppor ter of my current national leader, the Honourable Jean Charest, I have difficulty and many Manitobans have difficulty with a very fundamental position that he takes on the national unity question, which he expresses when he opposes his opposition to Canada, putting this question to the Supreme Court. In other words, he is saying that the rest of Canada does not really have a role to play in whether or not Quebec stays in Canada or not.

With the greatest of respect to a leader that I was pleased to supp ort and continue to suppor t, I say to Mr. Charest, you are wrong in putting that position forward. It may play well in Quebec, and if one reads the editorial pages and reads the phenomena that is following that particular individual, that may be part of the politics of Quebec. But as a Canadian, as a Canadian that understands what regrettably too many of us have not always- when I say "us," I mean generically.

Those of us who sometimes-and we have all heard it in our coffee shops in our constituencies: well, if Quebec wants to go, let them go. * (15 10) Madam Speaker, let us be very clear that we are talking about Canada and not simply Quebec's continuing participation in it. I hold the view, and hold it very strongly, there is no Canada without Quebec. For us to fool ourselves and even to fool the Quebecers, our brothers and sisters in Quebec, that there will be a Canada for them to deal with once they separate is wrong. Just a little bit of history of our country-the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr.

Struthers) referred to it, and I agree with him that we have a history that predates 1867. There were thriving communities in the Atlantic provinces with very natural north-south trade relations. Bos ton was their port of call, not only culturally but economically, for a better part of a hundred years and more prior to Confederation. Why would we, who sometimes vent our frustrations at being governed by big central Canada, Ontario, why would we for a moment let 99 M.P.s from Toronto run us here in the West?

We would not stand for that for more than three years, and whether or not there would be a prairie bloc is debatable or whether we would have a western Pacific Canadian nation forming. All of those things are debatable, but what, in my humble opinion, is not debatable is there would be very little glue available to keep the rest of the country together.

So to seriously get into discussions about how we would interreact with a sovereign nation that up until now comprised 25, 26 percent of this nation, that cleaves in two the Maritimes to central Canada in such a divisive way and that demographically, where the one city of Toronto virtually represents the populations of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Al berta combined, and look for that to be some magic way of maintaining a country is just not in the cards. So, Madam Speaker, I wish the Honourable Jean Charest well in his future. I think he has a great role to play.

But the role that I just challenge all of us to understand is that those of us who honestly believe that a Jean Charest, successful or not, or a chastened Lucien Bou chard coming back a year from now or two years from now or a year and a half from now, the shopping list, the requests, the challenges will not be that much different than what some people have derisively, in my opinion, referred to as a roll of dice by our former Prime Minister, the Meech Lake Accord, or if you want to be more charitable, the other great effort, known as the Charlottetown Accord. We will come to that.

We will come to that passing of the way once again. We will come to that passing once again. [interjection] Well, I will not get into a debate with the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), and I agree with him. It will not be done-I also agree with my colleague the Minister of

March 19, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 925 Energy and Mines (Mr. Newman). It is futile and nonsense to be talking about throw ing too many of these things up into the area of public ref erenda. Where they will be decided is in legislatures like this, truly representative of the people whom we are elected to serve and, ergo, that is why it most likely will come back in the form of a Meech Lake. The accommodation is that I hope a more dedicated Canadian, whether it is Mr.

Charest or someone like that, speaking on behalf of Quebec will bring to the negotiating table when talking about the future of this great country of ours. So I want to put those few words on the record, because I was particularly moved this morning by my coll eague's comments about if we do not make the effort and what better time do we spend in this Chamber but to discuss this issue. How do we answer to our children, rather an eloquent plea that my collea gue the Minister of Energy and Mines made. How do we answer that question to our children some years hence if we fail?

Why did we allow this to happen to what others have already described as this big and beautiful land of ours? Canada, you know, it is such a tremendous experiment, so young, so young geographically and spiritually, you might say, but old politically. We are older than France, we are older than Germany, we are older than most European countries with the exception of Swit zerland and the U.K. Politically we are older than the Soviet Union and all of the eastern European countries, all of whom are on their second, third, fourth republics. We have managed to work under one Constitution for 131 years.

You know, West Germany, Germany's constitution dates back, that modem country, colossus of Europe, dates back to 1948. France is on its fourth republ ic, dates back to post-de Gaulle. Politically, we have a great deal of maturity to offer the world. Politically, we have a great deal to offer the world in that sense, and we have accomplished this over these short 131 years. It would be a tragedy if for lack of will, if for lack of setting aside time and dedicating ourselves to the maintenance of this country we should lose it.

Yes, I was shocked and rather surprised at this afternoon's Question Period when the issue that was brought into the Chamber just at the time we were debating this issue about our country. I applaud my Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh) for gently reminding our school system about some of the history of this country. I find it is shocking that we know so little about our country, and we teach so little about our country in our school system. That is a tragedy. That leads to all kinds of very serious and difficult problems.

My people came to this country knowing the kind of country they came into, mainly an English-speaking country and the French with specific rights. I have little patience for people of my ethnic background or people of the Ukrainian ethnic background or other ethnic background, well, if we are going to tolerate French, why not German, why not Ukrainian, why not Italian? That is failure in understanding the make-up of our country. Somewhere our education system has failed in bringing about these very basic facts about our country, and part of that has to do, as our First Minister (Mr.

Filmon) indicated, with just dedicating a bit of time to some of the symbolism of what constitutes a country. We can see it in ourselves. We can see the relatively small amount of symbolism that we have in this Chamber that conducts our affairs, the normal kinds of courtesies that we extend to each other when we address each other. We can see how quickly it begins to break down if we break those little rules, and they are there for a reason. Symbols that we hold dear in our nation are there for a reason, unless we conscientiously want to change them.

If we want to do what our sister Comm onwealth country Australia is up to right now, and they are, in fact, debating in their Legislatures and their houses of Parliament whether or not they wish to change from a constitutional monarchy to a republicanism, that is a fair game, that is a fair debate. I suspect we would have a good debate in this Chamber on that issue. As an unrepentant czarist you would have trouble with me, mind you, but nonetheless I would welcome that kind of debate. * (1 520) But that is not the issue. The issue is the current status as it is. The Queen is our Queen.

She is a Canadian Queen under our Constitution, and here we

926 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 19, 1998 are dealing with constitutional issues and we are prepared not to consider the Constitution as it currently stands. So, Madam Speaker, with those few comments, allow me to express once again my support for this resolution, my appreciation and gratitude to all those who have worked for its present form and my hope for the future that in a small way-I should not say in a small way. We are part of 10 jurisdictions that make up this great nation of ours, 12 if you count our territories, as we should, because our evolution and our Constitution is an evolving one.

Yes, it started in 1867 formally. Manitoba was privileged to be one of the first to be expanded from that original grouping of federated provinces. Moving on to the west, Saskatchewan, 1905, and Albe rta. Moving on to 1948 or something like that, Newfoundland-or '49. It is evolving right now in the territories into different forms of government, the Yukon and the Territories. So the Constitution ought not to be a static thing, carved in stone.

It will change from time to time, but I am proud that we are taking this bit of time in the Manitoba Legislature to address the issue, and I feel that at the end of the day when we rise to vote on this issue, we shall all feel a little better for it and for having expressed ourselves as Canadians about the future of our country. Thank you. Ms.

Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity this afternoon to put a few words on the record on behalf of my constituents, who, I know, particularly during the Charlottetown and Meech Lake rounds of constitutional discussion, were very, very concerned about the future of Canada and the future of Quebec in that country.

The Calgary declaration I think has elicited much less public outburst, although I recognize that the committee that was formed by the Manitoba Legislature has certainly done a great deal to inform people about the Calgary declaration and to enable them to have the opportunity to speak on it.

The Calgary declaration in itself is part of a much larger effort to try to, I think the term is used "reach out to Quebec," to meet the concerns of a large number of our fellow citizens who have begun over recent decades, and I think it has been that long, since the 1970s, have begun to feel a much more distant part of this country than they did in earlier generations. The Calgary declaration I think seeks to find some common ground. It seeks to find some common principles upon which we all agree. I attended one of the hearings in St.

Boniface, and I know that there are areas that the Calgary declaration does not meet. There are areas where many Manitobans do not agree with it. There are areas where there will be debate, I think, on specific issues within this House, and I think we have heard some of it today. It is, as all attempts to find common ground are, a kind of compromise and one that we believe is in the best interests, not only of Manitobans, but of all Canadians.

As we look across the country, we see that other provinces are dealing with it in much the same way that Manitoba is, in a very serious and dignified way, a way which enables all citizens in many walks of life to contribute to the continuing debate about the future of Canada. But no statement of principles, no sense of common ground in itself is going to I think achieve the magic results that people, particularly in western Canada, would hope for.

The Calgary declaration on its own is simply that, a decla ration, an assumption of a series of common principles, but what will matter and what will make a difference is constant attention and daily and weekly attention on the part of both governments and other community institutions to the small things of a federation, to the youth exchanges, to the language programs that are run in col leges and universities during the summer across the country.

I know from many of my students who have attended the federal-provincial programs in Quebec that they come back with a renewed sense, for many of them a new sense of what it means to be Canadian. Those programs in Trois Rivieres or Laval in Quebec City are programs that are operated or at least paid for by the federal government and to some extent operated by the provinces. They have taken, since the 1970s, young people from right across the country.

They have introduced them to each other and they have introduced them in many cases to a sense of Quebec that they could never have found in their institutions at home, in their public schools or in their communities, and it is an eye opener for many of them.

March 19, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 927 I do not think any student who goes to Quebec and lives in one ofthose colleges in Quebec City or in Trois Rivieres or Rimouski ever comes back the same kind of a Canadian. They are better Canadians for it and they recognize it, and they become ambassadors.

I argue that it is in those small things, those exchanges, those attempts to support bilingual teaching in Quebec and in Manitoba and in other provinces, to ensure that we have suppor ts for minority languages across the country, that it is in the attention to those daily details of a federation and of a federation which accommodates all kinds of languages and peoples that we really make a federation work.

So a Calgary declaration in itself, a common ground of principles is only one part of the effort that we have to make on a daily basis to keep this federation together. l would like to commend the work of the committee and of their staff. I served on the Charlottetown committee which went around the province, and I know the work that is involved in sitting day after day to listen to people, to attempt to focus and to enter and engage into the discussion that they want to have with the commission.

It is also a tremendous amount of work for the staff, for the provision of translation and for the details of taking your group around the province, being there on time, et cetera. It is a lot of work, and the committee deserves commendation and our thanks. I would also particularly like to note that the committee this year, this time, took the time and trouble to go to schools and to put ques tionnaires into schools across the province. I look forward as an historian, in future years, to go into the archives and read those comments of students.

I think there will be an interesting slice of a generation there and their attitudes toward Quebec and toward the kind of country that they want to see. So I commend the commission for that, and I look forward to reading them in the archives sometime. Now the origins of the Calgary declaration come to us from the Business Council on National Issues, and that in a way is very much a sign of the times.

In earlier decades, in earlier centuries perhaps, these kinds of important declarations, these kinds of declarations of common principles would more likely have come from a political party or, indeed, from a social movement, particularly in the Prairies. The social movements of the '20s and '30s would have been really the birthing ground of these kinds of principles.

It is a sign of the times, I think, of the power the business community has taken within political affairs and, of course, particularly the Bus iness Council on National Issues which has directed much of its attention to determining a particular constitutional path for Canada. Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair Nevertheless, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Calgary principles have struck a chord, particularly in western Canada. I know that there are some who are surprised at this. They often tend to equate the separatism of Quebec with the separatism of the West.

It is a very serious misunderstanding of the West, in central Canada and in eastern Canada. There have been certainly, at times, movements towards a kind of separation, I will not deny that. We know that there are meetings of groups that are called Cascadia. We know that British Columbia at times has looked to the United States, but these, I think, are very much fringe movements. They do not represent the heart of the prairie provinces or, indeed, of British Columbia. In fact, I often go back to Professor W.L.

Morton's argument that what the West wanted in all of its social protest movements-in Social Credit, in the Progressive Party, in the CCF-that what it wanted to do was reshape the nation in the image of western Canada. I think that still remains one of the best

interpretations of the approach of prairie Canadians to the federation. *( 1530 ) Mr. Deputy Sp eaker, the previous speaker spoke of our history. I know that my colleague, the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) also spoke of the history of western Canada and the history of Canada itself. We should never forget that, although the Minister of Agricu lture (Mr. Enns) wanted to speak of the north south aspects of Canada and the role of 1867 in creating an east-west nation across this continent.

It is important to remember the thousands of years of history before the arrival of Europeans and to notice the importance of both eastern and north-south routes, east west routes and north-west-south routes-sorry, I am getting confused here. Both east-west and north-south

928 LEGISLATIVE A�SEMBL Y OF MANITOBA March 19, 1998 ��----------�� routes in-I thank my col league from The Pas here-the pattern of aboriginal history. The trading routes went east west They also went north south, down from Hudson's Bay through The Forks to the Mississippi and the Missouri. There were central trading fairs that \Vere neld in the 16th Century and the 17th Centu> y and across western Canada.

Those fairs, those great entrepots such as -were held ;n the Missouri area or held at the Eagle Hills in the Saskatchewan and Al berta country, were the great centres of aboriginal trade, taking goods across this country band by band, traded from east to west and traded up into the Mackenzie into the Yukon districts. So those linkages in an aboriginal Canada were r!,er.?, not just east west but also north south.

It was essentially a continent of traders, a continent of politicians, diplomats, and warriors, and that is , I think, the s:: tting for the fur trade, for a multinational corporation eventually but which did Jay the foundations ofthe eastern and western edges of Canada which bound together people from the heartland of Quebec and the St. Lawrence, which bound them with the people who came into Hudson's Bay and who created families and communities and fur trade societies along the Great Lakes and into British Columbia and north to the Skeena and the Nass rivers.

Those fur trade communities, mixed race, French and English and Cree and Ojibway and Dakota-speaking, aL of the languages of aboriginal North America, that really is the foundat1on that we should 1uok to for our

interpretation of t!:e kind of Canada tl1at we want. In the 1870s and afterwards, Manitoba became integrated into a transcontinental economy but also into party politics. Manitobans and western Canadians became involved working side by side in the great national parties, the Liberal Party and the Conservati\ c Party of their day. They worked with French-speaking Canadians, not just from Quebec but from New Brunswick and from Manitoba. They worked together to create a nation, a new North American nation of two languages across this country, and their battles continued.

No one of that time would ever argue that western Canada's needs or wishes were met. Until the 1930s, western Canadians saw themselves very much as a colony, and I noticed echoes ofthat in the Minister of Agriculture's (Mr. Enns) speech, still that same kind of political legacy. In the 1930s, of course, the del:: ates were over natural resources and the role of provinces. In the 1970s and 1980s, those debates continued perhaps at a much higher pitch. Alberta fought for provincial rights, it fought for energy, it fought for control of its energy against the federal Liberal government.

Saskatchewan fought over potash. Saskatchewan fought over the right to tax windfall profits, and they lost. Some battles they won, but some were lost. In Manitoba we fought over, and I say fought advisedly. 1 was not in the Legislature at the time, but I do remember the very virulent and poisonous atmosphere that was there in Manitoba over the French language debate. I think the Legislature perhaps was a very difficult place, and a very difficult time to have been in the Legislature. The speeches that were made at that time I hope some mc: nbers regret.

I hope that the kind of hostility which was shown in parts of our province to Fren..:h-spea l-..ill6 c·anadians was something that has dissipated with tim� The CF -18 , l suppose, 3) mbolizes for many Manitobans their continuing battle with Ottawa and for a particular place in Confederatkm. But the point I all! making, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that, yes, we have our debates, we have our battles, but western Canadians are Canadians.

T'·"v ;,ee that those battles and those needs and wishes c tn be met, not always immediately, not always perhaps even over the long haul, but that the debate continues and that we can within a federation make some of those decisions in the best interests of everyone. In the 70s and 80s, prame Premiers Lougheed, Schreyer, Bl akene:, , Lyon, all of them became much more significant players in the national politics and in national parties than I think prairie prerriers had been before.

They played an important part ;n 1982 in the Constitution Act, in the extension of provincial taxation and, as they had hoped, in the institutionalizing of federal support for provincial programs. During Meech Lake and Charlottetown, western Canadians, again, and Manitobans in particular, expressed themselves over and over again about the meaning of the federation, and it had many different voices. This is not just a regional issue as well. I think

March 19, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 929 we tend to think of the West, and it is often portrayed as such, particularly by publicity organizations like the Canada West Foundation, it is often portrayed as speaking with one voice, but that is not true. The Triple-E Senate that the Canada West Foundation supports is not one which is supported across all of the West. Strong federal institutions equally have a voice in the social democratic tradition and in the social democratic provinces of the West.

Even though we have different voices and left and right are the simplest ways of expressing them, I think we are of one mind that Canada matters, that all Canadians are equal and that we acknowledge that we share a Commonwealth with both other western provinces and with those older provinces to the east of us, and indeed with the new territory, the new predominantly aboriginal territory of Nunavut. In the case of Manitoba, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have always been at the forefront of the debates about the nature of Canada.

We have always been the province I think which has debated the central issues of Confederation. We have not always done it kindly; we have not always done it in the interests of all our citizens, but we have been the province which has had to face these issues most immediately. If we look at 1870, 1869-70, and the entrance of Manitoba into Confederation, we tend, I think, perhaps in our ceremonial occasions, to think of it as the birth of a province, which indeed it was, but we should also remember that it was a violent occasion. It was a violent defence oflanguage rights and rights of religion.

Manitoba was born in violence, and it was born in a violent dispute over fundamental issues of language and religion and the role that they would play in the new province, and there should be some sympathy I think with the kind of debate that the people of Quebec are facing today, both not so much in religion anymore. There have been enormous religious changes in Quebec. It is not I think the same kind of issue that it is even in the west. But in terms of language, Quebec does face very serious issues in a different way perhaps than French spea king Manitobans.

English has become the language of the global marketplace. It is increasingly difficult to maintain a culture without that language, and so I am very sympathetic to the kind of issues that Quebec faces.

I do not always agree with the way in which they have tried to solve them, as many English Canadians and English Quebecers are not, but the central issue that they face of maintaining a culture in northern North America and maintaining a language which is facing a serious onslaught from the global marketplace, from the Internet, from all the means of communi cation is a very, very difficult one, and it is one I think that we should be very aware of. * (1 540) Manitoba has also faced a very difficult French language issue, when the government of the day, in this case the NDP government of Howard Pawley, tried to introduce supports for French language rights in Manitoba which were very strongly and sometimes quite violently, in a verbal sense, opposed by people across Manitoba.

That was a very difficult and a very painful fight particularly for French Canadians in Manitoba, for Franco-Manitobans, and it is one I think that will not be easily forgotten by the generation which had to deal with it. But it is not just the French language that has been a focus of debate in Manitoba. Other languages too, the languages of central Europe which became part of our educational system just before the tum of the century, raised issues of language in education and the role of the state in education that Manitobans still face today. That debate, too, was extremely painful, extremely difficult.

The solutions that were found then were not necessarily the solutions that we might find today. It was in Manitoba that the Governor General of Canada, when he came here in the 1930s, said to a gathering of Ukrainian people-! forget which particular society it was. I think it was actually at a very large picnic that he made a great speech which said that by being better Ukrainians, you will be better Canadians.

That confirmation, that full acknowledgement from the Crown, that heritage languages as we call them today, but the language of the family, the languages of Europe will have a place in Manitoba is something which caused considerable debate in Manitoba. It has come to be seen as commonplace. It is at the base of our heritage language policy; it is at the base of the

930 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 19, 1998 multicultural ism which came to be the Canadian commonality by the end of the 20th Century. But in the 1930s, to accord that kind of place to recent immigrants, as people saw them, was something which was very new, very different and caused a great deal of anxiety amongst the older Anglo-British Canadians of Manitoba.

So Manitoba has fought these battles, ones which other provinces and other communities have had to face, and we continue to do so, most recently and most importantly the new place that is being accorded, and I use those words very carefully, to aboriginal Manitobans. Manitoba has become the place where the experiment into the dismantling of the Department of Indian Affairs begins. Manitoba was the first of the provinces to establish aboriginal education authorities, and I am sure my collea gue the member for The Pas (Mr.

Lathlin), with the very important and large school that was created at The Pas during his tenure as chief, will be able to say more of that, but educational autonomy, political autonomy. At the Meech Lake Accord it was Elijah Harper. recently went to hear John Crosby speak, refer to-perhap s, it is a Newfoundland colloquial ism-but anyway refer to somewhat derisively I thought, but anyway, he was wanting to claim, I think, the ending of the Meech Lake Accord by Newf oundland, not by Elijah. But it was in fact Elijah Harper. Manitobans know it, and the debate that that represented I think was focused here.

None of us will ever forget, I think, the teepees outside the Legislative Bui lding in Manitoba. It was not just their visible presence on that symbolic site-the Premier (Mr. Filmon) today wanted to talk about symbols. I think that is an important symbol that we should remember in Manitoba history-but it was not just the symbolism of that outside the Legislature, it was also the fact that people came to visit those teepees every night.

I remember walking down from my community to go to one of the evening ceremonies and seeing many people from my community, not aboriginal people but people who were there with tobacco in their hand who were coming to be a part of it. For many of them, it was the first time that they had participated in aboriginal ceremonies. It was certainly the first time in which they had recognized, I think, the overwhelming aboriginal political presence in Manitoba.

So it had many important elements to it, and it represented visually the kind of debate that was taking plac� across Canada about the new role, the new place, of aboriginal people in the federation. So I congratulate the constitutional committee. think they have continued that important role enabling us to play a significant

part in the debates in Canada about language. race, and in earlier days, religion. This committee in vm icular has ensured that there is an aboriginal conkxt and an aboriginal presence in the Calgary declaration. So I congratulate all members of the committee .:1.1d a�l<._nowledge particularly the part played by the two memb�rs from our own caucus, the member for Ruperts land (Mr. Robinson) and the member for The Pas (!.f •. Lathlin). I think, Mr.

Dep:.J y Speaker, that this addition, this extension of the Calgary declaration with the presence of aboriginal principles and place will have an important part to play not just in Manitoba but in supporting the constitutional position of the Cree of James Bay, the Mistassini of the Montagnais-Naskapi, of the Mohawks and ofthe aboriginal people generally of the province of Quebec, because they have a constitutional position to maintain, and I think in our version of the Calgary declaration there is something of significance there for lhem.

Finally, I want to say that I think the challenges for Canada are only expressed in constitutional terms. The real challenges that we face I think come from a much larger issue, and it is the issue of globalization. It is the expansion of international capital, it is the merciless impact of the market, the downward pressure on wages that we are beginning to see in the new contracts across Canada. That really is the challenge that we are facing at the end of the 20th Century, and it is faced by people in Quebec and Ontario and British Columbia, just as we are facing it here.

I believe that we can face that challenge better as the larger North American nation of Canada, because Canada has come to stand for-and it is really the

March 19, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 93 1 achievement of the generation since the Second World War-C anada has come to stand for a kind of social demo cracy, for health care, for public education, and for the redistribution and for the sharing of a greater wealth. It is something which is worth defending. It is something which I think has a general accord, finds a general accord in Quebec and Manitoba and all of the other provinces and in Nunavut.

I think we can defend these together better than we can as isolated and smaller units, and so for different reasons I think the federation of a northern North American nation is as important in the 1990s as it was in 1867. Finally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I came here as an immigrant, as some of my colleagues know. I came to Quebec; we chose Quebec in 1960 as a place of residence. My family is still in Quebec, I make frequent trips to Quebec. I ensured that part of my children's education was in Quebec.

I also ensured, and-c'est grace a !'education du Manitoba que mes enfants parlent un franyais tn!s mieux, plus mieux que le mien, Monsieur le vice-president, mais je sais bien que ce n'est pas facile. Eh bien- [Translation] -it is thanks to the education in Manitoba that my children speak a much better French than mine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I know very well that it is not easy.

Weli- [English] And I am grateful to the education system of Manitoba for enabling my children to speak a much better French than I do and to be able to participate-c ertainly at least one of them has-in a national role, in a national student organization, using every day both languages that he learned here in Manitoba and that have made both him and my younger son bilingual and full Canadians. I do not agree with the previous speaker that there will be no Canada without Quebec. I have much greater faith in English Canadians.

I have much greater faith in the sense of nation that we have created in English Canada as well as in English and French Canada since 1867. I do think we will be a lesser Canada, and I think we will, and most fundamentally, be less able to understand the tremendous economic changes and the onslaught of that global capitalism, the new world order, that we do face in our next generation. * (1 550 ) Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on what is an extremely important resolution as it relates not only to our province but more particularly to the country which I do not think for one minute that there is any member of this Legisla tive Assembly could ever be questioned on their loyalty to the country, from whatever side of the House or whatever pol itical party, that I have that general understanding that is automatic when one comes to a Legisla ture, comes· to represent the constituency of which they represent, that without question they are truly Canadian through and through. I also want to say, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that Canada is greater than any political party in this country, and I think that is absolutely important to sta te. I think it speaks for itself many times and many times over.

I want to particularly compliment the leaders of Canada, of our provinces and our territories, for putting together the Calgary Framework and presenting it in the manner in which they have because I believe that the intent and the direction and process of which this has been put forward truly does have a chance of making our country one which will be stronger, one which will continue to be a country, and from our Premier to all the Premiers to the territorial leaders, and all those people who have worked on it, I compliment them.

I also want to compliment the task force and the leadership of the task force, and all members of the task force equally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I believe each and every member of the task force put forward a very genuine, honest, and straightforward position and work on behalf of the greater constituency. Not any specific constituency, but each one dedicated themselves to the preparation of this resolution so that we could in fact go forward jointly, and I want to recognize them all in an equal manner. I also want to say, and I checked some of the history with my collea gue the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.

Enns), that I guess it was Sir Winston Churchill said

932 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA March 19, 1998 there will always be an England. Well, I want to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I believe-[inteljection] Pardon me? An Honourable Member: It is a music hall song, but do go ahead. Mr. Downey: It was not Winston Churchill. Well, I like Winston Churchill and I thought it fit him very well. He could have said it. I will say that if we all work hard enough, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, if we all as Canadians and political leaders and people who are put in responsible positions, work hard enough, there will always be a Canada, and I do not believe this place at any time, or have any other feeling than that there will always be a Canada, because I believe if we really believe in it we have to work just a little bit harder to make sure that that, in fact, is the case. I also want to say, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that in representing the constituency which I represent I think if a survey was done, and I think that would also hold true throughout the province, that the majority of my constituents and the majority of Manitobans would call themselves Canadians first before they called themselves Manitobans. And that I think is extremely important, that we continue to emphasize the fact that I believe we are Canadians first as it relates to wherever we are in this great country.

I feel very strongly about that because it is so easy to become a territorial representative, it is so easy to decide that it is only in the interests of one smal l-whether it is a constituency or one area of a country that quite frankly is more important than the other, so I am very much a believer in that. I also want to recognize the work that was done on previous efforts. I make reference again to my collea gue the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.

Enns) who has said many times, and it is worth repeating, that I feel extremely honoured to be one of 57 people out of 1,200,000 people, approximately, to be chosen to speak on behalf, their behalf not only as a member of the Legisla ture but as a member of Executive Council. I feel extremely honoured. That is why it is extremely important that we all take our responsibilities seriously and put forward our best efforts at every opportunity, particularly as it relat

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-4-21b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 4th hansardpdf 21b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	9b94b08bfe06645d3c113eab3e7371849ac08d14

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