LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday,
February 27, 1992
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): I must inform the House of the unavoidable
absence of Mr. Speaker and, in accordance with the Statutes, call upon the Deputy
Speaker to take the Chair.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
Madam Deputy Speaker
(Louise Dacquay): I have reviewed the petition, and it conforms
with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read?
The petition of the undersigned citizens
of the
THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by
all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world;
and
It is the responsibility of the government
to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and
Programs like the Fight Back Against Child
Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with the
crime; and
The decision to terminate the Fight Back
Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good citizens to
help abused children.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
I have reviewed the petition, and it
conforms with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the
rules. Is it the will of the House to
have the petition read?
The petition of the undersigned citizens
of the
THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by
all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world;
and
It is the responsibility of the government
to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and
Programs like the Fight Back Against Child
Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with the crime;
and
The decision to terminate the Fight Back
Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good citizens to
help abused children.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
I have reviewed the petition, and it conforms
with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the
rules. Is it the will of the House to
have the petition read?
The petition of the undersigned citizens
of the
THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by
all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world;
and
It is the responsibility of the government
to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and
Programs like the Fight Back Against Child
Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with the
crime; and
The decision to terminate the Fight Back
Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good citizens to
help abused children.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
* (1335)
TABLING OF
REPORTS
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister of Government Services): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I would like to table the '90‑91 Annual Report for the
Department of Government Services.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy Speaker,
I would just like to table the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation Quarterly Report,
Nine Months, April to December, 1991.
Introduction
of Guests
Madam Deputy Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to
inform the House, there are twenty‑four Grade 5 students from
On behalf of all honourable members, I
welcome you this afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Repap
Manitoba Inc.
Renegotiations
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): For the last two and a half years, Madam
Deputy Speaker, we have been raising a number of concerns on the negotiated
agreement between the government of the
Members opposite and other members in this
Chamber attacked us right through the election for the concerns that we had
raised on behalf of Manitobans, yet today, the Minister of Finance states‑‑and
the logic of the government falls like a house of cards when he states that we
will negotiate some of the conditions of the agreement that were not in the
best interests of
He has now agreed to negotiate specific
parts of the project, unfortunately for all the wrong reasons, reasons due to
the finances of the corporation in a letter that was given to the Minister of Finance
and responded to by the government one day later.
I would ask the minister responsible for
this divestiture, what assurances can he give the people of
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy Speaker,
what is obvious firstly is that the official opposition maintains and continues
their tirade against Repap. They have
been against Repap from Day One. They
never wanted an outside corporation to come to this province. They wanted the government to continue to own
Manfor. They wanted a massive pollution
to continue at that site and they had‑‑and then $30‑million
annual losses. That is what the members
opposite wanted.
When the company approached us to begin to
consider sitting down and restructuring the agreement, given the incredible
economic losses, financial losses within that industry, totalling $2 billion in
the calendar year 1991, given significant large numbers of plant closures
throughout the forest products industry across
Those conditions have been laid out within
the press release. I dare say they have
nothing to do with the fact that the NDP may have raised those issues. Four years later, since we have done the
deal, the world changes, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is right and proper to
include those elements of which chlorine bleaching is certainly one significant
aspect in the restructuring process.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, let not the record show
for one moment the words the Minister of Finance put on the record.
We have always been in favour of an
agreement with the Repap corporation. We
have been opposed to the rotten deal the Minister of Finance negotiated with
that agreement from Day One, along with thousands of Manitobans.
* (1340)
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable Leader to put a question.
Mr. Doer: Madam Deputy Speaker, anybody who had any
understanding of future jobs would have to predict future markets. That did not include chlorine production.
My question is to the Minister of
Finance. The relationship this
government has with
I would ask the Minister of Finance: How does he expect to have a partnership with
the aboriginal people in the
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy Speaker,
courts ultimately will decide whose claims are relevant or accurate or indeed
justified. Let not the Leader of the NDP
rewrite history. We provided an access
to cutting rights, an area configured many years ago. Indeed it was Manfor's; for the most part, it
was Manfor's old cutting area‑‑[interjection] Yes, it was, and the
area of which the member asks was always part of the Manfor cutting area.
Let not him try to give the appearance
that somebody's rights were trampled on because they were owned, indeed they
were accessed by Manfor previously, and they were more or less provided in the
same configuration as provided to Repap, so I would insist that the member
acknowledge that fact.
Cutting
Area
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not point out the
difference between publicly owned corporations with publicly owned land and
private corporations. The Minister of Finance would not understand that.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a further
question to the Minister of Finance. He
has not answered the question of partnership with aboriginal people, and
judging from the AJI, I think we are in real difficulty with members opposite.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we did ask the
Minister of Finance in August of‑‑[interjection]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable Leader of the Opposition to put his question now, please.
Mr. Doer: Madam Deputy Speaker, my question is to the
Minister of Finance.
On a number of occasions, we asked the
Minister of Finance whether he would change the forest cut area to go into the
Why did the Minister of Finance not
include in his conditions of negotiations with Repap the whole area of the
forest cut area, within the
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy
Speaker, I am kind of perplexed at the question because indeed, if the member
has seen the transfer of letters back and forth, he would know that indeed we
have saved for ourselves the right to either include or exclude the southern
cutting area. I mean, that is one of the
issues that will be brought to the restructuring process. There always will be a balance. If this is going to be a world‑size
investment, obviously, it has to have economics associated with that.
Members opposite will know that sometimes
requires a larger area of which to draw fibre than otherwise might be the case.
Our last deal, of course, involved the southern wood area of the
* (1345)
Repap
Manitoba Inc.
Employment
Creation Strategy
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): Madam Deputy Speaker, my questions are also
directed to the Minister of Finance.
Well, once more Repap has told this
government to jump and they have made the big jump. In view of the fact that the promised best
efforts at jobs of the original deal which has fallen flat, what job guarantees
will this minister be negotiating now, now that the deal has totally unravelled
for citizens of The Pas and the surrounding area?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy Speaker,
I would remind the member opposite, this is what has happened in the last year
within the forest products industry. Abitibi‑Price, Thunder Bay‑‑closed;
Cascade,
Madam Deputy Speaker, the old Manfor
plant, which represented such a tremendous economic benefit to The Pas and
district and, indeed, to many of the members of The Pas Indian band and
environs is open today. The work force,
although down somewhat, still is being productively utilized. I can say to the member, this plant is still
operating, and it is not costing the taxpayers of this province $30 million a
year. I would think the member would be
thankful for that fact.
Employment
Protection
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): Madam Deputy Speaker, my question is again to
the Minister of Finance.
What contingency plan does this minister
have to protect the jobs of The Pas and surrounding communities if the
financial problems of Repap continue or worsen?
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance):
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not going to speculate as to the future
viability of Repap. I say one thing,
though. I am thankful that it is Repap,
because what you have in that organization, you have a forest product concern that
has the most state‑of‑the‑art technology and plant in
Budget
Impact on The Pas,
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): Since northern
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy Speaker,
I kind of resent the question because I know we have made a commitment of $50
million plus. I wonder whether or not,
in concert, the member wrote that question from the member for Flin Flon (Mr.
Storie) when we put $50 million toward a refurbishment of the smelter at Flin
Flon. I wonder if his statement then is
specifically directed for The Pas when he says northern
I would say to the member opposite that
the greatest protection his constituents have is obviously the continuing
development with respect to the fibre source and indeed the forest products
industry in and around The Pas. I would
think the member opposite would be encouraging us to restructure this deal in
the best way to protect the interests of his constituents and indeed the
economy of our province. I would think
that would be the No. 1 issue in the mind of the member for The Pas.
* (1350)
Repap
Manitoba Inc.
Benefits
to
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I would like to take this House back a couple of years when we
heard the glowing forecast of what was going to happen as a result of the sale
of Manfor to Repap.
One of the issues that I raised over and
over again was the issue of whether we were, at any point in time, going to
receive any cash benefit. The Minister
of Finance said, and I quote: She was talking nonsense. We are going to get $132 million over several
years. He said: To say otherwise, is to say I am lying.
Will the Minister of Finance tell the
House today just how much of that $132 million the Treasury of Manitoba has
received?
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy Speaker, one of the great ironies
of this continuing serial, I suppose one could use, is that it is because‑‑
An Honourable Member: It is a nightmare.
Mr. Manness: Well, the member says a nightmare. I do not know how it is a nightmare when
Manfor is employing people and production is being maintained.
Specific to the question, Madam Deputy
Speaker, it is because the original deal was so well structured, in my view,
and because today, in my view, we could approach the courts if we wanted to and
realize a significant portion of the sum of money of which the member
uses. Because the deal is so hard
structured is the reason why Repap is asking us to restructure it.
I would say to the member, if she wants us
basically as a province to realize, on the incredible covenants that we have in
the contract, to guarantee in large measure the amount of money she is talking
about, then she has to tell us also how it is that we are going to maintain the
operation at Manfor if Repap is then forced into insolvency because of that action. That then rests on her shoulders, because
that is what is at issue here.
Renegotiation
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): The
answer is, we have not received one of those $132 million.
Let me go on to quote again from this
minister. In a response to a statement
that I had made that the sale agreement leaves many questions, the Minister of
Finance said he could not understand his opponents' reactions, quote: I can understand why Mrs. Carstairs is
confused. It is a complicated deal, and
she has a limited understanding of how a divestiture is carried out, but there
is no excuse for Mr. Storie.
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, sexism aside,
can the Minister of Finance tell us how this wonderful divestiture needs to be
renegotiated today in light of the disaster negotiation that he negotiated the
first time, and will he back away from doing the renegotiations and resign?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy Speaker,
I found out early on, when I came into public life, one should not take those
types of statements so personally. They
come and go with the flow of debate‑‑[interjection] Yes,
particularly when this new cabinet was being sworn in. I can remember some of the complimentary
remarks that were made at that time by the member for
If the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) so
wishes to delegate the responsibility to somebody else to restructure the deal,
I will certainly abide by that request.
My feelings will not be hurt in the least.
I say to the member opposite, when we
structured the agreement, we realized at the time that expediency was necessary
because pulp prices were at an all‑time high. They were at $700 a tonne, reaching to $800,
ultimately to $850 a tonne. We realized
that, as most commodity prices do cycle, it would only be a matter of time that
those pulp prices would begin to drop, and we hoped that construction would be
well along before that event occurred.
That did not happen. The member
knows why that did not happen. She knows
that there were environmental processes that took longer than expected but,
nevertheless, were very necessary.
* (1355)
She also knows that in some cases there
were points brought forward by the members opposite that may or may not have
helped the delay, contributed to the delay, but the net result was Repap got
caught in the time when pulp prices dropped to $500 a tonne. If the members are
saying that we should have known what the forest product industry was going to
do as far as commitment towards bottom lines, I say to her, for that, I
apologize. We did not know that, but
hindsight is perfect, is it not?
Mrs. Carstairs: Foresight helps. The minister tells us that he has some
performance guarantees. This company has
defaulted on every single one of its performance guarantees in the contract
signed by this minister in March of 1989.
They were to have commenced conversion of the unbleached pulp mill by
December 31, 1989; they defaulted. They
were to have commenced the chipping facility at
Exactly what performance guarantees is
this minister going to renegotiate?
Mr. Manness: Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish the member would
be completely honest when she tries to lay out that chronology.
Point of
Order
Mrs. Carstairs: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Finance
has questioned my honesty in this House.
I would ask him to retract that statement immediately.
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the point of order, I would recommend that
all members of the House use discretion in the choice of their words.
* * *
Mr. Manness: Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologize if the member
is insulted.
I will say, though, that what really
happened, with respect to the delay, occurred not as a result of our
environmental process, because Repap did have a Phase 1 licence to proceed, but
they also had sought advice from
If the member would only put that on the
record also, then I think she would state her case somewhat more clearly.
Madam Deputy Speaker, she can try to
malign Repap, but this is what Repap has done in the last two or three
years. They put together the new, sound
bulk fuel unloading and storage facilities constructed to replace facilities
which led to mill site ground water contamination by Manfor. They have a new domestic sewage system
installed, a new sanitary landfill facility constructed costing $5
million. They have also totally suspended
solids from the pulps, and paper mills' effluent have been reduced by 46 percent
from 1988 levels, reduced particulate emissions from the mills recovery boiler
by 66 percent.
They committed to reforestation of 100
percent of harvested areas, a greater commitment to reforestation than was
required of Manfor at that time. In '91
they planted 7.25 million trees. In 1988
Manfor planted 2.9 million trees. I
could go on and on as to what Repap has done under the agreement and the
commitment to the province.
* (1400)
They have lived up to significant numbers
of the covenants under the agreement.
For the member to try and malign that company, who has come forward and
cleaned up such a dismal mess, I think is shameful, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Repap
Manitoba Inc.
Employment
Creation Strategy
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): The Repap saga: The Minister of Finance, two and a half years
ago, walking out of committee meetings on the eve of the signing of the
agreement; the Liberal Party which
opposed renegotiation of the agreement the last election; and now we see the
Minister of Finance who‑‑[interjection] Well, we have the
advertisements for the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs). We have the ads.
My question is to the Minister of Finance
who still does not seem to understand.
He still seems to be the major cheerleader for Repap in this
province. Just this week, northern
residents have received further notice in terms of employment. Repap employees in Thompson‑Wabowden
have been told that all conventional skidding operations will cease. They will be laid off and be replaced by an
in‑bush chipping operation which will require them to come up with a
quarter of a million dollars to save their jobs.
I would like to ask the Minister of
Finance: Is this his version of
maintaining employment in northern
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): The company last
fiscal year lost $180 million. I am not
terribly familiar with the letter that has gone out and probably specific
questions as to why or how come or why the letter should be directed towards
the company, but I would have to think a $180‑million loss in fiscal 1991
probably is part of the rationale for the letter, at least the part referenced
by the member opposite.
As far as changing techniques of
harvesting or indeed bringing forward wood supply, I would think, given that
structural change is in our midst, is everywhere in the new globalized economy,
I would have to think that no business in
The commitment that this government will
make in restructuring the six‑month window is to try to ensure that the
same number of jobs will still be there as a result of Repap coming and doing
what it can in support of the new facility, indeed of the major economic
contribution that it plans to make to this province in the years to come.
Mr. Ashton: How can this minister talk in his letter to
the vice‑chairman of Repap Enterprises about maintaining employment‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Is the honourable member for Thompson phrasing
his question?
Mr. Ashton: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, I asked how can
this minister‑‑perhaps if members opposite would listen‑‑talk
about maintaining levels of employment in his letter to Repap when, at this
very moment, employment is being cut back through mechanization, when
employment is being cut back in Thompson‑Wabowden and in the
Mr. Manness: This government is not going to force a company
that is prepared to invest $1 billion plus to maintain the harvesting systems
that have been in place for virtually decades.
Change is a fact of life. Every
one of us adopts it in our livelihoods, indeed our lifestyles, from day to day.
What the member seems to be saying is,
government, do not renegotiate or restructure this deal unless there is a
commitment to every job as it exists today, not the total number but in the
manner, in the condition and in the form in which it exists today. I would say to him, that would put a yoke on
Repap, indeed, that I do not think they could accept.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Deputy Speaker, will the minister at
least take the time to sit down with Repap, do something he has never done
since this agreement was signed, and find exactly what their plans have been in
terms of northern
Mr. Manness: Madam Deputy Speaker, I guess that is what
makes the philosophical difference between the member opposite and myself. He wants to deal in politics, the heavy hand
of government forcing, not numbers of jobs now, but the form of jobs, whereas
we on our side say, leave that to the corporate decision of that company
working toward hopefully a profit.
I am saying, I said employment. I said the same level of employment, and that
is a condition in which we will try to work toward. The member opposite is saying that they
should not change the method in which they harvest fibre. I am saying that is not a precondition. The total number of work force is a condition
that we will attempt to achieve if indeed we can restructure. I remind you, Madam Deputy Speaker, if we
cannot restructure this, we fall back to the old agreement.
Consumer
Warning
Odometer
Tampering
Mr. Jim Maloway
(Elmwood): Madam Deputy Speaker, my question is to the
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Despite being repeatedly asked to investigate reports of odometer
tampering on Monday and Tuesday, this minister refuses to do anything.
Yesterday, she contradicted the RCMP and said there was no problem.
My question is straightforward. Who should Manitobans believe, the minister
or the RCMP?
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not believe I
contradicted the RCMP. I understand the
member's interpretation. The RCMP are taking
the situation very seriously indeed in that they have discovered a case in
which‑‑and perhaps more than one case‑‑they have had
odometers rolled back. From our
department's experience, we have received no calls on the issue, so in that
sense there is no widespread outcry from consumers to the government. There is, however, a serious concern on the
part of the RCMP, which we share.
I indicated, when the member raised this
issue several days ago, prior to the RCMP having the opportunity to release the
facts to the public, that once the RCMP had made their public statement, I
would be prepared to make comment.
Yesterday they released their statements, and I am today prepared to
make comment.
My department works, as you know, Madam
Deputy Speaker, in close contact with the law enforcement agencies in a number
of areas. This morning my investigative
unit of the Consumers' Bureau has been in touch with the RCMP Customs and
Excise, the two officers in charge of this case, to offer our support should
they feel that it would be helpful. They
have not requested this support at this time, but that contact has been made,
our support offered, and we will be‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
I believe the answer to the first question has been put.
* (1410)
Mr. Maloway: It was that attitude that cost the last
consumer minister his seat at the cabinet table.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Would the honourable member for Elmwood please put his supplementary
question now.
Mr. Maloway: Is this minister now prepared to issue a
public warning and to work with the RCMP to protect consumers in this province?
Mrs. McIntosh: Perhaps the member did not hear my answer
when I said that my investigative officers have already contacted the RCMP to
offer our support and that we will take our lead from the RCMP as to what is
the appropriate form of support to offer so that we do not jeopardize but
rather enhance the work that they are doing.
Mr. Maloway: That was no answer to the question‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would like to take this opportunity to
remind all honourable members that supplementary questions should be very
explicit and very direct, and there is to be no preamble.
Mr. Maloway: Madam Deputy Speaker, we have consistently
asked for a public warning. Will the
Minister of Consumer Affairs issue a public warning with a telephone number so
that people who have used cars in this province can bring them forward to check
for tampering of the odometers? That is
what we are asking.
Mrs. McIntosh: Madam Deputy Speaker, I repeat, we have
contacted the RCMP to offer that kind of support, and if, in the opinion of the
RCMP, they feel that us issuing a statement would be of assistance to them,
then of course, we are prepared to do it.
We will take our lead from the RCMP who are the ones who are handling
this investigation. My officials are in
communication with the RCMP to seek direction from them on this issue. They will indicate to us precisely what they
need us to do if they wish us to do anything, and we will pleased to oblige in
that regard.
Repap
Manitoba Inc.
Expenditures
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): In
response to my earlier question, the Minister of Finance indicated a number of expenditures
that have been made by Repap in The Pas complex.
Can the Minister of Finance tell the House
today how much money above the $12.5 million left in the Treasury by Manfor has
been expended by Repap in The Pas complex?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy
Speaker, to this point, we have paid billings, and I may have to correct this,
it seems to me between $3 million and $4 million to Repap in support of
asbestos clean‑up in the plant and also for some ground water remedial
work. I can indicate to the member, some
of the estimates coming back in support of trying to clean up the bunker oil in
the ground water supply, and this is the key point, could be well in excess of
the cash amount kept by the province.
That was the degree of pollution that existed at that site.
Mrs. Carstairs: I think the minister misunderstood. I was not asking about the government's
expenditures. I was asking about the
monies which were left in the Manfor account and transferred to Repap, which
amounted to $12.5 million.
Have the expenditures of the Repap
corporation in The Pas forest complex exceeded, and by how much, the $12.5
million? In other words, how much have
they spent of their own money?
Mr. Manness: Madam Deputy Speaker, the day that the deal
was consummated, I received a cheque from Repap for $42 million, as I recall,
and I wrote a cheque to them for $30 million.
The reason I remember that is I deposited it personally in a branch of
the Royal Bank in The Pas.
When the member wants to focus on this so‑called
$10 million cash, we entered into an agreement.
We were paid that much and more for that cash.
Mrs. Carstairs: Madam Deputy Speaker, I will ask the minister
to reread his agreement about the $12.5 million left in the hands of Repap and
Manfor.
Employment
Creation Strategy
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): My final
question to the minister is: When he
states he is going to maintain comparable levels of employment in this
renegotiated settlement, is he committed to the 650 jobs, sometimes less, at
Manfor at the present time or the 1,200 they promised us in 1989?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy Speaker,
I am not going to negotiate on the floor of the Legislature. I can say to the member opposite, certainly
the goal and the objective is to try and drive the restructuring up to the
1,200 number that was contemplated within the first agreement.
Seafood
Enterprises Associates
Agreement
Mr. Edward Connery (
When the NDP were in power, they lent out
money foolishly in the sense of job creation.
We saw what they did in the Jobs Fund, the hundreds of millions of
dollars that were wasted and no long‑term jobs created. In opposition, they are still encouraging
this government to spend money foolishly, as he is wanting the government to
entertain an agreement with SEA.
Could the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism explain to this House why it would not have been in the best interests
of the taxpayers and the money if we went into that agreement?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the
question from the honourable member, primarily because I have a great deal of
concern about the news release that was issued today by the member for Flin
Flon (Mr. Storie). All it can tell me is
that not ample enough research was done on his behalf in terms of reviewing
this issue, and that is not doing justice to this Chamber or to the citizens of
I will do something that we normally do
not do. We attempt to negotiate in good
faith with companies. We attempt to do
it on the basis of confidentiality, but I feel because of the announcement that
they put forth today, the members of the opposition, that I should at least
give some of the parameters of the final request from this particular company
that has been referred to, Seafood Enterprises Associates.
The nature of the request, Madam Deputy
Speaker, was for guarantees‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Yes, on a point of
order, Madam Deputy Speaker, the rules in Beauchesne are very clear in terms of
answers to questions, that they should be brief. If the minister wishes to get into the detail
of this matter, he should more appropriately use the opportunity of ministerial
statements to bring that forward to the Legislature. Otherwise, I would suggest
you call him to order and ask him to remain brief in his answers as is required
by our rules.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
On the point of order, I would just once again caution all honourable
members, in issuing questions, demanding responses and issuing responses, to
keep them as brief as possible.
* * *
Mr. Stefanson: Madam Deputy Speaker, the question was about
the details of these negotiations, and that is exactly what I am outlining,
related to two areas in terms of a request from our provincial government for
guarantees as they relate to operating capital, guarantees as they relate to
investments by the individuals and the companies associated.
The annual guarantees would be in the
vicinity of $20 million. Over 10 years,
accumulated guarantees of $155 million for the creation in year 1 of
approximately 100 jobs and by the end of year 4, potentially increasing to 186
jobs. I should point out that part of
our normal practices are to take back security.
The original book value of the fixed assets would be a maximum of
approximately $14 million.
In closing, we are working hand in glove
with Western Diversification. We have
replied to the company, we have put forth a reasonable offer, and we will
continue to work with the company. I
look forward to a supplementary question.
(1420)
Madam Deputy Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
NONPOLITICAL
STATEMENTS
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Madam Deputy Speaker, might I have leave to
make a nonpolitical statement?
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Kildonan has
requested leave to make a nonpolitical statement. Does the honourable member for Kildonan have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
Leave has been granted.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Deputy Speaker, members of the
House. I had the honour yesterday of
attending the second annual "Yes, I Can Awards" sponsored by the
Manitoba Council for Exceptional Children.
The awards were presented to exceptional children and youth in the
categories of Academics, Arts, Athletics, Community Services, Employment,
Extracurricular Activities and Independent Living Skills.
Winners of the awards included Michael
Storozuk for Employment. Michael is
extremely proud of being able to hold a job.
Paul Gosselin for Academics; Paul is happy to participate in classroom
discussions and finish his work. Trevor
Snippe for Academics; Trevor enjoys using the computer to work independently in
his classroom. Monique Couture for
Academics; Monique excels in her academic learning and consistently gets good
grades. Myron Barten for Extracurricular; Myron is very proud when he learns
something new; Adam Wakeman for Academics.
Adam is self motivated to succeed.
John Rokosh for Independent Living Skills;
John has taken the initiative and learned many independent living skills. Shirley Kanak for Academics; Shirley
perseveres and gets good grades. Michelle Baker for Independent Living Skills;
Michelle is pleased that she is able to get around independently. Janet Murdoch for Independent Living Skills;
Janet is thrilled that she is able to communicate and actively participate in
school. Emery
Jeffery Parkes for Athletics; Jeffery's
outstanding performance in sports is commendable. Rebecca Brownlee for Athletics; Becky enjoys
golfing with family and friends. Kristi
Brownlee for Athletics; Kristi's determination has enabled her to golf
competitively. Ashlee Beyak for
Independent Living Skills; Ashlee's communication using sign language has
enabled her to participate in all aspects of school life. Chris Nicolas for Academics; Chris takes
pride in his achievements in public speaking.
Danny Regnier for Independent Living Skills; Danny is enjoying his newly
found independence in the community and at school.
Peter Lebetzis for Employment; Peter is
proud of the responsibility he has while working in the community. Charlene Graff for Employment; Charlene likes the friendships she has made
while working and volunteering in the community. Connie LaBossiere for Arts; Connie has been
recognized for her abilities in poetry writing.
Patricia Duffy for Employment; Patricia was a valued member of the
W.O.W. Summer Program. Kiley Robin for Independent
Living Skills; Kiley is very proud of his accomplishments especially in his
drivers licence. Gimmi Vaccaro for
Employment; Gimmi is proud to be an independent, contributing member of the
work force. Hazel‑Lynn Carganilla
for Academics; Hazel works diligently and has accepted more responsibility for
her learning.
I also would like to recognize the fact
that outstanding achievement awards were presented to persons or a group of
persons in contribution for CEC by the CEC and these included Marion Robisong
from
I am sure all members of the House will
join me in congratulating these outstanding individuals, their teachers,
schools, school divisions and all involved with Exceptional Children, Madam
Deputy Speaker.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): May I have leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member for Transcona have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
Leave?
Some Honourable Members:
Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Mr. Reid: Madam Deputy Speaker, last evening the
Manitoba Council for Exceptional Children held their "Yes, I Can"
Awards night in conjunction with the 26th annual conference. The MCEC "Yes, I Can" Awards are
presented to exceptional children and youth to acknowledge their achievements
in the following categories: Academics,
Arts, Athletics, Community Service, Employment, Extracurricular Activities and
Independent Living Skills.
Eight school divisions were represented,
including the River East School Division where seven‑year‑old Adam
Wakeman, son of Debbie and Murray Wakeman, accepted the award for
Academics. I was pleased to join with
many others in honouring exceptional children but was particularly proud that
my godson Adam was a recipient.
Adam, like many exceptional children, is a
young person who has overcome many serious obstacles in his young life, but his
accomplishments and achievements have been outstanding. Adam is self‑motivated to succeed.
Involved with Adam's progress as part of
the special needs education and playing a positive role in the development are
Principal Joan McCreath, Vice Principal Larry Hoffman, Special Education
Consultant Phylis Froese, Para‑Professionals Judy Scales, Vivian Garrity
and Mrs. Vicky Hrabuluk as well as Guidance Councillor Helga Berger. These individuals are dedicated in their
efforts to provide equal opportunities and recognize the needs of all
children. They are a credit to their
chosen professions.
I am sure that all members will join with
me in congratulating the children, their families and the educators on their
tremendous achievements.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker,
would you call adjourned Debate on Second Readings, the bills in the order as
shown on the Order Paper.
DEBATE ON
SECOND
Bill 6‑The
Denturists Amendment Act
Madam Deputy
Speaker: To resume debate on the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), second
reading of Bill 6 (The Denturists Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
denturologistes), standing in the name of the honourable member for
An Honourable Member: Yes.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Bill 9‑The
Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act
Madam Deputy
Speaker: On the proposed motion
of the honourable First Minister (Mr. Filmon), to resume debate on second
reading of Bill 9 (The Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act; Loi sur le Conseil de l'innovation economique et de la technologie), standing
in the name of the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing?
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): I am prepared to speak on the matter.
Madam Deputy Speaker: You are prepared to speak?
Mr. Leonard Evans: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to be able
to participate in the debate on Bill 9, relating to the establishment of the
Economic Innovation and Technology Council. Certainly, it goes without saying
that such a council and the objectives that have been stated in the bill and
expressed by the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) in his explanation of the bill
last week are commendable.
Certainly the objective, as has been stated,
is to build a stronger
Therefore, regrettably, we have become and
are becoming less of a significant part of the economic pie, if you will,
economic whole of this country of ours.
No one I suppose can object to Bill 9 in essence, because it is
something that members of the opposition have advocated for sometime, that we
have to spur technological development, we have to spur innovation.
* (1430)
Madam Deputy Speaker, let it be clear from
the outset that this is not original. I
am concerned that in many ways it may be more of PR exercise than something
that has real meaning, because as I will get into later, you can examine the
new terms of reference of the existing Manitoba Research Council and note that
it has the ability to do just about all that this council is being asked to do.
As a matter of fact, as I understand, the
council is absorbing the MRC, the Manitoba Research Council. Therefore, I am not so convinced that we have
anything that is new here, perhaps a different name, perhaps some changes at
the periphery, some detailed changes. In
essence, this is not necessarily a new thrust.
Having said that, I suppose one would argue, well, we have to do
everything we possibly can.
Let us face it though, Madam Deputy
Speaker, we are facing a great number of obstacles in trying to promote the
development of
We have an unemployment level across the
country approaching one and a half million people, and the government itself is
not predicting much of an improvement whatsoever, the federal government. In this province alone last month, we had
50,000 Manitobans out of work, an all time high in the recorded history of the
labour force.
I say we have a federal budget that is
really not giving any guidance, any direction to our economy. In fact, I detect Mulroney and Mazankowski
and the federal Conservative government as really sitting back, waiting for
something to happen, waiting for the Americans to do something, waiting for
some hopeful great event that somehow or other is going to spark economic
growth again in this country of ours.
The fact is, Madam Deputy Speaker, the
federal budget has not addressed the major problem of unemployment, and
therefore, when you have a lot of unemployment you cannot possibly have
adequate economic growth, whether you have a council of this kind or not.
I might add in passing, Madam Deputy
Speaker, it is ironic that the federal government, as one of its cost‑cutting
measures, should see fit to eliminate the Science Council of Canada, of all
things to see this government eliminate, as well as the Economic Council of
To that extent, I guess I could argue that
I am pleased to see this particular council is being set up, although as I
indicated, it is not necessarily anything really new.
The other problem that we have, Madam
Deputy Speaker, we can have all the councils we have, but as I said, we have a
federal government that is determined to keep the recession going in this
country. It is determined not to address
the No. 1 problem that we have of lack of growth and high unemployment.
Of course, we are living in a world of
growing free trade with the Americans, and as we know full well, this has been
a total disaster in this country. It has
certainly been a total disaster in the
What we are seeing today, Madam Deputy
Speaker, is demise, the demise of our manufacturing sector. There are all kinds of foods and beverage
companies that have gone under. There
are companies that have shifted back to the
Then you couple that with the GST which
has struck a blow at consumer confidence.
We talk about the need to create a
positive climate for growth. The Premier
(Mr. Filmon) often says that we must create a positive climate. Well, how do you get a positive climate if
you do not have sufficient demand for the output of our industries? That is the basic problem we are facing
today, Madam Deputy Speaker, this lack of aggregate demand for the output of
this country, and this is true for the province as well. We do not have sufficient demand for the
goods and services that we can produce; therefore, we are underproducing. We have underutilization of our industry.
The existence of the GST alone has
undermined consumer spending. Consumers
are rebelling. Consumers are simply not
spending to the degree that they have been in previous times. There are
negative figures right across the country, including
Deregulation in the transportation
industry is killing the transport industry as we know it in this province. Our trucking industry is going down the
tube. Our railway industry is becoming
less and less significant, and we are not getting the air transport service
that we used to have. A great deal of
this can be attributed to deregulation and federal transport policies of the
Mulroney government.
So I say, we have all these obstacles to
contend with, and the council, as indicated in the bill, will have some
capacity to do some research and so on, but I do not know whether that will be
the source‑‑be‑all, end‑all‑‑of creating
economic growth in this province.
I spent some time recently looking at what
happened to
While you can say, so what, we have had a
national recession, the problem is, and as I will explain shortly, that we have
declined even more than the other provinces, which should cause us all to be
upset and concerned in this House.
As I have said, we have these neo‑Conservative
policies of free trade. They were
certainly not the policies of Sir John A. Macdonald. As a matter of fact, the policy of the
Mulroney government is diametrically opposite to the policy of the first
Conservative national government in this country.
Sir John A. Macdonald established the
national policy which included a national tariff, as well as a national
transportation program, as well as immigration and settlement. Those are the three pillars of developing
Now we have seen the Conservative Party of
Sir John A. Macdonald, well, I should take that back, it is not the
Conservative Party of Sir John A. Macdonald, over 130 odd years later,
reversing the position, just undercutting the philosophy, the approach of
nation building with a national economic policy.
What we have are neo‑Conservative
policies of free trade, privatization, deregulation, high interest rates‑‑insanely
high interest rates‑‑a tight money policy, which has caused, yes,
it has caused inflation to reduce, but at the price of an enormous amount of
unemployment. We have seen other
spending cuts that have had a catastrophic result on our economy.
* (1440)
So what we have, as I was indicating, an
economy that is being characterized by high unemployment, by bankruptcies, by
factory closures, by escalating welfare rolls.
Looking at last year, 1991, now I have not
seen the latest forecast of the Conference Board, but up until a couple of
weeks ago, they estimated that we had negative growth in
We see other signs of decline. The employment growth rate was negative
2.3. In other words, the number of
people in
At the same time,
In terms of retail sales, as I was
explaining a minute ago, when we talk about retail sales, we talk about
consumer spending, and we get the matter of consumer confidence. The fact is that retail sales shrunk in 1991
by 2.4 percent. There is no question
about it that the GST, as well as the unemployment, is hurting the retail
sector.
Urban housing starts were down for about
the fourth year in a row. They were down
36.3 percent, and it is no wonder they are showing signs of increase now,
because they are right at the bottom, they are right at rock bottom, and surely
they have no way to go but up, but nevertheless last year a decrease of 36.3
percent.
In terms of our farm industries, farm cash
receipts declined by 6.3 percent.
Manufacturing shipments declined, this was the latest that I had
available at the time of this study‑‑13.7. I think it has been revised to around 12
percent, but the point is, Madam Deputy Speaker, we were 10 out of 10. Our performance in terms of manufacturing
shipments was the worst of the 10 provinces.
At any rate, then our overall investment
was negative. As a matter of fact, the
figures have just come out today from Statistics
So 1991 was a poor economic year, and if
this Economic Innovation and Technology Council were in existence, and I
understand from the legislation it is supposed to table annual reports, or the
minister is supposed to table annual reports on behalf of the council, I would
presume that they would have to make reference to our economic circumstances
and they would be presumably touching upon this.
I said, Madam Deputy Speaker, the most
disturbing information coming out of the recent Statistics Canada reports is
Our economic growth, we rated 10 out of 10
in 1991, so we weakened there; our employment growth, ranked eight out of 10,
we weakened there; our loss on interprovincial migration, we were eight out of
10, we were near the bottom again in performance, so that was a weakening from
the previous year. The same thing with
urban housing starts, we were nine out of 10, we show weakness there; building
permits were eight out of 10, again, we deteriorated from where we were the
year before. Manufacturing shipments,
the year before we were six out 10, but last year we got to be 10 out 10.
Lastly, in terms of total investment, the
estimate that we had at the time, we ranked eight out of 10 provinces, that was
the information we had when we did this study.
The fact is that when we declined relative to the other provinces, the
reality is we have to ask ourselves a question:
Why is
If you just compare us with the overall
Canadian situation in 1991, again using 11 economic indicators, and all of this
information is out of Statistics Canada, there are only two categories where we
performed above the Canadian average:
one was the rate of unemployment.
We have always performed better than the Canadian
average, ever since labour‑force statistics were calculated. The
In every other category, Madam Deputy
Speaker, our economic indicators were below the Canadian average. Average weekly wages, we were below‑‑population
growth, investment, overall economic growth, retail trade, job creation,
manufacturing shipments, building permits, and housing starts.
The conclusion is there is no doubt that
our province has been badly hurt by the recession. There are a lot of basic reasons for
that: Agricultural incomes are down, of
course, because of depressed world prices; our mining sector has also
experienced lower global prices for the output, so there are some understandable
reasons. That has also affected some of
the other provinces, such as
Now, I know the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness) and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) said, and he said again I believe when he
was introducing this bill, that we need a positive climate, but that means we
have to control government spending, and we have to keep taxes low, as though
those are going to create economic growth.
Well, I am sorry. We have had nearly four years of this
government. They have been saying the
same thing all along, and we have not had the economic growth. The fact is it does not matter what the tax
rates are, if you cannot sell what you produce, there is not going to be any
incentive for any manufacturer, or any type of business person, to invest more
money. It would be ludicrous if your
business was being underutilized, that you would want to turn around and start
to expand the business, start to invest more in the business, regardless of
what the tax structure is.
We do not have conditions here which have created
growth; we have had conditions, we have had policies, which have slowed down
our economy.
As I said, the GST has dampened consumer
spending. It has, with all the negative
multiplier effects and the tight‑money policy of the Bank of Canada, with
its high interest rates, not only has discouraged investment but also has kept
our Canadian dollar very expensive vis‑a‑vis the American dollar,
which in turn has dampened our exports to that country. Indeed, it has dampened our exports to other
countries which has caused further job loss.
All those matters, all those policies,
coupled with the Free Trade Agreement, coupled with deregularization and
privatization, have hurt this province and can explain to some extent what is
going on, not only in terms of our current economic situation but our
structure. Maybe that is what this bill
is supposed to be addressing, our structure, but, Madam Deputy Speaker, I
regret to observe that our economic structure is suffering.
* (1450)
We have seen the federal government move
CNR jobs westward out of this province to
We regret that this government has no
economic plan to deal with this, but as I said, the creation of this council on
the surface cannot be criticized except that I am not so sure that we are doing
anything new here.
The First Minister (Mr. Filmon) in his
introduction of the bill referred to the establishment of $10‑million
funds to be financed from the proceeds of the sale of MDS. Frankly, the sale of MDS is very
regrettable. Not only have we created a
private monopoly that can rip us off in terms of the rates they charge us for
computer services, but we had an MDS that was profitable and turned millions of
dollars back to the government every year. Frankly, that was a bad mistake.
Now to say that you are financing from the
proceeds of the sale of MDS is just ludicrous financing, Madam Deputy Speaker,
because funding comes ultimately from the Treasury, and the Treasury contains
funds from whatever purpose. You cannot
say you are going to take it from the sale of one thing and put it into this
fund of this council. The monies have to
come from general revenues.
I want to know how do the funds that this
council is supposed to have to dispense compare with what we have had
before? We do not know whether this $10‑million
fund is a one‑time grant to the council to dispense or whether it is
going to become an annual thing. My
reading of the Premier's remarks is that it was a one‑time effort.
I would point out that we used to, with
the Manitoba Research Council, for years had millions of dollars to dispense by
way of grants that this council is supposed to be engaged in. It was something in the order of $2.7 million
a year granted. About two years ago, it
was $2.9 million. In fact, if you go
back to '85‑86, the MRC, the Manitoba Research Council, had over $3
million available, again, in '86‑87 over $3 million and '87‑88
almost $3 million. Even in last year's
budget, they had $2.0 million to dispense with.
Incidentally, if you go back to '86‑87, there were other monies
available in the Manitoba Jobs Fund.
The point is, Madam Deputy Speaker, have we
really got anything new in this council with the grant monies that it has
available? If you read the description
of the Manitoba Research Council, you find that what it was doing and its
function was extremely similar to this council.
When you look at it in some depth you wonder, well, what differences are
there going to be, because in the report itself of the Manitoba Research
Council for the year ending, I guess, March 31, 1990, in the annual report, the
description of the Corporate Profile, and I am quoting:
"Working closely with industry,
government and universities, the Manitoba Research Council (MRC) plays a lead
role in encouraging and facilitating scientific research and technological
development. As an agency of the
"Through its operating units, MRC
assists industry in the development and implementation of appropriate
technology. MRC provides food technology
services from its facility in
It goes on to describe all kinds of
services and capabilities of the
I absolutely cannot see what we are
getting that we did not have before.
Incidentally, we had lots of good people, I gather, on the board. There were various people from the community
that served on the board. I do not know
whether there is a‑‑well, reference to‑‑yes, here is
the reference to the board, Mr. Russ Hood.
Is this the same person that is being asked to head up this same
Economic Innovation and Technology Council?
What is the difference? I mean,
John Ingraham, Mr. Bert Beattie from
The point I am making is we have a board
here made up of good people. We have a
staff. We have a large council
representing a wide cross‑section of food product development,
engineering services, business development, marketing and so on. All of a sudden we are supposed to have some
new thrust with this technology council.
As you go through the annual report, you
see that they have engaged in all kinds of technological development, all kinds
of innovations, have engaged in various contracts, multimillion dollar
contracts and grants with other people.
As a result, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not know how effective the
organization has been, but nevertheless they have obviously been busy.
They enumerate the highlights of their
success in 1989‑1990, everything from developing a special coding for
diesel engine liners on behalf of Transport
We really have the same organization
virtually, the same organization that we had only with a different title and
maybe some other minor administrative changes, some minor changes.
The fact is, Madam Deputy Speaker, we
cannot oppose the establishment of the council because, who knows, there might
be something here that might be a little different. Essentially, it looks more like window‑dressing
than anything else.
I would say, as I indicated earlier, we
are not only suffering a cyclical downturn, but we are seeing a very serious
structural change whereby the significance of the
Madam Deputy Speaker, could you indicate
how much time I have left? Seven
minutes? Thank you.
Historically, what has been going on is
there has been a shift of industry out of this province and activities to the
west of us. That has been well
documented.
In the meantime, we are not getting the
help we should be getting from the federal government. I maintain that‑‑because I
mentioned this at the beginning, I mention it again now, federal government
policies have a lot to do with the amount of economic growth that can occur in
the regions of the country. We, when in
government, engaged in various provincial‑federal agreements that enabled
us to stimulate development in a whole range of industries from manufacturing
to energy to tourism and transportation and so on. We do not have these. For whatever reasons, government has not been
as successful in getting monies through these agreements.
To that extent, in spite of Western
Economic Diversification monies we do not have the funding support that we had
years back. I think that this is
critical for our economic growth. In
fact, what we have had, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the reverse. We have had the federal government penalizing
* (1500)
In spite of all the speeches made by Jake
Epp, we did not get properly compensated for that political decision to move it
out. Similarly, the federal government through its Crown agency, CNR, has seen
fit to see jobs shifted from
In the meantime, you have the federal
government engaging in all kinds of cutbacks that are really hurting potential
growth. One of the areas, and my colleague for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) mentioned
it yesterday in her question, there has been another year of cutbacks in
federal training monies, a hundred million dollars cut back out of the Canadian
Jobs Strategy. That has repercussions in
this province.
The fact is, Madam Deputy Speaker, if we
want to have economic growth, we have to do some sound research. We have to do some sound planning. I am not so sure that this council that is
being established is going to be anything different from the Manitoba Research
Council which I have described. It can
do everything and anything that this council is able to do from my reading of
this legislation and my reading of the annual report of the
What we need, Madam Deputy Speaker, is
more economic research into our strengths and weaknesses to have some plan,
some idea, of where we are going by the year 2000 or the year 2002. Where are we going in the early part of the
21st Century? How do we get there? What are our strengths? What are our weaknesses? What should we be
emphasizing? What should we be de‑emphasizing?
I have great concern that since peace has
broken out in the world, that the evil empire no longer exists, that the
incentive is not there for the spending that occurred south of the border, that
you will not have a repeat of the Reagan vast huge spending, the billions of
dollars spent on defence in the
I am very pessimistic. I do not see us getting out of this
recession. I see this recession
continuing on, and then 10 years from now, we will look back and talk about the
depression that occurred in the 1990s, because there are just not those
sufficient investment opportunities for our people. We have lots of savings, perhaps too much
savings going on and not enough spending.
If you do want to have economic growth, if you want to have economic
stimulus, you have to have an increase in spending by consumers, by business
through investment and also by government.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I understand my time
is now completed. I put those few remarks on the table, and I will say in
conclusion that one cannot oppose the establishment of the council, but we are
really getting the Manitoba Research Council with another name. Thank you.
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for Brandon East (Mr. Len Evans), that debate on the bill now be
adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 10‑The
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), to resume debate on second reading of
Bill 10 (The Manitoba Hydro Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Hydro‑Manitoba),
standing in the name of the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie).
Is there leave to permit the bill to
remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave?
Leave has been granted.
Bill 11‑The
Bee-Keepers Repeal Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), to resume debate on second reading of
Bill 11 (The Bee‑Keepers Repeal Act; Loi abrogeant la Loi sur les
apiculteurs), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Is there leave to permit the bill to
remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave?
Leave has been granted.
Bill 12‑The
Animal Husbandry Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), to resume debate on second reading of
Bill 12 (The Animal Husbandry Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
l'elevage), standing in the name of the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr.
Plohman).
Is there leave to permit the bill to
remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave?
Leave has been granted.
Bill 14‑The
Highways and Transportation Department Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), to resume debate on second
reading of Bill 14 (The Highways and Transportation
Department Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le ministere de la Voirie et
du Transport), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr.
Reid).
Is there leave to permit the bill to
remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave?
Leave has been granted.
Bill 15‑The
Highway Traffic Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister
of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), to resume debate on Bill 15 (The
Highway Traffic Amendment Act; Loi modifiant le Code de la route), standing in
the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
Is there leave to permit the bill to
remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand.
Leave has been granted.
Bill 20‑The
Municipal Assessment Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), to resume debate on second reading
of Bill 20 (The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'evaluation municipale), standing in the name of the
honourable member for
Is there leave to permit the bill to
remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave?
Leave has been granted.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Madam Deputy Speaker, I
stand to speak today on Bill 20, The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act. Bill
20 deals with two things. Firstly, it
will push back the date of the next property reassessment from 1993, mandated
in 1990 amendments, to 1994.
Secondly, it somewhat streamlines the
appeals process. We have been told that
the reasons for pushing back the reassessment date is not that the bureaucracy
will not be ready.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister, as
well as officials we met with, said the assessment is being pushed back because
of other changes connected with changes in the portioning system also
introduced in 1990. It will kick in in
1993 and a reassessment also in 1993 would make for too much change all at
once. This has led the minister and his
department to conclude that delaying the reassessment to 1994 will make taxes
more understandable.
Earlier, I spoke of changes in the
portioning system. Allow me to briefly
elaborate on this.
Portions are the percentage of market
value of a particular property which are subject to taxation. Portions will be set at different values for
different classes of property. The 1990
legislation moved assessments to market value of a property.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that change would
result in dramatic changes in the taxes on many properties since many
assessments were very far out of date.
However, the province is adjusting so that each class of property in the
province will generate the same proportion of total tax revenue after the move
to market value as they did before the move.
The rationale for the portioning is that
it was agreed that each class of property should generate the same proportion
of tax revenue after the move to market value.
That is, tax burdens should not be redistributed from one class to
another. The government is controlling
the tax take through portioning.
* (1510)
Within each class of property, some will
pay more and some will pay less depending on market value changes. This is the explanation we have received from
the minister and the department.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we look forward to
further debate which will determine whether these measures are indeed in the
best interests of Manitobans, and we have to listen to Manitobans, and whether
Bill 20 will accomplish what is intended, and we reserve our questions and
concerns for further debate.
As you have no doubt seen, the assessment
process is not something that is very easy to understand, and it requires a
fair amount of explanation and Manitobans should be explained to, we
understand, to get down to the really important parts of the assessment act.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government says
that the amendments being proposed are in keeping with the department's ongoing
commitment to the improvement of the assessment system. I would like to indicate that we, the Liberal
Party, still have concerns regarding certain issues surrounding the appeals
process and so forth, and therefore we look forward in debating this bill
further, and we look forward to further debate and to listen to the Manitobans,
what they would like to see in this amendment act.
Thank you very much.
Madam Deputy Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for
Bill 21‑The
Provincial Park Lands Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), to resume debate on second reading of
Bill 21 (The Provincial Park Lands Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur les parcs provinciaux), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
Is there leave to permit the bill to
remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave?
Leave has been granted.
Bill 22‑The
Lodge Operators and OutfittersLicensing and
Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), to resume debate on second reading of
Bill 22 (The Lodge Operators and Outfitters Licensing
and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi sur les permis relatifs aux exploitants
de camps de chasse et de peche et aux pourvoyeurs et apportant des
modifications correlatives a d'autres dispositions legislatives), standing in the name of
the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
Is there leave to permit the bill to
remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave?
Leave has been granted.
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to have a
few minutes to speak to this bill, as Bill 22 could have positive impacts on
all lodge operators, and also it could have a very negative impact.
Through debates of this bill, that is what
we on this side of the House would like to determine because when you take a
look at the whole aspect of lodge owners and operators who are now under the
jurisdiction of Industry, Trade and Tourism, one of the big criteria that has
to be regulated and enforced is the whole rating system, what is called a star
system for rating lodges, cabins and hotel accommodations that tie in with
lodge operators. Some of the lodges that
have recently been built get a five‑star rating, some get a four‑star
rating and some get a three‑star rating.
One of the concerns that I have is if we
transfer the responsibility to the jurisdiction of Natural Resources, whose
real mandate is enforcing fishing regulations, harvesting of the fish and to
make sure that there is proper access to the lakes and to ensure that the
resources that we have available to us in Manitoba are appropriately shared
with the communities, aboriginal organizations and the aboriginal needs in a
lot of the communities because a lot of the communities in northern Manitoba
depend very heavily on the consumption of fish.
If you have one jurisdiction that is
responsible both for the whole tourism industry and trying to regulate the
number of fish caught and also trying to promote how many tourists we do get in
Manitoba, I would like to hear further how that will work. When you have a look at the lodge operators
in
You look at the whole tourism industry, it
is really, really vital to the successful economy of
A lot of times when the lodge owners or
their representatives go to the United States, that is where they do a lot of
booking for their lodges. When we talk
about economic value and dollar value, the average one‑week fishing
expedition for someone coming from
One of the drawbacks, at least talking to
some of the lodge owners personally, was the high Canadian dollar and the GST
that we impose here in
I know one individual, just for an
example, every year, had at least the minimum of 30 individuals for a three‑day
period, so if you double that, it would be 60 individuals a week for one month,
and because of our high dollar and the drastic GST, they tried to do a lot of
promotion in the United States, where they always had found American sports
people. Their operation was cut
literally in half. Instead of opening
for one month, they were able to only open for a two‑week period. I think that is where Industry, Trade and
Tourism, and especially the Department of Tourism, have the expertise and the
knowledge to ensure that we do promote fishing, hunting and lodge operators.
When we look at the whole issue of the
lodge operators and the lodge owners and being under the jurisdiction as I
mentioned earlier, where Natural Resources' jurisdiction is really issuing the
licensing and harvesting to ensure that the lakes have adequate fish for the
sports fishermen and the people who will be consuming those fish, if you have
that rolled into one, the other thing that we have to look at very, very
closely is, who is going to be in charge of the inspection of the lodges? Will they be the individuals who have the
expertise under Tourism, or will they be new individuals appointed by Natural
Resources? All the people who are now
employed in the Department of Tourism under I, T and T, will they be
transferred to Natural Resources, or will we see more job cuts?
I think that is a very serious issue
because, when you start looking at cutting people with the expertise and
replacing with appointments‑‑you see in the bill here where
individuals will be appointed by the minister‑‑how can we ensure
that these individuals will have the expertise in order to ensure that
everything is done for the most positive aspects of lodge owners in
Manitoba? That is one of the things that
we have to look at very carefully.
* (1520)
Also the other thing that we have not
heard anything about, maybe we will hear later from some of the other debates
from the government side, is how much consulting has been taking place with the
actual lodge owners to explain exactly what the government wants to do by
transferring the lodge owners from Tourism to Natural Resources?
I know that most lodge owners work very
closely with conservation officers, and they see a conservation officer's role
as, I guess you could call it, enforcing and policing the fishing regulations
and the Migratory Bird Act, and also with rules and regulations pertaining to
hunting. What will happen there? Will these individuals also be given added
responsibility? They are trained in
biology and the expertise of animals and fish.
Will they now be given added responsibilities to go around and inspect
all the camps and rate each lodge and camp with that star system? If that will be the case, I think we will
have to do some serious thinking if we are even able to support this kind of
transfer of responsibility. There are a
lot of questions that need to be asked.
We need a lot more information in order
for us to support this. Once we get the
answers, it might be one darn good idea, but we need more information. Also, we are going to be consulting with
lodge owners ourselves to hear what their responses are, because individuals
whom I know personally and have talked to, they do not have too much
information on exactly what the government's goals are. I think it is crucial that the government,
when they make any initiative or any change, to involve and consult, not with
the expertise that is out there, but with the people who are directly
involved. When I talk about people
directly involved, it is the lodge owners, the aboriginal peoples and the
people in those northern communities or even the South where there are lodge
owners, consult the communities to see what is really happening.
The lodge owners will have a lot of
questions because they benefit greatly from the work the Department of Tourism
does. A lot of them go on a lot of trade
shows, and also, the Department of Tourism has done a lot of promotional work
on behalf of tourism in
An Honourable Member: The lodge owners are very happy.
Mr. Hickes: The lodge owners are very happy with the work
that Tourism does. That is why we have
to be careful to ensure that the expertise in the Department of Tourism will
not be cut adrift, that the expertise will be transferred to the Department of
Natural Resources. There are a lot of
people in Tourism who have been there for years, and they have the expertise in
that area. The reason I mention that is
because‑‑
An Honourable
Member: The lodge owners want
this to happen.
Mr. Hickes: Not all the lodge owners, because I have
spoken to some lodge owners whom I know personally. They are not even aware of what this is
really all about, and that is why I say consult with the lodge owners and see
what they really want. Like I said, some of them do not understand because they
have not been given that kind of information.
When you talk about individuals who have the expertise, cut adrift and
not following to the department that the responsibilities are being transferred
to, it has a very detrimental effect on the government, on the organization
that is trying to do whatever they are trying to do.
A good example that I will give you that I
have been discussing in this Chamber for quite some time is in my critic area
of Energy and Mines. It is very relevant
to this bill because I am using it as an exact example of what could happen
when you cut a branch or branch or government department and do not bring the
expertise along with the new responsibilities of whoever is supposed to be
taking that over.
Under Manitoba Hydro, we saw the Manitoba Energy
Authority cut adrift, all the people were let go, and that agency was the
agency that was out there trying to purchase contracts for Manitoba Hydro in
order to fulfill the excess power that
We have to ensure that the government does
follow through and ensures that the expertise follows the change of
responsibilities or, Madam Deputy Speaker, it will not work, because like I
mentioned earlier, when you have‑‑even the Minister of Urban
Affairs (Mr. Ernst) agreed earlier, the people in Tourism‑‑he said,
yes, Tourism does a good job.
Here on this side of the House we agree
100 percent with that. They do an
excellent job; they do their darndest job. They are into tough circumstances
right now. Last year‑‑and I
mentioned earlier about the high dollar and the GST, but also, the other thing
that is hurting tourism, which we all recognize, is the state of the economy
today.
A lot of people do not have the dollars
that maybe they had access to in the '80s, early '80s or later part of the
'80s, where individuals could dish out, say, $1,700 for a week of fishing. If you had the extra dollars, that was a
luxury that you were able to afford. How
many people enjoy fishing? I am sure a
lot of people do. A lot of those lodges
and operator camps are in very beautiful, beautiful remote places. A lot of them are beautiful lakes and trees,
and you have wild animals and ducks surrounding you, and plant life. They are beautiful, beautiful spots.
Just to get away for a week, Madam Deputy
Speaker, it is amazing how much rest and relaxation a lot of individuals get,
because most of those lodges have no access to telephones, which we almost
constantly live by, or fax machines.
When we are able to get away from that, that is why you see a lot of
executives and business people will take advantage of spending a week at these
lodges. That is why we have to ensure‑‑[interjection]
No, there are no McDonald's at the corners.
You do not need a McDonald's at the
corner, because a lot of those lodges and camps‑‑[interjection] Yes,
that is right. You just drop your hook
in, and you catch your own dinner and supper.
If you had that opportunity for a fresh shore lunch that is freshly
taken out of the lake, you would not want to go to McDonald's around the
corner. Never, never. [interjection]
Sometimes you have steak and you have roast for a change. They always give you a couple of
choices. That is why, Madam Deputy
Speaker‑‑
An Honourable Member: George, when are you taking us up there?
Mr. Hickes: Maybe the summer. That is why it is so important that, if there
is a transfer of responsibilities from Tourism to Natural Resources, the proper
supports go along with that transfer. As
I mentioned earlier‑and I will re‑emphasize, because I think it is
very important to this debate‑‑the responsibility of Natural
Resources, as we see it today, is to enforce the regulations that we have,
whether it is sports fishing or whether it is hunting. That is the Department of Natural Resources
officers' responsibility.
They are not there to promote tourism, to
attend shows, to make videos and travel all over the country. Their responsibility is to make sure that,
when the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) and I go fishing this summer, we
do follow the regulations and we do not overfish. That is what they are there for.
[interjection] He is not that good a fisherman?
Well, if he stays under the limit, we will be okay then. That sounds very promising.
* (1530)
The other thing is, Madam Deputy Speaker,
with the Tourism department and the inspectors that we have and the people who
are responsible for rating the lodges, the inspectors who have the expertise in
that area, they ensure that the lodge owners keep those cabins and those rooms
and accommodations up to that standard.
That is their responsibility.
They go and visit, in most cases at least once a year, to every lodge
owner.
They have to go through a very, very
thorough inspection. They will tell them that you do this, you do that, or we
will take your rating away. If you have
a five‑star rating which is very high, and a lot of the camps in Manitoba
have that five‑star rating, if there is no one there to ensure that those
standards are kept up, how long do you imagine it will take for us to lose our
tourism industry like in the sports fishing area and also in hunting and the
lodge operators and outfitters?
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would just like to
conclude by stating, as I mentioned earlier, that this might be a positive
step, but it also might be a negative step.
The only thing that I caution the minister and the government is that,
if you transfer the responsibility of tourism and the promotion of tourism to
the Department of Natural Resources, make sure that the expertise goes along
with it and take that expertise to the department that will be responsible and
not cut them all adrift and more job losses and more job cuts, and bring in all
new people who do not have the expertise.
I think for this to work, that would be very, very crucial.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, we will have
more questions for the Department of Natural Resources because there are quite
a few unanswered questions yet. We do
not know if we will be supporting this bill or not, but we will determine that
after we have more responses from the government side.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to
speak to this bill.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): I would like to be able to speak on this bill
if I might. There are a number of
matters I wanted to deal with. I first
of all want to begin by indicating that I echo the sentiments of the previous
speaker who is no stranger to the North, obviously, no stranger to lodges and
the many benefits of northern Manitoba in particular, where a vast majority of
our lodges are located and the importance in terms of employment for many
northern Manitobans in terms of outfitting.
In fact, I am pleased to be able to indicate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that
there are a number of lodges in my constituency and in close proximity.
It is for that reason that I read this
bill with interest. It is a very straightforward bill, but it is a bill that we
do have a number of questions about. It
is also a bill that raises a number of other questions about the operation of
lodges in Manitoba at the current time, and the plans of the government, and
whether indeed it is living up to the real potential, the tremendous potential
of northern Manitoba, the lodges that are currently in existence, and the
potential for future development that I believe is a sustainable development,
in many ways probably the ultimate example of sustainable development.
I say that because one finds this is
something of a misnomer. One often talks
to people who are under the impression that there is a major impact of the
lodges on the surrounding area, but in many cases we are dealing here, as
people should be aware, with catch‑and‑release lodges, where trophy
fish are returned to the water, in fact some rather tremendous‑sized
trophy fish, I might add. Only a very
small amount of fish is taken for eating purposes. There is much greater attention than there
was in previous years to ensure the long‑term viability of the lodges and
the fishing lakes that they depend on for their survival.
Mr. Hickes:
Mr. Ashton: In fact, the member for Point Douglas (Mr.
Hickes) points out that
Once again, it is the potential for a very
sustainable development, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I want to raise some
concerns because I am concerned that the government, through its actions, is
not only not living up to the potential but is threatening the potential of the
lodges in northern Manitoba.
There are a number of items I want to
point to specifically. One was the elimination of the classification
position. In fact, the member for Point
Douglas pointed to the importance of classification of lodges, particularly
when you are dealing with the many American tourists who are probably the
primary market for lodges and from all over the United States. The bottom line is, this government
eliminated the classification position last year that had been in existence for
many years and is now relying on self‑reporting and a system that
threatens the objective classification of lodges and to my mind could in the
long run threaten the standards of that.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) shows
his ignorance of the lodges. If he had
only been listening a few minutes ago, he would have been aware of the fact
that there is a catch‑and‑release policy in place in lodges in
northern
If the Minister of Health is not aware, I
am sure maybe the member for Portage (Mr. Connery), who I know has paid some
attention in the past in terms of tourism issues, and I know he is aware of
some of the concerns of lodge operators from his previous involvement as a
critic in that light, might wish to educate the Minister of Health, because
obviously the Minister of Health has not had the opportunity to talk directly
to lodge operators in northern Manitoba about what is going on currently.
As I said, I have a concern about the
elimination of classification that has taken place on behalf of this
government. I believe that that is going
to threaten the integrity of
They demand proper services and
standards. If they go to a lodge that is
a three‑star lodge, they want it to be a three‑star lodge. If it is four‑star lodge, they want it
to be a four‑star lodge. They are
willing to pay good money to come to northern Manitoba and are willing to add
significantly to the Manitoba economy by doing so if they get the kinds of
standards they are used to, that they are expecting and that are
advertised. This government has made a
serious error in this regard.
I also want to talk about outfitters'
concerns in another area, and that is in the area of promotion. I believe that if one was to talk to many of
the outfitters, and I have taken the opportunity to talk to a number of
outfitters, one of the major concerns about the tourism strategy of the
government, and it has been a concern that has been around for a number of
years‑‑I am not trying to single out this current minister‑‑but
is in terms of promotion.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
Many lodge operators are finding they are
expending a significant amount of money out of their own pockets, tens of thousands
of dollars having to independently promote northern
* (1540)
I have talked to many lodge operators who
have indicated they often find there are repeated visits from individuals on a
yearly basis. I think that shows that we
do have strength in terms of market potential, but there is not the adequate
type of promotion. When you are out
there in a cutthroat market, and indeed lodge operators are saying the prices
are being slashed because of the impact of the recession‑‑there is
some kind of price war going on between lodges currently‑‑but when
you are out there competing with well‑known destinations such as Northern
Ontario, you need that type of promotion, Mr. Acting Speaker, and that is one
of the significant concerns of lodge operators, the fact that we are often left
out.
I talked to a lodge operator only on
Friday who indicated that he was at a trade fair and had some members of his
family at a trade fair where there was an empty desk set up for
I talked to a lodge operator just
yesterday as a matter of fact who found the fees they are being charged are
increasing dramatically. They went from
a $250 fee last year to the point where they are going to be charged in excess
of $830 and a charge per bed space. This
is going to lead to a threefold, a fourfold‑‑it may increase by as
much as 500 percent in one year. They, a new lodge operation, are just
flabbergasted‑‑they found this out last Friday. They were flabbergasted to find that this
government is now with a new operation.
They put their own money into it.
They have been unable to get any support
from government. In fact, I do not even
believe they really bothered even trying to get it from the government. They have received no real assistance in
terms of the banks, but now the government is increasing the amount that it
wants to take off this lodge operation, a new lodge operation. Whether it threatens the economic viability,
Mr. Acting Speaker, certainly does not help. Here in the middle of a recession
when you have people‑‑and this couple has lived in northern
I note that is happening across the
province. The Minister of Natural
Resources (Mr. Enns), with his newly shrunken department, now is out there
trying to raise revenue wherever he can.
We noticed in terms of another bill, in terms of permanent cottage
residents, that money is going to be raised from them that will go into general
revenues, not into the local communities, not into local school districts, not
into local municipalities, but they are out there raising money for whomever
they can.
In fact, I am wondering if this bill might
not more appropriately put this responsibility in the Minister of Finance's
(Mr. Manness) department, because by the looks of it, at the rate we are going,
the Minister of Natural Resources is going to become more of a revenue raiser
in terms of a minister than a service provider.
We have seen major, major cuts in terms of the programming in that
department that affects conservation officers, that affects our provincial
parks, and that is why I have a concern here again.
We look to the feedback from lodge
operators themselves as to the logic of this move, a move that is going to,
what‑‑to move lodge and outfitters' responsibility to the
Department of Natural Resources, a department that has been slashed
continuously by this government and, in fact, one that we are concerned again
may be the target of further cuts in the upcoming budget.
How will the very real concerns of lodge
operators and outfitters in terms of the impact they could have, in terms of
the tourism market, their resource concerns, et cetera, be represented in a
department that has little enough resources to begin with, has had those
resources slashed, is having difficulty maintaining basic services in terms of
those areas I just mentioned a few minutes ago?
How are their responsibilities in terms of this particular new bill
going to be lived up to with a department that is a mere shadow of itself, Mr.
Acting Speaker?
Those are a number of concerns I have
identified. I want to indicate that our
caucus is going to be taking the time to talk to the people directly affected,
those who operate lodges, talking to outfitters and other northern Manitobans
in particular, because that is where a vast majority of lodges are located, to
find out what they believe is the proper approach to follow. I know as I have said from conversations as
recent as yesterday they have serious concerns about the actions of this
government. Perhaps, Mr. Acting Speaker,
it is out of ignorance that this government is doing this, but they ought to
realize that there is significant tourism potential from our lodges. In fact, one of the most significant areas of
potential is in terms of northern tourism.
This is one of the strongest markets that we have.
If you were to take Churchill with its
reputation which attracts visitors from all over the world, and I have had the
opportunity of travelling on the bayline as I do to visit parts of my
constituency, to sit and talk to people who have come as far away as Miami,
Florida. They have come to
I have run across people in Churchill from
all over the world, the Japanese, the Germans, every part of the world that has
that reputation. Same thing with our
lodges. I have had the opportunity to
sit with many American tourists, travelling as I do home on weekends during the
tourism season and, indeed, it is an interesting experience sitting and having
the opportunity of talking to people again.
I have talked to people who have come
again from as far away as
It puts us to shame sometimes, Mr. Acting
Speaker, because I wonder how many people in
In fact, I would recommend for those who
want to start, they could start with the community of Snow Lake, because I have
had the interesting experience, Mr. Acting Speaker, the last two years my car
has broken down both years, two different cars, in the summer around Reid Lake
on both occasions. I had to get towed
back into
You know what, it was probably the best
thing that could have happened, because I did miss out on the meetings both
years. One actually was the send‑off
for Harry Harapiak. That one, I wish I
had been at. They have actually got to
the point now where, if it is the summer and I am travelling anywhere, people
expect that I am going to end up in
I ran across a lot of American tourists
who will drive up from
There is a concern being expressed that
the money does not stay in the local economy.
Do you know what? I talked to the
operators of the lodge, and I know the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) knows
it well, being in his constituency, and I know he has talked to them on many
occasions. They have said that once
people realize what is available in northern
In fact, he mentioned he had some American
visitors who came up and left upwards of $500 worth of canned goods that they
brought up, because they thought there was going to be nothing in
* (1550)
What I am saying is, if you understand, if
you take the time to listen to what people expect and also some of the
impressions people have of northern Manitoba, whether they are correct or not,
you also learn the next response which is how to develop a proper and adequate
marketing program that cannot only sell the advantages of northern Manitoba as
a destination resort for lodges but can also point out to people that they do
not have to gas up and buy $1,000 worth of cans, that we have some excellent
restaurants. In fact, the food in many
lodges is very well liked. I have heard
some very good comments by American fishermen who have come up.
It is also, I think, important to
recognize what people expect. One of the
key things in the hospitality industry‑‑I know it is something that
has been pointed to, and one thing I think the Americans, certainly in the
northern states, are quite good at, and I am not a cross‑border shopper
at the moment. I have not been for
several years. I remember from previous
visits through the
Mystery Country International, which is an
organization that represents Thompson and surrounding areas in terms of
tourism, has actually been promoting that within the community and lodges in
various different locations throughout northern Manitoba, because what people
remember when they leave a community or when they leave a lodge is often that personal
contact, and that is the key thing that has to be remembered. It is those personal remembrances that
matter.
These lodge operators I talked to just a
couple of days ago, for example, and visited with on Friday in Ilford, they
indicated that very many people were impressed to see the owners of the lodge
there with the employees cooking the food, talking to people, outlining the
history of the North in that area. That
is something they remember as much as the fishing experience and as much as the
accommodation itself. It is an entire
package.
That is why I am rising on this bill
today. I know the minister very quickly
introduced it and talked that it was just simply a jurisdictional change. I think, perhaps, it may be more than that
and that is something we will be looking at.
We will be consulting with lodge operators.
I think it may be also a concern that we
have to express as to whether the department, itself, is going to be able to
live up to the kind of obligations and responsibilities that are going to be
inherently required as a part of this shuffle.
The bottom line, Mr. Acting Speaker, is
quite frankly we are concerned about some of the directions the government is
taking in terms of lodges in the province.
Perhaps the solution is very similar to what the member for Point
Douglas (Mr. Hickes) suggested. Perhaps
members, the government benches, should come up to northern
I know the Speaker‑‑and I wish
him well in his recovery‑‑does not have to be invited. He has his own specific fishing haunts in
northern
An Honourable Member: Goes for trout.
Mr. Ashton: He goes for trout. We have got some good lakes. There are a
significant number of people who go fishing on a regular basis.
I want to indicate that there are very
many accessible lakes in northern
An Honourable Member: Especially around Flin Flon.
Mr. Ashton: Especially, the member for Flin Flon (Mr.
Storie) says, around Flin Flon. I can
recommend some fishing around
An Honourable Member: Has the member for Flin Flon ever invited you
to go fishing?
Mr. Ashton: The member for Flin Flon may not actually invite
me. He knows I drop by his constituency
in
I would recommend people take the time to
come up north. I am sure many of the
lodge operators would be willing to accommodate members of the Legislature in
terms of visiting some of the lodges. I
hope this summer to be able to visit some of the lodges on site, some of the
more inaccessible lodges, not only to enjoy the surrounding communities, the
surrounding environment, but also to look specifically at the operations. I think that one of the key areas that we
have as an advantage is the unspoiled wilderness; and, if we wisely use that
resource and we follow the proper policies and work with the lodge owners and
the outfitters, I can see some significant potential in northern
An Honourable Member: Are you going to visit my constituency next
time?
Mr. Ashton: I would like to visit the member's
constituency. I am being generous
here. I can outline some very beautiful
sites in the Thompson constituency as well,
There are some beautiful lakes around
Assean,
Pikwitonei is a community I will be in
next week on the winter road, and I can indicate that it is very good in the
summer for fishing. Thicket
It is difficult for the lodge operators,
the outfitters, to be able to come into
So please come up and visit us when the
weather improves a bit, and I hope the minister will also, when he is dealing
with this bill, have the opportunity to perhaps come up to northern Manitoba
and visit with some of the lodge operators to find out their concerns. I am hoping that this is one area where the
government can perhaps work with us or we can perhaps all work together. I do not think this is necessarily a
political issue, but I think it is one of understanding. If you understand the concerns and we can
work more closely together, I think we can tap one of our greatest potential
economic resources, and that is tourism in northern
House
Business
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): I just rise on some
House business if I can. I would like to
announce that the Standing Committee of Municipal Affairs will consider the
North Portage Development Corporation Annual Report on March 24, Room 255, 10
a.m. That same committee will consider
The Forks Renewal Corporation Annual Report on April 16 in Room 255, also at 10
a.m. in the morning.
I propose to call the Committee on Law
Amendments to deal with Bills 5, 7, 8 and 46 a week from today, March 5 at 7
p.m. in the evening, also in Room 255.
That same committee will also sit, if necessary, to consider those bills
Tuesday morning, March 11, at 10 a.m. in the same room. It is March 10, right. Sleeping. March 10, Tuesday, 7 p.m., if necessary, for
Bills 5, 7, 8 and 46.
* * *
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Reimer): As previously agreed, this bill will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
* (1600)
Bill 34‑The
Surveys Amendment Act
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Reimer): Resuming debate on the proposed motion of the
honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), second reading on Bill 34
(The Surveys Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'arpentage), standing in
the name of the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
Is there leave to permit the bill to
remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reimer): Leave.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): With the understanding
that bill will remain in the name of the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans),
I would like to speak on Bill 34.
This bill, when it was introduced by the Minister
of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), was called an administrative bill, and the
minister indicated in his remarks that all it did was transfer responsibility
from the Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council to the minister,
allowing him to determine by regulation the fees that will be charged by the
Department of Natural Resources for maps and other products that come out of
the minister's department.
Mr. Acting Speaker, while certainly we all
agree that the increased flexibility that this kind of arrangement allows may
have some benefit, I think we also have to put on record that it could contain
some detrimental aspects as well. The
fact of the matter is that the current process for approving fee increases for
maps or other survey documents, municipal documents, other things that are
produced from the Department of Natural Resources, go through a process that
includes approval by cabinet.
(Madam Deputy Speaker in the Chair)
I think that is a good process. Certainly, it gives a much greater
opportunity for input from other members who also may have concerns about the
cost of these particular items. I assume
that the minister is bringing forward this amendment, because the Department of
Natural Resources has been suffering through a series of cutbacks by this
government. The Minister of Natural
Resources (Mr. Enns) is looking for revenue from any source whatsoever, and he
has decided that if he is given authority to control the fees that are charged
for maps and detailed plans and documents that come from the Department of
Natural Resources, that it would be an easy source of money.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if that is not the
rationale, then of course‑‑and it may not be‑‑the money
may be going straight into general revenue.
In any case, it leaves in the minister's hands something which
previously was reviewed by cabinet. As
suspicious as we may be of this particular cabinet, I believe that the
collective wisdom of the cabinet is probably superior to the wisdom of one individual,
whoever that happens to be at the moment in the portfolio of Natural Resources.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I guess that is why
we would like to put on record that we are concerned about this minor
amendment. Also, I guess it begs the question of whether in fact other
departments are going to be seeking the same authority. If the Minister of Natural Resources is going
to be given the authority to change the fees on maps, et cetera, at his
discretion, at the whim of his department based on his own analysis of the
implications of those changes, then clearly other ministers are going to ask
for the same kind of consideration. I
would expect that to be a logical consequence of approving this kind of
legislation.
I do not have to tell you that other
ministers are in charge of fees that are very substantial that affect literally
thousands and thousands of Manitobans.
If we are now going to as a matter of course turn over responsibility
for determining those fees to individual ministers, I think it is a regressive
step. I think that the current system of
checks and balances in determining fees is necessary.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there are many
Manitobans who might say we should go even further, that in fact the fees we
charge Manitobans for services, for goods, products of the provincial government
should be determined by the Legislature itself, that we are providing services
to the people of Manitoba, and the government in and of itself is making the
decision at a cabinet table without hearing perhaps opposing views on the
relative merits of increasing those particular fees.
I know on the surface there are probably a
lot of people who said, well, why should I be concerned about whether the
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) is going to increase fees on
maps? Well, of course the fact of the
matter is that the majority of members in this Chamber, in fact the majority of
Manitobans are not impacted by such fees, because we do not use those services,
and so you have to look to who might be using the services of the Department of
Natural Resources.
I assume at least that institutions like
universities, community colleges, school divisions use maps frequently. We could assume that geologists and hunters
and trappers perhaps also use maps from the Department of Natural Resources.
We I think have to be concerned about the
principle of this very small amendment.
I do not think the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) was being
facetious when he said that this was simply an administrative matter, that it
was simply streamlining the actions and the responsibilities in the department,
but I think there are broader implications.
They go to the question of whether the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard)
would also want the authority to change individual fees without concurrence of
cabinet. Whether it be chiropractor's
fees or other fees, I do not think that the precedent we are setting here is
necessarily the right one.
As I said, Madam Deputy Speaker, there
would be many who would argue that we should be having a more thorough review
of fee increases by the Legislature itself and that leaving it in the hands of
the Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council, by regulation, by
approval of cabinet may not be in the best interests of the fee‑paying
public of the province of Manitoba.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that in the
last two and a half years, in speaking to constituents, certainly many northern
residents are already concerned about the fee increases that have been imposed
on them in the last couple of years, fee increases in virtually every kind of
service provided by this government.
I reference the Minister of Health and the
fee that was imposed on northerners who use the Northern Transportation
program. I certainly believe if that
issue had come to the Chamber for debate prior to the minister's and the
cabinet's decision that in fact we would have had a very rigorous debate on
that topic.
I guess the larger question is, where does
this lead us if we now, piece by piece, regulation by regulation, turn this
responsibility over to the minister?
Where does it end and how can we then control the process and make sure
that to the extent that there is ever a government agenda when it comes to
increasing fees that this agenda is reviewed by cabinet and not the sole
purview of one individual minister?
* (1610)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I simply wanted to
raise what I think is an issue of principle.
I am interested to know whether members on either side of the House have
considered the implications here, whether we want to continue to abrogate
responsibility in one sense in the name of efficiency‑‑and I am not
sure that it will be necessarily more efficient‑‑but we are moving
to a system where individual ministers have increasing opportunity to cost the
users of these particular products considerable amounts of money without having
it being considered by the larger group or even by the Legislature. I am not sure that is a good principle in a
time when the people are demanding more and more accountability from their
legislators, from government. It is
difficult to suggest that we are becoming more accountable by turning
responsibility over from the group or from the Legislature to individual
ministers.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not want to
belabour this point. I know that others may want to speak on it. I simply felt it was important to raise that
question of what I think is an important principle. I look forward to what other members may have
to say on this issue, including my own colleagues.
Madam Deputy Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain standing
in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
Bill 38‑The
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion, the honourable
Minister of Justice and Attorney General (Mr. McCrae), to resume debate on
second reading of Bill 38 (The Manitoba Evidence Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la preuve au Manitoba), standing in the name of
the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing?
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Madam Deputy Speaker, we are prepared to let
this bill go to committee. The member
for Interlake stood this bill on behalf of one of my colleagues who has already
spoken. We are prepared to let it go to
committee.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Madam Deputy Speaker: Given the comments of the honourable member
for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) and for the record, could I please ask then if it is
the will of the House to deny leave to permit the bill to remain standing in
the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans)? Leave is denied? Leave has been denied.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), that debate then be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 42‑The
Amusements Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), to resume debate on second reading of Bill 42
(The Amusements Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les divertissements),
standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing in the name of the
honourable member for Thompson?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Bill 43–The
Farm Income Assurance Plans Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), to resume debate on second reading of
Bill 43 (The Farm Income Assurance Plans Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur les regimes d'assurance‑revenue agricole), standing in
the name of the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Bill 44‑The
Milk Prices Review Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), to resume debate on second reading of
Bill 44 (The Milk Prices Review Amendment Act; Loi modifiant
la Loi sur le controle du prix du lait), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable
Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst), to resume debate on second reading of
Bill 45 (The City of Winnipeg Amendment, Municipal Amendment
and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Ville de
Winnipeg, la Loi sur les municipalites et d'autres dispositions legislatives), standing in
the name of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Bill 47‑The
Petty Trespasses Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Justice and Attorney General (Mr. McCrae), to resume debate on
second reading of Bill 47 (The Petty Trespasses Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'intrusion), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Bill 49‑The
Environment Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), to resume debate on second reading of
Bill 49 (The Environment Amendment Act; Loi modifiant
la Loi sur l'environnement), standing in the name of the honourable member
for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli). Is there
leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Bill 53‑The
Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), to resume debate on second reading of
Bill 53 (The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la manutention et le transport des
marchandises dangereuses), standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River
(Ms. Wowchuk). Is there leave to permit
the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Hon. James McCrae
(Acting Government House Leader): Madam
Deputy Speaker, if there is no further business, shall we call it five o'clock?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it five
o'clock? Five o'clock, Private Members'
Business.
PRIVATE
MEMBERS' BUSINESS
SECOND READINGS‑PUBLIC
BILLS
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for
Motion presented.
Mr. Alcock: Madam Deputy Speaker, I appreciate the
opportunity to put a few remarks on the record relative to this, although this
issue has been before this House several times in the last few sessions. Very simply, it is an amendment to The
University of Manitoba Act that allows the Students' Union at the
This was not as much of an issue back in
the early '70s‑‑the '80s, I should say‑‑in that the
practice of the government of the day was to accept the recommendations from
the student council and to appoint those students who were directly chosen by
the student body. It was not until the
former Minister of Education of this government decided to alter that practice
and to appoint representatives of his choosing rather than those chosen by the
student body that this became an issue.
* (1620)
Madam Deputy Speaker, students at the
I am anticipating, frankly, that the
government will now see fit to pass this amendment simply because they have
chosen this means of appointment of representatives in the changes to the
administration of the colleges. When
that bill was before the House last session and the same issue came up‑‑do
the students at the community colleges have the right to elect their own
representatives?‑‑after some debate that right was established for
them.
What we are asking that the House do is
simply pass a very simple amendment to The University of Manitoba Act to allow
the direct appointment of the two representatives that the Students' Union have
on that board by the students of that facility.
I am going to suggest that we try to
conclude the debate today and get this into committee, so we can make those
changes as quickly as possible and allow the students to get on with the
business of appointing their own representatives as they go through their
elections a little later this spring.
Thank you very much.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for Wolseley‑‑the
honourable member for St. Vital.
Mrs. Shirley Render (St.
Vital): I move, seconded by the honourable member for
St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), that debate now be adjourned.
Madam Deputy
Speaker: It has been moved by the
honourable member for St. Vital, seconded by the honourable member for St.
Norbert, that debate be now adjourned.
Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak
on this bill‑‑
An Honourable Member: You should have spoken before.
Ms. Friesen: I did stand up.
Point of
Order
Hon. James McCrae
(Acting Government House Leader): Madam
Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, when the honourable member rose at the
same time or before or after the honourable member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render),
I was unaware that she was rising to speak in the debate on Bill 25. If it would assist, we could give leave under
the circumstances so that the honourable member for Wolseley could speak.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it the will of the House to grant leave to
permit the honourable member for Wolseley to speak to the bill? Agreed.
* * *
Ms. Friesen: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very glad to be
able to rise on this bill to speak about university governance in
I would like to point out that previous
administrations, including administrations which represented the New Democratic
Party, made a very consistent practice of appointing students to the
I think what we should note in fact is
that
Acadia University, for example, has two
elected students; the University of Alberta, a provincial university very
similar to that of the University of Manitoba, has two students nominated by
the student union council and one graduate student; Bishop's University, a
private university, has three appointed students; British Columbia, a
provincial university, has two elected from the student association; Brock University,
three elected by the student body; at Carleton University, there are two
elected each year; at Concordia, there are four nominated and one graduate
student recommended by their association; Dalhousie University has four
nominated by the students union; Lakehead University, Laurentian University,
the University of Manitoba and Memorial, in fact, are of the few that do not
have recommendations for students on their board.
We find, for example, at McMaster there
are two students on the board, one elected by and from the undergraduates and
one by and from the graduate students.
At McGill there are three elected by the student society. At
I could go through the alphabetical
listing here, Madam Deputy Speaker, but perhaps I should also mention the
I think what the evidence would show, and
I am quoting from a list by the Canadian Association of University Teachers, is
that over the last 10 years most universities across
Universities, I suppose, as we all know,
did begin from medieval institutions where they were communities of learning,
communities really of scholars and students were seen as the apprentices of the
scholars, a community really which was dedicated to providing people for the
professions and for the church, very much a secluded community. The groves of academe is one of the phrases
which is frequently used. The universities
have relied for their governance until the Second World War on principles of
collegiality, principles of governance by faculty and by the members of
colleges, really a remnant of the old medieval sense of the secluded community
of learning.
Since the Second World War, Madam Deputy
Speaker, right across
Those kinds of changes and the presence of
universities in the community have led to changes in governance. We find now direct nominations by
governments, such as we have in
In
Manitoba is also a western province and it
derives much of its post‑secondary education policy, perhaps its college
and university policy, from an American stream of thought‑‑the idea
of the land grant colleges of the midwest‑‑colleges which are
formed, or universities which are formed based upon the wealth of the land of
the prairie provinces and midwestern states and which were publicly governed
and were meant to be much more broadly publicly accessible and to provide
students and a purpose which was far greater than that of the church and the
professions.
In Manitoba, we have a most interesting
form of university, one which comes from both of these streams of thought in
the 19th Century, and we have in particular a federal system of colleges which
came together to form the University of Manitoba. It was in the 1870s when Lieutenant‑Governor
Morris was Lieutenant‑Governor of this province; it was his experience
and his ability to bring together both Catholics and Anglicans and Presbyterians
to form a university based upon a federal system.
Interestingly enough, the actual proposal
itself for a federal form of government in the University of Manitoba came from
Bishop Provencher himself who had recently been to London and had seen the
University of London and decided that the best option for Manitoba was to
develop that kind of federal system.
* (1630)
The
So it is to the Metis of St. Andrews, in
fact, that we owe the origins of one of the most important parts of the
Well, the act before us, Madam Deputy
Speaker, advocates student representation on the board of the
I should point out that across
I think many members of universities
across the country feel very strongly that many boards simply rubber stamp the
decisions already taken by administrators in committees, and the discussions about
accountability across
I would say there is certainly some unease
in western universities about that particular situation, so I would suggest,
Madam Deputy Speaker, that we look at this bill in that context as well and
that certainly the board of the University of Manitoba should be opened to
student representation as it was under the New Democratic government, but
equally I think the issue of university governance should be broached more
widely as people across Canada are doing at the moment.
I think, for example, one of the things
that we should be looking at is the position of the Senate at the University of
Manitoba and the relationship between the Senate and the board and the
representation of faculty upon the board and the way in which faculty have the
opportunity to make representations to the board and to be involved in the very
significant decisions of the board.
There is also room in the existing
The council, according to Section 36(2) of
The University of Manitoba Act, is to be set up to foster mutual understanding
between the university and the general public.
It seems to me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this is a very important time
in the history of Manitoba for those relations between the general public and
the university to be set upon a very sound footing, one where the public feels
that it has the ear of the university and that the university is very much a
part of this particular community.
I suggest that it is significant at this
time because we are seeing the accessibility of universities being restricted
to Manitobans. Certainly, I do not think
we have seen this level of restriction since perhaps the period in the interwar
years.
Since the 1960s obviously there has been a
great deal of expansion in university accessibility and certainly in the
numbers of students in Manitoba who have gone to university, but what we have
seen happening over the last five years in fact is that the university funds
have decreased and the kind of expenses that the university has to incur for
its aging infrastructure, for the cost of books, for the increase in wages, for
the increases in the maintenance of a very expensive plant, both at the
University of Winnipeg and the University of Manitoba and the University of
Brandon as well. Expenses are increasing
very rapidly in those areas that the universities must use and develop.
The universities increasingly are being
asked to do more and more with less and less.
The universities have made enormous strides in becoming accessible to
students who for various reasons never had the opportunity to finish high
school. They have made great strides in
BUNTEP programs, in access programs generally.
I think
I think what we see happening at the
moment is that these great achievements are being threatened by the diminution
of funds for the universities.
What we see at the University of Manitoba,
certainly in the last year, is the limits, very severe limits, being placed
upon the entrance into faculties which were formally open faculties, those, for
example, the Faculty of Arts and the Faculty of Science. One of the very few options that the university
has is to restrict the number of students who can come to the
universities. I think we are going to be
seeing the repercussions of that politically and socially across
* * *
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau
(St. Norbert): Madam Deputy Speaker, I was wondering if I may
have leave to make a number of sponsorship changes on a number of resolutions.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member for St. Norbert
have leave to make changes on sponsorship of proposed resolutions?
Point of
Order
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Madam
Deputy Speaker, in the past what has happened is there has been some sort of
negotiation between the House leaders. I
have not received any prior notice to it and would not be able to approve
leave. If the government House leader
brings it up to our attention, if there is no problem, we will be more than
happy to give leave at a future date possibly.
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): It might be useful if you would take it under
advisement. Whether that is within the
rules of the House to change the‑‑what I understand is being
proposed is that the mover of the resolution, if I understood the member
correctly, the name of the mover would be changed.
The question is, is this a rule that we
have followed in the past and is it acceptable according to parliamentary
procedure without the resolution being formally withdrawn and then reintroduced
by someone else as opposed to simply changing the name standing on the Order
Paper?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe that just very
recently, by leave, these changes in sponsorship have been allowed by the House
because of‑‑[interjection]
An Honourable Member: Okay, by leave you can do anything.
Mr. McCrae: Right, by leave in a co‑operative
spirit. I understand this matter is
going to be raised again in the near future.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been denied.
* * *
* (1640)
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): Madam Deputy Speaker,
recognizing that the bill is under the name of the member for St. Vital (Mrs.
Render), I seek leave to speak on this bill.
Madam Deputy
Speaker: Does the honourable
member for Broadway have leave to speak to Bill 25?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave.
Leave has been granted.
Mr. Santos: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Bill 25, which is The University of Manitoba
Amendment Act, is seeking some changes in the composition of the governing body
of the university which is the Board of Governors by adding two students. Right at the present time, the students by
tradition and practice are included in the 12 which are appointed by the
Lieutenant‑Governor. In a sense,
this is a modification of the discretion of the government to appoint the
majority of 12 in the body of the Board of Governors. On this score, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is
simply an indication of a global democratization of social institutions of
society.
In general, by tradition and practice,
most of the structural framings of our society have always been authoritarian
and elitist. The university is not an
exception to this general pattern. Just
like any other organization, like the business firms, like the military
organizations, any other institution in society, they have by tradition and
practice grown as authoritarian institutions where authority resides at the top
level of management and it trickles down the various levels of the
organization.
The university community by tradition has
always been some kind of a meritocracy in the sense that they try to
incorporate in that corporate body the best of the minds to run the
university. However, every university
has a dual structure of a sort. There is
the academic component and there is the administrative component of that
structure.
Under The University of Manitoba Act, the
Under the existing arrangement, the Board
of Governors of the
Another six are elected by the
Senate. The Senate is an academic body
within the university structure consisting of all of the teaching academic
staff of the university from all the various ranks. They primarily take charge of the curricular
or academic programs, the academic aspects of the university.
In addition to the three elected by the
members of the graduates of the university alumni, the six elected by the
Senate, the president of the university also sits in his own right as a member
of the Board of Governors. As president
of the university, he is an institutional member of the Board of
Governors. Also, the chancellor of the
university in his own right sits there as a member of the Board of Governors.
By tradition and practice, it has always
been in the past that among the 12 appointed by the government through the
Lieutenant‑Governor, two had always been students, but because of some
disagreement recently, with one of the two students nominated by the student
body not being appointed, there has been this debate as to the composition of
the governing body in the university.
Like any other corporate body, the
Like any other corporation, the Board of
Governors have the traditional corporate powers, including the power to acquire
and hold property, to engage in transactions involving property, to hold
securities, bonds, debentures and other instruments of credit, including shares
and stocks. They can, of course, sue and
be sued. They can hold real estate properties
and other real and personal interests in property rights.
The basic principle in appointing people
who are primarily affected by the decisions made by the governing body is an
enduring one, namely, the democratic principle that those who are affected by
any decisions made by any governing body ought to have some say and some
participation in the formulation and making of those decisions as well as in
the carrying out and implementation of those decisions. This is an irrefutable democratic principle
that no one can argue against. If you
are affected by any decision in your personal or property rights, then you must
have some say, a moral right to participate in the making of that decision and
in the implementation of that decision.
The same principle lies at the bottom of
the very existence of our Legislature.
The
* (1650)
The same thing holds true in any
organization. The members of the
organization should be the repository of the organizational authority, the
ultimate decider of their fate and their destiny, because they are the ultimate
recipient of whatever the effect or outcome of those decisions.
The same thing holds true in the business
world in our community. We have heard
maxims like, the clients are always right.
This is consumer sovereignty. No
manufacturing firm, no commercial firm, no enterprise in the private sector
even will survive unless they have the good will of the buying public and the
trust and confidence of their clientele.
This principle, as I said, is so enduring
that it is taking effect in many institutions of our society. The most authoritarian, perhaps, of all
organizations is the military organization‑‑the army, the navy, the
air force‑‑but even in that autocratic and authoritarian organization
there have been democratic changes. They
are now being consulted. The membership
of the military are now being consulted at least before the decisions are made.
It is the same thing with the church. If there was ever any authoritarian organization‑‑and
I could cite perhaps, the Catholic church‑‑there have been
observations by people that they select their popes, either they are the
religious ones or the political type of Pope, because the church has to be also
representative in a sense, of their community of believers.
The same holds true with the university
community. The university community is a
community that consists of many constituencies.
The most numerous perhaps are the student body, the students themselves
as a group. If there is any client you
can talk about in the university, these are the students. In addition to the student, there is the
academic teaching staff of the university, the core group of people who are
doing the teaching and research activities inside the institution.
There is also the nonacademic,
administrative type of personnel inside the university structure. The type is all the other administrative
positions inside the university. Then there
are the graduates of the university, the alumnae. They still have their ties with the
university. They are part of the
university community. They are being
solicited‑‑
An Honourable Member: The new GM car, they also have a Lumina.
Mr. Santos: Yes, the new GM car had just sent out notices
giving them some kind of deductions if they buy the car, some kind of savings.
Of course, the general tax‑paying
public have an interest in the university and, in a sense, they are also part
of the university environment. All of
these interests must be represented, and as I have said, the students have a
moral right to be represented in the governing body that makes the decisions
which primarily affected themselves.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr.
Storie) requesting leave to speak to this bill?
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the honourable member
for Flin Flon to speak to Bill 25?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Mr. Storie: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank
you to members of the Chamber for allowing me leave to speak to this important
bill. I know that the government had
wanted to adjourn debate to consider it, and I know that the member for St.
Vital (Mrs. Render) in particular had wanted to consider the implications of
this bill very carefully before the government began to stake out its position
on this amendment.
Some people in the Chamber may not
appreciate why it is so important for the government to be very thoughtful in
staking out its position. The Minister
of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) may understand, but some other members may
not be as familiar with the history of this amendment as is the current
Minister of Rural Development.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that we were
all somewhat shocked and surprised when the former Minister of Education‑‑and
disappointed as my colleague for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) suggests‑‑when
the Minister of Education decided in his wisdom to dispense with many, many
years of tradition and to not appoint the students that came recommended from
UMSU to the Manitoba university Board of Governors.
I had the opportunity when I was Minister
of Education to appoint students to the university Board of Governors, and I
did so without any reluctance whatsoever.
I believe that the democratic process as it unfolds at the
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not for me to
prejudge or second guess the UMSU council.
Their representatives are appointed to do their best on behalf of the
students of the university on the Board of Governors, and I do not think it is
the role of the Minister of Education to second‑guess them. What made this particular incident perhaps
more regrettable was the fact that the minister chose to interfere and appoint
a political sycophant, if you will, to the position, a political sycophant,
known more colloquially as a Tory hack. [interjection] That is right, for the
member for Arthur (Mr. Downey).
The fact of the matter is that this
minister, this particular minister, has followed this particular vein in every
department he has been in and in many of his incarnations. He has chosen to undermine a legitimate
process by appointing politically partisan people, supporters, friends, to
positions of influence as he sees it, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I hear comments from the former Minister
of Energy and Mines that that is shocking.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is never shocking when political parties
appoint people who are philosophically supportive to positions of
importance. What is shocking is to break
a tradition of denying the right of the
Madam Deputy Speaker, we have seen and
most members of the Chamber know the history of the previous minister of
development when it came to patronage, when it came to subverting the will of
others to his will. We can only assume
that this rather arrogant move on the part of the former Minister of Education
is consistent with many of the other things that have happened both in hirings
in his department and perhaps in appointments to many other boards and
commissions across the province.
Many people are worried about that kind of
behaviour because it undermines the credibility of politicians of every
stripe. It undermines, quite frankly,
the very good work that some ministers have done. I cannot think of any particular examples of
good work that some ministers have done in this government, but I am sure that
there are such incidents.
However, Madam Deputy Speaker, I also want
to discuss for a moment the principles which were raised by my colleague from
Broadway. The member for Broadway (Mr.
Santos) raised, I think, a legitimate question about how such appointments
should occur, whether in fact the student representatives to the university
Board of Governors should perhaps be chosen in a completely democratic fashion‑‑in
other words, be elected by the student body at large‑‑versus what
we have in this particular amendment, which is a continuation of past practice
in the province of Manitoba. The member
for Osborne's (Mr. Alcock) amendment‑‑
An Honourable Member: Nice guy.
* (1700)
Mr. Storie: Heck of a nice guy apparently, he says‑‑it
is, I guess, following tradition in a sense that his amendment would require
the appointment of the representatives chosen by UMSU to the Board of
Governors. It is, indeed, following
practice, and, Madam Deputy Speaker, it worked quite well for many years.
I think most members of the Chamber,
certainly members on this side, were flabbergasted when the Minister of
Education broke with tradition. Again,
we can only speculate as to his motives for breaking with tradition, but it is
certainly understandable that it would precipitate this kind of amendment,
something to secure the rights of the students at the University of Manitoba,
the representation that they deserve and, I think, that they need on the
university Board of Governors at the University of Manitoba.
Madam Deputy Speaker, again the debate
which my colleague from Broadway (Mr. Santos) has opened is one, I guess, which
perhaps other members of the Chamber will want to take up. I think that there is a growing perception‑‑I
am not going to say that it is necessarily a legitimate perception, but a
growing perception‑‑that direct democracy is a superior way to go
rather than delegated democracy. I do
not know whether the
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to go back to
the principle that really is being addressed by the bill, and that is the right
of groups in our society to have their say through their appointments to
government boards and agencies. There
are approximately 400 boards and commissions which are currently operating in
the
Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe that this
government would acknowledge that it is unthinkable, for example, that the
I am not saying that every appointment
necessarily has to come from a representative group or an interest group, but
certainly practice has been over many years that some boards have traditionally
had representatives from very specific agencies and groups as representatives
on those boards, and the reason for it is very simple. The reason is that, as the
I am sure there are many who would argue,
and perhaps the student's union most vociferously, that we should actually have
more students on the university Board of Governors. Let us face it, they could not do any
worse. My colleague, a former professor
in her own right, suggests that graduate students should have representation on
the
There are many other groups, and my
colleague, the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), who was president of the
What is at issue here is the question of
whether it is appropriate to appoint specific interest groups to government
boards and agencies that the government has a responsibility for
appointing. I think the answer is
clearly yes. If that is the case, then I
think the government is going to be hard pressed to find a way to subvert the
process in this Chamber and not come to some decision on the member for
Osborne's (Mr. Alcock) amendment.
I think we are going to be listening quite
intently to members opposite to see whether in fact they can screw up their
courage and support this amendment, so that we will not have the kind of
interference in the affairs of the university Board of Governors that occurred
under the previous Minister of Education.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not sure
whether we will see some debate on this matter from members opposite in the near
future, but I hope it is not the government's intention to delay dealing with
this piece of legislation. I think that
we need to deal with it. I hope that the
government's own concerns about the behaviour, the practices of some members of
the front bench does not dissuade it from being forthright about the need for
dealing with this and securing the right of the students at the university to
appoint members directly to the Board of Governors.
Madam Deputy Speaker, how much time do I
have remaining? Two minutes.
The last comment that I would like to make
is that the principle we are trying to establish here is an important one. It
is unfortunate, however, that we have been brought to this stage at this
time. I suppose if we had any confidence
that the government would follow tradition and practise and respect the rights
of groups out there to represent themselves, it would not be necessary to be
dealing with this at this time. Unless
and until we get some sort of unequivocal statement from the government that it
is not going to interfere in a needless political way with the appointments to
agencies and boards like the University of Manitoba Board of Governors, I think
that logically this is the only way that we can proceed. We have to proceed this way to protect the
interests of the many groups who have come to expect that they will have
representation on some of these boards and agencies.
The question of the appointments to the
University of Manitoba Board of Governors is only the first stage. I would expect if we see the kind of
interventionist action on the part of government front benchers in the near
future and in other boards and agencies we will see the same kind of amendments
being recommended there. It would be
rather sad if we have to deal with amendments like this and use up the time of
the Legislature to prevent government front benchers from abusing their
authority. Let us be frank about what we
are doing here.
What we are doing here is simply trying to
prevent abuse of power, Madam Deputy Speaker‑‑
An Honourable Member: . . . still remember the Perkins affair.
Mr. Storie: The member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae)
wants to raise the Perkins affair. I
just wish I had more time, so that I could edify the member about what really occurred
in the Perkins affair, a Tory fundraiser‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member's time is expired.
* (1710)
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): I wonder if I might have leave to speak on
this, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member for Thompson have
leave to speak to Bill 25? Leave? Leave has been granted.
Mr. Ashton: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Indeed I could pick up where the member
for Flin Flon left off, but I want to talk more specifically about this
particular bill as the former president of the University of Manitoba Students'
Union, as a former ex officio member of the Board of Governors and as someone
who was president of UMSU in those dark days of Sterling Lyon‑‑[interjection]
Well, the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) remembers those days very well I am
sure. I remember them well too.
We had a government in those days that had
very many things in common with this government. There were 20 percent tuition fee increases. There was a virtual freeze in funding and a
very desperate situation for the universities.
There was another interesting difference
though. The Sterling Lyon government,
even the Sterling Lyon government, did not interfere in the functioning of the
Board of Governors in the way that this government has. This government is not satisfied with just
cutting back in terms of funding; it is not satisfied with the kind of tuition
fee increases we have seen in recent years.
What they have been doing, Madam Deputy Speaker, is they are now trying
to dictate which students will sit on the University of Manitoba Board of
Governors, dictate in a way they are totally ignoring the choice of the elected
student body, the University of Manitoba Students' Union.
I have never seen such blatant
manipulation by a government. We are not talking about appointments that are
made by the government in Order‑in‑Council. We are not talking about appointments that
are made as traditional patronage appointments.
Certainly I know when the government was
elected they did bring about a wholesale change to the board of the
I must say, I am surprised today that we have
had a number of speakers, but we have yet to hear from some of the Conservative
members who I thought would have been standing today saying they support this
bill‑‑the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), the member for Fort Garry
(Mrs. Vodrey), the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau).
There are many of the MLAs on the
government side who have a significant number of students in their
constituencies, and I am wondering who they are going to speak for in this
debate. Are they going to speak for the
government, which has to now somehow defend the actions, the indefensible
actions of the former Minister of Education in blatantly interfering in student
and university affairs? Are they, Madam
Deputy Speaker, going to stand up for the students, many of whom are their own
constituents, and say yes, students should have the right to have proper and
adequate representation on the University of Manitoba Board of Governors? Will they speak up for them?
We will find out where they stand. Are they going to stand for patronage and
pork‑barreling of the worst kind?
Is this government going to allow this kind of‑‑it goes even
beyond that. I know the member for Flin
Flon (Mr. Storie) knows and others know, that this may involve more than just
patronage, but I believe the word is nepotism.
The bottom line is, they had no business appointing any of their Young
PC cronies. I want to be fair to the
Young PCs, but indeed in this case, crony is the word. [interjection] He may be
a very fine individual, but he does not represent anyone other than the small
group of people involved in the Young PCs.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for
Thompson (Mr. Ashton) will have 10 minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is
adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Friday).