LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Monday,
July 19, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Gail Dueck, Basil Holewka, Marlene Holewka and others requesting the Minister
of Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the
level it was prior to the 1993‑94 budget.
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Clif Evans). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?
(agreed)
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out the
cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has been
in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that
the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Martindale). 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? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 1,000 young adults are currently
attempting to get off welfare and upgrade their education through the Student
Social Allowances Program; and
WHEREAS
WHEREAS the provincial government has already
changed social assistance rules resulting in increased welfare costs for the
City of
WHEREAS the provincial government is now
proposing to eliminate the Student Social Allowances Program; and
WHEREAS eliminating the Student Social
Allowances Program will result in more than a thousand young people being
forced onto city welfare with no means of getting further full‑time
education, resulting in more long‑term costs for city taxpayers.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that
the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Ms. Barrett). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out the
cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has been
in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that
the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Ashton). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the state of Highway 391 is becoming
increasingly unsafe; and
WHEREAS due to the poor condition of the road
there have been numerous accidents; and
WHEREAS the condition of the road between
Thompson and Nelson House is not only making travel dangerous but costly due to
frequent damage to vehicles; and
WHEREAS this road is of vital importance to
residents who must use the road.
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 Law Amendments): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Ninth
Report of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Law Amendments
presents the following as its Ninth Report.
Your committee met on Thursday, July 15, 1993,
at 7 p.m. in Room 255 of the
Your committee heard representation on bills
as follows:
Bill 40‑The Legal
Aid Services Society of Manitoba Amendment and Crown Attorneys Amendment Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Societe d'aide juridique du Manitoba et la Loi sur
les procureurs de la Couronne
Douglas N. Abra, Q.C. ‑ Law Society of
Your committee has considered:
Bill 27‑The
Environment Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la Loi sur l'environnement
and
has agreed to report the same with the following amendment:
MOTION:
THAT
section 5 of the Bill be amended by striking out "coming into force of the
regulation" and substituting "coming into force of this Act".
Your committee has also considered:
Bill
36‑The Highway Traffic Amendment Act; Loi modifiant le Code de la route
Bill
40‑The Legal Aid Services Society of Manitoba Amendment and Crown
Attorneys Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Societe d'aide juridique
du Manitoba et la Loi sur les procureurs de la Couronne
Bill
44‑The Alcoholism Foundation Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Fondation manitobaine de lutte contre l'alcoolisme
et apportant des modifications correlatives a une autre loi
and
has agreed to report the same without amendment.
All
of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. Rose: I move, seconded by the honourable member for
La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the loge to my left, where we have with us
this afternoon Mr. Al Patterson, the former member for Radisson.
On
behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this
afternoon, sir.
Also, we have this afternoon seated in the
public gallery, Ms. Robin Friesen, the Altona Sunflower Festival Queen in
company of Ms. Natalie Firte, the Australian Festival Queen, and a guest.
On
behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this
afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Protection
of Children
Government
Policy Review
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
The
findings of Charlie Ferguson and the comments made by Keith Cooper raise some
very important and serious questions about whether the government is living up
to its mandate to protect children. I
would like to ask the acting Premier today whether he will consider reviewing,
rethinking and revisiting its policies and decisions as they affect children and
give us some assurances that they are working to strengthen their mandate to
protect children.
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, let me assure the House and the
people of
Foster
Parents
Training
Support
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
I
would like to ask the acting Premier or the Minister of Family Services whether
at this time now they will consider increasing the training component available
to foster parents and support for the Manitoba Foster Family Association, given
the fact that the abuse that happens in homes is often a result of not enough
training support for parents with higher risk children.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, certainly our department, in working with the agencies, is very
concerned about the recruitment, the licensing and training of foster parents.
There is a very rigid test that the agencies
go through before foster parents are licensed.
They must go through a criminal records check, a child abuse registry
check, a medical reference. Other
references must be brought forward.
Part of the ongoing component is for
training. In some of the changes in the
last budget, some 50 cents per day for each child in care, for each day in
care, has been directed towards the agency to continue with the training of
foster parents. This is an ongoing
initiative.
Certainly, one child being physically or
sexually abused while in care is one too many.
We will work with the agencies to do everything within our power to see
that that situation is made better.
* (1340)
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: That is appreciated, Mr. Speaker, but that
still does not address that issue of this government's cuts to supervision and
training, which are absolutely necessary.
Child and
Family Services Agencies Reduced Workweek
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, when I met with the chief executive officers of the agencies and the
agency board presidents, they agreed that while child welfare work was very
difficult, additional financial resources are not always the answer, and they
would put in place the same sort of management plan that they do on long
weekends to be sure that agencies are operating.
As
I have indicated, we have redirected some funds through the agencies for the
training of foster parents. I know from
talking with the board chairs and certainly with the executive directors of
those agencies, this is an ongoing issue that all child welfare agencies go
through.
We
are committed through a number of our reforms to work with those agencies to
make child care in
Child
Abuse
Zero
Tolerance
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, on July 12 the chair of the
child abuse committee of Winnipeg Child and Family Services wrote to the
Minister of Family Services a letter which I would like to table.
They point out that there is a contradiction
between this government's rhetoric in the Legislature and what they are
actually doing in terms of cutting funding.
They criticized the government for their misplaced priorities in terms
of deficit reduction but not giving enough funds to Child and Family Services
agencies.
I
would like to ask the Minister of Family Services: Why does his government have a zero tolerance
policy for domestic violence but not have a zero tolerance policy for child
abuse, which is a similarly very serious issue which this government should be
putting more resources into?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, I just indicated our concern and our willingness to work with
agencies. What we have been doing over
the last two years is to bring about a system‑wide reform of the system
to make the system more responsible, to make the agencies more responsive to
the issues that are out there.
We
have, in fact, established the Child Advocate's office, and he is just in the
final stages of hiring additional staff now to become operative.
We
have brought in and implemented the high‑risk indicators as an additional
tool for social workers to work with some very vulnerable people in
society. We have been in the process of
developing the automated service information system, which will go a long way
in co‑ordinating the work that is being done between agencies.
So
our commitment has been very strong, and we have brought about reforms to the
system that the system has been wanting for a number of years.
Alternative
Home Program
Cost Benefits
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister
of Family Services why a child was removed from the Alternative Home Program of
Macdonald Youth Services, an excellent program, whose evaluation is public and
showed that the cost to the system was less after children had been in the
Alternative Home Program. Why did they
remove a child which cost $33,000 more than leaving the same child in the
Alternative Home Program?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): I think
the member is aware that I am under substantial restrictions from discussing
specific cases here in the Legislature.
I
would offer that the member could be in contact with the agency, and I think he
would find there are other factors involved in the case management surrounding
various individuals, and another point of view probably will be offered by the
agency. I would urge the member, if he
truly wants information, to contact the agency in regard to cases like that.
* (1345)
Child Abuse
Committee
Report
Recommendations
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question
is: I would like to ask the minister if
he has read this report and if he is following up on their recommendations,
since the report, for example, points out that 57 percent of the children are
aboriginal in the Alternative Home Program and points out a need for more and
better facilities in northern
Has
the minister read these recommendations, and what changes is he going to
implement?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): There
are a number of issues surrounding the child welfare agencies that work with
aboriginal children, and this is why we have in place at the present time an
aboriginal or First Nations task force on child and family services, something
I am pleased that we are working with the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the
federal government on.
At
the same time, we have also put in place a service appeal panel to deal with
any specific cases that come forward at this time, but I have said consistently
that there is a need for some changes with the First Nations Child and Family
Services agency. We are looking forward to a report, probably in the next
couple of months, to bring forward recommendations on how we can best address
the issues surrounding First Nations children in care.
Western
Economic Co-operation
Health
Care System
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, day in,
day out in this House, we are reminded by the government that costs are
increasing and revenues are not. We in
the opposition are often criticized by them as having lots of ideas about how
to spend ever‑increasing amounts of money but not save those
dollars. I have, for some time, and I am
going to raise it again today, talked about western economic co‑operation
as a way to do that.
Today in Atlantic Canada, the Atlantic
Premiers are meeting in a dedicated conference to talk about furthering their
ever‑increasing co‑operation.
They are dedicating, as a part of that conference, health care costs.
My
question to the Deputy Premier this afternoon:
Given that the benefits of western economic co‑operation have been
identified, written about, researched now going on six years, and those savings
have been estimated at $5 billion and, further, it has been estimated that $600
million would be freed up annually only by joint drug and equipment purchases
between the western provinces, when is this government going to take this
seriously and take some leadership role in saving costs and rationalizing
health care services across the western provinces, so we can continue to offer
the high level of service Manitobans expect without facing the ever‑increasing
costs this government continually complains about?
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note the co‑operative
spirit of the Leader of the Liberal Party.
It may do well for him to take a look at some of the positive
initiatives this government is putting forward in legislative and economic
packages, and I would hope he would see that need for co‑operation within
this setting and, as well, to support some of the positive objectives.
Our
Premier and this government have taken the lead to try to remove some of the
interprovincial trade barriers between our provinces, taking a very aggressive
role. I would expect, Mr. Speaker, you
can continue to see good common‑sense, constructive policies and issues
put forward at Premiers' conferences led by the Premier of
Government
Commitment
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): The fact is this
Premier, this government, have not achieved anywhere near the level of co‑operation
they have in Atlantic Canada. We have
every reason to do it.
Mr.
Chapman, the chairman of the board of the Health Sciences Centre, the largest
medical institution in this province, is reported as saying: If groups of provinces banded together to
offer a complete range of programs, it could result in substantial savings.
Add
to that the fact that
Will the Deputy Premier commit on behalf of
the government to assign one of the ministers of that cabinet to take under his
or her wing the issue of western economic co‑operation and show some
leadership on this issue, and get past the partisan politics of this and work
together with western provinces to achieve these savings for all of our
benefit?
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that
good, common‑sense objectives and approaches will be carried forward by
this Premier (Mr. Filmon).
I
can, as well, point out to the honourable Leader of the second opposition
party, I am encouraged by the thoughts of the Canadian public towards the new
Prime Minister of Canada and the support which we have seen in the polls
advancing to some 40 percent, that kind of leadership. Of course, I know the member would not be
happy with how the federal Leader is dropping to some 23 percent, and, of
course, I am sure the NDP party, at some 5 percent in the polls this morning,
it would be very discouraging to them.
But
I say, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we work with the federal
government, we work with the provinces to better the conditions of all
Canadians.
* (1350)
Mr. Edwards: It is precisely that very, very low level of
partisan discussion on behalf of this government which means that economic co‑operation
in a nonpartisan way does not happen.
That is the result, that is the cause, that type of discussion, Mr.
Speaker.
My
question for the Deputy Premier: When is
he going to take this issue seriously, not in a partisan vein, but take it
seriously for all of our benefits, regardless of the tenure of his government
or the political stripe of other governments, and work toward the savings which
are there to be made so we can save this health care system for future
generations in this province?
When is he going to take it seriously and show
some leadership?
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, let me assure the member that
there is a genuine interest on behalf of this government and the people of
I
have clearly indicated we have led in the whole area of trying to break down
interprovincial trade barriers, particularly in western
Home Care
Program
Program
Reductions‑Justification
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): Mr. Speaker, it is written: He hath shown you, O man, what is good; . . .
but to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
My
question to the honourable acting First Minister: Does he think his government is doing justice
when his Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) has proposed changes to the Home Care
Program that would adversely affect seniors and the disabled who want to
continue living independently in their own homes?
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member, as the
Minister of Health has assured this House and the people of
That, Mr. Speaker, is the only thing we are
talking about here, nothing more.
Deputy
Premier's Intervention
Mr. Conrad
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that the
Minister of Health and this government, when you look at the record of putting
some $69 million now in the home care field compared to $38 million that was in
the home care field when we took office some five years ago, I do not believe
our Minister of Health has to make any apology.
What is happening is an advancement and a
continuation of the polices that were in place in 1985 introduced by Howard
Pawley, where, in fact, individuals in the seniors community who are able to
pay for housekeeping needs will be expected to do so.
Mr. Santos: Mr. Speaker, will the honourable acting First
Minister talk to his Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and persuade his Minister
of Health that the changes in imposing user fees on ostomies and on equipment
in the Home Care Program are doing injustice to people who cannot afford them
and therefore are depriving them of the opportunity to maintain their self‑esteem
and self‑respect in living in their homes?
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that I
will speak to the Minister of Health, and I can assure him that in that discussion,
what will be disclosed is that the policies being administered by this
government are the same as those that were introduced in 1985 by Howard Pawley
and the NDP government.
I
will, as well, make sure that all of the people of
* (1355)
Home Care
Program
Impact of
Program Reductions
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, the only difference between that
policy is they have removed $3 million from the budget. They are now charging for home care
supplies. You now have to pay $300 for
ostomy supplies.
Mr.
Speaker, will the acting Premier at least be forthright with the public and
advise them that this drastic change is causing hardship to seniors and the
disabled, and will he make that announcement before the rally scheduled for
this Wednesday?
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, what I will assure the member
of, as the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) has done, is that in those areas
that pertain to health care and essential needs of the seniors in our society,
they will be looked after. We have
increased the Home Care budget by some $30 million‑plus in five
years. I think the seniors can well sort
out for themselves that we are in fact looking after those essential needs and
will continue to do so. That is the
message the Minister of Health will continue to put out.
Gretchen
Family
Romanian
Adoption
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the Health
minister (Mr. Orchard): Given the very
unique situation regarding the Gretchen family insofar as a sister is now
adopted and the fact they have already adopted the child in
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as
notice for the Minister of Health.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary to the
First Minister (Mr. Filmon) in regard to that same question: I understand the Gretchen family has
requested a meeting with the Premier to be able to present their specific
circumstances. Will the Premier
undertake to meet with the family in order that he can hear their particular
circumstances?
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as
notice as well for the First Minister.
Child
Abuse
Foster
Home Statistics
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (
Mr.
Speaker, when a child is taken from a family it is normally done so because
they have been physically or sexually assaulted, or where there are strong
allegations to believe that they have been sexually or physically assaulted,
that child is then normally placed in foster care. If even a third of the allegations we heard
this weekend are correct, then those children are being betrayed a second
time. But perhaps what shocked me more
than anything else was the information that the Department of Family Services
keeps no statistics of the number of children who have been abused in foster
care.
Will the Minister of Family Services explain
why they do not keep such statistics?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, those statistics are kept by the agencies, and this morning I have
instructed my staff to be sure that the agencies regularly pass those
statistics on to the department.
Children's
Advocate
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, the Child Advocate works under legislation that this House unanimously
passed in the last session.
I
indicated in an earlier answer that the Advocate is currently in the final
stages of hiring. The purpose of the
Advocate is to look after the rights, interests and viewpoint of the children
that come into care. The office has been
modeled after offices in
I
would remind the member that part of the legislation is after the Child
Advocate has had some experience over the next three years that we will review
the legislation under which he operates.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, the minister is well aware that
none of the opposition parties supported the concept of a Child Advocate not
being independent from the ministry.
Foster
Parents
Training
Support
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (
* (1400)
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, the agencies have traditionally been responsible for the recruitment
and the licensing of agencies. Now they
will also be responsible for the training component.
We
have had the agencies dedicate 50 cents per day for every child in care. That degree of funding is $571,000 which the
agencies can use for the ongoing training of foster parents. That figure
exceeds the amount of money that was dedicated through the Foster Family
Association in the past for that particular function.
Rail Line
Repairs
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Can
the Minister of Highways and Transportation tell us what conversations he has
had with CN and what assurances he can give farmers that these lines will be
repaired and they will be able to deliver grain at those elevators?
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister
of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, this question was raised last
week. Staff have been getting in touch
with CN. We are trying to get a
definitive answer exactly as to a specific time frame as to how long it will
take until these repairs get completed.
We do not have that at the present time.
We know the dilemma that the farmers are in, in terms of grain movement,
and we are trying to work together with the railway to see whether we can
accommodate it somehow.
I
am very pleased to also announce that late yesterday afternoon Highway 10 is
now open and traffic is flowing through again.
Rail Line
Repairs
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Can
the minister tell us then, since this area was declared a disaster area, does
the same funding formula apply to CN to repair the lines as applies to
municipalities? Has he had that
discussion with the federal government about putting funds in to repair the CN
lines in that area?
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister of Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, first of all to the member, CN works on their own in regard to the
disaster area. The Disaster Assistance
Board that we have arrangements‑‑and we look after the municipal
and the private. Those are the ones that
will be looked after by our Disaster Assistance in a formula we have with the
federal government.
Crop Year
Extension
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Since the farmers in the area are under
tremendous financial pressure and cannot afford to lose their quota for this
year and the crop year is ending on July 31, has the minister had any
discussion with the Canadian Wheat Board about extending the quota until such
time as the lines are repaired so they can sell their grain under this crop
year's quota?
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, in past
circumstances where there has been difficulty by farmers to get grain
delivered, the Wheat Board has usually been very lenient in terms of extending
the end of the crop year.
The
member can rest assured that I will be asking the Wheat Board if they plan to
do that up there, but I am pretty sure they have already moved in that
direction because they have always done it in the past.
Bill 43
Justification
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Acting
Minister responsible for the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation (Mrs. McIntosh).
Today in committee, concerns were raised about
this government's plans for gambling and the expansion of gaming initiatives in
this province, Mr. Speaker. In view of
the fact that Bill 43 changes the status of the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation
to that of a Crown corporation, will the minister now confirm that the purpose
of this move is to create an arm's‑length relationship that would allow
the government to deflect criticisms of the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation?
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as
notice for the minister.
Mr. Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I will table the briefing notes
leaked to us which state that the purpose of Bill 43 is to deflect criticism of
government expansion of gaming in this province.
Why
is this government pretending that the changes to the Crown corporation will
remove this government from responsibility for the explosion of gaming in this
province?
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, not accepting the method by
which they received their information, I will take that question as notice for
the minister.
Gambling
Impact on
Veterans' Organizations
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate, but it
appears that several veterans' organizations will be forced to close this year
because of the members opposite, because of their gaming policy.
What action is the Minister responsible for
Lotteries (Mrs. Mitchelson) prepared to take to prevent the closure of these
veterans' organizations?
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, just in taking the question as
notice, I can assure the member that the members on this side of the House and
the work that my colleague the Minister responsible for Lotteries has done to
make sure that the legions of this province have received some acknowledgement
in forwarding additional funds, is one area of demonstration of support for
those individuals.
Grain
Exports
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, next week marks the 50th Annual
Convention for the
I
want to ask the Minister of Highways and Transportation: Can he indicate for
the benefit of members of this House what volumes of grain will be exported
through the
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, there is a commitment of, I
believe, 75,000 tonnes at the present time and there is speculation that‑‑
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, that is the commitment that is
made now. I have also had rumours,
conjectures, nothing definitive. The Wheat Board does not give you anything
definite until they have the sale made.
We are still hopeful that it will be well over 300,000 tonnes by the
time we get through with this season, which is still not acceptable because we
still have to get that figure of 500,000 tonnes before it is going to be viable
to operate that port.
Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, we had been hoping to hear
somewhere in the line of a million metric tonnes, not the 300,000 that have
been historic with this government.
Status
Report
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Can the minister report on any successes that
this government has had with respect to the
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, the first success is that this
government have acknowledged the need to try to diversify the activity that
takes place through the
Mr.
Speaker, as well, the work that the Minister of Highways and Transportation
(Mr. Driedger) has done to continue to encourage the minister responsible for
the Canadian Wheat Board and the Wheat Board to continue to move grain, I
believe has brought forward some evidence of support.
Mr. Reid: Since he made the statement on February 17 of
this year that said, the feasibility study could produce results as early as
the summer of 1993, can the Deputy Premier indicate what results his agreement
with
Mr. Downey: Again, Mr. Speaker, what it is, is an
acknowledgement of other opportunities for the
When there is a report and anything further to
inform this House or the people of
School
Division
Boundary
Review Consultations
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, much of what this government is
doing is veiled in secrecy. Last week I
asked, for example, the Minister of Education what her plans were of the
government with regard to boundary review for school divisions in this province
and received no answer.
Can
the Minister of Education indicate today that she will not impose a boundary
solution but will, in fact, put in place a process of review under which the
educational partners are having input, will have input and will be consulted on
all aspects of it?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): The
member did ask a question on boundary review last week, and it seemed to me he
put forward before the House last week a proposal, which I think if he looks
back, was the proposal of that party when they were in government for the
boundaries of this province.
Mr.
Speaker, I have made it very clear, I will be making that announcement very
shortly, and the member will then have the opportunity to look at the plan, but
he put forward what previously they would liked to have laid out for the
province.
* (1410)
Announcement
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, clearly the minister is afraid
to put her position forward before the Legislature is out.
I
have to ask the Minister of Education:
Why is she delaying the announcement while this House is in
session? Is it because she does not want
to be questioned about her announcement before the people of
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): The
announcement I will be making on behalf of government for boundary review will
be very shortly.
Mr. Plohman: Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask whether it
will be before this House adjourns, because clearly the minister seems to be
afraid to report to this House and is afraid to follow what is normal practice
in parliamentary democracy, which is to report to this particular Chamber.
Will she commit today to making this
announcement while we are still in session, so that we can question the
minister on all aspects of that particular proposal?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, the answer is still the same. I will be making an announcement very
shortly.
Gambling
Facilities
Promotion
Objectives
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): My question is for
the Deputy Premier.
Mr.
Speaker, on Friday last week, the Minister of Lotteries (Mrs. Mitchelson)
indicated in response to a question from me that the reason they were going to
be sending out membership card applications and continuing to spend millions of
dollars to promote lotteries was to stem the flow of Manitobans spending their
lotteries dollars elsewhere.
In
fact, we learned in a report over the weekend that this flow of dollars to
gamble in the
My
question for the Deputy Premier: What
substantive report assessment does he have to produce to prove in any way,
shape or form that the millions of dollars being spent by this government to
promote gambling stem the flow of gambling dollars to the
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as
notice for the Minister of Lotteries, but in doing so, I would like to assure
the member that we have far more information than what his party had or his
colleague had‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister has already indicated
that he has taken the question as notice.
Minors‑Game
Restrictions
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question for the minister is:
Can he indicate‑‑in the form sent out by the Lotteries
Foundation it indicates that no admittance to anyone under 14 years of age;
someone under 18 must be accompanied by a parent, guardian or spouse; no one
under 18 allowed to play electronic games.
What is there to be played by minors under the age of 18? Nonelectronic
games? Can the minister indicate what
they are selling to minors to gamble with in‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, let me assure the member that
this government is handling responsibly the issue which has been raised. My colleague is very much dealing responsibly
with the issues of lotteries and lotteries activities in the
Having said that I will take it as notice, the
question‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister has already answered
the question.
Minors‑Entrance
Statistics
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Can the minister
indicate what percentage of the people who are coming to these gambling palaces
are indeed under the age of 14? Can he
indicate how many people have entered, out of these some 200,000 who have
visited these palaces, who are under the age of 18 and precisely how much those
minors are spending in these gambling palaces in this province?
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, not accepting any of the
comments of the member previous to the taking of notice, I will take the question
as notice and get the information.
Child
Abuse High Risk Indicators
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services what he intends to
do with those children who are currently identified as high risk and will most
certainly be identified as high risk after the high‑risk indicator
becomes fully operational, when his government is cutting‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): First
and foremost, the high‑risk indicators are used at the front end to
determine whether this is a child who needs to be taken into care. By and large, that is the appropriate time to
use that.
Once taken into care,
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, those very programs are the
programs that are being cut.
What is the Minister of Family Services going
to do for those high‑risk children who have already been identified in
our system and who are now spending time in inappropriate foster care families,
in motels and in insecure, unsafe situations?
What is he going‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Mr. Gilleshammer: We will continue to work with the agencies so
that they have the tools to make the appropriate decisions. I have a great deal of respect for those
professional social workers, their supervisors, the directors of the agencies
that they will place children in the most appropriate care.
However, having said that, the recruitment of
foster homes is an ongoing task that the agencies are involved in. They continue to apply the standards that
have been set in place for over a decade now to find those appropriate
placements. In some cases, the decision
to place children in foster homes is the most appropriate. In other cases, they will go to the various
levels of treatment facilities.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Committee
Changes
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Law Amendments for the 9 a.m., July 19 session be amended as follows: the member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh) for
the member for River East (Mrs. Mitchelson).
I
move, seconded by the member for
Motions agreed to.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, is
there a willingness of the House to waive private members' hour?
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private
members' hour? (agreed)
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I will be making announcements
on committees sometime a little bit later this afternoon, but there will be
some committee changes.
At
this time, would you call Bill 41.
DEBATE ON
SECOND
Bill 41‑The
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), Bill 41, The Provincial Parks and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant les parcs provinciaux et apportant
des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
Stand?
Is there leave?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No, leave is denied.
Point of
Order
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, the
member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) is prepared to speak on the bill, but he
was deferring to the Liberal Leader as a matter of courtesy, and we would ask
the bill be called again immediately after the Liberal Leader speaks.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave at this time to allow Bill 41
to remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows? Is there leave, as the House has already
indicated that there was no leave? Yes,
there is leave? (agreed)
* * *
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I stand
today to speak on Bill 41, The Provincial Parks and Consequential Amendments
Act. Let me say at the outset that this
bill constitutes for us, for our party, a very large disappointment.
I
will articulate some of the reasons for that in general terms, but I also want
to simply indicate that as the bill currently stands, we find we cannot support
it. We have been waiting for a long time
for a new parks act, and it is indeed regrettable to us that this act has come
forward in its current form.
Now,
Mr. Speaker, having said that, we, of course, look forward to the very many
presentations which I understand have been scheduled to be made at the
committee stage, and we will listen very closely to those.
But, Mr. Speaker, one of the largest difficulties
I have with this bill is that it continues to entrench, not just to deal with
past commitments on logging rights and licences which were let in provincial
parks, but puts into place a procedure, albeit one that there is some
consultation over, but puts into place a legislated framework for continuing to
grant new licences, to do virtually anything inside provincial parks. That power ultimately rests with the
responsible minister.
* (1420)
Mr.
Speaker, as there often is in these, there is a very, very broad, and written
with a certain amount of flourish, preamble which talks about the provincial
parks being special places that play an important role in the protection, and
the word there is "protection," of natural lands and the quality of
life of Manitobans.
It
talks about: "WHEREAS existing and
future provincial parks should be managed in a manner consistent with the
principles of sustainable development so that representative examples of
diverse natural and cultural heritage are conserved and appropriate economic
opportunites are provided."
It
is with that last portion that I take issue with the minister's and the
government's view of the economic opportunities available in parks. Their view of those economic opportunities
are based in large part on resource extraction in those provincial parks, not
simply on the tourism and the recreational aspects and the economic
opportunities which flow from that, but from resource extraction.
So,
Mr. Speaker, I find that the government's view of that statement is
inconsistent and indeed contradictory with the earlier statement in the
preamble that the provincial parks are to play an important role in the
protection of natural lands in the province.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to just indicate that I understand the importance of logging
and forestry in this province. I
understand that it is a very large industry in this province. I understand the importance of the mining
industry. I have spoken on many, many
occasions on the importance of those industries and support the government's‑‑any
efforts they make to encourage investment in those areas and the creation of
jobs for Manitobans in those areas; however, we also need to have land set
aside which does not become subject to the same type of economic decisions that
occur around the province.
That is what a park is. It should mean something in terms of the
protection of the natural habitat. The
preamble says that. I would like to hold the government to their preamble. It sounds good; it is good. Why is it not brought out in the details of
the ad?
Mr.
Speaker, the fact is that aside from all of the process improvements‑‑and
they are there in terms of management committees, development of a plan and
different classifications of provincial parks‑‑the fact is that if
you look at Section 7(5), the restrictions in a wilderness park or in an area
of any other provincial park that is categorized as a wilderness, backcountry
or heritage land use, that talks about no person engaging in logging, mining or
the development of oil.
But
that it is a very restricted part of this overall scheme. That is one part of the scheme. The fact is that by making that exception, the
rule becomes that those things are allowed:
logging, mining, development of oil, petroleum, natural gas or
hydroelectric power. Now, the only
defence that I have heard from this government, to continuing resource
extraction as a part of our parks strategy, is they say, we made commitments,
logging rights, licences were let, we cannot simply confiscate those, make
those valueless at this point. We have
commitments which we have to keep.
I
accept that there are commitments which we need to honour, either buy them out
or honour them. I am prepared to discuss
and learn about the extent of those commitments, and honour them. Why are we
putting into this act, the provision, the ability to continue that practice and
indeed grant new licences, new permits for mining and logging in our provincial
parks? That is the only defence that I
have heard from the government to continuing resource extraction as a part of
our so‑called parks strategy.
Mr.
Speaker, I look forward to hearing from the minister, because I do not see it
in his comments on the bill, and the Premier (Mr. Filmon), who also has made
efforts to defend this legislation, as to why they want to continue to have the
right to grant new, not respect old, but grant new resource extraction rights
and licences in our provincial parks.
Mr.
Speaker, I think the government has to be prepared to have the terminology
"park" and the designation "park" mean something, more than
perhaps a slightly more cumbersome process to get the resource extraction
permit. It denotes in the public mind
that the land has been set aside, that it is being preserved and that there are
obviously economic opportunities like recreation, tourism.
We
want that, but the public does not believe and I think has been led to not
believe that resource extraction is a part of the strategy. I see in here, once you cut away all of the
new buzzwords and the processes, and I have already said some of which I am in
favour of and I think are good‑‑the consultation and the need to
have plans in place‑‑but once you cut all that away, the bottom
line is the minister will make the decision.
That is what happened with The Wildlife Act
last session. We are bringing into the
minister's control the ability essentially to bypass in any way he deems fit
all of the other nice words in this act.
Again, it is a lot like The Wildlife Act. I feel a bit like deja vu. We are going through it again. There is lots of good language in here, but
at the end of the day, none of it sticks.
It is executive authority which is going to rule the day on this, Mr.
Speaker, and it is the Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council who
makes those designations at the end of the day.
Mr.
Speaker, I believe we should give Manitobans a higher level of assuredness that
we really do want to, and let me quote the preamble, create special places that
play an important role in the protection of natural lands. That is what parks are about to me, the
protection of natural lands. I do not
see in here any ultimate protection of those natural lands for current
Manitobans and future generations.
Mr.
Speaker, that, in a nutshell, is my major complaint with this bill. Let me also talk on the second major head of
concern I have about the concerns that many who own property in the parks have
with this bill.
The
fact is, Mr. Speaker, there are many individuals in the province who have made
significant investments in our parks. They have consistently complained that
they do not receive a level of services, and so they have banded together in
many circumstances to give themselves those services‑‑road
clearing, garbage pickup and those types of things.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in
the Chair)
What has come into place here now is the Parks
Branch, the minister essentially, being able to impose those levies, akin to
taxes, property taxes of a sort, without the same commitment to the level of
services, and secondly, of course, there is the problem of representation and
how those people who have that property, who own that property are going to be
adequately able to hold the people who are levying the tax accountable. It is a principle which is well enough known
in our culture and our system, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is called no taxation without
representation. It was a principle that
the
I
have met with representatives from these various organizations, and they have
very serious concerns, indeed. I know
that they will be coming forward. I
suspect that they are a significant portion of the 170‑odd people who are
listed to present, and I look forward to their fuller discussion on these
points.
* (1430)
What the legislation essentially says is that
the minister will decide what the payments shall be, not only for current
costs, but for any previous deficits.
That is what I am led to believe.
An Honourable Member: It sounds pretty fair to me.
Mr. Edwards: The minister says that sounds pretty fair to
him. I suspect that he as a taxpayer would not stand for this. He as a minister is prepared to put it into
place. (interjection) I am sure he does pay taxes, but I suspect that the
Minister of Natural Resources would be the first in this House to want to abide
by the age‑old principle that you should not have to pay taxes unless you
also have an opportunity through direct representation and elections to
determine who makes the decision.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not good enough
for a small group spread out over this province to have some indirect control
over the minister through the general election or nonelection of the
government. That is not good
enough. You need direct ability as an entity,
as a region, as a group to determine who should set those taxes and deliver
those services. That, I think, is the
philosophical mistake that is being made by this government; it is not offering
that direct link between taxation and representation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as I said at the outset,
this bill is a very grave disappointment to our party. We look forward to a parks act that would
raise the stature of
I
want the minister between now and when we get to committee to think long and
hard about the word "protection," because protection, as I understand
it, does not envisage extraction of resources.
It involves the preservation of those resources. That is what the word
"protection" means. It was
important enough for him to put in the opening preamble statement, and I would
like him to think about the word "protection" and what it means to
him because it does not mean to me having an act which you could drive a Mack
truck through in terms of getting new rights to extract resources.
I
have no problem honouring past commitments, forestry licences and mining
licences. That is not my problem. We could have grandfathered those in this
act, but we have done something else. We
have continued the right to grant new licences, and that is a large
disappointment.
The
government is continuing to want at an executive level‑‑not coming
through this House to change the act, but rather at an executive level, the
Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council and the Orders‑in‑Council
which flow‑‑to preserve unto itself on an ad hoc basis, from time
to time, from place to place, from area to area, to bypass the whole essence of
the parks act and continue to allow resource extraction economic activity to
take place on a continuing new basis into the future. That is inconsistent with the whole principle
of parks, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I
call the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) and I call the minister to think long and
hard about what they meant by special places that play an important role in the
protection of natural lands. I want to
hear from them at the committee how they define protection and how they equate
protection of natural resources with a legislated statutory right to continue
to extract those natural resources from these natural, special places in this
province.
I
want to understand from them what guarantee ultimately, other than procedural
steps, they can give to Manitobans that when they set aside a park, they mean
business in terms of protecting those parks for future generations, and that
means preserving the natural habitat, the flora and fauna in those areas
against the incursion of resource extraction activities.
We
have massive areas in this province where those can take place. Madam Deputy Speaker, I dare say we in this
province surely can see our way to set aside parks and have those parks mean
something for the protection of those flora and fauna for future generations.
We
will oppose this legislation as currently written. At this stage, we will listen closely to the
proposals for amendment at the committee stage.
Unless this bill is radically altered in the key areas I have outlined
today, I can see no other recourse but to continue to object to and oppose this
legislation as it works its way through the legislative process. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
* (1440)
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise
and speak on this bill. It is a very
important bill. It deals with long‑standing
difficult issues in the province, and I think there are a number of people who
are disappointed in the way the government has chosen to deal with these
issues.
In
consultation with groups interested in parklands in the province, it is
described by them as a travesty and as flying in the face of sustainable
development which the government continues to claim that they understand and
support. As I said, it is trying to deal
with contentious issues in sustainable development, with resource extraction
and areas to be protected.
I
think the bill is failing to do that in a way that is going to serve the long‑term
interests of our natural heritage and essentially the province. It deals with the essence of the purpose of
parks. That is the main problem that so
many of us have with the legislation, is it is radically and dramatically
changing why we have provincial parks, and it is going backwards.
The
previous legislation which was developed I think over 20 years ago was better
than this in terms of environment and sustainability. Even though we like to think that we are
moving forward in that area, we can see from this legislation that the
government is really only creating a facade or providing lip service to a
number of principles of protection, of diversity.
We
have seen through the unsaid process in
That is set out in a number of areas of the
bill. It is set out in a contradictory
way, as well, because when the bill first starts out talking about the purpose
of parks as being in one paragraph for protection of natural lands and the
quality of life of Manitobans, right in the next part of the preamble in the
legislation, it has the phrase, and appropriate economic opportunities are
provided. So it is contradicting itself
in the legislation and it is leaving, once again, as we have seen more and more
from this government, a lot of discretion up to the minister.
We
can speculate for a minute on some of the reasons that the government would do
this. We can talk about their wanting to
prevent any kind of challenges, court challenges, that could come forward with
respect to some of the agreements they have signed and the direction that
resource extraction is taking in the province.
We can also look at the recommendations that came forward from the Clean
Environment Commission which now, I guess, would be very impossible to
implement, and they would be protected from having any kind of court action
stem from those kinds of recommendations.
I
think that many people in
We
only have one park in
The
fact that the legislation is saying that there must now be a systems plan and a
management plan for each park is positive, but the fact that there is so much
of the discretion, particularly under the systems plan, left up to the
minister's discretion and that there is no requirement for consultation in this
area is a big concern.
This area also could supersede The Environment
Act so that we would not have full public hearings, all the information in the
public registry, and public announcements, which are all part of The
Environment Act.
This system's plan is, in some ways, the
important area because that is part of the plan that is going to designate which
part of the province is going to be protected and which is not. That is where
we are going to be dealing, in a large sense, with all of the competing
interests.
It
is interesting to note that this legislation is coming in at a time when we
still do not have a forestry policy in the province. We still do not have the government dealing
with the fact that we have been operating on an ad hoc basis in terms of
forestry policy.
We
cannot continue to go in this direction.
We cannot continue to have the government, on the one hand, saying that
they are committed to the Endangered Spaces Campaign, but to have nothing in
the legislation that is going to indicate how they are going to arrive at
this. We know that the minister is not
doing well in terms of that campaign. We
are waiting to see some concrete action plans, and we are waiting to see how it
is that that commitment is going to be maintained under this bill.
When I was talking before about the systems
plan, it is important to recognize that the patchwork in each park of having
resource, economic development, recreation and some small areas protected in
one park is not going to be in keeping with the needs of wildlife and the needs
of maintaining the variety of ecosystems in the province that this government
has said that they are committed to doing.
Some of the new classifications outlined in
the bill are quite misleading, and it is clear that the government just is not
being up front when they talk about a natural park. But then they say that it is " . . . to
accommodate a diversity of recreational opportunities and resource uses."
Well, this is not a part of what one would
think of as a natural park. It is
disconcerting to think that we could have something designated, an area
designated as a natural park, and then have areas within that that are being
turned into what actually would be an industrial park, would actually be there
for the purpose of resource extraction.
So one of the things that we would be asking for is: Let us be a little bit more clear and honest
with the kinds of headings that we are using to designate certain areas as
natural.
One
of the other things that is positive is that we now would like to think there
is going to be more incumbency on the government to follow through with what is
already outlined in regulations. There
are already 12 regulations for classifications, and there are regulations that
are in place saying that the government has to develop management plans on
parks, but they have not been following through on this. We now have this simply put into legislation.
I
do not know if that is going to strengthen the government's commitment to doing
that or if it is going to mean that there will be more incumbency on them to
follow through, but we still have not seen any kind of time frame on that. It is still quite concerning to think, with
the number of staff that are available in the department, that it could still
be a long time before we see all the parks in
There are some other concerns with the land
use categories, what they are trying to do, even in the wilderness area in
I
think one of the other things that we have to look at in terms of the
legislation is how this government is going to conduct the consultations. We had some concern with the meetings on
lands and special places booklet, the sustainable development booklet, that
there was not the same kind of participation by all groups that are interested. I am concerned that we will see an
overrepresentation, particularly in certain areas of the province, that would
sway the decisions of the government. I
think that has happened in the past.
In
terms of the fees for housing and cottage development in parks, I think it is
moving in a direction that we have to have some kind of fair tax revenue
collected for people in the province, no matter where they live. It is unfortunate that in some provincial
parks in the province we have so much development, even though the area is in a
park, that it seems to be a municipality and that it should have some kind of
special designation other than what it has.
* (1450)
Maybe in closing I will just talk briefly
about one of the ways the government has excused itself from the resource
extraction in provincial parks, and that is to say that in many cases, those
areas were designated for resource use prior to the parks being there, but when
you look at how they have moved with other legislation, Bill 22, for example,
you can see they have very little regard for agreements made with their own
workers and that they can legislate changes in those areas, so we can also see
that there could be negotiated changes made in areas pertaining to provincial
parks.
I
am not saying that should be done in a heavy‑handed way. I do not think anyone is saying that we
should be eliminating jobs, but I think as we keep hearing that times are
changing and we have statements such as that coming from the round table on a
regular basis, that we have to start seriously looking at how we have done
things in the past and how that has destroyed so much of our natural
environmental wealth and how that has destroyed so much of our planet. We have to start looking at how we can change
legislation and change our practices so that is going to not happen in the
future.
This bill does not do that. This bill continues to place the economic use
of our wilderness areas ahead of other uses.
As I said at the beginning, that is very clear because it is going
backward and it is being more permissive to development than the previous
legislation.
I
think the government has not lived up to its commitment with this bill. We have been looking forward to it for quite
awhile in this province, and it is going to, I think, put
With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will close
my remarks and just reiterate that this legislation is not in keeping with any
movement toward sustainable use of our wilderness areas, and I am quite
disappointed in the legislation. Thank
you.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk a
little bit about some of
The
parks we have been to have all been quite different (interjection) Yes, my
colleague for the Interlake says I should mention Hecla. In fact, this past weekend I was at
Well, I actually noticed some things that
concerned me that I was going to report to the park gate, but I was in a hurry
when I left. I will pass on those
concerns. I do not know whether it is
because of this government's cutbacks or not, and it would not be fair to say
it was because I do not know about the level of service in the past as opposed
to level of service in that park in the present and whether the staff are
underworked or overworked or whatever.
While I was there, we went to Hecla village,
and they were having a reunion for the people who had come from Hecla. So the former schoolhouse was open, and the
house museum was open. It was quite
interesting. I talked to some of the former
residents there. I think the government
has commemorated a number of the historic sites there and made it interesting
for visitors like ourselves to visit.
I
have visited and camped in Birds Hill, Whiteshell,
So
we are hoping to go back to
The
act has a number of very interesting parts, and probably one of the more
interesting parts is the purpose of provincial parks. The minister spells out a number of different
purposes including conservation, preservation, recreation and education and
economic opportunities. Probably the
section on economic opportunities will be the most controversial and probably
the part that the public will have the most to say about, although I am sure
that fees, particularly for cottagers, will be controversial as well.
We
have family friends who have a cottage in a provincial park, and I need to talk
to them and find out what they feel about the fees. I am sure that this minister will hear many
representations from the public about the fees and their relative fairness or
unfairness.
The
reason that we have this bill is that the government would like to clarify land
use policy in parks and develop a framework for the development of future
parks. Some of this is the result of the
Clean Environment Commission report on Abitibi‑Price logging and
I
think a lot will probably depend on the regulations, as is often the case, and
as to what this minister and his government enacts and over what period of time
and what happens first and what happens last. (interjection) We will not be
giving this minister 12 years to enact this bill; that is for sure.
(interjection) Well, that is true, the electorate will ultimately decide that,
but we would certainly hope that it would not be left to this government to
take 12 terms to enact this legislation.
The
issue of fees was supposed to be addressed last year, and the minister withdrew
the bill, partly due to public concerns. Those concerns are still there, and I
am sure the minister will be hearing about them during the committee stage.
Also there was a desire on the part of the
government to put the classification and land use category scheme into the act
instead of in the regulations. Quite
often people have concerns about what is in the act and what is in the
regulations.
From my short time here, I would say that
usually people who are lobbying the government prefer to see things in the act,
rather than in the regulations because they can see it up front. They know as
soon as the bill is available what is in it, whereas, frequently, people do not
have much trust in government, and they say, well, the problem with the
regulations is we do not know what they are going to be. We do not have public input before they are
announced because Order‑in‑Council means they are just
announced. It is a cabinet decision.
* (1500)
As
to whether that is true in this case or not, I will reserve judgment. That does not necessarily mean that having
things that were in the regulations in the act is an improvement.
The
bill has been promised by the minister for almost a year now. It is supposed to be the cure‑all for
all the trouble spots, logging, the 12 percent campaign, the wilderness park
development, the selling of parks, et cetera. It is doubtful that this will be the cure‑all. No doubt, some of these issues and concerns
will continue for some time, particularly if they are not addressed properly in
this bill.
The
old classification scheme will remain for the most part but the land uses are
now much clearer. Some things will be
clearer, but some things will be more confusing. The categories of land use will be in the
bill, but each park will have its own classification which may lead to
confusion. Each park will have its own
classification, land use category and management plan. All the parks‑‑and
I note there are 124 provincial parks‑‑must go through public
hearings and then receive their plans through cabinet order.
Certainly, from appearances, it would appear
that this is a good thing, to have public meetings and go through this process,
but does that mean there will be consistency or a lack of consistency? I would suggest that if there are 124 parks
and 124 sets of public meetings, and if ultimately we have 124 different
descriptions for 124 different parks, there could be a lack of
consistency. I will look forward to the
committee stage when we hear from the public as to whether people think this is
an improvement or going backward.
The
issue of fee for services for cottagers and new taxes on private landowners, no
doubt, will be very contentious for those people who are affected. I expect a number of those people have
probably already registered and we will hear from them. I have already heard the argument being used,
no taxation without representation. No
doubt, people will be using that argument. Landowners may be paying $500 per
year plus other expenses that the government may not have to justify.
All
parks will be operated on a sustainable basis.
What does that mean, and how will the government recover those monies,
and will it be for each particular park?
This government has talked a lot about the
endangered spaces 12 percent campaign.
They talk about it as one of their environmental initiatives. They have certainly given it a lot of ink
through press releases and speeches, et cetera, not just by this minister but
by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and others.
I do not think there is anything regarding the 12 percent campaign in
this bill.
The
government has made a commitment to the program, and they have created a lot of
public expectations. In fact, there is
probably a perception out there that the government is moving on this, but in
fact I do not think there has been very much action on it.
The
government is giving powers in the bill to ensure that land is available for
parks, through expropriation, et cetera. Of course that is a concern because we
have another bill on the Order Paper regarding changes to The Expropriation
Act, which I began to speak on, on Friday afternoon.
Hecla is probably a good example of what
happens when there is an expropriation.
I was talking to someone who came from Hecla at the museum on Sunday
afternoon, and she said, you know, it is too bad that the old people were not
allowed to at least retire there and live out their lives there if they so
chose. Now, I do not know whose government was in office when the expropriation
took part. I am sure the Minister of
Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) knows. So
maybe I should not get into it; maybe I should not have raised that particular
example.
But
the change‑‑(interjection) Well, I know what year the park opened,
and I know whose government was in office when the park was opened, but there
is a change in The Expropriation Act. I believe that people will be able to go
to court on matters of legal technicalities, matters of law, but not on matters
of evaluation. Of course, that is always
the most contentious part when it comes to government expropriating land.
So
there is a connection between these two bills.
If the government wants to expropriate land to set up a park, there is a
question about the rights of the individual property owner, and whether or not
that is being dealt with fairly. We have
criticized this bill, and said the new process is not fair because of the lack
of the appeal system‑‑
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources):
Reverend, it is genetically impossible for this government to treat
anybody unfairly.
Mr. Martindale: The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns)
says it is genetically impossible for this government to treat anyone
unfairly. It is too bad the minister has
already spoken to this bill or he might want to explain those remarks. I am not sure what that means. I do not think the minister knows what that
means either. I am sure that if our
member for
The
other concern that we have with this bill is that it is unclear what will be
done to resolve aboriginal land claims such as in the
We
should really, as legislators, keep this in mind with regard to every piece of
legislation and every government action, because we know that land claims‑‑and
actually that is not the correct word‑‑I should not use the
expression "land claims" in this context, we are really talking about
treaty land entitlement. Because the
treaties were signed, they were signed in good faith between our ancestors and
aboriginal First Nations, and according to the terms of treaties, they were
entitled to a certain number of acres per family or per individual.
Regrettably, the reserves were not measured to
the amount of land that was promised in the treaties. So now we have the treaty land entitlement
process in
So
I hope that does not happen with this bill.
I hope that this bill does not negatively impact on the obligation of
this government.
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Northern Affairs): It will
not.
Mr. Martindale: The Minister of Northern Affairs says from
his seat that it will not, and I would like to be able to say that I can take
the minister at his word. I suppose I
should say that, but there is a question here and I do not know the
answer. So I would not want to draw any
conclusions from his statement from his seat without knowing all the
facts. We will be watching to see if
this bill, in fact, has an impact on
The
purposes for the parks which are laid out, some of them we agree with, and
others we have concerns about. Certainly
conservation is something that parks have always tried to do, and no one would
quarrel with the purpose of conservation.
No one would quarrel with the purpose of preservation, particularly when
it comes to unique species and unique landscapes or landforms or anything. Also, recreation and education, no one would
have any quarrels with the purposes of recreation and education. Certainly,
those are probably the two parts of parks that the vast majority of the public
enjoys the most, and that is recreation and education. Certainly that is the part of parks that my
family and I enjoy the most.
I
wish I had had time to do a little research on this bill by talking to my
mother, for example, who has often given guided tours on botany. My mother is an amateur botanist and guides
tours through provincial parks and other places in southern
An Honourable Member: If your mother were here, she would say,
Doug, change parties.
Mr. Martindale: I think she would be a little more nonpartisan
and would be more concerned with this legislation and what this government is
doing, and particularly the environmental policies of this government and what
they are not doing in terms of the environment.
* (1510)
She
belongs to the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and other organizations that
have done a wonderful job as volunteers, as nongovernmental organizations, and
what they are doing there is they are contributing money and voluntarily buying
land to protect it so that it cannot be bought by private individuals and used
any way they want. I do not know if this
exists in
I
have not read about any examples in Manitoba, but it is probably‑‑well,
I would hope that this minister would encourage that kind of thing, that when
the government does not have enough resources to buy all the land that they
would like to buy, they would be open to having private citizens buy the land
and put it into a land trust or some kind of trust vehicle, community trust. There are a number of different vehicles in
the
An Honourable Member: The Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation
does that.
Mr. Martindale: The Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation.
Well, I am glad to hear that they do that in
Madam
Deputy Speaker, we will be listening very carefully to the public
presentations. I hope that the minister
listens carefully as well. I hope that
this minister, like some of his enlightened colleagues‑‑there are
actually one or two members over there that amend their bills when they go to
committee, and we commend that whenever it happens. It does not happen very often. It does not happen often enough. It has not happened on the bills that I am
critic for this year; my amendments were voted down. But I hope that this minister will listen to
the public presentations and, if necessary, the opposition parties have
amendments that the minister will listen to them and take those views into
consideration and do the right thing.
Thank you.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I have been duly informed by the clerks that
on July 13 leave to permit this bill to remain standing in the honourable
member for
Ms. Wowchuk: I want to thank the government members for
allowing me this leave to speak on this bill.
As all members of this House are well aware, during the time that leave
was denied to me to let the bill stand in my name, we were in a difficult
flooding situation in the
The
flooding in the
Although it is a farming area, people have
supplemented their income by harvesting the resources in the area. When we look at how they are harvested now, I
think that we have to think very seriously about how we can continue to reuse
the resources to supplement income in the area, but also how we can manage
those resources in a sustainable way that they will be there for future generations
and that we will not see the devastating damage that we saw in this last short
time period in our area.
Just getting back to the bill, there are two
parts to the bill. The area that is of
most concern, I think, when we look at the number of people who are wanting to
make presentations, there are a lot of cottage owners who are concerned with
the way that this legislation is being brought in. They feel that they have not been consulted,
and I look forward to hearing what the cottage owners are going to say when
they come to the public hearings about the whole area of paying fees.
An Honourable Member: Do you support their paying fees?
Ms. Wowchuk: Now the member across the way asks whether we
support the fees, and in all honesty, if the truth be known, when the NDP was
in power, there was discussion, and people were looking at how those people who
live in parks could start to pay their fair share. I think it is only fair that those people who
live within the parks do pay their fair share, but there is obviously a lot of
contention out there because many of the park people are feeling that they have
not been dealt with fairly with this.
An Honourable Member: Nobody wants to pay anything.
Ms. Wowchuk: The member across the way says that these
people do not want to pay anything, and I do not think that is true. I think that many of the people who do live
in parks do want to pay their fair share.
They do not want to be considered tax evaders, but they have to be given
an avenue to pay fairly. They have to be
consulted, and I think that is one of the contentions here. The comments that I
have heard are that there has not been enough consultation on how this was
going to be set up. The minister, in his
comments, said that there were a lot of public meetings, and, in fact, there
were meetings held. But the question I
ask is, why are people feeling that there was not enough consultation, that
they did not have the opportunity to have input into how these fees would be
collected?
Madam Deputy Speaker, there is no doubt that
those people who do live in parks and who live there full time should pay for
some of the services, but I do not believe that they should‑‑the
bill is very evasive on what they will have to pay for, what they will end up
paying for. They could, in reality, have
to pick up much more costs than they should be picking up.
I
do not think that the government can set up parks and can then renege on all of
its responsibility in those areas and pass all the costs on to the people who
choose to live there permanently. There
are other responsibilities. There are
cottagers, people who tent there. There
are other uses for the park, and all of that responsibility should not fall on
the cottage owners, but I do believe that if people choose to live in the park
permanently there should be an avenue for them to pay for their services. I think about education. If their children are going to school, they
should pay their fair share for the educational system.
* (1520)
This
bill does not allow the funds to go back to the municipalities that pay for
those services, that provide those services. (interjection) The minister across
the way indicates that he will pass the money back on to the municipalities. Well, I think municipalities would feel much
better if there was clearer indication in the legislation that the money was
going to go back there to the areas that provide the services. (interjection)
Trust me, he says.
The
other concern is that there is no avenue for appeal. We do not know how much the taxes are going
to be, what responsibilities they are going to have to pick up, how much it is
going to cost them, and there is no avenue to appeal the amount of taxes that
you have. Now, when you live in a
municipality, you can appeal to your municipal body, to your municipal council
when you are not in agreement with the taxation system, but where will cottage
owners go? What appeal do they
have? What do people who have titled
land within the parks now‑‑what avenue will they have to appeal if
they feel they are not being taxed fairly or if they are being asked to pick up
too much of the cost?
So
that is one of the issues that has not been addressed, and I am sure that we
will hear people making presentations. As
I say, many people want to pay their fair share if they choose to make their
permanent residence. I do not feel that
this legislation is addressing that properly, and the municipalities that
provide the services will be upset about this legislation as well. Municipalities have had to pick up many extra
costs because of offloading of the actions that this government has taken.
Now
the government is going to address a problem that is out there with cottagers
living within the parks, but there is no avenue to return this revenue back to
local municipalities that are providing the services, and I think that is a
real problem. You cannot blame the municipalities and communities for not
trusting this government. After all,
they did make the promise with the video lottery terminals that all monies
raised from video lottery terminals were going to be reinvested back into the
rural communities, and we are not seeing that happen. That is why municipalities are concerned with
the bill here. So I guess, Madam Deputy
Speaker, I do have a concern and municipalities have the concern that the
government will just use this as a tax grab to take more revenues out, but not
pass the money back on to municipalities that are providing the service.
The
concern that cottage owners also have is that they are going to have to pick up
whatever costs there could be in the parks.
How extensive could that be?
Again, I refer back to the region in
I
talked to people from the constituency, particularly those in the logging
industry, and asked them what they felt about this legislation. There are some who have said that they think
this is good legislation. One of the
main comments that I heard was that this government has to make up their mind
what they are doing with logging in the parks.
They have to take a position because they are holding us in limbo far
too long.
The
people also feel very strongly, even those people who are in the logging
industry‑‑and many people feel that the loggers want to just
harvest every area in the parks, want to see more clearly defined the 12
percent set‑aside and where the government is going to set it aside.
(interjection)
The
member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) is asking if they should take all of it
aside. The people in the
I
think the government has to take that step, and rather than just pay lip
service and pretend that they are committed to sustainable development, take
the step.
An Honourable Member: Rosann, you are walking both sides of that
fence.
Ms. Wowchuk: The member for Lac du Bonnet says I am
walking both sides of the fence. Well, I
am quite clear on where I am coming from on this.
There has to be more of a commitment to
sustainable development. I believe we
have to move away from clear‑cutting. Clear‑cutting I do not
believe is a good practice in the mountainous areas.
Madam Deputy Speaker, when we look at the
consequences of clear‑cutting versus the consequences of selective
cutting, we can see that the benefits to selective cutting are much greater. We
have to find a way that we can use the resources and protect them‑‑reuse
the resources but also use them in such a sustainable way that they are there
for future generations to use, but I do not believe that clear‑cutting is
a good idea.
After the flood when we had the tremendous
amount of water that came off that mountain a couple of weeks ago, the concern
was that this water might have come down much more slowly had we not had the
amount of clear‑cutting that we have in the area.
I
do not know that this is accurate. I
want more information on that. Is there
so much clear‑cutting going on up there that this has resulted in the
water coming off more quickly? I do not
have the numbers, and I would like the numbers on the percentage of the area
that has been clear‑cut.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think it is very
important that we look at how we use our resources and use them in a
sustainable way so there are resources for future generations to use. I do not think this government has made a
very good commitment in that area. They
have been in government for a long time now and have talked about sustainable
development in the last election in particular, but they have not come out
clearly on what their position is on this sustainable development. That is not the message that is out there.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the other area I want to
touch on as I talk about our resources and how we are going to use these resources
is the whole issue of co‑management.
As we are developing these parks and new guidelines for parks, is there
going to be‑‑(interjection)
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Deputy Speaker, I just heard the
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) say I want to shut everything down in
I
started to talk about an issue that must bother the Minister of Natural
Resources (Mr. Enns), because he went on a rampage, and that being co‑management. This minister has talked, at least paid lip
service to doing something about co‑management of resources, but he has
done nothing to talk to the people who are very interested.
* (1530)
I
am talking about the aboriginal people who have tried time and time again to
meet with this minister and put in place some kind of plan for co‑management
of resources in the area, and the minister has done nothing about it. It is not clear at all from this legislation
what their plans are with aboriginal land claims or what they are going to do
with the management of those resources in that area.
The
minister may say land has been set aside in the province, and I congratulate
him on that. I am glad that parts of the
province have been set aside. He is not
listening to what I am saying. I am
saying there have been areas identified in the Duck and the
If
he would set aside those areas, we would be very close to the 12 percent that
is required, but instead, he goes on a rampage and accuses me of wanting to
shut down everything in the whole area.
That is a ridiculous comment, and I want to put clearly on the record
that I have no desire to shut down logging in our area, but I want to see a
plan from this government on what it is that their proposal is.
I
want to say that in my particular part of the province, many people have
supplemented their farm income by cutting a few carloads of wood in the
Now, the people in the logging industry tell
us that there is no problem with clear‑cutting, and that it is a good
practice, that there are no drawbacks from it.
But certainly if we go to further clear‑cutting, I think that
there are problems downstream from it, particularly with runoff and washouts,
and that is something that has to be addressed.
So,
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not think that this government is‑‑in
two areas, we will have to see what is happening in the parks area. The people in the cottage area certainly are
wanting to pay their fair share, but they are not wanting to have to pick up
the whole responsibility of the parks' costs, as they seem to feel that this
bill seems to indicate that they will have to do. I think that it is a real
concern that there is no avenue for appeal for the people who are in the parks
areas, who have chosen to‑‑but I think it is unfair for people to
say that people who are going into the parks are trying to be tax evaders.
I
have talked to many of these people and they have indicated that they do want
to pay their fair share. They do not
want to pay the excessive amount that this bill may allow them to do. This bill
gives the minister the power, and they could end up paying a tremendous amount
of money. We are told that there is no
ceiling in what they can be charged, and eventually they could end up paying
$1,000 to $2,000 a year, and there is no guarantee that the monies collected
will be spent to protect or maintain the lakes.
So those are the concerns.
They also have the concern of what costs they
will have to pick up if, for example, there were a fire in the parks area. Does
that mean that those cottage owners who are in the area will have to pick up
that total cost? The minister is shaking
his head. Well, clearly, that message
has not been put out properly then, because that is the concern of the
cottagers in the area.
I
think that, again, with the whole area of the set‑asides and the whole
area of using our resources, we must look very closely at doing this
sustainably, and the loggers do not want this either. They realize that this is a resource that
they want to use in the future. They
have no desire, many of them, to just take it all. They have a sense of the value of that
forest. So I do not believe that it is
the goal of the loggers, the people who use that resource, just to take
everything out at one time, but the guidelines also have to be put in place.
I
think we have to look very closely, that when they use the resource, it be done
in a sustainable way, that there be resources there for future generations and
that when we are harvesting in areas of difficult terrain, it be done in such a
way that we do not face problems of erosion and quick runoff of water that
causes problems further downstream.
Again, I think we have to look at those areas
that need to be set aside. If there are
particular areas that are vulnerable, areas that have particular conditions on
them, then they should be set aside. If
other parts of the province have done as much work as the people in the Swan
River area, people in the Duck Mountain and Porcupine Mountain have done in
identifying these areas, then it should not be hard to set it aside because
there are many river streams‑‑one in particular I think about is
the Bell River that just had all the flooding on the No. 10 Highway. That has
been requested to be set aside.
If
we would set that area aside, we would protect the flora and fauna and all of
the different species that are in the mountains. Those areas could be protected. We would have wildlife habitat. There would be areas‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable Minister of Natural Resources,
on a point of order?
Mr. Enns: Madam Deputy Speaker, just simply whether or
not the member would permit a question for clarification.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Would the honourable member for
Ms. Wowchuk: Sure, go right ahead.
Mr. Enns: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a great deal of
respect for the honourable member for
* (1540)
I
have been listening to her attentively this afternoon, and I agree with a great
deal of what she says. I believe there
are serious concerns about land use in that area as demonstrated by the
flooding, again, that her constituents experienced. I agree there are particular areas that need
to be set aside.
But
my question to her‑‑I am trying to listen to her comments‑‑does
she acknowledge that, however defined, under whatever guidelines, in her point
of view, some continued logging should take place in the Duck Mountain
Provincial Park, which is in her constituency?
Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Deputy Speaker, maybe now I will have a
chance to answer a question like I get answers from this government every time
I raise one now, and at some point, I will get to answering it.
If
the minister was listening a few minutes ago, I said that people in the area
have been logging for many, many years, and if they do it in a sustainable way
in the Duck Mountain, it will be there for many, many years, but we have to be
careful about clear‑cutting because clear‑cutting is the one that
will‑‑(interjection)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think we have had this
discussion many times. When we have
areas that are forest‑management areas, I think we can use parks in a way
that they can be of dual purpose. You
can have dual purposes in the parks. You
can have a park, and we have it in the
As
I mentioned, the Bell River and the‑‑I am lost for the name of the
two rivers in Duck Mountain right now that have been‑‑(interjection)
the Roaring River, thank you very much‑‑where there are areas that
should be protected, but I believe that‑‑(interjection) The
minister says they are penciled out, and I am saying that if the minister took
action and identified those areas, they would never be logged, they would be
protected. People in the area would be
much happier, and those people who are working in the forest industry would
have some clear guidelines from this government. They can make some plans for their future,
but this government is not making any movement on that. That is what I think they have to do.
If
you look at our area of the province, it has been a long history of logging in
that area. If in time we are going to
move to no logging in the parks, we cannot cut it off immediately. If you are going to move in that direction,
then it has to be done in a slow process to allow people to adjust to another
type of activity, another way of earning an income. At least, I do not believe you can say today,
no logging in the parks. You talk about
having other areas to set aside. Where
are you going to find this other area?
If you are going to take away from people this ability to earn an
income, what are they going to do?
So
if the government is going to make those moves, then it has to be done in a way
that we have a long‑range plan. In
the ideal world, certainly, if we could set other areas where these people
could go and log and we could take them out of the
So
perhaps we have to look at establishing parks in other areas and some new
parks. That might be a route to go where
we would have new parks and new areas that are preserved, but when we establish
those new parks that we establish them well enough ahead and make plans, lay
out the plan that there is not going to be any economic activity. This government in this legislation gives the
minister a very discretionary power that he might establish another park and if
there are some minerals or some other development there, he will have that
ability to do that.
So
the minister has a lot of discretionary power on what he is going to do, what
he can do, and that causes uncertainty for many people who are concerned about
the environment and the resources. So that
is a concern that the minister has, the amount of power that he has in this
bill. Certainly, if it would be possible
to say that we are not going to have logging and they could be just set aside‑‑but
we have that. We have that in the
Anyway, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to get
back to the area of co‑management of these resources, because I think
certainly as we look at this
I
have raised this issue with the minister, and this is not only with the forest
there, but the wildlife resources, the fishery stocks in those areas. There are groups of people who feel they have
not been consulted. There are groups of
people, and I talk about the aboriginal people, who want to talk to this
government about co‑management of resources. We have heard some lip service, but certainly
the government has not taken any action on co‑management.
I
think that, again, many people would be much happier if this government came
out very clear on what they were doing with those other resources as well, the
whole issue of harvesting of fish within the mountain and whether certain lakes
should be harvested since they are not natural species in those lakes.
Many of those questions have been put to the
minister, and he has not answered them.
He came out to
Madam Deputy Speaker, I look forward to
hearing the public presentations. I know
that there are many cottagers, as I say, who are not happy with what
responsibilities they are being asked to pick up with this legislation. I know that municipalities have raised some
concern because the government is attempting to collect taxes here, but the
municipalities are responsible for providing services. I look forward to explanations on how that is
going to be dealt with because I think that, if the municipalities provide the
services, then they should have some input.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Also, I look forward to hearing from the
government and presenters about how they feel about this whole process of not
having the right to appeal, not being able to appeal what is put on them. Perhaps when we get to the committee we might
hear some sort of amendments in that area.
Mr.
Speaker, in the area of logging in the parks and the whole area of sustainable
development, I do not believe this government has done very well in that
area. We look forward to hearing what
those people in the logging industry are saying about this. I would hope that particularly in the Swan
River area the government would take the necessary steps to protect the areas
that have been designated by the local people, areas that will help us meet our
12 percent set aside in that area and give some clear guidelines as to what
direction they are going to take, so that people can plan their future. Particularly, as I say, there are loggers in
the area who have said that, if we are not going to be able to log, if that is
going to be the position that we are not going to be able to log, then tell us
so that we can start gearing towards it.
The government cannot sit on this forever and not make up their mind on
it.
* (1550)
Mr.
Speaker, I think that this government has not done well on sustainable
development. They have certainly had
some failures in that area.
I
look forward to hearing the presenters as they come forward and hearing what
the concerns are of the various groups that have expressed a great deal of
concern with this bill. Thank you.
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add some comments
to the proposed Bill 41 that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) has
brought to us here in the Legislature this year.
After last year, Mr. Speaker, where Bill 21
was introduced and discussions about it and whatnot and we had many meetings‑‑at
that time I was, last year, the critic for Natural Resources. The phone was
literally ringing off the hook in my office when it came to Bill 21.
An Honourable Member: A phone does not ring off the hook. It rings off the wall.
Mr. Clif Evans: It can ring off the hook too, Mr. Minister.
Mr.
Speaker, lo and behold, this year Bill 41‑‑the minister, after
pulling Bill 21 last year out of legislation, promised a new bill would be
presented, that it would be the welcoming of everybody that is involved with
natural resources, with parks, with logging, with endangered spaces. Of course, here we have Bill 41 coming in and
again the phone ringing off the wall‑‑this time. Last year it was ringing off the hook. This year it is ringing off the wall.
The
same people and perhaps more people‑‑Mr. Speaker, even as deputy
critic for Natural Resources, I am still involved a lot with the people and the
organizations that I was involved with last year as critic for Natural
Resources‑‑people that I feel not only are very, very sincere with
the problems that they have with Bill 41 as they had with Bill 21, but people
who come to me and have come to me and to our caucus saying: What is this minister doing? What is he proposing?
He
is proposing, Mr. Speaker, on one hand, giving himself‑‑and I have
spoken before on some of the minister's acts in the past two and a half
years. It relishes the mind when you are
seeing the minister will have the power to regulate, the minister will have the
power to enforce. The people in the
communities and the people in these associations are concerned. What kind of
power does this minister want to have through Bill 41 that is going to change
the whole parks system and change the whole policy of what they want to do with
our parks and our lands here in
Mr.
Speaker, I have a concern, too. A few
years ago wayside parks‑‑the minister indicated in this House that
he would privatize as many wayside parks as he could as a minister. Now, I know that in Bill 41, wayside parks
are not mentioned because those that are now privatized and those that are not,
that are under the responsibility of the Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger),
Mr. Speaker, I have a tremendous concern about that.
If
the minister is concerned about parks and concerned about endangered spaces, I
think this is‑‑even though it may be a small piece of the action,
it does concern me, too. We have had the
opportunity in the last two or three years of enjoying the parks within
So
that, again, even though it is a small part, is a concern. I know all members and all Manitobans like to
travel throughout the province, and, hopefully, they stay and travel in this
province, to be able to stop and enjoy a wayside park and know it will be kept
up, and in some cases, it is. In some
case, some of these little parks still are, but in a lot of cases, Mr. Speaker‑‑and
I can say that because people from within cottage areas and associations have
come to me by letter or by phone or met with me, indicating that, in fact,
these wayside parks are not being taken care of.
Mr.
Speaker, when it comes to some of the situations with Bill 41, I know the
minister had promised a year ago, after he pulled Bill 21, and then he made the
glorious statement that there would be meetings throughout the province on
sustainable development and that the fact of the matter is after all these
meetings and consultation with people throughout the province, that he would
have a bill in place to be the cure‑all for all the trouble spots and all
the problems we have in parks.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is probably very
rewarding to know that our parks and the situation in our parks is being
reviewed and the act is being looked at.
We need that. We need reviews of
different situations, different areas, different acts, to stay with the times,
but parts of this bill, even though they are dealing with that, parts of this
bill do not deal with a lot of issues, and if they do, they do them with a
draconian attitude that gives the minister the power to be able to do whatever
and whenever he feels so fit.
Well, Mr. Speaker, what do we have since the
minister introduced the bill? After
going over the bill and looking at certain changes, we have upward of nearly
200 people who have indicated their desire and their wish to come before the
committee when this Bill 41 does go to committee and bring forth their problems
with the bill, their disgust with the bill.
* (1600)
I
am sure there are people who will be there who will have some favourable things
to say about certain aspects of the bill, and we can appreciate that. That is what committee is for, but I wonder,
around 200 presenters, Mr. Speaker, if the bill, in fact, was so perfect, as
the minister would like to say, I would like to ask, why are we going to be
then listening to over 200 people making presentations to this minister's bill?
(interjection) They are not going to be in favour of it. You can guarantee that of the 200 or so
presenters, the majority of them will be against the bill.
I
wonder why‑‑if the bill is so perfect in all its aspects, from the
front page, from cover to cover‑‑200 presenters. That is an awful lot for a bill that is supposed
to be the cure‑all for the parks of
Mr.
Speaker, personally, I would think the minister would, in fact, if he wants to
preserve certain parts of the park and do what parks are supposed to be doing‑‑it
is ironic his field staff and Natural Resources staff over the past few years
has been pretty well decimated. I wonder
how the minister, with the lack of staff, will be able to conduct the process
of making sure the act is not violated in any way, that what he proposes in
doing with this act will be protected and Natural Resources officers will be
there to look after the system. Well, I
find that extremely hard to believe.
Mr.
Speaker, I have some problems with the minister saying that all parks will be
operated on a sustainable basis. I
wonder whether the minister is going to be providing that to the parks and to
the people of
You
know, a few weeks ago, we brought a private members' resolution with regard to
the 12 percent endangered spaces. We
debated the resolution and we passed it.
I wonder then, if the minister was so in favour of the resolution, why
he would not include in this act something pertaining to the endangered spaces
12 percent campaign that was promised by this government in 1990.
We
are still waiting for the 12 percent. We
are still waiting for any percentage point less than one which we are having
now. Mr. Speaker, the 12 percent, I
feel, is important. I know the minister has made comments to the member for
I
feel the minister has perhaps not moved quickly enough. I would think that perhaps the minister
should have stipulated clearly somewhere in the act that the 12 percent
endangered spaces campaign promise would be adhered to, and attempted it to be
on paper in the act. I think it would
have been the appropriate thing to do.
I
think if he had indicated in the act itself that, yes, this government is
further committed to 12 percent, and yes, this minister and this government are
going to work towards the 12 percent endangered spaces. Mr. Speaker, I think it would have made some
of us perhaps easier with this act and different aspects of it, but pertaining
to the 12 percent, we would like to see that.
Mr.
Speaker, I have in my constituency some parkland, provincial parkland. I would like to see the park have some
control. I would like to see it enhance
itself further. I would like to make
sure there is protection for certain wildlife we have in
How
is the minister now going to be able to protect some of those things within
provincial parks? As I mentioned a few
minutes ago, staff is at a minimum.
Staff is overworked, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to provincial parks. I wonder how this minister is going to decide
that, in fact, through the act, all of this is going to be maintained.
Mr.
Speaker, one of the major, major issues that came forth here with Bill 41 is
the same as with Bill 21. That is the
private landowners and cottagers in provincial parks. The landowners have come to us consistently
over the past many months, and last year with Bill 21‑‑(interjection)
What did they say? I will give you an
example of what they said.
Here is a letter, Mr. Speaker, from a lady, a
woman in
The
minister is going to have the power or want the power. He is going to want the
power‑‑and I guess if the bill goes through, he will have the power‑‑to
be able to go back some years and say, okay, you now owe us so much money you
did not pay previously.
Mr.
Speaker, as a new member, I had some concerns about the fact that people were
living in parks and not paying fees, but it was brought to my attention very
quickly by these people, very sincere and honest people, the fact they are
paying fees, and they are paying fees for certain services they are not
getting.
Now
they are afraid it is going to go up 10, 20 percent higher, perhaps even 100
percent higher. They are afraid that
perhaps they will be paying upward of a thousand dollars a year, for what? They have been paying to a point now for
certain services they have not been getting.
They have been paying‑‑and I want to put on record my sense in
believing what I hear and what I read is that the people who live in these
parks do not, in fact, have a problem with paying. They have met with department staff dating
back to, I believe, 1984. They have
always indicated they are willing to pay for services rendered. They are willing.
In
1984‑85, there was a draft put through, Mr. Speaker, with the then
Minister of Natural Resources and the deputy minister at that time.
An Honourable Member: At that time, the NDP changed one a year.
Mr. Clif Evans: Well, I am not concerned about how many they
changed. I am just talking about that at
that time, the deputy minister was in place there for quite a while. As a matter of fact, he just left that
position not long ago.
However, a draft was put through, Mr. Speaker,
and it seemed that, with negotiation between the government and the cottage
owners associations throughout the province, they were coming to a set plan and
a draft that would implement a base for cottage owners to pay. In 1988, when the change of government came
through, unfortunately, the minister at that time decided that they would not
pursue the draft that they had put together, the agreement that they were
working on.
From 1988 to 1991, under the desire of the
cottage associations and the cottage owners and the homeowners requesting the
minister to meet with them and begin the negotiations again and deal with the
draft that was put together in '84 and '85 to deal with the problem‑‑well,
again what we have here is lack of consultation.
Really, I think that, had the minister been
sincere with these cottage owners, he would have dealt directly with them and,
I would think, at least understood and heard them say themselves that they are,
in no way, wanting anything for nothing.
They do not mind paying. They
just want to be fair. They want to know
where the money is going. They want to
be sure that they are going to get the services that they request, that they
need and pay accordingly to that.
Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate what we are discussing here today, and I think that,
along with all other parts of this bill, this is an important part. I think this will create a very, very major
problem within the system. The minister
is saying, we are going to have fees for these people. We are going to impose levies or taxes on
them, and not saying at the same time what he is going to do with that money
that he is getting from the cottage owners.
* (1610)
Basically, if he feels that, if there is going
to be something else that the cottage owners or the park needs, fees are going
to be charged for that, but are they are going to be done? Does he have the manpower to do it? No, he is going to take the money and
run. He is going to take that money and
do absolutely nothing with it except put it in general revenue. I have a problem with that, because that will
all pertain to maintaining our parks and maintaining the system and providing
the services for these people and making our parks a place that everybody wants
to be.
Mr.
Speaker, it does not say that here. It
does not say that in the bill. All it
says is the minister will have the power to impose fees, whatever he deems fit,
and take the money, not provide the service.
He is not guaranteeing anything here that is going to maintain and
provide the service. It has nothing here
that says I have the manpower to be able to do that. Municipalities, cottage
owners and government have been at odds about this situation. You would think that between the cottage owners,
the municipalities and the government you would be able to come to some sort of
conclusion and come up with a system that would benefit everyone: municipalities, government and cottage
owners. That is not so.
One
other part that sort of is a problem is that the government again is giving
powers to the minister to ensure that land is available for the parks through
expropriation, et cetera. We have parks
within the province, quite a few parks. Why would the minister want power to
expropriate land for whatever he wants to do with it?
Another part that is unclear with that is,
what will be done to resolve some of the aboriginal land claims? That is an issue that we are wondering, and I
am sure the aboriginal communities are wondering too, about what is going to
occur with some of the issues that they are going to bring forward when it
comes to land claims and problems that are in the area.
Mr.
Speaker, classification, land‑use category, management plan‑‑these
are the three that have been put under the system plan the minister has
developed here in this act. With 124
parks in the province, we are going to have to go through another process to
try and clarify exactly what type of a park it is, what it is used for, why it
is used for that, when it should be used for something else. Again, we are going to be flip‑flopping
within our park system.
Mr.
Speaker, I would just like to say that we are wondering, when this bill was
drafted, just who thought up some of the points and the changes and amendments
that are being produced and introduced here in legislation. Again, the minister will have power to
declare zones within zones, giving him the right to protect an area in a
resource use park and vice versa subject to hearings. So the minister is going to have power to do
whatever he can, on one hand, and through consultation and hearings, he will be
able to decide what should be done with an area.
On
the other hand, he gives the cottage owners absolutely no chance to appeal if he
decides that he is going to impose a higher fee or a tax on these people. He is allowing, on one hand, for hearings,
discussions and consultations under some of the sections of the act in dealing
with the parks and the lands and designation, but he is not allowing, on the
other hand, for people to be able to bring forth an objection or consult with
them or discuss with them the fact that what is needed, what they are paying
for, what they are not getting.
I
would suggest, and I am sure the minister will hear that, that the cottage
association, and if you look through the list of presenters that we have, I am
sure the majority are mostly private citizens, some from organizations, some
who are going to fully support the bill, but most, again, who are probably
going to oppose most of the bill.
I
know the associations are going to be making amendments, wanting amendments,
wanting to further discuss this with the minister. I would hope I do not see what I saw in the
first year we were here in session. I
forget the name of the bill, but the minister sat back and said that no matter
what you say, I will do what I want to do and the bill will remain intact with
no amendments, with no changes, nothing.
I
hope the minister in looking at this bill will be able to provide for the
people who present and will listen if there are going to be amendments or if
there are requests, that perhaps he might be serious about listening to the
people of
I
would like to see during committee‑‑and I am sure I will be present
at most of the committee, as much as possible, to hear what the people have to
say. I would think the minister should,
in fact, receive the message from the 200‑some‑odd presenters that
we are going to have before us in the next few days.
Mr.
Speaker, the act has, in fact, some decent legislation it has put in. I think some of it, as I mentioned earlier,
is perhaps long overdue in certain situations, in certain areas, but, in fact,
in the long run, I think this bill is just going to create an even bigger
problem within our system, within our parks and for the Minister of Natural
Resources, whoever he or she may be at the time, and for everyone in this
province.
* (1620)
I
think you are going to see problems.
Perhaps you might get that old infighting amongst different groups, more
infighting when the minister decides, through this bill, he is going to do this
or that with a certain park or a certain area, whether it be for recreation,
for wilderness, for endangered spaces, for logging, for recreational use. I think this bill will perhaps open up a can
of worms.
I
think, Mr. Speaker, after, my phone will ring again off the hook and off the
wall, complaining that this bill introduced in 1993 by the Minister of Natural
Resources, Mr. Harry Enns, is going to create a big problem for us in the
future and for parks in the future and for economic development in this
province.
Mr.
Speaker, the minister will, I am sure, hear from the people of
I
think, Mr. Speaker, this minister perhaps is getting a little gun shy and will
come out of committee knowing the issue has been well addressed and knowing
that the people of Manitoba are going to remember exactly what he has done with
the parks in this province and with this bill and what this bill is going to do
to take away the services and take away the right of so many people to be able
to reside not only within the parks but within this province.
I
think the minister should, in fact, if he has not already‑‑and I
would hope he is already putting together some amendments to present, to make a
presentation on some amendments. That
would probably be the right thing for the minister to do, come to committee
with a list of amendments and say, I was wrong with the major part of this
bill, and I, as the minister, want to be responsible enough to the people of
I
wonder, Mr. Speaker, are we going to see that from this minister? Is he going to take it upon himself? The, I do not know whether I can use the word
"granddaddy" of the Manitoba Legislature is going to take it in his
hand‑‑(interjection) "The" granddaddy, sorry‑‑(interjection)
Dean, okay, the granddaddy, the dean.
I
hope the minister takes it upon himself and says, I have these amendments. I have heard the people. I have heard debate. I have heard from people phoning,
writing. I have heard from my staff that
the right thing to do is to either take this bill out of legislation, as he did
with Bill 21 last year, or come forth with amendments and changes that are
going to be what the people of
Mr.
Speaker, the bill, as others in this legislation, has probably created a stir
that we have not seen for quite awhile, as other bills that have been presented
here by this government and these ministers in the House at present. This bill is probably going to be labelled
one of the most controversial bills this government has introduced, and the
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) is going to be held accountable for
it.
I
am sure the Minister of Natural Resources is now thinking in his mind, yes, the
member for Interlake is right, and I am going to get my staff on this right
now, today. Committee is starting and I
am going to have a list of amendments to Bill 41.
I
will look, and the member for
So
I am looking forward to hearing, Mr. Speaker, as many of the 200‑odd
presenters that will be coming forth to discuss Bill 41 with the minister‑‑(interjection)
No, 200 people throughout the province, not odd people, but‑‑(interjection)
Thank you. The member for
I
hope the minister will listen when these people are talking, not just as he did
on some of the other bills that I was present at. It is very, very disturbing, Mr. Speaker, to
have a minister and his government, or any government, make statements that he
is not going to listen to the people of Manitoba and their requests and
wants. He is going to do what he sees
fit to do. He is going to have the power
in his hand to do anything he wants to the Natural Resources department in this
province when it comes to parks and when it comes to any other part that this
minister has to deal with. I am afraid
of that. I am afraid of giving this
minister too much power‑‑any minister.
Now, with all due respect to this minister, I
would hope that if he wants this power, if he is going to have this power, he
use it wisely, because come the time that the people have to decide, Bill 41
will be on top of their agenda as to remembering what this government has done
with the parks and the province of Manitoba's natural resources. They will make sure that this minister gets
the message, and I am sure it will start in committee as soon as we convene in
committee tomorrow or the next day, whenever we are going forward with it.
In
closing, Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will listen. I think some parts of this act, perhaps, are
due and needed. However, most of it is not right for the people in this
province. I certainly hope that the
minister will not take it too hard after he receives the spanking he gets from
the people of
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to address the
issues in Bill 41, The Provincial Parks and Consequential Amendments Act. There are a number of important issues that
are contained in this legislation that I want to address this afternoon.
Of
course, they deal with some of the issues that have been before this House on
the part of the government on other occasions and with other bills at different
times: those dealing with endangered
spaces; those dealing with taxation without representation, which this
government is so anxious to do with this particular bill; issues dealing with
use of parklands and resources; and the issues around the preservation of large
parts of our province, by matter of policy, to ensure that the pristine nature
of our province is maintained in many areas, to preserve the natural habitat
and natural plant life and forestry that we have in this province in its
natural state.
I
have some serious concerns on a number of areas, and I have spoken on some of
these before, as I have indicated, in other sessions of the Legislature. It is rather interesting that the Minister of
Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) was responsible for bringing forward a bill and
withdrawing a bill, Bill 21, just a year ago dealing with some aspects of Bill
41 here, that are contained in Bill 41.
I believe that he realized that by itself the issue of taxation on
residents within park boundaries was one that was wrong insofar as the
proceedings last year and so he withdrew the bill understanding that the public
was understandably outraged with the way that it was being done.
* (1630)
They have brought it back in again in a way
that has not been improved, because they have lost sight of the original intent
of working out some financial contribution, if we can call it that, as the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) likes to call user fees, but certainly some
financial support by residents who were within park boundaries. Municipalities tax for services. It is legitimate. It is accepted. People realize that they must pay in order to
have roads provided to them, in order to have snow clearing and in order to
have other services within their communities, and so the people within the
parks were actually receiving services that they were not paying for. Of course, this bill addresses that.
However, what this does, Mr. Speaker, is allow
for charges without any form of government or representation by the people who
are being charged, and in addition to that, the minister can by regulation
increase those costs without any relationship to the costs of administering a
particular area, without any relationship to the services being provided. To this government, that seems rather
unimportant, because I am sure they feel that after being in government some
five years now they can pretty well move along as they wish and no one is
really going to be able to do anything about it.
The
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) after being in the Legislature for
some 26 years, of course, is not too worried about those kinds of things at
this time. I am sure he is like a
senator now. He feels that he is pretty
well ready to go out to pasture in any event and he does not have to deal with
public opinion or respond to it. (interjection) Well, it is unfortunate but that is how I
perceive it and I think that is what I have a right to do. All members can speak their mind. I am speaking mine.
I
have to indicate that I believe if the Minister of Natural Resources was
responsive to public opinion he would have not brought this particular bill in
in a way that allows, without representation, large increases in charges to
camp owners, to people who are located within those particular parks and
without ensuring that those monies are going back to the municipalities in the
area that they are contiguous to. That
was the nature of the original discussion here.
As
a matter of fact, when the whole issue of charges for residents in parks arose,
it arose as a result of municipalities coming forward and saying these people
are getting away without paying any taxes.
We should be able to charge them.
So the government is now going to assess charges but it is not going to
turn that money back to these municipalities in any way, shape or form, even
though they are providing services to those people. I think that is fundamentally wrong.
It
is wrong from a number of different angles or aspects if we were to consider
it. The first and major mistake or error
by this government is the issue of charging people without allowing them to
have some form of direct input by way of elected representatives in terms of
some type of government. That is why
some areas of this province are very upset with this legislation, particularly
around The Pas, because they realize that they are now going to be paying
without having any say in how those dollars are spent. They realize that is another tax grab which
the minister is going to take out of the municipalities, out of the local areas
just like they are doing with the VLTs, Mr. Speaker.
If
we look at the money that is being drained, being sucked out of the rural
communities by way of VLTs, they are doing the same thing again here with this
particular legislation. They are sucking
another $500, $600, $700, who knows how much, out of those communities with no
concern as to whether it should be returned for the benefit of the local
economy.
It
means less dollars in those communities.
It means fewer dollars there.
Whenever that happens, it means that the rural economies are poor, that
there is less business being done, the economic spinoffs from dollars being
spent in the communities are not felt in the same way because the dollars are
being removed. I think this government should look seriously at that whole
issue and that principle. If they did,
they would withdraw that portion of this legislation once again and ensure that
it is changed in such a way as to ensure representation by the people who are
affected and that ensure that the dollars will be returned to those
communities.
I
do not think that any of the people that are involved, the full‑time
residents in the parks, are upset with being charged a fee, and an increase in
the fee, whether it be two or three times of what they are paying at the
present time. They feel that there is
some legitimacy to that, but they are opposed to the government moving
unilaterally without representation and by taking the money out of the communities
and the degree to which this can be increased with no relationship to the
services that are provided. I think that
is where the government has gone wrong.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker,
in the Chair)
The
Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) would be well advised to
relay this to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) in a very forceful
way at cabinet at the next opportunity.
The Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), who comes from the
Minnedosa area, would also be well advised to take that message back and say,
fellows and ladies, let us take another look at what we are doing here, because
it is not fair, it does not adhere to any principles of democracy and is not a
proper way to have charges being made.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, there is one major aspect of what I wanted to relate to the
Minister of Natural Resources here today, and that is dealing with the charges
that provisions are being made for within this particular piece of
legislation. Of course, there are many
other issues, but before I get to some of those, I just cannot help but reflect
on why the government would have pulled back on this legislation last year when
it dealt with the same types of draconian taxation without representation and
then come back with that same provision again.
Why
would they not have learned from last year after having brought the bill,
understood the opposition, seen the representation that was made by way of
letters and meetings and requests that were being made by people, by cottagers
who live full time in those parks, to use that opportunity to refine the
legislation, to make it more responsive, more democratic and less autocratic as
this government is prone to do? It seems
they did not learn anything over that particular year, and that is what is so
puzzling about this piece of legislation.
The
only thing they learned is that in order to lower the profile of this issue,
they should hide it in a bill that contained many other provisions, and that is
what they did with this particular bill.
This bill deals with a number of issues, and so they took that
particular issue of charges in parks and rolled it in with a number of other
pieces of policy within the parks jurisdiction to, I believe, hide the issue,
to lower the profile of that particular issue, to somehow hope that people
would not pick up on what exactly was being done, because it was very
transparent last year in Bill 21 when it was basically the only issue being
brought forward within that bill.
So
by hiding it within other policy initiatives in this particular bill, the
government hoped to, I think, avoid the kind of controversy that was developing
last year in Bill 21 before it was withdrawn by the minister, by this
government.
I
do not think it is going to work, as my colleagues have said. Some 200 people are signed up to appear
before the committees. Those people have
seen what this government is up to by reading through the legislation.
An Honourable Member: . . . are for it. How do you know?
Mr. Plohman: I believe that many of those people‑‑the
Minister for Highways says, well, maybe they are going to be for it. I mean, that is wishful thinking. Let us see about that. We will wait and see, but I have an idea that
most of the people who are coming forward are opposed to the bill. That is the traditional nature. When people are opposed to something, they
come forward. When they support it,
generally they will give quiet support.
They may not come forward at all, Mr. Acting Speaker. They simply
quietly go about their business and just ignore what the government is
doing. But when they are opposed to
something, they come out in full force and they register their concerns.
This is their major opportunity to be
represented in a democratic way on this issue.
They will not have an opportunity after this bill has passed to have any
say about how they are charged, the taxation that is being placed upon them,
because there is no provision made in the bill for that. So they have to make their representation
now, because if they do not get through to the government now, then they will
not be able to get through until there is a government in place who wishes to
amend this legislation to make it more democratic.
So
they are going to come forward now and oppose, and I think contrary to what the
Minister of Highways thinks in his wishful way in never‑never land here‑‑he
believes, perhaps, maybe there will be some positive representation. I doubt whether there will be very much at
all when the people come before this particular committee.
* (1640)
So
having said those things about that particular aspect of this bill, the
government has not learned anything from Bill 21 and what happened last year, I
wanted to touch on a couple of other areas.
When we are dealing with this legislation, one thinks immediately of the
commitment of the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and this government to the 12 percent of
Manitoba's geographic area being set aside as an endangered space, a space that
should be preserved in its pristine state for all the years to come in the
future, Mr. Acting Speaker.
It
is something that we all support in the opposition. We feel that this initiative is
necessary. We must preserve large
sections of our natural heritage for future generations. I think that is a principle that most people
accept and desire for our province and hope that that happens throughout the
world, if it is not too late in many countries.
Of course, it is in many countries for that, in fact, to be achieved.
It
is not too late for it to be achieved in this country, in our province. So we must go forward with all haste in this
objective to meeting that objective, but we are not moving forward to the
extent that we should, and perhaps this bill allows us as a government to move
backwards actually, to remove some of those areas by way of government policy
when they are pressured by way of economic initiatives that would somehow be
justified by some interest group or some advocates who wish to utilize the
resources of a particular area for their economic benefit and, perhaps, for the
economic benefit of the area as a whole.
But
those are competing interests. There are
large corporate sector companies who would like to ensure that all of the
resources that are in the province are available to them to be used in any way
they see fit. We must have regulations,
we must have laws that prevent the exploitation of our resources.
So
this bill, although it seems to recognize that on the surface, on the other
side, it does allow the minister to allow for exceptions to be made and for
designations for economic purposes. That
gives us some concern because we know, in the hands of the wrong government,
that can be very dangerous, and this is the government that is the wrong
government for that kind of provision.
We are afraid that it will result in the loss of some of these
endangered spaces, because the government will inevitably come down on the side
of the economic as opposed to the environmental concerns. That is something that all of us should be
concerned about in this province.
I
think it would be good advice for the government to proceed posthaste with the
objective of the 12 percent endangered spaces and to move forward with the full
designation of those areas, to define those areas so the public of Manitoba can
see that the government is serious about this objective and see what they have
set aside and see whether there is agreement.
There would be public hearings on this.
There may be other areas identified. Perhaps the government would even
want to go one better and increase the set‑aside to more than 12 percent
to show that we are leaders in the area of preserving our pristine natural
wilderness in this province. That would
be an objective I think that we would all like to see.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, I want to also deal with the issues related to logging. I recall that when we were in government a
few years back in 1988, as Minister of Natural Resources, I had made it a
priority that, if there was to be a sale of Manfor, the cutting rights of the
Parkland region, of the mountain‑forest area, would not be thrown in with
the deal, with any sale to Repap or any other company.
My
colleague at that time, the brother of the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk)
at the present time, the former member for Swan River Mr. Leonard Harapiak and
I had watched this very closely to ensure that there would be no negotiations
that took place by any of our colleagues or our government that would in any
way jeopardize the cutting rights of the Parkland region. We felt that it was in the interest of the
province to ensure that there were competing interests there, and that one
company would not be allowed to tie up such vast areas of the province insofar
as the cutting rights, including the Interlake.
Many areas of the Interlake, as well as the
It
certainly is contrary to the jobs that were promised by the government at that
particular time‑‑jobs that never really materialized in the
At
the time, Mr. Acting Speaker, there was an oriented strand board proposal that
was being made with regard to the
I
think what else was at issue there was the fact that the government seemed to
be wanting to work with the large corporate cutters instead of working with the
small quota holders in the particular area.
There are many small quota holders in the
That was what we promised in 1988 by way of
the public meetings we had in the Parkland region, in
That all went by the wayside when the
government changed in the spring of 1988, because the new government proceeded
to divest itself of Manfor without consideration for the small quota holders in
that area. They made the deal with Repap
through enlarged cutting areas that should not have been thrown in and then
proceeded to allow the large quota holder, Repap, to set up the terms by which
the small quota holders could be part of the action. It was not very evenhanded. It was not balanced in terms of the interests
of those small quota holders. I think
that was a major mistake.
Now
the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) was not the Minister of Natural
Resources when that decision was made.
His predecessor in the cabinet was at that particular time, and I do not
think that he gave the interests of the small quota holders proper
representation in cabinet and to his colleague the Minister of Finance when
those negotiations were taking place. Had the Minister of Natural Resources
currently been in that position, we could have chastised him and attacked him
for that now.
I
raise that in the context of Bill 41 because it is very much part of the decision
making that must be made when we are thinking about economic
opportunities. When a government is
faced with these kinds of opportunities, they have to consider environmental
interests. They have to balance those
with the historical economic opportunities that are in a particular area.
In
the Duck Mountain‑Riding Mountain area, we have to consider that the
settlers that settled on the land in that particular area, all the way from the
Swan River valley through to the Dauphin valley, always had the resources of
tremendous timber in that particular area.
A large part of that was removed from them when
As
a result, there was a large loss of economic potential, but that was the case
with the setting up of the national park. If we were to unilaterally and
forthwith remove the economic opportunities that they then had to resort to,
that being from the
* (1650)
We,
as I indicated earlier, Mr. Acting Speaker, have many areas of this province
that should be designated in the endangered spaces area and kept in a pristine
state. I have said to the Minister of
Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) that it is important for those pristine areas to
be set aside forthwith, and I have said to the Minister of Natural Resources,
get on it, get them done. If the
minister's promise, if the Premier's promise can be believed, then this
government should immediately identify those areas that are going to be set
aside to meet the 12 percent target or even 13 percent or 14 percent.
In
the hands of this minister, we are not certain that is what this bill will do,
because we know this minister is going to be erring on the side of the economic
opportunity for some corporate citizen who comes forward and wants to have vast
areas of this particular province set aside for the benefits of that particular
company, not for the benefits of the residents.
We saw that with Repap.
They did not negotiate with the individual
quota holders as we, as a former government, had promised them in public
meetings in 1988. They went around the
That is how this government negotiates. There is no fairness. There is no concern about the individual
people in those particular areas, about the small quota holders who have
historically had to make their way of life from those particular
resources. Certainly that is important,
Mr. Acting Speaker, and we must ensure that that particular right, which has
been in place for many years, is balanced against those who would like to see a
blanket policy that would remove all possible logging in a particular area.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, there are areas that this minister should be designating
forthwith for being maintained in their pristine state. When will this minister do it? What is he waiting for? Get on with it. It is time that they quit making a farce of
this Premier's promise, which says that 12 percent will be set aside, and that
endangered spaces is something that this government has as a policy and they
believe it.
We
do not believe it, quite frankly, at this time, because there has not been the
initiatives taken and the effort made by this government to follow up with that
policy. Hollow words. It is just like their sustainable development
words. They talk about sustainable
development and then conveniently forget about it when a particular issue
arises which requires that it be conveniently forgotten about.
So
we want to see them live up to that promise and that commitment on the 12
percent. I have even said that they
should go to 13 percent to show they are leaders, 14 percent, more than the 12
percent, to designate in this province, to demonstrate that we in
Mr.
Acting Speaker, I have given this minister our policy insofar as the feelings
that I have and the doubts that I have about this minister's intent with this
particular bill when it comes to charges in the parks without representation
for these particular people who happen to be settled in a particular park,
taxation without representation. The
minister learned nothing from his Bill 21 which he brought before this House
last year. He had to withdraw it last year.
We thought he would learn from that and bring back a bill that would
ensure that there was representation, that the charges would be related to the
services, that some of that money would go back into the rural
municipalities. That has not happened.
We
see a tax grab by this government of $500, $600, $700, three, four, fives times
as much as they have been getting from these particular Manitobans. There is no commitment whatsoever to
returning any of that money back to the local communities and ensuring services
are provided to these people at a level that is at least relative to those
services that are being received by people in a particular area where the park
is located.
We
have seen no additional improvements by this minister. He brings in Bill 41. He buries Bill 21 from last year within that
bill in the hopes that the people will not see the true colours of this
government and its charges being made.
They have seen it, Mr. Acting Speaker, because 200 people have come
forward and said they are going to register their concerns with this government
at the hearings. We hope that this
minister will learn from that, he will listen, he will do unlike his colleagues
who ignore the representations of the public.
He
will listen and he will bring forward amendments in this House to ensure that
those particular aspects of the bill are changed to reflect the needs of the
public in this province, to ensure that money is returned to the local
communities, to ensure that there is representation in the decisions that are
made and to ensure that there is a relationship between the services that are
provided and the charges and increases in those charges that are being
made. That is what is important in that
aspect of the bill and that is what we have said, Mr. Acting Speaker, from the
very beginning on this particular bill.
Can
you tell me, Mr. Acting Speaker, how much time I have left?
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Ten minutes.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Speaker, I have said to this
minister earlier, he was not listening too closely and I do not blame him for
that.
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): You have to yell louder.
Mr. Plohman: The Minister of Highways and Transportation
says I have to yell louder. I would hope
that the members opposite would sit and listen to the members of the opposition
when we are speaking on important bills in this House.
Earlier the minister was not paying attention
and so he did not hear the concerns that are raised with the way that he
handled the Repap issue and why his predecessor in Natural Resources as
minister did not ensure that that voice was heard in cabinet when his Minister
of Finance, his colleague, was busy throwing away all the cutting rights in the
area to Repap when they did not have to do it to make a deal on Manfor.
They got snookered in that negotiation. They gave away the cutting rights to the
whole area to one large corporate holder instead of ensuring that the needs of
the small quota holders in that particular area were protected. That was a major mistake but it is reflective
of this government's policy. They would
not call it a mistake. They do not
recognize it as a mistake because that is their policy. That is the way they do business. It is tying up large portions of resources of
this province with the Abitibis and with the Repaps in this province. They do not care about the small quota holders
who were there long before Abitibi, long before Repap, who should have first
opportunity to expand their particular cutting areas.
Now, Mr. Acting Speaker, I have said that the
resources of the area that have been there historically have to be
considered. The economic impact of those
resources in a particular area have to be considered when one is making
decisions, rather than blanket decisions being made.
I
said that the government must set aside these pristine areas, this 12 percent
and more in areas in the province where there has not been historical economic
activity from those particular resources.
But where there has been historic economic opportunity, where it has
been relied upon, Mr. Acting Speaker, as it has been in the
When this government is tearing asunder the
rural economy, when it is failing dismally in stimulating economic activity in
the rural communities, such as they are doing in the Parkland region, such as
they are doing by tearing down the many government jobs in the town of Dauphin,
where one minister after another has targeted that community because they did
not vote right for this particular government, where they have failed to
deliver on their decentralization promises and then gone ahead and eliminated
many other jobs that they had committed to delivering and to maintaining in the
area, then we need to maintain the other economic activities that are there.
* (1700)
Mr.
Acting Speaker, we have seen a complete failure by this government to deliver
on any economic activity and jobs in our area.
I am sure that the other members opposite from rural areas know that as
well. They have seen the failure, they
have seen the VLT money being sucked out of those communities and even the
nonprofit groups not being able to maintain the services that they have
maintained over the years, the legions going down because they have not had the
revenue that they have had historically, and they have nothing to replace
it. The pittance of the VLT money that
is being returned to these communities is not sufficient to even make a dent in
the loss that is being made as a result of the VLT money that is being taken
out.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
There is no balance there at all. There is no
economic activity by this government.
There are no jobs being created. Even young people are being forgotten
by this government with regard to youth job creation. So I say, Mr. Acting Speaker, when this
government comes to looking at the issue of the resources of the area, the
Parkland region, they have to consider the historic role that those resources
have played, and considering the national park that has been lost in that
area. They must consider those criteria
very carefully.
But
get on with it, Minister. Get on with
setting aside that 12 and 13, 14 percent of
Now, I say, Mr. Speaker, when we look at the
results of this government, and the people of
We
have seen minister after minister in this Legislature, in the committees,
refuse to take into consideration what is being proposed by the people, refused
to consider the logical suggestions that are being made simply because they
want to say, we do not make mistakes, we are in charge here. We are the only source of wisdom, and what we
say must be right even if it is wrong.
So they will do it. That is what
a majority government does to them, Mr. Speaker.
You
recall, Mr. Speaker, vividly, I am sure, during those years from '88‑90
when they had to listen to the people, when they had to accept amendments to
bills. We still had some reason in this
province then. We do not have reason now
from this bunch. They do not listen to
the people anymore because they have got a majority.
Well, maybe after these five by‑elections,
then they will not have a majority or a very tight majority, maybe we are going
to see them listening to the people, because they will not have the votes. They will not have the votes to deliver. I hope they will have the courage, they will screw
up the courage to call those, as soon as the federal election is called, in one
group, not a few here and a few there, but in one group. Let us see what judgment the people make on
this government and its record.
Let
us see how they judge them in those by‑elections. Then, of course, the government, if it loses
those by‑elections, is going to have to listen to the people of
He
would be well advised to go back to those original roots, when he first came
into the Legislature many years ago, to remember what got him here at that time
and to ensure that he is one of those who are advocating responsive democratic
government, not one ruled by autocratic politicians who discard those
suggestions made by the public at every opportunity. That arrogance will be their downfall. Five years and counting, the people are
starting to pay attention to the arrogance of this government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as I have said, I have
summed up in my remarks our serious concerns on Bill 41 in a number of
particular areas. We can only say, since
this is a majority government at this particular time and they are bringing
this bill in, that they must listen to what the people are bringing forward and
amend it to make it responsive and make it fair, make it equitable, ensure that
there is responsive democracy and ensure that the people who are being charged
into this act are getting services that relate to those charges.
I
said, clearly, that the government has got to ensure fairness and equity in all
aspects. I do not support the way this
government is proceeding with these charges.
I have asked that this government respond in a democratic way. We will see if they do. Then I will make up my mind whether this
minister is responsive. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
The
reasons I want to mention this letter to the editor into the record, into
Hansard, are twofold: one is because it
outlines very clearly, as far as I am concerned, some of the major concerns
that have been expressed and will be expressed by people as to the
ramifications of Bill 41 on their lives; and No. 2, because frankly I imagine
the members of the government will not have had an opportunity, nor will they have
availed themselves of the opportunity to read this particular letter, because
it comes from a newspaper that is printed in an area of the province that did
not vote right.
It
comes from The Pas. I am sure that
members opposite pay virtually no attention to anything that happens and yes, I
would like to again put on record the fact that "they did not vote
right" is not my language but it is a direct quote from the Minister of
Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Downey) in this House.
An Honourable Member: What have you got against Oscar?
Ms. Barrett: I would suggest that the Minister of Northern
and Native Affairs knows full well that the current member of the Legislative
Assembly for the constituency of The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) is providing excellent service
and that is why I clarified my remarks.
It was the Minister of Northern Affairs who said that people of the
North did not vote right, not any member from this side of the House.
With those opening remarks, I am going to
quote extensively from a letter from the Opasquia Times, Friday, June 25th of
this year, written by an M. Reid, and I am not sure whether this person is a
man or a woman.
I
quote, and I refer to Bill 41: This is a
very dangerous bill for both cottage owners as well as lease holders and in
this person's opinion must be stopped.
And then this Mr. or Ms. Reid goes on to explain why this is a damaging
piece of legislation: It gives the provincial government sweeping powers to
charge private landowners and occupiers, leaseholders, any fee they deem
necessary without justification.
The
contents of the bill actually state that its intention is to make the cottage
occupiers pay for all services within their park boundary, which would include
paying for all public campsite costs, labour and wage costs, tourist
attractions, forest fire and police protection, et cetera, and anything else
they deem necessary at their discretion.
* (1710)
It
spells out that we must pay whatever they see fit to charge, not only for
current costs but also for any previous deficits in the operation of the Parks
Branch. Just how much could this amount
to? This "service fee" is
obviously a way the government sees to gather funds for their general
coffers. Not only do we not have a say
in how they are spent, we have no guarantee that monies collected in the North
will be spent in the North. They will
also set the interest charged on arrears, and it gives them the right to
register a lien on your property without going through normal court proceedings
for any monies outstanding.
If
you think because your cottage is on leased land this does not affect you, you
are sadly mistaken. It affects every
person who enjoys lake life, either for part of the year or the whole
year. You will still be expected to pay
your lease which incidentally will be only a five‑year lease at
best. It calls for a six‑month
lease in most cases to implement the new regulations that will be drawn up
under the new legislation. Do we have
any idea of what these regulations consist of?
This is only one aspect to Bill 41, but the
sweeping powers it gives the minister and the Parks Branch and the powers to
enforce them should scare anyone. It is
totally dictatorial. In no way does this
bill protect us from exploitation except at the discretion of the minister, and
we all know what happens when strong interest groups start lobbying for what
they want.
I
do not believe anyone wants to get out of paying their fair share, particularly
those that live year‑round on the lake.
But do they not already pay extra for septic systems, extra fuel to go
to work, larger heating bills and electricity bills, town nonresident user
fees, et cetera? The privilege of living
year‑round on
There is nothing to say that those people who
now pay to have their own access roads plowed and haul away their own garbage
will not still have to do these things in spite of paying any fee they choose
to assess under Bill 41. It would seem
totally inconceivable that the total number of cottagers on
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker,
in the Chair)
Mr.
Acting Speaker, I read those words into the record because, as I stated before,
it is a very clear indication of many of the concerns that residents in the
provincial parks have with this piece of legislation. An additional reason that I did not mention
earlier is that the very large number of the people who have signed up to make
presentations to the public hearing process on this Bill 41 come from the
northern part of the province.
If
the government were truly interested in finding out what the people of
Mr.
Acting Speaker, by not choosing to make public hearings available on Bill 41
outside of the Legislative Building, and by not making public hearings
available, particularly in the North where a great many of the people live who
will be impacted by Bill 41, by not making this public hearing process truly
representative, they are disenfranchising many of the people of the province of
Manitoba. I might go on to say that they
are, in their actions in this piece of legislation and in other pieces of
legislation, making a mockery of our public hearing process.
The
government continues to say, and rightly so, that we are the only province that
requires public hearings on all pieces of legislation. However, in the vast majority of cases in
legislation that this government has brought in under its mandate, the
government has chosen to pay lip service to the public hearing process. They have not brought in amendments based on
what individuals have stated in the public hearing process. They have passed without any changes major
pieces of legislation.
The
people who come before the public hearing process are beginning to understand
that this government does not listen to them, does not care about their
concerns and is only going through the motions of the public hearing process
are beginning to understand that this government does not listen to them, does
not care about their concerns and is only going through the motions of the
public hearing process because they are forced, by law, to do so.
Bill 41 is a magnificent example of this
complete lack of responsiveness on the part of this government. It is a wonderful example, along with many
others we could give, of this government thumbing its nose at the democratic
process and at the people of
Mr.
Acting Speaker, there are a number of concerns that we have with this piece of
legislation, and I will speak about some of them. Many of them are outlined in the letter from
M. Reid that I read earlier.
I
guess one of the basic concerns that I have, and this is a concern that has
been stated by others of our caucus colleagues, is the ability of the
government to take money from cottage owners.
I use the phrase "take money."
I chose that phrase deliberately because it is not clear to me, and
perhaps it is clear in the legislation and I am just not aware of it, whether
this is a tax or a lien or what exactly the money transactions are going to be
under Bill 41.
The
word "tax" has been used and the words "tax and lien" have
been used. I think it is indicative of
the lack of clarity this bill has shown that people do not exactly know what
the impact of this legislation is going to be on their lives, except that they
are very worried about it. They are very
worried about what the impact is going to be.
The
government is going to have the power to basically cover all of its costs in a
park, and the letter writer talks about this.
The fact that the government can recover costs, and costs that are not
defined in the legislation, is something that goes absolutely against the
principles that government should be espousing.
I
think the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) used an excellent phrase in this
context when he talked about taxation without representation. It is a phrase that resonates particularly
for me as someone who grew up with the stories of the American Revolution ringing
in my ears along with The Star‑Spangled Banner. The Boston Tea Party, a number of historical
events that I grew up with are as a result of taxation without representation.
Now
I am not for a moment suggesting that the implications of Bill 41 are as
cataclysmic as the American Revolution.
I think that would be inappropriate and putting far too much on this
particular piece of legislation, but I think the principle is the same. The principle is that if you are asked to pay
fees, or if you have a lien put against your property, or if you are asked to
pay taxes, whatever the form this money change of hands takes, the people who
are being asked to provide that revenue should understand what they are being
asked to pay and why. This legislation
gives sweeping authority and ability to the government to decide almost at the
whim what they are going to request or demand from cottage owners and
leaseholders in our provincial parks.
* (1720)
This is a problem, Mr. Acting Speaker, in
principle, and it is also a problem in dealing specifically with this
government. This government has reneged on its commitments. It has not followed through on many of its
elections promises. It has not even
followed through on things it said it would do last year.
Again, as members of my caucus have stated,
the government's original promise to the people of rural Manitoba is that video
lottery terminals would be put into rural hotels so that the rural economy
could be encouraged, so that there would be not only a reason for people to
frequent the rural hotels in the province of Manitoba, but that all of the
profits from those VLTs would be returned directly to rural Manitoba for
additional economic development and improvement in the quality of life. That
was the basis upon which the VLTs were put into rural
Then what happened, they succeeded beyond
anybody's wildest dreams, and I am not sure whether that is dreams or
nightmares in some contexts, but suffice it to say that the VLTs in the rural
hotels did remarkably well at generating revenue. So the government, because it has absolutely
no other economic development strategy, no other strategy of how to get the
province out of this economic slough of despond that it has been in for four
years decided, oh, boy, we have $35 million or $60 million in revenue generated
by these VLTs.
We
did not ever really mean what we said we meant about the return of the revenue
to the rural communities. We are not
only not going to return the money directly; we are not even going to put any
money into the programs that the government has in place to help increase the
infrastructure and improve the quality of life of rural Manitobans.
No,
Mr. Acting Speaker, they took the revenue all for themselves, and 35 percent is
going back to the rural communities. So
we can only agree with the writer of this letter, that you cannot trust this
government to do what it says it is going to do. Even when it makes it very clear what it is
going to do, it goes back on its word time and time again.
In
Bill 41, we do not even have a clear definition of what this government intends
to do. This government can recover any
costs through service fees or taxes that it decides it can recover from the
people who live in provincial parks, whether year‑round or whether they
own the land, lease it, or live year‑round or even part of the year. It is an absolutely open loophole for this
government to drive its taxing revenue through.
Again, this government has stated, starting
with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and his budget speech, that all
Manitobans were going to be asked to share the pain. These were difficult times, and all
Manitobans were going to have to tighten their belt buckles and share the pain.
Well, every single piece of legislation,
almost without exception, that has been brought into this House by this
government defines who will be asked to share the pain, and it is the strangest
thing. It is very clear that it is not
everybody that is going to be asked to share the pain. It is individual groups that are going to be
asked to share the pain, and this latest one is all the people who live in the
parks in our province.
This government is going to be able to not
only recover costs, but they are going to be able to recover costs from
previous years. So, for example, if this
current fiscal year the government decides not to put a lien or tax or service
charge, whatever it is going to call it, on the people of the Swan River and
Dauphin areas to deal with the renovation and the repair as a result of the
floods, they could do it next year, and they might very well.
The
way this provincial government is going, if the government has the nerve to
bring in another budget next spring, I project that the deficit will not be
$862 million, as it was during this fiscal year, but that it will be upwards,
if not over, a billion dollars.
The
government, because it has not shown any inclination over the past six budgets
to implement or even talk about a job creation strategy or an economic
development strategy, will take a look at Bill 41 and say, aha, we did not
charge those cottage owners. We did not
charge those people who live in the provincial parks in that part of the
province any money for the flood control, the Emergency Measures Organization's
staff time, the helicopters that went in distributing food, the movement of
people in and out of Lynn Lake, et cetera, et cetera, so what we are going to
do next year, in fiscal '94‑95, is we are going to retroactively slap a
lien or a tax or a service fee on these people, because we do not have enough
revenue coming in.
For
heavens sake, the last people in this government's lexicon of people who are
going to be asked to share the pain are going to be people like Bob Kozminski
and Arni Thorsteinson. We must do
everything in our powers, this government will say, to protect them. So let us go after the cottage owners. They are going to say let us go after the
cottage owners and the leaseholders in our provincial parks, because they have
absolutely no other strategy, as I have stated before, and because they have
gone after almost everybody else.
They have gone after the single‑parent
families. They have gone after people,
who are looking to get themselves out of the cycle of poverty by going back to
school, by cutting off Student Social Allowance. They have gone after people who have in the
past been able to pay off their fines due to the province through the fine
option program. They are eliminating 55
percent of that, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) even states in his
remarks that it is because they want to save money, not because it is fair, not
because it is equitable or not because it is going to help the social service
agencies who currently make use of the fine option program. No, the Minister of Justice says we are going
to do it because it is going to save us $250,000 a year.
Well, at least the Minister of Justice, to his
credit, minimal though that may be, comes right out and says what it is his
objective is. He makes no bones about it. The same thing with the de‑indexing of
the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
He knows it is not fair. He says
it is not fair. But we need the money,
so let us not have a job strategy. Let
us not have an education and training strategy, except for people like Bob
Kozminski and Great‑West Life. Let
us not have a strategy where people who can afford to help pay their fair share‑‑no.
Let
us make a list of all the groups in the
Mr.
Acting Speaker, this bill is an unbelievably bad bill in the sections that I
have been talking about, about the rights of the government, the ability of the
government to tax at will anything it wants to.
The bill allows the government to charge for bureaucratic overhead. It allows the government to charge for
administrative costs.
What is to keep the government from prorating
the expense or the salary of the deputy minister to all of the cottage owners
and leaseholders in the
Now, the government may say, "trust
us," as the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) said earlier: Trust us, we will not do that. Well, as I referenced earlier, the government
has already broken its promise to the people of rural
* (1730)
Why
should a single person who will be affected by this bill trust this government
not to do what it is allowed by this piece of legislation to do? To treat it as a cash cow, to say we can
charge a $1,000, $2,000 a year extra and say to the people to whom we are
levying this surcharge, this service fee or this tax, we are doing this because
Bill 41 allows us to do this. We are
doing this because we see the parks system in this province as just another
revenue generator, not as a system of lands, of beautiful lands, of a huge
wonderful natural resource that we have in this province that needs to be
protected, that needs to be used efficiently, effectively and for all of the
purposes to which park lands can be used.
No,
Mr. Acting Speaker, this piece of legislation allows the government to see it
as a revenue generator. There are
services in this province and in our country that we have never seen as revenue
generators and, I believe, we should not see as revenue generators. Total cost recovery should not be part of the
system in many of the services that our governments provide, because they are
services and areas that are the right of the citizens of our province to enjoy.
The
education system is one. We do not ask
the education system to pay for itself.
Although we are coming closer and closer in that regard, since both the
federal government and this provincial government have continually cut back the
resources to the public school system, thereby forcing students to go out on
fundraising drives. We are moving in
that direction, but right now, we still say that public education is a service
that must be provided from the public purse and through public revenues,
because we understand the importance that public education plays for all of us.
The
same thing with the public health system, although that too is under attack by
this provincial government and the federal Conservative and federal Liberal
government before it.
We
still give lip service, at least this government still gives lip service to the
concept of health care that is paid for, not by individuals through their
pockets as a cost recovery, but through the revenue generation of the province
through taxes of various sorts. That is
something that the people of the
So
we have the public education system, the public health care system, we have
also the public highways system. We do
not ask the highways of this province to be totally cost recovery in
scope. We all agree that the public
highways system in our province provides us with much more benefits than it
costs us. We are willing to pay out of the public purse and the public revenue
what it costs to maintain and upgrade the highways system in this province.
Mr. Enns: The Highways department is a revenue‑bearing
department.
Ms. Barrett: The Highways department is a revenue‑bearing
department as the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) states, but it does
not recover all of its expenditures through licence fees or through whatever
levies.
Mr. Enns: Yes.
Ms. Barrett: It does not.
Mr. Enns: Yes, it does.
Ms. Barrett: Every single cent of the‑‑
Mr. Enns:Yes, it does.
Ms. Barrett: Well, I stand corrected. If the Minister of Natural Resources says
that the highways system pays for itself through licence fees and other revenue‑generating
statements, who am I to argue with the Minister for Natural Resources?
Okay, we have health, education. Certainly the the social services are not
revenue generating. I am suggesting that
like the other services that are provided by the provincial government to the
citizens of the province that are not expected to be revenue generating, and I
could speak about the justice system, although the Minister for Justice (Mr.
McCrae) is attempting to make it more revenue generating than we feel it should
be. Ultimately, the revenue generated by the fines and the fees and the other
things‑‑the recovery from the social assistance system to maintenance
enforcement do not begin to approximate the cost of the justice system, nor
should they.
I
am suggesting that Bill 41 is a bill that starts or continues the government's
propensity towards getting revenue from anywhere else but through fair revenue‑generating
systems and good economic and job creation programs. If the government is not going to create any
jobs, any job training programs, any education upgrading programs, if they are
going to dismantle the ones they have, they must know that they are, by
definition, reducing their revenue sources from taxation.
As
a matter of fact, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) stated that in his
Budget Address, that revenues are flat.
Well, revenues are flat because people are not working. Revenues are flat, expenditures are up
because people are not working and the social assistance rolls are
burgeoning. The only growth industry, as
we have stated from this province, is the social assistance rolls, and that is
not an effective, efficient nor fair method of servicing to the people of
So
what is happening with Bill 41, I think, is just another in the line of bills
that have come before this Legislature which gives the province the ability to
unfairly tax or levy liens or take money from cottage owners and
leaseholders. It is starting on the
process of making the provincial parks, if not only revenue neutral, then maybe
even ultimately a source of revenue. The parks system in our province should not
be seen that way in its entirety.
We
talked about the ability to generate revenue in the parks, and Bill 41 does
talk about a number of classifications of parklands. The area that I am most concerned about in my
speech is the impact it is going to have on cottage owners and the fact that it
is very unfair. It does not speak to the
fact that virtually no other homeowner or person who pays property taxes of any
sort is asked to completely pay for the services that are provided for them.
It
is a recognition that we have resources and we have programs and services that
must be available to the people of
Not
only is this Bill 41 a potential taxation without representation, but it also,
as the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) pointed out, takes away another element
of taxation, another element of asking people to pay for services, and that is
that there should be some relationship between the charges that are levied and
the services that are provided.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, we feel that Bill 41 in its current manifestation allows for
the minister a great deal of latitude and discretion to completely obliterate
that balance between services rendered and levies charged. It allows‑‑and this is all
potential because we have not had the public hearings, we have not seen the
regulations, we do not know how this bill is going to work itself out in
actuality. But, as is always the case in
second reading, we are discussing the principles of the piece of legislation
and the concerns that we have about the potential misuse of the powers that
this bill allows for.
* (1740)
Another area that has been raised by members
this afternoon and one that I have some concern as well is that there does not
seem to be an avenue of appeal for people, for cottage owners or leaseholders
in this piece of legislation. This
again, Mr. Acting Speaker, is another area where the government is not just
mishandling itself in Bill 41. There is
another thread that runs through several pieces of legislation this government
has brought forward this session, not the least of which is the expropriation
legislation that we have not yet discussed in this House, Bill 26, which takes
away one level of appeal from the decisions of the Land Value Appraisal Commission
and gives that first level of appeal straight to the Land Value Appraisal
Commission.
Expropriation, Mr. Acting Speaker, is one of
the most draconian elements of power than any government has, and it is
essential that any power of expropriation has an equal and oppositional method
of appeal, because otherwise the people are at the total mercy of the
government. We agree with expropriation
in the public good, but we also agree with the principle that individuals and
landowners who are expropriated have the right of appeal to the court system in
order to be able to balance in some way the enormous power that expropriation
gives one.
It
appears in Bill 41 that the same principle is at operation, that the appeal
process for individuals is being eliminated or severely curtailed. This is very interesting, coming from a
government that speaks so highly and so often about the rights of the
individual and how the government should get out of the business of people.
Well, it is very interesting that the
government is eliminating, is getting out of the business of governing when it
comes to social programs, when it comes to job training, when it comes to
education, when it comes to health care.
They are more than happy to cast off those onerous responsibilities
which democratic governments have had in
Let
the individual who was on student social allowance go live with their parents,
whether their home life was one of abuse or not. Let them get a part‑time job, just like
there are any part‑time jobs to be had.
There certainly are not any full‑time jobs to be had. You talk to students today, students who are
not operating under the handicaps that the students who were accessing student
social allowances, talk to them about the problems they are having getting jobs
so that they can go back to school.
It
is ridiculous what this government is doing to individuals in many areas, but
they are more than willing to have the heavy hand of government come down in
other areas. They are more than willing
to take away appeal processes under The Expropriation Act in Bill 26. They are more than willing to take away
appeals under Bill 41.
An Honourable Member: This is on Bill 41, Mr. Acting Speaker?
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Acting Speaker, I was talking about the
lack of the appeal process, or the clarity of the appeal in Bill 41. The cottage owners are very concerned about
this element of the legislation.
It
flies in the face of logic and fairness that the government has brought this
bill in at this time without the consultation that it so highly touts that it
is so good at. There are elements of this bill that do talk about the
consultation process. I will give the
minister that. There are elements, there
are areas where the minister can only do something after consultation.
However, I would feel a lot clearer and a lot
more comfortable about those elements of the bill if we did not have examples
like the Assiniboine diversion, if we did not have examples like two years ago,
the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) saying, I am consulting, I
am working with the Child and Family Services agencies, the six independent
Child and Family Services agencies, one of which had been independent for over
60 years, at the same time that he has ordered his staff to change the
regulations to eliminate those independent Child and Family Services agencies.
The
consultation process in Bill 41 is suspect, if only because the consultation
process that this government has undertaken in every other piece of legislation
has been absolutely dishonest and nonproductive.
With those few words, Mr. Acting Speaker, I
will conclude my remarks on Bill 41.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Acting Speaker, I
know we have had many speakers from our side, and we look forward to
presentations in committee. There is
apparently a lot of interest in this bill and so there should be. I know there are many northerners registered
for the committee. I believe a
significant number of people from The Pas and Flin Flon in particular have
registered. We look forward to their
concerns.
I
want to indicate that certainly our concerns about this are very clear. We have put in very clear terms our
opposition to some of the specifics of this bill which threaten the integrity
of our park system. We have expressed
our concern going back to the original parks bill about the rather interesting
situation that many cottage owners find themselves in now in terms of paying
into the general coffers, Mr. Acting Speaker, of this province, rather than
having some local control of having taxation with representation which is one
of the precepts of democracy of any civilized society.
So
our opposition to the attempt of the government, once again, to try second time
around to deal with the obvious faults in their approach the first time are
very clear. We look forward to the
presentations in committee, because I think it would be very interesting to
hear some of the comments in terms, as I said, of the integrity of our park
system, a major concern that we certainly have and also fairness to cottage
owners. Mr. Acting Speaker, we look forward
to dealing with those.
I
would hope that we would be able to give proper notice to the many people who
have given an indication they want to appear before the committee. I believe the intent is to have the committee
hearings tomorrow night. As I said, we
have serious problems with a good part of this bill, and we will be continuing
to raise those discussions both in committee and on third reading. Thank you.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 41. The honourable
Minister of Natural Resources to close debate.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Acting Speaker, I simply wanted to thank
honourable members who participated in the discussions on Bill 41. I, like them, look forward to the
representation to be made when this bill goes to committee. I want to make just this one or two
observations. I am encouraged by
certainly the comments both by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) and the
member for
I
say, generally speaking, to my friend from the Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) who
expresses his concern about the cottagers and the references to the collection
of user fees or service fees as they are now known, nothing really has
changed. What has changed is that we are
in this bill suggesting a mechanism whereby the cottagers can have and will
have some influence with respect to the charges and user fees collected. The legislation as it now stands empowers the
department or the minister to collect their fees as they have been collected
for the last 30 or 40 or 50 years with no appeal, with no opportunity for the
cottage owners to be part of the process in determining what constitutes a fair
and acceptable level of service and indeed what should constitute a fair and
reasonable service fee for those services.
* (1750)
So,
Mr. Acting Speaker, I think there has been a premature arousing of
concern. The fact of the matter that you
do not have an organized municipal structure of government there makes the
Department of Natural Resources the obvious and the only authority that has to
deal with the issues in the park. The
kind of fearmongering, if I can use that term, about the fact that cottage
users are now going to be responsible for forestfire protection or for all of
the other costs associated with the park, are specifically obviated by the fact
that the bill speaks of park districts.
We
talk about the particular services, the snow plowing, the garbage removal, the
other water services that are germane to the cottage community. There is no question and no suggestion in the
bill that the group of cottage owners should now assume the total costs or make
the total operations of the park fall down on their shoulders by way of vastly
increased fees.
I
look forward, Mr. Acting Speaker, to having that opportunity explained to the
cottage owners directly. I will
certainly listen to their presentations on the important issue.
I
express some significant disappointment in members opposite who make the case
about the importance, who remind myself of the commitment that this government
has to the Endangered Spaces Program.
You know, in none of the contributions to Bill 41, not one could
acknowledge the single, largest setting aside of land for the Endangered Spaces
Program‑‑some 2.5 million acres, larger than twice as half than
Atikaki Park, which is our only true wilderness park area, in which no logging,
no mining, no hydro development will take place, which is set aside in a
reserve, which Monte Hummel, the chairman of the World Wildlife Fund, flew
specially down from Toronto to acknowledge the significance of this with
respect to Manitoba taking an important step in the Endangered Spaces Program.
Let
me also say to the honourable members that the entire contribution of the parks
system, as it now stands, cannot be counted for the Endangered Spaces Program
because we are silent on the question of resource extraction. That is why we always end up not coming up
that well when compared to other jurisdictions.
This legislation in the systems plan, in the
categorizing of the various parks, will enable, in my judgment, I do not know,
that will be determined on consultation processes, that perhaps upwards to 75
or 80 percent of the 3.5 million acres that are currently composed of our
provincial park system could be eligible for the Endangered Spaces Program.
So,
Mr. Acting Speaker, I am quietly confident, very confident, that the commitment
made by my Premier (Mr. Filmon), by this province‑‑I remind
honourable members, the first provincial jurisdication to endorse the
Endangered Spaces Program‑‑can and will be met.
We
are very much on target. The target date
was set, with some reasonableness as to the importance of designating land, for
the year 2000. We will move, as we have
moved this year, in such a significant way by the establishment and the setting
aside of some 2.5 million acres of land in the Port Churchill region for a very
significant second national park for Manitoba as a candidate for‑‑which
will certainly be accepted in the Endangered Spaces Program. That indication has been made by the World
Wildlife Fund as moving towards that direction where we will do precisely what
honourable members opposite say.
We
are also doing, in a much more forthright and a much more honest way, precisely
what can and shall happen in our province with respect to the important job‑creating
resource extraction. That will be spelled out in the regulations as they are
formulated after passage of this bill.
I
thank honourable members for their contribution and look forward to their
continuing contribution as we move this bill towards committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 41. Is it the pleasure
of the House to adopt the motion? (agreed)
Committee
Change
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), that the composition of the Standing
Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) for The Pas (Mr.
Lathlin).
Motion agreed to.
House
Business
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Acting Speaker, on House Business, I would like to announce that the Standing
Committee on Law Amendments will be called for 9 a.m. tomorrow morning in the
same committee room as it met today‑‑I believe that is Room 254‑‑to
continue hearing Bill 24, The Taxicab Amendment and Consequential Amendments
Act.
I
believe there might be a willingness to call it six o'clock.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Is it the will of the House to call it six
o'clock? (agreed)
The
hour being six o'clock, I am leaving the Chair and will return at 8 p.m.