LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Tuesday,
May 27, 2008
LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba
CHAIRPERSON – Ms. Erna Braun (Rossmere)
VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley)
ATTENDANCE –11 QUORUM – 6
Members of the Committee present:
Hon. Mr. Lemieux, Hon. Mses. Melnick, Oswald, Hon. Messrs. Robinson, Rondeau
Mr. Altemeyer, Ms. Braun, Messrs. Derkach, Pedersen, Mrs. Stefanson, Mrs. Taillieu
Substitutions:
Mrs. Rowat for Mrs. Stefanson at 6:06 p.m.
APPEARING
Mr. Ron Schuler, MLA for Springfield
Hon. Andrew Swan, MLA for Minto
Mr. Cliff Cullen, MLA for Turtle Mountain
Mr. Cliff Graydon, MLA for Emerson
Mr. David Faurschou, MLA for Portage la Prairie
Mr. Larry Maguire, MLA for Arthur-Virden
Hon. Steve Ashton, MLA for Thompson
Hon. Jon Gerrard, MLA for River Heights
WITNESSES:
Bill 15–The Climate Change and Emissions Reductions Act
Mr. Harvey Stevens, Resource Conservation Manitoba
Mr. Curtis Hull, Climate Change Connection
Bill 19–The Liquor Control Amendment Act
Mr. Fred Curry, Private Citizen
Bill 21–The Advisory Council on Workforce Development Act
Mr. John Doyle, Manitoba Federation of Labour
Bill 27–The Shellmouth Dam and Other Water Control Works Management and Compensation Act
Mr. Antoine Hacault, Private Citizen
Bill 31–The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act
Mr. Blake Taylor, Private Citizen
Ms. Mimi Raglan, Private Citizen
Mr. Brian Bowman, Private Citizen
Ms. Elizabeth Fleming, Private Citizen
Mr. Colin Craig, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Ms. Gloria Desorcy, Manitoba Branch of the Consumers Association of Canada
Bill 32–The Personal Health Information Amendment Act
Mr. Blake Taylor, Private Citizen
Ms. Mimi Raglan, Private Citizen
Mr. Charles Cruden, Private Citizen
Ms. Laurie Thompson, Manitoba Institute for Patient Safety
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
Bill 15–The Climate Change and Emissions Reductions Act
Mr. Gordon Forman, National Association of Antique Automobile Clubs of CDA Corporation
Bill 31–The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act
Ms. Valerie Price, Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties
Bill 13–The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Damage to Infrastructure)
Mr. Geoff Sine, Manitoba Trucking Association
Bill 36–The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act
Mr. Ron Bell, Association of Manitoba Municipalities
MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION:
Bill 10–The Legislative Library Act
Bill 13–The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Damage to Infrastructure)
Bill 15–The Climate Change and Emissions Reductions Act
Bill 16–The Child Care Safety Charter (Community Child Care Standards Act Amended)
Bill 19–The Liquor Control Amendment Act
Bill 21–The Advisory Council on Workforce Development Act
Bill 22–The Worker Recruitment and Protection Act
Bill 23–The International Labour Cooperation Agreements Implementation Act
Bill 27–The Shellmouth Dam and Other Water Control Works Management and Compensation Act (Water Resources Administration Act Amended)
Bill 31–The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act
Bill 32–The Personal Health Information Amendment Act
Bill 33–The Salvation Army Grace General Hospital Incorporation Amendment Act
Bill 34–The Child and Family Services Amendment and Child and Family Services Authorities Amendment Act (Safety of Children)
Bill 36–The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act
* * *
Madam Chairperson: Good afternoon. Will the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development please come to order.
This meeting has been called to consider the following bills: Bill 10, The Legislative Library Act; Bill 13, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Damage to Infrastructure); Bill 15, The Climate Change and Emissions Reductions Act; Bill 16, The Child Care Safety Charter (Community Child Care Standards Act Amended); Bill 19, The Liquor Control Amendment Act; Bill 21, The Advisory Council on Workforce Development Act; Bill 22, The Worker Recruitment and Protection Act; Bill 23, The International Labour Cooperation Agreements Implementation Act; Bill 27, The Shellmouth Dam and Other Water Control Works Management and Compensation Act (Water Resources Administration Act Amended); Bill 31, The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act; Bill 32, The Personal Health Information Amendment Act; Bill 33, The Salvation Army Grace General Hospital Incorporation Amendment Act; Bill 34, The Child and Family Services Amendment and Child and Family Services Authorities Amendment Act (Safety of Children); Bill 36, The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act.
Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson. It's the normal way of running committees that individuals can sign up until midnight of the third day, yet we understand that individuals are being told that they will only be able to sign up until it's 5 o'clock. So that would be that anyone who wants to present would have to sign up by 5 p.m. tomorrow, whereas the rules state normally that it would be until midnight. Seeing as the committees are sitting tomorrow until midnight, it would make sense that individuals could sign up until midnight tomorrow.
Could I just have clarification on that?
Madam Chairperson: As I'm aware, the Clerk's office is still accepting presenters to these bills.
Mr. Schuler: That was not the question. I was asking, is that, will they still be accepting presenters until midnight tomorrow?
Madam Chairperson: Correct. Rule 92(7) states after midnight on the third evening that a standing committee or special committee needs to consider a bill, no presenter can be registered to make a presentation.
Mr. Schuler: Could that, then, please be clarified with the Clerk's office that phone calls will be received until midnight tomorrow?
Madam Chairperson: Yes, it will be.
Hon. Andrew Swan (Minister of Competitiveness, Training and Trade): If I could just also seek clarification.
There is a very good chance that, if things go smoothly tonight, we will, indeed, complete the presentations. We may be able to get through the bills. Of course, if the committee has completed its work, there won't be the ability for people to register after we've completed our consideration of the bills.
Madam Chairperson: Honourable Mr. Swan, you are correct.
Mr. Cliff Cullen (Turtle Mountain): Just to clarify, Madam Chair, when we say the work of the committee is complete, now, I'm assuming we won't go through, for instance, line by line on Bill 15.
Now, if we get through the presenters, let's say we get through presenters tonight, someone still, I understand, would have the opportunity to talk to the Clerk's office and register. Will they have the opportunity to talk to Bill 15 tomorrow night?
* (16:10)
Madam Chairperson: Mr. Cullen had a question regarding presenters. Practice is to hear presenters first. After that happens, the Chair will ask for any more presenters. If there are none, the committee will move on to clause by clause. If someone decides to register before 12 midnight tomorrow and the committee is doing clause by clause, a presenter can speak, according to rule 92(7), as is my understanding.
Mr. Schuler: I need one more clarification. That is, can the Chair ensure that there will be somebody at the Clerk's office until midnight taking the phone calls, or that there will be some kind of a system in place to take the phone calls?
An Honourable Member: I'll do it.
Mr. Schuler: The Minister of Conservation (Mr. Struthers) says he's volunteering to do it, but I probably think we would need the Clerk's office to ensure that there is somebody there taking the phone calls, or somehow registering them. I leave that up to the discretion of the Chair.
Madam Chairperson: Your request, Mr. Schuler, will be relayed to the Clerk's office, and, as soon as we have information, we will get back to you on that.
Mr. Cullen: Thank you. Just for further clarification, I know there is a specific situation that's going to arise here. So, once we are done, let's say, addressing Bill 15–because I think it's the first on the Order Paper–once we get through Bill 15 and once we're done the line by line and everything, then no one will have the opportunity to speak to that anymore.
But, if we're still involved in the discussion, the line-by-line discussions, or questioning on that particular bill, someone could still present at any given time on that particular bill.
Madam Chairperson: If they register before midnight on the third evening, yes.
We have a number of presenters registered to speak this evening, as follows: Please refer to your presenters' list.
Before we proceed with presentations, we do have a number of other items and points of information to consider. First of all, if there is anyone else in the audience who would like to make a presentation, please register with staff at the entrance of the room.
Also, for the information of all presenters, while written versions of presentations are not required, if you are going to accompany your presentation with written materials, we ask you provide 20 copies. If you need help with photocopying, please speak with our staff.
As well, I would like to inform presenters that, in accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations, with another five minutes allowed for questions from committee members.
Also, in accordance with our rules, if a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list. If the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time, they will be removed from the presenters' list.
Written submissions from the following persons have been received and distributed to committee members: Gord Forman, National Association of Antique Automobile Clubs of CDA Corporation, on Bill 15; Geoff Sine, Manitoba Trucking Association, on Bill 13; Valerie Price, Executive Director, Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties, on Bill 31; Ron Bell, President, Association of Manitoba Municipalities, on Bill 36.
Does the committee agree to have these document appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting?
Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Carman): Madam Chair, with regard to Bill 36, the written submission from the AMM, the Association of Manitoba Municipalities, there's actually a typo on that submission, so does that get entered as the typo?
Madam Chairperson: As the document is presented, I believe that's how it gets entered.
Does the committee agree to have these documents appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed]
Mr. Schuler: On the submissions that we do have in front of us, it is unfortunate that these individuals can't come to the committee because they do actually present a lot of new information and a lot of important information for this committee. I certainly hope that all members take the opportunity to read through them, because not all of them necessarily support the current legislation that is before us.
It'd actually be helpful if they could be read for the committee, but I understand that is not going to happen today. Unfortunately, we are the minority on this committee. I still, however, feel that all of these submissions do have great value.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you. It was agreed that we will hear presentations of the bills in numerical order. As has been previously agreed to by the House, the committee will sit until 10 p.m. tonight, and, if necessary, will sit tomorrow commencing at 6 p.m.
Prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in committee. The proceedings of our meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or a presenter, I will first have to say the person's name. This is the signal for the Hansard recorder to turn the mikes on and off. Thank you for your patience and we will now proceed with public presentations.
Bill 15–The Climate Change and Emissions Reductions Act
Madam Chairperson: We are now on Bill 15, The Climate Change and Emissions Reductions Act, and I would like to call upon Harvey Stevens, Resource Conservation Manitoba. Please proceed with your presentation.
Mr. Harvey Stevens (Resource Conservation Manitoba): Madam Chairperson, members of the standing committee, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today. I'll be simply reading the presentation that has been circulated.
As chairperson of Resource Conservation Manitoba's policy committee, I'm here today to convey the initial views of the board of the Resource Conservation Manitoba, RCM, on the government's proposed Climate Change and Emissions Reduction Act.
RCM is a non-profit, voluntary organization which has been active in promoting resource conservation in Manitoba since 1985. Today, it offers programming aimed at educating children about resource conservation practices, offering active and safe ways of commuting to school, promoting green community options for workers and employers, offering workshops on backyard and industrial-municipal composting and encouraging waste-reduction practices.
* (16:20)
In addition, it has researched and presented briefs to the government of Manitoba on such issues and policies and programs required to reduce household municipal waste, the current set of extended producer responsibility regulations being implemented to deal with post-consumer waste and green transportation policies.
Accordingly, both in word and deed, RCM has demonstrated it strong commitment to making Manitoba a more environmentally friendly and sustainable province in which to live.
As we all know, the challenges facing not only Manitoba but the entire world to reduce humanity's negative and destructive footprint on the natural environment are both fearsome and daunting. We see the worldwide collapse of fish stocks, the drying up of fresh water resources, ongoing environmental pollution, the destruction of wildlife species and habitats and climate change.
It could well be that the greatest challenge facing humanity is climate change due to the production of greenhouse gas emissions by human activity. It is absolutely imperative to emphasize that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has documented extensively and convincingly the scope and impacts of climate change and has demonstrated beyond doubt the real role of human activity in producing the dramatic rise in greenhouse gases. The threat is real and humanity's role in producing the threat is unquestionable. Thus, the need to apply human activity to reduce the threat.
Canada has been documenting the growth in domestic greenhouse gas emissions since 1990. The latest National Inventory Report on greenhouse gas emissions shows that in Manitoba the amount of greenhouse gas emissions has risen from 18 megatonnes in 1990 to 20.3 megatonnes in 2005 for a total increase of 2.3 megatonnes. However, in order to meet its Kyoto commitment of 6 percent decline in 1990 levels, Manitoba will have to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 16.9 megatonnes by 2012, the announced target date of the proposed climate change legislation. Given that greenhouse gas emissions have likely continued to increase since 2005 by possibly as much as another 0.4 megatonnes by 2009, the needed reductions in emissions between 2009 and 2012 could well be in the order of 3.8 megatonnes.
The National Inventory Report also describes the sectors in which the level of GHG emissions has both increased and decreased. In Manitoba the largest net increase in GHGs since 1990 has been from the agricultural sector, a rise of 1.6 megatonnes of CO2 equivalent. By comparison, the transportation sector has contributed a net increase of 0.3 megatonnes. The report itself states: Manitoba's economic structure gives its GHG inventory the lowest percentage emissions from the energy sector and the highest percentage from the agriculture sector.
Agriculture emissions from all sources increased significantly between 1990 and 2005. The good news is that between 2003 and 2005, there was a reduction of 0.2 megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector due to the conversion of agricultural lands.
Given this context, what can we say about Bill 15 in the brief time that we've had to look at it?
First, it is a much-needed piece of legislation because greenhouse gas emissions in Manitoba continue to rise under existing practices. Countermeasures are required to reverse this trend. Relying on good will and good intentions will not suffice.
Second, the presence of a stated target in the legislation is very important.
Third, the requirement that regular reports be prepared that describe the emission reductions that have been achieved and measures taken also is important for public accountability.
Fourth, the identification of key sources of GHG emissions such as building, transportation, landfills, electricity production and the types of initiatives that will be undertaken to reduce emissions is laudable.
Accordingly, RCM applauds the government for introducing this piece of legislation. It is much needed, it is timely and shows clear resolve to reverse a dangerous trend.
However, RCM is concerned that it doesn't go far enough.
For one thing, there is nothing in the legislation that targets the agricultural sector, even though it is the largest contributor to the growth in GHG emissions. The accompanying document, Agriculture: Climate Friendly Farms, certainly describes various measures and programs in place to reduce GHG emissions. However, it would seem that if the legislation targets a sector like transportation which, in total, has contributed a small increase in GHG emissions since 1990, it surely ought to contain legislated measures that address the tremendous increase in GHG emissions from the agricultural sector.
Second, given the track record of successive provincial governments in failing to produce required annual reports on The Waste Reduction and Prevention Act of 1990, only one has been tabled in the House. RCM questions whether simply indicating that a report will be prepared is sufficient for it to happen. The legislation needs to spell out real material consequences for failing to produce reports.
Further to this, RCM would like to see the legislation spell out real material consequences for the government for failing to meet its stated target of a 6 percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2012.
A brief history lesson may highlight why RCM sees the need for such a measure. When the provincial government of the day passed The Waste Reduction and Prevention Act in 1990, it committed to a 50 percent reduction in waste going to landfills by the year 2000. However, by 2000 there was only a 20 percent reduction in the amount of per capita waste going to landfills, so without real consequences in place for failing to meet targets, there isn't any incentive for government to do so.
One way of doing this would be the inclusion of a measure that financially committed the government to increase spending on GHG emission initiatives equal in value to the world-traded value of the amount of CO2 emitted in excess of the targeted 16.9 megatons of GHG emissions by the end of 2012. This measure would give this legislation real teeth and provide additional funding required to achieve its stated objectives.
RCM is very pleased to see a provision for addressing landfill methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that has not been controlled in Manitoba. We would note, however, that systems for collecting methane, once organic materials are landfilled, will not be 100 percent efficient, so we would hope to see further action to divert organics from landfills which would not only prevent the harm that results from GHG emissions but would also ensure that the value in composted material is recovered and retained.
RCM will be taking a more detailed look at both the current bill and the recently announced climate change plan and may have further observations to make in due course. In the meantime, we want to commend the government and Legislature of Manitoba for demonstrating timely, farsighted and meaningful leadership in taking concrete action on what is the most pressing environmental issue facing Manitobans and others with whom we share the earth. Thank you.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.
Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter?
Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Science, Technology, Energy and Mines): No, no, I'll let Mr. Schuler go first.
Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Thank you very much, Harvey, for coming out this evening. I'm sure there are many other things that you could be doing–getting a garden ready, planting flowers–other than coming to committee, and we always appreciate hearing from the public.
I found on your last paragraph, and it's one of the things that I know we've sort of heard a lot about over the last 10 years, and that has to do with biodegradable going into landfills. There was a discussion, and I know quite a few communities pick up biodegradable separately and then pick up the garbage. What you are saying here is you're recommending that that not be the case?
Mr. Stevens: Sorry. We're recommending quite the opposite. We're noting in the second last paragraph that capturing landfill methane is fine, but what we need to do is be diverting organics from landfills with a more comprehensive and aggressive program of diversion.
Mr. Schuler: I guess then the argument is is that you reduce the amount of garbage sites, No. 1, and with NIMBY being strong and powerful, that being one of the side effects. What do you recommend then what should happen with all the organics? The amount being collected at some point in time then becomes far too great to be using for gardens and for that kind of thing. What is your recommendation that we should doing with that?
Mr. Stevens: Well, I think in general terms, RCM would be recommending that as much composting occur as possible. We have several staff on our payroll whose sole function is to conduct composting workshops with municipalities and with private householders, in fact, to teach them how to do composting. It's our strong belief that that really is the recommended approach, the way to go.
* (16:30)
Mr. Schuler: You know, for the committee's sake, and we do have a bit of time, one of my big concerns is electronics in landfill sites. I believe that we are going to be facing a tsunami of TVs, especially as people move towards high definition TV, flat-screen TVs. We've seen it with computers; people are going to flat screens. Is there a concern about the kind of and the volume of electronics that are going to find their way into our landfills?
Mr. Stevens: Well, Resource Conservation Manitoba certainly has had that concern. We've been pushing very hard for the last several years for comprehensive extended producer responsibility programs, that manufacturers of these products, in fact, be responsible for the cost of recovering them, the post-consumer waste that's generated, because it's our belief that if they are not the ones assuming that responsibility, then they have no financial incentive to design their products in ways that minimize the cost and effort required to recycle and reuse the materials.
Mr. Schuler: This will be my last question. I guess, as a consumer, my big problem is where do you take it? I'm fortunate. I brought my 17-inch computer screen here to the Legislature and miraculously, it was taken care off. It literally was a boat anchor. This thing was almost a foot and a half deep.
People have no idea where to take this stuff, whether it's a cordless phone, whatever electronic it is, and if you would comment on that. Where do you take it to? How do we get the public to actually not put it into the garbage bag. Should we be putting it into blue boxes? If you would just give us your thoughts on that.
Mr. Stevens: Certainly not blue boxes, but there was a collection set of depots that were organized by the provincial government last year. My understanding is that they received overwhelming support. There's another one planned for this year, but RCM's hope is that, as soon as possible, the government get on with passing the regulation for electronic waste and get a province-wide system set up for accepting those materials in a regular and consistent manner.
Mr. Rondeau: Thank you very much, Mr. Stevens, for presenting today and your look at the bill. You had stated something about the incentives to meet the targets. You are talking about the equivalent of CO2 in spending funding as having some consequences for government. Could you elaborate a little bit on that and on how you could see a program like that evolve?
Mr. Stevens: I'm afraid I can't much because we have not had much time to consider this. It's an idea for others to reflect on and take up. But, in general terms, the notion is, I'm thinking of, for example, when industry's been on a project, the notion of a performance bond where you post a sum of money, and if you don't meet the requirements, then you forfeit that.
I mean, this is another notion of basically trying to provide the government with way of–basically a penalty. If you say, we have a target; we are going to meet it, we know what human nature is like. You don't meet it unless there's consequences. This was just an idea for people to look at. If you don't meet it, then pay a price. I think it's doable because we know that there's the carbon emission trading schemes.
They put an actual price on a tonne of carbon, so we have an actual price that we can apply to this. The government will know by how much it's fallen short of its target of 16.9 megatonnes. It's a fairly easy calculation to make if you've established what your actual level of emissions is. By the end of 2012, you know what the shortfall is. You can multiply it by the cost of carbon. You've got an easy calculation. What would be important is to them to have that money dedicated to financing the programs that are intended to meet the reductions in emissions.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you. The time for questions has expired. Thank you.
Mr. Schuler, state your point.
Mr. Schuler: Madam Chair, this is a bill that does not have very many presenters. In fact, there are two. I think one or two more questions would not be out of order. I would ask the committee if there was leave if my colleague could ask one or two questions. Again, there's not a long lineup of presenters, and I think the more information we can get on this legislation, the better it would be.
Hon. Andrew Swan (Minister of Competitiveness, Training and Trade): I know Mr. Schuler wasn't in this committee last night, but there were also a number of people that presented last night. We have 25 presenters, some of whom, I believe, sat through six hours of committee last night. I think in fairness to all presenters, it's appropriate to stay within the time guidelines, 10 minutes to present and five minutes for questions, so we can get on and make sure we treat every presenter fairly.
Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Madam Chair, Mr. Swan may also recall that in last evening's presentations, we did allow for extensions. As a matter of fact, we allowed for presenters who hadn't been on the list to present. So there was flexibility last night. I guess we're asking for that same consideration today to allow for a few extra questions. My goodness, there are only two presenters on Bill 15 on the list, surely we could allow for another two or three minutes for a question from this side of the House.
Madam Chairperson: On the point of order, there was no point of order, but if it is the will of the committee to give leave for the speaker to answer a few more questions. What is the will of the committee?
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Chairperson: Leave has not been granted.
Mr. Schuler: Let the record stand that the New Democrat member shut down leave.
Mr. Swan: Let the record show that New Democrat members are showing consideration for the various witnesses who've sat through many hours of committee and who hope to get on to present in a timely fashion tonight.
Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Water Stewardship): I also wanted to shed some light on the individuals who presented last evening who weren't on the list. They had felt that they had, in fact, registered. They felt that through a misunderstanding they didn't end up on the list. That's what happened last night. It wasn't extra people being allowed on.
Mr. Schuler: That is eminently reasonable. That's all that we're asking for this evening. It's unfortunate that we're going to have tyranny of the majority by New Democrat members. They're going to stomp everything down. I think that's unfortunate and it's not reasonable. I appreciate the minister's reasonable approach to yesterday evening.
Mr. Cliff Cullen (Turtle Mountain): Even our presenter here pointed out in his presentation that they haven't felt that they've had time to have a look at this particular legislation.
It's unfortunate that we have Manitobans who do take the time to look at this legislation, but at the same point in time just don't feel they have the time–are allowed enough time to review the legislation.
I think it points to the fact that the current system we have here, in terms of bringing legislation forward, bringing it through to committee, just isn't quite working. It's not working for Manitobans, and it's very frustrating for us as legislators as well.
I think it's time that this whole procedure is reviewed so that we as legislators have the opportunity to thoroughly review legislation that's brought forward so that we have a clear understanding of the intent of the legislation and that Manitobans, in fact, who ultimately will pay the price for legislation that's brought forward, have the time to review these documents and, in fact, have the time to adequately review it and bring forward changes that they think are necessary.
I think the presenter brings forward a very important point. I think it's an issue that we and the legislators should all have a look at in terms of the process.
Ms. Melnick: What's clearly not working are the tactics that we're seeing on the other side of the table that are keeping people from presenting last night and today. I think that we should all acknowledge that rules were agreed upon that have been longstanding and make sure that the folks today don't end up waiting hours and hours like they were forced to last night because of members of the opposition.
Madam Chairperson: We are entering into debate. Leave was not granted. Let us continue with the presentations.
Point of Order
Mr. Derkach: On a point of order.
Madam Chairperson: State your point, Mr. Derkach.
* (16:40)
Mr. Derkach: Excuse me?
Madam Chairperson: Mr. Derkach.
Mr. Derkach: Thank you. First of all, Madam Chair, your tone with regard to state your point, is a little bit aggressive, and I say that in all sincerity. I've been through many committees and I've never seen this kind of attitude. So I state that for the record.
Secondly, Madam Chair, my point of order is that the government is trying to bully the opposition, as is their nature, into shutting down any debate on this legislation that they can. Now, it is well known that the government this year, for the first time, was bringing forward legislation a week before the deadline date for legislation was agreed to in terms of second reading.
Second reading on bills was occurring the week prior to a deadline that had been set through negotiations, Madam Chair, and it did not allow enough time for us as opposition members to scrutinize the legislation and to come forward with any kind of meaningful response to that legislation. I remind you that even in debate in the House, we were not able to debate the bills in the House because we had run out of time. The government could not arrange its business in an orderly fashion to allow members to speak to the bills that were before the House.
Now, that's not a criticism that's unwarranted. It's a criticism that is necessary because members of the Legislature were not given enough time to debate legislation in the House because the legislation was not given second reading until very late in the session.
So, Madam Chair, it is for that reason that we are requesting that Manitobans who step forward to make presentation on these bills in committee be given the latitude to be able to not only present their entire presentation but indeed to also have the opportunity to answer some questions that we legitimately have because we haven't been given the opportunity to debate this legislation.
Madam Chair, this is a form of closure. The fact that bills could not be debated properly and the fact that on the 22nd of May all bills had to move into committee was clearly a method of closure of the government on bills that they chose to introduce late and that they chose not to introduce for second reading until a very late period of time.
So we legitimately and quite sincerely want to ensure that Manitobans and we as the opposition party have an opportunity to debate the legislation properly and to be able to ask presenters questions that, indeed, reflect their views on legislation, so that when we go back to the House in report stage or in third reading we can then have an opportunity to thoroughly give scrutiny and due process to the bills that the government has brought forward.
I'm not reflecting on any member individually in the House. Neither do I want to, but, Madam Chair, we have gotten ourselves into this position where bills were not properly debated after second reading of the bills–
Madam Chairperson: Order, please.
As honourable members know, a point of order should be raised to draw attention to the Chair and the committee to some departure from the rules or from normal procedures. According to rule 92(2): When persons are registered to make presentations to a Standing or Special Committee considering a Bill, the Committee must allow each presenter a maximum of 10 minutes to make a presentation, and an additional five minutes to respond to questions from Members of the Committee. As an exception . . . with the unanimous consent of the Committee, allow a presenter who has spoken for 10 minutes more time to present and to respond to questions.
So you did not have a point of order.
Mr. Derkach: Madam Chair, I'm not finished my point of order.
Madam Chair, my point of order is, in fact, relevant because it deals with the extension of time that can be granted in a committee with the consent of all sides. My point of order is that I am trying to convince you as Chair and members of this opposition that unanimous consent for giving more time, more latitude, to presenters to make their case is indeed a legitimate point of order as is covered by rule 92, and this is covering that.
So, Madam Chair, I make my point to this committee, not identifying any individual member of this committee but, indeed, to indicate that if we are doing our job properly as a committee, then we have to allow for that flexibility for members to be able to speak their case and for us to be able to give due process to the legislation by being able to ask the members questions even if it goes beyond the five minutes. That is–
Madam Chairperson: You are correct, Mr. Derkach, that is, with the unanimous consent that we can extend the time. Unanimous consent has not been granted, so we cannot extend the time.
Point of Order
Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Carman): Madam Chair, I raise it then as a point of order. It's more of a question to the Chair then. There's some information presented in the presenter's information here, which I really question as to whether is correct or at least clarification on it. So, if this person is presenting information which may or may not be true, and we don't have a chance to ask the person of this question, does that mean then that this legislation is going to be based on false information?
An Honourable Member: I hope you asked that question of the taxpayers' guy.
Mr. Pedersen: Well, we ask them every day if the taxpayer–how they like to pay for a vote tax
Madam Chairperson: Was that a point of order, Mr. Pedersen?
Mr. Pedersen: Point of order or a question. What am I supposed to do with this information? Is it correct? Does it become part of the legislation, or what is it?
Madam Chairperson: Mr. Pedersen, on your point of clarification. [interjection]
Order, please. Excuse me. Whatever is submitted, Mr. Pedersen, to us is submitted to Hansard and it appears as in that fashion.
Mr. Schuler: What my colleague was trying to get at is there's a sentence that there was a reduction of 0.2 from the agriculture sector due to the conversion of agriculture lands. The question is, what is meant by that? What was it converted to? That was the question that we had wanted to ask. We had a question of the individual. We accept him as an individual who has a responsible role, represents an organization that has some kind of a vested interest in this legislation, and we just wanted to know what does he mean by due to the conversion of agriculture lands. That was what we were wanting to ask the individual. Unfortunately, government members used tyranny of the majority and shut down the opposition. We have been shut down and, to the public, if we are coming across as frustrated it's because we are being shut down by a massive majority government.
I would suggest to members opposite, take your Ukraine pins off and put them in your pocket, because they fought for this kind of democracy that we are now trying to get here at this committee. We actually want to ask a question of someone who stated an opinion. That's what we would like.
Mr. Swan: It's been a bit difficult to hear with the Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach) putting down urban people, but let me say that I listened very carefully to the questioning. I saw Minister Rondeau actually give way so that the members of the opposition could ask whatever questions they wanted to. I suppose it's their own difficulty if they can't marshal the questions they want to ask within the time period, which I would note was agreed upon by all parties and are the rules of this committee.
So there is no point of order, and I would really like if we could get on to letting Manitobans present to us, as they've been waiting many, many hours to do.
* (16:50)
Mr. Derkach: Well, you know, Madam Chair, if the tyranny of this majority would just subside a bit and allow for the questioners to pose their questions. You know, we have just gone through at least 10 minutes here of wrangling back and forth where we could have used that time much more productively in asking questions of the presenters.
We are frustrated, Madam Chairperson, because of the way in which the government is treating the opposition. I'm not going to try to recap what the Minister of Competitiveness (Mr. Swan) said from his seat but even the comments and their attitudes reflect the arrogant attitude of a government that is using its sheer majority to plough through legislation, without allowing proper due process of that legislation.
There is nothing wrong with allowing–we have done it in the past, we did it in years before where people who presented before this committee and before committees of the Legislature were given flexibility. Members of the opposition were given flexibility; members of the government were given flexibility to question the presenters beyond the five-minute limit, provided that it was agreed to by both sides.
This is all we ask. The last 10 minutes could have been invested into asking questions, meaningful questions, so that information could be gleaned so that we could better make our views known on the legislation and better be prepared to vote either for or against the bills, based on good, accurate information that we gleaned from Manitobans.
Madam Chairperson: Leave–there is no point of order. Leave was not granted to extend the time. Rule 92 allows for unanimous agreement. There was not leave given.
* * *
Madam Chairperson: We are continuing with the presenters. I would now like to call upon Curtis Hull, Climate Change Connection.
Do you have materials to distribute?
Mr. Curtis Hull (Climate Change Connection): Yes, I do.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Order, please. We have a speaker. Would you please proceed with your presentation.
Mr. Hull: Distinguished and honourable committee members, my primary purpose in coming before you today is not to debate or comment upon any specifics within this bill. I think that was done ably and completely by the submitter just previous to me, Mr. Stevens. Instead, I'm here to support the direction in which this bill is taking Manitoba.
The most important aspect of this bill is that it sets a numerical target for emissions reductions. Once this target is accepted, all actions within the province must align with this objective. Initially, all provincial government departments will need to review their operations and specific regulations with this in mind. Interdepartmental efforts and resources will need to be co-ordinated but, more importantly, it is my hope that the consequences of this bill will be to direct all Manitobans to make changes.
I have heard other submissions to this committee point out how this bill will bring changes to their businesses. They are correct. Changes are coming; it is not this bill that is driving those changes. Status quo behaviour, technology and infrastructure are no longer appropriate for the world today, for this province or for future generations; not all of the changes are negative. There are a lot of positive business opportunities.
You have heard submissions that quote numbers. Get used to it. There are a lot of numbers involved in this issue, but look carefully at those numbers. What we need is an overall reduction in greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.
To do this, we primarily need to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. In the case of automobiles, it doesn't matter if you drive an old car, a new car, a Hummer or a Prius, every litre of gasoline burned produces 2.5 kilograms of carbon dioxide.
The causes and cures of climate change are not within Manitoba's borders. Manitoba is a relatively small contributor of greenhouse gases; however, there are big changes coming and Manitoba needs to prepare for them. We must start to make changes in behaviour and infrastructure now while we can plan them and afford them and not wait until the changes are forced upon us by the outside world. This bill sets an example for the world and makes me proud to say I am a Manitoban.
Now I have a few comments and facts to put this in context, and I feel compelled to do that because of some submissions that I heard last night. Contrary to one of the previous submissions, the time for debate is over, except perhaps in the popular press. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, fourth assessment reports released in 2007 were based upon 29,000 sets of data, much of them collected since 2002. This historic achievement is the work of 2,500 scientific reviewers, 800 contributing authors and 450 lead editors from 130 countries. Two facts are abundantly clear to the independent, peer-reviewed scientific community. The climate is changing quickly and a key reason for this rapid change is human behaviour.
There's a difference between weather and climate. Climate is an average of weather over time. Predicting the weather is like predicting the motion of a single atom of water. Predicting climate is like predicting the behaviour of a glass of water.
Also, there is a reason this issue is more aptly called climate change rather than global warming. The climate of different areas of the world is predicted to change in different ways. In fact, most computer models project a localized cooling in some parts of the world, including some parts of Manitoba, for some period into the future. However, some very sensitive parts of the world, such as the Arctic and the northern parts of our own province show and must anticipate warming that is far greater than the world average.
Why this bill is important. A high probability of potentially catastrophic events on both humans and ecosystems would be reached if global temperatures rise by more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Temperatures have already increased 0.74 degrees in the last hundred years. A 2 degree Celsius rise is the point at which some of the most devastating and dangerous processes brought on by climate change would become unavoidable. These include: the risk of water shortages for between 2.3 and 3 billion people in terms of drinking water. Some of this may be from changes in rainfall and evaporation, some from disappearing glaciers. The disappearance of glaciers would imperil people who depend on their melt water. This includes the people of Manitoba, not for drinking water, but a significant portion of our precious hydro-electric resource depends upon glacial melt water.
Climate refugees. Even if Manitoba is not as severely affected as other parts of the world, what would people south of us do if they were no longer able to grow enough food to feed themselves?
Up to 30 percent of the earth's species could face an increased risk of extinction.
Above 2 degree Celsius at least two key positive feedback mechanisms may pass the point of no return. These mechanisms would accelerate the warming without any involvement from us. There's the melting of the Arctic permafrost which would begin to release massive amounts of methane, and the Amazon rainforest, if it collapses, would remove the ability of huge quantities of trees to absorb carbon dioxide and their decay would result in more carbon dioxide. Contrary to the modest objectives of this bill, there is a compelling argument that says to prevent this 2 degree Celsius temperature increase, we in the rich countries must reduce our greenhouse gas emission by 90 percent by the year 2030.
That's George Monbiot in his book Heat. In conclusion, time is running out to work on this climate change issue in a planned and affordable way. I suggest, in fact, that the objectives of this bill are, in fact, modest and represent the minimum that we must achieve in the immediate future. We also believe that this bill is not all that is required to bring the changes needed, but it is an essential step in that direction. I think the previous presenter, Mr. Stevens, listed some of those areas which, I believe, aren't in this legislation, but I'm anticipating will be in subsequent legislation. He spoke at length about agriculture.
Please support this bill as I do. Some day your children will thank you.
* (17:00)
Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.
Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter?
Mr. Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Hull, for your presentation. You indicated that the numerical target for emission reductions is an important aspect to this bill, and our understanding of this particular bill is that only 5 percent of those reductions will be required before the next provincial election, leaving 95 percent of those reductions required after the next provincial election. I'd just like to get your thoughts into the slow uptake on that particular avenue in terms of the reductions going forward.
Mr. Hull: Part of the issue relates to the metrics and the ability to measure the reductions in a timely fashion. The most recent available data is 2005, unfortunately, and there is a time-lag. There's also a certain time-lag before certain measures that are put into place now come to fruition and actually result in reductions of greenhouse gases, but you are correct in that this is an ambitious time line that we've set before us.
Madam Chairperson: Excuse me. A reminder, if you have a cell phone, please turn it off or turn it to vibrate.
Mr. Cullen: Well, I guess my point was, I don't think it's that ambitious if we're only trying to progress to 5 percent of our target within the next four months or, pardon me, four years. I think that leaves a little bit to be desired.
I guess the second part of the question is, this bill doesn't talk about any penalties if the government doesn't reach those targets, and I'm wondering what your view is on penalties that should be associated with this. Right now, under this legislation, the minister can select his own targets and there're no repercussions if the minister doesn't meet those targets.
What's your organization's view on proposed penalties for this particular legislation?
Mr. Hull: In terms of my organization, we haven't spoken about that specific subject, so I can't speak about the entire organization on that one–the steering committee of my organization.
In my own personal view, I would have to say that having the ability to have consequences for targets not met is just in general a good idea. That's my own personal comment.
Mr. Cullen: You know, it's certainly good for us to set targets and reduce greenhouse gas. My concern going forward is, are we going to be tying our hands here in terms of future economic development? So where does the whole process of economic development going forward, how do you balance that with the goal of reducing greenhouse gases? Obviously, if we as an economy are going to move forward in Manitoba, a component of that will be potential for greenhouse gas increases.
How do we balance moving our economy forward versus this particular legislation where we actually want to reduce greenhouse gases? I'm just wondering how you see that being balanced.
Mr. Hull: Well, there's a supposition in the question that the reduction of greenhouse gases will result in a negative impact on business, and I suggest that there will be a shift in business, that certain established businesses–old-world businesses, if you will–will suffer a decline. However, I do believe that there is abundant opportunity for the business community in this challenge that we're facing. I mean, if you just take a look at automobiles. If the automobile fleet is obsolete because of the way that it's being propelled, the energy that it uses, if it has to be replaced, for example, wouldn't there be an opportunity for business that's geared for that to take advantage of that opportunity? What I'm suggesting is that forward-looking business would grasp this, just as I see it, as an opportunity and take a look at how they can fulfil the need that's before us and profit from it.
Mr. Pedersen: I guess I didn't really pay that much attention to physics and chemistry when I was back in school, but I always had figured out that a litre of gasoline weighs less than a kilogram. Can you explain to me in here on your second-last paragraph of page one: Every litre of gasoline produces two and a half kilograms of CO2.
Can you tell me how you get less than one kilogram of gasoline turning into two and a half kilograms of CO2?
Mr. Hull: Yes, it's a surprising fact, isn't it? This is how I understand that it works. Basically, gasoline is largely carbon. It's a hydrocarbon and hydrogen weighs next to nothing. Carbon is the heavy element in that hydrocarbon long chain. Its atomic weight, I believe, is 16. The atomic weight of oxygen is 12. [interjection] Is it reversed? Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, the atomic weight of carbon is 12. The atomic weight of oxygen is 16. The production of carbon dioxide involves bringing oxygen from the air, combining it with the carbon and producing a new element; therefore you wind up with almost a tripling in the atomic weight.
So you take a litre of gasoline which is basically a kilogram, and then you combine it with almost two additional kilograms of oxygen, and you wind up with 2.5 kilograms of this new compound.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Our time for questions has expired.
Mr. Derkach: Madam Chair. Is that the last presenter on Bill 15?
Madam Chairperson: Yes, it is.
Mr. Derkach: Thank you.
Madam Chair, I have a motion. In view of the importance of this bill and in view of the presentations that we have heard regarding the bill and some of the issues I think that this bill either is not addressing or perhaps is addressing in a way which impacts not only on Manitobans but, indeed, could have an impact on people who live in greater Canada, I believe very strongly that Manitobans outside of the Legislature should have an opportunity to have access to debate on this bill, because this bill has such critical importance for Manitobans throughout.
* (17:10)
So, therefore, I move
THAT this committee recommend to the House that Bill 15, The Climate Change and Emissions Reductions Act, be withdrawn and that public hearings be called across the province to ensure proper scrutiny of the proposed legislation and that a report be tabled in the House in the fall 2008 sitting.
Madam Chairperson: It has been moved by Mr. Derkach
THAT this committee recommend to the House that Bill 15 be withdrawn and that public hearings be called across the province to ensure proper scrutiny of the proposed legislation and that the Committee on Social and Economic Development table a report in the House in the fall 2008 sitting.
The motion is in order. The floor is open for questions.
Mr. Rondeau: I'd like to speak a little bit to the motion. I know that the member might not be aware of this, but we started this session on April 9. April 11, the bill was introduced. I know the member opposite has troubles with the e-mail, but it has been on a Web site, on the front page of the government Web site since that date. I do have a copy that he had in paper form.
The plan, which is here, I can send it to the member opposite. Again, he has troubles with the e‑mail. I would be happy to provide him a paper copy of the plan. I know he had troubles with the e‑mail. The plan is on the Web site for all Manitobans to receive. I know that I did a briefing of not one but two critics. I provided a side-by-side to the critics.
In fact, it's interesting to note that, on the back, you say there're not enough consultations. I would like to provide in size 8 font–I have to use size 8 font–there are seven pages of groups that have had meetings. There's a group on agriculture; there's a page of agriculture on size 8 font. There's a group on business, which is a page of size 8 font on businesses that were consulted and had discussions on this.
NGOs, there's a half a page of that. There are exhibitors; there's another page of municipalities that have been discussed and had input on this. On northern and First Nations, there's a group of people who did that. There are sustainable roundtable discussions. Lo and behold, the transportation group has another page of contributors and people to discuss this from transportation.
There's also the community economic development, community governments, different governments, other non-Manitoba sectors that we've been doing that has nothing to do with the western climate change, et cetera.
I'm pleased to see that the member last night said there was no such thing as climate change. I know he was excited when the Canadian Taxpayers Federation said there was no worry about climate change. I'm shocked that the members opposite want to delay action.
We've just heard a number of presenters who said that we needed to move forward quickly on climate change. I'm glad the Tories have said that there's no such thing as climate change; they want to delay action on climate change. They want to do nothing. I know the members did nothing when they were in government; in fact, they were ninth out of 10 on energy efficiency. I know they did nothing on efficiency on buildings, so I'm happy that the members do want to take action on climate change. I know that you are there.
It's amazing that the Tories are demanding delaying action on climate change. I'm proud to be a government that wants to move forward on this. I'm proud to be a government that's leaders. I know when the member was in Cabinet, you were ninth out of 10 on energy efficiency. I knew that you didn't do anything as far as windmills and I know that you crow about windmills now, but you did nothing.
I am pleased to hear–[interjection]–I am pleased that the member wanted to talk, but now doesn't want to listen. I am pleased–[interjection]–I am pleased to see that we have got a good plan. If the member needs to, I can send you the paper copy. I can send you the paper copy of the bill, but they've been on the Web site, in fact, the front page of the Web site for many months. I'm also pleased that my staff have gone through consultations with multiple partners, multiple groups that have discussed this province-wide.
Madam Chairperson, I'm shocked by the member who wants to continue to do nothing. They did nothing when they were in government, and I'm pleased that we have a plan and we're moving forward. So I would vote against this.
Mr. Derkach: Well, I don't know whether the minister has been into some sauce or what he's been into. In the way he has been speaking, you wonder, Madam Chair, because at no time did I suggest to the committee last night that there wasn't an effect on climate change. I didn't suggest that at all, and I don't know whether the minister was listening or whether he's just delusionary.
But, Madam Chair, let me also indicate that although the minister says he had consultation with many groups–and I take him at his word for that–last night, when we had presenters before the committee, we asked the question on whether or not they were consulted on the impact that this bill would have on their industry, and in more than one case, the answer was no. The minister, then, from his seat–he didn't have the courage to put it on the record–said that he did consult with them. Now, in other words, he was calling the presenters less than truthful.
Madam Chair, I take the presenters at their word and when they say that they did not consult with the minister on this legislation, I believe them.
Madam Chair, secondly, this bill has an impact on a lot of Manitobans. Now, the member says it's on our Web page. We know that. That's not an issue, but when did the minister bring this bill into the House for second reading, and did he bring it in in time so that there could be adequate debate in the House? The answer to that is no, because the House was shut down from debate on the 22nd of May, and all bills at that stage were moved into committee whether they were debated or not. That was not our call. That was the call of the government.
So, Madam Chair, it is in that spirit that we are trying to ensure that Manitobans have a say as to the elements of this bill and to ensure that this committee–and the minister may think that because he's got a majority in his government he can ram through legislation, that Manitobans shouldn't have a say in it, Manitobans shouldn't have input into it, but that's not democracy. Today, we had before our Legislature a man from Ukraine, the President of Ukraine, who has fought for democracy to the point where his life was threatened because of his stance on democracy. I'm proud to wear two pins today, one being the pin which represents Canada and Ukraine because we support democracy; the other, the Holodomor, where people who did not believe in democracy tried to obliterate a population who wanted and cried out for democracy. I wear those pins proudly today, and today the government is trying to shut this committee down, trying to exercise its power and its numbers to shut down the debate in this House and in this committee.
We will not allow that. Madam Chair, we have every right as legislators in this province to demand that proper public scrutiny is given to the bills that this government, this undemocratic government, wants to bring forward. I'm sorry to call them undemocratic, but that's exactly how they have been acting since they were elected in June of last year. That is regrettable because we believe that Manitobans have every right to be able to give due diligence through their elected members.
Madam Chair, the people who are elected by the people of this province have every right to come before this committee to state their views in this committee to make sure that we hear and understand what it is Manitobans are truly telling us about the legislation that the government is proposing.
But we have seen evidence in this committee in the last two days of anything but democracy, because every time we ask for leave for people to be able to have their time extended or to be able to ask them another question, members like the Minister of Competitiveness (Mr. Swan) move in very quickly to shut down that debate and to ensure that Manitobans aren't given the opportunity to bring their views forward. They aren't being given the ability for us to ask them questions, so that, in fact, proper information can be put on the record, so that when we go back to the House, we can give this bill the kind of scrutiny that it deserves.
* (17:20)
Madam Chair, this is not the only bill. We have seen other bills come before this committee, and that's the same treatment that the government is giving the other bills. It will not allow any flexibility unless it's in its best interest to allow that flexibility for people to have extended time to speak to a bill.
Last night, we saw the Minister of Competitiveness speak out when a member did not take his full 10 minutes to make the presentation. He then decided that it was okay to allow for an extension of time for questions so that person could get more than five minutes of questioning. But it wasn't good enough for members who had taken up 10 minutes of time in their presentations, because perhaps their presentations were more thorough, perhaps their presentations dealt with more points, but they were not given the ability to be questioned for more than five minutes.
The minister thinks that he can pick and choose when he decides to give somebody latitude and when he decides to give somebody flexibility in making a presentation. He doesn't have that right as an individual around this table. This table is made up of committee members from both sides of the House. It's both sides of the House that should be dealing with this information, not just the minister himself.
So that is why I think it's important that this bill be taken out to all Manitobans so that Manitobans can, indeed, have input into this legislation, rather than this being shut down by a government that is starting to act like a very undemocratic government and using its majority to try and force legislation through without giving legislation the proper scrutiny that it deserves. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Cullen: Well, Madam Chair, I, too, want to speak in favour of the motion brought forward by the Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach). I think it's fairly clear. We've had two presenters here today, both Mr. Hull and Mr. Stevens. Their submissions indicated that they really felt they haven't had adequate time to do justice to this particular legislation.
When you do look at the legislation, it is certainly an encompassing piece of legislation, 18 pages in the document alone. In fact, it encompasses a number of other acts as well. It certainly will involve all Manitobans to some degree and many Manitobans to a very significant degree. When we talk about the business community, certainly they will be impacted very profusely by this particular legislation. We've had two presenters here indicate quite straightforward that they felt that they needed more time to review the bill. Obviously, when we asked them questions about specific issues regarding the emissions and the time of those emissions, it appeared that they would certainly like some more time to evaluate that.
When we quizzed them about some of the penalties going forward, they felt that those sorts of issues should be addressed because the issue of penalties in entirety is lacking from this particular legislation. Again, it's one of those feel-good pieces of legislation that this government likes to bring forward. Put a nice, fancy name on it, and Manitobans will feel good that climate change is going to be addressed in Manitoba.
But, as we know, quite frankly, this bill here is cherry-picking segments of industries and businesses around the province. It doesn't really deal with the wide issue of greenhouse gas emissions. There are so many things that are lacking here. The minister went through a list of people that he said that they have consulted with. Well, we certainly sitting on this committee and as opposition critics, we would like to see those submissions that those other agencies or those groups or those individuals brought forward to the government. I think that would be very worthwhile if the minister was prepared to table those submissions, those consultations that he has apparently had with organizations.
I guess I almost have to second-guess the minister when I hear two presenters today that have a very valid, very important stake in greenhouse gas emissions, I would think would be some of the first industries, first companies that he would be consulting with. Quite clearly they told us today that they felt that they haven't been consulted, and they haven't had the opportunity to review the full impacts of how this legislation might move forward.
I think the Member for Russell raises a very valid point, where we should be setting aside this legislation, bringing it back in the fall. We'll have time, ample time to consult with Manitobans. I'll give you an example. Just last night, talking with some people in my home community, and they weren't aware of this particular legislation going forward. So I brought it to their knowledge, and there are a couple of individuals there that would like to make a presentation to the committee because it affects them. In fact, one individual was a municipal reeve, and he wasn't aware of this particular legislation coming forward. He has a very vested interest in this particular legislation. He represents a fairly considerable portion of Manitobans, and, obviously, he should be at the table representing his constituents as well. I think, again, the member's motion is certainly very valid.
The other thing that I think the committee should be aware of, and Manitobans should be aware of, that the Canadian government is currently in debate over our greenhouse gas emissions and how things might move forward. Obviously, whatever the outcome there is, there is going to be a significant implication for Manitobans, and I would guess that it's going to have fairly substantial implications on this particular legislation and how it plays out in Manitoba. I think it's an opportunity for not only the government, but us as opposition members to have a chance to discuss the situation with the Government of Canada as well and see how there might be some interaction between the current legislation that is brought forward here and the legislation that is going to be brought forward at the federal level.
You know, there're just so many issues here that aren't addressed in this legislation, too, and I think that's part of the frustration that Manitobans sense. There's so many things that are so vague. We look at the advisory committees that the minister can set up. We don't know exactly who's going to be appointed to those, what role those advisory committees are going to play. The minister has the ability to set up his own regulations. He has the ability to set up his own mandate in terms of what the regulations are going to look like and what the emissions levels are going to be and then, again, there's no repercussion for that. A lot of those things are so vague in the legislation that I think Manitobans have the right and the responsibility to ask those questions and, I think, over the course of the summer they should have that opportunity, so I certainly want to speak in favour of the motion by the Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach).
Mr. Pedersen: I would certainly like to speak in support of this motion. While the motion reads to take this out to the country for hearings, when the Member for Russell was speaking before and talked about taking the bill to the country for hearings, there's often comments made across the table and the comment that was not on the record but was made by the Member for Wolseley (Mr. Altemeyer) was something to the effect of taking somebody out to the back 40 and being shot. I think that's pretty bad, Madam Chair. If that's indicative of the attitude of this government, it's no wonder they try to ram through this legislation. They shut down presenters. They don't want to hear from the public. They don't want to hear from the opposition. Apparently, they know better than everyone else. Obviously, certainly that's the attitude, and if that's the attitude they have, that's very regrettable.
There's been a number of presenters that have come to this committee that have emphatically stated, and we can take them at their word, I believe, that they've had no input into this bill in spite of what the minister tries to tell us about his extensive consultations when the stakeholders that will be affected by this bill, read about it in the press. I hardly think that that's meaningful consultation. We've heard from many different presenters, and really from both sides of the spectrum, saying the bill is too ominous, and from others who say the bill doesn't go far enough. So the idea of taking this out for further consultation, you will never please everybody. We all know that, but, at the same time, you need to strike some sort of balance in this, and taking it out, delaying this bill, putting it out for consultation to the public is a solid move.
Time and again we hear about how the federal government is lagging on this. The minister's told me numerous times that the low-speed vehicles, it's the feds fault why they can't do them, why they can't get them licensed here in Manitoba. Yet, this bill, as I read it and as I understand it, will set Manitoba standards for emissions and for standards that will be offside with both the federal government and with the North American market. We've heard that from presenters that have real concerns that their vehicles. They won't be able to sell vehicles in Manitoba because of this, except Manitoba Public Insurance will still be able to sell some and have on the road some 8,000 vehicles a year, pre-1995, in effect becoming the biggest dealer in used cars in Manitoba. Yet this bill doesn't address that. They don't even address themselves on this.
* (17:30)
I raised the question about presenters. I wanted to ask a question. It's been denied, and the members of the government seem to take great delight at poking fun or criticisms at the presenter from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. If they were so opposed to this presentation, why didn't they extend the question period and ask the presenter questions? It's very easy to criticize the person after they've left, but if you're afraid to ask them questions, why don't you get out there and stand up and ask the questions, or maybe you don't want to hear the answers? Maybe that's why you've shut it down.
As I understand it, the bill briefing was a bit of a sham on this. The spreadsheet raised more questions than answers from the minister, and for a bill to be rammed through the Legislature and not being able to answer questions in regard to the bill is disturbing. Obviously, there hasn't been enough thought put into it.
Delaying this bill and putting it out for public hearings across Manitoba is taking it out to the people. Are they afraid of what they'll hear? If it's legitimate, if they do have good points in their bill, then take it out there and explain it to people. Manitobans are very reasonable and they will listen to reason if this is such a reasonable bill and the parts of the bill are explainable. If they can explain how they can do 5 percent emissions control or reduction in the next three years and miraculously do 95 percent in the next two years, Manitobans deserve an explanation as to how that's actually going to be done.
We heard from these two presenters today, Mr. Stevens and Mr. Hall, really questioning that as well, so it's not the lunatic fringe that's saying that this bill is not workable. Both sides have their legitimate concerns about this.
Madam Chair, it would also be interesting to hear from government members to speak to this motion as to why they wouldn't want to take it out to public hearings. I don't hold my breath on that. I don't expect them to get up. It would be great if they would explain to us why they don't need to take it to Manitobans, but I think this bill is poorly designed. It needs to be overhauled and taken a serious look at it again. If it is good legislation, I'm sure that our side of the House would support it. Thank you.
Mr. Schuler: I know there are individuals in the gallery who want to present, and I suspect they will be able to present this evening still, but I'd like to point out to the committee and to those in the gallery: there's a saying that there are two things you should never watch being made. One of them is sausage and the other one is legislation. I'll leave the sausage. You can go to your local butcher to figure that one out.
Legislation is extraordinarily dangerous if it's rushed. We have an obligation as an opposition to ensure that any legislation that goes through has been properly vetted and has been properly gone over. It is our job. In fact, our title is Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. The minister says we should pass this legislation because evidently, when you were in government, you did nothing. I have to say to the minister that is the most childish argument that shouldn't even be made at this table when we're talking about serious issues of legislation.
I point out to the minister, because neither he nor I were here pre-1999, blue box recycling did not appear all of a sudden with this minister. It came under Glen Cummings, a Conservative Cabinet Minister. So we can dispense with this, you did nothing. But it still is a terrible argument that somehow, oh, my goodness, the minister says you did nothing. For that reason, without questioning, without doing our job, without debate, without anything, we should just absolutely agree with anything the government puts before this Manitoba Legislature.
I can tell you, for the years I've been here, and I've been here almost the same amount of time or more than most committee members, outside of the minister, he's been here a bit longer than I have, I take my job seriously. My job is to be an opposition member, to hold up legislation and say, these are the flaws. These are the problems. This is why we vote against this legislation. We are elected. We elect a government and we elect an opposition. The government should take its job serious, for them to defend that they do. It's important that the opposition take its job serious. What stands between tyranny and the public is a strong opposition, and thus we are at this table opposing.
Opposition comes in various forms. We have seen in the last 10, 15 years amazing forms of opposition. We've seen thousands, tens of thousands of people rattling their keys in a town square, that was their opposition. We have seen candles being lit and people walking through the streets with lit candles. We've heard about the Orange Revolution where young people out in the town square, freezing, opposed what was going on by their government.
We in Manitoba are fortunate because of history. Because of those who went before us, we are allowed to oppose in what I would call a little bit more civilized fashion here in this Legislature. We have this committee, and it is our job to put forward the kinds of things that we've been putting forward.
This legislation is very encompassing. It has not had enough public scrutiny. The minister, the fact that he hit a cow with his car, hardly makes him a cook of hamburgers. His lists and lists and lists of people that they drove by and evidently consulted with, he hasn't put one shred of proof that he consulted with any of them. Not one document, nothing has been put on the table. So we don't know what's been consulted and who has been consulted and who hasn't been consulted.
We have been elected to protect the public from a massive majority government. We sit across from the government that the people chose many members of, but that doesn't mean that our resolve should be any less at this committee. We as an opposition should have a strong resolve. If there are two independent members from the Liberal Party or 19 members of the Conservative caucus, we must still stand in this Legislature and do as our title says. Our title is Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. It's been developed by custom over hundreds of years. We will sit at this table and fight for that because, perhaps, after the next election, and I would say, hopefully after the next election, the roles will be reversed and then it will be members opposite who will then have the right and the privilege and the responsibility to be in opposition.
Why are we opposing this legislation? Madam Chairperson, 95 percent of what this legislation speaks to, 95 percent of it comes after the next election. Shame on the government for saying we can, in four years, achieve 5 percent, perhaps. The next 95 percent, we're going to shove off on another generation of elected officials because the New Democrats don't have the guts, don't have the forewithal to stand up and say, we're going to set up proper targets.
Madam Chairperson, 95 percent of it is shoved off after a next election. That's why we should be here and oppose it. That's why we should be standing in our place and saying, this is gratuitous at best. At best, it's gratuitous. We wanted to see something a little bit more, a good made-in-Manitoba solution, and we thought that the made-in-Manitoba solution would perhaps entail a little bit more than 5 percent. A little bit more. Even from New Democrats, we should be able to expect more than 5 percent in four years.
* (17:40)
I say to this committee it is responsible of this committee and it is responsible of this opposition to ask that this legislation be carried over to a fall sitting, and I commend my colleague for having brought the motion forward. I would ask this committee, I would ask members of this committee to hold off on legislation that's so important. We are not passing this legislation for the next three weeks, nor will it be for the next three years. This'll be legislation that will have ramifications for tens and tens of years. Then why try to ram legislation through the darkness of night? Why get it in at the last moment? Why is it that it's being introduced and basically closure shut down on opposition. I apologize to those who have to sit here and listen to these speeches, but this is actually one of the first opportunities we've had to seriously deal with this legislation. We haven't had the opportunity that we should have had as an opposition.
So I would recommend to this committee that we look at the motion, and what's the hurry? Certainly, the government in four years without legislation can achieve 5 percent. Or can't we even count on them? Is it that they need legislation so that they can even maybe achieve 5 percent? We already know that the bar is set so low, my goodness, surely, if we hold on to this legislation for four months, you're still going to achieve your pathetic, meagre 5 percent and leave the 95 percent to another government. Surely this committee has the forewithal to allow this legislation to hold over to a fall sitting.
Madam Chairperson: Is the committee ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Madam Chairperson: The question before the committee is as follows:
THAT this committee recommend to the House that Bill 15 be withdrawn and that public hearings be called across the province to ensure proper scrutiny of the proposed legislation and that the Committee on Social and Economic Development table a report in the House in the fall 2008 sitting.
Shall the motion pass?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Chairperson: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Chairperson: In my opinion, the Nays have it.
Formal Vote
An Honourable Member: Could we have a recorded vote, Madam Chair?
Madam Chairperson: A recorded vote has been called for.
A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 3, Nays 5.
Madam Chairperson: The motion is accordingly defeated.
* * *
Mr. Pedersen: I move
THAT this committee recommend to the House that The Climate Change and Emissions Reductions Act be carried over to the fall session and this committee be allowed to call expert witnesses.
Motion presented.
Madam Chairperson: The floor is open for questions.
Mr. Pedersen: I think the whole point of the motion explains itself. We've tried to make our point on this, that there's been less than adequate input into this bill from when we heard the presenters. They didn't have input into it.
What is the government afraid of here? Their 5 percent in the next three years is about 1.65 percent per year. I don't think, between now and this fall, which would probably be then about 0.4 percent of emissions if they pass this bill–I don't think it's going to make any difference at all and certainly achievable, even if the bill came back in its present form after public hearings this summer and hearing from witnesses.
Mr. Vice-Chairperson in the Chair
What we're saying is that there hasn't been adequate discussion on this bill both from the legislators' point of view. It was brought in very late. Because of the timetable in the Legislature, we haven't had adequate time to discuss this bill in second reading.
If this bill is as good as what the minister claims it is, then there should be a lot of people willing to come out and support him on this. We have the opinion that there is not that mass of experts out there. We think there's a mass of experts out there who have serious questions about this bill; we just got a taste of it from the presenters that were in here. What all of us are after, both sides of the House, is we're after cleaner air, less emissions and a stronger environment for Manitoba.
To take our time on this and to make sure we get it right is reasonable, and it's also doable because this bill, as it's set up, will not accomplish what it's professing to do. Actually, what the bill is professing to do is make a statement that they have intentions of lowering greenhouse gas, but it doesn't put the mechanisms in there as to how it will happen.
What all of us need to understand is what those mechanisms will be. Therefore, put it out to people who will have sincere and honest input into this bill and can give us some solid recommendations because, as I say, between now and this fall, there is nothing to lose and everything to gain from this, except from the publicity point.
They've put out a bill; then they send out glossy press releases about how they're going to reduce greenhouse gases, except that they forget to mention that there's only 5 percent in the next three years. After the next election, somehow magically, there'll be 95 percent reduction in reaching that target, 95 percent of the target in the last two years of this mandate of this bill.
There's no reason at all why–unless the only reason for the government to do this, to ram this through, is that they really have no idea how they are going to do it and they'll just hope that everyone will forget about what their targets are. Actually, their targets of 5 percent are achievable just by doing nothing, because the average Manitoban takes it more seriously than this government does.
Fuel economy on cars will probably lower those emissions in the next three years, but there's an idea. How about getting some experts in and explaining that to us that, if over the next three years, which would explain the 5 percent? How are you going to explain the 95 percent in the last two years?
* (17:50)
This bill is just far too rushed; they're in a hurry. They're trying to ram this down, just like many other pieces of legislation, and they're calling committees and they're trying to ram it through.
Bill 38's another example. They need that legislation passed through right away because they're facing deficits, and the only way they can face a deficit is with Bill 38 so that, again, they can average it out to after the next election. Run deficits and then raid the Crown corporations to balance the budget, so they're just–it's a sham how this government is operating. They have no respect for Manitobans. They have no respect for the Legislature. It's really unfortunate that they've taken this attitude, but then, I guess, as some of the members have said: Because we can. And that's an attitude that they've developed, and it's offside with Manitobans.
We can only hope, by taking this out to public hearings and consulting with experts on this bill, that we can really find out and map out a plan for Manitoba that will be in harmony with the rest of Canada and with North America because we are in a global market. We cannot make made-in-Manitoba solutions that are offside with the rest of Canada and the rest of North America. While they've been able to do this the last number of years because of transfer payments, and certainly made them an island to stand on without encouraging business, we know that that's–that little parade is probably going to end in the next few years and, again, I guess that's the hurry for Bill 38 is to be able to push it through so they can handle some deficits without being penalized. Again, this government is not listening to Manitobans. We need them to listen to Manitobans. We've heard from presenters here that are very unhappy with the lack of consultation that's been provided so far, and there's no reason at all why they can't go out into public hearings and bring this bill back in the fall.
Mr. Vice-Chairperson, that's my take on this, and I would really hope that the government members would sit up and take notice and listen to all of Manitobans. Thank you.
Mr. Rondeau: I'd like to just put a couple of words on. When the member said that we're not listening to Manitobans and that he's questioned whether the workshops are there, the workshop results have been on the Web site. They have been placed on the Web site for all Manitobans to see, so I would encourage the member to learn how to use the Web. I will show you where they are on there. They've been on there for weeks. The workshops that have gone around for the different sectors of the economy, they were done. They were conducted by experts. We received consultations and feedback from Manitobans from multiple groups. Those are on the Web site. I would hope that you could do that.
The plan. The plan that I had made an offer to the opposition to do a briefing on and they did not take me up on it. In the plan there're 60 activities. This was never taken up on. I made the offer multiple times to not only to my critic, but other members of the opposition, so this was not taken up. This was done in good faith.
Other things. It was not mentioned that the Western Climate Initiative, which we're a part of, is part of the whole comprehensive strategy and, yes, we are bringing new businesses here. The interesting part is that this is a business opportunity. I'm sorry that the members opposite do not wish to do anything in the environment. I'm sorry that they wish to delay action. I would like to quote on this. This is talking about doing things in transportation. It's talking about green buildings. It's talking about standards for building new buildings, which would carry on forever. It'll talk about taking the methane gas from landfills and capturing it. It's talking about coal phase-out. It's talking about doing something off-grid. It's talking about working with the communities, getting experts. It's talking about setting up emissions credits.
I can see why the members opposite are opposing it. They're opposing it because it's something green. It's something new. I know the members opposite have difficulty with anything new. In fact, I know that there were points of order about the fact that they couldn't use their computer and couldn't find stuff on the Web site, and they had to be provided it in paper. So, I'm pleased that we not only have it on the Web site, it's also available on CD; it's also available on paper for the member opposite and the Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach). But we can have that to you, and I'm pleased to see that.
So I think it's a good bill. I want to take action now. I know the members opposite never want to take action and never want to do anything.
Finally, Mr. Vice-Chair, during the 1990s, they say they did things. Yes, they did, although the economy went down and basically people moved out of the economy. While the Member for Russell was a member of Cabinet, the decrease of population, decrease in economic activity, the megatons went up by two million tonnes. It went from 18 to 20 megatonnes. Under our watch it's been flat, and we're trending downwards. What's nice is we're doing 60 actions. I know the member opposite, I haven't quite got you a copy, the paper copy. I trust you can use the Web site. If you can't, please let me know, I'll get you a paper copy of the plan, which has 60 different items in it. But we've had extensive consultations. We've had extensive feedback from experts, and please check the Web, and if you need the Web address we can actually have a staff member show you where it is. Thank you.
Mr. Derkach: Well, Mr. Vice-Chair, I won't engage in the condescending tone that the minister has been using in his remarks, because I do believe that members on both sides of the House use the types of information that they need to be able to make their positions known on this bill. The reason that we have asked for not only a delay in this bill till the fall, but also, perhaps, expert witnesses coming forward, because of the conflicting information that we have been hearing at this committee that was presented by members who presented last night and today, and when I hear members of the automobile association indicating that they had no consultation with the minister–
An Honourable Member: They didn't say that.
Mr. Derkach: Well, Mr. Vice-Chair, perhaps the minister would like to check, for the record, the question that was asked and the answer that was given by the dealers association, and then he would clarify in his mind what the real answer was to that question.
Mr. Vice-Chair, it doesn't give us a lot of confidence in the minister when we hear comments like that; that people were not consulted; that, in fact, there wasn't any consultation. My colleague, the Member for Carman (Mr. Pedersen), indicated to the minister a few minutes ago that reeves in his area did not know about this bill, were not consulted with, and yet the minister makes a statement that he consulted with municipalities. I mean it's easy to put a list together and say I've consulted here and there and there, and hopefully, he can pull the wool over the eyes of the committee members and nobody will check. But, when you check with those specific groups that he talks about, they look at you and shake their head and say, no, we had no consultation on this matter. So, that's why we have little confidence in what the minister says.
But, Mr. Vice-Chair, I think important to this bill is the fact that we, as a committee, can hear those expert witnesses regarding climate change so that, indeed, we can make a more informed choice when it comes to either bringing forward amendments that will strengthen this bill, bringing forward amendments that would change the bill so that it would better reflect what Manitobans are talking about in terms of this legislation, and it would, at the end of the day, perhaps make a better bill.
Now, my colleague, the Member for Carman, I think was right on the money when he indicated that, you know, we're not going to affect climate change in the next three months to such an extent that we're going to cause irreversible damage.
So there is no reason why we cannot put this bill out to the public, take it out to Manitobans, have a good and thorough discussion on this bill, and then come back to the House with a report, bring forward some expert witnesses for the good of the bill so that, indeed, at the end of the day, Manitobans are going to enjoy a better bill, one that truly reflects what Manitobans feel and how strongly they feel about the environment and how we can impact climate change in a more positive way.
* (18:00)
The minister may talk about his Web page and he seems to be preoccupied with his little technology information issues. I can tell you that if we need to look at the propaganda on the Web page, we'll certainly make ourselves available of it and so will Manitobans. So we don't need to be lectured by this minister in a condescending way. We have caught this minister on many occasions where he has not been quite truthful even in the way that he represents things, so I don't have to go back to that. But let me just indicate that I think bringing expert witnesses forward is a prudent way to proceed and certainly that is something that I would encourage and support.
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Just before recognizing the next speaker, I do want to remind all honourable members that we are all honourable as much as we feel passionately and have different views on the issues of the day. That said, who's next?
Point of Order
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: On a point of order.
Mr. Derkach: Yes, on a point of order. If I have offended anybody with my comments I certainly would like to withdraw them and apologize for that.
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Technically speaking, it's not a point of order, but it is appreciated.
* * *
Mr. Cullen: Mr. Vice-Chair, I certainly want to speak in favour of this motion as well. I think the case has been made that we do need some time, and the people of Manitoba do need some time to review this particular piece of legislation, because it does cover most Manitobans in some way, shape or form. I just refer to the actual proposed legislation here and it talks about advisory committees and even under this section 19(2), the minister may direct an advisory committee to carry out public consultation before providing advice and recommendations.
Well, I think that says it all. Why do we have to implement legislation to say that we're going to have advisory committees and have public consultation? Why don't we have the public consultation before we enact the legislation and have a chance for Manitobans to bring these things forward? You know, the other thing I do want to point out that, you know, we don't always need legislation to get things done, and I'll talk about one aspect of this bill and that's the whole idea of capturing greenhouse gas emissions from landfills.
Manitoba has–yes, well I guess we're really just getting started on a little pilot in Brandon. That's about all we've got accomplished here, and, quite frankly, that was accomplished without legislation. The City of Brandon decided they were going to move ahead and try and get some things done. I don't know how well the Province co-operated with the City of Brandon, but the fact remains you don't need legislation to move things forward.
The City of Grand Forks, they've been doing this for a number of years. They've been capturing greenhouse gas emissions from their landfill, and, in fact, they've been very successful in terms of some of that energy they're collecting they use to heat other city entities, and actually selling some of those credits on the market, so actually generating income for the City of Grand Forks. We haven't got that far, but that's not because there's legislation in place to do it. That's because the government had the will to get it done. And that's why I wonder if the government of the day is bringing forward this legislation in name to make Manitobans feel good about what they're doing and what they're trying to accomplish here in Manitoba.
You know, the other aspect here that a lot of Manitobans aren't aware of is the proposed coal tax in this legislation, because there are a lot of Manitobans who do use coal, and most of those are relatively small operations, some commercial operations, some farm operations. We don't know what those particular regulations are going to look like and Manitobans have a right to know.
So, because this bill involves a lot of regulations, a lot of appointments by the minister, and leaves a lot of the discretion up to the minister, we think it's only right that Manitobans have the opportunity to review what those regulations may say. We don't know how far down the road those regulations would be brought forward by the government, but Manitobans should have an idea what implications are going to be for them in regard to those regulations, and just the fact of having this committee allowed to talk to expert committees, individuals, I think, it's just a novel approach.
Look at the debate we're having in the biofuels industry for instance, you know, every time you open up the paper one group is saying yes, this is a good thing. Another group is saying no, it's not a good thing. Well, that, I think, is something where we as a committee should be talking with the experts in the field trying to get a good consensus of where that industry's going, the pros and cons and how that will impact Manitobans and how we can develop better legislation for not only that industry but for all Manitobans.
So, certainly, Mr. Vice-Chair, I do want to speak in favour of this motion and I think it's an opportune time for us to have a broader discussion with all Manitobans and call on expert review for this particular legislation. Thank you.
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you for those comments.
Committee Substitutions
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Just for the committee's information I'd like to make the following membership substitution effective immediately.
A substitution has been made of Ms. Rowat for Ms. Stefanson for all concerned. [interjection] Okay, just to be clear, Ms. Rowat will be replacing Ms. Stefanson. Yes. Okay, very good.
* * *
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Is the House ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: Committee.
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Is the committee even ready for the question?
An Honourable Member: Question.
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: The question before the committee is as follows: Moved by Mr. Pedersen that this committee recommend to the House that The Climate Change and Emissions Reductions Act be carried over to the fall session and this committee be allowed to call expert witnesses.
Shall the motion pass?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: I declare the motion defeated.
Formal Vote
Mr. Derkach: Just a count, Mr. Vice-Chair.
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: A count has been requested, also known as a recorded vote for those of you watching from home.
A COUNT-OUT VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas 3, Nays 5
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: The motion is accordingly defeated.
Bill 16–The Child Care Safety Charter (Community Child Care Standards Act Amended).
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: We will now move to discussion and presentations on Bill 16, The Child Care Safety Charter (Community Child Care Standards Act Amended).
The presenter that we have on the list, the only one is Karen Starr, private citizen. Is Karen Starr in the room? Give a few moments in case they are nearby. Calling the name once again. Ms. Karen Starr, are you with us?
Floor Comment: No.
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: No. Okay, her name will be moved to the bottom of the list.
Bill 19–The Liquor Control Amendment Act
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Our next piece of legislation to consider is Bill 19, The Liquor Control Amendment Act.
Once again, we have a single presenter lined up, Mr. Fred Curry, private citizen. Is Mr. Curry with us here? Very good, and I see you have copies available for the committee. We thank you for that.
Just before we get started, since it's been a little while since we had a presenter, you have 10 minutes for your presentation and then there will be up to five minutes for questions afterwards. In between, I will need to recognize both yourself and anyone asking a question, for the benefit of Hansard.
Mr. Curry, please begin.
* (18:10)
Mr. Fred Curry (Private Citizen): Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chairperson. It's Bill 19 to amend The Liquor Control Act. There's a single portion of it that pertains to safety in bars. I wish to address that portion, and it's not to anything that's actually in the amendment, but it's something that I would think is not in the amendment and it perhaps ought to be.
I took the liberty of sending electronic copies to the Clerk, to the critics for both parties and to the minister. There are embedded links in a portion of my presentation. The presentation is actually only the top two pages. The other eight pages are supplementary material, and there are links. If anybody's interested in the links, you can certainly get them from the Clerk or from the minister. I'm quite happy to send them to you.
One of my clones, I'm a city planning consultant, and I work with resident groups in older neighbourhoods right around the city, mostly north of Portage right now, although I do work in other neighbourhoods. I also spent a decade or so of my life, when I was younger and more foolish, hanging around bars, so I have certain experience there, and I work with young people so there's a discussion with people who are still working in the industry. So I have anecdotal knowledge of that.
My concern is with the "in" in Bill 19 which is safety within licensed premises, and the term "bar" excludes what we call, I think, dining room licences here. So it includes bars, lounges, cabarets and beverage rooms here, and private clubs which essentially are lounges.
The data from around the world certainly confirms–English-speaking data that's available on the Internet and in libraries–that there is an issue of safety–particularly with violence is the greatest concern– in all parts of the world and that there are design things that can be done which, although they are successful, they're not 100 percent successful, so that if you have a bar in your neighbourhood, you're more likely to have violence in that place than you would if there was no bar there.
However, the little-known fact that has emerged within the last, say, 10 years is that in neighbourhoods in which bars are located, there is a statistically measurable increase in the incidence of violence. I've attached abstracts from three studies which confirm this. Two of them are geospatial. The third one was done with hospital admissions to determine that in areas around bars, there's a higher