LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday, March 4, 1993
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Conrad Hykawy, O. Carlsen, Don McDonald and others, requesting the Minister
responsible for MPIC (Mr. Cummings) consider implementing no‑fault auto
insurance, capping insurance commissions and bringing other recommendations of
the Kopstein report that the government has delayed acting on.
Mr. Speaker: I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr.
Martindale). It complies with the
privileges and practices of the House, and it complies with the rules (by
leave). Is it the will of the House to
have the petition read?
To the Legislature of the
The petition of the undersigned
citizens of the
WHEREAS the federal Government has
brought in a new program called the Child Tax Benefit which takes effect in
January 1993; and
WHEREAS social assistance programs
are already well below the poverty line and any reductions will cause further
hardship; and
WHEREAS the provincial government
has still not decided whether to count the Child Tax Benefit; and
WHEREAS Family Allowance payments
were exempt in
WHEREAS other provinces have already
said that they will not tax this benefit.
WHEREAS the new Federal Child Tax
Benefit, while it will not reduce poverty, will provide some badly needed money
for low income Manitobans.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly
pray that the Legislature Assembly of
* * *
I have reviewed the
petition of the honourable member for
To the Legislature of the
WHEREAS each year smoke from stubble
burning descends upon the
WHEREAS the Parents Support Group of
Children with Asthma has long criticized the harmful effects of stubble
burning; and
WHEREAS the smoke caused from
stubble burning is not healthy for the general public and tends to aggravate
the problems of asthma sufferers and people with chronic lung problems; and
WHEREAS alternative practices to
stubble burning are necessitated by the fact that the smoke can place some
people in life‑threatening situations; and
WHEREAS the 1987 Clean Environment
Commission Report on Public Hearings, "Investigation of Smoke Problems
from Agriculture Crop Residue and Peatland Burning," contained the
recommendation that a review of the crop residue burning situation be conducted
in five years' time, including a re‑examination of the necessity for
legislated regulatory control.
THEREFORE your petitioners humbly
pray that the Legislative Assembly will urge the government of
As in duty bound your petitioners
will ever pray.
* * *
I also have reviewed the
petition of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). It complies with the privileges and practices
of the House, and it complies with the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read?
The petition of the undersigned
citizens of the
WHEREAS the provincial government
has not implemented the major recommendation of the Kopstein report which was
to bring in no‑fault auto insurance; and
WHEREAS over four years ago, the
Kopstein report found that if
WHEREAS over two years ago, a second
government report found that over $63 million could be saved if
WHEREAS the provincial cabinet this
year after being extensively lobbied, rejected a business plan capping
insurance commissions that would have saved
WHEREAS the rates for auto insurance
are now being raised on average by 9.5 percent to 14.5 percent when the
inflation is less than 1.3 percent, making this the highest actual increase in
the history of this province; and
WHEREAS one in five car drivers in
this province will now face increases of 13.5 percent; and
WHEREAS the provincial government
has not implemented other aspects of the implementation of the Kopstein report.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly
pray that the Legislative Assembly of
* (1335)
PRESENTING REPORTS BY
STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mr. Jack Reimer (Chairperson of the Standing
Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the First
Report of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources.
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): To the honourable Legislative Assembly of
Your Standing Committee on Public
Utilities and Natural Resources presented the following as its first report.
Your committee met on Tuesday, March
2, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in Room 255 of the
Mr. Robert Brennan, President and
Your committee has considered the Annual
Report of the Manitoba Energy Authority for the year ended March 31, 1992,
together with the Financial Statements for the 15 months ended June 30, 1992,
and has adopted the same as presented.
Mr. Reimer:
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for St. Vital
(Mrs. Render), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural
Development): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual
Report 1992 for the Municipal Board.
Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Government
Services): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual
Report 1991‑92 for the Seniors Directorate.
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table two
annual reports, one for the Ministry of Health and the second for the
Alcoholism Foundation of Manitoba.
House Business
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave of the House,
on behalf of the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey), that she might revert
back to Ministerial Statements after Question Period. There is a report being prepared on a major
issue that she would like to report on at that time.
Mr. Speaker:
Is there leave of the House to allow the honourable Minister of Education
and Training to revert to Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports after
Question Period?
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House
Leader): I am not quite prepared to give conditional
leave not knowing what it is. We would be prepared to give leave‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. Just for a
ministerial statement. Is there leave? [agreed]
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker:
Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable
members to the gallery, where we have with us this afternoon, from the Ste.
Agathe School, ten Grade 9 students. They are under the direction of Mr. Robert
Constable. This school is located in the
constituency of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness).
Also this afternoon, we have from
the Maples Collegiate, 30 English Language students. They are under the direction of Mr.
On behalf of all honourable members,
I would like to welcome you all here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Immigrant Investor Fund
Audits
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier.
On December 16, 1992, in the House, on
questions raised on the Immigrant Investor Fund, the Premier said that the
funds proposals are reviewed by the department as to the job creation benefits
for the Manitoban economy, and based on that recommendation, a recommendation
is made to
In the consultant's report which was
released by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism on December 30, 1992,
the report found: Our review has
indicated a general lack of hard economic analysis documentation on specific
investment proposals outside of the information provided by the promoters
themselves.
This completely contradicts the
allegation made in this House by the Premier.
I would like to ask the
Premier: Has his government received the
specific audits on the specific funds that were contracted by the government in
their announcement in the new year?
* (1340)
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade
and Tourism): Mr.
Speaker, in terms of the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that there
is an inconsistency, he is absolutely incorrect. In terms of any inconsistency, that is the
role and responsibility of Industry, Trade and Tourism officials to do the
economic review. The suggestion of the
auditor was that in some instances it did not go far enough. We have now implemented a policy whereby
there will also, in conjunction with the internal review, be an independent
review on any applications that come forward.
In terms of the specific individual
audits of five separate funds that are being done by Deloitte & Touche, one
is complete, four are pending, and when we receive all five audits, we will be
making the necessary public statement at that time and dealing with the issue.
Immigrant Investor Fund
Audits
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the
minister that the report clearly said that the economic analysis was done by
the promoters. In other words, Bob
Kozminski and Jack Levit were doing the economic analysis, not the Premier's
department in Industry, Trade and Tourism.
That is right in the report on page 16, a point not highlighted in the
minister's press release shortly after he received the report.
Mr. Speaker, we have received a copy
of a letter indicating that not only financial audits are taking place in the
five funds under the Immigrant Investor Fund, but also legal audits are taking
place. I would like to ask the
Premier: Since he is copied on this
letter from one Mike Bessey, what type of legal investigations are being
conducted by the
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would expect that the Leader
of the Opposition would be complimenting us on being as thorough and as
complete as possible, not only doing a financial audit but also a legal audit. It would seem to me that if you were
interested in attempting to ensure that we get all the facts and all the
information so that we can indeed judge based on actual evidence, not innuendo
and not political muckraking, we would get all the information. That is what we are doing as a responsible
government. That information then will
be part of the background that will lead to the thorough and very, very
comprehensive review that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism will be
able to then share with the federal government and with all of the parties
involved.
Mr. Doer: Mr.
Speaker, with the greatest of respect, I wrote the Premier in March 1991 on the
Immigrant Investor Fund, and perhaps if he would have initiated the
investigation at that point until a later point when it became an issue in the
public media, perhaps we would be a year and a half ahead of where we are today
in terms of the investments that are being made and reputation of
The Premier never answered the
question. Who is doing the legal
audit? We have a copy of an untendered
contract for some $50,000 which specifies $50,000 to go to Deloitte &
Touche for legal counsel. We were aware
that one Richard Shead was the former lawyer hired involved with this audit,
but we note from Michael Bessey's memo, copied to the Premier, that a lawyer
named D'Arcy McCaffrey is copied on the letter.
I would just like to ask the
Premier: Is the former legal counsel
dealing with this issue of a legal audit?
Is he still dealing with it, or has the government had to hire new legal
lawyers? Who got the $50,000 that was
untendered in the proposal that was released a couple of weeks ago?
Mr. Filmon:
Mr. Speaker, I might indicate that the allegations that the member made
in his letter of 1991 were totally unsubstantiated, did not address the issues
that currently are under audit. They
were just simply a cheap political ploy by the member to try and name some
people whom he thought were associated with our party and imply that there were
some things that were wrong with the fund because of that. As usual, he was up a blind alley and did not
provide us with anything that was relevant to the issues that are being
investigated today.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the
information that the member has put forward is correct, although I will double
check it, that the lawyer who is acting in this particular instance as counsel
to the investigation is indeed D'Arcy McCaffrey.
Untendered Contracts
Fleet Vehicle
Maintenance
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister
of Government Services.
We are seeing increasing evidence of
the government bypassing the Provincial Auditor in contracting out auditing
work to private firms. In fact, earlier
today in the Public Accounts committee it was revealed that the Minister of
Government Services has given out a contract for auditing fleet vehicles.
Would the minister at this time
table that contract in the House and tell Manitobans who will be doing the
work?
* (1345)
Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Government
Services): Mr. Speaker, first of all, this government
more than any other government, did not have a list like the previous
government dealing with government services.
When we took office, that particular government, when they were in
government over there, had a list of many, many consultants whom they would
only use. This new audit just approved by the SOA, there were six or seven
proposals. I do not have all of them at
my fingertips, but I will get the successful one for the member for the next
sitting.
Mr. Maloway: Mr. Speaker, would the minister release the
criteria that were used to select the firm?
Mr. Ducharme:
Mr. Speaker, first of all, we have a list of people who are out there in
the private sector. [interjection] They are in the phone book. There is a list of them.
First of all, there are people who
come forward to the government, unlike the previous administration, who asked
if they could participate in the audit.
They go through a process; there is a grading of audits that recommends that
auditor to that particular project.
Mr. Maloway: Mr. Speaker, the minister appears to be hiding
this contract, and I would like to see some immediate action here and have the
minister table a copy of that contract and the criteria that went into his
making that decision.
Mr. Ducharme:
Mr. Speaker, the whole process of going through hiring auditors is a
process that has been in practice for many, many years. People come forward and approach the
government to participate. There is a
grading schedule that is used to appoint those auditors.
Untendered Contracts
Independent Audits
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
My question to the Minister of
Finance is: Why has the government
decided to contract out auditing responsibilities when the Provincial Auditor
is quite able to provide this service and to ensure that as legislators we have
a way in which we can put questions to the Provincial Auditor? We do not have the right to put the questions
directly to these independent audits that the government is tending them to.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I find it strange the member
asked that question. He asked it three
times in Public Accounts committee. He
got a full response at that time. As I
said to him then, and I will say to you now and indeed to all the members of
the House, the legislation that provides boards an opportunity to select, by
way of some procedure, an auditor, either the Provincial Auditor or outside
public sector auditors is permissive. It
is the law of the land.
This Legislature has told Manitoba
Hydro that it can engage the services of accountants, either with the
Provincial Auditor's department or indeed outside accounting agencies. That is the law of the land. That indeed we have said to our boards and
commissions to the extent that they set up a criteria to do so, that they bring
forward, that they make public that criteria. The Crown Corporations Council
has laid out that criteria, Mr. Speaker.
There is a process in place. We
are following that process.
Accountability
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
My question to the minister is: Why is the government moving to take accountability
away from this Legislature?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, there are no
dictates. The only dictate is the laws
of the province, legislatively set into place by actions of this House, which said
that boards and commissions can choose between the Provincial Auditor or
outside agencies, so it is the law of the land.
I say to him, as I said to him this
morning, Mr. Speaker, that the Provincial Auditor ultimately has an overview
opportunity on all agencies and entities of government and is given the
responsibility to report to this House if they find any wrongdoings with
respect to any activities within any Crowns or any agencies or any entities of
government and to report same to this House.
* (1350)
Mr. Lamoureux:
Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Finance tell us why it is that he is
downsizing the Provincial Auditor's office? There has been a reduction in the
resources allocated out to the Provincial Auditor's office, while at the same
time we are seeing a government‑‑and it is the government that is
giving the direction to these agencies, because they are the ones that are
appointing the boards and taking the responsibility away from this Legislature
in order to hold them accountable for the public of
Mr. Manness:
What hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker. That
member sits on LAMC committee with us, and he was fully aware and part of the
decision team that made the decision to allow the Provincial Auditor to spend
fewer resources this year, because that is the approach. What hypocrisy. He was part of the decision. He sits in on LAMC. He should apologize fully to the House.
Point of Order
Mr. Lamoureux:
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Finance‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
On a point of order?
Mr. Lamoureux:
Yes, on a point of order‑‑to withdraw the comment of being a
hypocrite. Let me tell you why. Because in LAMC, I did not support the
Provincial Auditor. I was the only one
out of the all‑party committee that commented on it.
If the Minister of Finance wants to
talk about what happens at LAMC, I am quite prepared, with his‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): I think that the Government House Leader (Mr.
Manness) has gone far too far, and I do believe the use of the term
"hypocrisy," particularly in this context, is bordering on the
unparliamentary.
I think it is particularly unwise of
the Government House Leader in this particular case because, having sat on LAMC
and having known the discussions took place, there is no way, Mr. Speaker, that
the Government House Leader can, in any way, shape or form, indicate that LAMC,
which has control strictly over internal budgets and even then subject to the
final decision of the government, can be held accountable for this change in
policy direction by the government in terms of the use of outside auditors.
So in using that term
"hypocrisy," it is not the member who is being hypocritical, and I
use this in the nonunparliamentary sense, it is the Government House Leader.
I would ask him to withdraw the
charge made against the member that is patently false.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): On the same point of order, the member in his
question said that the government has forced this activity away from the
Provincial Auditor. Mr. Speaker, all I
made mention of was the fact that the Provincial Auditor came before us and
said and requested that they not re‑use all the resources that they had
been provided. Furthermore, the Provincial Auditor fully acknowledged today
that they indeed were successful in having the Arts Council tender, and we are
glad to have it so.
Mr. Speaker:
On the point of order raised by the honourable member for
* (1355)
Diagnostic Centre
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, desperate parents who have
absolutely no place to turn for help with their severely learning disabled
children have looked with hope to the diagnostic centre, which is housed at the
I want to ask the Minister of
Education (Mrs. Vodrey) today how she can explain the actions that she has
taken with regard to this diagnostic centre, the only kind, as I have said, in
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Again the concerns of parents and also the
benefits to children in this province are of great concern to this government
and to myself as minister, and therefore, we wanted to make sure that any
changes were going to be supported by services within communities.
Our diagnostic learning centre from
that centre has, at the moment, approximately 25 to 30 children a year, not a
large number. The numbers have decreased
because divisions themselves have taken on this particular service and are now
providing it at the child's home school division.
The importance of that, Mr. Speaker,
is the child does not have to leave his or her own home and come into a centre
in
Mr. Plohman:
Mr. Speaker, that is utter garbage.
The many small school divisions just do not have these services. I want to ask this minister how she can
explain shutting down this service and laying off the nine staff there who have
worked with these children, and how she came to that decision.
Did she consult with the parents of
those kids who are involved? Did she
consult with the school officials who referred them, with the teachers, with
other people who work with these children?
Did she consult with them prior to this decision?
Mrs. Vodrey:
First of all, the number is not nine.
Let me remind the member that as I said yesterday, our department is
maintaining the services of two specialists to assist across the province in
very specialized areas, in the areas that relate to the emotionally and
behaviourally disordered children, which has been an area of great concern
across this province.
Our department is taking the
leadership to make sure that there is development and expertise available in
that particular area; however, Mr. Speaker, among divisions, there is now
currently expertise to assist children and to assist children in their home
schools or, at a minimum, in their home division. That has been official
because it does not remove children from their home division, from their
friends and from their family lives.
Mr. Plohman:
Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. In
the small school divisions, these services are just not available. I want to ask this minister to be truthful
with this House and explain to this House.
Point of Order
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, the member for Dauphin has
crossed the line significantly when he says he wants the minister to be
truthful because, of course, what he is not saying is that the minister has
been untruthful. I say to the member that he has to withdraw that statement.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious there is a
major disagreement over the facts. Very
clearly, our Education critic does not accept the answer of the minister. That is not a point of order. In terms of being truthful, if one looks at
the specific references in Beauchesne, to suggest that a member be truthful, my
suggestion would not be unparliamentary.
Obviously, all members have to be truthful. I think the concern of the member is over the
fact that the minister obviously does not know what is happening out in many
small school districts. That, however,
is a dispute over the facts and is not unparliamentary.
Mr. Speaker:
On the point of order raised by the honourable Government House Leader
on the comments raised by the honourable member for Dauphin about the
honourable minister not telling the truth, not telling the truth appears on
both lists, unparliamentary and parliamentary.
I would just caution the honourable
member for Dauphin, for the watching public here, the example we are setting to
everybody, the young kids watching in the Chamber the proceedings, pick your
words very, very carefully.
* * *
* (1400)
Mr. Plohman:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for those words of advice.
I want to just say in my last
question to the minister that she knows very well those services are not
available throughout this province. They
are not available to vulnerable kids.
She knows that. What hope can she
offer those kids now that she has cut that only service?
Mrs. Vodrey:
The hope that I offer to Manitobans, that this government offers to
Manitobans, is, first of all, that there is expertise available. It has been developed over a period of many
years.
In addition, this government, in an
effort to support children with special needs, has increased the special needs
grants, the money available to support those children. In addition, Mr. Speaker, in this year's
funding formula, we have done what we said we would do. We have modified the formula to increase the
Level II and Level III grants. So we are
providing the services in the field, in the place where those children and
where their families live so that they do not have to be removed from their
homes and so that they can receive expertise in their own home division.
Planning and Innovation
Branch Elimination
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, in the 1990 election, we saw the
Premier campaign from a canoe with green promises. Then in the 1990‑91 annual report from
the Department of Environment, the Planning and Innovation branch had the
responsibility for the WRAP program, to reduce waste and achieve the target of
50 percent reduction of waste. That report
said that they would actively promote environmental protection and sustainable
development. The next year the annual
report had eliminated this, and the government is now cutting this branch.
My question is for the minister
responsible for Environment. What stage is this government at in attaining the
50 percent target, and how is eliminating this branch responsible for that
function going to aid in reaching the target of 50 percent reduction of waste?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, we are well on our way towards
achieving 50 percent reduction by the year 2000, and the member should not
imply in any way that the work that this branch has been carrying on will not
proceed. It in fact will be
operationalized within the other sections of the department, and the work will
continue.
Ms. Cerilli:
Mr. Speaker, it seems to many people that this government is giving up
on waste reduction, recycling. Has the
change in the staffing of this department redeployed these personnel to the
Department of Natural Resources, where we have a minister who has said that
they do not have to wait for an environmental impact assessment to decide if
they are going to support a project?
Mr. Cummings:
Mr. Speaker, The Ozone Depleting Substances Act is now being
operationalized. The beverage container
regulations are now being operationalized within the department. Administration
of tire recycling is now about to be operationalized within the
department. All recycling is taking
place on an increasing scale across this province. Newspaper recycling is growing across this
province. The member simply does not
understand that reorganization does not mean that the function will not
continue.
Ms. Cerilli:
Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to tell the House, given that the
throne speech mentioned the importance of innovation 11 times, how will the
minister ensure that policy and planning on environment issues is going to
happen, and who will be performing this function for this government.
Mr. Cummings: We
have a large number of personnel within this department who pride themselves on
their abilities, their capabilities in dealing with priorities and bringing
forward policies that we will act upon as a government in order to enhance and
protect the environment in this province.
I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the operationalization of the
recycling programs in this province will mean that they will be part of the day‑to‑day
operations and will simply be added to the function within the department.
Program Development
Support Services
Consultations
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House we heard
from the Minister of Education that the province is laying off numerous speech
and hearing clinicians from the Support Services branch.
Can the Minister of Education tell
us, did she consult with any of the school boards, particularly the ones in
rural and northern
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training):
We have ongoing discussions on a regular
basis with school divisions across this province to make sure that we are aware
of their needs. On this particular
decision, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that we have had phone calls into our
office today from divisions who have said, please let us move ahead with it,
because what the honourable member has not understood, and I explained
yesterday, is that the change in clinician services‑‑there is a
formula within our school funding formula which determines the numbers of
clinicians available.
What we have found out is, yes, 52
clinicians were employed by the department, but in fact the formula, when
applied to school divisions, will probably result in more clinicians, 59.5
clinicians, being available to Manitobans, to those rural areas, so the whole
issue and question of concerns of less service and not as much service are,
according to the formula, not accurate.
School Divisions
Clinician Funding
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Can the minister tell us why she is sending
out contradictory messages to school divisions by saying on the one hand they
will have more control over hiring decisions, yet on the other hand, their
autonomy and control on funding issues is rescinded? Why a contradictory message?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Certainly
in the matter of clinician hiring, school divisions will have the
discretion. In the matters relating to
the funding announcement, Mr. Speaker, those were, No. 1, an effort to make
sure the taxpayers of
Ms. Gray: With a final supplementary‑‑at
least I have some solace in knowing that most people involved in education in
Mr. Speaker:
Your question.
Ms. Gray: Can the
minister tell us, if some school divisions decide not to hire clinicians for a
variety of reasons, can the minister guarantee that these services will still
be provided for children across
Ms. Vodrey:
The funds are to hire clinicians, and therefore, we have every reason to
believe that school divisions that do value this service and who will, I am
very sure, want to continue the support for their special needs students within
their divisions will in fact be hiring clinicians. Some divisions may decide to come together
with a regional plan. They may decide an
individual school division plan is not the most suitable and a regional plan
would be more efficient and meet their needs, so we expect them, Mr. Speaker,
to be able to have that ability to make those decisions, and they do in this
case.
Health Care System
Reform
APM Consultants Contract
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First
Minister.
How can the First Minister permit his
Health minister to close beds, lay off nurses, 13 in Hamiota a couple of weeks
ago, 21 at Health Sciences Centre and more to come, while at the same time, he
allowed his Health minister to fly in six U.S. consultants yesterday to
negotiate the Connie Curran contract?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend needs to
understand a couple of things. The
Minister of Health, the government of
Now, if my honourable friend is
suggesting that is how a New Democratic government would manage health care,
then that is quite a different change.
Mr. Speaker, management decisions within the health care system are made
by boards and administration of the respective facilities, based on funding
guidelines that are provided by government.
That is a situation that has existed for many, many years.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell my
honourable friend, let me deal with the issue of, for instance, layoffs at
Health Sciences Centre, which he referred to.
Is my honourable friend willing to also discuss the other side of that
coin and talk about the hiring of many nurses at
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please.
* (1410)
Mr. Chomiak:
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the minister contradicted his own director of
Health Reform, who said the minister is responsible for all bed cuts and makes
all decisions.
Will the minister answer the
question? Will the taxpayers of
Mr. Orchard:
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to my honourable friend when he brought this
issue up in collaboration with my former critic, if and when we conclude a
contract for consulting services, we will make the terms of that contract open for
examination for understanding. If my
honourable friend wishes a clarification, my honourable friend might want to
understand that both St. Boniface and Health Sciences Centre have been urging
this government to engage this particular consulting group because, Sir, they
are simply the best available for the kind of restructuring that we need to do
in
When and if we conclude the terms
which are of benefit to the health care system in
Mr. Chomiak:
Mr. Speaker, he thinks he has a plan.
Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary
to the minister is: In addition to the
$5,500 paid Connie Curran to fly in within the last sixty days to negotiate her
own contract, can the minister confirm whether or not the contract, if it is up
to $6 million, will be paid in Canadian or
Mr. Orchard:
Mr.
Speaker, as I have indicated to my honourable friend, if and when we conclude
any discussions around the issuing of a consulting contract on behalf of the
health care system of
I want to indicate to my honourable
friend that maybe he ought to just ask a few questions of, for instance, the
senior management within Health Sciences Centre and within St. Boniface
Hospital to find out, Sir, whether indeed they believe that this would be of
benefit to health service delivery in
Course Cancellations
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Education.
Will the minister confirm that she
has cut three courses at
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Mr. Speaker, there has been a cancellation of
some courses at
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about refunds. These people gave up jobs
to go to those courses.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for Wolseley, with her question.
Ms. Friesen: Will the minister explain how the elimination
of these particular training opportunities fits with her alternating rhetoric
of cuts today and commitment tomorrow?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Speaker, again the member needs to be very clear about where some of
the funding for these particular programs comes from. They were funded through Canada Employment
and Immigration. We have had some
difficulty with the federal government in terms of funds. Those particular courses received assistance
from the federal government.
Ms. Friesen:
Mr. Speaker, could the minister explain then how these lost
opportunities in telecommunication, refrigeration and industrial electronics
further the economic competitiveness of Manitobans as they enter the next century,
the usual rhetoric of this minister?
Mrs. Vodrey:
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to remind the member that in terms
of decision making for courses, particularly courses which we as a province
have control over the funding, we do take into consideration the number of
students who wish to attend the program, the evaluation of the program
following the program and the number of jobs that students are able to obtain
following, and also the labour market demand for each of the courses.
Provincial Auditor
Independent Audit Costs
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister
of Finance.
The Minister of Finance, a few
minutes ago, lobbed across the House a remark about a calculator and perhaps
the need of a calculator. Well, we would
like to know how finely tuned the Minister of Finance's calculator is, since
there seems to be a variety of cost‑cutting measures going on in a number
of government departments.
Let us begin with the auditors. Can the minister give us a finite figure on
how much money will be saved by this government for monies that will not be
paid to the Provincial Auditor but will be paid for outside audits?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that answer,
because that analysis does not exist.
Mr. Speaker, let it be known that
boards of these outside agencies are the ones who ultimately make decisions
around audit matters. They are in charge
of that responsibility by legislation passed in this House. That has been the way since the beginning of
time in this province. Nothing has
changed.
If the member has some indication,
if she has some valid proof that it is going to cost our outside agencies more
by way of providing for themselves outside contracting services with the
outside auditors as compared to the Provincial Auditor, then she will have to
do that analysis.
Planning and Innovation
Branch
Cost Savings
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the legislation is
permissive. It is not directive.
Since we cannot get an answer with
regard to auditing from the Minister of Finance, will the Minister of
Environment tell us just how much cost saving he anticipates as a result to the
cut in the branch on planning and innovations in the Department of Environment?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, there are considerable dollar
savings. I also would indicate that
there are a number of decisions on both sides of the ledger that are made
during the Estimates process, and they will become evident during the tabling
of the budget.
Program Development
Support Services
Cost Savings
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it is very clear they are making
decisions and they do not know what the cost savings are going to be.
Can the Minister of Education, since
she has obviously cut diagnostic services which are going to be a real loss in
terms of benefit to youngsters, tell us what her cost savings are going to be
in this branch's cuts?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Mr. Speaker, again, I would just like to
assure Manitobans that there is expertise in the field, which has been
developed. This should not be an opportunity
to frighten Manitobans and to scare them, because there is expertise within the
field now. We will continue to provide
specific leadership in the area of emotionally, behaviourally disordered young
people and very severely learning disabled young people.
In terms of the amount of money, Mr.
Speaker, the member will simply have to wait until the budget is tabled.
Transcona-pringfield
School Division
Funding Formula
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, during recent meetings of the
Transcona‑Springfield School Division, trustees informed the residents of
Transcona that the province was cutting back in support by nearly 3 percent for
the division. Trustees were unanimous in
their condemnation of this unfair funding formula.
Since the division No. 12 has
essentially no reserve funds to draw from while the 2 percent cap gives the
Transcona‑Springfield School Division only one‑half of the amount
per pupil that the
* (1420)
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Mr. Speaker, again, our funding formula is
one that is a very complicated formula.
It also depends on the number of students who are currently enrolled,
and it also depends on the average teacher's salary in each division.
So I will have to look very
specifically at the numbers from Transcona‑Springfield School
Division. They have not sent them in to
me yet. The numbers across school
divisions in
Mr. Reid: My
supplementary for the same minister, Mr. Speaker.
Can the Minister of Education explain
why she has ignored at least two written requests by the Transcona-Springfield
trustees to have the Minister of Education calculate the funding support
acknowledging that the division is comprised of one-third rural?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, again, within that school
division, our department has made every effort to assist the
Transcona-Springfield School Division, as we have made an effort to assist all
divisions across this province. The
staff of the Department of Education have gone out to visit with the school
divisions. They have sat and gone
through the formula with the school divisions, and they remain available for
any assistance that the school division, Transcona‑Springfield in
specific, may require as they go about setting their budget.
Meeting Request
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): My final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the
same minister.
Can the minister explain why she has
for many months now ignored the written request by the Transcona-Springfield
trustees for a meeting? Will this minister
agree to immediately meet with the trustees of the Transcona-Springfield School
Division?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Mr. Speaker, I have not denied meetings to
any school division within this province.
I fairly recently have met with a group of parents representing
Transcona-Springfield School Division and looked at their particular issues.
If Transcona-Springfield School
Division would like to have a meeting, I am more than happy. They only have to make the approach through
my appointment secretary. Mr. Speaker, I
have not turned down school divisions for meetings, so I think that is
inaccurate.
Course Cancellations
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
What is she going to do for the
individuals who are put in that type of a situation?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Mr. Speaker, yes, I am aware of the
individual whom the member has spoken about today. He raised the issue yesterday, and I did make
sure that I had the opportunity to find out about any affected
individuals. In this individuals's case,
we will make sure that person knows full well where this course is offered in
alternate to
Gag Order
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has put his question.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Mr. Speaker, certainly information is
available, but I would like to assure the member that for any individual who
has been affected by the cancellation of these courses, each one of those
individuals has been contacted by the college, and they are fully aware of any
changes.
Mr. Lamoureux:
If in fact everything is in order, will the Minister of Education
instruct to pull the gag order so that people in admissions and registration
are allowed to tell those who want to know what courses are being cancelled?
Will she at the very least instruct
the president and the
Mrs. Vodrey:
There have been identified in this House four courses which have been
cancelled for the March 1 start. Those
four courses again were partly supported by direct purchase of the Canada
Employment and Immigration, and we have had reductions in that area. So, Mr. Speaker, that deals with those
four. I want to assure the member again
that individuals who have applied have in fact been informed.
In addition, in any other course
changes, they will be made known with the budget.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
House Business
Mr. Speaker:
Prior to recognizing the honourable member for
I have been advised this morning by
staff that will be extremely difficult, so now I am asking for leave of the
House to adjourn the House tomorrow at 11:30.
Some Honourable Members: Let us do it after Question Period.
Mr. Speaker:
Okay, let us do it this way. Is
there leave of the House then to adjourn the House right after Question Period,
and then we can all reconvene in here at 1:30 tomorrow? Is there leave? [agreed]
I would like to thank all honourable
members.
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENT
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second
Opposition): Could I have leave for a nonpolitical
statement?
Mr. Speaker: Does
the honourable member for
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, this is very brief, but I know
that all members of the House would be delighted that the birth of a child took
place today to one of our members. Paul
Edwards' wife, Anne MacKay, gave birth to a son this morning, 9 pounds, 4
ounces.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Mr. Speaker:
As previously agreed, we are reverting to Ministerial Statements and
Tabling of Reports.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): I appreciate the leave to deliver my
nonpolitical statement. The contents
will become evident. The issue of
translation was the important one. I am
sorry.
I rise to welcome the Supreme
Court's decision rendered today in the area of Francophone school's
governance. As we expected, the decision
confirms the interpretation of the Charter, Section 23, previously given by the
Mahe decision. That is, that where
numbers warrant, the linguistic minority has the right to manage and direct
their schools.
The decision today notes that
because of the numbers of children whose parents have Section 23 rights in
Today's decision reiterates that
governments have a wide discretion in selecting the means by which obligations
concerning Section 23 governance rights are to be met. We have great respect for the court's right
to interpret the Constitution and to judge our actions. We are pleased that the court today has again
reiterated its respect for the policy‑making role of legislators.
The government of
That decision was announced by our
government last year. We have great
confidence in the
The Francophone school board will
have exclusive management and control of the education programs in schools in
its division. The school board will be
run by representatives chosen by Section 23 rights holders. Our government believes that the new school
board will be the most effective if it has the willing support and commitment
of Section 23 parents.
Our government has established an
implementation support team, chaired by the Honourable Alfred Monnin. The team's primary task is to consult with
Francais school communities and give parents an opportunity to signal their
readiness to join the new structure. We
are confident the new governance structure will be effective. We believe a significant number of school
communities will join at the onset.
We call upon the Francophone groups
now to name their representative to the implementation support team. Further delay could result in delayed
elections and that is not what this government wants. By working together in good faith, we can
achieve our objective of providing Francophone governance.
I am pleased to table a copy of the
Supreme Court's unanimous decision offered by Chief Justice Lamer available in
both official languages.
* (1430)
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): I welcome the minister's statement here
today. Of course, this is a very
important, difficult and controversial area, and one that we can say at the
outset that we supported so far as the Supreme Court decision on governance where
numbers warrant, where there are sufficient numbers, and the government is now
at a position where it will have to implement that decision.
The minister has announced what she
believes are the first steps in that process here today. We certainly are committed to finding
workable and practical solutions to this matter here in the
However, having said that, it is not
going to be an easy process, because there is I believe a lack of consensus out
there at the present time with regard to this issue and a great divergence of
opinion as to how the government should proceed in enacting and giving effect
to the Supreme Court decision that we have seen here today. Parents involved with French education as
Francophones and those who are non-French language parents have different views
on what exactly should proceed and happen.
I think one of the concerns that we
have, Mr. Speaker, is with regard to this government's track record insofar as
developing a partnership in consensus building.
There is a great deal of concern insofar as the track record that we
see, not only from this minister but other ministers as well, not only in
Education, in many different areas, an inability to develop a consensus to
consult and to ensure that all views are taken into consideration, whether it
be the so‑called health reform, whether it be the cuts in education that
the minister has undertaken here at the same time that she is announcing this
new initiative here.
So we will be watching and debating
this area very carefully insofar as the implementation strategy and the kinds
of consensus building and process building that this government will undertake
under this minister. We will certainly
have more to say on this matter as time goes on, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Oui, Monsieur le president, il me fait grand
plaisir de faire des commentaires sur la decision de la Cour supreme ce
matin. Je crois que c'est une victoire
pour les Francophones manitobains et puis j'aimerais premierement feliciter le
comite de parents franco‑manitobains pour leur tenacite et leur
devouement envers la gestion scolaire des Franco‑Manitobains. C'est quelque chose qui aurait du avoir lieu
il y a longtemps.
Je regarde ici ce que le
gouvernement Conservateur a depose en Chambre le 6 novembre 1989. C'est tres clair qu'est-ce qu'il voulait
faire. Nous voila rendus en 1993. "Reconnaissant que la population
francophone du
"Dans la mesure du possible, le
gouvernement du
Alors je crois qu'avec la decision
de ce matin, il est tres important qu'on poursuive la gestion des ecoles
francaises. L'important, c'est, je crois, que le Parti Liberal a supporte ca
des le debut et puis je suis sur qu'on a le support de l'opposition
officielle. Mais je vois qu'il n'y a
aucune date d'echeance encore une fois; on dit qu'on va avancer avec le
dossier. Moi, j'ai fait un communique de
presse ce matin et je disais qu'on le verrait en place le 1er septembre
1994. Je regardais peut‑etre le
processus et puis qu'il n'avait pas encore ete depose en Chambre, le projet de
loi. Le comite de parents a indique aux
nouvelles aujourd'hui qu'ils aimeraient voir ca au 1er septembre 1993. Je le verrais comme une bonne chose que ca
soit implante pour le 1er septembre 1993, si les legislateurs se preparent et
se supportent afin de donner la gestion scolaire aux Francophones du Manitoba
qui est due depuis longtemps. Mais qu'on
travaille ensemble pour la communaute et qu'on voie a ce que nos droits soient
respectes.
Je demanderai peut-etre au ministre
de l'Education de mettre en place un regime et un systeme qui permettront a la
minorite francophone d'exercer pleinement ses droits immediatement et que le
projet de loi soit en place d'ici quelques semaines afin que l'on ait des
debats dans la Legislature pour satisfaire a notre communaute.
Pourquoi est‑ce qu'on est
obliges d'aller a la Cour supreme afin d'avoir une decision? La decision etait faite. C'est tres clair et on aimerait avoir une
procedure afin qu'on ait notre gestion scolaire. [interjection] Pardon? Oui.
On le voit ici: "Notre gouvernement a mis sur pied un
groupe de mise en oeuvre que preside l'honorable Alfred Monnin. La principale tache de ce groupe est de
consulter les communautes scolaires de langue francaise et de donner l'occasion
aux parents de signifier leur volonte d'adherer a la nouvelle structure."
J'espere que ca ne sera pas un autre comite d'etude qui va etre mis sur pied,
mais de la consultation afin d'implanter la gestion scolaire au
[Translation]
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to
comment on this morning's Supreme Court decision. I think that it is a victory for Franco‑Manitobans
and I would like firstly to congratulate the Francophone parents' committee for
their tenacity and their dedication to Francophone schools governance in
I am looking here at what the Conservative
government introduced in the House on November 6, 1989. It is very clear what they wanted to do. Now here we are in 1993. "The French Language Services policy of
"The services provided by the Government of
So I think that, given this morning's decision,
it is very important that we press forward with the governance of
French-language schools. What is
important, I believe, is that the Liberal Party has supported this from the
beginning, and I am sure that it has the support of the official opposition. But I see that there is no time frame for
this once again; it is stated that the matter is going to go forward. I issued a press release this morning, and I
indicated that we would see it in place by September 1, 1994. I was perhaps looking at the process and the
fact that the bill had not been tabled in the House yet. The parents' committee said on the news today
that they would like to have it by September 1, 1993. I believe it would be a good thing if it
could be implemented for September 1, 1993, if the legislators are prepared,
and support each other, so as to give Franco‑Manitobans the governance of
their schools, which is long overdue.
Let us work together for the community and ensure that our rights are
respected.
I will, perhaps, ask the Minister of Education
(Mrs. Vodrey) to put into place a system that will allow the Francophone
minority to fully exercise its rights immediately and that the bill be tabled
in the upcoming weeks for debate in the Legislature in order to satisfy our community.
Why are we obliged to go to the Supreme Court in
order to obtain a decision? The decision
was made. It is very clear, and we would
like to have a procedure so that we may have governance of our schools.
[interjection] Excuse me? Yes.
We see here that "Our government has set up
an implementation support team chaired by the Honourable Alfred Monnin. The team's primary task is to consult with
francais school communities and give the parents an opportunity to signal their
readiness to join the new structure."
I hope that this is not going to be another review committee that is
going to be set up but real consultation with a view to implementing
Francophone schools governance in
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House
Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would ask if you could call for
second reading Bill 11, The Regional Waste Management Authorities, The
Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act, and then, Sir, if you
could call for a continuation of debate on second readings the legislation as
it appears on the Order Paper.
SECOND
Bill 11‑The
Regional Waste Management Authorities,
The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural
Development): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer), that Bill 11, The Regional Waste
Management Authorities, The Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments
Act (Loi concernant les offices regionaux de gestion des dechets, modifiant la
Loi sur les municipalites et apportant des modifications correlatives a
d'autres lois), be now read a second time and be referred a committee of this
House.
Motion presented.
* (1440)
Mr. Derkach:
Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to introduce for second reading The Regional Waste
Management Authorities Act and explain the purpose of this particular piece of
legislation.
The purpose of The Regional Waste
Management Authorities Act is to provide legislation that will enable rural
municipalities in
The Department of Environment has
evaluated a number of existing landfill sites and has summarized that the
majority of them would not meet the requirements of the new regulation. As a result, we have had to find alternatives
in order to address the problem before us.
To this end, the sites that we are proposing would have to be
upgraded. Then, if they are not
upgraded, they would have to be closed.
Municipalities, over the course of
the last year, have raised the option of combining resources to develop
regional waste sites. The Department of
Environment has encouraged them to do this and to explore the regional
concept. The Department of Rural
Development has proceeded to develop this proposed bill. The bill itself deals
with the structure and the operation of regional waste management
authorities. However, it does not
address environmental issues related to the siting and the licensing of
regional facilities.
Regional facilities will have both
environmental and economic benefits to municipalities and the communities. The new high standards of the regulation
under The Environment Act will be met and maintained, and municipalities will
experience long‑term cost savings by sharing the costs with neighbouring
municipalities.
This bill also addresses concerns
raised by municipalities regarding the imposition of user fees for waste
management services. Municipalities are
currently required to cover the costs of waste management using property tax
levies. As an alternative payment
method, they have expressed an interest in charging residents by volume for
waste disposal. This new bill, Mr.
Speaker, is responding directly to the requests of
Over the last year or so, Mr.
Speaker, we have seen some concerns expressed by some of our rural residents
with regard to some regulations being implemented around the current waste
disposal grounds. However, as we are
able to get more education out to our communities, it is becoming evident that
these new regulations are for the benefit of our communities and, indeed, the
management of our waste disposal grounds has been required for some time. It is time now to assist municipalities in
allowing them to, not each construct a new waste management facility, but
indeed to be able to co‑operate with surrounding and neighbouring
municipalities in order to be able to meet their needs.
With these brief remarks, Mr.
Speaker, I am recommending this bill for second reading to the House.
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the
Chair)
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 2‑The
Endangered Species Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 2
(The Endangered Species Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les especes en
voie de disparition), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of
Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Flin Flon (Mr. Storie).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Several of my caucus colleagues have
already spoken about this act and have put on the record some of the things
that we feel are reasonable in this legislation and some of the concerns that
we have. I would like to reiterate some
of those concerns and share some of my own thoughts on this measure.
The minister, in his comments
introducing this bill, said that basically they were small although important
amendments to The Endangered Species Act and that he did not feel that there
were any major concerns that could be expressed about this piece of legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as was the
case with The Oil and Gas Amendment Act that I spoke on yesterday, while the
majority of the amendments may appear to be nothing but housekeeping measures,
upon closer scrutiny there are some major concerns that we have expressed and
that we want to have addressed in second reading and when we get to the public
hearing part of the process.
First, I believe, it is a good idea
to have consistency with international wording and definitions as, I think it
is fair to say, wildlife‑‑flora and fauna‑‑knows no
human‑defined boundaries or should know no human‑defined
boundaries. In some cases the things
that humankind has put in the path of a natural habitat has caused major
problems such as gas and oil pipelines and highways and suburban and urban
development.
Those things have all had major
impacts, and largely negative impacts on the natural habitat of our flora and
fauna, but again the animals and plants do not follow political or geographical
boundaries. They follow their own
natural habitat which flows over municipalities, which flows over boundaries
set by local government districts, which flows over provincial constituency
boundaries, which flows over provincial boundaries and, as we all know, does not
respect international boundaries.
It is important that we be as
consistent as possible with international wording and definitions in this area,
and that element of this amendment we congratulate the government for
introducing. We feel, as the member for Wolseley
(Ms. Friesen) stated yesterday, that it is a bit inconsistent with the current
government's normal modus operandi in that it does take into account the fact
that governments do have responsibility for taking initiative and taking
leadership on many things.
This government's basic philosophy
has been, and as we have seen in a multitude of areas, to eliminate the role of
government in the lives of the people of the
However, Madam Deputy Speaker, in
this particular case, they have understood that wildlife and the preservation
of wildlife does require more than individual voluntary support in order to
maintain and enhance wildlife in this province.
We applaud the government in that area of this legislation.
* (1450)
There are, however, some elements to
this legislation that are missing or we feel are not clarified enough for our
comfort and for the safety of the wildlife of this province, and those are the
areas that I would like to concentrate my remarks on.
First of all, there is no provision,
as far as my reading of this legislation, for an inventory of wildlife. Now, it is all well and good to talk about
the preservation of wildlife that is currently in existence and attempting to
change the definitions of the various types of wildlife numbering; i.e., the definitions
of endangered species, extinct species, indigenous species, et cetera.
That is all well and good, Madam
Deputy Speaker, but it would be more productive and more reasonable, we feel,
had the amendments dealt with an inventory of what currently is present in our
province‑‑what types of animals, what types of flowers and other
forms of flora are in the
It seems only reasonable, Madam
Deputy Speaker, that if you are thinking in terms of preserving and enhancing
the flora and fauna of the
Why is it that there is no provision
in this act, or in these amendments, for an inventory of the current status of
the flora and fauna in this province, particularly when the
I will say, parenthetically, that
the
Yes, parenthetically, again, we have
high hopes on this side of the House that the current President and
particularly Vice‑President of the
I would like to give a brief little
personal comment that I believe fairly accurately reflects the political
environment of the
I think, as many members know,
President Reagan, before he was president of the
One of the most famous and most awe‑inspiring
of these life forms is the redwood trees of
When Mr. Reagan was governor of the
state of
An Honourable Member: And the highest deficit in
Ms. Barrett:
And the highest deficit in
Even in the atmosphere of the
Within that context I again ask the
government why they are so unwilling to extend these amendments to provide for
things such as an inventory of current wildlife and plant life in the
Another lack in this act, Madam
Deputy Speaker, is the lack of enforcement.
It is all very well and good for the government to say that we are going
to provide for this and that and the other thing without talking about
enforcement procedures. The concerns on
enforcement, as I have stated, are ones that we would like to ask the minister
to address in second reading, but failing that, certainly in the public hearing
process.
I would suggest that the lack of
inventory and the lack of enforcement processes in this legislation are due, as
I stated earlier, not only to a lack of ideological commitment on the part of
this government to the environment. That
lack of commitment can also be seen in the fact that this government has
consistently over its term in office eliminated and cut back financial and
personnel resources in these areas in particular with the possible exception,
as my honourable friend the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) has said, of
outside, contracted‑out, U.S.‑based consultants who do not come
cheap.
* (1500)
Madam Deputy Speaker, how can a
government stand in its place and say that they are committed to the environment,
that they are committed to the protection of the environment, that they are
committed to the preservation and enhancement of our natural resources, when
they implement legislation such as the Oak Hammock Marsh legislation? It gives a virtually free hand to the
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) and the Minister of Environment (Mr.
Cummings) to do anything that they want, and with the only caveat that the
government can provide us, the only little sop of security, is this: trust us.
Well, that smacks a great deal in my mind of the 1984 commitment made on
the part of the boy from Baie-Comeau:
medicare is a sacred trust.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the federal
government is a macrocosm of the provincial government in these regards. They have virtually no commitment other than
verbal to environmental security, to the preservation of programs and services
that enhance the quality of life for all Manitobans and for the physical
surroundings that all Manitobans live in.
We cannot, and the people of
I think we all know that many
species, thousands of species each day, each month, each year become extinct
throughout the world. It might be said,
well, what has that to do with us; we are fine; we do not need to worry about
that; we have lots of trees; we have lots of lakes; we have lots of water; we
have lots of natural resources.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as John Donne
said several hundred years ago: No man
is an island. We know that we ignore our
natural resources, we ignore the preservation and enhancement of our natural
resources to our peril as a society.
This act does not give us much feeling of comfort that this government
is prepared, in any meaningful way, to deal with those major issues.
Madam Deputy Speaker, another change
that we have some concern about is the fact that under the current legislation
animals could be held by department personnel or others only while they were
alive. I know that the minister has
explained in his comments some of the reasons why it is felt necessary to amend
this to allow for the killing, in certain instances, of wildlife. The reasons given by the government for this
change in legislation are reasonable on the surface.
It is for humanitarian‑‑if
I can use that word in conjunction with wildlife‑‑purposes, so if
there is an animal that is seriously injured with no possibility of being able
to be revived or assisted back to health, this act would allow a person to kill
that animal, to put it out of its misery.
Now there is no one on this side of the House who would deny that is
very definitely a goal we should achieve and strive for and perhaps something
that was left out of the legislation originally that needs to be clarified and
put in.
The second change this legislation
allows for is that certain killing permits can be issued for killing certain
animals for scientific purposes. Now
this is an area where I have some serious concerns. I have them because the amendments, to my way
of thinking, are not clear in this regard.
I am very concerned that the lack of clarity and the lack of definition
of some of the terms in these amendments will lead to the potential for abuse.
Legislation is implemented by
humans, all of whom are prone in one degree or another to make mistakes. The purpose of legislation is to protect the
community from as many of those human errors as possible, and so the
legislation, to be good legislation, must be as tight as possible, as clear as
possible and allow for as little human error as is possible in legislation that
is drafted and implemented by humans.
Consequently, we have some concerns about some of the areas in this
particular part of the legislation.
The allowing for killing for
scientific purposes has been used by
We do not see that the legislation
as it is currently worded protects the wildlife in this province as adequately
as it must do no matter who is in the role of minister responsible for
implementing this legislation although, parenthetically, I will state that the
past history of this government in this province has not been exemplary in this
area, so we are concerned in that regard as well.
The new wording, we are also afraid,
may have allowed with the minister's permission Ducks Unlimited, that infamous
head office complex of Ducks Unlimited, to damage the habitat or kill such
endangered species as piping plovers since their development at Oak Hammock was
mostly considered a scientific, educational and research project and, as the Minister
of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) has just stated, not just an office complex.
So theoretically, Madam Deputy
Speaker, under the new legislation as proposed by this government, additional
wildlife destruction could have taken place under the minister's approval with
the wording that is currently in place.
All we are asking is for the
government to tighten up these regulations, these definitions, so that is not
something that could conceivably happen.
Again we are concerned about the
definition of scientific purposes. What
precisely is a scientific purpose under these amendments? As I have stated earlier, other countries
have used under the guise of scientific purposes killing of whales, including
endangered species of whales.
* (1510)
We must ensure that this does not
happen under this legislation, so what we are asking is for a tightening up of
that definition, a clarification of that definition so that will not happen in
the province of Manitoba.
Prior to this there was no
definition of scientific purposes and there did not seem to be any reason for
defining scientific purposes under the old act because there was no allowing
for killing for scientific purposes.
Now, under the new amendments as
proposed by the government, killing can take place under certain permitted
circumstances for scientific purposes, and according to my reading of the act
it is pretty much at the discretion of the minister.
Well, I am sorry, Madam Deputy
Speaker, but we on this side of the House have some major concerns with that
part, that permissiveness of the legislation.
The government has not shown itself to be environmentally active. It has not shown itself to be concerned
overly with or even moderately with the environmental problems that face us in
So, again, how do you define
scientific purposes? What exactly are the discretionary powers that the
minister has? Again, who is the person who can receive a permit to kill
wildlife under this legislation? There
does not appear to me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there is an adequate
definition, if any definition, of the term "person" who is allowed to
access a permit. There is an advisory
board, but it is an advisory board to the minister. We do not know who the people are.
The minister in his discussion on
the legislation in December says that we have a committee comprised of half a
dozen individuals who meet on a regular basis to take up the question of
whether or not specific species ought to come under the protection of this act. Well, who exactly makes up this advisory
committee? Is it six individuals? Is it a minimum of six? Is it a maximum of six? Are there any technical or expert
qualifications required for these positions?
Do they advise the minister? Do
they have any control or any power?
As we saw yesterday, Madam Deputy
Speaker, the changes that have been suggested to the oil and gas act give far
more power to the minister and far less authority and impact to the board that
is working with that act. Again, we have
the same type of concern with this piece of legislation. The minister has far too much discretionary
power. The powers that the minister has
are not clearly defined. The people to
whom these permits can be issued are not defined. Is there a guarantee? There is no definition of the term or the
concept "scientific purpose."
We have no comfort in any of these definitions and any of these terms. They are not clearly defined. They must be clearly defined.
I guess, Madam Deputy Speaker, in
conclusion, my concern is that this government has not just made oversights in
these amendments, that it is not just something that the minister will say as a
result of our discussions or our concerns being raised in debate on second
reading‑‑oh, you are right we should have done this; we should have
tightened this up. No, my concern is
that the minister knew fully and completely what his objectives were in making
these amendments.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is what
causes us concern for two reasons. One
is we do not know what the minister's objectives are in this regard. We do not believe that they are merely
housekeeping and small insignificant changes.
No, we do not believe that because we have seen too many instances on
the part of this government where ostensibly small insignificant changes have
been made that have enormous implications on the part of the
Again, Madam Deputy Speaker, the
changes to the social assistance regulations in this province were done‑‑ostensibly
there were changes to the act, but the numbers and the way the government was
going to implement those changes were not explained in the discussion of
legislation.
These are only two examples of this
government's willingness to attempt to slide through changes to legislation
that have sweeping and broad implications under the guise of housekeeping and
minimal, unimportant, inconsequential amendments to legislation, hoping, I
assume, that we on this side of the House would not pay any attention, hoping
that the public hearing process would go by just in a brief period without any
discussion.
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are
not prepared to have that happen. We are
going to put on record our concerns, and we would hope that the government
would pay attention to those concerns. We would hope that the government will
take our criticisms in the way that they are intended, which is to be
constructive and to suggest additional alternatives or amendments to be made to
this piece of legislation, and certainly to provide some questions to be asked
in the public hearing process after we get through second reading.
Madam Deputy Speaker, with those
remarks, I would conclude my concerns on Bill 2, The Endangered Species Amendment
Act, and would hope very seriously that the government would listen to our
concerns and take constructive action as a result of those. Thank you.
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources):
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to close debate on‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: To close debate? It has been left standing. Leave was granted to leave the‑‑
Mr. Enns: Well,
you cannot blame me for trying, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Bill 3‑The Oil and
Gas and Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 3
(The Oil and Gas and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant le petrole et
le gaz naturel et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois),
standing in the name of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Bill 5‑The
Northern Affairs Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 5
(The Northern Affairs Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les affaires du
Nord), standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif
Evans). Is there leave to permit the
bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to speak
on this bill if I could, Bill 5, The Northern Affairs Amendment Act.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to
speak on this particular bill. I think
it is important to put a number of comments on the record.
I would like to indicate that I know
our Northern Affairs critic, the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), will be
raising a number of concerns. He is currently
in northern
I hope members, and particularly the
Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger), would appreciate that this is the one time
of year in northern Manitoba‑‑and he being Minister of Highways, I
know he is a little bit sensitive about this, but this is winter road season
for those members of this House who are not aware of the importance of our
winter road network in northern Manitoba. I know the Minister of Highways is a
little bit sensitive about this because the Minister of Highways had very much
in error deleted winter roads from a budget a couple of years ago, leading to
an outcry in many northern communities, and it was subsequently reinstated. I must say I could never understand why it
was cancelled in the first place, but this is the time of year when the winter
roads are open.
* (1520)
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and
Transportation): They
were closed today in the afternoon because of the weather conditions.
Mr. Ashton:
Well, the weather conditions, as the Minister of Highways says, are
pretty difficult. We had a major
snowfall in Thompson these past couple of days, a couple of feet actually,
Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is certainly going to make it difficult.
I was fortunate, actually, Madam
Deputy Speaker, to be able to travel on one of the winter roads just recently
to York Landing and to Ilford. Many
people in that community are anxiously awaiting responses I know in terms of a
possible future connection into those communities of all‑weather roads,
particularly in the case of Ilford, which is on the bayline. I must say that many people on the bayline
are very concerned about the future of the bayline. I know the Minister of Highways is certainly
aware of those concerns and certainly has discussed those concerns in this
House, as has our critic.
I say that, Madam Deputy Speaker,
because I know our critic is travelling extensively in the North. One of the unfortunate things, one of the
ironic things is we tend to sit often in February and certainly in March, and
that is basically when the winter roads are open. Most of the winter roads in my area open up
in late January, and it is the opportunity to get into many of the communities,
many of the Northern Affairs communities connected by the winter road network.
I want to say that, Madam Deputy
Speaker, to begin with because I had the opportunity to talk to residents of a number
of Northern Affairs communities and official representatives of those
communities over the last number of weeks.
I have been in Wabowden, which is a Northern Affairs community, and
Ilford, which is in an interesting situation.
I do not know how many people
realize, but Ilford basically has been approved as a reserve. Many of the people now have been clearly
given status, either through C‑31 or through direct status, and it will
soon become a reserve, but it is technically still a Northern Affairs community. In fact, I would assume there may still be a
Northern Affairs community alongside the reserve when it is established, Madam
Deputy Speaker, and I have had the opportunity to talk to people in those
communities.
In the next few weeks I will be into
Thicket Portage and Pikwitonei. I know
that we are not supposed to make reference to absence in the House or not, but
I am sure that within the next week or two, in fact, I can tell members of this
House that there will probably be at least a day or two when I will not be in
the House. To the minister across the
way, that will be because I am travelling the winter roads into Thicket Portage
and Pikwitonei, which hopefully will still be open at that time.
I know the minister would love to go
in with me. I believe he has already
been in Thicket Portage. In fact, I
would like to take him back to look at some of the continuing problems with
housing conditions in the community. He
is more than welcome to come up with me, Madam Deputy Speaker. It would be an approximate seven‑hour
drive‑‑pardon me, about an eight‑hour drive to the turnoff of
the winter road and about another 45 minutes into Thicket Portage. So if the minister has eight or nine hours to
spare there and eight or nine back, I would certainly be willing to take him in
on the winter road.
I realize it is not an experience
that many people in government have the opportunity to do, because the
tendency, because of tight schedules‑‑and I am not blaming anyone‑‑is
to fly into communities. Of course, the
winter road is only open for a couple of months, but perhaps we could arrange a
pair for the minister to come up with me to Thicket Portage. If he was to promise to visit house to house
with me and to come to a couple of people in Thicket Portage in particular to
look at some of the housing conditions in the community, I think it would be
greatly appreciated.
I think many people would love to
have the minister there, love to see the minister and show the particular
conditions either in Thicket Portage, which the minister has already visited,
and I do not believe he has had the opportunity to be in Pikwitonei. Pikwitonei, I know. would be very anxious to
do that. I am not just strictly blaming
the minister. I do not want any
misimpressions to be left. Part of the
problem is with CMHC.
I know the minister certainly knows
the minister responsible for CMHC and the federal government and perhaps might
be able to assist those of us who have been fighting for better housing
conditions in those communities. [interjection] Maybe we can get the federal
minister. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, if
this minister could get the federal minister to come to Thicket Portage and
Pikwitonei, I would be impressed. I hope
that he will immediately fax him today and say that he has made this commitment
or request the attendance of the minister, because quite frankly there are
major problems with housing.
What I want to point out, too, and
this is particularly relevant when we are talking about The Northern Affairs Act,
is that one of the difficulties in northern Manitoba currently, Madam Deputy
Speaker, is that while 20 years ago the trading communities, the First Nations
communities, were probably in worse shape on average than the Northern Affairs
communities, because of lack of self‑government, lack of block funding,
lack of funding generally. I include
education; I include health to a lesser extent; but I particularly include
housing and provision of infrastructure.
Madam Deputy Speaker, what is
happening increasingly is that the Northern Affairs communities in the 1990s
have fallen consistently behind the other aboriginal communities. The vast majority of people living in
Northern Affairs communities are aboriginal, whether it be treaty or whether it
be in terms of the many Metis residents, but they have fallen behind other
areas. There is a particular degree of frustration in the Northern Affairs
communities right now. I will tell you
where it starts from. It starts with the
kind of funding cuts that we have seen in recent years by both federal and
provincial governments that have led Northern Affairs communities to the
situation where they have high poverty.
For the information of members, in
1986 the most recent information that is available‑‑and I was just reading
this just recently‑‑the average number of Manitobans below the
poverty line, the low‑income cutoff, was about 17 percent. In many areas, many Northern Affairs
communities, Madam Deputy Speaker, that figure is as high as 54 percent, and
that is in a whole census area of strictly Northern Affairs communities. Fifty‑four percent of people are below
the low‑income cutoff.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is the
problem in Northern Affairs communities with limited economic base and without
the access to funds that First Nations communities are increasingly accessing
as part of their move to self‑government, increasingly demanding and
rightly so. Many Northern Affairs
communities are placed in a very difficult situation. I can tell you, it was very difficult last
year to go into Thicket Portage and meet with the mayor in Thicket Portage,
Maurice Clemons and sit down and be told of the grim situation for young people
in that community in terms of employment, and to be told that virtually all the
government programs that have been in place have now been eliminated and what
government programs that are available now require additional funding from a
sponsoring community. People should
understand we are talking about Northern Affairs communities that do not have a
taxation base in many cases or a limited taxation base if they do, do not have
access to other revenue. I am referring
here to The Northern Affairs Amendment Act for the Minister of Northern Affairs
(Mr. Downey), Bill 5.
It is of great concern to me to find
out the situation that has occurred. In
the case of Thicket Portage I was fortunately able to contact Manitoba Hydro in
regards to a number of suggestions by the member in council in that community,
and a number of positions were made available in terms of summer employment in
Thicket Portage.
I want to say that when you are
talking about communities of a couple of hundred it is particularly frustrating
for people in those communities to see almost no job opportunities for young
people. I had an interesting experience
just two days ago to run into a former resident of Thicket Portage here in
Many people in that community want
to work. Many do work on a seasonal
basis. Let us not allow anyone to
suggest otherwise, because sometimes there are stereotypes that are put
out. When people in that community end
up on social assistance, believe you me, it is reluctantly. I have probably a disproportionate number of
cases of people in that community who end up working, end up on social
assistance and find that they are being penalized in many cases for the kind of
income they have made. Incidentally,
that is particularly the case if they are self‑employed. I have received concerns from many people in
those communities.
* (1530)
I want to say, Madam Deputy Speaker,
that the problem is particularly significant among young people. Across the province there are more young
people working proportionately than there are people over the age of 25. Under 25 there is more employment, but in
northern communities there is often not only less employment for young people,
there is often significantly less, and in many communities there are virtually
no jobs.
This is serious because what it
results in is a whole generation of young people who come out of school, who
are encouraged to continue their education, and in many Northern Affairs
communities there is not a high school, so it takes a major relocation for the
young people in those communities to go to another community to continue high
school. What kind of role model are we
offering to young people when, even if they continue their education, they are
unable to find employment not only on a full‑time basis but in the
summer?
I know the Minister of Northern
Affairs (Mr. Downey) is listening to the comments right now, and I think that
is fortunate. I want to say to the
minister that it is time for the government, in looking at Northern Affairs
communities, to look very seriously at bringing back some of the kinds of youth
employment programs that existed previously, the Youth Corps program, for example. I realize it was federal funding in terms of
that particular program, but let us look at it.
We currently have $40 million in VLT
funds going to the government from outside the city of
I would suggest that if members
opposite want to deal with the very serious problem in Northern Affairs
communities and also the First Nations communities, to a lesser extent in the
urban communities such as Thompson, that one place you could start would be in
terms of northern youth employment and at least start with a functional summer
youth employment program that recognizes the many remote communities, the many
Northern Affairs communities, do not have the kind of funds to be able to
access the few programs that still are in existence.
Even the program offered by the
RCMP, I know, requires shared funding.
Even the few programs that are left, federal programs, require that the
communities come up with money. Madam
Deputy Speaker, they just do not have the funds. The Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey)
knows that. He knows the way the
Northern Affairs communities operate. He
knows the tight control over budgets, the limited resources that are made
available. I say that because, as I
said, I just had the opportunity to travel into a number of communities where
this concern was expressed very significantly.
There is a great deal of frustration about the lack of youth employment
in those communities.
That, I think, is something that is
important in looking at any legislation in regard to Northern Affairs, and that
is the unique situation Northern Affairs communities are in, the unique
situation on one hand of local self‑control and, I know the minister will
agree I am sure, the need to maximize the degree of self‑control in
communities and of course the fact that because of the limited tax base, that
different structure is required inherently because of that fact.
We are not talking about a community
such as Thompson or
They are very much dependent on
funding priorities of government. There
are many concerns ongoing. I mentioned
youth employment. We are dealing here
with a bill that does deal with a number of issues relating to Crown lands, for
example, and the approval of by‑laws, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would say that is certainly an area that
should be dealt with. From my
consultations with people in northern communities, which I have not completed
yet, certainly I know that a number of the items in this bill are here very
much at the request of Northern Affairs communities themselves.
An ongoing struggle in many northern
communities now has to do with provision of basic infrastructure. It is an ongoing concern. I know the minister is aware of that, the
particular criteria they put in place in particular in terms of sewer and
water.
Many Northern Affairs communities
are faced with a major challenge now because of the impact of Bill C‑31,
which reinstated the treaty status of many people in northern
Wabowden is a good example. You may not be aware, but by estimates of local
people, there are about 65 percent of the population of Wabowden that is C‑31. Many of them by the way still identify as
Metis. Because of the opportunity to
have a historic wrong righted through C‑31, they have retained their
treaty status, and that is having a major impact on Northern Affairs
communities. The Minister of Northern
Affairs (Mr. Downey) knows that.
Northern Affairs communities, for
example, are seeking reserve status and are looking to Ilford as an
example. Ilford is an example where
virtually the entire community now, apart from I believe seven or eight members
of the community, is treaty and has received the treaty status.
That goes back to the late Adam
Dyck, certainly one of the most respected elders that we have seen in northern
Manitoba, an individual I came to know personally and have great respect for.
We are dealing here with his legacy when we are talking about the fact that the
status has been approved.
I say it has been approved; it has
not been finalized. I know the Minister
of Northern Affairs is working, or at least I know his department is working,
on the final negotiations on the reserve boundary, the question of the
relationship between the community and the reserve and a whole series of issues
that result from that.
That is what I am saying. There are major challenges facing Northern
Affairs communities, even in terms of their very existence as we know them.
There are Northern Affairs
communities, Madam Deputy Speaker, where virtually everyone has received C‑31
status. In fact, what happens in some
cases, you have people who are treaty, who by choice live in the Northern
Affairs community rather than the reserve.
In many Northern Affairs communities, you may have people who are treaty
but from another area who choose to live in the Northern Affairs
community. In many cases, there are
people now who have received C‑31 status, but not received band status.
People may not be aware that the two do not go hand in hand and that has
created some rather difficult situations, some confusion certainly.
There really is an identification
process now going on within the Northern Affairs communities. We really cannot say where it will lead,
because the whole identity of many of the communities which traditionally have
been called Metis communities has been affected by C‑31 although many
people, as I said before, who have obtained C‑31 status have told me that
they still identify as Metis. So one is
in a situation where you have a very fluid situation in those communities.
Beyond those issues, Madam Deputy
Speaker, the key theme‑‑and it relates to what I just talked about
earlier in terms of youth employment, and it relates to the infrastructure
questions I have pointed out‑‑in many of those communities is the
need for proper infrastructure, including roads, a number of communities do not
have an all‑weather road, for example, the need for proper educational
access, in particular to make sure that Frontier School Division receives
adequate funding to be able to provide education in the Northern Affairs
communities that it serves and ultimately the need for enhanced economic
development in those communities.
What I find of concern, Madam Deputy
Speaker, is when I talk to the elders in many communities in northern
* (1540)
They talk about the role models, of
people who worked 32 years at CN. I
talked to an individual just a few days ago of 79 years old who spent 32 years
at CN, VIA Rail in northern Manitoba.
They ask the question, where are the role models, Madam Deputy Speaker,
when what is happening in the North is that jobs are being cut back. I mentioned about CN and VIA Rail. The number of jobs in CN and VIA Rail on the
bayline has been slashed in the last number of years, slashed to the point
where there are barely any people working on the bayline in those communities
at CN and VIA Rail, good‑paying jobs, traditionally jobs with some level
of job security. Traditionally, though
that sadly is changing and jobs that provided a role model to the communities.
We are seeing, Madam Deputy Speaker,
in many communities, many small Northern Affairs communities out‑migration. We are seeing it not just of young people who
have given up hope of being able to find job opportunities in their own
communities. Interestingly enough, we are also seeing it from many seniors,
from many elders. I was in Ilford the
other day and many seniors in that community, many elders have relocated to
other communities because a lack of facilities are available for them. I say
that it is sad because what is being lost at the same time is both the history
of that community, the oral history through the elders themselves and, on the
other hand, with the out‑migration of young people, the future of those
communities.
You know, there is something, as I
said, that really hits you when you talk to somebody as I did, as I mentioned a
few moments ago, from Thicket Portage who remembered the good old days when he
went to school in Thicket Portage, lived there for many years and how that
community was a thriving community. Many
people today who travel into the community of Thicket Portage would be
surprised to know just how vibrant the economy was, just how many stores were
in that community, would be surprised by the fact there was a hotel once in
that community, would be surprised there were literally hundreds of people who
came through that community and hundreds have lived there, Madam Deputy
Speaker.
I guess what I see, though, on the other
hand, is the continuing spirit in many of those communities, you know, the fact
they have given everything, for example, in Thicket Portage or Pikwitonei or
Ilford, all Northern Affairs communities or a community such as York Landing in
my area, none of which have all‑weather roads, all of which are
accessible only by winter road or in the case of the three bayline communities
by three‑day‑a‑week train service, only one of which
currently has scheduled air service. It
is amazing that those communities have survived the way they have. It is amazing that they are continuing to
survive even given some of the new challenges.
I look at what is happening at
Thicket Portage, a once thriving commercial fishing industry which is being
devastated by the economic situation and what I consider the mismanagement of
the northern fishery by the Freshwater Fish Marketing board. It is amazing, given those continuing blows,
Madam Deputy Speaker, given the fact that Conawapa, which was going to be
developed, was a potential opportunity for many of the people who worked on
Limestone, because many people had specialized in construction related to Hydro
sites over the last number of years as a way to get employment. Now that opportunity is no longer available.
It is amazing, given the government
cutbacks that have taken place in terms of programs that have provided jobs in
those communities, that have provided jobs to young people, that they still
continue to hang in there and still, Madam Deputy Speaker, show a degree of
community spirit, I think, that would amaze many people.
I would hope at some time that
members opposite would have the opportunity to attend some of the winter
carnivals that take place around this time of year. Traditionally, as we get hopefully towards
the end of the winter in northern
I went into
It is unfortunate in many ways that
we are sitting at this time of year. I
have always said that it is unfortunate that we sit during the summer when many
of the summer festivals take place traditionally. [interjection] Well, the
minister opposite says we can do something about that. I really hope that at some point in time we
recognize that there are times of year that members of the Legislature should
not be sitting in this Legislature, particularly when no one is particularly
watching anyway but when we should be out visiting the winter carnivals, when
we should be out visiting the summer festivals. [interjection]
The minister says that I can deal
with it through my role as House leader and indeed we shall see and in fact, he
may wish to remind his own House leader of that. I say this, all politics aside, that I think
that is important. I think it is
important that we be able to get into the communities. [interjection] Well,
this is work. This is the work of the
Legislature and I think it is fairly important. [interjection]
Well, the member opposite says it is
work listening to me, and I hope he will be educated, though, at least, not
from my words, as in many cases these are the words of the people in the many
Northern Affairs communities throughout the north that I am referring to.
I think it is one of the unfortunate
things about what is happening increasingly with our Legislature and with
government, that we do not get a chance to get out of this building as much as
we should. I know that is a particular
problem with government, and I do not mean that as a political shot. It is a reality, given the pressing
responsibilities of being in government in the 1990s.
I was just in Ilford, for example,
and I talked to the owner of the hotel there, Micky Thompson, who reminded me
of back in the early 1970s when the entire Schreyer cabinet and caucus had gone
up north, hooked up on the bayline, chartered a train, travelled up to
Churchill and stopped at pretty well every community along the way.
I think that would be a tremendous
idea in the 1990s, and I am not talking about a farewell tour of the bayline
either. I think it still has a lot of
years ahead of it if we fight for it.
But I would like to see us do that, members of the Legislature, perhaps
drive to The Pas, if they are not able to hook up through Winnipeg, or fly to
The Pas, whatever, and then take the bayline up from The Pas, one of the three
times weekly train service up to Churchill.
An Honourable Member: Good idea.
Mr. Ashton: I
think it is excellent. I had the
opportunity to travel the bayline myself, because I get into Thicket Portage in
particular by rail, especially when the winter road is not open, and you learn
a lot about what is happening in the north.
You learn about our tourism potential when you talk to Americans who
have come from as far away as Florida, flown up to Minneapolis, caught up to
the train system and are taking the train up to Churchill.
You will see European tourists who have
seen much publicity on Churchill.
Anybody who has been in Europe will have seen, I am sure, as I have,
documentaries on Churchill shown on satellite television that covers all of
You know, sometimes, what I have
found from talking to people on my travels on the bayline‑‑and I
wish I had more time to travel on the bayline, had more opportunities‑‑I
find sometimes that people from outside of our own area appreciate it more than
we do. I have talked to Americans who
cannot understand why we are cutting back on our rail system or cannot
understand why there would be even train service only on a three‑day‑a‑week
basis. They feel it is tremendous. They really are excited about Churchill.
I have been to Churchill many
times. I have been in the hotels and
talked to Americans. I remember having a
meeting a number of years ago with Jay Cowan in one of the hotels. We were having a meeting up there at the
time, and somebody mentioned the word New Democrats, and somebody came over and
said, hey, I am an old Democrat. I said,
an old Democrat? Well, of course, he was
an American visitor who was up, I think, from
I really think that this is one of
the major problems we have. I was just
in Ilford talking to Micky Thompson, as I said.
They operate the lodge in that area, Silsby Lake Lodge. There are many
people who fly from
I mean,
* (1550)
I am not being critical of what we
advertise. That is a discussion for
another debate. I am referring specifically
to the North. I think there are a lot of
times we could do a lot more in terms of promoting the lodges, promoting
Churchill, promoting the wilderness experience at a time when that type of
market is growing dramatically. The
Europeans are a potential market, for example.
I talked to this tour lodge operator, for example, who has received a
write‑up in fishing magazines in
I have run across many tourists from
We may have disagreements also in
terms of the degree to which we should be expanding northern road access. I think that is important, not only for the
convenience of people in the communities but also for economic
development. Without all‑weather
road access, many communities cannot develop, so we may have disagreements on
that. I will look forward to continuing
that debate with the Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger) when we are into
Highways Estimates, because I know he and I have traded back and forth a number
of memos and letters on the need for northern road expansion into a number of
areas. I think that a number of northern
roads need to be upgraded, and a number of roads need to be put into
communities that currently do not have any all-weather road access.
As I said, we may have disagreements
in that area, but there are areas, I think, we can all focus on in common, and
that is the fact‑‑I mean, let us look at it, the growth industry,
the growth sector in Canada right now, despite the recession, is in what?‑‑is
in services. Tourism in particular has
been, despite some of the problems we have had in
I mentioned about Thicket Portage
and Pikwitonei. They have beautiful
surroundings. They have tremendous
fishing there. One of the things I was
most disappointed about a number of years ago was the cancellation of the rail
bus, which at the time had been proposed as a way to supplement the train
service that exists currently, to have a bus that ran on the rails essentially,
and that would provide service into those communities on a far more frequent
basis than the three times a week service.
There is a lot of ability to
generate tourism within northern
The minister could probably update
me more than I currently could, but I mean the ice‑‑when you are
talking about three feet of ice in many locations, it is safe. I have often told people that I would rather
drive on a winter road across some of the lakes in northern
I can relate that to the
minister. There are a couple of
stretches I would like him to come with me, particularly from
The point of what I am saying, Madam
Deputy Speaker, in terms of the Northern Affairs communities, there is a lot of
potential, and a lot of times in this House, we focus strictly on areas where
there are policy disagreements. As I
said, when the Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger) cut the winter road program,
we had a pretty heated debate in this House, him and the Minister of Northern
Affairs (Mr. Downey).
There are areas to focus on in
economic development, and in many ways, what is being talked about in this
particular bill, if one looks at the requests from the Northern Affairs
community councils, is to have more efficient operating systems that are put in
place so that they do have that ability to implement them themselves.
An Honourable Member: Is there anyone in
Mr. Ashton:
Well, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh)
says, is there anybody in
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think one of
the problems with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs.
McIntosh) is that whenever she speaks, she has this automatic reaction of
disagreeing with everything I am saying. I know it was creating difficulty in committee
last year when I agreed with a series of amendments put forward by the Minister
of Labour (Mr. Praznik), and she was wondering if there was something wrong
with the amendments because I supported them.
I would assure the Minister of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I am not suggesting that nobody else in the
Chamber has ever been on a winter road.
What I am suggesting is that one of the things that would be nice when
we do schedule our sittings is that there will be greater ability of people,
instead of being in this Chamber right now, to be out there right now because
this is the winter road season. Winter
roads are essentially basically open in February and March. [interjection]
Well, the minister says she knows
that. I do not think everybody in this
Chamber knows that, even the minister.
Even the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh)
would have to admit that not everybody in this Chamber would know when the
winter road season is. I do not even
know if everybody would know what a winter road is, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I
am not pointing at any party. I am not
pointing at the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. If she says she knows what a winter road is
like, and she has been on one, I accept her at her word. That was not the point of my criticism.
My criticism was based on the fact
that we often sit when we cannot travel on them, and‑‑[interjection]
Back lanes in
The point I was making‑‑I
was trying to be positive, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am often accused, as are members of this
House, of not being positive on issues, and I always get a little bit of‑‑
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs): We are positive.
Mr. Ashton:
Well, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs says that we are
positive. I do not know which
"we" she is referring to.
Mrs. McIntosh:
Collectively.
Mr. Ashton: Collectively. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, apart from‑‑
An Honourable Member: How is she defining positive?
Mr. Ashton: I
must say that I do not know. Perhaps we
all tend to black out Question Period sometimes, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can see why sometimes, and we are all part
of it, but I do not think we are always exactly positive, and I do not think
just the opposition can be accused of being negative. You know, I really think that one of the
criticisms sometimes is that we are not positive enough.
Part of the problem is that we spend
a lot of time debating bills. Right now,
who is listening? I mean, there is maybe
a sound feed. There may be some people,
citizens of the
Question Period, I think it is part
of the parliamentary system. It does
emphasize the adversarial nature of politics, and I think that does have its
positive features, although we do probably get carried away in terms of being
negative. [interjection] I have been asked what it has to do with winter roads,
and I am digressing because of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs
(Mrs. McIntosh).
My point was that we should take the
time to get out to the Northern Affairs communities on the winter roads. I am quite willing, and I have offered this
to the Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger) and we just have not been able to
schedule it. I want to take him on a
tour of the roads in my constituency before he finalizes the budget. Well, I guess maybe he has it finalized. Is
it finalized? The figures are finalized.
I have a number of roads and they
are all not winter roads, the road into Nelson House‑‑and we will
continue that back and forth. It might
save us some paper in these memos we have been fighting each other with the
last couple of weeks. [interjection] Oh, the minister has driven it. When did you drive it last? Well, Madam
Deputy Speaker I am digressing again.
The Nelson House road is a sensitive issue for both the minister and
myself.
The point is that there is a lot
that can be done in Northern Affairs communities and I really think that when
we are discussing bills like this, which do have very serious technical aspects
to them, and are requested in many cases by the Northern Affairs communities,
we should reflect that in our debates. I
look forward, by the way‑‑I think it is a good opportunity for
members opposite and members in our caucus and members in the Liberal caucus to
talk about Northern Affairs communities, northern development and a whole
series of issues that are important and take the time to travel to the Northern
Affairs communities.
I know the Minister of Housing (Mr.
Ernst) was in and I know the Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger) has been, but
I think it is a good opportunity to hear it directly from the people.
Bill 8‑The
Insurance Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 8
(The Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les assurances),
standing in the name of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 10‑The Farm
Lands Ownership Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 10
(The Farm Lands Ownership Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur la propriete agricole et apportant des modifications
correlatives a d'autres lois), standing in the name of the honourable member
for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 12‑The
International Trusts Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 12
(The International Trusts Act; Loi sur les fiducies internationales), standing
in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Bill 13‑The
Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund
Corporation Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 13
(The Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant
la Loi constituant en corporation le fonds de participation des travailleurs du
Manitoba), standing in the name of the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr.
Storie).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
* * *
Madam Deputy Speaker: What is the will of the House? Is it the will of the House to call it five
o'clock? Agreed and so ordered.
* (1600)
PRIVATE MEMBERS'
BUSINESS
DEBATE ON SECOND
READINGS‑‑PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 200‑The Child
and Family Services Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: Bill 200 (The Child and Family Services
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services a l'enfant et a la
famille), standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Family Services
(Mr. Gilleshammer).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): It is a pleasure to speak to a bill that is in
my new critic area as Family Services critic.
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs): I miss you, Doug.
Mr. Martindale: I think the Legislature will hear many
speeches on Bill 200.
The Minister of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) says she is going to miss me, and I will miss
being the critic for housing legislation.
It was something that I was very familiar with, and I enjoyed it, and I
knew her staff and enjoyed working with them, but I think we have a new critic
who is going to do an equally good job, and the minister likes the new critic‑‑that
is good. We will not get into
comparisons here.
I would like to begin debate on Bill
200 by talking a little bit about the origins of the bill and then talk about
some of the problems, to give some examples, and then to conclude by talking
about the interests of children and how they are best served.
As we know, we are into this debate
because there have been recommendations over the last 10 years that there be a
Children's Advocate. After many years of
reports and many years of delay, the government in the last session, in the
third session, finally introduced Bill 64, The Child and Family Services
Amendment Act, also known as the Children's Advocate bill.
The purpose of this bill was a
laudable one. The purpose was to advise
the Minister of Family Services on matters relating to the welfare of children. It was also to review and investigate
complaints, to represent the rights, interests, viewpoints of children who fall
under The Child and Family Services Act, to prepare and submit an annual report
to the Minister of Family Services. Now
we get into areas of disagreement between our party and the government, which I
will go into later. The final purpose
was other duties as prescribed by regulations or as required by the Minister of
Family Services. We as an opposition
party had many, many problems with this bill, and our concerns were shared by
the third party, by the Liberal Party as well.
First of all, the main difference we
had with the government in this legislation was that the Children's Advocate is
responsible to the Minister of Family Services and not to the Legislature. That was our concern during the third
session. It is still our concern, and it
is the reason that our former critic of Family Services, someday to be
minister, of course, introduced a private member's bill. So we have an amendment to the government's
bill, and we hope that the government will listen to our amendment and that
they will agree to our amendment and change the legislation.
I find I am getting myself into
trouble here. What I meant to say was
that some day the member for
An Honourable Member: Is she crossing the floor?
Mr. Martindale: And she does not need to cross the floor to
do it. She will get duly elected.
As I was saying earlier, there have been
reports that have recommended that the Children's Advocate be an independent
position. There were four major reports
in the last decade which all stated that the Children's Advocate must be
responsible to the Legislature, not to the minister. In spite of these reports, the Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) chose to ignore those recommendations, chose
to ignore that advice and did what he wanted to do and did not follow the
reports that recommended something different.
Mr. Kimelman, the Reid‑Sigurdson Report, the Aboriginal Justice
Inquiry and the Suche report all recommended that the Children's Advocate must
be responsible to the Legislature, not to the minister.
None of the previously mentioned
reports recommended reporting to the minister.
Why? Because of a lack of
independence, real or perceived, because of the potential for political
interference and because of competing for financial resources with other
programs in the Family Services department.
The minister himself stated that one
of the reasons for introducing the Children's Advocate was that the director of
Child and Family Services may be perceived as lacking independence necessary to
advocate for children. He also stated
that because the Children's Advocate would have no direct responsibility for
service delivery, there would be no real or perceived conflict of interest.
Well, the question for us to ask is,
if the minister agrees that there is a problem with real or perceived conflict
of interest, why is the Children's Advocate a Civil Service position, as is the
director of Child and Family Services, and why does the Children's Advocate
report to the minister, as does the director of Child and Family Services?
We were also concerned in debating
Bill 64 in the third session about the looseness of the definition of
additional duties as determined by regulations or the minister. While it could be stated that this allows for
more flexibility, especially when legislation is so new, it also gives enormous
power to the minister. This is
problematic, especially in light of the concerns I have already raised. Other examples could be the Minister of
Family Services using regulations to recentralize Child and Family Services
agencies, or the Minister of Urban Affairs using Bill 45 to allow for more
municipalities than just Headlingley to secede from the city of
We remember this quite well, when
the Minister of Family Services, by a stroke of a pen, by an Order-in-Council,
abolished 98 publicly appointed and more or less autonomous and independent
housing authorities, abolished 600 volunteer board members with one Order‑in‑Council. That is the kind of power that the Minister
of Housing had, and that is the kind of power that he used to make major
changes; similarly, the Minister of Environment on the Ducks Unlimited bill,
which allowed Ducks Unlimited to build an office headquarters in a marsh.
Our third concern is a lack of
adequate resources. The staffing for the
Children's Advocate in the 1992‑93 Estimates are for one Children's
Advocate, one technical/professional and two administrative support
positions. As well, there is $70,000 for
administration, travel and all other expenses.
We believe that if the Children's Advocate is to be truly independent
and to truly do the job that the legislation requires that they need to be able
to travel, to be able to investigate and consult, and that in order to do so,
the Children's Advocate needs adequate resources.
* (1610)
The Children's Advocate will only be
as effective as resources allow, resources for outreach, publicity, travel to
rural, northern and remote areas, and this is something that is present in the
Ontario Children's Advocate. They do
have adequate resources. Given the small
amount of human and financial resources, it will probably only be able to put
out fires; that is, to be reactive, rather than proactive or preventive, and I
think that what we need here is a service that is preventative, so that the
Children's Advocate is not always responding to crises.
Fourth, we believe there is a lack
of consultation. According to the minister, the staff looked at
This debate was very closely
followed in the media, and I would like to quote from some of the articles that
were written and some of the critics in the community and what they said. Some
very good reporting was done, for example, by Ruth Teichroeb, a reporter for
the Free Press, their social affairs reporter, someone who won a journalism
award. I think it was called the
Michener Award for excellence in journalism.
Very interestingly, she quotes Dr.
Charlie Ferguson, the director of
He said this in testimony in
As far back as 1983, the Kimelman
Report in child welfare recommended that a Child Advocate should report to the
Legislature to maintain autonomy. The
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry Report repeated this recommendation while a
provincially commissioned report by Colleen Suche on residential treatment
centres reiterated it as well.
Rob Grant, the spokesman for the
Manitoba Coalition on Children's Rights said:
"It is ridiculous to pay for these reports to be done and then
ignore them. This is a very weak, almost
a token bill."
Cathy Mallett, a member of the
Winnipeg‑based Aboriginal Women's Unity Coalition and now a trustee in
Winnipeg School Division No. 1 said children and families will not trust an
advocate who reports to Gilleshammer.
They will be just another number in the system.
It was also pointed out by
The minister, when he introduced his
bill, said that his rationale for having the office report to the minister
rather than the Legislature was a sound one, but provincial Associate Chief
Judge Brian Giesbrecht's report on the inquest into the death of 13‑year‑old
Lester Desjarlais makes it imperative for the government to change its
approach.
Our critic in the last session said
that we were opposed to a short‑term political approach which did not
serve children. An advocate must be
apolitical and accountable, but reporting to the minister has the potential of
political interference.
So we know that there have been a
number of reports recommending that the Children's Advocate be independent and
report to the Legislature rather than the minister, and we know what our
parties said in the last session. We
know what we will be saying again. I am
sure that the Liberal Party will be saying the same thing, that there needs to
be an independent advocate who reports to the Legislature.
I would like to give an example that
I think illustrates the problem, because I had a phone call from a former
employee of Child and Family Services.
This person had made some allegations of a problem in Winnipeg Child and
Family Services and alleges that there was a cover‑up and is trying to
get me to help this individual because this individual alleges that, even
though his supervisors and others were made aware of the problem, nothing was
done to correct it.
If we had an independent Child and
Family Services advocate, I think there would have been an investigation, that
something would have been done and that this would have been made public,
because the amendment to which I am speaking requires that the advocate report
to the Legislature.
Now what happens in the existing
system is that even if the Minister of Family Services becomes involved, if the
minister becomes aware of the problem, what is the minister going to do? Well,
the minister is going to phone the chief executive officer of Winnipeg Child
and Family Services‑‑I am even unhappy with the name CEO, but we
are stuck with it. And what
happens? It never sees the light of
day. The minister orders the CEO to do
an investigation, and then we never hear about it again, because he or she will
take care of it.
Of course, the ultimate person who
takes care of the problem is the minister.
What happens is they engage in damage control, and the public is never
informed and the public never finds out whether or not there was a cover‑up
and what the consequences are and whether anything is done to correct the
situation.
In conclusion, I think we need an
independent advocate because that is the only way and the best way that the
interests of children are going to be served.
That is part of this amendment which says that the rights, interests and
the viewpoints of children will be best served by an independent advocate. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Bill 203‑The
Health Care Records Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading public
bills, Bill 203 (The Health Care Records Act; Loi sur les dossiers medicaux),
standing in the name of the honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Bill 205‑The Ombudsman
Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill
205 (The Ombudsman Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'ombudsman)
standing in the name of the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 4‑Rural
Gasification
Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer),
WHEREAS natural gas is a low‑cost
form of clean burning energy; and
WHEREAS many rural communities do
not have access to this form of energy; and
WHEREAS not having access to this
form of energy inhibits the economic development opportunities for these rural
communities; and
WHEREAS the government of
WHEREAS the government of
WHEREAS the government of
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba support the government of
Motion presented.
Mr. Helwer:
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce the
resolution on rural gasification, and it is certainly my pleasure to speak on
this.
This is very important to me, to my
constituency and to all of rural
One of the reasons for the
importance of natural gas and why it is so important for us is because it is
more efficient than any other form of energy available, such as hydro, propane
or things of that nature, but it will replace the use of propane to a great
extent.
In my constituency, I have a large
turkey hatchery. [interjection] curling rink, right. One of the big users of energy in my
constituency, in the south end of my constituency actually, is a turkey
hatchery which, today, uses large amounts of propane, where natural gas would
in fact make them more competitive in
* (1620) This
hatchery is one of the largest in
We also have another poultry
processing plant, a goose processing plant, in the community of Teulon that is
a high user of energy also. They use a
lot of propane at the present time and electricity, whereby natural gas for
them would certainly be a great benefit and would certainly help to make their
industry also more competitive, so that they could compete on a worldwide
basis.
Natural gas for heating and water
would be one of the main benefits for many industries, also for many of our
recreational facilities such as curling rinks, arenas, where they have to heat
water with propane or electricity. They
could quite easily cut their costs by using natural gas by probably at least a
half and maybe by more, maybe by two‑thirds, as a matter of fact. It is just another example of the benefits
that natural gas would provide for many areas, many communities in
In my constituency also, the farmers
are quite innovative and progressive, and they grow a lot of corn, sunflowers
and crops such as that, that need a lot of grain drying, and to dry with
propane is very expensive. If farmers
could use natural gas for drying grain, they could probably get their costs to
somewhere down about 2 cents a point of moisture, which on an average could be
maybe 8 or 9 cents a bushel, which would be probably a third or less what they
pay at the present time.
Today, when farmers are fighting
high costs of operation, low prices, this would certainly help to make them
more competitive and help them to be able to compete with farmers in other
parts of the country, southern
Also, this past fall we went through
a very difficult time with the late fall, with the frozen crops and poor
harvest weather. A lot of our crops came
off in a tough and damp condition. This
certainly had a detrimental effect on many farmers as far as their economic
being is concerned, because it did cost them a lot of money to dry grain. The propane companies this past fall took
advantage, I think, of the farmers by increasing the price from 24 cents a
litre to about 35 cents a litre, when yet you could see propane advertised for
automotive use here in the city of Winnipeg for about 19.9 cents a litre. So I
believe that some of the propane companies took advantage of the demand that
was there, because the farmers needed it at any cost. They certainly had to pay the price,
unfortunately.
Also, there are some new projects up
in the Interlake area that could be coming on stream, and one is the Interlake
beehive project in the Arborg area. This
is an alfalfa processing plant that could be built in that area. There we have a number of progressive farmers
who have done a feasibility study and have put their own money into a
feasibility study. They have travelled
to Japan and to China and to other parts of the world looking for markets and
looking at a feasibility study of the equipment and different things, as to
what they would need to make a beehive plant a success in that area, because
there is a lot of forage grown at the present time, such as alfalfa. This would certainly be another form of
diversification for our farmers throughout the Interlake area. This would be another way that farmers could
possibly get out of the traditional wheat‑barley syndrome and get them
into new crops such as alfalfa and into other forage crops.
There are a lot of these that are
grown already in that area. We certainly
want to do everything in our power to try to get these farmers into this
business and to help them along in this beehive project. One of the things that they need most of all
to get this project underway would be natural gas, of course. I certainly would support this fully.
Also, in the Interlake area and in
my constituency, as well as north of me, there are a number of food processing
plants that are operating. As a matter
of fact, one in the Arborg area now is doing a feasibility study on some food
processing. This would create some employment
opportunities, plus it would help make the communities grow and make them much
more competitive in that area.
At the present time some of these
food processing plants, such as we have one in Teulon there where they employ
some 30 to 40 people, right now with propane or electricity as an energy form,
they were having difficulty competing.
If we could get some natural gas, certainly it would open up new
opportunities and make us more competitive.
Today many rural communities do not
have the option of gas, such a luxury that some city residents take for
granted. I am pleased that our
government is examining this important initiative. I feel that low‑cost natural gas is a
low‑cost form of clean burning energy that could strengthen our rural
economy. We do not want to see some rural regions miss out on the economic
development opportunities because they do not have this form of energy. This means that companies that require
natural gas cannot consider a number of rural communities where they do not
have natural gas. Through our
government's rural gasification program this roadblock would be eliminated.
I am very pleased to present this
resolution today and certainly hope that our opposition could support it. I also should mention that one of the reasons
we have a large industry in Gimli, the Seagram plant, which is one of the most
efficient distilleries in
*
(1630)
In the Interlake area we have some
of the best water available in
Madam Deputy Speaker, I certainly
thank you for the opportunity to present this resolution here today.
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Madam Deputy Speaker, the honourable member
for Gimli (Mr. Helwer), with his resolution, has made quite a few interesting
points and, I must say, a lot of good points.
However, having said that, I would
like to just refer to a few items that the member for Gimli has indicated about
how this present government is acting on rural gasification, is acting on
getting it moving in the Interlake. He
knows as well as I do, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I certainly do support and it
would be facetious for me to say that I would not or do not support
gasification in rural Manitoba, in the Interlake especially. I have letters and notes here dating back to
April 1990, three years, when we came to see the then‑Minister of Rural
Development. It will be three years in
April that we came to see this government, the Interlake Development Corporation
executive, that I was there speaking to the then minister, requesting that this
government look very seriously into gasification for the Interlake area.
An Honourable Member: And we have done that.
Mr. Clif Evans: You might have done that. You may have looked into it. However, where are we moving with it? Where are we moving with this now, three
years later?
The honourable member for Gimli (Mr.
Helwer), again, I say has stated an enormous amount of excellent points for the
need for gasification in rural
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Mr. Speaker, I am in constant
contact with the Interlake Development Corporation and my municipalities and
towns when it comes to gasification in the Interlake, constantly, the reeve of
Bifrost, the mayor of Arborg, the mayor of Riverton. Their question to me, and I am sure the
question to them too is, when are we going to get some action on this? When are we going to see something that is
going to give the opportunity for the Interlake to be able to proceed with
plans for economic development? When?
Mr. Speaker, I must say that the
member made points about the processing plant, an important part of the
Interlake for the future. Processing
plants in Arborg are important for the future of the Interlake. Teulon itself‑‑I will recognize
the fact that the honourable member for Gimli whose responsibility or
jurisdiction is Teulon‑‑is also a centre that requires
gasification. The future of not only
Teulon, not only of Riverton, Arborg and the others is important. We again say, where is the happening?
June 1992, IDC natural gas
delegation‑‑Mr. Speaker, in June of '92, less than a year ago, the
Interlake Development Corporation, which I must say I was a member at one time,
executive member, came to see the government of the day to talk about
gasification. They spoke to the
Honourable Eric Stefanson, Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism. The honourable member for Gimli was there,
and the honourable Minister of Energy and Mines, Mr. Downey, was there‑‑June
of '92.
Mr. Speaker, the question is still
the same as it was two and a half, three years ago. So what is being done? Where are we moving with natural gas in the
Interlake? Where are we moving with
natural gas in
Needless to say, what the honourable
member is and what I am in agreement with him on is that the natural gas is the
way to go for our rural communities now.
Mr. Speaker, for an example, the community of Riverton in the last five
years has lost almost 100 people. In
Riverton alone, there are approximately 30 businesses, 30 businesses that are
paying out. I might say, without putting
my foot in my mouth, that that is first‑hand knowledge as far as what is
being put out in costs to run a business in a small community. Natural gas is the way to go.
Again, the Minister of Energy and
Mines: natural gas needed to spark
development,
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken with
Centra Gas on this matter. Centra Gas has indicated to me that, well, Mr.
Evans, they said, what about getting a return on bringing natural gas out
there? My comment to them was if you were to go out and talk to the people of
Arborg, Teulon, Riverton and all the smaller communities and the homes and the
small businesses, you would see that your return would be there. It would come. It may take some time, but it may come. More importantly, it would boost the economic
development and the future of the Interlake, I am sure, by tenfold.
The processing plant which is
situated or to be situated somewhere between Teulon and Arborg, again, the honourable
member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) indicated that the IDC had sent a delegation over
to Japan, and it is there for them. The
market is there for them, but it is not just that one aspect, not just the
processing plant. [interjection] Well, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Findlay) says the economy is a little tight, but I am sure that the economy in
the Interlake and in rural areas where gasification could be implemented, that
economy could just loosen up a little bit and the market value of the communities
would be more feasible for companies and for other outfits to come into the
communities and set up small companies, set up small processing areas, set up
jobs for the communities that right now are devastated.
(1640)
Mr. Speaker, there are many aspects
to natural gas. In talking to my
constituents when I go out to different meetings or to different functions and
that, I ask what do you think about natural gas? What is your feeling on natural gas? Nobody in the Interlake has said to me that
they feel that it would be a worthless situation. They all say that something has to be done,
that it has to be there. It has to come.
[interjection] Of course, it costs money to do it. Anything that you must do has to cost some
money. I mean the Minister of
Agriculture is saying something that does not make any sense. If you go across the street and park your car
it costs money, but you have to spend some money to make money.
An Honourable Member: It is an investment in our future.
Mr. Clif Evans: The honourable member says it is an
investment for the future for rural
I must say, and I want to put it on
record here, Mr. Speaker, that I commend the Interlake Development Corporation
and its executive and its board members for taking a strong leading role in
lobbying the government, in talking to the ministers, in making their
presentations. They are doing a fine
job, and they are bringing forth to this government the need for gasification
in the Interlake area and in rural
But what is happening over on the
other side? What is happening, I
believe, Mr. Speaker‑‑there was, about a year ago‑‑and
the name of the gentleman fails me right now who was head of PUB, was supposed
to have, told me personally, that there was going to be something feasible on
paper presented within a year. That is
now over a year ago. Again, where is
it? Where is the action?
I say to the government side, I say
to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Downey), I say to the Minister of Tourism
(Mr.Stefanson), the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), let us get
together with the proper organizations.
Let us get together with the people in rural
They talk about, Mr. Speaker, using
the money that is available through the REDI program. Up until just recently, I have yet to see any
action taken by this government to use any of this REDI money towards finding
out whether gasification is the right way, which we feel it is the right way to
go in the Interlake region and rural
An Honourable Member: Evaluation.
Mr. Clif Evans: Evaluation.
Evaluation of zero is zero. If
you are not evaluating something, then where are you going to get any answers
from? Evaluate it then. Study it. [interjection] You are evaluating
all right. I know. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay)
keeps piping up over there and that is fine.
However, I do want to say on closing
that rural gasification in the Interlake is one of the most important projects
that this government should and better well undertake and get moving on it
instead of sitting. Like I said before
about spark development, well, let us get some spark underneath some of those
ministers' seats. Let us get some flame
underneath those ministers' seats. Let us get some flame under the government
seats, and let us get some gasification.
Let us get some natural gas in the Interlake so that the member for
Gimli (Mr. Helwer), the member for
Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me
to speak on issues that affect rural
You know, it was not that long ago
that I remember, in speaking about power coming to Manitoba, that it was in the
early '60s where a number of farms out in southwestern Manitoba where I come
from that in fact we did not even have electricity. I remember very well going to visit my uncle
when we were children, and it was always the coal oil lamps that basically lit
their house for a number of years.
It has not been that long, but I
think it is important that we put a few comments on the record to talk about
the importance of gasification in rural
I know my colleagues on the left
talked about a plan and expressed some concerns about where was the beef and
when was this going to occur. I would
only encourage this government to proceed with rural gasification, but I would
hope that it is done in a planned and orderly way and that in fact there is
consultation and communication that does occur in rural
I think it is very important that we
involve the communities in a partnership when we are taking on an endeavour
such as rural gasification. We know that
it is critical for
I again would caution this
government that as they are looking at rural gasification and how they plan to
do this, they as well keep us informed here in the Legislature and let us know
as to exactly how they are proceeding and what their plan is. I think that is very, very important, because
we are quite prepared to support governments in endeavours that we feel are
worthwhile. We have no difficulty with
that at all. I think that is part of
what responsible opposition is.
Let me just close by saying, Mr.
Speaker, and I do not think it necessarily takes 15 minutes to say that we
support something, but again, we encourage this government to proceed with
rural gasification. We look forward to
seeing a blueprint, their plans as to what they do. We do support it. We have heard back from communities and we
know that there is support out there as well. Thank you.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I want to put a number of
comments on the record on this issue.
First of all, in my constituency
there is no natural gas hookup. We have
propane gas that is brought in, which is much more expensive. That is something that has been of concern I
know to homeowners. In fact, I had the
interesting experience to talk to people who have moved to
I also want to indicate that the use
of natural gas also has some other possibilities. I received a call this morning from an
individual who pointed out that there has been some talk recently of the use of
natural gas in school buses. I think it
has a lot of possibilities. He pointed
out that in
* (1650)
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, I think
it is something that should be investigated here. We do have a small amount of production of natural
gas in
I want to say that it is
unfortunate, I think, in looking at this resolution‑‑I have no
problems with the intent of the resolve, but once again we are seeing an
unfortunate pattern that is developing amongst government members. I think it is unfortunate. I think the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer)
would have been far better off putting on the record his comments in some other
way, or at least if he was going to move a resolution leave out some of the
attempts to pat the government on the back, or at least pat himself on the
back. I have some problems with that.
I note in the resolution that it
says the government recognizes the difficulty in rural
Mr. Speaker, I do not know where
members of this government have been, but there are severe criticisms about
what has been happening and the policy of this government in terms of rural and
northern economic development, criticisms related to the fact that while it is
taking out $40 million a year in VLT funding, it is not putting anywhere near
that amount back into rural and northern communities. It is becoming increasingly obvious that what
is being sold‑‑if you stand outside any establishment today and
look, for example, where they have video lottery terminals, it will have this
big sign up‑‑I was just at a hotel in Ilford, as I related earlier‑‑a
big sign up that proceeds will go to rural economic development.
Mr. Speaker, how much of the revenue
from VLTs is going to rural economic development? That is the kind of question I think the
government should be answering, perhaps even placing in these kinds of
resolutions, because the amount that is going out of northern
Even then, the REDI program we are
seeing now is nowhere near what is being sucked out of the North in terms of
VLT revenues. The VLT revenues are hurting local groups. I have received many complaints from my local
service clubs and organizations. Whether they be in Thompson or whether they be
in communities such as Wabowden, many existing community facilities are not
only in danger of losing some significant funding, I will predict now there
will be closures of some facilities if there is not some recognition made of
the fact that VLTs are costing service clubs a significant amount of money.
I know in the case of Thompson, I
talked to a member of a local service club.
Their revenue from bingos, which goes to many valuable community
projects, has dropped by 60 percent since VLTs were introduced‑‑by
60 percent, Mr. Speaker.
There is no recognition of that by
the government. This resolution talks
about VLTs and rural development‑‑no recognition in this
resolution.
I look to the member for Gimli (Mr.
Helwer) because I am sure he will find that that is the case in many of his
service clubs and organizations in his own communities as well. Many of them are hurting right now. What was billed, was sold is turning out to
be something that is not what is happening.
I would say that some of the stuff
that is being put out by the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation in terms of VLTs
borders on false advertising, because if people in my community or any of the
rural and northern communities in this province think that if out of the money
they put into those machines anything more than a small percentage of it is
going back into their communities, they are wrong, but if you look at the
signs, there is no reference to that.
The signs do not say: Video lottery terminals, most of the money
out of this is going to go to the Minister of Finance to bail out the
provincial government and its spiralling deficit. There was no reference in any
of those particular banners and signs, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that this was a
general revenue grab by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). What is happening is, this thin veneer of
economic development is beginning to fool very few people.
There was a press conference in
Thompson recently by the mayors of the three largest cities in the province‑‑Winnipeg,
I wonder, and I look at this resolution
which makes specific reference to that, why the ministers in this House and
some of the members of rural communities are not saying anything about this
issue. Are they not talking to their
service clubs and organizations? Are
they not talking to their municipal leaders? Are they not looking at the amount
of money that is being sucked out of rural communities and being sent straight
down here to the Perimeter to the coffers of the Minister of Finance?
I mean, I realize they have
financial difficulties, that their deficit is spiralling out of control, but do
not take the money out of service clubs and organizations in northern Manitoba
and rural Manitoba, and do not go and say you have a program for rural
development and not have anything.
Mr. Speaker, this particular
resolution refers right in the WHEREAS as saying, the government recognizes the
need. Well, I am sorry, that is not good
enough. To go around with rhetoric when
times are as tough as they are in many rural and northern communities simply is
not good enough.
It is the same thing in terms of the
gasification. I think a lot of the rest
of the resolution, and if members care to consult it, I think what they will
find is it takes away from a very good concept, rural gasification.
Natural gas is a cheap form of
energy. It is a relatively clean form of
energy. It would make a significant
difference to many rural and northern communities in being more competitive
when it comes to attracting industry, because one of the problems is the fact
that natural gas is available in certain locations and it is not available in
others, and it creates a competitive disadvantage.
Not only is that the case, Mr.
Speaker, and I find it unfortunate this is included in this resolution, but
hydro rates are not equal either. If you
live in the city of
Mr. Speaker, I sat in committee the
other night with Manitoba Hydro. Because
of the revenue from Limestone, there is going to be a situation where over the
next number of years, we are looking at $110 million a year from the Northern
States Power sale going into Hydro as a result of that. There is going to be a net benefit. There are going to be rates of increase in
Manitoba Hydro of less than the rate of inflation.
Mr. Speaker, we have a golden
opportunity here to correct something that has been bothering rural and
northern residents for a considerable period of time. Why do we not take the opportunity, given the
fact there is some leeway with rates, to equalize the cost of hydro regardless
of where you live in the province?
Mr. Speaker, I will give you an
example. I was in
I just talked to one of the people
in
The ultimate treatment for anybody
from outside of the Perimeter‑‑we will treat you like a
Winnipegger. No, they did not even get
that. What they have to do is, every
month on their Hydro bills, and Hydro bills are considerably more expensive in
northern
How can rural and northern
communities compete with
I have given a specific suggestion
right here today. I know we in
opposition get criticized for not coming out with specific proposals, but look
at Manitoba Hydro. Look at the books. Look at the fact that Limestone is
working. Look at the fact that Limestone
will bring revenue in. Look at the fact
it is from northern
Some in rural
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. When this matter
is again before the House, the honourable member for Thompson will have three
minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is
now adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Friday).