LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday, May 6, 1992
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Mr.
Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Gerald Swanson, Ronald Gottfried, David Cassidy and others requesting the
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) consider a one‑year
moratorium on the closure of the Human Resources Opportunity Centre in Selkirk.
Mr.
Speaker: I have
reviewed the petition of the honourable Leader of the Second Opposition (Mrs.
Carstairs). It complies 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 residents of
the
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the Kimelman Report (1983), the
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry (1991) and the Suche Report (1992) recommended that
the province establish such an office reporting directly to the Legislative
Assembly of Manitoba, in a manner similar to that of the Office of the
Ombudsman; and
WHEREAS pursuant to the Child and Family
Services Act Standards, the agency worker is to be the advocate for a child in care;
and
WHEREAS there is a major concern that child
welfare workers, due to their vested interest as employees within the service system,
cannot perform an independent advocacy role; and
WHEREAS pure advocacy will only be obtained
through an independent and external agency; and
WHEREAS the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer) has unsatisfactorily dealt with complaints lodged against child welfare
agencies; and now
THEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that
the Legislative Assembly of
* *
*
I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar). It
complies 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
WHEREAS the Human Resources Opportunity Office
has operated in Selkirk for over 21 years providing training for the unemployed
and people re‑entering the labour force; and
WHEREAS during the past 10 years alone over
1,000 trainees have gone through the program gaining valuable skills and training;
and
WHEREAS upwards of 80 percent of the training
centre's recent graduates have found employment; and
WHEREAS without consultation the program was
cut in the 1992 provincial budget forcing the centre to close; and
WHEREAS there is a growing need for this
program in Selkirk and the program has the support of the town of
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that
the Legislature of the
*
(1335)
PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mr.
Bob Rose (Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural
Resources): Mr.
Speaker, I beg to present the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Public
Utilities and Natural Resources.
Mr.
Clerk (William Remnant):
Your Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources
presents the following as its Third Report.
Your committee met on Thursday, December 6,
1990, at 10 a.m. in Room 255 of the
At the December 6, 1990, meeting, Mr. Brian
Ransom, Chairperson, Mr. Robert Brennan, President and Chief Executive Officer,
and Mr. Ralph Lambert, Executive Vice President, provided such information as
was requested with respect to the 1990 Annual Report and business of the
Manitoba Energy Authority.
At the May 5, 1992, meeting, Mr. Charlie
Curtis, Chief Executive Officer, provided such information as was requested with
respect to the 1990 and 1991 Annual Reports and business of the
Your committee has considered the Annual
Reports of the Manitoba Energy Authority for the years ended March 31, 1990,
and March 31, 1991, and has adopted the same as presented.
All of which is submitted.
Mr.
Rose: Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr.
Laurendeau), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion
agreed to.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 82‑The Farm Practices Protection and
Consequential Amendments Act
Hon.
Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I would like to move, seconded
by the Minister of Rural velopment (Mr. Derkach), that Bill 82, The Farm
Practices Protection and Consequential
Amendments Act; Loi sur la protection des pratiques agricoles et apportant des
modifications correlatives a d'autres lois, be introduced
and that the same be now received and read a first time.
His Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor,
having been advised of the contents of this bill, recommends it to the House,
and I would like to table the message from His Honour.
Motion
agreed to.
Introduction of Guests
Mr.
Speaker: Prior to
Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery
where we have with us this afternoon from the State of
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome
you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Free Trade Agreement
Employment Creation Statistics
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in 1988, the Premier of
Since that time, Mr. Speaker,
The Premier promised this province, based on
his empirical studies, between 10,000 and 15,000 new jobs because of this proposed
agreement. I would ask the Premier
whether tomorrow he will be sharing with the Premier of Quebec the successes
and failures of the Free Trade Agreement.
Can the Premier share with us today how many jobs have been created,
based on his promise in this Legislature in 1988?
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier):
The Leader of the Opposition does not choose his times for questions
very delicately, given the presence of our American friends in the gallery, Mr.
Speaker. I say that I can neither give
him figures as to job losses nor job gains that are specifically as a result of
the Free Trade Agreement with the
*
(1340)
Every figure that he gives with respect to
increases in unemployment can also be given with respect to American cities, with
respect to European cities, with respect to cities throughout the world. If he is trying to make some argument based
on those figures, I say that the figures do not tell the story, Mr. Speaker.
North American Free Trade Agreement
Public Hearings
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the Premier
that the eminent senator from
A further question to the Premier. Right now, Mr. Speaker, we have reports out
of
In light of the fact that this will affect,
through United States and
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, yes, this government has operated in a sense of looking at
an issue with an open mind and looking at an issue with respect to the benefits
and the concerns of the people of
Well, Mr. Speaker, we do not operate from that
kind of blind ideology. We do not
operate from that embracing of ignorance that the Leader of the Opposition
does. We have put down six conditions
under which we say an agreement would be beneficial to the people of
Mr.
Doer: I would
remind the Premier that it was he who stated clearly and unequivocally, and we
have the tape from the Leaders' debate in August 1990, where he said no to a
free trade agreement with
Now the Premier has produced an
"empirical" study on the basis of
Mr.
Filmon: The
Leader of the Opposition does not seem to understand that an international
trade agreement is not within the jurisdiction of this Legislature or this
provincial government. It is totally‑‑[interjection]
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please.
*
(1345)
Mr.
Filmon: We have
been asked for advice by the Government of
We recognize, Mr. Speaker, what the Leader of
the Opposition obviously cannot understand, and that is, the final decision is totally
within the purview, totally within the jurisdiction, of the Government of
Canada‑‑[interjection]
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition
still cannot understand. Our six
conditions are put as advice to the Government of
Racism Investigations
Police
Mr.
Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister.
The AJI report said, quote: Racism played a part in the shooting of J.J.
Harper and the events that followed.
Partially for that reason and for a variety of
other reasons, two eminent judges in the report recommended that an independent
body should investigate all instances of serious police action and/or
shootings.
Early this morning, tragically, the RCMP were
involved in a shooting. While no one
suggests that this shooting was not justified under the circumstances and does
not appear to be racist in nature, Mr. Speaker, nonetheless, the Medical
Examiner has called for an independent investigation of the RCMP shooting.
I would like to ask the Premier: Will he immediately move to set up an
independent body to investigate matters of this kind in line with the
recommendations of the two judges from the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry?
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, you know, I regret that the critic for the opposition is
attempting to prey on and utilize an unfortunate death as‑‑
Point of Order
Mr.
Chomiak: Point of
order, Mr. Speaker. He is imputing motives.
On a matter of personal privilege, Mr.
Speaker, the Premier is implying motive on the part of this member. I suggested a scenario yesterday to the
Premier of an event just like this. The Premier ignored it, and tragically, it
occurred last night‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member does not
have a point of order.
* *
*
Mr.
Filmon: Mr.
Speaker, I did not ignore yesterday's question; I took it as notice. The Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), as the
member knows full well, is representing
Point of Order
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, our rules are very clear
that members should not cast aspersions or attribute unworthy motives to other
members, Mr. Speaker. It is quite within
the normal traditions of this House for the member to have asked a very serious
question, to ask it based on an actual event and other events that have
occurred, to ask the government for action.
The First Minister has no right to attribute any unworthy motives to our
Justice critic for fighting for justice in this province.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): On the same point of order, certainly no
aspersions were cast, and furthermore, I heard the words of the Premier, the
First Minister. He said it was
unfortunate that the member opposite chose to put the question in the fashion
that he did. Certainly that cannot be
out of order. Every member of this House
has an opportunity to pass their personal view as to why somebody opposite has
made a presentation of their question or indeed their answer. The First Minister has done that; nothing is
out of order, Mr. Speaker, and I hope you would rule in that fashion.
Mr.
Speaker: On the
point of order raised, I will peruse Hansard, and I will return back to the
House with a ruling.
*
(1350)
RCMP Shooting
Independent Investigation Request
Mr.
Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):
Mr. Speaker, I will again address my question that I asked in the first
instance to the Premier. I did not have
to put in the preamble, and I could have left it without the preamble
describing the circumstances, but I was afraid the Premier was unaware‑‑
Mr.
Speaker:
Question, please.
Mr.
Chomiak: My
supplementary to the Premier is: What
will this government do to implement the recommendations of the Medical Examiner
who, in this case, independently recommended that a separate body investigate
the shooting that occurred last night?
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, because this matter falls within the purview of the
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), I think it is only fair and reasonable that
he be involved in any recommendation or decision with respect to this
item. As soon as he is able to return to
the province from his duties as Constitutional Affairs minister, I know that is
a matter that he will want to deal with.
Aboriginal
Justice Inquiry Report Recommendations
Mr.
Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): I
would just like to ask the Premier one final question.
Why has it taken 10 months for the government
to respond to a recommendation that was put down 10 months ago and could easily
have been implemented and could have prevented a lot of this kind of
duplication and ad hockery having to occur on the part of this provincial
government, which has not moved on any recommendations, basically, in this
report?
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, not only has this government given a comprehensive response
to the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry and undertaken to implement and address many
of the recommendations of that inquiry, but we have proceeded toward implementation
of those recommendations by setting up consultative mechanisms. I, myself, met about a week ago with representatives
of three of the major aboriginal organizations in our province and then last
Friday with the Manitoba Metis Federation, to discuss the implementation phase
of the recommendations that we have undertaken to address. We are indeed addressing those
recommendations. I know that the Minister
of Justice (Mr. McCrae) will want to further address the specific question that
the member has placed.
Mental Health Care
Mr.
Gulzar Cheema (The Maples):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
Mr. Speaker, today the Urban Hospital Council
released its final recommendations on the Mental Health Services in regard to
My question is to the Minister of Health. We spend $212 million on Mental Health
Services each year, 87 percent of that is spent on institutional care and only
13 percent on community‑based care.
We are only dealing with 21 beds at the
Can the minister tell us when we will finally
see a complete package of mental health reform to make sure that the changes that
the minister promised in 1988 and 1990 will be met and people can have some
comfort that we are seeing major changes in the mental health system?
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for
the question, and I fully acknowledge the consistency with which he has
approached the process of reform of the mental health system.
I think it is fair to say, Sir, that today's
report‑‑that I have accepted from the Urban Hospital Council with recommendations
specific to the acute patient bed capacity at
Mr. Speaker, I and my colleagues in government
will very, very diligently consider the recommendations of the Urban Hospital
Council. I simply indicate to my
honourable friend that we will accept them if we believe that we can
successfully achieve, in this case, a successful move from institution to community
with full provision and protection of quality services to those mentally ill
Manitobans currently accessing the inpatient services.
Urban
Hospital Council Mental Health Care Recommendations
Mr.
Gulzar Cheema (The Maples):
The minister's deputy minister is the chairperson of this
Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell this House
which recommendation the minister is going to accept because these are the
recommendations that the minister has been talking about for the last two years
that we want to see? The people in the
area of the
*
(1355)
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, clearly I have indicated that in
other opportunities when questions have come up about how we will handle
recommendations from the Urban Hospital Council, I do not intend to take a
great deal of time accepting this report and advancing government's decision
around the report.
My honourable friend will be aware that there
is estimated a nine‑month time period, in which if government were to
accept and implement this recommendation, that we could reasonably expect to have
the alternate services in the community and at other areas of service delivery
in place so that we can test the system of providing services in the community
which were formerly provided in an institutional setting.
Mr.
Cheema: Mr.
Speaker, according to the minister's own wording, the vital consultation has
been done for four years. Many committees have been set and the Regional Mental
Health Council has been actively involved, and the minister has been in touch
with this committee through his Deputy Minister of Health.
It is very important‑‑
Mr.
Speaker:
Question, please.
Mr.
Cheema: ‑‑that
the minister and this department must send a clear message.
Can the minister tell us finally which of
these 12 recommendations are not acceptable, because that will clearly send a
message‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. The question has been put.
Mr.
Orchard: Mr.
Speaker, that is exactly what I intend to clearly enunciate after consultation
through government process with cabinet and caucus colleagues, because this is
not a decision of the Minister of Health.
This will be a decision of government, hopefully fitting the pattern of
reform that this government has endorsed in discussion papers in 1988, an
action plan in 1992, and in the ongoing process that we believe in as government
that services can be shifted from institution to community.
Mr. Speaker, I simply indicate to my
honourable friend that if this government has comfort that these
recommendations fit the policy directions that we have endorsed and advanced
and have substantial support throughout
Health Care System Reform
Government Agenda
Ms.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
The paper released today on psychiatric
services we saw last January when the minister released it as a final document
of the Urban Hospital Council group. We
saw that same document last October when it was first part of a letter that the
deputy minister disseminated.
Mr. Speaker, we would like to know: When do the photo opportunities, the repeat
performances and the paper chases end and the action begin?
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the process that
government is on, and that is exactly the consistent approach of consultation
in the community and acceptance of plans for change in the community that we
have embarked upon consistently, diligently, with the advice of experts across
the length and breadth of the community providing and receiving health care
services.
I only ask my honourable friend in the New
Democratic Party to be consistent in her advancement of positive
recommendations when we make them, instead of trying to, from time to time,
play both sides of the issue, depending on who is listening.
Urban Hospital Council
Specialty Nursing Recommendations
Ms.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member for
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: My
second question, Mr. Speaker, relates to the study on specialty training for
nurses.
I would like to ask the minister, since he had
the final report of this working group at least since January of 1992 on specialty
nursing, why did he not act then so that the internationally renowned emergency
nursing program could have been saved and could have been put on track for the
beginning of this coming education year?
*
(1400)
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I do not know how to do this
nicely, but my honourable friend‑‑and you realize, Sir, my
honourable friend, I have an image to protect. My honourable friend simply has
not presented accurate information to this House.
The task force investigating both specialty
nursing training and psychiatric bed closures at
Now, Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend says I
had the report since January. That is
false, Sir. The task force reports have been
at the Urban Hospital Council, and today, Sir, the Urban Hospital Council‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please.
Point of Order
Ms.
Wasylycia‑Leis: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Health to withdraw
that comment, because in fact it is imputing motive and it is contrary to his
own January 15 press release‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member does not
have a point of order. It is a dispute
over the facts.
* * *
Mr.
Orchard: Yes, I
am going to respond to the question, Sir.
Mr.
Speaker: The honourable
minister has responded to the question.
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis:
All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is the ego has landed.
Mr.
Speaker: Question?
Order, please. The honourable
member for
Health Care System Reform
Government Agenda
Ms.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, it becomes abundantly apparent
with every yelling match my honourable friend gets in, the extreme dilemma that
I have in trying to soar as an eagle when I am working with turkeys.
My honourable friend the critic for the New
Democratic Party has offered, from time to time, to work with government, Sir,
but every time government develops an agenda of action and a plan with some
process, some consultation to it, my honourable friend then says, well, you
have taken too long to consult. Then,
from time to time, when we make a decision, my honourable friend stands up and
says you have not consulted enough.
Mr. Speaker, it is a little difficult to get
consistency from what this working arrangement my honourable friend was wishing
to provide to me as Minister of Health and the people of
Mr.
Speaker: I am
sure the honourable minister's remarks were not attributed to anybody, but I
would ask all honourable members to pick and choose your words very carefully
for the watching public.
Odometer Tampering
Minister's Opinion
Mr.
Jim Maloway (Elmwood):
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs.
On February 25, the Minister of Consumer
Affairs boasted to the local media that there was no problem with odometer
tampering in this province, directly contradicting the RCMP, who at that time
had already charged one person with six counts and announced that further
charges were pending. In fact, the RCMP
stated that there was a very serious problem, so widespread that some officers
now spend more time under the hood of suspect cars than at their desks. Today, a further 21 charges were announced‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. Kindly put your question now, please.
Mr.
Maloway: Could the
minister tell the House whether she still disagrees with the RCMP on this
issue?
Hon.
Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr.
Speaker, the jurisdiction of odometers is more in my department than Consumer
and Corporate Affairs. We both have a role
to play in this.
I want to indicate to you that we have had
dialogue with the RCMP who have raised the concern with us that that seems to
be an ongoing and escalating problem. By
working together, myself, together with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs and the Minister responsible for Autopac in terms of developing certain
proposals, we want to bring forward eventually to try and deal with the
problem.
Odometer Tampering
RCMP Report
Mr.
Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Now that the Minister of Consumer Affairs has
been cut off‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member for
Elmwood, kindly put your supplementary question now, please.
Mr.
Maloway: My
supplementary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is: If the minister is now concerned about this
issue, will she release the RCMP report on odometers that she has been sitting
on since February?
Hon.
Linda McIntosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I must clarify, first of
all, that I was not cut off at the knees.
When I received the RCMP report which I had requested when the issue
came up many months ago, that report was prepared and forwarded to me. The RCMP in that report indicated suggestions
they had that fell under the purview of my honourable colleague, the Minister
of Highways and Transportation, not as the member for Elmwood has indicated, under
the purview of The Consumer Protection Act which he is trying to amend which is
not the act the RCMP want amended.
Therefore, I have turned the report over to
the Minister of Highways and Transportation who is the lead minister, because odometers
correctly, as he points out, do come under his jurisdiction.
Odometer Tampering
RCMP Report
Mr.
Jim Maloway (Elmwood):
My final supplementary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs
(Mrs. McIntosh) is this. Is the minister
sitting on this report in an attempt to hide its contents? Can the minister confirm that the report outlines‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. The question has been put.
Hon.
Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr.
Speaker, I think it is offensive the approach that the member has taken
here. He has raised legitimate
questions. We have tried to answer that
and want to indicate the accusations of hiding a report‑‑it was not
a report. It was a letter that was sent
to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and we are working with
that.
I would suggest that the member straighten out
his facts before he makes accusations in this House.
Social Assistance
Food Allowance
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we have worked very hard in this
party at trying to support the Minister of Health and other ministries, when
they have moved toward a co‑ordinated approach to prevention, because we
believe that, in the long term, will do more to cut costs in health care than
any other single decision made by this or any other government, no matter what
political stripe.
Mr. Speaker, I am becoming increasingly
concerned that there is not a co‑ordinated approach being taken in the
cabinet of the Premier with respect to prevention. We have study after study, one today out from
the
Will the Minister of Health please tell this
House how he believes the decision being taken by the Minister of Family Services
(Mr. Gilleshammer) to cut the food budgets of those living on social assistance
will maintain a quality of health, let alone lead to its deterioration, which
all the studies would indicate it will do?
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, without accepting any of my
honourable friend's preamble, I simply indicate to her that we have
significantly increased the budget and the rates for social assistance in the
Mrs.
Carstairs: Mr.
Speaker, it is very clear that the City of
Will the Minister of Health tell me how that
is consistent with good nutrition and prevention of major health problems?
Mr.
Orchard: Mr.
Speaker, at a time when inflation is less than 2 percent and food costs in
*
(1410)
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Warnings
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, obviously the Department of
Family Services and the partment of Health are not working in a co‑ordinated
way to guarantee good nutrition.
Point of Order
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I am not wanting to make a big
issue of this, but I would ask you to refer to Beauchesne 409, Rule 12. It says, "Questions should not
anticipate a debate scheduled for the day, but should be reserved for the
debate."
Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the House leader
of the Liberal Party (Mr. Lamoureux) that Bill 70, the basis of the question
put forward by the Leader of the Second Opposition, will be scheduled for
debate today. It is a small point, but
nevertheless it is in keeping with our rules.
Mrs.
Carstairs: Bill 70
deals with a one‑tier system. The decision,
not in legislation, that will be made by the cabinet deals with the rates. That is not part of Bill 70. We have no difficulty with the one‑tiered
system in Bill 70. What we have difficulty
with is a government making a decision to roll back monies for food.
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, many
similar questions similar to the question asked by the Leader of the Liberal
Party (Mrs. Carstairs) have been asked and have been ruled in order previously. The government House leader is correct if he
is talking about debate taking place in terms of Question Period. Obviously,
that is not according to our rules.
Indeed I believe the questions asked by the Liberal Leader were
certainly in keeping with the general tradition of fairly general questions that
relate somewhat to Bill 70. Certainly,
it is an implication of Bill 70, of capping of rates, and we will get into that
debate. It goes further into the
question of policy in terms of welfare rates generally and the co‑ordination
between the two departments. In that
sense the question was, I would suggest, totally in order.
Mr.
Speaker: On the
point of order raised, I had no way of knowing that the honourable member's
questions, indeed, were anticipating debate on Bill 70. Yet I still do not know if the honourable
member's questions focus in directly on Bill 70. So I would simply ask the honourable Leader
of the second opposition party to rephrase her question slightly.
* *
*
Mrs.
Carstairs: Mr.
Speaker, let me ask a third question which does not in any way shape or form
touch on Bill 70, so that the sensibilities of the House leader will not be
affected.
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister
responsible for the Liquor Control Commission.
In terms of prevention, one of the serious
issues is fetal alcohol syndrome. The
cost of looking after such a child in the health care budget can amount to $21
million over a lifetime.
Can the minister tell me why she has not been
willing to accept the suggestion of this party to put signs in Liquor Commission
outlets warning pregnant women that drinking during a pregnancy can create
fetal alcohol syndrome?
Hon.
Linda McIntosh (Minister charged with the administration of The Liquor Control
Act): Mr.
Speaker, I share the member's concern about fetal alcohol syndrome. It is something that has been discussed with
the people at the Liquor Control Commission.
We do have pamphlets available on fetal
alcohol syndrome, which I understand will be made available in the liquor
stores so that those who come in to purchase liquor can be made aware of that
particular syndrome and the effects that alcohol can have on pregnant women.
The idea of posters has been looked into. It has not been totally discarded. The effectiveness of posters versus other forms
of education is something that is being discussed.
I thank her for her interest on that very
serious topic.
Annual Water and
Government Support
Ms.
Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, there is much concern about the
province about this government's regulation of water treatment and drinking‑water
safety. Yet this government is
withdrawing its involvement in the training of the operators that monitor and
regulate the lagoons and sewage treatment in the province.
They are eliminating the program without
ensuring Manitobans that there is going to be any replacement system.
In light of this, I would like to ask the
minister: What system is being put in
place to ensure that mishaps are prevented as much as possible from ensuring
that operators are properly trained?
Hon.
Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, the answer that I gave yesterday
was correct, and I would like to re‑emphasize that answer. I have just double‑checked with my department
and the next water and waste water school is definitely not cancelled.
The Department of Environment is anxious to
work with the association. We have
suggested that we will provide the expertise.
We will provide personnel to help with the programs, but because it is
being run through the association we have asked that the association do some of
the organizing that is behind it, and there will be a waste water school.
Water and Waste Water Management
Certification Program
Ms.
Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Will the minister also respond to the
concerns of the association by moving toward, as other provinces in the country
have, a certificate program in a community college or other educational
institution to ensure that these operators are properly certified?
Hon.
Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, in fact that is one of the
options that we are discussing with the association. We would like to see a certification program
in this province, possibly at the
Ms.
Cerilli: I would
ask the minister who is going to be involved in developing the new system that
is being put in place in this province, and will there be any involvement of multi‑stakeholders'
expertise from universities, other people in the industry, so that we do not
have a select‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. The question has been put.
Mr.
Cummings:
Obviously the member has been talking to someone in the association who
is moving very much in the same direction we are, because all of those
questions, I believe, the answer is yes.
Repap Manitoba Inc.
Renegotiations
Mr.
Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): My
question is for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). Over two months ago the minister announced
that the provincial government deal with Repap would be renegotiated after
Repap had expressed some very serious concerns about the viability of the
original plans.
While September 1 is the deadline for those
negotiations to be finished, residents of The Pas are becoming increasingly anxious.
My question is: What is the status of those negotiations? Can
the minister report to the Legislature and the people of The Pas today as to
what progress has been made to date?
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I can report there have been two
meetings as between representatives of the provincial government and senior
principals of Repap. Certainly we have developed a significant framework
towards renegotiation, and I ask the member and all Manitobans to watch carefully
the developments and also to give input from time to time.
It is very important to the well‑being,
not only of the province but certainly of The Pas and district, and I would
hope that we would have the support of the members opposite and specifically
the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) to work towards an agreement that is
acceptable to all.
Certainly the economic well‑being of the
district which the member represents significantly depends upon an agreement
that is acceptable to all.
Mr.
Lathlin: Could I
also ask the minister if he has also met with the communities of
Mr.
Manness: Mr.
Speaker, we have met with the bands of The Pas and
Once some definition can be given to that
particular part, that time I think would be a better time then to include the communities
of
The Pas,
Civil Service Positions
Mr.
Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Mr. Speaker, since there have been major
layoffs in both the public and private sectors in The Pas, I will again
respectfully ask this government, through the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness), that as a matter of urgency to listen to the people of The Pas and
place a moratorium on layoffs in the public sector in The Pas.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I know what it is the member
wishes, but this government, unfortunately, cannot provide a moratorium to
decisions within any area of government, indeed, with any region of the
province.
Budgetary decisions have been made and they impact,
of course, on a number of departments, and we will expect the implementation of
the impacts. But let me point out, it
seems to me that the impact on individuals, as a result of our last budget, is
less than 30 people.
So the impact‑‑[interjection]
Sorry?
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please.
*
(1420)
Mr.
Manness: Nobody
said 30 in The Pas‑‑30 as a result of the budget across the
province, 17,500 Civil Service, Mr. Speaker. So I would have to say that the
impact is not going to be significant in any region of our province, Mr.
Speaker.
So I say to the member, I do not think a
moratorium as such to address the specific region of The Pas would not satisfy
the decisions of government which indeed have been supported by the members of
this House by way of the support of the budget.
Mr.
Speaker: The
time for Oral Questions has expired.
Committee Changes
Mr.
Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface):
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock),
that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural
Resources be amended as follows: St.
James (Mr. Edwards) for
I move, seconded by the member for St. James
(Mr. Edwards), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development
be amended as follows: The member for
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS
Mr.
Edward Helwer (Gimli):
Mr. Speaker, do I have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [Agreed]
This morning at a ceremony at Air Command
headquarters in
Stonewall native Lieutenant Allan McLeod was
flying his biplane over enemy territory when he was attacked by eight triplanes. McLeod's piloting skills allowed his observer
to shoot down three of the attackers. At
one point, the 18‑year‑old climbed out on the wing of his plane in
order to keep the flames from his plane away from his observer. He managed to bring the aircraft to a rough
landing.
Despite being wounded five times, Lieutenant
McLeod dodged heavy machine gunfire from the ground to pull his observer from the
wreckage. Allan McLeod was wounded again
by a bomb blast and finally collapsed once he knew his observer was safe. The teenager arrived home to a hero's welcome
September 30, 1918. Ironically, he died six weeks later of influenza.
Today I rise to salute the memory of a
* *
*
Mr.
Gulzar Cheema (The Maples):
Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [Agreed]
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow Dr. Henry Friesen will
be honoured by his colleagues and all Manitobans. For the last 19 years, he has been the head
of the Department of Physiology as well as a Professor of Medicine at the
Dr. Friesen is an internationally known
medical scientist and educator. He is a
native of
Mr. Speaker, during his distinguished career,
Dr. Friesen has held numerous university positions as well as serving on
national and international committees.
He is currently completing a two‑year term as the president of the
National Cancer Institute. Dr. Friesen has more than 400 publications to his
credit and has received many honours for his research. He is a fellow of the Royal Society of
Canada, and was named an Officer of the Order of
On behalf of my colleagues in the Legislative
Assembly and myself, I would like to extend my best wishes to Dr. Henry Friesen. Also, I am sure all Canadians and all the
members of this House will join with me in wishing him all the best and also saying
that he has done very good for the people of
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have leave
to make a nonpolitical statement? [Agreed]
Mr. Speaker, I have to join with my honourable
friend the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) in recognizing Dr. Friesen. His
contribution to health research in
It is deserving recognition for Dr.
Friesen. He has been a very, very
excellent‑‑I am not looking for the word‑‑defender is the
wrong word‑‑advocate of
I join with the member for Maples (Mr. Cheema)
in congratulating Dr. Friesen. I simply
also say that it is yet another example of southern
Ms.
Jean Friesen (Wolseley):
Mr. Speaker, might I have leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
[Agreed]
We would like to add our congratulations to
Dr. Friesen and to wish him well in his new position. I think one of the important things that we
should recognize, that his achievements recognize, is the role of universities
in research. Dr. Friesen, in particular,
has brought tremendous honours to the
We recognize, too, in his translation to a
position to the director of the national research council for medical research,
that this is a very important position, not just for
*
(1430)
Committee Changes
Mr.
Edward Helwer (Gimli): I
move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the
composition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development be amended as follows: The member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render) for
the member for St. Rose du Lac (Mr. Cummings); the member for
I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon
Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public
Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: The member for
Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh) for the member for Morris (Mr. Manness). [Agreed]
Mr.
Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): I
move, seconded by the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), that the
composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities be amended as
follows: the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) for the member for Point Douglas
(Mr. Hickes), the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) for the member for Flin Flon
(Mr. Storie).
Mr. Speaker, I also move, seconded by the
member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), that the composition of the
Standing Committee on Economic Development be amended as follows: the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) for
the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin). [Agreed]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
House Business
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, before I give the listing of
bills on House Business, I would like to announce that the Standing Committee
on Private Bills will meet Tuesday, May 12, 10 a.m., Room 255, to consider Bill
39, The
Mr.
Speaker: I would
like to thank the honourable government House leader for that information.
Mr.
Manness: Mr.
Speaker, would you call the bills in the following order: for second reading, Bills 76, 79, 80 and 81, followed
by adjourned debate, Bills 9, 10, 12, 15, 21, 43 and 70?
Is there a willingness to waive private members'
hour?
Mr.
Speaker: Is it
the will of the House to waive private members' hour? Leave?
No? Leave is denied.
SECOND
Bill 76‑The Pension Benefits Amendment Act
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would move, seconded by my
colleague the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), that Bill
76, The Pension Benefits Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les prestations de pension, be now
read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Praznik: Mr.
Speaker, I certainly enjoy this opportunity to lead off some debate on this
very important piece of legislation.
Firstly, let me say that the contents of this bill which amends The
Pension Benefits Act were largely the design of the Manitoba Pension Commission
who were asked a year or so ago to undergo a very thorough review of our
pension legislation, which they have conducted with much public consultation
and consultation with the various interest groups in the pension community.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is no surprise to
many members of this House that private pension plans in this province are
indeed facing a very critical time. A
growth in regulation of those particular plans over a number of decades,
combined with other options for saving for retirement, have led to the
situation today where we have seen a dramatic decline in the number of private
pension plans registered in our province.
In 1988, there were approximately 850 plans
registered with the
I am advised by our staff and the Pension
Commission that plan wind‑ups are some four times greater than new plans
being registered, and the vast majority of that decline has come in the area of
private pension plans. In fact, a
concern that I have as minister, that unless we are able to overturn this trend
in the pension community within a very short period of time the only pension
plans that will be operative in our province will be those in the public sector.
Mr. Speaker, the pension plan has been a
tremendous vehicle for allowing people to set aside wealth during their earning
years for and to allow it to be saved, protected from taxation, and to allow
them to draw it in their retirement years.
In fact, I think most members of this House would agree that if we look
at how far we came in the last 20‑30 years in developing pension plans‑‑and
I would like to congratulate all those who worked toward those changes and
promoting pension plans and negotiating them at the bargaining table‑‑we
see today a retired community in our province, indeed throughout the country,
that is far better off because of their pension plans than any other time, I
would think, in the history of our province and country, senior citizens have
been.
The object of the Pension Commission's work
was to re‑examine our regulatory scheme to update it, to ensure that the
pension product that was on the market or could be on the market was a product
that people looking to get into pension plans were prepared to purchase and to
organize.
Let me not understate that problem where we
have seen this continual decline in the number of pension plans. We have in
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite raises the
issue of RRSPs, obviously in the federal area of taxation. We cannot address all the problems of
taxation and pensions, but I think it is incumbent upon us as legislators to
have a Pension Benefits Act in
*
(1440)
Mr. Speaker, just again by way of background,
the Pension Commission of
A series of letters went out to, again,
interested parties in the pension community enclosing the revised document, and
the Pension Commission held another round of opportunities for people to make
submissions on the revised document.
Over 22 formal written submissions were received in response to the
revised document.
Mr. Speaker, the highlights of the proposals
that we are bringing forward to the Legislature at this time are several, and I
would like to take the House through them at this particular point in my remarks. One vehicle, the first highlight would be the
creation of life income funds. This
legislation proposes that members of plans be of defined contribution or money‑purchase
pension plans, and Manitobans with pension funds in locked‑in RRSPs have
this vehicle of a life annuity from an insurance company. Retiring members would be able to purchase a life
income fund from any approved financial institution.
The objective of the life income fund is to
give members of these plans more control and flexibility over their retirement capital
up to age 80, after which they must purchase a life annuity. Again, this gives people the option of using
another vehicle in which they have some control over how their dollars are
invested as opposed to the current legislation which does not allow for this
vehicle.
Mr. Speaker, another very important set of
amendments in this legislation are the provisions that allow for jointly
trusteed pension plans, and I think for members of this House who follow negotiations
in collective agreements the desire to have a jointly trusteed pension plan and
the multi‑employer pension plan are absolutely critical. We have seen in
This is a particular area‑‑I know
in the health care sector they have been awaiting these amendments, and various
unions that do a lot of work in negotiating pension plans, particularly in smaller
workplaces, and want to be able to see this vehicle created to bring pensions
into those smaller workplaces where a stand‑alone plan would not be
practical simply because of the cost of administration, this vehicle will allow
that to happen, Mr. Speaker.
I point out that in multi‑employer plans
this bill provides for some limitations on initial liability on contributions,
which I think make them attractive to employers. They also allow for a 50 percent employer and
50 percent plan member trusteeship of those plans. So in our legislation we allow in these joint
trusteeship plans and multi‑employer plans for that kind of participation
by plan members. I think that is very
important as people gain more and more control of their affairs, which is something
I believe is desirable by all members of this House.
Mr. Speaker, another important point in this
legislation is increased protection of member benefits. This act contains some proposals for the
Superintendent of Pensions to be given more authority to order actions
necessary to protect the benefits of plan members and to ensure compliance with
legislation.
I know in my experience as minister
responsible for this act, it has been one particular occasion where the
trustees of that plan, both a union representative and a company, had made
errors in actuarial calculation such that the remaining members of that plan
had lost their benefits.
The power to ensure that that would not happen
was not there with the Superintendent of Pensions. This legislation provides that power for
protection which is so important. I am
pleased to say that the plan sponsors and trustees were able to negotiate a refunding
of that plan out of their own funds and accepted that responsibility. Very happily, the members of that plan will
be able to continue to receive the benefits in which they contributed.
Another very important aspect of this
legislation, particularly in terms of building a national unity and ensuring that
we as Canadians are able to do business and be employed across this country
without undue hardships and regulation across provincial boundaries, is the
provision for the government of
Mr. Speaker, I think this particular issue is
of great benefit to companies doing business in
Another particular issue, which is, needless
to say, I think, a difficult one to deal with, that this bill will address is
the opting‑out provisions of mandatory credit splitting. This act is being amended to permit
separating couples who agree in writing to opt out of the mandatory requirement
to divide their pension benefits.
I would have the House note that, prior to
deciding not to divide their pensions, the bill proposes that both spouses must
demonstrate that they are fully informed of the consequences: (a) by receiving
independent legal advice; and (b) by obtaining a statement of the value of the
pension benefit from the pension plan administrator.
This amendment will serve to provide
individuals with an increased level of discretion and flexibility while at the
same time maintaining the protection of credit splitting for separating spouses
who decide that he or she does not want to opt out. Again, I would point out to the House that it
requires the mutual agreement of the separating parties. One alone cannot force the removal from the
credit splitting.
I would remind members of this House of some
of the difficulties that have been experienced under our current legislation. The most obvious one is where we have spouses
whose pensions are in different jurisdictions.
I know some members of this House who were members of the last
Legislature sat in committee with myself when the Honourable Gerrie Hammond was
minister. We remember presentations from
couples, where in one particular case the wife had a pension which was under
Manitoba jurisdiction and was required to split it with her other spouse, while
the husband's pension was in federal jurisdiction and did not have to be split.
Currently, what our law does in those kind of
situations of different jurisdictions is take three‑quarters of the
pension benefits and give them to the spouse who is in federal jurisdiction,
leaving one‑quarter of the combined benefits to the spouse who is in
provincial jurisdiction. That was
exactly the type of inequality in division that the framers of the original act,
I am sure, did not want to see happen.
Those people who are in split jurisdictions
have that problem, and not only were they at that committee, but I know they
lobby members, all members, of this House on a regular basis. They certainly have, I think no one can deny,
a valid point. So that is one anomaly in
our legislation that has to be, I think members will agree, addressed.
Another area, of course, is where two spouses
in provincial jurisdiction have reached an agreement, have divided their assets,
and want each to keep their pension plan.
Our current legislation only allows them to do it if their plans are
within 20 percent. Needless to say, the
inclusion of a major family asset like a house, which certainly has a value in
retirement, Mr. Speaker, which normally would enter into those calculations, we
do not allow for that if the difference in their pension plans is over the 20
percent.
I can tell members of this House, we have had
a steady demand from people who are in that situation who are outraged that our
legislation prevents them from doing what they would like to do with their
assets. I would remind honourable
members that even under The Marital Property Act, where we split assets in our province,
the 50‑50 division is only with reference to value. It does not determine which specific assets
will go to whom, but simply that there must be a 50‑50 division of the
value accumulated during that marriage.
*
(1450)
How that value is split is up to the
parties. Whether one party receives the
marital home, or some other cash, or what have you, is up to the parties. So these changes bring our credit splitting
into line with, I think, our other marital property legislation and give people
the freedom where they jointly agree, where they mutually agree, to make the
decisions about the division of their assets that best suit them.
I know, Mr. Speaker, this is a rather
sensitive issue for some. I recognize
that, because there certainly is the fear and the concern on the part of some
that a spouse, one particular spouse, may be forced into making a decision
about giving up some claim to the other spouse's pension, if a threat is made
of a continual battle over custody or some other aspect.
I would remind honourable members that when we
are striking legislation, we cannot always protect everyone from difficult decisions
and from those types of situations. All
this requires to ensure that the credit splitting does in fact take place, is for
one spouse not to agree to do it.
Mr. Speaker, I know there is always the
argument of pressure, but those arguments could also be made under The Marital
Property Act when you are debating as to which assets a spouse will get in their
50 percent of the value. If one
particular spouse wants to keep the house and threatens a legal battle over
custody or another issue in order to maintain a certain property, that can happen
now. We do not have a legislative remedy
to that. There is only so far that we
can go, ultimately, without impeding the greater right of people to make
decisions about their own property and assets.
Mr. Speaker, one other issue that I would just
like to raise before I close my remarks has to do with the actuarial surplus asset
payouts. This bill will end, obviously,
the moratorium imposed in 1976 which restricted surplus refunds to employers. The
moratorium was introduced to give the government of the day time to develop
guidelines and legislation respecting this very complicated issue.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the
Chair)
The current legislation before the House
proposes to deal with the issue of actuarial surplus assets as follows: No surplus assets will be paid out of pension
plans unless the Pension Commission is satisfied the employer has legal entitlement;
otherwise, the employer must obtain a ruling from the Court of Queen's Bench
establishing entitlement.
I again would remind members that the first
principle here is to give effect to what the original document said determining
the ownership of surpluses. If the
document determined the surplus is owned by the employees, then it would not be
paid out to employers. If the document
determines that the surplus is owned by employers, then they certainly have a
legal right to it.
This legislation also proposes to prevent
future disputes when there are new defined benefit plans created, that before that
plan is registered, specific surplus ownership must be determined in all
governing documents to the satisfaction of the commission. Furthermore, the sponsors of the plan must demonstrate
that a majority of plan members have consented to the surplus ownership
arrangement, and also the plan sponsors must provide, in the plan document, a
mechanism for resolving future disputes regarding disposition of surplus
assets.
So what we do in essence is allow the
intention of the existing document to go forward, whatever that may be, and require
that in all future pension plans the ownership of surplus assets, and I am
talking about defined benefit plans, be clearly determined before the plan be
allowed to be registered.
I certainly look forward to the debate on this
issue, and I am sure we will have a number of presenters before the committee. Thank you.
Mr.
Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), that debate be adjourned.
Motion
agreed to.
Committee Change
Mr.
Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): I
move, seconded by the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), that the composition of
the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) for the
member for
Motion
agreed to.
SECOND
Bill 79‑The Highways Protection and Consequential
Amendments Act
Hon.
Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): I
move, seconded by the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), that Bill 79, The
Highways Protection and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur la protection des voies publiques et apportant
des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), be now read a
second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Driedger: Madam
Deputy Speaker, I just want to indicate to the critics that I have spreadsheets
here that I will be making available to the critics right after my remarks.
Under The Highways Protection and
Consequential Amendments Act it gives me great pleasure to present to you Bill
79, The Highways Protection and Consequential Amendments Act. This act will replace the existing Highways
Protection Act. The intent of the new
act is to consolidate control of access and development adjacent to
departmental roads under one act and one authority to create a simplified,
streamlined and more efficient government process.
Following from this, the act proposes to
redefine the mandate of the Highway Traffic Board by transferring many of its
current highway protection responsibilities to ministerial jurisdiction and have
it function primarily as an appeal body for those matters. The new act will accord the board a broader
mandate and a more vital role to play in protecting the rights of property owners
while ensuring the safety of the travelling public.
Finally, the new legislation will clarify and
standardize the issue of compensation with respect to the closing of legal accesses.
Under the existing act, the Highway Traffic
Board has the authority for designated, limited‑access highways,
controlling access onto these highways and approving structures in adjacent controlled
areas. This includes the authority for
establishing and removing control lines adjacent to highways and controlled circles
at highway intersections by regulation.
The board has the power to close existing access and order the removal
of unauthorized access and structures.
In accordance with statutory requirements, the
board holds hearings on almost every matter coming under its jurisdiction, including
applications for access and structures.
This requires sending out hearing notices, publishing and advertising
the notice in the Gazette and newspapers and waiting 10 working days before the
application can be heard. All decisions
of the board with respect to applications are appealable to the Public Utilities
Board.
As Minister of Highways and Transportation I
also have the authority to designate a limited access highway by declaring it to
be a provincial trunk highway under The Highways and Transportation Department
Act. This process occurs by regulation without
hearings, without board input, without being subject to appeal, and in reality
has created most of the limited‑access highways in the province. Similar to the powers accorded to the board
with respect to access and structures, the department act provides me with the
authority to control access and structures on all departmental roads other than
limited‑access highways. Like the protection act, the department act has
a permit system for access onto departmental roads and structures within controlled
areas. The issuing of permits by my
department occurs without a hearing and cannot be appealed.
Not only do we have two parallel systems, the
two acts overlap and interact in a very complex way. This is evident in the duplication involved
in the designation of limited access highways, the removal of common law rights
of access, the dual regulation making capacity of the board and the cabinet to achieve
the same objectives and the overlap in the approval mechanisms. This creates an anomalous situation whereby
approval of access and development by the board under The Highways Protection
Act is subject to my approval under the department act. Similarly, should the board remove controls
or limited access status from a highway, the department act automatically reinstates
access and structure controls.
Under the new act all provincial trunk
highways and provincial roads requiring access controls will be designated limited‑access
highways by cabinet regulation. This is consistent
with other provinces. However, the act
does enable me, as minister, to refer any proposal for establishing additional
controlled areas which circles to the traffic board for hearing and
recommendation.
Further, in the interests of eliminating the
confusion resulting from two parallel systems, expediting the process of applying
for permits, responsibilities for access and development control will be
consolidated under my authority. This
will not only significantly improve service to the public but will result in
considerable cost savings to the government.
*
(1500)
As I mentioned earlier, the board is required
by virtue of the act to hold hearings in almost every matter coming under its jurisdiction. This includes permits for advertising signs
which are basically straightforward and noncontentious. The board travels out to the area affected by
the request to hold these hearings and, if required, to conduct on‑site
investigations. This results in a very lengthy and costly process.
In many instances, the hearing is unnecessary,
but required under the present act. To
give you some indication of the number of these hearings each year for the past
several years, the board has held over a hundred advertised hearings rendering
decisions on approximately 600 permit applications.
Not only is this a wasteful expense, it is
inappropriate use of the talents of these dedicated and competent board
members. In addition, the time required to process requests for permits is exceedingly
lengthy. This has become increasingly
frustrating to the public who expects, and rightly deserves I might add, speedy
replies.
Furthermore, with the dual system we have now,
it is highly confusing to the public as to where they should go to apply for permits. There are many instances where individuals
have made application to one authority only to find that they have to initiate
the process again because the highway did not fall under the first
jurisdiction.
All of you are familiar with our highway
system. Judge for yourself as to whether
you know which provincial highways are administered by the Highway Traffic
Board as opposed to the department. This
is the situation we are seeking to correct.
I am pleased to advise that through the
proposed legislation we are according the Highway Traffic Board a far more
vital and valuable role to play in protecting the interests and safety of all
Manitobans by establishing the board as an appeal body for departmental
decisions respecting access and development.
Although the board's primary function will be
that of an appeal body, the board will be responsible for off‑premise advertising
signs which include approximately 10,000 illegal signs currently in the
controlled areas along highways.
Recognizing the difficulties associated with
these signs, the new act grandfathers illegal signs for a set period of time. Specifically,
it enables owners of illegal signs to apply for a sign permit within six months
of the proclamation of this act. The owners, obtaining such permits, will be
able retain their signs for a period of three‑and‑one‑half
years before they must apply for a new sign permit and comply with the
regulations respecting signs.
In addition to its responsibility for off‑premise
advertising signs, the board will still retain its authority under The Highway
Traffic Act for establishing speed zones, approving the municipal bylaws
respecting speed zones, approving traffic control devices and other specified
responsibilities.
Additionally, the board will be delegated the
responsibility for authorizing municipal bylaws permitting the operation of an off‑road
vehicle on a roadway or shoulder through consequential amendments to The Off‑Road
Vehicles Act proposed by this bill.
I am most pleased to report that the proposed
new act provides greater protection of the rights of property owners by recognizing
a property owner's right to indirect access onto his land. The present act removes all common law rights
of access onto limited access highway and effectively landlocks land adjacent
to a highway where permits are denied.
The legislation before you corrects this
injustice by only restricting the right to direct access onto limited access highways. The new act remedies other deficiencies in
the current legislation. For instance,
the new act excludes access development and sign control on municipal roads as
this duplicates powers granted to the municipalities under the planning and
municipal acts.
It is interesting to note that while the
present act accords the board the authority to designate municipal roads as
limited access highways, only one mile of road was ever designated as such
since The Protection Act came into force in 1965.
Another important feature of the new act is
that it clarifies and standardizes the issue of compensation with respect to
the closing of existing legal access.
Essentially it provides for no compensation to be payable in cases where
a legal access is closed if another access exists or an alternative access is provided. The new act also includes other highways or
roads that connect with limited access highways as a procedure for a municipality
requesting public road connections should not be the same as an individual land
owner requesting access onto private property.
The act provides that these approvals will be
through my written consent as Minister of Highways and Transportation. This provides for a much simpler approval
system for public roads. Other essential features of the new act is that it
allows for the classification of provincial highways based on their importance.
These classifications will simplify and standardize the approval of access and
setbacks for different types of developments and signs. You will also be pleased to note that we will
be prohibiting certain signs in controlled areas such as the flashing signs
which pose a hazard for the travelling public by distracting motorists.
The proposed legislation also provides for
better enforcement provisions and simplifies the procedure for ordering the
removal of the legal accesses for development by eliminating the need for costly
and time‑consuming show‑cause hearings which are presently required
under the act. Further, it enables the
department to more readily recover its costs of removing an illegal access or development
should an owner fail to comply with an order without having to involve the
courts. Another important improvement
over the present act is that the new act enables me as Minister of Highways to
require an owner to remove or remedy a development in a controlled area that is
unsightly or dangerous.
We have chosen to introduce a new Highway
Protection Act rather than amend the existing act, given that the present act poses
considerable interpretation difficulties and is so intertwined with the
department act that simple amendments were not achievable.
Although I have touched upon the many benefits
as I have gone along, I would like to briefly summarize them for you. First and perhaps foremost, it will
consolidate parallel activities under one authority and provide for a
simplified, streamlined, a more efficient government process. This consolidation will clarify and simplify
the process for the public and significantly reduce application response time
from the current 60 days to approximately 25 days. This will undoubtedly be welcomed by the public. As indicated earlier, it will accord the
Highway Traffic Board a more significant role and enable government to put
their talents to better use. Further, it
will result in substantial cost savings through the elimination of notices,
newspaper advertising and board hearings.
Last, but certainly not least, it will expand the rights of property
owners by eliminating the potential for land locking as well as expanding the
appeal process to all decisions relating to access and development.
To conclude, I am confident that through this
legislation the interests of all Manitobans will be best served. A clause‑by‑clause explanation of
the provisions of this act will be made available, as I indicated before, to
the critics for their consideration.
Thank you.
Mr.
Doug Martindale (Burrows):
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Interlake (Mr.
Clif Evans), that debate be adjourned.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 80‑The Dental Association Amendment Act
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
Minister of Northern Affairs r. Downey), that Bill 80, The Dental Association
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
l'Association dentaire, be now read a second time and be
referred to a committee of this House.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Orchard: Madam
Deputy Speaker, I just have a few speaking notes here that I want to share with
my honourable friends.
The Dental Association Amendment Act is intended
to repeal and replace discipline provisions in The Dental Association Act. The
new legislation will update obsolete discipline provisions and procedures
governing dentists, and in this area bring their act into line with current
standards and legislation covering self‑governing professions such as the
Manitoba Dental Association.
The legislative amendments in this bill will
introduce a two‑stage investigation and hearing process into the MDA's discipline
procedures. They will require the
Manitoba Dental Association to have a complaints committee as well as a formal inquiry
or discipline committee. The complaints
committee will investigate complaints and determine if they are serious enough to
warrant a formal hearing. If a hearing
is required, it will be conducted by the formal inquiry committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this two‑stage
process is considered desirable in matters of professional discipline. It is the norm in other health discipline
legislation in
*
(1510)
A very important part of this bill is
increased protection of the public and increased public participation in the
dental disciplinary process. This is
accomplished in three ways. First, the bill will permit a complainant who is
not satisfied with the decision of the complaints committee to appeal the decision
to a new appeals committee. Second, the
bill requires that a layperson be appointed for every hearing of the formal inquiry
committee. The Minister of Health is
given power to appoint a roster of laypersons from which the MDA may appoint
lay representatives to other committees.
Third, the bill requires that discipline hearings be open to the public,
except in certain narrow circumstances.
These provisions are similar to those used by
the
Madam Deputy Speaker, this legislation also
repairs defects in The Dental Association Act concerning the MDA's disciplinary
powers over its members with respect to maintaining professional standards.
In 1990, the Manitoba Court of Appeal ruled
that the MDA lacked the authority to order dentists to upgrade their skills or supervise
their work or conduct inspections and audits.
These additional powers are among the range of disciplinary orders the association
will be able to make under these amendments when a dentist is found guilty of
professional misconduct or incompetence.
This brief outline covers the major points in
this bill, which we believe will benefit
Mr.
Doug Martindale (Burrows):
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Radisson (Ms.
Cerilli), that debate be adjourned.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 81‑The Optometry Amendment Act
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 81, The Optometry Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'optometrie,
be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Orchard: I rise
to introduce, for second reading, amendments to The Optometry Act that will
make possible a more appropriate complaints and discipline procedure in
Manitoba's optometry profession than is allowed at present. The changes we are proposing will permit
informal resolution of a complaint, without the need of a full and formal
inquiry. In particular, they will provide
a complaints and disciplinary procedure that will protect the rights of the
public.
At present, on receiving a complaint, the
discipline committee of the Manitoba Optometric Society must hold a full hearing
into the matter. Under the amended
legislation, the registrar would be able to refer the complaint to a complaints
committee. The committee could try to
resolve the matter, but will have the option of referring it to the
disciplinary committee, in which case a hearing would be required. In addition, a complainant will be given the
right to appeal a decision of the complaints committee that no further action
is required.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we have further
safeguarded protection of the public and strengthened public input into
complaints and the disciplinary process.
The bill says the complaints committee and discipline committee shall
each have one lay member, someone who is not a practising optometrist.
In addition, the bill requires that discipline
hearings shall be open to the public except in certain narrow circumstances. These
open hearing provisions are similar to those used by the
The changes in this bill arise from
discussions with the Manitoba Optometric Society, which found their current
complaints and disciplinary procedures too restrictive and expensive. Because
the procedures are contained directly in legislation and not in regulations,
these amendments are necessary. For the information
of the House, the changes have been drafted to make optometrists' disciplinary
procedures as close as possible to those for pharmacists in The Pharmaceutical
Act.
Finally, this bill will change the name of the
society to Manitoba Association of Optometrists, consistent with terminology used
in other professional legislation. Madam
Deputy Speaker, I commend this legislation to all members of the House and
would encourage its speedy passage.
Thank you.
Mr.
Doug Martindale (Burrows):
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Interlake (Mr.
Clif Evans), that debate be adjourned.
Motion
agreed to.
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 9‑The Economic Innovation and Technology Council
Act
Madam
Deputy Speaker: 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), on the proposed
motion of the honourable First Minister (Mr. Filmon), standing in the name of
the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
Mr.
Clif Evans (Interlake): It
is my pleasure to be able to rise today and speak to Bill 9, The Economic
Innovation and Technology Council Act. I
would like to thank my appreciative fans over on the other side for the
opportunity to be able to speak on this bill this afternoon. I will be the last speaker on this bill as we
here on this side of the House would like to see this bill go to committee as
soon as possible to have the people of Manitoba come to committee and express
their views on the, perhaps, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, window‑dressing
type of a bill that this government seems to have been introducing over the many
years.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I in my short term here
in the House have watched and listened to the government on the other side produce
different bills, different economic development bills and committees and doing
things to stimulate the economy as they say, but I would like to make comments
on The Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act relating also to some of
the other economic developments that this government has, so called, produced.
An
Honourable Member:
What other economic developments?
Tell us.
Mr.
Clif Evans: Well,
there are again window‑dressing produced bills, but nowhere in the last
year and a half nor in the last two years have I seen any movement toward an
economic development for not only Manitoba, rural Manitoba, and federally and
in Canada.
An
Honourable Member:
Do they have a plan?
Mr.
Clif Evans: Well,
they say they have plans, but we shall wait and see how these plans and so‑called
boards and different groups are meeting to stimulate our economy. I feel that the only stimulation that has
occurred in the last two years and even further, the last four years of this
government has been in place, is the stimulation of job losses, of economic
downfall for this province, for manufacturing to drop, businesses closing, 60,000
people unemployed.
The Economic Innovation and Technology Council
that the First Minister is developing, I wish to say and as other colleagues have
indicated, that the members that the Premier has put on the board, I feel and
we feel here on this side that the people that are on the board are more than
capable, are some fine, fine people. I
do not think we have a problem with that.
The problem that we perhaps have on this side of the House is this
board, as it is going to be in place. It
is going to make the decisions as such, but are they going to be able to make
the decisions for it, or are they going to get interference?
*
(1520)
Is this board going to be a board that when
they have insight, they have some planning, they have things that they want to
do, things they want to produce, things that they want to show the government
direction to go, or are they going to get interference in that manner? Are they going to get interference from the
government side, or is there going to be a, I guess, free rein to this
board? Are we going to see some
direction that this board is going to take?
Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, with the
introduction of this bill we see that this board as such is going to replace
the Manitoba Research Council. We wonder
if this government is so set on setting up councils, research technology for
the
With economics, and on the topic, I would like
to make comments regarding the rural
They promised this. They have the Rural Economic Development board
here. They want to do this, they plan
this, but rural Manitobans, especially northern rural Manitobans are still waiting
for some action to be taken by this government.
The Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), has introduced the REDI
program that I will comment on in a few minutes, but over the long haul, what
have we in rural
In my mind, to be strong rurally or even
urbanly, what I have noticed over the past two years in my travels throughout
the province and in my constituency especially, is that the development in
rural
They need jobs like everyone else. They do not want to be on social assistance
like we have now in this province, but I feel that the government at present
should‑‑and with this act and the council that they have instituted
and the Economic Development board council that has also been implemented‑‑I
feel that they should work and use the finances that are available for these boards
as such, $10 million here, $1 million here, a couple of million dollars here
and there.
The people of rural
There are important, important issues in rural
Manitoba economically that I would like to see and hope to see, that we are not
having a walk, as a member mentioned, you know, whistling‑past‑the‑grave
type of a situation. We need, and I say to
the government, rural Manitobans need that support and support from boards such
as this that the minister has instituted to develop. The First Minister during campaign, I
remember very, very well, came to Interlake, came to Riverton promising this
and promising that. Now, I have yet to
see those promises come across.
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): What were those promises in Riverton? Tell me.
Mr.
Clif Evans: Well, we
can debate that another time. I can sit
down with the Premier.
Mr.
Filmon: I can
shoot you down, on record.
Mr.
Clif Evans: On
record?
Mr.
Filmon: Sure.
Mr.
Clif Evans: Madam
Deputy Speaker, the Premier, when in Riverton, came to Riverton and said to the
people in Riverton, yes, we will assist you in the extension of your hockey
arena, promise No. 1. Nothing done about
it. The Premier said while he was in
Riverton, we will do everything that we can to assist in certain economic
problems that we have. They are still
waiting for him.
Mr.
Filmon: They
have you as a representative and you cannot do anything.
Mr.
Clif Evans: Madam
Deputy Speaker, that may very well be as the typical low‑road attitude of
this First Minister. It is not the fact
of who the representative is in any area; it is what this government is doing
about anything in this province, which is absolutely zippo. So, it does not matter where your commitment,
where your promises, not mine‑‑
Mr.
Filmon: You were
too busy taking the strippers out of your hotel.
Mr.
Clif Evans: Well,
Madam Deputy Speaker, again the First Minister, as usual, taking the low road,
taking the shots as usual. That is
fine. At least we here on this side do
not go traipsing around the country in a one‑paddle canoe going in circles
and doing nothing. All we are doing now
is just speaking about the economics in the province, that is all. Now, the Premier is being‑‑well,
I do not know exactly what word to use without being unparliamentary. I was wanting, and being the last member to
be speaking on this bill, to be a little positive about this.
An
Honourable Member:
Well, I am waiting.
Mr.
Clif Evans: Well,
keep waiting, just as the people in this province are waiting for you to do
something, but you are doing absolutely nothing as I mentioned.
Madam Deputy Speaker, if I may continue on the
economics in rural
Mr.
Filmon: It has
nothing to do with this bill.
Mr.
Clif Evans: It
does. It does.
Mr.
Filmon: The
rating program is not in this bill.
*
(1530)
Mr.
Clif Evans: No, the
rating program is not in this bill, but what is in Bill 9? Another committee, another board? Another window dressing, as has been
indicated? There is nothing, nothing,
Madam Deputy Speaker, that I do not think that anybody on this side of the
House would like to see more than a performance, and a good performance, and a
performance for the people in this province, and waiting for this performance
from the government presently. That is
all we are waiting for on this side is for some action.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as I have indicated, my
comments, I did want to make my comments fairly, fairly brief to the fact, and the
Premier, as usual, wants to egg on situations to make himself look decent and
good. Well, I am afraid that the people
in this province see the Premier for what he is, and Bill 9 will be an opportunity
for this First Minister to do something about this province's economic
situation‑‑take this away, take that away. I urge, and, as a representative, say to the
First Minister that we will, in fact, be on the lookout and watching and hoping
that through Bill 9 and through the economic board that something is going to
be done, so that the board and the government does something for the people in
this province, not just a flip‑flop and saying, okay later on we will do
this and do that and maybe we will do this, and we will decide to have another
board later for another $10 million.
Now the idea is there, the funding, $10
million. We say $10 million is a healthy
amount of money to put through for something like this, and I agree, but I am
also concerned as others are, is the $10 million just going to be a one‑time
shot? Is it going to be something that
we are going to be looking forward to over the years, so that the board can do
the job, so the government can do what they say they are going to do? Is the money just going to be a one‑time
shot? Is the money going to be over a
period of years? Are we going to get
some sort of lead from the government as far as the funding for something like
this and the funding for other programs that the government in place has
decided to put in?
I would like to go back again to the economic
rural development programs that have not been in place, and hopefully the REDI
program will do something for the rural Manitobans in this province, regardless
of who is the representative, regardless of who the Premier likes to chide or
shoot darts at when the time comes, and egg on, as I mentioned before.
I believe it is time, and it does not matter,
it is time that the government in place acted responsibly and acted on behalf
of the people of
An
Honourable Member: Ask 60,000 people out there.
Mr.
Clif Evans: True, ask
60,000 people. The minister throws his
usual low‑ball shots, but does not like the fact that somebody is saying,
somebody is showing, something to him.
He does not like it; if it does not suit him, he does not like it. Well,
I do not think anybody wants to throw low‑ball shots across the way.
Let us do something while you are across the
way. Let do something while you are in
government‑‑while, and I say while you are in government. For how long of a while is yet to be seen, Madam
Deputy Speaker.
I would like to just say to the First Minister‑‑
An
Honourable Member:
Again.
Mr.
Clif Evans:
Again. That we here‑‑and
the assistant deputy premier, just settle down a bit too. I would like to see something worthwhile
coming out of Bill 9 and the economic board and an innovation and technology
council. I would like to see something
positive coming out of it. We all would.
We are giving you the opportunity, or you are
trying to take the opportunity, to build up the province as you so say is going
to come back. We are still waiting. But let us just remind the Premier (Mr.
Filmon), let us remind him of all the projects that went aside. Let us remind of the unemployment in this
province. Let us remind him of the trade deficit. Let us remind the Premier of the economic, I
guess, the economic ladder that he is always proud to say his government in
place has performed.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the people in Interlake,
the people in all the other constituencies, northern
I know that the First Minister can remember
some two years, two and a half years ago when we came to his government from
the Interlake requesting that his government look at the natural gas going from
Gimli and north into northern Interlake and in other parts of the province. Why?
We came to the government because we in the
Interlake and in other parts of northern Manitoba and constituencies who felt
that with natural gas, with study as such‑‑we are still waiting for
results‑‑the opportunity is there for the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to enhance
the economic well‑being of northern Manitobans. We are still waiting.
Madam Deputy Speaker, everything else is in
place there. The rural development
boards, the people in Interlake and the people in Gimli and others are ready
and are waiting. They have projects that
they want to proceed with. They have
funding; they are even working on their own funding to get this done, but how long
are we going to wait?
I say to the First Minister, I would like to
see some positive things coming out of this.
I hope that I do not have to, or anybody else on this side of the House
has to get up a year or two years from now and say, and reading through
Hansard, the same thing again about the issue here, the act going down, that
something else. We want to see something
positive here. That is all we are asking.
Madam Deputy Speaker, on closing, I would just
say to the First Minister that we are waiting.
The track record that he has shown me and shown us and the people of
Manitoba is not there, but we say, but I say, that the Premier has the
opportunity with this board and the other and the council, the finances, the people
in place that he has. He has the
opportunity to enhance this province's ability for economic development and for
any other problems that we do face right now.
It is there. We are saying and I
am saying to the Premier, let us see it happen, let us see it work.
Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you very much.
Mr.
Filmon: Madam
Deputy Speaker, I am assuming that I am closing debate, if there are no others
who wish to speak?
Some
Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr.
Filmon: I am very
pleased to be able to close debate and pass Bill 9 along to committee for
consideration and public input to the establishment of the Economic Innovation
and Technology Council. I must say that
I am‑‑I should not say I am surprised because I am never surprised
at the New Democratic Party representatives taking a narrow partisan view of
any particular issue that comes before this Legislature.
You know, I think that the member for
Interlake embarrassed himself and his predecessor a great deal by his closing
comments in which he talked about the fact that the Interlake is waiting for
economic development, waiting for natural gas, waiting for all sorts of
development initiatives.
What he is admitting is this sad and total
failure of his New Democratic colleagues in government for most of last two
decades, because during those two decades they were represented totally during
that period of time by one Bill Uruski, who was a member of cabinet in both
Schreyer and Pawley administrations, and his successor is now admitting that he
was a total failure, that he did nothing for the Interlake and that they are
wanting for‑‑
Madam
Deputy Speaker:
Order, please.
*
(1540)
Point of Order
Mr.
Clif Evans: On a
point of order in regard to the First Minister's comments. Not once did I make any remarks toward the previous
member of the‑‑
Madam
Deputy Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
member for Interlake does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr.
Filmon: Madam
Deputy Speaker, by virtue of his acknowledgement that the Interlake is waiting
for all of these things, he has admitted the failure of the New Democratic
Party in government. His predecessor,
who was a cabinet minister in two administrations for over two decades, did not
do a thing for his area. You see, that
is the point that the New Democrats now acknowledge, that they have done zero
for their constituents and zero for the regions of this province that they
represented over two decades. [interjection] Well, that is exactly the same
thing that could be said about the northern part of this province which New
Democrats have represented for the better part of two decades and have done
zero for. That is the kind of thing that
happens in this Legislature.
Yesterday, we have the member for Flin Flon
(Mr. Storie) on the record acknowledging that Snow Lake does not have the ore body
to carry on, when his administration was in government for most of the past two
decades and did not do anything to find an additional ore body or additional
ore. In fact, they brought in policies
that totally worked against exploration and development initiatives and
investment in northern
Well, I might say, on a more positive note,
Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Economic Innovation and Technology Council fulfills
the day‑to‑day requests of the Leader of the New Democratic Party
(Mr. Doer), to broadly consult all sectors of the economy, to bring to the
table labour as well as management as well as the technologies as well as
business people and investors, to get them together, the brightest and best
minds in this province, developing strategies for the future economic growth of
this province.
An idea that the leader of the New Democratic
Party has called upon this government to implement is being implemented as a result
of Bill 9, and his party dumped all over it.
So, it just shows the total absence of strategy, the total absence of knowledge,
the total absence of direction on that side of the House, where they take an
idea that has been fostered and recommended by their Leader and they dump all
over it. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker,
that is the kind of rag‑tag group that we are dealing with in the New
Democratic caucus. We understand why they
are getting absolutely nowhere when they can take a good idea, an idea that
their Leader has espoused, and dump all over it.
This council represents not only consultation,
not only a broadly representative group of capable people, including labour‑‑and
I might say that labour representatives have been attending the early meetings
of this council, have been publicly stating to their colleagues and others that
this is a good idea, that it is resulting in plans and development strategies
for this province that will be positive for labour, that will create investment
and jobs over the term of the future, and will be a very good vehicle by which
government policy can be influenced for positive results by way of economic
development. All of these things have
been coming through very clearly as a result of the early meetings of this
council.
I met to welcome all the members who have been
appointed to the council, and I was very, very impressed. We have, certainly, the first string when it
comes to the
That is of interest to all of us. All of us want to see a stronger
economy. All of us want to see more
investments. All of us want to see
growth, targeting of the various strategic areas that
Madam Deputy Speaker, they may want to crawl
under the carpet now and try and get out from under the things that they have said,
but they are on the record. Their
criticisms belie their comments about wanting to help in the economic growth of
this province. They show how shallow and
insincere their leader is when he offers to have their party's co‑operation
on matters of economic growth and investment.
That is how shallow they are when they just want to use this for their
own narrow partisan purposes and dump on the efforts of some of the most
capable people in this province.
The fact of the matter is that the Economic
Innovation and Technology Council is made up of some very, very capable and bright,
knowledgeable people. They are going to
be very instrumental in developing for us the strategy for economic growth that
will see this province continue to strengthen and grow in the '90s and
beyond. They are the people who will
make a major contribution through their efforts and their advice to government,
and we welcome this board and this council for its potential and indeed for the
tremendous efforts that they will put in to the future growth of this province.
I recommend the passage of this legislation to
all members of the Legislature as a signal to all sectors of our economy. The labour people who are represented on this
board, the business people, the professionals, the people with experience in so
many areas, the academics, for the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), who are
on this board and have a great deal to contribute towards economic growth‑‑give
them the signal that they are wanted and that they are supported on a
nonpartisan basis and that their efforts will be listened to and will be
utilized for the betterment of the people of this province, and I recommend it
for passage in this House, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam
Deputy Speaker:
Is the House ready for the question?
The question before the House is second reading of Bill 9 (The Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act; Loi sur
le Conseil de l'innovation economique et de la technologie). Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Bill 10‑The
Madam
Deputy Speaker:
To resume debate on second reading of Bill 10 (The Manitoba Hydro Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la
Loi sur l'Hydro‑Manitoba), on the proposed motion
of the honourable Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), standing in the
name of the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Dauphin? [Agreed]
Mr.
Paul Edwards (St. James):
Madam Deputy Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise and speak on Bill
10. Bill 10, of course, is a relatively
short bill, but I believe that is not an indication of its importance to the
people of this province. It has, I
think, significant importance.
*
(1550)
It reflects a philosophy and approach by this
government towards hydro, towards northern development, towards hydro development
which I think bears commenting on and bears thorough debate in this forum as
well as the province at large.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the bill specifically,
of course, gives the borrowing authority to Hydro a significant increase from $150,000
to $500,000‑‑[interjection] Pardon me, $500 million. I missed those last three zeros. As the minister says, he is in the big
leagues. We are all in the big
leagues. More aptly, Hydro is now in the
big leagues. Hydro has a borrowing power
of $500 million.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to take a few
moments to review just exactly where it is that this government intends to lead
the people of this province and specifically on the issue of the $13‑billion
Conawapa project. I hear the minister
indicating, excellent program. If only
he could convince the former Minister of Energy and Mines of that, then he
would have some credibility on this side of the House, but he cannot even do
that. There is not solidarity inside the
cabinet of the government itself on this issue.
How can he expect the members of this House to have confidence when he
says the deal is an excellent deal?
Madam Deputy Speaker, looking back just a few
years, just a few years back when Limestone was being proposed and the tables were
turned, we can remember back when the New Democratic Party member for Flin Flon
(Mr. Storie) was the minister when they were proposing Limestone, and we can
remember specifically the many quotes made by Conservative members leading up
to the Limestone deal.
Specifically, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to
quote the statements of the‑‑
Point of Order
Mr.
Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of
order. The honourable member is swaying
off a little bit on relevancy. Nowhere
in this bill does it mention Conawapa or Limestone. This is dealing with the loans, and I would
ask you to bring the honourable member to order.
Mr.
Doug Martindale (Deputy Opposition House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, on the same point of
order. I believe that it is the practice
of this House that the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker have always given great
latitude to members to speak on bills. I
would hope that you would allow the member to continue in the same vein. Thank you.
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not even believe
great latitude would have to be given.
Everything that the member for St. James has said has been fully in
order.
I would suggest to the member for St. Norbert
that he should realize the bill that he is talking about is borrowing money for
hydro development, and the member for St. James is talking about hydro
development.
Madam
Deputy Speaker:
Order, please. In my opinion, the
principles of the bill, having perused the bill, are the borrowing powers for
Hydro. In my opinion, the honourable member's
remarks were somewhat relevant to the bill and there is not a point of order.
* *
*
Mr.
Edwards: Madam
Deputy Speaker, as I was saying, it was just a few short years ago that the
tables were turned when Manitoba Hydro was heading into building the Limestone project‑‑[interjection]
I am talking about, for the member's edification on the other side, Hydro. Admittedly, I am going to talk about what
Hydro has been doing with the monies that it has been allowed to borrow and
gain from sales of power in this province.
That is a legitimate topic, given the fact that this government wants to
increase their borrowing power to $500 million.
Madam Deputy Speaker, what has led us to the
point today is a strategy of Manitoba Hydro supported by the then NDP
government, now the Conservative government, of a megaproject development in northern
Mr. Filmon indicated in the Winnipeg Free
Press, March 20, 1985: It would not make
sense to proceed with Limestone based on the possibility of future sales. March 8, 1985: The government's NDP promise on the Limestone
project is all paper projections. What
they are doing is to jack up our hydro rates and make the province unattractive
to investment.
Those were his comments at the time.
The member for
They commenced construction in the spring of
1985, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I want to read from the Manitoba Hydro‑Electric
Board's 36th Annual Report for the year ended March 31, 1987, which indicates‑‑and
keep in mind that construction started in the spring of 1985‑‑that
in January of 1987 Manitoba Hydro applied to the National Energy Board for a licence
to export 200 megawatts to the Northern States Power Company. In February of 1987 an agreement was signed
with the Minnesota Power and Light Company and negotiations continued‑‑and
this is as of the Annual Report from the end of 1987‑‑on a power sale
and diversity exchange with
The fact is that even on the admission of the
member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) in his recent comments on this bill, February
24 of this year, the NDP were an abysmal failure in pushing ahead Limestone
when they did and they sacrificed‑‑and there is no question that
some benefited in the North from the training programs and such and so
forth. There is no question about that.
The issue is they sacrificed the
potential. They sacrificed it on a very,
very large scale, Madam Deputy Speaker, and sacrificed an opportunity which
will not quickly come again. I want
briefly to comment on and review the member for Point Douglas' (Mr. Hickes)
comments of February 24.
First of all, I commend him for being so
candid in his comments because he was, and those of us who were here to hear his
comments will recall that. He
indicates: "I, for one, am not
against building Conawapa, and I do not think anybody on this side of the House
is against Conawapa."
He is quite clear about that on behalf of the
New Democratic Party at the time. He
then goes on to say: "Getting back
to the whole issue of Manitoba Hydro and Conawapa; I do not know why the government
cannot come out and say, look,‑‑or take it back to the Public
Utilities Board. For them to say, look,
it makes financial, economic sense and that is why we should go ahead with it. Even if it means that the only reason for
building Conawapa today is to export power for sale."
*
(1600)
That is his comment at the time. If it is export and export only, so be it;
let us build it. That is the member for
Point Douglas' statement, Madam Deputy Speaker, a statement, I might add, which
flies directly in the face of what was Bill 16 put forward by the member for
Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) in the spring of 1988, that ill‑fated session from
the New Democratic Party‑‑Bill 13, The Manitoba Hydro Amendment
Act, which said in Section 16.1: The
corporation may enter into a contract for export for the supply outside Canada
of power generated in Manitoba only if the power to be supplied is surplus to
the reasonable foreseeable demands of Manitobans and other purchasers in
Canada.
But, no.
The member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) disagrees with that, with his
own party's bill prior to their demise in 1988.
He says, whatever the cost we do not need to worry about Manitobans'
needs, we will do hydro development for export sale and export sale only. One assumes that he is speaking for his party
when he says that. He is, after all, the
critic. [interjection]
Well, I am going to read the rest of it. The member for Point Douglas says, read the
rest of it. I will be pleased to go through
just some of the choice highlights of the rest of his comments. He indicates on the issue of environmental
assessment, do Conawapa, just do it right.
He says that again, just do it right.
Well, what does "right" mean to the member for Point Douglas. He says, we need to do an environmental
assessment. Some honourable member, it does not say which one, quite astutely points
out that the NDP, when they built Limestone, did not do an environmental
assessment. Too bad. They had been in power for many years,
brought The Environment Act in, that is true, a year after‑‑in
fact, I am sorry, two years after they had started construction on Conawapa
they finally brought it in in 1988.
Madam Deputy Speaker, he says, specific on the
issue of the environment, that it was in 1987 that the NDP first put The Environment
Act in. He is a little bit out on
that. It was 1988 actually, and in fact
it was just before they were defeated.
He said, his quote: "We
learn as we progress."
A fine time to have learned that an
environmental assessment should be done, two years after they have started
Limestone, the biggest development in this province, certainly during their tenure
if not in the history of the province, with the largest environmental impact of
any project in the history of this province.
They learn as we progress. I
would change the word "progress."
I am not sure. Clearly, they did
learn something. Progress, I think, is another issue.
He says, yes:
"When Limestone was built there was no environment act in place,
and the NDP recognized that." Good point. Clearly, they recognized that The Environment
Act was not in place. That is why they
started it, and that is why The Environment Act came in after they had gone
well down the road to completing Limestone.
The member for Point Douglas goes on, another
clear statement: "Oh no. I support the development of dams any
day."
"So you are in favour of it now,"
one honourable member says. "I have
always been from Day One. I have never
been against it." There is a carte
blanche in effect from the member for Point Douglas to build, whatever the
cost, Madam Deputy Speaker. He says that
one of the other advantages of building these dams is that it creates
employment and training opportunities for northerners. That is clear; that is an opportunity which
rarely comes into the hands of any government, to have that type of development
with those kinds of dollars involved, clearly in an area that needs, deserves,
those kinds of training opportunities.
The member for Point Douglas talks about the
need for those in Conawapa, Madam Deputy Speaker, but he does not deny the disgraceful
performance of the NDP with respect to training of northerners and aboriginal
peoples in the construction of Limestone.
He does not deny that.
What he says is, Madam Deputy Speaker: "If you look at Manitoba Hydro‑‑and
I encourage any member of this House to go to their big building on Taylor
Avenue and take a walk through that building and tell me how many aboriginal
people work in that building‑‑where does Manitoba Hydro get their
resources from? Is it from the
South? No, it is from northern
He says:
"If you look at the
Madam Deputy Speaker, did the NDP ever do
that? Did they ever populate Manitoba
Hydro's offices with aboriginal people? Did they ever populate the Manitoba
Hydro Board with aboriginal people?
No. They had an opportunity. They were building Limestone. Did they do their job? No, they did not do their job.
He says in his pivotal quote on training: "When we are all gone, our children, are
they going to say the same thing that I am standing here today saying‑‑" That is February of this year. "‑‑that
Manitoba Hydro takes their resources from the North, and there is nothing or
very little left for aboriginal people?" That is the legacy, Madam Deputy
Speaker, of the New Democratic Party by the admission of their critic on their
legacy in the last years in this province.
The fact is the member right. He stood in his place as he said he did in
February of this year and he said, it is a disgrace what has happened to
northern
They were not Manitobans, but they were here
to take the jobs, and he, in fact, admits that as well. Again, I appreciate his candidness on this
issue. He says: "They had to be. The first clause was northern aboriginal
people; the second clause was northerners.
Then you had union members brought in." That is the admission of the New Democratic
Party. To my knowledge, that is the
first time that has been admitted in print.
For that, I think we all have to thank the member for Point Douglas (Mr.
Hickes) for putting it on the record and telling us how not to do hydro development
in the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the fact is that we must
look very carefully and cautiously at this type of development, not just because
of the dollars involved, but because of the environmental cost that is at
stake, both human and physical on the social and physical environment in
northern Manitoba, as well as the need for Manitobans to carefully, and with
the view toward stewardship of our resources, provide for future generations.
Madam Deputy Speaker, with respect to the
further comments of the Conservatives at the time that Limestone was built, and
then I will leave this, I want to note that the Premier said October 12, 1984,
that: Our objection is to the attempted
early start‑up of the Limestone without any apparent justification. We suspect that it is a bad judgment based on
historical analysis of what happened to hydro rates in the 1970s. If Limestone is being started a year or two
before the necessary time, it could result in massive and unwarranted increases
in our hydro rates.
Well, that was about Limestone‑‑now
to Conawapa. Conawapa was being talked
about by Manitoba Hydro and the New Democratic Party at least as early as 1984
by my recollection and my review of Hansard in the House. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is important to note
that the first projection for the need of the power from Conawapa was that it
would be needed by Manitobans in 1997.
That was the first indication that we received that the power would be needed,
and that was the first projection that was made. Then it moved to 1999.
When this government took office, it had moved
to the year 2000, Madam Deputy Speaker‑‑[interjection] The former
Minister of Energy and Mines is correcting me, and I am willing to consider his
objection, because he knows and he has a reputation for clarity and honesty in
this House. He says I am off on that, perhaps
it was 1999, when they came into office.
In any event, it went to 2000.
Then, it went to 2001.
At that point, it is my advice and my
information that the negotiations with
*
(1610)
So we have a commitment to
The result of all of that was, in front of the
Public Utilities Board, that the Conawapa project was approved. It was approved because‑‑and it
is true that the Public Utilities Board did take into account the swing in the
demand in
If one looks at the records and one looks at
the documents that were supplied to the Public Utilities Board, they were of the
view that Manitoba may not need the power in 2001, but that they would need it
in 2005; and 2005, keep in mind, is when that extra 500 megawatts comes into
play. They said
Madam Deputy Speaker, the former Minister of
Energy and Mines and, I believe, the Public Utilities Board may say that
Conawapa may not lose large amounts for Manitoba. They may say that, but what they will not say
is that we have in any way maximized the resource in northern
We came to this House, based on the
commitments, the statements from the former minister, that could he rethink
this, could he renegotiate this, he would want to. We came to the House and said, look, here is
an opportunity. You have a legal opinion
saying the deal is binding. Here is a
legal opinion saying maybe it is not so binding.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not here to say
which one of those would necessarily win the day in a court of law. I am not here to say that. What I am here to say is that the government
has yet to release to us the full legal opinion that they had and has yet to
tell us on what basis they are not using the opportunity to renegotiate with
Ontario Hydro which we gave them.
It was the only leverage they had to try and
salvage the opportunity and the potential of that deal, and they are squandering
that. Why? I believe out of straight political opportunism. They want this to go ahead. They want it to go ahead for their political
schedule, Madam Deputy Speaker, and as important as that, they could not stand
to have an opposition party look like it was giving them a hand to do the right
things for Manitobans. That is the fact.
The fact is that it would hurt their pride to
say, even though they beg for good ideas all the time, that they could use what
was given to them, what was solicited by this party and given to them, which
was leverage from an Ontario law firm‑‑because this may well be
litigated in Ontario under Ontario law‑‑that they could use that to
go to Ontario and say, things have changed in this province; we want to push it
back; we want to renegotiate. The fact
is that would be the smart thing to do, Madam Deputy Speaker. [interjection]
Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for Point
Douglas (Mr. Hickes) says, what if we change our mind? Since 1986, the projections for Manitobans'
needs for this power has done nothing but go further and further back. Has it ever come forward? No. It started in 1997; it went to 1999; it
went to 2000; it went to 2001; it went to 2005 and now to 2012. The fact is if the member for Point Douglas
can read the trends of history, that by the time we actually build this thing,
it may be well beyond the year 2012 that we need this power. If anything, one should be able to predict
that, if there is going to be a change, and when Manitobans need it. That is the fact.
There is nothing to lose and everything to
gain by using the opportunity, the only opportunity that this government has
now. It must act now to use what leverage it has to renegotiate that deal in
the best interests of Manitobans. It is
not doing it for the most petty political reasons which do nothing to
distinguish it from the people it criticized in the early '80s, the New Democratic
Party, for abusing what is always going to be a short‑term economic
boost.
If you spend $13 billion, you are darn right
it is going to help the province. You
are darn right it is going to create an economic boost, and that is for the
first 10 years. Once it is built, the
fact is that to keep the‑‑[interjection] Madam Deputy Speaker, the
member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) seems intent on saying something to
me. I will be pleased to listen to his comments
on this bill in due course. I notice he
has not said anything yet, and he does not say much on any bill, but I always look
forward to his comments because they are so few and they cost the taxpayer of
this province so much. There are so few
of them, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope I
prompted him to speak on Bill 10, because it is a very important one.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the fact is that the New
Democratic Party, if they left any legacy in this area, left us the legacy of
how not to develop hydro in northern
They have increased the borrowing power of
Hydro. They have consistently shown that
they want to build before they think, before they do the full environmental
review. They tied themselves into a
contract with penalty clauses which means that they and Hydro will have a
vested interest in making sure that they get the right result in the
environmental process. It is an inherent
conflict of interest for them to be locking themselves into those penalty
clauses while, at the same time, being the proponent. It simply does not fly, and the people of
The candidate for
Did they listen to him, Madam Deputy
Speaker? No. Do they listen to what their own former
minister the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) put forward in Bill 16 in 1988
in this House that Manitobans' needs should be the starting point for hydro development
in the North? No. The member for Point Douglas, their critic
says, build, build, build at any cost, any time, I do not care. That is his message to the members of this Legislature. Forget about the real cost in the long term
to this province. Forget about the
abysmal failure of the NDP in the northern training programs. This government is repeating that scenario.
[interjection]
*
(1620)
The member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) has
now managed to spit out the words that he has been trying to get out for some time,
and he says he wants an opinion, Madam Deputy Speaker. Had he been listening, had he been reading
the opinion that was tabled in this House, he would know that there is only one
way to go in order to serve the best interests of Manitobans. That is to take the opportunity which is here
now to renegotiate that deal. The member
for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld), the former Minister of Energy and Mines, has
recommended that course of action. I agree
with it. Seize the opportunity. Renegotiate this deal so that we have the
long‑term interest of Manitobans protected, because the NDP did not.
The NDP squandered that opportunity and has
created a legacy of waste of the opportunity which was open to them. The member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) was
employed in Sundance dealing with the training programs. In his own comments, he talks about the
despicable lack of sensitivity and of long‑term results for the people of
northern
This government is repeating that same
scenario. It is time to think first and
build later.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr.
Jim Maloway (Elmwood):
It is with great pleasure that I rise today to take a few minutes to
address Bill 10. In fact, Madam Deputy
Speaker, in beginning, I was very interested in the comments just made by the
member of the Liberal Party who appears to have taken heart to comments made by
that great Conservative MLA from the past, one Abe Kovnats, who said, when you
are in opposition you can have it both ways.
I think we can add to that now by saying that
the Liberal Party with its seven seats believes that you can take that one step
better; that you can in fact have it all ways; that there are more than two
ways to the argument. The argument that
seems to fit is the one that they will take.
The Liberal Party has very little prospect of
having to deal with coming to power in this province and having to deal with this
situation that we are going to have to deal with Conawapa in the next couple of
years. So I suppose that it is fair that
they can make irresponsible charges and irresponsible statements and expect
that in fact they could get away with them, because in fact they will never be
called to account for their statements on this issue.
I might remind the member for St. James (Mr.
Edwards) that it was a predecessor of his, the last Liberal Premier in this province,
D.L. Campbell, who in fact brought in electrification to this province and took
Manitoba, some would argue, out of the Dark Ages into a period where we had
rural electrification in this province and where we had electricity on the
farms. Is the member for St. James
suggesting that somehow he and his Liberal Party are going to take us, a la
Just yesterday, Mr. Kevin Kavanagh, the former
president of Great‑West Life, evidently chided the Liberals in committee
for their totally irresponsible position on the Conawapa issue. Mr. Kavanagh is somebody who the Liberal
Party would normally pay some attention to.
When Mr. Kavanagh would call, the Liberal Party would be quick to
respond and listen to what he had to say.
Obviously, they have fallen off the rails a bit with respect to the
advice he may have been giving them.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I must say that the
whole attitude, the whole political attitudes of society have actually changed,
and I think for the better, over the last couple of years. In fact, it is a fact that 20 or 30 years ago
there was a common disregard for the environment, and I think that all parties
of all stripes, of all ideologies across this world, pursued development
because they were coming out of a situation where in fact there was no development,
and any development to them seemed like an improvement.
After a certain level of development had been
achieved, and perhaps a certain level of overdevelopment had been achieved in certain
jurisdictions and certain countries, it has become clear that with this
development in place, that we have now seen that where there is an action,
there is a reaction. Where a development
has taken place, where automobiles have been produced, what we have found over
a period of years is a reaction against that.
The reaction is not only the clogged streets and so on in the case of
the automobiles, but the pollution and so on that is engendered.
There comes a point where, in fact, unfettered
development of anything, be it automobiles or hydro dams or what have you, can lead
to a situation where a pollution problem can develop, and that is essentially
the situation that we are trying to face at the moment on a world‑wide
basis. How do we in the future have development,
have rational development which is necessary for continued development of
society, but do it on the basis that we do not harm our environment?
I think that should or probably does cut
across all party lines, that no one in this Legislature in today's environment,
in today's day and age wants to see development just for the sake of development. So the question rises, then what are our definitions
of development at all costs, and it is fine for previous speakers to take
whacks at the previous government and say, well, you did not do this
environmental study correctly and you did not do that study correctly. In those days, who did? In those days, on a world‑wide basis,
it was development for development sake, and years ago the governments of the
day allowed pulp mills across the country to set up shop and, in the case of
the Kenora area, to pollute the waterways, pollute the fish, and the taxpayers
were forced to clean up the mess that occurred after that.
That sort of development today is passe. Governments of all stripes‑‑the
Conservatives tend to take a little harder look at these things and be a little
more reluctant to be brought along the environmental path, but even they too
are now paying some attention to developmental questions and are not as trigger
happy as they once were.
Now, there are some exceptions to that. We have argued that the minister in charge of
the Oak Hammock Marsh debacle has been a little trigger‑happy with the
bulldozers, and we will criticize when we see instances such as this
happening. No doubt this government,
because of its large influence from the developers‑‑and let us not
kid ourselves, it is still very much under the influence and control of the
developers‑‑it will have a tendency to involve itself in
development schemes with a secondary glance towards the regulatory rules, and
we do not expect a Conservative government to be as concerned with the environmental
controls and so on as we would expect from a social democratic government. Those are our expectations.
But having said that, I will say that this is
where the role of the opposition comes in.
It is our role to remind the government and to prod the government and
make certain that the government develops in a very responsible way and does
not take any short cuts and so on that would allow us to have a boondoggle on
our hands. I think that they probably
secretly appreciate that as well.
In this particular case, the government is
going through the environmental stages that it now must go through and we,
quite frankly, feel that, in light of changing circumstances‑‑and circumstances
have been changing rather rapidly; we are finding out things today that we did
not know six months ago.
*
(1630)
With the greater attempts at conservation that
we are finding today over the last couple of years‑‑because after
all, to the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), I think he will agree with
me that, in fact, in 1986‑87 there was not anywhere near the recognition
of the need for conservation that there is today on the part of all parties.
So, today governments across the country are
suggesting that somehow we should look at conserving electricity as opposed to developing. The Manitoba Hydro used to run ads promoting
the consumption of hydro in this province.
So it is comforting to know that the hydro utility in jurisdictions now
across the world are taking the initiative to encourage conservation which, in some
respects, is against their interests of selling more power, and that these
companies are suggesting that conservation can save money and can save the
environment.
This is a good sign; this is something that we
want to encourage. In the context of
that I think it is important that the government revisit the environmental
process to make absolutely certain that this deal makes sense, because the more
we delve in, the more time that goes by, the more water that runs under the
fridge in this case; we are beginning to see that perhaps this deal is not as
good as it may have looked ten years ago. [interjection]
The Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey)
from his seat basically agrees with what I have been saying, and that is that in
the past years hydro developments were required because‑‑
Point of Order
Hon.
James Downey (Minister of Northern Affairs): Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not want the member
to put something on the record that is not accurate. I do not agree with what he is just saying.
Madam
Deputy Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
minister does not have a point of order; it is a dispute over the facts.
* *
*
Mr.
Maloway: What I
said is that the hydro developments in the 1970s were required because there
was an increasing demand for hydro power, and it was in a time when we did not
necessarily know or understand any negative aspects of hydro development. So in the context of the 1960s and the 1970s,
surely he would agree with me that the developments were necessary.
Is the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr.
Downey) saying now that somehow the developments of the '70s were not
required? Is that what he is
saying? I am saying no. I am saying that he agreed with our
government in the 1970s and '80s that those developments were required because
there was an increasing demand.
We are in a different environment in today's
day and age that requires better examination of the projects, and what we are asking
him to do is make certain that these studies are done and that the project be
proceeded with in the context of the need for the power and in the context of
what some of the shortcomings might be to hydro development.
The minister should be aware that perhaps 10
years ago, when the environment was not the issue that it is right now, in
fact, the environmental questions were not something that were of major concern. The question of the mercury leaching from the
ground and harming the fish and so on was not something that was of a high
priority in those days. The question of
the ozone layer being affected was not a question. In fact, I do not believe it has been
entirely established at this point as to whether or not it is a material
concern, but what we are going to find as we replicate dam after dam in the
province, we may find that we have built ourselves a Pandora's box of problems
here and so we are asking the government‑‑Madam Deputy Speaker, I
found my notes on the question of the mercury.
On the question of the mercury, I am informed
that the mercury leaches out of the soil and that leached mercury becomes toxic
to the fish and in fact the whole food chain.
These were concerns that were not paramount 10, 15 years ago, and they
have come to the fore now, so these are concerns that this government has to
take into account before it proceeds full bore on the hydro development. The question of the rotting vegetation from the
frozen bogs‑‑[interjection] Well, the Minister of Health is making
comments from his seat, but what I would like to refer to him is that in areas
of the province where we have permafrost, when the flooding occurs the
permafrost thaws and the thawing, particularly in the James Bay area and so on,
has released methane gas which has an effect on the ozone layer. So I say to the members opposite that they
have to consider these issues and these are issues that were not necessarily at
the
The members opposite can criticize all they
want, and the member of the Liberal Party can criticize all he wants the actions
or the lack of action of the previous government, but it is drawing a long bow
now, because we are now four years away from that government. We are now four years along where this particular
government has led us down the road where we are 10 out of 10 in all the
provinces in economic indicators, and they are certainly running out of any
type of good news that they could possibly buy support or convince people to
support them in this province, so I can see them being somewhat edgy.
Madam Deputy Speaker, Bill 10 itself in fact
increases the borrowing authority of Hydro from $150 million to the $500 million,
and this money is to be used for Conawapa‑related developments, studies
and roads, I am told. The minister
shakes his head.
The question is, Madam Deputy Speaker, as to
whether or not the hydro is needed. I do
not deny that the hydro will be needed at a certain point in our
involvement. Because no matter how much
effort we make to conserve the electricity in this society, no matter how much
the Liberals drive us back to the Stone Age and cut off the lights, even the
Liberals cannot possibly force us into a situation where we are going to have
massive decreases in power consumption in this province and where we are not
going to require this hydro development.
The point is that we are going to need this
development. The question is when. That is really the question here as to when
we are going to need this, and even the former minister, the member for
Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld), takes issue with the government on the question of the
timing as to when this development is needed.
*
(1640)
You know, the members opposite make light of
the timing of this, but they should be aware of the value of money and the time
of money. [interjection] The Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) is
obviously not aware of the banker's rule of 72 in which you can judge the time
effect, the time lapse of money. The minister should know that one only has to
take the interest rate or the number of years and divide into 72 to arrive at
the other. So, if the member is trying
to find out how much his money will double at 8 percent, he divides 8 into 72
and finds out that his money doubles in nine years and vice versa.
The members opposite would do well to learn
the banker's rule of 72 because it will serve them well in their deliberations
as to when money should be spent, because the fact of the matter is that if
this power is not required until the year 2012, then that is 11 years before
the power is required, Madam Deputy Speaker. You know, if you were to divide
even 10 into 72, to make the figures nice and easy, money would double in 7.2
years.
So essentially, money that the minister is
spending 11 years before he has to is going to be a major cost to the taxpayers
of this province. This is on the part of
a government that literally rants and raves about fiscal responsibility, about
how it is so careful with the taxpayers' money and how it is concerned about
saving money for the taxpayers, and here to win, to give it an advantage for
the 1992 election. It is basically going
full speed ahead on a project that is being purported to be needed about 11
years after they originally thought it was due.
Now, if that is not slavishness with an eye on
the next election, I do not know what is.
They are going to build this dam and spend money 11 years earlier than
they have to, to save their political skins in the next election, and the skins
are pretty thin right now. The polls are
showing that they are dropping. I am
sure they are very concerned about this.
They only have the 30 seats. They
are doing their utmost to alienate some of their members right now.
So I do not blame them for wanting to get
Conawapa underway, because the sooner they get in underway, the sooner they can
give the impression that the economy is turning around, that they are, in fact,
doing something for development. They
can create this illusion that something is happening to give them this sense in
the public that they are putting the province back to work.
Now, I do not have to give them their election
'92 campaign. They have already worked out this scenario. This whole campaign, this whole Conawapa
campaign is designed around the centre piece of the 1992 election. So if there were studies that came out now that
showed it were not due until 1998 or the year‑‑well, if there were
studies out right now that showed that it was not usable or we did not require
the power for another 10 years, they would have to come up with some other idea
to argue that it had to be built now because without Conawapa, they do not have
an election. Without that, they do not
have any possibility of winning in 1992.
They know that people do like, and governments do like, toys. Megaprojects are part of the government toys.
We all know that in 1988, the federal
government, which is great at making announcements in advance of the election campaign,
announced megaprojects right across the country. They announced
I predict that with this government, too. I cannot believe that they are totally
irresponsible, so I can see them starting the program, attempting to win the
election on the basis of Conawapa in 1992, and if they are successful, then
having to cost the taxpayers a tremendous amount of money, because then they will
have concluded that they are in fact building it too soon, and that they will
lower the rate of development in it and even out the development over a longer
period of years.
In the final analysis, what we will end up
doing is we will probably have Conawapa closer to when it is due, but the political
considerations of the government will dictate that an enormous amount of money
be spent early on in an effort to give them that little bump they need to try
to take them into the next election.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have my doubts whether
that is going to be successful in the long run that they are going to be able to
campaign on that successfully, because the way the trend is going here, I
think, we are finding conservation‑‑I think that when we look back
at the last couple of years, we are going to find that our efforts at
conservation across the country are perhaps going to be more effective than we,
in fact, anticipated they would be.
I believe that what we are going to find is
perhaps more room and more surpluses.
There is the potential for more surpluses, greater surpluses than we
originally thought to be available to the public in terms of hydro. That scenario will make it even more
difficult for this government to follow through its election scenario for
Conawapa, because what it is finding itself‑‑it may have to delay
the election for a year; it may have to go right to 1993 because it may not‑‑[interjection]
Yes, as a matter of fact, it may have to abolish the next election for a couple
of years so that they can time this Conawapa build with the next election, because
that is what this whole Conawapa project has been built upon, the re‑election
of the Tories 1982. They know, Madam Deputy
Speaker, without that that they are dead ducks, that there is no hope for this
party, and that the Conawapa is the only hope.
Now, they will argue that their thoughts are
pure, that they have no intention of trying to bamboozle the public into supporting
them for another term based on Conawapa.
They will use all those arguments, but I think the public attitude has changed
somewhat. I do say that the attitude has
changed somewhat, but the public might still want the development. They do not want to move back, as the
Liberals would have them move, back into the 1930s and '40s before electrification. They do not want the Liberal option, Madam
Deputy Speaker. They reject the public
of
*
(1650)
That particular public may be more sympathetic
to the holding off of the Conawapa. But
I can tell you that the native groups on the reserves up North want the
development. They realize that hydro
development has provided enormous benefits for people on the reserves in this
province.
I would like to send the Liberals‑‑I
would like to see the seven Liberals if they can get‑‑
An
Honourable Member:
Six.
Mr.
Maloway: The six
Liberals. I would like to see the six Liberals
when they are not out trying to save their necks in Crescentwood, I would like
to see what is left of the Liberal Party go up and tour northern
I say it is an attitude that has just come
about with the Liberal Party because they have been polling recently, and if anybody
has been talking to a Liberal in this House, they know the Liberals are
polling, because they are trying to make the best out of a very bad situation
for the Liberal Party in
The members in the Liberal Party are jumping
ship. In fact, their recent convention
had 200 people at it, I believe. Their nomination
people had a hundred, I think it was, and half of them were paid to be
there. The Liberal Party, Madam Deputy
Speaker, is heading back down very fast from whence it came, back to its 6 percent,
back to its no seats in the Legislature.
So it is fine for the Liberal Party to be self‑righteous and try
to get a few votes here in Crescentwood to save what is essentially a sunk ship
and try to build themselves up as a party that has something to say that is
relevant on this issue.
I think that at the end of the day, the
northerners will not be standing with the Liberal Party and supporting their
views. At the end of the day, any thinking people in
What they are going to do, I believe, is
support a party that provides a rational argument, a rational assessment of the
issues involved here in the hydro debates, and I think that while they may
agree with the government to a large extent on this issue, I think that there
is a fundamental reluctance on the part of the electorate in this province to
go too overboard with the Conservatives.
We have seen that in past elections when they had nothing holding them
back. They had a free run to the goal post,
and yet the Conservatives could not come through. They could not come through. The public would not trust them with a free
rein on the province.
I think it is still there, Madam Deputy
Speaker. I think there is a reluctance
to give the Conservatives a free hand, and I think the public looks at the
opposition. They look to the NDP for us
to make certain that this government allows the development of Conawapa on a
rational basis, that they are reined in, that they are allowed to proceed very
carefully, that the proper studies are followed and that this is not used as
nothing more than a public‑relations gimmick and a gimmick in the 1994 election
to get this government re‑elected.
(Mr. Speaker in
the Chair)
I think that those are concerns that the
Crescentwood voters are concerned with right now, and that there is some
benefit for the Conservative government here to take heart with some of the comments
we are making and be careful in how fast they move on this effort.
We have to look at the damage to the
environment. Years ago there may have
been some lack of concern in that area, and perhaps just plain lack of
understanding because perhaps the evidence was not available at that time, but
today many, many more people are concerned about the potential for the environmental
damage. Even if the environmental damage
is minimal, even if all the studies have been done, the fact of the matter is
that history of our society is such that no matter how much study has been
done, there is always the potential for things to be missed, results to be
improperly analyzed and an incorrect assessment to be made of the true effects
to the environment that this damage can cause.
The people in northern
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe
that the people up north, the people in this province trust this government to proceed
on a project of this magnitude on their own.
I think that they look to us for some leadership and direction on this issue. With that, I am prepared to let this bill go
to committee.
Mr.
Downey: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to close debate on Bill 10.
Mr.
Speaker: Was there
leave to allow this matter to remain standing in the name of the honourable
member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman)? Yes, I
believe there was. Leave had already
been granted to have this matter remain standing in the name of the honourable
member for Dauphin.
Some
Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. It appears there is a
willingness to move this bill along.
Would the House want to rescind leave for this matter to remain standing
in the name of the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), so that this
bill can move along? [interjection] Yes, okay, so this bill, therefore, I would
ask the question‑‑
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. I was just going to ask the House if there
was a willingness of the House to rescind leave, and I was just going to ask
the question. We will do this again. Order,
please.
For the benefit of the member for
An
Honourable Member: There may be a move to call it six.
Mr.
Speaker: Is it
the will of the House to call six o'clock? No?
Okay.
*
(1700)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
ADDRESS FOR PAPERS REFERRED FOR DEBATE
Mr.
Speaker: On the
motion of the honourable member for
THAT an Address for Papers do issue praying
for:
The text of the formal opinion requested from
the Department of Justice by Health department officials on whether there is anything
that would interfere with enforcement of The Public Health Amendment Act,
Statutes of Manitoba Chapter 62 (formerly Bill 91), also known as the
antisniffing legislation, standing in the name of the honourable Minister of
Labour (Mr. Praznik). Stand?
An
Honourable Member:
Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there
leave that this matter remain standing? [Agreed]
Mr.
Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):
Yes, I have leave to speak on‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: No, you
do not need leave, no. Leave has been granted
to have this matter remain standing in the name of the honourable Minister of
Labour (Mr. Praznik).
Mr.
Storie: Mr.
Speaker, I am disappointed somewhat, I have to say, that this Address for Paper
continues to stand in the member for Lac du Bonnet's (Mr. Praznik) name. Clearly, we have been asking this government
for some answers for a long time. I cannot
understand, quite frankly, the reluctance on the part of the Minister of Health
(Mr. Orchard) to deal with this issue.
Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that is putting
at risk the lives of literally dozens of people in Manitoba‑‑dozens
of people. The Minister of Health is
charged with the responsibility of protecting the health of Manitobans. Not only has the minister refused to act on a
bill that was passed, I believe unanimously by this Legislature, and to date,
we have seen only stonewalling by the Minister of Health.
Mr. Speaker, what is the minister being asked
to do? What is this House asking
for? It is asking for some sort of
opinion from the Justice department, from the Minister of Health, other legal
opinions, as to why this bill cannot be proceeded with, why we cannot have
regulations under this bill protecting the lives of children across this
province.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard), who is seemingly immune to criticism from time to time, is going to
be faced, in fact, is faced right now, with the prospect of knowing that
because of his inaction, young people have died and are ruining their lives
today by sniffing and abusing substances which we are making available on a
regular basis, which we need not be making available on that kind of a basis.
Mr. Speaker, one has to ask the question, why
is the government stalling? Why is the
Minister of Health refusing to act? Why
is the government now apparently delaying a simple request to share the
information upon which this government is basing its delay? The Minister of Health has said on a number
of occasions that this cannot proceed because of complexities, because of
uncertainties about how it would be enforced, because of some legal
technicalities about the nature of the bill and the obligations it imposes on
others, particularly retailers. Well, all
we are asking is for the Minister of Health to share this information.
Clearly, we want to be responsible. The member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis),
when she introduced the bill, wanted to be responsible, sought the advice and
counsel of Legislative council, sought the advice of members of this
House. The debate was quite extensive,
and we passed the legislation.
Manitobans have a legitimate right to ask the
question: If this Legislature considered
this matter important enough to pass a private members' bill, which is quite
unusual, why does this Legislature not find it important enough to introduce
this piece of legislation, to draft the regulations and to begin saving lives
by preventing the abuse of these substances that are being sniffed?
Mr. Speaker, there are literally hundreds,
hundreds of abuse counsellors in the
I do not know how many people in this
Legislature have seen, as I have seen, the impact, the effect, of someone who
is sniffing. It causes permanent mental
impairment. It causes, in many cases,
permanent physical impairment, a deterioration of motor skills. It is one of the most debilitating things
that can happen to an individual, so we are not simply talking about some esoteric
piece of legislation dealing with whether this "i" is dotted or that
"t" is crossed. We are not
talking about protecting property. We
are talking about protecting the health of individuals.
Mr. Speaker, I do not see a great deal of
attention being paid to this matter. I
see the members opposite, including the Minister of Health, engaged in
conversation, other conversation, when we are talking about something that is
within his control and jurisdiction. We
are talking about the lives of kids. We are
talking about kids as young as five years old involved in sniffing substances
which could be controlled by the
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard), I ask the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey), I ask the Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) to go to our schools today‑‑inner
city schools, schools in other parts of the province, in remote communities‑‑and
visit the schools and talk to teachers who are seeing the results of students
who are sniffing substances, solvents, hair spray and other products, which
could be controlled in a much more efficient and effective manner in the
interests of our children.
If the Minister of Health will not get
interested, perhaps we can convince the Minister of Education to get involved
in this, because the kind of impairment that sniffing causes in young children
is irreversible. The kind of impairment
that it causes creates failure throughout the school system. It ensures a life of poverty and despair‑‑is
the only word I can use.
The teachers in this province, the abuse
counsellors in this province, representatives of the Alcoholism Foundation of Manitoba
know the importance of this legislation.
This legislation had the support of virtually every group involved in counselling
when it was introduced. It had the
support of the Minister of Health. That
was more than two years ago.
The Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) has to
carry on his shoulders, not only the knowledge that he did not act when he could
have acted, but the knowledge that lives have been sacrificed because of his
inaction, because of his unwillingness to take chance.
Mr. Speaker, we have passed legislation in
this province before that was not perfect.
We have passed legislation before that has been challenged on the basis
of the Charter of Rights and on other legal basis. What is the dilemma with passing legislation
that is not perfect? Let us get the
message out there that we want to do something on behalf of our children, on the
behalf of the people who are abusing this substance, on the behalf of the
people who are damaging their lives, their physical health and their mental
health unwittingly. Why can we not act to
protect those people‑‑a legitimate question.
For two years we have waited for action on the
part of the minister. Now it appears
that we are going to have to wait two more years to get any justification from
the minister, and this minister wants to pretend he is somehow the saviour for
health, that he is doing a competent job.
This is not incompetence; this is negligence. There are some people who would say, given
the consequences of what we are talking about, that it is criminal negligence
because it is damaging quite clearly the health, physical, mental and otherwise
of individuals in the province of Manitoba, and it is damaging them on the
basis of something that can be controlled, something that can be done, only the
government refuses to act.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know the exact legal
definition of criminal negligence, but if the consequences of our failure to act
are not criminal negligence, I do not know what is, because lives are being
ruined as we speak in this Legislature.
Lives are being ruined. Young
children are going to go without the benefit of an adequate education because
of the consequences of substance abuse, things that could be prevented.
I do not understand and I do not think
Manitobans understand the minister's silence, the minister's reluctance to
act. After two years of waiting, we
believe that it is time for the minister to respond. This motion was introduced some months ago
now, asking for the kind of information which would give us some understanding
of why the delay, some basis for tolerating this delay any longer, but the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) has not been straightforward with the people
of
*
(1710)
Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable. For a member as sanctimonious as the Minister
of Health (Mr. Orchard), it is unbelievable.
Someone who stands and lectures people on a daily basis about their role
and their responsibility, for him to ignore his role and responsibility in this
callous and incompetent way, is totally reprehensible.
The Minister of Health will sit there with a
smug look on his face. He will deny any
responsibility for answering this order, or for doing the more responsible
thing and implementing the legislation that is within his jurisdiction, and at
least trying to prevent the tragedies that are occurring on a daily basis on the
streets of Winnipeg and in the back lanes and in the schoolyards across the
province as people destroy their lives with substances that are made available
all too readily in our society.
So, Mr. Speaker, we are at a loss. We are at a loss to know where to turn. We have no willingness on the part of the government
to act, and no willingness on the part of the government to provide the
information which would give us some sort of basis for understanding their
motives.
What are the Minister of Health's (Mr.
Orchard) motives in refusing to act? How
can his colleagues, who know the consequences of not doing anything, sit there
so passively and not request the minister or demand the minister respond? How could the Minister of Education (Mrs.
Vodrey), who is responsible for the education of our children, sit there
knowing that substance abuse is going on and the Minister of Health refuses to act? How can the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer), incidentally, whose department is going to pick up the costs for
repairing the lives of the people who are being damaged, sit there knowing it
is going to cost the province millions and million and millions of dollars to
maintain these people's lives because of the damage they are doing to
themselves?
Mr. Speaker, we are all losers in this. There are no winners in this type of
delay. The Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard) looks incompetent or callous, at best.
The Ministers of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) and Education (Mrs.
Vodrey) do not look any better, because they are not acting in the interests of
our children, and incidentally, some young adults, primarily, who abuse
substances by sniffing.
It is incomprehensible, this kind of
stonewalling from the government. Who
are we protecting by not acting? Are we concerned
because some retailer who might want to sell a can of Lysol or a can of some
other substance to sniff, shoe polish or whatever, is going to lose a
sale? Is that what we are concerned about? We are concerned because some retailer might
lose five cents on the sale of a product that could damage a child's life? Is
that what we are delaying for? If so, I
would like to hear the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) say that.
Mr. Speaker, what is the delay about? Why can we not have some information, some
response, some indication that there is a light on over there in the ministry
of Health, in the Minister of Health, I should say?
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard) apparently may be paying more attention than he pretends. I only hope that something that I have said,
or something that others may have to say, in reference to the fact that this
Address for Papers remains on the Order Paper will spur him to some action,
because there are consequences, very, very serious consequences for continued
delay. If the Minister of Health does
not have the intestinal fortitude to take on whatever boogeymen are out there preventing
the implementation of this legislation, then perhaps he should do the
honourable thing and pass on the responsibility to someone who will.
I look to the Minister of Family Services (Mr.
Gilleshammer), I look to the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) for some leadership
on that side, and heaven knows there is impossibly little leadership ability
over there, but hopefully someone will take the leadership away from the
ministry of Health and do something on behalf of the children whose lives are
going to be affected by substance abuse and particularly sniffing.
We cannot just stand in the Legislature and
use words to defend these people's lives; sometimes we have to act, and if action
means offending some retailer, offending the manufacturer of some product, then
I say, let us offend them. Let us
protect the interests of these children by removing these products from the
shelves, limiting access to these products, and let us do it now. Let us not continue to delay, and delay and
obfuscate this matter until somebody else dies or someone else's life is ruined
by substance abuse. Mr. Speaker,
something has to be done.
Mr.
Speaker: As
previously agreed, this matter will remain standing in the name of the
honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard).
An
Honourable Member: Six o'clock.
Mr.
Speaker: Six
o'clock? Is it the will of the House to
call it six o'clock?
Some
Honourable Members:
No.
Mr.
Speaker: No. Okay.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 19‑Manitoba/Russia Agreement
Mr.
Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), that
WHEREAS the government of Manitoba recognizes
the importance of co‑operation between the peoples in the name of peace
and progress, aiming at the enhancement, the further improvement and development
of the relationships between Canada and the former Union of the Soviet
Socialist Republics; and
WHEREAS the government of
WHEREAS the government of
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative
Assembly of Manitoba record its full support of the Manitoba/Russia Agreement on
Economic, Environmental and Cultural Co‑operation.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Laurendeau: Mr.
Speaker, this agreement was signed in
Mr. Speaker, I guess my microphone is not
working because the honourable member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) is having
trouble hearing me. I think we might
have to have them check the system, or it is possible that his hearing aid
failed‑‑I am sorry.
The agreement was signed for the Russian
republic by the minister of the economy and the deputy chair of the council of ministers,
Mr. S. Sacharov. This agreement was the
culmination of a series of meetings held over several months, which had been initiated
by the activities as the Natural Resources Institute at the
Mr. Speaker, for some time, the institute had
been studying methods of co‑operation for the development of northern
areas. This had also been a high priority for the former U.S.S.R. Through
discussions with the Soviet Academy of Sciences, a number of lecturer exchanges
have been arranged, which ultimately led to several delegations from northern
In May 1991 a delegation from Manitoba
Association of Region Development Corporations met in
Mr. Speaker, this draft formed the basis for a
formal agreement encompassing the economic, environmental and cultural co‑operation. This agreement represents a milestone in government's
efforts to strengthen
*
(1720)
This gives us the benefit of moving into an
area of the world where there has been no economy. The farming industry throughout the U.S.S.R.
has had problems over the years of having their product even get to
market. There is a very poor
transportation system throughout the
We, as Manitobans, will be able to aid the
former U.S.S.R. in their transportation needs in the future and bring to them
new updates to their farm implements through the industries here in our
province. We have the farm implement
industry here in our province that will be able to aid them throughout the
process, not only with the tractors and the augers and the rest of the storage
facilities that are required for the former U.S.S.R., but a number of other new
technologies that are required for other industries to grow through this
agreement.
This agreement will also give
This agreement identifies several priorities
that will be targeted with co‑operative initiatives to enhance and
establish direct links and increase exchanges between the relevant partners under
this agreement. Among the priorities
are: the development of new and expanded
trade opportunities; additional scientific and technical exchanges in areas of
mutual interest; enhanced contacts on resource and economic development
priorities including agriculture, research, forestry, mineral development, hydroelectric
generation, transmission and northern development; joint efforts to expand
transportation and communication links including improved air service and
including the expanded use of the Port of Churchill.
Mr. Speaker, as we are all aware‑‑we
have now an agreement with the U.S.S.R.‑‑we will be seeing some
U.S.S.R. ships coming into the
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to
give some other members an opportunity to speak to this.
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Thompson):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this particular
resolution. I must indicate some
disappointment that once again the government members of this House have again
failed to recognize the role of this Legislature and the role of private
members' hour.
It is very unfortunate that on a matter that
we can achieve surely some nonpartisan agreement, we have a resolution before this
House, introduced by the private member opposite who talks about WHEREAS the
government of Manitoba, WHEREAS the government of Manitoba, WHEREAS the
government of Manitoba, and then only talks about the Legislature in the final
result, in essence, trying to suggest that it is only the government that has
these concerns and that somehow the Legislature is just supposed to rubber‑stamp
what the government is doing in terms of the agreement, and that is the role of
private members' hour.
That is not the role of private members'
hour. That is not the role. The member should have introduced a resolution
that made it very clear, in terms of the WHEREASes, that these statements,
which everyone in this House can agree with, should be attributed to the
Legislature of Manitoba. This is not a rubber
stamp for the Cabinet. It is not the
rubber stamp for the government, and it is about time that government members
realized that and stopped distorting the purpose of private members' hour.
I say that, Mr. Speaker, because we are
looking at
This government has lost sight of the role of
the Legislature and seems to view our role as rubber‑stamping the role of
this Legislature, elected by every citizen of this province, every citizen, Mr.
Speaker, and that we all speak, all 57, on behalf of matters involving the
province of Manitoba, not just the 30 members opposite who happen to
temporarily occupy the position of government in this province.
I want to say that I hope that this government
is not going to try and give lessons on politics to the new
I want to say to the members opposite, please
do us one favour. In contacts with the
Russians, please emphasize trade. Please emphasize the Port of Churchill, in
fact, the port itself has been fighting for that; but please do not give them
any suggestions on how to run their economy.
This is the government that is tenth out of 10, dead last in
I say to the government opposite, and
hopefully to the representatives of the new
I say those comments because it is unfortunate
again that the private members' hour role has been lost and that members opposite
have not seen what we should be doing in here.
What we should be doing is not talking about the government of
This is private members' hour, and I want to
know from backbenchers on the government side when they are going to start standing
up to other people who are obviously saying, no, you go in there and you say
what a great job the government is doing and the great job the government is
doing, which is pretty difficult I realize that. I realize that it is a pretty difficult,
onerous task for members opposite, but why cannot we see resolutions that deal
with the views of the private members on that side and the Legislature, not the
government?
The government has a thousand‑and‑one
ways of dealing with legislative matters.
It has ways of dealing with matters such as this. We do not need that kind of resolution, Mr.
Speaker, and the sad part is it distracts from the very real fact that we have a
tremendous opportunity in establishing relations with former republics in the
We have many people from the former eastern
republics. We have a natural sense.
This is where the language, the culture in
*
(1730)
(Mr. Ben
Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
I know we have had exchanges between a number
of Russian cities and Thompson. I must
say, they felt quite at home in Thompson.
They felt quite at home. This was
from an exchange from a mining town in Siberia‑‑a great deal of
similarity. I am sure they would have
felt at home this May 1, Mr. Acting Speaker, when we had snow and sub‑zero
degree temperatures in Thompson. It is partly that similar lifestyle, similar
economic base, with a reliance on natural resources and, in particular, mining
that makes it important. So that is the
second reason why we need to establish those connections.
The third reason is because we have the
In the days in which the
That port is the closest maritime port to many
of the ports in the Baltic, in northern
The sad part is, for those three reasons, we
have that natural connection with
I have said publicly, and I will say again,
that I believe the Manitoba/Russia Agreement is an excellent first step. I believe it should be supported by all
members of the Legislature. That is the
kind of resolution we should have seen before us.
We have to move quickly, Mr. Acting
Speaker. I say we have six months or a
year, and I say that in terms of this province, this country, and I say it in
terms of western countries. If something
is not done within the next six months or year to ensure there is a stable
economic situation in the former republics, they will turn their back on
democracy, and they will turn, if not back to the old system, they will turn
instead to a system that more resembles an ultranationalist, a fascist type of government,
if you wish.
They will turn their back on democracy. When one looks at the history of
I am disappointed, by the way, with the role
of the federal government. I do not
think they have been getting in there quickly enough and dealing with the
obvious connections that we have, and I wish they would be working more closely
with provinces such as
I say that if we move quickly, we can provide
the Russians with what they want and what they need. They want technical advice; they want
exchanges; they want economic trade, but they are willing to recognize that it
has to be established on a pilot basis, so there is a great deal that they want
to do.
I have talked to people who have gone directly
to
I heard an excellent suggestion made, for
example, by the head of the Northern Manitoba Economic Development Commission that
has been set up by the government. He
made an excellent suggestion at the recent Hudson Bay Route Association meeting
in
Let us do that right now, open up that kind of
office space. It would not cost the government that much additional money. There
may be even surplus office space that could be given in terms of a government
building. Let us open that up as a first
step to say that we are willing to work with you, and we are willing to
shoulder some of the cost to do that, because in five and 10 and 15 years, we
are going to see those initial contacts lead to significant trade.
Those are the kind of first steps we
need. The second kind of thing is to
encourage the kind of exchanges that have taken place in Thompson, encourage it
in terms of other cities, encourage the kind of process I saw last year when I
know the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and, I
believe, the minister responsible for Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr.
Stefanson) were in Ukraine, were in Russia and talked to officials and signed
this agreement. That is positive.
You will notice that no one ever criticized
the government, the Premier or anyone else for being there. No one suggested that in any way, shape or
form it was a junket. We all recognized
it was important for the province, Mr. Acting Speaker, and I would encourage
the province to do that further in terms of, not just cabinet ministers, but
other civic officials, business leaders, anyone who can have anything to offer
in terms of trade and contacts with the Russians.
If we do not move now in the first six months
to a year that it is available, what is going to happen is that we will miss a golden
opportunity.
I want to say that I am going to propose an
amendment to this resolution, and it is not to alter what I think was the
intent of the member opposite. I say
that, Mr. Acting Speaker, because I really wish to see private members' hour
returned to what it was supposed to be, an opportunity for all members of the
Legislature to speak and not simply talk about the government and rubber‑stamping
what the government has done or opposing it.
I agree with what the government has done in
terms of the Manitoba‑Russia Agreement‑‑the provincial
government. I would encourage it to do
more. I am very clear on that, and that should
be a statement from the Manitoba Legislature.
That is why, Mr. Acting Speaker, I would move,
seconded by the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans),
THAT the resolution be amended by deleting the
word "government" in the first line of the first "WHEREAS"
and substituting "Legislature", by deleting the word
"government" in the first line of the second "WHEREAS" and
substituting the word "Legislature" and by deleting the word
"government" in the first line of the third "WHEREAS" and
substituting the word "Legislature."
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Sveinson): The amendment is in order.
*
(1740)
Hon.
Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Acting Speaker, I rise to speak to this
resolution, partly prompted by the somewhat incredible remarks of the member
who has just spoken, the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
I will deal with them briefly, but in general
what this resolution in its original form asks the Legislature to consider is
the promotion of trade and commerce.
Wherever trade and commerce flourishes, it is inevitable that peace,
prosperity, well‑being and freedom and liberty follow. I say that very sincerely because that is
germane to other debates that we hear in this House. That has to do with our trading relations
with the United States, potentially a large trading relationship with Mexico,
not to say that there are not some serious concerns, serious disruptions,
people will not lose jobs, industries will not suffer, but surely with that
shining example of the economical miracle that the coming together of Europe
constantly provides for us, as being one of the strongest well‑looked‑after
peoples of a given region, that example should always encourage us that we are
moving in the right direction when we talk about enlarging trade and commerce
with countries around this globe.
So, Mr. Acting Speaker, by all means, I do not
see any reason for any members being anything other than enthusiastic in their support
for this resolution. The honourable
member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), and I heard him, I think other members heard
him right, is that the people of the Soviet Union‑‑I will rephrase that‑‑the
people of that evil Soviet empire, and Ronald Reagan was right when he called
it thus, not because I said so, but just because of the terrible, heart‑rending
stories that are now emerging from the orphanages of that country, from the
total economic chaos of that country, from the plight of the workers in that
country, from the reality of the sacrifice of the citizens of that empire. There was no exaggeration, there was no distortion
in anybody referring to that as an evil empire that we saw collapse so
dramatically in these last few years.
Yet the member for Thompson says that those
500 million people have nothing to learn from this government. Where has he been? What do you think they are crying out
for? What do you think they are sending
people around to us for? They have everything
to learn from this government, from any other government that has enjoyed the
prosperity, the well‑being in the free world, whether it is our country,
whether it is
But surely for the member for Thompson to say
that those people, Mr. Yeltsin and company, or the people in Poland, or the people
in Bulgaria or Hungary have nothing to learn from the way we conduct our
affairs in a free and open society has to be the most ridiculous statement ever
said in this House.
An
Honourable Member: You are not the whole democratic system.
Mr.
Enns: Ah, but
we are part of it. Then, Mr. Acting
Speaker, allow me, if the honourable member wants to make some comparison because
we are in a recession, because we are not growing at 5 percent or 10 percent,
because we are comfortably housed with the best medicare system in the world,
because our children go to school, because we drive on good roads, because our
farmers grow more food than we can eat, he is saying that we have nothing to teach
the people of the Soviet Union, who are going hungry, who we have to ship food
to, whose medicare system, well, there is none, whose family care services‑‑have
not any of us watched the heart‑wrenching series on how that system
looked after unwanted children, how that system looked after orphanages?
I ask the honourable member, had she not
watched, and she is saying that our Family Services minister is not‑‑
Some
Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Sveinson): Order, please. I am having trouble hearing the honourable
Minister of Natural Resources. If other
members would like to carry on conversations, please do it in the loge or out
in the hall.
Mr.
Enns: More
specific to the resolution‑‑then the honourable member for Thompson
(Mr. Ashton) makes another truly remarkable statement. I will forgive him because he does not have
the immediate, I suppose, connections to that evil empire as some of us do.
My one remaining living aunt still lives in
that empire, in
He is right, he is absolutely right. But this landscape would be strewn with the
bodies of hundreds of thousands of Canadians who if they resisted going up
there were shot on their way up there.
Once up there, they would have been enclosed with barbed wire, with dogs
and‑‑
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Sveinson): Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yes, Mr. Acting Speaker, I am rising on a
provision of our rules that does allow members to clarify terms or statements‑‑
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Sveinson): Order, please.
Is this a point of order?
Mr.
Ashton: Yes,
on a point of order. You would care to
check Beauchesne on our rules, to clarify a statement that was made, and in
this particular case the member should have listened. I said the country of
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Sveinson) Order, please. The member did not have a point of order.
* * *
(Mr. Speaker in
the Chair)
Mr.
Enns: I ask
them to read "The Gulag" by Solzhenitsyn. I ask them to read these stories.
[interjection] No, the honourable member is saying though that he is chastising
our government for not acting like the Russian government in making sure that
we had a hundred thousand people in Churchill.
That is what you said, and I will read Hansard to you. That is what he said.
So, Mr. Speaker, [interjection] Never
mind. The honourable member shows his
ignorance one more time. We are not
talking about the last 100 years. Eighty
years ago the
But I would hope that in the final analysis
they will approve it, and they will send the right message. But let us not be fearful, or let us not keep
quiet about the fact that our systems with all its failings is 10 times better,
nay, 100 and 100,000 times better than what has been foisted on the Soviet
people under Soviet Russia and what is still being parroted by some on the
benches of honourable members opposite.
So, Mr. Speaker, it is with some considerable
pride that we offer this bridge of trade and commerce through our
*
(1750)
Mr.
Reg Alcock (Osborne):
Mr. Speaker, there are occasions in this House where honourable members,
in attempting to make a point, will perhaps overstate their position. We have just seen two examples of that.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good resolution. This is a resolution that calls upon us in
this Chamber to support an agreement that has been signed between the
government of this province and the new country of
The point that the member for Thompson (Mr.
Ashton) was making, I think, was a very valid one, and I think his subamendment
is a very good one. He is saying, when
you bring forward a resolution in private members' hour, you bring forward that
resolution on behalf of this Legislative Assembly, not on behalf of the
government, and you do not expect this Assembly to support government
policy. I believe that the member for
St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) sees this as a friendly amendment and is prepared
to support this amendment. I believe, if
we are careful with the time, we in fact will be able to vote on this
resolution as amended and pass it.
Because what is being asked for here is for
this Legislative Assembly to endorse a very creative agreement between Russia
and Manitoba that enhances exchange and does some of the things to correct some
of the wrongs that the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) mentioned. I have some good friends, both in
So, Mr. Speaker, with a very few remarks, I
would like to simply say to the member for St. Norbert that I appreciate his bringing
it forward, but I hope that members on the government side of this House have
learned a lesson today. I hope that, in future,
when we see them coming forward to this House asking for the support of this
Chamber, they will listen to the words of the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton)
and see that these resolutions are constituted in a way that allows this
Assembly truly to support them.
I am going to sit down, because I know the
member for St. Norbert, as the mover of this resolution, will like an opportunity
to close, and I believe there is a willingness on the part of the Chamber to
pass this resolution as amended.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker: Is the
House ready for the question?
Mr.
Laurendeau: Mr.
Speaker, I can recognize the amendment brought forward by the member for
Thompson (Mr. Ashton) as a friendly amendment, because I do look at the
government as the Legislature as a whole, because I consider the opposition as
well as the government side to be a government as a whole. So I will accept it as a friendly amendment.
Mr.
Speaker: The
honourable Minister of Urban Affairs.
An
Honourable Member:
Jim, sit down. We passed the
question.
Hon.
Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban Affairs): I want to speak to it.
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised, quite frankly, at
some of my honourable friends here in the Chamber who would suggest for a moment
that I should not speak to a very, very important resolution, the one that
deals with trade, the fact that we as a province are the first province now to
enter into an agreement with the Russian republic.
We should not forget, Mr. Speaker, that the
Russian republic, the largest of all of the republics in the former U.S.S.R.,
is the most closely aligned in terms of geography, climate, kind of industry,
agriculture, things of that nature, with Canada‑‑very, very similar
in nature to our country.
We have an opportunity, I think, Mr. Speaker,
through this agreement, to further the interests both of
That is the last thing on your mind. It is not a question of democracy. It is not a question of communism. It is a question of being able to feed your
family, to be able to eat, to be able to live, at least exist in a reasonable
manner and not the manner in which they may well come to if assistance and aid
and so on are not reached with that country.
So, Mr. Speaker, there are very, very
important elements. I am proud, quite
frankly, that my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr.
Stefanson) and our Premier (Mr. Filmon) have taken the initiative, gone to
So, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put those few
words on the record with regard to this very, very important agreement. With that I will conclude.
Mr.
Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): I
appreciate the comments made by the member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst), who of
course urged us not to act in haste.
Each member has a right to speak to this.
Despite the apparent unanimity on this issue,
Mr. Speaker, I just want to put on record that the amendment that was
introduced by my colleague has been acknowledged as a friendly amendment. I am assuming that means, before we proceed
to a vote, that the government members are accepting that amendment as a
friendly amendment and that, in fact, we will see support for the amendment on
this motion when it comes to a vote.
I just want that to be on the record. That is the expectation. It was a friendly amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker: Is the
House ready for the question?
Some
Honourable Members:
Question.
Mr.
Speaker: The
question before the House is the amendment as moved by the honourable member
for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment? [Agreed]
The question before the House now is the
resolution as moved by the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau),
as amended. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Is it the will of the House to call it six
o'clock? The hour being 6 p.m., this
House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow
(Thursday).