LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Monday,
May 31, 1993
The House met at 8 p.m.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY (continued)
COMMITTEE
OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent
Sections)
EDUCATION
AND TRAINING
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Good evening.
Will the Committee of Supply please come to order.
The committee will be resuming
consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training.
When the committee last sat it had been
considering item 2.(a)(1) on page 35.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, when we were last together, the critic from the NDP had
asked me to give some information regarding some highlights and some direction
which we are pursuing in this area of Program Development and Support Services.
I spoke before the break about a
consultative process with program directors, and the ADM of this division is
also having open discussions with staff members who would like to be
involved. We look for that to be as many
as possible and preferably all.
These discussions are focusing on services
which we provide, things that we are doing well and things that we can improve
upon. Immediately following these
sessions the ADM is meeting with major educational organizations to get their
input and their ideas on what type of leadership and services they would like
to see the department provide. All of this
input will help us move toward educational reform.
* (2005)
This division will also be very much
involved in the Education Innovation Forum which we have been speaking of and
which is planned for the fall. Some of
the issues that are currently being examined and will be followed up upon for
further discussion through the forum are things like parental involvement,
violence and aggression in schools, teacher training, interdepartmental co‑ordination
of services, program and student assessment, curriculum design and development
process.
The division is also involved in the
various initiatives across the department and will continue to build on the
existing programs and the practices that have demonstrated positive results in
the education system.
To summarize then, allow me to highlight
the significant activities that each of the current branches are involved in.
First of all, in the curriculum area,
developing curriculum guides and related support materials for
Major curriculum revisions currently
underway are mathematics in the K through Senior 2 area; science in the K
through Senior 1; art, Senior 1; business education, Seniors 1 through 4; and
English language arts, Senior 3 and Senior 4.
In addition, to develop, disseminate and
interpret the indicators of student achievement to improve student evaluation
practices and provide summative examinations for the final year of high school;
also, workshops, courses, visitations are provided to improve teaching and
learning relative to revised curricula.
The recently formed interorganizational
curriculum advisory committee will provide advice on the principles, goals and
broad directions to be followed in the development, implementation and
assessment of the curricula K to 12. The
committee also provides a forum for the discussion of organizational
perspectives on issues of curriculum and assessment and also to integrate
relevant applications of technology.
I also have further information on the
area of native education, on initiatives of the
I am prepared to go over these now or to
begin to answer some questions.
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Perhaps the minister would be willing to
table that information. It would make it
a lot easier for us to follow. I do not
know whether she has copies of each of the highlights for each of the branches,
but it would be helpful to go through those various branches.
However, in the meantime, we have the
division administration, I guess is what the minister has talked about generally
in the first dissertation on this.
I wanted to ask the minister about the
reorganization she talked about in this section and talked about reorganization
improvements and then went on to talk about curriculum improvement, database improvement,
internal and external and a number of other areas.
* (2010)
First of all, the total staff reduction in
this reorganization, as the minister calls it, which is really a reduction in
the‑‑it is a downsizing of the division, about 79 staff. Is that correct? How much of a reduction is there in the
managerial section of staff?
I notice for the present year, I believe
there are 16‑‑13 management‑‑I just wanted to know what
the managerial complement was for the previous year.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I wonder if the
member could clarify. Are you speaking
about managerial SYs in the whole of the division or for this line only, this
appropriation only?
Mr. Plohman: I am speaking about Program Development and
Support Services, 16.2, in totality.
Mrs. Vodrey: In looking at the whole of the division,
there has been a reduction of two co‑ordinators.
Mr. Plohman: Am I to assume from that answer that under
managerial, on page 14 of the Supplementary Estimates, Program Development and
Support Services, co‑ordinators constitute management and therefore there
were 15 the previous year and now there is 13?
Is that the total management co‑ordinators?
Mrs. Vodrey: That is correct.
Mr. Plohman: Could the minister indicate in what area the
co‑ordinators were eliminated?
Mrs. Vodrey: One reduction of a co‑ordinator for the
High School Review and one reduction in Distance Education and Technology.
Mr. Plohman: Could the minister give us a breakdown of the
other sections, the Professional/Technical people? We have listed here 160 SYs,
Professional/Technical. How many were
there in that section the previous year?
Mrs. Vodrey: I know the member is referring to a global
chart in the Supplementary Estimates. We
have the details of the staffing information done by subappropriation as it is
listed in the Estimates booklet, so we would be able to talk about it line by
line. If the member would like a more
detailed kind of information specifically at this point, then we would have to
compile it.
* (2015)
Mr. Plohman: I would like to get the compilation of all of
these sections. I think it is rather, I
guess, inconsistent that we would have information for the previous year in all
cases, but on that table, we do not. So
I think if the minister can get that information compiled as soon as possible,
then I would like to have it. It would
facilitate the discussion about the priorities and the nature of the reductions
and cuts. As well, the administrative
support is 87.5, 87 and a half staff, and it would be important to note how
many were reduced there as well from the previous year, so if the minister can
give us that.
I notice that the total reduction in this
branch for staff is nearly $3 million, and the total reduction for the division
is about $3 million and then total reduction for the division considering all
appropriations, not just staff, is just about $3 million too. So it would indicate to me that almost all of
the reductions have come from staff cuts.
There is very little from program cuts other than the staff themselves
here. So it is important for us to get
an idea of what kind of staff are reduced.
So as soon as the minister can get that, I would appreciate it.
Mrs. Vodrey: We will get that for tomorrow afternoon and
attempt to give the comparison for the member.
Otherwise, as we go through the subappropriations this evening as well,
I will be prepared to talk about them.
Mr. Plohman: Well, we are going to try to discuss most of
the areas under Division Administration at least in a preliminary way because
this Division Administration, I see, is responsible for implementing the stated
objectives of the seven branches. So
having taken on that noble task in Administration in the (a) section, I guess
they are responsible for what happens in the whole area. It is interesting, but makes the job very
difficult, I would suppose, to be responsible for everyone else's detailed
work, but it involves all of these; Curriculum, Native Education,
So I want to, first of all, discuss with
the minister some of her priorities for Curriculum Services from the
administration's point of view. The
minister has raised some of the points. Could the minister indicate what the
status is of the Skills for Independent Living program? Is that now fully implemented in the
schools? Is it in a pilot status or
where is it at?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in Skills for
Independent Living, the pilot for the course is complete. The implementation will begin for all schools
in September '93. It is to be
implemented as a full credit. However,
it may be provided in two half‑credit courses, so the total credit will
be one but the actual provision of the course may be, according to the school
and their timetable, by two half‑credit courses. They may be implemented at any year within
the Seniors 1 through 4.
Mr. Plohman: It is to be started or at least half the
course has to be taught in Senior 2? Is
that correct?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, no, the choice is at
any time between S1 and S4.
* (2020)
Mr. Plohman: Do students who are already through any one
of those years prior to September '93 have to also take one credit in the
remaining two or one or three years? Is this
only for new students starting in Senior 1 or Grade 9?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this begins this
September for students beginning Senior 2.
Students who are past the Senior 2 year will be considered to have
grandfathered in this particular course.
Mr. Plohman: Does this apply to all schools in the public
education system and private school system or just the public school system?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is students in all
schools.
Mr. Plohman: Can the minister indicate the philosophy
behind this course and the reason why it was given such high priority to be
implemented within I guess a year or two years of the High School Review that
was prepared by the previous minister, the Answering the Challenge?
I notice Strategy 79 was the Skills for
Independent Living. I am going to be asking the minister about the status of
all of these recommendations, these so‑called strategies. It would be interesting to see what the
philosophy was behind Skills for Independent Living and the urgency for
bringing it in and the need that was deemed to be there, that had to be
addressed by this course, that it was made compulsory.
Mrs. Vodrey: This particular course, the content and
modules within this particular course have flowed from the original Challenges
& Changes report which was begun under the previous government. It was also noted in Answering the Challenge,
which has been the most recent document.
There has been an identification through both of those reports of an
importance to have a course which promotes critical skills needed by all
students, for example, skills such as learning skills, career development,
entrepreneurship, management of time and financial resources.
The pilot on this course was particularly
extensive, and there has been a great deal of feedback from students and from
teachers, and they have found the course content to be extremely relevant. In terms of the implementation, Answering the
Challenge, the High School Review recommendations have been implemented in a
staged process, and starting September '93 was the year in that process to
implement the Senior 2 courses.
Mr. Plohman: Well, just as an aside, the minister might
bring us up to date on whether the schedule has been kept. I note that the minister mentions September
'93 as the time when Senior 2 courses were to be implemented. If that is relevant, then how closely has the
schedule been adhered to for all recommendations in the time line that was given? Pardon me, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, really
what I am asking is, is implementation behind schedule and on average by how
much? I am not at this point asking for
each recommendation, each strategy, as to how far it is behind.
* (2025)
Mrs. Vodrey: I understand that originally there were some
difficulties in terms of meeting the time lines, but from the time that the
former Minister of Education, now Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach),
made announcements to the field regarding the times, and the field has been
updated on a quarterly basis regarding the dates of implementation, that I am
informed that this has now all been on time.
Mr. Plohman: Just to clarify, on time to the original
schedule or on time to the revised schedule?
Mrs. Vodrey: On time to the revised schedule.
Mr. Plohman: Getting back to the pilot of the Skills for
Independent Living the minister said was extensive, what does that mean
precisely?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, the pilot process included,
first of all, a pilot in Year 1 or Senior 1, and that involved approximately a
hundred schools. That was in fact one of
the most extensive pilots that has been conducted. There was feedback from that pilot where some
schools indicated that Year 1 was perhaps not the most appropriate year, and
then there was a further pilot to pilot the program in Year 2, Senior 2, with
50 schools. Following that, in 1993, we
have held consultations regarding the course, and those consultations have been
just completed. The consultations were
held with the pilot teachers, with school administrators, with the Chamber of
Commerce, with labour, and all of the representatives from all sides have
indicated a positive response to this course.
* (2030)
Mr. Plohman: Could the minister table a copy of the
curriculum for this course?
Mrs. Vodrey: We do not have four copies of the curriculum
today. We do have one copy of the
curriculum. I would be pleased to table
the rest tomorrow, at the next sitting.
Mr. Plohman: Good.
Thank you. When was the committee
established that drew up the curriculum?
Mrs. Vodrey: The committee was established in September of
1990.
Mr. Plohman: How many people were involved, and were they
primarily teachers of Senior 1 or Senior 2 levels? Where were they from? Perhaps the minister has a list of the people
that participated in that committee. I
mean, if the list is all in the curriculum, contained in the‑‑that
would be sufficient.
Mrs. Vodrey: The list is contained in the curriculum and
it does list who the members were in terms of the steering committee. It lists them by their school division or
their representative organization, such as the university,
Mr. Plohman: Another question on that, it seems that there
was a lot of involvement from outside the direct educational circle. How many
of the people on that committee were educators, what percentage of the total?
Mrs. Vodrey: Twenty of 21 were educators.
Mr. Plohman: I thought the minister mentioned that there
was Chamber of Commerce on there and some other groups. Was that the only one that was an exception
or was the Chamber of Commerce rep also an educator?
Mrs. Vodrey: I said 20 of 21 were educators. The 21st represented the Chamber of Commerce,
but perhaps the member is confusing when I spoke about the most recent
consultation process in which there was representation of educators and also
the community.
Mr. Plohman: So following the initial work of the
committee to draw up the curriculum, there was a process that involved
consultation with the schools and also the community there. Is the minister saying there were many other
groups involved in critiquing what was developed?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, yes, at the end of
the pilot year, the course had been validated as an important area of studies,
studied by a series of study groups.
Within those study groups there was representation from the Winnipeg
Chamber of Commerce, from labour, parents, as well as educators.
Mr. Plohman: Were there substantive changes made to the
curriculum as a result of that process?
Mrs. Vodrey: None of the changes have been
substantive. The changes have been in
the area of refinements. They have
occurred during the whole process of piloting the pilot which occurred at
Senior 1, the pilot which occurred at Senior 2, and the course has been
monitored throughout the pilot process.
Mr. Plohman: In general terms, does the minister have a
breakdown of the percentage of the course for each of the major areas that she
talked about as being covered including critical thinking, decision making,
fiscal and time management study skills, entrepreneurialship, career education,
family studies, whatever the breakdown is?
Can she give us an idea of how much time is spent on each of those?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in the course, which
is 110 hours, Unit 1, the introduction, is to take up to five hours; Unit 2,
Mr. Plohman: Which part of the curriculum deals with
entrepreneurship‑‑Enterprise and Innovation or a World of Work or
what?
Mrs. Vodrey: It is Unit 2,
Mr. Plohman: Is that the basic nature of that section of the
course, all of that 25 hours?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in that Unit 2,
Mr. Plohman: Does the course deal with such information as
establishing a company, a partnership or corporation?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the focus of this
section of the course is on critical thinking.
It is not specifically a business course which then develops
specifically a business plan. In fact,
it looks at areas such as how students can tap into their individual and their
collective creativity and initiative in any aspect of life. In the area of enterprise, there are
definitions which speak about enterprise as an undertaking which involves
activity, courage, energy and also a daring project.
In addition, it looks at definitions of
things such as innovation; entrepreneurship; involving a recognition of
opportunities; the needs and the wants and the problems and the use of
resources to implement innovative ideas for new thoughtfully planned ventures.
It also looks at the spirit of adventure
and an opportunity to take one's own set of initiatives, not just to wait for
life to happen; an empowering attitude; a set of behaviours and skills; a way
to look at the world, dealing with problems; and perceives needs as
opportunities for improvement and also approaching a need or a problem as an
opportunity to learn and grow, rather than in terms of what can be lost, what
would be lost.
* (2040)
Then, an underlying part of the course is
students and teachers to be encouraged to support each other, learn from each
other; the issue of adaptability to change; learning about oneself; the setting
of short‑ and long‑term goals; the importance of making plans; the
commitment required, both in time, energy; a hands‑on learning techniques
with student involvement and responsibility in planning, doing and
evaluating. Those are all covered in
that section.
There are, however, in Unit 6: World of Work, some areas which may also be
of interest to the member in terms of the questions that he has asked. One area covered in the World of Work is job‑seeking
strategies and how students should understand the use of resumes and different
ways of getting a job, recognizing the importance of knowing appropriate
information about employers.
Also, a section on work relationships;
keeping a job and protection against harassment; knowledge of the Human Rights
Code; rights and obligations of employees and employers, so that students can
understand the role and the responsibilities of the Employment Standards
branch, understand the importance of this information for employers and
employees to apply the basic principles of Employment Standards legislation to
work situations, to understand the role and responsibilities of professional
associations and labour unions.
Mr. Plohman: When the minister mentions empowering, does
it deal specifically with women in business in any special emphasis?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, in the World of Work, there
is a section on nontraditional careers for men and for women. Also, in the World of Work again, the unit
includes sections on goal setting, decision making, career exploration, the
changing nature of work and sex‑role stereotyping.
Then in the area of protection again
harassment, the student should be able to understand what harassment is, how
individuals are protected by the Human Rights Code and issues which would be
among the basics for empowerment.
Mr. Plohman: Does it also cover in any way the aspects of
co‑operative and collective development of enterprises and efforts?
What we have seen here is an approach to
an individual empowering attitude, more than anything, towards business to
create confidence and some skills developed there. But does it also cover what can be attained
in a collective way, in a co‑operative way through development of say co‑operatives? Is that aspect of business covered?
Mrs. Vodrey: The object of the course is to assist
students to become self‑reliant, whatever the environment that they are
in. It is not specifically set up to assist students to come together in a co‑operative
venture to set up a business. But in
looking at how people work together in the area of self‑management, it
does cover areas such as understanding human needs, self‑concept,
communication, conflict management, stress.
Mr. Plohman: I was just exploring, I guess, the philosophy
behind the course whether it, especially the 25 percent that deals primarily
with entrepreneurship, in fact, also deals with the co‑operation and
collective kind of approach to establishing enterprises.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just a
correction. Unit 2 does not deal just
strictly with entrepreneurship. The
title area of Unit 2 is
One of the major objectives is to extend
understanding of the concepts of enterprise and innovation. In terms of achieving those objectives, one
of the first things is to know the meaning of the terms. So student activities focus on reviewing the
definitions and implications of a series of those words such as enterprise
innovation initiative. They also
developed definitions for terms such as entrepreneurship, which is how in my
description of the course I explained that entrepreneurship would fit into this
particular unit. But the focus of the
unit is not specifically entrepreneurship or becoming an entrepreneur as a
specific goal.
Mr. Plohman: Does the course deal with the role of
government in business?
Mrs. Vodrey: As I have explained, it does certainly look
at some of the legislative framework which people working would perhaps need to
know about, things like employee‑employer relations, the Human Rights
Code, but it also focuses on issues such as the work ethic and also issues such
as citizenship.
Mr. Plohman: Yes.
Does it focus primarily on private career development as opposed to
development of careers or exploration of careers in the public sector?
Mrs. Vodrey: The course does not specifically look at exactly
where a student might apply their particular interest. What it does do is it helps students look at
their strengths and attempt to apply their strengths very widely and to look at
not only traditional types of employment and careers but also nontraditional
types. It also encourages students to
look at the home as a place of employment and to view that and factor that in
in terms of their decision making. It
also looks at many professions and trades that have organizations and
associations.
It assists students in reviewing the
decision making and the problem‑solving process. One of the objectives is for a student to
look at what they might view as a particular career and through an interview
process explore that career, also to propose a plan for organizing an in‑school
career symposium with a variety of speakers so that there could be a very
personal way for students to begin to look at the types of careers that they
might like to explore. The student
should also have a good idea through this area of how to know what employer
expectations are.
So there is a series of activities in
which students would look at what is involved in terms of a full day's work for
a full day's pay as is stated in the student activity.
* (2050)
Mr. Plohman: I thank the minister for that information.
Obviously, the minister feels very committed to this course, feels that it is
filling a very important role in high school education by the information that
she has provided and the enthusiasm for the information contained in the
curriculum that we are dealing with.
What does the minister feel this course is
replacing, what kinds of courses? That
is where we really get at the‑‑there is only a certain amount of time
available in high school and, as in any teacher's school day, in any student's
school day, and something has to be given up when another course is made
compulsory. What is being given up by
and large in the school system?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, this course has been made a
compulsory course. By making it a
compulsory course, it does offer it a prominence within the curriculum because
it has been, through the process that we have described, identified as a course
which provides students with important skills that have been identified through
a series of reports.
Students are expected to graduate from
high school in Manitoba with a minimum of 28 credits, and with that 28 credits,
our students in most cases are able to‑‑it does not involve giving
up a subject area. In fact, students do
have the room to take this course.
Again, in looking at the high school model, it is a course which is
accommodated and able to be accommodated within the programs that are offered
so far.
Mr. Plohman: Well, we are dealing with, I guess, something
that has been made somewhat more flexible.
Was not the original intent to have the full course offered at Senior
2? When was that changed?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, originally the course was
set up as a half credit in Senior 1, a half credit in Senior 2. It was then a recommendation that it become a
full credit to be offered in Senior 2.
Through the process of the pilot and the feedback from schools, it was
then decided that the course should be, at the end of Senior 4, seen as a full
credit, but that it may be offered in the two half credit years, which would
allow for a greater degree of flexibility.
Mr. Plohman: I think that may deal with some of the
concerns that I have heard about the course in terms of Senior 2 or Grade 10
students having the time to have this course fit into their curriculum, into
their year.
It is my understanding, for example, I
guess, at
This course will be compulsory over the
three‑year term, so it may be that they will still be able to offer the
course as they had it. They were worried
about that possibly not being the case.
But it seems that the total hours devoted to this mean that some other
options will be lost because the 28 credits were arrived at through physical
education, through band or through drama, through another language, through
computer, various options that were established. Now there are going to be few options
available because of this course. Would
the minister agree with that?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the timetable for
individual students may be what in some ways dictates what is available for
students to take, because students have this among many other courses which
they would want to fit into their day and they may have a choice of several options
in which they would like to take more than the required number of courses.
As I said, it was in direct response in an
effort to provide this flexibility that we have made Skills for Independent
Living with the flexibility that it may be offered either as a full course or
in the two half‑credit courses.
In some rural areas, there was a real
sense of the school being very pleased with this because it did allow them to
provide, and in fact they must provide, this particular series of skills. Again, I would remind the member that the 28
credits for high school graduation is a minimum number and that many students
do graduate with more than the 28 credits.
Mr. Plohman: Is this the same curriculum for this course
applied to all students in high school?
In other words, students taking level 4 or 004, 001 courses, would they
be required to take the same curriculum as 00 students?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this course is a
general core curriculum for all students.
However, within the appendices, there is an extensive list of ways that
teachers might adapt the course depending upon the level or the particular
course that students may be taking. The
member used, for example, students in the 04 program versus students in a 00
program. So we have provided for the
adaptation of the general core curriculum for those students.
* (2100)
Mr. Plohman: One of the strategies in Answering the
Challenge was Strategy 47 dealing with the International Baccalaureate and
Advanced Placement for credit in high schools.
Is that fully implemented now, and will they also be taking this course
in that program?
Mrs. Vodrey: The status of the AP and the IB programs,
there was a recommendation that these be recognized for course credit towards a
high school graduation. They are, in
fact, recognized for course credit for high school graduation. They are above and beyond the
I believe the member asked the status of
skills, and that will be required for students taking those particular courses.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am going to pass to
the Liberal critic for a time.
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): The member for Dauphin has asked some very
good questions in the area of Skills for Independent Living, so I just have a
few follow‑up questions on that.
Can the minister tell us: Have there been recent presentations or
concerns expressed to the staff in her department in regards to the apparent
lack of flexibility that some schools or some teachers feel they have in
regards to now implementing this course on a compulsory basis, or has that been
resolved with the full credit versus half credit? I am not quite clear on that.
Mrs. Vodrey: That issue seems to now be resolved with the
flexibility built into how the course could be offered.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister tell us, when exactly was
that change made? I perhaps missed
that. Was it just recently that change
was made where there could be two half credits or one full?
Mrs. Vodrey: We did consider the representation that was
given and the final decision was made within the last month.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister talked
about some of the activities associated with Skills for Independent Living, and
I happen to think that the addition of that course is an excellent idea.
Can she tell me what, in the pilot
projects, type of evaluation was conducted, maybe explain a little bit about
the evaluation of the pilot projects?
Mrs. Vodrey: The information was gained by first of all
the pilot schools. They were divided up,
shared, among five curriculum consultants.
(Mrs. Shirley Render, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
They were visited on site by those
curriculum consultants so that there was a connection right within the
school. There was then a series of
regional meetings held. At the regional
meetings the teachers involved were invited to provide again a very personal
kind of feedback regarding their experience with the course. In addition, in a number of schools the
students were surveyed and, also, in a number of schools the parents were
surveyed.
Ms. Gray: With the surveys and this type of evaluation,
what kind of changes were noted in the students? Was it knowledge change or behavior change or
was there an opportunity to really evaluate that? I guess I am wondering and, as I say, I
happen to think‑‑it would appear that this course seems like a very
good one and probably is long overdue in being in the schools.
I am just wondering what specifically the
evaluation stated that led the department to be able to say, yes, this is a
course that we should offer on a compulsory basis.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chair, one of the
measurables was a more positive attitude towards school. That was reported by students. It was reported by teachers, and it was also
reported by parents. It appeared that
this course gave students a context for learning in which they could see an
application for their learning beyond their actual time in each individual
class as they looked ahead to their futures.
In addition, the section of the Skills for
Independent Living which calls for independent study allowed students to be out
in the community to do things such as job shadowing. Particularly in rural areas, that received
quite a lot of support because parents had been concerned about students
leaving the rural area. This was a way
in which students could make a connection between what they were studying in
school, what they might like to do when they finished school, and how they
could see it within the area where they were living presently.
Ms. Gray: I thank the minister for that
information. I know one of the issues
that was raised with the department in regard to this course and the compulsory
nature of it was, and I ask this question not necessarily in support of the
suggestion but for information, was there a way for parts of the curriculum,
the activities within this course to be integrated into other course work
thereby allowing more flexibility? Was
that looked at at all, or what would the pros and cons of that approach be?
Mrs. Vodrey: This was an option or a suggestion which was
brought to the department, brought to myself over a series of meetings. We did, as a department, look at it very
closely. We looked at various modules
which we wondered if we would find within the current curriculum, and we found
in fact that it was easier said than done, that there was not really the match
within the current curriculum to what was proposed in terms of Skills for
Independent Living.
The other area where we found a difficulty
was that not all students happen to take the options for which there might have
been a module or a proposed module would have been covered, so it did not
provide for all students in
* (2110)
Ms. Gray: Is there a long‑term evaluation
mechanism or is there, as with all curriculum, a service standard evaluation
mechanism that tracks, perhaps, some of the measurable outcomes of the benefit
of these students taking this course? Is
that evaluation done even after the students have completed the course and
maybe in three or four years from now when they are elsewhere?
Mrs. Vodrey: We have a consultant whose job it is to
provide implementation support for this program for '93‑94. That consultant again will be available to
assist in all the areas of implementation.
We then look at two years of feedback for this course before we develop
a final guide for the curriculum, and then this particular course, as all other
courses, then goes into the curriculum assessment cycle.
Ms. Gray: With this course, are there suggestions made
to schools as to which teacher should be teaching the courses or is that
totally left up to the school divisions?
Mrs. Vodrey: The issue of who will be teaching the course
will be a local decision by that particular area. I am sure that they will be looking for
teachers who have the best expertise in these areas.
Ms. Gray: Is this the first year then that this
curricula is actually compulsory across all schools?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, starting September '93, it will be the
first year that it will be compulsory.
Ms. Gray: The member for Dauphin and I, in our
discussions, we were both prompted by the same question, and that is, what type
of training or in‑servicing will there be for teachers to be able to
teach this curriculum?
Mrs. Vodrey: We have arranged for support to teachers by a
series of 15 regional workshops, and 10 of those workshops have been
completed. Five more will be completed
by the end of the year. We will also
provide follow‑up and assistance.
Those, by the way, are workshops for teachers who currently know that
they will be teaching the Skills for Independent Living course next year.
We will also provide follow‑up for
teachers who may have been hired over the summer. We have also conducted workshops for school
administrators so that school administrators can take a leadership role. They will have a full understanding of what
is being offered in the course.
Then in addition to that, the teachers who
have been part of the pilot program and also teachers who are on the steering
committee who wrote the curriculum are available as resource teams to assist
teachers through the implementation process.
Ms. Gray: When will these workshops occur in the areas
where‑‑the five I think you indicated‑‑and how long are
they in terms of days or hours?
Mrs. Vodrey: The workshops occur as one‑day
workshops. Ten of those one‑day
workshops have occurred. There are five
left to occur, and they occur in regional locations around the province.
Ms. Gray: How will the teachers then attend these? Is this considered one of the professional
development days for a particular teacher?
How do these teachers get scheduled into workshops?
Mrs. Vodrey: As we discussed earlier, school divisions do
get a categorical grant for professional development. With this funding, this allows them to
provide release time for teachers.
So school divisions have that as an option. In addition, school divisions have seen, I am
informed, Skills for Independent Living as a priority, and therefore have been
making arrangements for their teachers to attend.
Ms. Gray: Can the minister then indicate, will all the
teachers who are left who require this in‑servicing be able to receive
the in‑servicing, and will the divisions be able to afford that within
those grants that she spoke of? Will
everyone be accommodated within that?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, school divisions still receive that
categorical grant for professional development, and that has not changed.
Mr. Plohman: So the minister is saying that in the area of
in‑servicing she does not believe the loss of up to eight days in some school
divisions is going to impact on the ability of school divisions to ensure that
their teachers are properly qualified to teach this course.
It is an excellent example, I think, Madam
Acting Deputy Chairperson, where in‑service days, professional development
days are necessary. As there are
innovations and changes in curriculum, teachers have to keep up with those
changes and ensure that they are ready to apply the latest techniques and so
on, and are fully cognizant of the material that is being dealt with.
The use of professional development days,
the 10 days that were available and that many used for professional development
in the past, is now in question for this purpose. In some school divisions, it will be available;
others, they will not. It will be a
patchwork. I just want the minister to
attempt to deal with that aspect of in‑servicing in the context of this
new course. How will those in‑service days affect it?
Mrs. Vodrey: Obviously, the member does not understand how
this works. First of all, this is not a
divisional in‑service, and therefore I think he is speaking about
divisional in‑service days. This
would be an assistance for a teacher for a single course. It would be as if it were a pullout for that
one teacher.
As I have said to the member when we
discussed the funding formula, there is funding which has been made available
through the funding formula. That has
not changed. We talked about how that might
have been used and how it might be used.
We talked about the fact that it might be used for a teacher to go
away. A school division might decide to
send a teacher away to take a course and have someone in their place.
* (2120)
Through that particular funding, which is
still available in the funding formula, that would be useful for school
divisions to use in this particular area.
Again, I underline that this would not be a requirement for a divisional
in‑service, which, I believe, he is thinking about.
Mr. Plohman: No, the teachers do not necessarily all take
their in‑service days on the same day.
I do not believe with divisional in‑services that many of them are
used for that purpose.
Some, such as the SAG in‑service,
are a provincial one; however, there are many ways that school divisions apply
their 10 days of in‑service or professional development. So it does not mean that all of the teachers
in the division would have to be on an in‑service day at the same time.
So it was simply a question of the
minister as to whether she feels that there will be any disadvantage for school
divisions that have fewer of those days available after this year. Will there be a disadvantage in in‑servicing
for this kind of course or for other situations like it? This is only one example.
Mrs. Vodrey: As I explained the categorical grant for
professional development available across the province, we do allow for $4
million for that categorical grant, which is approximately $450 to $500 per
teacher per unit of instruction which would be available to allow for support‑‑in
this instance, perhaps this particular support for the implementation of this
course.
Mr. Plohman: Madam Acting Deputy Chair, $450 to $500 per
teacher would be about two days of in‑service, or would the department
just pay for the cost of the substitute as one of the portions of the cost
involved in in‑servicing a teacher?
Mrs. Vodrey: Divisions may use a number of mechanisms or
apply this $450, $500 in a number of ways.
They may wish to use that money in order to have a substitute come into
the classroom, but again there are a number of ways in which that categorical
grant may be applied.
Mr. Plohman: The minister, I know, is aware that if it is
used to offset salary, it is only about two days of in‑servicing per
teacher. Although it sounds a lot of money
at $4 million, a significant amount, it does not go that far. So we are dealing with in the area of the
Skills for Independent Living a course requiring 10 workshops of a one‑day
duration. Does this mean that one
teacher would need only one of those workshops or one day, or would they need
all 10 of those to be qualified to teach this course?
Mrs. Vodrey: The teacher would require one workshop. What I said was that there have been 15
workshop schedules. A teacher would
attend one of those workshops, not all 10 of those workshops.
I believe the member may not be accurate
in suggesting number of days available with the $450 to $500 available per
teacher. First of all, they may not be used for teachers. They may, in fact, be pooled by the division,
and divisions may use that money in a number of ways. However, if we were looking at an application
to a single teacher, I am informed that it perhaps would provide more like four
days, because substitute costs are in the range of $87 to $110.
Mr. Plohman: Just to complete this particular line of
questioning. We are dealing with in‑servicing
as it applies to this course. This
minister did not answer the question regarding the disadvantage that divisions
that have removed the in‑service days would place their teachers in with
regard to a course such as this. Does
the minister feel that there is any disadvantage there in terms of their
ability to be in‑serviced for innovations, for developments such as this
course?
Mrs. Vodrey: I did answer the question, and my answer is
that we continue to provide, through the categorical grant, funding totally of
about $4 million available to school divisions, and they may use that in a
number of ways. They may choose to use
that for assistance to a teacher in terms of a new course, and there are a
number of ways in which divisions may decide to apply that money.
I am just informed with some information
that in 1990‑91, in fact, the actual funds paid towards the professional
development, the actual expenditures were approximately $3.6 million, and today
we provide $4 million in terms of the categorical grant. So there certainly has
not been any decrease; in fact, there has been an increase in the amount of
money available to be used for the professional development through that
categorical grant.
Mr. Plohman: Will the francais programs have to take this
course as well, and will the Francophone school division have to teach this
course?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, both the francais and the French
Immersion programs will be taking Skills for Independent Living called Vie
autonome.
Mr. Plohman: I missed part of that answer, Madam Acting
Deputy Chairperson. Does that mean they
will be offering the course?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, they will, as I described the French
title.
Mr. Plohman: A couple of other questions about the
course. We talked about various material
that is covered in this course. When we are looking at exploration of potential
careers, it seems like that is one of the most important areas that is missing
in schools right now. A lot of young
people just really do not know what the options are out there, what is
available to them and what they have to do to get to a certain destination with
regard to a particular career.
The other aspect of it, of course, besides
their own ability as a student to explore certain careers, to pursue certain
careers, is the financial ability and the resources required to obtain a
standing in a particular profession.
I am wondering if this is covered in this
course in any way, because if you are talking about careers, we have to talk
about financial ability and resources available.
How extensively is that covered in the
curriculum for Skills for Independent Living?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the unit,
Unit 6, the World of Work, there is a segment called Costs of Post‑Secondary
Education. Following this particular
segment, students should be able to know where and how to access information
about the costs of post‑secondary education, should know the costs
involved for each year's studies, know how and where to access information on
financial assistance for education and also to evaluate other ways to pay for
education.
Mr. Plohman: So I would expect the minister has ensured the
latest changes to eliminate bursaries are included in the curriculum
information for students.
Mrs. Vodrey: We certainly would make sure that students
had the most accurate facts.
* (2130)
Mr. Plohman: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, I would say
the most up‑to‑date information that the minister is talking about
here, including the latest cuts.
I mention the issue of career development
and career information as being an extremely important one because we have a
daughter in Grade 10, which you would call now Senior 2, and another one just
graduated from high school last year. In
both cases, this seems to be a major topic of discussion and one that occupies
a lot of young people's time in trying to determine what is available for them.
This idea of job shadowing, or exploring
in a practical way, careers, by going out and talking to people involved in
different occupations and experiencing part of their day and seeing what kinds
of things they encounter on a day‑to‑day basis, I think is very
important. How much of this course is
spent on that aspect? It would involve a
lot of time, it would seem to me. It is
a time‑consuming approach to explore in a practical way various
occupations. How much time is actually
spent in this area?
Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, to the
minister, would this be a compulsory aspect of this course or could it all be
done by way of films, videos, slides and in‑classroom information, or
would there be a requirement that some of it be done in consultation with the
community?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the area
of looking towards a career, within the Skills for Independent Living I did
describe Unit 7, which is a unit of Independent Study. That unit occupies about 15 hours in the
total 110 hours of the course. We do
look for an interactive approach, not just films and videos. However, we also attempt to address students'
career awareness, not only through Skills for Independent Living alone, but
also we have the distribution of a computerized career information retrieval
system, in‑site, for every high school that does not presently have this
technology.
We also have the distribution this year of
Manitoba Prospects, which is a career information tabloid. That went to all high school students and
other Manitobans who also wish to look at what the job forecasts might be in
the future.
We also provide ongoing support for the
career symposia. One occurs in
Mr. Plohman: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, I imagine
most of this information was provided by way of guidance counsellors up to this
point in time. Is that still going to be
a major part of their work or is this totally taken over by this new course?
Mrs. Vodrey: Within the core Skills for Independent
Living, there would be class discussion, and class discussion would be
generated from information and awareness which is brought forward from the
curriculum for Skills for Independent Living.
It may be that a guidance counsellor may be invited in for a portion of
that class discussion to maximize the available resources.
The in‑depth kinds of career
counselling that have been in the past provided by the guidance counsellor, we
would expect, would still be provided by the guidance counsellor. That would be that one‑to‑one
assistance for career information and career choices.
Mr. Plohman: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, I notice
that in other areas of curriculum development, such as the issue of sustainable
development‑‑I believe the same in art, the art curriculum is being
revised, and perhaps in the health curriculum‑‑most of these are
being integrated into other courses so that all courses would cover aspects of,
for example, sustainable development as it applies in that course where there
is related material.
Was there any effort or any thought given
to many aspects of the independent living skills being taught in association
with the curriculum of other courses, social studies, for example, science and
others, as opposed to a separate course?
Mrs. Vodrey: As I did answer a little bit earlier this
evening, we did receive some requests to look at that, to look at certain
modules in which perhaps Skills for Independent Living sections might be
accomplished in other courses. We did look
at it very closely and very seriously, and what we found was that the fit was
really not as good as had perhaps been first proposed or thought. So we found that we were not able to take
portions of Skills for Independent Living and look at those being covered in
certain courses which are presently ongoing.
We also found that certain students did
not always take all of those options or all of those courses in which those
proposed segments were included, where we were asked to look at proposed
segments for Independent Living and ongoing courses. So it would have meant that some students
would not have had all of the same information as other students. Because it was really easier said than done,
when it actually came down to looking at it, we did not find the fit, so we
decided to proceed with the full, single‑credit course.
Mr. Plohman: One other question with regard to this
course, Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, is an aspect of information on careers
that I think would be valuable. I wonder
if it has been looked at. I know the
minister has said there was some information given on
One of the ways that this is done, for
example, that I am aware of, in
* (2140)
I do not know whether the minister is
aware of or her staff are of what is offered in Australia in that regard, but
if it cannot be done at a national level because the government of the day is
not inclined to do so, could we do something like that in the province of Manitoba,
so that students have a complete outline of all possible careers and what is
involved in getting to that point, pursuing that career?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chair, first of all, we
do have a program called the Choices program, and this Choices program does
provide a great deal of information regarding careers and what is required to
reach that end point. It was originally
begun by the Department of Education and Training, and I understand now that a
number of school divisions presently sponsor that particular program.
Secondly, we have another program used in
the Senior 1 area called the career awareness lab which also helps students
look ahead at the kinds of career choices they might like to make and what is
required to get there. The Choices
program and the
In addition, as I said earlier when I was
looking at the kinds of information we provide, we do provide the distribution
of a computerized career information retrieval program, and that lists in
detail over 250 occupations.
Fourthly, as I said, we also distributed
this year, in co‑operation with the government of
Mr. Plohman: Certainly the updated lists are not
sufficient. There has to be background information. When the minister talked about the computer
lists of 250 occupations, is that the kind of information she is talking about,
or is that only in that particular mode that just a list of the careers was
listed?
Mrs. Vodrey: Certainly in the Choices program and the
Mr. Plohman: Is this provided in a compulsory way to all
students at a certain grade level, or is it just made available to schools?
Mrs. Vodrey: While we have been discussing Skills for
Independent Living for the past while, the information that is available through
the Skills for Independent Living course is, in fact, compulsory because the
course is compulsory; but the other resources, such as the CAL or the Choices
program, are resources within schools and it is not compulsory that a young
person use that particular resource.
Mr. Plohman: Does the minister think that it might be an
advantage to requiring that every child have some kind of information on all
possible careers, including what is involved in getting there and what kind of
educational road or stream they might take to get to that destination?
This is what I was talking about in the
Australian model. It is distributed to
every student in the country. I think
that same thing would be beneficial, and I am asking the minister about her
views on that.
Mrs. Vodrey: I would also remind the member that through
our Ed Finance model we certainly have made it now possible for each school,
Grades 5 to 12, to have a counsellor. As
the member may know, under our new finance model, the funds are available and
the person is to be hired into that position in order to provide that service
to schools. That was included in the Ed
Finance model because of the recognition of the importance of those particular
skills.
In terms of the work of a counsellor and a
counsellor assisting students in terms of making career decisions. I agree that is a very important role to be
filled in the school, and I agree that students should have as much opportunity
as possible to find out as much information as they can.
I am also understanding of the fact that
students might need a number of different modes from which to do that. Some students may be most comfortable in the
interpersonal way, one‑to‑one, actually speaking with the
counsellor. Other students may be more
comfortable using the interactive mode of self‑exploration, and other
students may be more comfortable looking at the lists and being able to do some
thinking and then some discussions for themselves. Some students may need to have a variety of
ways in which to make the career decisions, but what I think is important is
that there are a number of ways in which students can get information regarding
the making of career choices, because we know that all students are not the
same.
Mr. Plohman: Certainly they are not in terms of how they
might follow up and pursue the information.
All of those ways can be pursued, but they need to find out the basic
information as to what is available. Part
of the information that would be provided would be ways to find out more on each
career, but that it should be provided is what I am submitting at this
time. I am asking the minister if she
has thought about exploring the possibility of providing that kind of
information on every career to every student at a certain age level in the
school system.
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, I have said to the member that I do
think this is important too, and because I think it is important, we do have
the career curriculum committee, and I did refer to that earlier this evening. Through that committee we are investigating
ways to strengthen the kinds of information that we provide to students, and
strengthen the ways in which we provide information. As I have said to the member this evening to
this point, we do provide information in a number of ways, and we have to make
sure that this is the way that the students need to receive the
information. So, when I first described
the work of the career curriculum committee, what I said about it was, it is
looking at what is the kind of information that students need to receive and
want to receive, and what is the best way to deliver that information to those
students.
So we did speak about this, and, again,
this is an area of importance, and where there are suggestions about how
students could be receiving this information in the most effective way, I am
certainly open to hearing what they may be.
* (2150)
Mr. Plohman: The minister just heard what one of those
ways may be, and she may want to take that into consideration when considering
the report from the committee, because it certainly seems to be effective and
working in that jurisdiction.
I want to move into the Answering the
Challenge booklet that was prepared by the‑‑it seems to have a
picture here of a funny‑looking guy.
Oh, it was the minister at that time, the member for Russell (Mr.
Derkach). [interjection] He was pretty
young. He had quite a bit more hair at
that time, did he not?
Point of
Order
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Madam
Acting Deputy Chair, I think the member for Dauphin is, of course, referring to
myself as the funny‑looking guy in the‑‑but I would like to
tell you that at least this member does not mumble like the member for Dauphin.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mrs. Render): I am afraid the
member does not have‑‑I believe it is a dispute over facts.
* * *
Mr. Plohman: The minister, as usual, did not have anything
too profound to add to the debate. I was
actually giving the minister a compliment because I thought he looked a lot
younger in that picture and, certainly, had a little more hair than he does at
the present time.
This was released in June 1990. There was a time line for implementation of
each of the strategies. I want to ask
the minister at this time whether she can give us the status report of the
degree of implementation of the report by September 1993, as to how much of it
has been implemented and what the dates are for those that are not implemented
by the September of '93 period, and also any strategies that are not going to
be implemented in the foreseeable future?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chair, in June of 1992,
we released to the field the booklet Implementation of the High School Review,
which was a status report at that time.
Now, for the school year 1992‑93,
the department has reviewed each one of the strategies. We have, in fact, a working document now that
looks at exactly what the strategy is, what it relates to, any work to be
completed and actions in order to reach that completion.
This document will be reviewed with the
High School Review steering committee in June, and from that steering committee
we will come out with the final document following that consultation.
We believe at this point that most of the
strategies have been implemented, that the framework for change is established,
and that the priorities for anything that remains outstanding will be
established with the High School Review steering committee in June.
Mr. Plohman: Can the minister indicate whether the time
lines for implementation for Seniors 2, 3, and 4 are being met? These are rolled back from the initial time
line. When I look at the initial
recommendations, the dates are quite different from what is proposed at the
present time. Senior 2 was 1991, Senior
3, '92 and Senior 4, '93. Now we have
Senior 2 at '93, Senior 3 at '94 and Senior 4 at '95, so each one has been
moved back two complete years. Is that
now a realistic timetable or has that been changed?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, I did
explain that from the very first report, yes, there had been some changes.
However, from the report which was released in June '92, the one to which I had
been referring, all those time lines are now on target.
Mr. Plohman: Which time lines are on target, the ones that
I just read out or the original ones or is it something new? This was February 11, '91 that a new time
line was set out; that was not even a year after the report was released. So now we have over two years since that
letter went out with the revised time line.
Is that revised time line still being adhered to, or is there a new
revision for that since then that I do not have, that I have not referenced?
Mrs. Vodrey: The revised time lines are all on target, and
I believe those were the ones the member had been referring to in terms of the
revisions that were made from the initial announcement. Those time lines, again, which are listed in
the June '92 report are all on target, Senior 1 through Senior 4.
Mr. Plohman: The minister did not deal with the question
about certain strategies that were not being implemented.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Acting Deputy Chairperson, I can say
that certainly every strategy that has been identified is in the process of
being addressed. I can say to the
member, too, that some of the strategies are not strategies which would be
implemented within one specific year.
Some of them are part of an ongoing process. The process of reform, in fact, takes more
than simply being mandated for one single year.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
I would say to the member that for a
number of these strategies implementation is a process, however, and the change
will take time because some of the change which is required through the
implementation of these strategies is an attitudinal change, for instance. When I look at the attitudinal change
required for gender equality and to eliminate the sex‑role stereotyping,
that requires attitudinal change on the part of a great number of people‑‑teachers,
students and employers. So that one, for
instance, is one which again would require a process in which it would be
probably not realistic to expect everyone to have completed the change within a
single year.
* (2200)
There are other strategies which will
require the co‑operation of other institutions. I look at some of the strategies which
address the issue of teacher training. I
can tell the member that in the area of teacher training, we have been
consulting with the institutions, with the universities, and we are in the
process of addressing the recommendations which apply to teacher training. In those cases, they may not be able to be
all implemented totally in one year because of the comprehensiveness of that
particular program. However, I can tell
you again that areas such as that are being addressed. Then, there are other
strategies which may be addressed singly and within one year. We have been talking about those, and we have
been talking about those as being on target.
So, as I said, there may be three ways in
which to look at the process of implementation; one, the strategies which may
be easily measured and applied in one year; secondly, those which involve
another system in which we would be looking at for a process of change, and
work with those systems has begun; and then, thirdly, there are a series of
strategies which address a longer term process of, for example, attitudinal
change, and that is also ongoing.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being after ten o'clock, what would
the will of the committee be?
Some Honourable Members: Carry on.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Carry on.
Okay. We will carry on.
Mr. Plohman: The minister mentions some of the strategies
that have not been implemented to the extent that others have, one being gender
parity. The minister says that this is
ongoing, and it takes its change by a number of different groups and people in
society to accomplish.
So the question arises, what progress has
been made? What initiatives have been
taken to ensure that it is, in fact, being implemented? What can be measured?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, some of the concrete
work that we have been doing in the area of gender equity and sex‑role
stereotyping has occurred. I can give
him examples in two courses.
First of all, in the course Skills for
Independent Living, we address, and I have already spoken of this this evening,
the issue of sex‑role stereotyping and also sexual harassment. I went over the areas of that course in which
students would look at their rights under human rights and they would also have
a chance to look at the sex‑role stereotyping issue.
In the area of family and women's issues,
which also relates to the issue of gender equality, we have in the health
curriculum for the Grades 5 through 8 area a section on violence prevention in
daily life and in relationships. This
curriculum was developed in response to the Pedlar report and is also a very
proactive curriculum.
The issue of gender equity, specifically,
is not an issue restricted to high school, but it is an attitude or approach
that needs to be developed throughout a student's school life starting in the
very early years through Senior 4.
Mr. Plohman: Strategy 8 deals with many aspects besides
curricula and textbooks. It talks about
provision of appropriate role models, for example. What is the minister doing in that area with
regard to this strategy?
Mrs. Vodrey: Strategy 8 deals with sex‑role
stereotyping, and the department is looking to facilitate the removal of sex‑role
stereotyping through the process of teacher education, through career
counselling, through evaluation of curricula and through textbook content .
Through our Curriculum Services Branch,
curriculum consultants are instructed to include enabling strategies in this
area, looking at science for young women, inclusive language and women in art,
et cetera. Textbook writers and
reviewers are charged with the responsibility to screen for sex‑role bias
and to foster positive female role models and material for children.
Also, there are training sessions for
reviewers, and they include a major section on sex‑role stereotyping, and
also the career symposium presenters have been more aware of the need to expand
their material to be more gender inclusive.
* (2210)
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairman, Strategy 9 deals with
the merits of cocurricular activities as described in here which would be under
a different name and talked about as extracurricular activities.
What can the minister say about progress
made in implementing Strategy 9 considering that these are being jeopardized as
a result of certain decisions made by the minister with regard to cuts in
salaries for teachers as a result of professional development days being
removed.
How can she say that she is making any
measurable progress, if not going backward in this whole area of cocurricular
activities which in the Answering the Challenge booklet is stressed as a very
important part of the program of study?
Listed as cocurricular activities were field
trips, debates, fairs, student exchanges, drama productions, festivals and
sports events. These are essentially
what we normally call extracurricular activities.
Mrs. Vodrey: The department certainly encourages the
continued participation of students in a number of activities. I know some of the activities that have been
listed in the discussion around Strategy 9 relate to things such as debates and
fairs, including science fairs, exchanges and student leaderships.
We certainly do encourage the continued
participation of students in those particular areas; in fact, we support the
student leadership exchange. Again,
through our phys ed program, we also look at skill development which encourages
students' continued participation. We
also look at fair play, and, in addition, in our phys ed program, we also have
an adaptive sports program which allows all students to participate.
I think that this is an important area, so
that it does not make some of those particular skill areas only for those who happen
to really excel in those areas; instead, we really look at supporting all
students taking part in these areas.
Mr. Plohman: Yes, can the minister maybe explain what she
views as the difference between extracurricular and cocurricular?
Mrs. Vodrey: I might distinguish between those two by
saying that in the cocurricular areas they tend to focus more on equal
opportunities, opportunities available to all students, and we again talked
about co‑operation and fair play and so on, and the fact that there are
adaptations to allow student participation.
We might look at extracurricular
activities in some areas, particularly in the athletic area, as being somewhat
more competitive as opposed to some of the cocurricular, which may be, in fact,
more equal opportunity.
Mr. Plohman: Is that the only difference? Does the minister make the distinction on the
basis that cocurricular activities would be taught more in an integrated
fashion with the rest of subject material and co‑ordinated with subject
material, as opposed to extracurricular which is in addition to after hours, or
would she not agree with that kind of distinction?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, when I listen to the
member's questions I am wondering about his interpretation of the terms
"cocurricular" and "extracurricular." I have, in fact, spoken about what may be
some distinguishing factors, but we may be now looking at an issue of
philosophy. I would say that these are
important parts of a student's school experience and they certainly would look
at broadening students' perspectives.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am not sure that
was a very clear answer. The minister
said that she is looking at my interpretation, or whatever. Does that mean that she agrees that maybe
that is the distinction, that cocurricular activities are conducted in
conjunction with courses as part of the curriculum or complementary to the
curriculum of particular courses, whereas extracurricular are not necessarily
related directly to the curricula of any particular course?
Is that what the minister is saying, or is
there no relationship and essentially is there no difference then?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the issue of
cocurricular activities, again, has been defined in the Answering the Challenge,
and the term has been used to convey a complement to the curricula. The extracurricular relationship may not be
viewed as quite as close to the curricula, though it would still be a
complement. Between the two, it is
probably easier to look at how schools organize themselves to deliver the
activity, whether or not it might be referred to as a cocurricular or an
extracurricular activity.
Again, some schools decide to organize
themselves in a way that they do not offer intermural sports but only intramural
sports. In that way, they are looking at
an organization which, again, is not quite as competitive perhaps as the
intermural sports, the intramural sports recognizing the participation of more
students. As schools recognize that all
students have an academic participation, the organization of activities may
also assist students in terms of their participation in other kinds of
activities.
* (2220)
So I would say that one of the features
may be, in fact, how schools organize themselves, and I would remind the
member, too, for instance, some school divisions also have electives in an
intersession period. For instance,
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I guess maybe the
best way to clarify this is‑‑we note that the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
stated recently, publicly, that a teacher should be paid extra for certain
extracurricular activities. [interjection] Scott Taylor's column in the Free Press
detailed this last Friday. The minister
can be referred to those statements.
I want to know whether the minister would
classify cocurricular activities as those for which teachers should be paid
extra or would it be just extracurricular activities or would it be just
coaching basketball?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I did not see the
article that the member is referring to, and so I do not have that same
particular reference point that the member wants to talk about.
As I said earlier, we may view
cocurricular and extracurricular based on how schools choose to organize the
events. I have just spent some time
discussing how schools choose to organize themselves with activities which may
be complementary to the actual curriculum.
Mr. Plohman: So I take it the minister has not quite
decided yet whether she agrees with the Premier (Mr. Filmon) on payment to
teachers for extracurricular activities.
I have asked the minister whether she has
decided whether she agrees with the Premier that teachers should be paid extra
for providing additional services for extracurricular activities.
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, I think the member might want to
listen again to the Premier's remarks. I
have to say I did not hear them first‑hand. I think he is referring to some remarks the
Premier may have discussed on an open‑line show. Again, he would probably want to put those
remarks into the context from which they came.
Mr. Plohman: I can assure the minister that we will put
them in the proper context during Question Period at some opportunity.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I want to ask the
minister‑‑she has said that everything is on stream, and that this
implementation of the Answering the Challenge is going along quite nicely, in
earlier questions. [interjection] Well, the former minister says, you bet; he
is the author of this, which is, in many cases, referred to as a disaster.
Strategy 2 talks about school divisions
being "requested to submit, by January 1992, their plan of action, based
on the identified criteria for the maintenance and enhancement of this
environment in their schools." The
environment is the one discussed in Strategy 1.
I would ask whether the school divisions
have indeed submitted their plan of action by January '92 or even by January
'93. If so, how many have?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, this document is now
drafted. It was in fact in a draft form
previously, and from that draft form, there was quite a lot of opportunity for
school divisions and superintendents to make a comment on it. It is now in a form where it is ready for
publication. The target for distribution
is September '93.
In the process of development for an
effective learning environment, as the member could imagine, it will require
the participation of all staff. It will
require participation of the community, so what we will be putting out in
September of 1993 is a working document.
With this working document, the schools
will in fact work as they also work through the continued implementation of the
High School Review. When the High School
Review has completed its implementation, then the school boards will in fact
submit plans to the department on the effective learning environment.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to just take
five minutes for a stretch‑the‑leg break? Five minutes just to stretch the legs. Five minutes, stretch the legs, thank you.
The committee recessed
at 10:20 p.m.
After Recess
The committee resumed at
10:40 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The committee will come to order.
Mr. Plohman: The minister had indicated earlier that there
was a revision to the timetable for Answering the Challenge and that everything
was on schedule to the revised timetable.
June '92 was the date that that paper came out, the booklet revised? That is correct.
I want to know what the timetable given
for Strategies 1 and 2 was in that booklet, because the minister just told us
everything was on schedule to that, and now she tells us that the criteria were
not even established for Strategy 1‑‑or will not be established
until September '93. That is when it is
going to go out. It is just being
published. That is a full two and three‑quarter
years after it was supposed to be ready, according to the timetable.
Then we are looking at the next step,
which is when school boards will respond with their action plan to these
criteria. That was supposed to be done January of '92, so we are a year and a
half behind now. So I guess what I would
want to know is whether the revised timetable of June 30, 1992 has been met for
these two strategies.
Mrs. Vodrey: Strategy 1 has been accomplished. Strategy 1 was the development of the
criteria. The development of the
criteria has been accomplished through the consultation with the High School
Review steering committees. Strategy 1
is accomplished.
Strategy 2 was not directly addressed in
the document of 1992 in terms of a timetable.
Because there was a recognition that this was a very complex area and,
as I said, it was a document which was intended to make a difference, what we
have done is now we have the criteria settled.
As I said, Strategy 1 is accomplished, and we are now planning for the
release of the document in September 1993 to the schools.
As I said earlier as well, this will be a
working document. It is intended to be used in the schools through a process of
study and review by a team of teachers.
It is not intended for use by a single individual who will then
implement it, but, as I said, it is intended for use as a working document by a
group. So it is, in fact, on target in terms of what is intended to be
accomplished.
Mr. Plohman: Well, the minister cannot explain the
unexplainable here. The fact is that the
Strategy 1 is two and a half years behind schedule, and Strategy 2 has not even
started yet.
]
Point of
Order
Mrs. Vodrey: Strategy 1 is accomplished. I made that clear in my last answer.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order please.
The honourable minister does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Plohman: Well, if the minister made it clear, whatever
she made clear is that it is two and a half years late in being
accomplished. It was supposed to be
accomplished by January 1991. It is to
be published June 1993, we hope, I guess, and distributed to the schools by
September '93. Anyway you look at it, it
is two and a half years late.
Mrs. Vodrey: No, that is not correct. Strategy 1 speaks to the development of the
criteria. Development of the criteria
has been accomplished. We are now
looking at the distribution of the document to the schools in September '93,
but the strategy was developed in consultation with the High School Review
steering committee. That is Strategy 1. That has been accomplished.
Mr. Plohman: It is good to hear the minister is pleased to
have Strategy 1 done. That is a good
place to start. Strategy 1 is done,
according to the minister, two and a half years late. My original question was, what was the date
provided in the June '92 update for Strategy 1, the projected date of
accomplishment? And then for Strategy 2,
what was the date of accomplishment?
The minister earlier said with Strategy 2
that it was very complex and too difficult.
Therefore, it was not identified in the June '92 document; it was not
identified for a specific date. Yet the
Answering the Challenge document put out by the minister's predecessor boldly
said that this would be done by January of '92, this specific date. Why cannot the minister project a specific
date just like her predecessor attempted to do, however wrong it was?
Mrs. Vodrey: In the document released in June '92, that
document was intended to look at the revisions or the changes in terms of
time. These two strategies were not
identified in that document. I can say
to the member that Strategy 1, or the document that is looking at the learning
environment, was to be developed in consultation or in concert with other
documents that were being developed at the same time.
I would specifically point to the document
on multicultural education. That
document, which was released last May, a year ago, May of '92, also speaks to
the issue of the learning environment.
That document also needs to be seen in terms of No. 1, the criteria, and
how they were developed. Those criteria
developed in relation to or in reference to other documents which were also
being worked on at that time and which also reflect issues relating to the
learning environment.
Mr. Plohman: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister is
referring to all kinds of complicating circumstances which prevented her and
her department from implementing Strategy 1 according to the schedule that was
adopted. There were no extenuating
circumstances identified in the document that would prevent it being
implemented by January '91 or, I would assume, they would not have put that
date in there. The minister can maybe
speak to why those complicating matters were not included in the initial
strategy.
If we look at Strategy 2, now that we have
got off the ground, that the minister has finally done Strategy 1, what was the
reason for Strategy 2 not being included in her revised dateline that was
published in June of '92?
Mr. Derkach: You know, I have been sitting here witnessing
the questioning from the opposition. I
would like to say that I have never seen a sorrier sight in terms of
questioning from the opposition than I have from the member for Dauphin. When you lower your level of questioning to
such items as we have heard here from the member, I have not heard any
substance yet, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. I
am surely hoping that as we progress in the questioning of the Estimates in the
Department of Education that we are going to get into some substance because
this certainly is not it.
* (2250)
Mrs. Vodrey: The document for 1992 was a document for use
as teachers and administrators worked through the piloting and the
implementation process, and they will identify areas that require further
clarification and interpretation.
This document of '92 summarizes the
adjustments of the last two years made to the high school model. In relation to Strategy 2, the High School
Review steering committee had been reviewing it, they had been making progress,
but they also believed that there needed to be further consultation with the
field. Therefore, they did not include it in the document that was released
June '92 but instead decided to look at how this would be dealt with in terms
of long‑range plans. It does deal
with a very important area. As I stated,
as the committee looked at this issue and they worked with it, they realized
that there did need to be some further work done on it. Now we are at a point where the document is
ready to be published and will be distributed to schools for September '93.
Mr. Plohman: I thank the minister for that answer. We can certainly understand why the previous
minister is so sensitive as we examine his dismal record here. It is to be expected that he would become
very defensive about that.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think we see two
examples of the dismal record of the previous minister by the answers given by
the present minister when she indicates that the deadlines or time lines for
implementation of Strategies 1 and 2 were totally off, that they were totally impractical
and unrealistic and they could not be met in any way, shape or form. These are the previous minister's
deadlines. The record is clear, two and
a half years late on Strategy 1, no time line for Strategy 2, already a year
and a half behind and the clock is ticking.
So I can only assume from the minister's
answers that she agrees that the previous minister had put in place a report
with time lines for implementation that were totally unrealistic and the
minister would agree with that.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, absolutely
wrong. The member has just carried on
with a set of conclusions that are just completely false and wrong.
I have spent a great deal of time this
evening explaining to him the work of the High School Review steering committee
and the work that has gone in to implementing the strategies for the High
School Review and how, when working with the issues and working with the field,
that then areas were discovered and discussed which would require additional
consultation and additional work. That is a model in terms of flexibility and
in terms of understanding that I think is a very helpful one which integrates
the issues that are being uncovered to be solved. The member perhaps would like to have gone
ahead and to have discovered issues, having already made decisions and then
having had to go back.
So what I am saying is that guidelines
were issued in terms of time and that in working with the issues, we looked at
what was required and have now released a set of times. As I have said from the beginning of our
discussion this evening, that we are on target in terms of the strategies and
their implementation. That has been the
basis of our discussion for some time this evening.
I see that the member views time lines as
very specifically deadlines instead of any sort of guidelines. I can tell him that the work that the
previous minister did in terms of preparing this has set a basis for us to
continue working in terms of looking at issues of quality and excellence. They are important. We want to make sure that what is put forward
are also issues of substance. So I
believe that does answer his question in terms of the times and to reassure
him, as I have said, that we are on target now for the times we are looking at
in the implementation of the strategies.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the previous
minister, when he introduced this report to the public, said in his statement
that the policy directions as outlined are the result of an extensive review
process and reflect the input of various partners and so on.
What I am reading from this minister is
that the previous minister did not do his homework before he put this report
out. How else could the time lines be so far off?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I would remind the member
that consultations are ongoing and that they are a process.
The member, in his question, seems to
think that once consulted, never to be consulted again. That certainly has not been the process that
we have followed. So, as the previous minister
has said, what had been brought forward was in fact based on a series of
consultations and now we are at the implementation process, we continue to
consult.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is not me that put
the deadlines on these implementation dates on this report. They were put on there by this government, by
the previous minister, by this minister's predecessor, who put out a report
with particular specific times for implementing each of these recommendations. They have not met them and they are far off.
Can the minister give us any idea when
Strategy 2 will be implemented as envisaged initially when this report was put
out by the previous minister?
He identified January 1992. What does this minister project at the
present time, or has she learned from the previous minister's mistakes and will
not give a time line any longer?
* (2300)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, well, as I have said this
evening, the report and the guidelines will be released to schools in September
of 1993, and following that, school divisions will begin to develop their plans
in September.
The submissions will actually occur over a
period of time, but school divisions will begin to develop their plan of action
during the school year '93‑94.
We will look at the pacing of their
implementation, because we expect that it will be done in a very orderly and
sequential way. It is very important
that in the process of implementation, the orderliness and sequentialness be
preserved.
As I have said to the member as well, we
have relied very strongly on the advice of the High School Review steering
committee and also the advice of the stakeholders. So the process has been one in which there
has been this ongoing consultation with the field as we discussed. We are now looking for the plans to begin in
their development stage in the school year '93‑94.
Mr. Plohman: I understand the minister's dilemma in having
to answer to a ridiculous time line that was placed in this report, inheriting
it. So the minister is saying that they
will start to implement this about two years late, and then it will go on for
some time. Who knows, another two,
three, four, five years? We do not know.
The minister just will not speculate, and
I can understand that too because the last date that was given was so wrong
that the minister may not want to be pinned down to a date.
Let us look at Strategy 4. This one the minister had more time. The previous minister gave her till 1995 for
each school division in the province to have the services of a co‑ordinator
for guidance services. "The current
Education Finance Review will make provision for this position." Can you imagine "the current Education
Finance Review will make provision for this position"?
Here we are now about a year and a half
away from this one being implemented, and so I would try to give the minister
some running notice on this with a one and a half years to go. How is she doing on this one?
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy Chairperson,
in the Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey: The funding that is in place now is for
guidance counsellors for schools in Grades 5 through Senior 4, and that is now
part of the new ed funding formula.
In terms of the co‑ordinators,
specifically on the advice of the Ed Finance Advisory Committee, it was their
recommendation that the funding first go to direct service as opposed to the
administration. And, in terms of the
actual date for implementation of the co‑ordinator, well, we will look to
the advice of the Ed Finance Committee when the funding recommendations are
made.
Mr. Plohman: Yes, well, the date was identified, for
better or for worse, as 1995, and that was five years down the road. It seems like an eternity, I know, when the
minister put this out, that he would have five years to have to do that. Now we are only a year and a half away from
having to implement that.
Is the minister now indicating that she is
backing off from that strategy? I think
it is important to put this all in context, because the minister did say
earlier on that everything was going quite nicely with the implementation of
the whole Answering the Challenge document, that strategies were being
implemented and they were all on schedule.
So now we have to explore this in some detail. I would have to ask the minister then on that
basis: Is 1995 realistic? Is she backing off of the date? Is she now saying that perhaps they might not
even do it and go instead with direct services as opposed to a co‑ordinator
as well?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, when we look at the kinds of changes
and the time lines and guidelines which have been noted, again, they are there,
they do provide a sense of focus, and they do provide a way to measure some
progress but, as we have said, change is a process, it is not a single
event. The member has wanted to tie it
to a single event. This evening we have
spoken about some areas which may be a single event and others which are in fact
a longer period of time or a process of change which needs to occur.
If the member looks at the front of the
document Answering the Challenge, which I know that he is referring to, on the
second page, the second paragraph, it does say:
"This document provides the blueprint for the future development of
high school curriculum . . . ."
High school curriculum had not changed in
many, many years, and this was a blueprint.
So as we look at the blueprint and not something specifically cast in
stone, we realize that some of the strategies will be able to be implemented
fully and others will be able to be implemented fully and others will be
implemented in varying degrees.
In terms of this particular strategy, we
will be relying on information and recommendations from the Ed Finance Advisory
Committee as well to look at the process of implementation for this particular
strategy.
* (2310)
Mr. Plohman: The minister really put her finger on it when
she mentioned this is a blueprint. I do
not know whether she has ever looked at a blueprint, had one drawn up. Certainly all of the capital facilities which
she is in charge of, all of the schools and other facilities that are being
built are built on the basis of blueprints that spell out in detail, every
single detail that is going to be considered in building a particular building. If we are dealing with that here, I would
like to know how the minister can talk about putting together a plan in varying
degrees. It would be the same way as
trying to build a building in varying degrees.
What does that mean‑‑have the thing changing along the way
all the way? It is impossible.
These dates were put in here precisely
because it is a blueprint as envisaged by the department and by the previous
minister. This was the plan. The time lines were the time lines, the dates
for implementation. So the minister
perhaps thought she was referring to a paragraph that would allow her to soften
the dates and they did not really mean what they said. In fact, by doing that, she provided evidence
that strengthened the argument we are making that, in fact, they were not being
met, and this whole thing was derailed and way off course.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member is
wrong. Perhaps his knowledge is not as
completely clear as he thinks it is.
There are modifications made to blueprints. The member knows that, unless he is not as
familiar with the term as he claims to be this evening.
I did refer him to the term blueprint so
that he would see, yes, this was a plan.
The plan or the working drawing which we have been looking at this evening
is able to be improved upon, is able to be looked at by the field and also by
the various committees which have been set up.
I have pointed to the ed advisory committee as being one which is
looking at the funding, the ed funding advisory committee. I let him know that, based on their
particular recommendations, they had recommended that funding be focused on
direct service, and we accepted that recommendation.
Mr. Plohman: Is the minister indicating now by her
statement that she is throwing out the blueprint and starting over again, that
the blueprint was not what it was supposed to be, and because of the totally
ridiculous deadlines that were put in that have not been met in terms of the
minister's action on this so‑called blueprint that she would be better
off, at this point, to redraw a blueprint, a new working drawing for High
School Review because this one is ridiculously out of date? Would the minister agree with that then?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, no, I would
not agree with what the member is saying.
We certainly have been using the High School Review in each of the
strategies. As I said to the member, we
have just finished a complete review of all the strategies. We have looked at the work accomplished. We have looked at work that needs to be
done. I have explained that in June the
High School Advisory Committee will be looking at these strategies and they
will also be looking again at the priorities.
I have also said that some of the
strategies which have been pointed to are also being developed within the
development of other strategies within the department. We talked about the learning environment and
we talked about other policies such as multicultural education and that particular
strategy does reflect on the learning environment. So it was important to look at that in
relation to the document on the learning environment.
In relation to this strategy, I have also
explained to the member that it has been important to look at the work of the
Ed Finance Advisory Committee, and that is exactly what we have done.
Mr. Plohman: The minister, in her earlier reply, said that
services should be first and that was what was recommended and that has been a
priority. We are not arguing that. We think that it is important to have
professionals providing services for kids.
These are all, of course, jeopardized by the funding cuts during this
last announcement by the minister regarding funding.
But if we were to look at Strategy 5 and
Strategy 4, we note that in fact there would be certain requirements. If the minister is abandoning these
strategies, then she can simply say she is and that services come first and
that in today's fiscal situation, financial situation, it is no longer practical
to make this recommendation.
We would respect her more if she would
just say that rather than dancing around the time lines and raising all kinds
of irrelevant arguments about interlinking and interlinking strategies.
What we want to know from the
minister: Is she going to proceed with
this, with the implementation of 4 and 5 at any time, or is it on the basis of
the current financial situation impractical?
Mrs. Vodrey: I think the member has in fact perhaps
finally answered his own question. Maybe
he is now a little bit more clear on exactly what it is that he would like to
be asking. Perhaps now, through the process of discussion, he has come to an
insight about what is really happening, but I would say that he has in fact
overlooked another important point that I have been speaking about this evening
and that is that a number of these strategies are being developed in relation
to other policies which are being developed by the Department of Education and
Training and that it is important to look holistically at exactly the total development
of policy areas.
He did say and referenced in his‑‑as
he posed his question about time lines being guidelines, which are, in fact,
what they are. When we look at the
document produced by the former minister, yes, there have been intervening
events. There has been an election as an
intervening event. There has been a new
minister as an intervening event. School
divisions have experienced changeovers as intervening events.
In addition to that, we do have some very
real financial challenges, and we are attempting to deal with those through
consultations, through the advice that is being provided by the minister's
Education Finance Advisory Committee. I
think that it is important that a progressive and a creative government, which,
I believe, we have demonstrated here, demonstrate the ability to make these
adaptations which we have been discussing this evening.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, if I read the
minister's last answer correctly, she is saying that if I answered the question,
then the minister is, in fact, abandoning some of the strategies. She nods her head in the affirmative. Why
does she not say that she is in fact‑‑
Point of
Order
Mrs. Vodrey: I do not know who the member was looking at
for the head nodding. Certainly he would
not have been referring to any indication that I gave him at all. I said that he answered his own question by
coming to an insight himself.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): The member did not
have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Plohman: Perhaps the minister was nodding off, but I
did, in fact, see that she was indeed nodding and I assumed that she was
saying, yes, that is correct, that she is, in fact, abandoning some of the
strategies. She is now saying she is not
abandoning them, and yet I understand that this insight she says I gained on
this was that somehow, because of fiscal situation, some of the strategies
cannot be implemented.
If that is, in fact, the case, why does
the minister not just say that she is not implementing certain of these
strategies? I ask the minister to come
clean with the committee, with the Legislature, and say that, if it is not
practical at this time, if that is what she is saying now, then let us have it
clearly that she is not going to be pursuing as a priority that every school
division should have a co‑ordinator for guidance services because it is
not service delivery directly.
Therefore, it is no longer the kind of priority that was envisaged at
the time that this report was made. It
is not practical at this time. She will
not be doing it.
* (2320)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, again, the issue is,
first of all, the member attempting to read whatever signals that he thinks he
is seeing; that is just ridiculous. I
think that probably he should, in fact, be spending the time listening to the
information and continuing to try and develop some insights into the answers
given.
As I said, through a process of
discussion, we have covered a great deal of information in this area this evening,
and, as I said at the beginning, an adaptation is not an abandonment. The member seems to have not understood that.
What I have spoken about, as we have been
discussing the strategies, is that there has been a great deal of work. Work has been done by the steering
committee. Work has been done by the Ed
Finance Committee. So there has been a
lot of input into the actual implementation of the strategies.
As I said, in looking at where we are now
with all 90 strategies, we have reviewed all 90 strategies this year. We have looked at where we are with those
strategies. We will be covering those
with the steering committee and with the steering committee, they will be having
a look at them. As I said earlier, they
will also be looking at areas of priority as will the Ed Finance Advisory
Committee be looking at areas of priority also.
I did give the member an example of an identified priority in terms of
the priority of direct service which was identified by the advisory committee.
So we look at the whole answer again, the
whole answer says that adaptation is not an abandonment, that as we have
continued to work with the stakeholders and the various advisory committees,
the priorities have been identified or the adaptations have been identified.
Mr. Plohman: The minister is talking about all these
advisory committees that she has that have to determine now whether in fact
these are guidelines only or are they really a blueprint. So I guess all of
this is being rethought.
Would the minister indicate which advisory
committees are reviewing various aspects of Answering the Challenge?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I would like
to start by saying that the document Answering the Challenge, the strategies
within it, cut across all branches and subject areas of the Department of
Education. So since 1990, the strategies
themselves have been a part of the work that has been done. They have been a part of every curriculum
meeting, for instance, so that we can certainly look at that as one starting
place in terms of where this information has been used and how the information
and the recommendations have been integrated.
When we look at other committees which are
operating, I could give him some examples.
First of all, there is the High School Review steering committee and,
obviously, they are dealing with the strategies. We also have an Advisory Committee on Native
Education which is dealing with some of the strategies. We have the advisory committee on ed funding,
and they are also dealing with some of the strategies. We have an Advisory Committee for Gifted
Education, and that is dealing with strategies.
We have an interorganizational advisory committee. We also have an advisory committee on
Distance Education and that task force which has recently given its report.
So we have looked at the work of this
particular document, this blueprint, and we have made every effort to look at
the strategies as they cut across branches, as they cut across curriculum and
have their work integrated into the work of the committees which are very
active within the Department of Education and Training.
Mr. Plohman: The minister is talking about not just one
advisory committee, she is talking a whole number of different committees that
she has classified as advisory committees.
Maybe it never occurred to the minister that what she could have used
was an action committee to get something done with regard to the classroom and
what is happening with students.
The minister has indicated that she has
advisory committees doing this and that and she has a blueprint. Seriously, it seems to me that we need to
have support for our teachers in the classrooms, and this is what is missing in
the minister's plans. There are all kinds of theory and philosophy and discussions
and processes and various interlinking strategies as the minister says, but we
do not see any action. The minister has
indicated to this House that she still considers this a practical blueprint
even though the time lines are way out of whack.
My contention is and our contention is
that because the time lines are so far out on this report, and indeed it is no
longer practical to talk about this as being implemented, what we are talking
about is an adapted version that would be so far changed that, and because of
the changing financial and fiscal realities that the minister has talked about
in terms of her budgeting and the cutbacks to the public schools, it is no
longer practical to even talk about the report as being something she is
implementing.
Why does the minister continue to talk
about implementing the Answering the Challenge report, now three years old, in
which the time lines are three to five years behind schedule?
Mrs. Vodrey: First of all, the educators across
I would also say that it is the time we
have spent in continuous consultation with the field and with these committees
that is keeping this document current.
The member seems to be expressing concerns that somehow this document is
not current, yet all of our discussion this evening has pointed to the fact
that the document is in fact current, that there is a reflection in the
strategies which reflects the changes that have occurred.
That is why I have said to the member that
the work that we have done for this year in looking at all of the strategies and
which we are referring to the advisory committee is the updated work. So it is important to recognize that the
document is current.
I would also say that all of the advisory
committees which I have spoken about first of all certainly are action committees.
I only need to point to the committee on Ed funding to show the member and
point to the brand new funding model which was instituted a year ago and to the
changes which have occurred this year.
* (2330)
The Distance Education task force has
certainly been an action committee.
These committees do refer all of their work to the steering committee on
the High School Review so that there is a process and a coming together based
on the work of these committees.
I could, if the member likes, provide some
information of just what action has been delivered to the
There is certainly more information which
I have available which could describe the information from many different parts
of the department but, just within the Parkland area, there have been workshops
presented on a series of areas including cognitive coaching and an early years
reading workshop, implementing the Senior 2 Language Arts Program, developing
curriculum congruent examinations, workshops for the Parkland superintendents
and PD chairpersons on sustainable development.
There has been administrative support.
So I would ask him to perhaps look to his
own division and to look at the work being done by a superintendent within his
own division, who also, by the way, sits on the health education steering
committee. A representative from the
Pelly Trail School Division sits on the English language arts steering
committee.
So there has been a great deal of action
which has occurred by these committees.
These committees have been very active and they have provided important
action to education in
Mr. Plohman: Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the
minister is incorrectly off on a tangent about the work of educators on the
advisory committees. I have not maligned
their work. They are doing their job as
outlined and directed by this deputy minister and this minister. They are the people that are on the front
lines trying to do the work.
I suggest that the minister is not
providing the action. I only have to
look as far as Strategies 1, 2, 4 and 5 that we have identified as not being
anywhere near close to being implemented as outlined in the paper, in the
document.
I am going to go and pursue a few other of
these recommendations, these strategies, to look at the minister's action plan.
Let us not try and confuse the issue as
somehow maligning the educators. That is
ridiculous. It is absolutely
ridiculous. If I am confused, as the
minister says, the only reason I would be confused is because the minister has
not given any straight answers here tonight.
She would certainly provide misleading‑‑[interjection]
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): I would ask the
member to withdraw that remark.
Mr. Plohman: Certainly, well, in terms of her deliberately
misleading, I did not say that, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, but I would say
that, as I said earlier when this discussion took place with the previous
chairperson, to the people looking on at this process, they can only be misled
by what is happening, and that is the way I see it tonight in terms of what is
being provided here.
Now let us look at Strategy 12. "The department will establish a liaison
group representing faculties of education, community colleges, school divisions
and professional organizations to co‑ordinate professional development
activities."
Can the minister give us a status report
on that recommendation?
Mrs. Vodrey: Let us just go back to some of the comments
of the member, in terms of the action, to say that there are 90 strategies and
I am informed as of our latest review which will be going to the advisory
committee that they are about 80 percent complete. That is quite a simple mathematical way of
looking at this so that the member, I believe, can understand the amount of
action which has in fact taken place.
In reference to Strategy 12 in particular,
I can tell you that strategy has been accomplished by the setting up of the
interorganizational curriculum advisory committee. I have spoken about that this evening, and it
is a relatively new committee.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Its purpose is to provide advice on
principles, goals and broad directions to be followed in the development, the
implementation and the assessment of curricular K to 12. The committee also provides a forum for
discussion of organizational perspectives on issues of curriculum and assessment. The committee consists of 11 members, three
representatives from The Manitoba Teachers' Society, one of whom should be a
school principal; two representatives from the Manitoba Association of School
Trustees; two representatives from the Manitoba Association of School
Superintendents; a representative from the Manitoba Home & School &
Parent‑Teacher Federation; a representative from a university faculty of
education, and that representative represents post‑secondary education,
not just university education alone; two representatives from the Curriculum
Services Branch. The committee may
invite other representation from groups or organizations on an ad hoc or an as‑needed
basis.
Mr. Plohman: Yes, well, what I found interesting was the
minister had previously said that 80 percent of the recommendations were
implemented, and so it was kind of interesting to go through the
recommendations to in fact see if that is true.
It sounds to me like it may be all in the mind of the beholder as to
whether these have been implemented and to what degree. I will do my own mathematics later on as to
whether 80 percent have been implemented, but we have seen a number that have
not been implemented and certainly many that are behind schedule. There are a lot more that we know that are
not implemented.
The minister says Strategy 12 is
effectively implemented. Can she indicate whether effectively Strategy 13 has
been implemented dealing with revising and updating " . . . teacher
preparation programs to ensure the acquisition of subject‑specific
content and the process skills outlined previously"? Has the minister determined whether 13 has
been implemented?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, Strategy 13
begins: "The Department urges the
faculties of education . . . ."
Therefore, it certainly says from the first part of the sentence that it
is a matter of working with, as opposed to specifically directing, the
faculties.
I am happy to tell the member some of the
work that is well underway in terms of Strategy 13. First of all, the issue of teacher training
has been identified within our whole process of educational reform as an
important area.
* (2340)
I can tell the member that the
In addition, there is a committee which is
operating at the
Mr. Plohman: Yes, I gather from that, that the minister
feels she is moving along on Strategy 13.
Strategy 19 deals with the department in
co‑operation with school divisions establishing "a coordinated
system of teacher recruitment . . . ."
What is the situation there? Has
that co‑ordinated system been established?
Mrs. Vodrey: If the member reads the whole strategy, he
will see that it says, " . . . when demand exceeds supply . . .
." At the moment, demand does not
exceed supply.
Mr. Plohman: So the minister is saying that it is an
irrelevant strategy. Why is it there?
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, when those circumstances present
themselves, then, of course, it would be a strategy in which we would be
wanting to look at, but that is simply not the case now.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister has,
under multiculturalism, said that she is going to, under Strategy 20, structure
high school social studies programs to ensure that students develop as a first
priority their identity as Canadians in a global society. I would suggest that policies pursued by this
government and the Conservative government nationally have done quite the
opposite.
What has this minister done specifically
to counter the influence of national and provincial Conservative governments
which have, in fact, attempted to Americanize Canada as opposed to identifying
and developing our distinctiveness and our feelings of being Canadian first,
especially as it applies to students with regard to the curriculum?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, this is a strategy again
which is seen to be completed, and through our Curriculum Services Branch, the
social studies, Grades 3, 5, 6, Senior 1 and Senior 2 levels do look to this
strategy with a special focus at Senior 1.
Mr. Plohman: Well, that is a pretty general statement in
terms of what has actually been done since this document came out to, in fact,
accomplish as a first priority‑‑very strong words‑‑their
identity as Canadians in a global society, that students would in fact
establish as their first priority, and that the department would indeed
establish this as a first priority. The
general answer that she gave certainly does not do that.
I would ask her to consider that and, as
well, Strategy 21 with an outline of some of the actions that have been taken
by this minister to ensure that all aspects of Strategy 21 have been
implemented, especially dealing with multiculturalism throughout the
curriculum, establishment of departmental and divisional multicultural
educational policies and provision of ongoing consultation with ethnocultural
communities. How is this being
done? What precisely is being done?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, when we look at Strategy
21, we see that Strategy 21 looks at the development of a strong sense of
personal identity through the awareness of a person's own culture and the
culture of others. In order to
accomplish this we have released our strategy on multicultural education, and
that was last May, May of 1992. In addition,
we have also done a number of multicultural and antiracist workshops. There have been workshops that have been
given from March, 1992, and the most recent one was May 27, 1993, just last
week. The Manitoba Library Association
conference focus was on multicultural library services and resources. Those workshops have been given through the
Instructional Resources Branch.
We have also had workshops given through
the Curriculum Services Branch beginning in April 1992, the most recent one
having been completed May 17, 1993, Building a Vision of a Community School
Multicultural Whole Schools model.
There is another workshop to be given July
5 through 23, 1993, a summer institute, Innovative Approaches to Antiracist
Multicultural Education International and Local Perspectives.
Mr. Plohman: The minister has mentioned a number of
workshops and talked about the multiculturalism curriculum. What has she done with regard to the fourth
point under Strategy 21 dealing with the ongoing consultation with ethnocultural
communities? What is the extent of her consultations there?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, well, there have been a
couple of ways in which we have looked to accomplish that particular point in
the strategy.
As the member probably knows, we do have a
multicultural education consultant. It
is that person's specific role to bridge or to liaise with the specific
cultural groups within
Then, through our Student Support Branch,
we also are looking to strengthen the programming for visible minorities.
Mr. Plohman: Has the minister completed her answer?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, thank you.
Mr. Plohman: Under Vocational Education, Strategy 29 and
Strategy 30, can the minister indicate what progress has been made on these?
Mrs. Vodrey: I think one of the strongest ways that we
have looked at meeting that particular strategy is in the unit credit funding
for courses through the Ed Finance model.
In the past, the member would know that‑‑maybe he would not
know‑‑students had to be in that particular program. Now through the Ed funding model, students
may take a single credit. In fact that
is encouraged, so students do have the opportunity to experience the vocational
programs, especially as they are making up their career choices. This allows for courses to be taken in Grade
9 or in Senior 1.
* (2350)
In terms of the Industrial Arts courses at
Senior 1, it introduces students to a broad course area and a number of
approaches. It allows for students to
experience this at an introductory level and perhaps then to take other courses
which then would meet their interests, so it has freed up the vocational
programming from a single course or a single program and is allowing students
now to have a much greater exposure.
Mr. Plohman: The minister may be surprised to hear that I
support this recommendation. It is
certainly one that I think makes wiser use of facilities and also ensures or
works towards integrating the vocational courses with the remainder of the
programming in the high schools. I think
it is an important development and one that I hope is actually catching on or
taking place out there as opposed to something that is more hypothetical. Does the funding model change actually
reflect the fundamental change in programming or is it too premature to say at
this point?
Mrs. Vodrey: As the member may know, we are into the first
year of implementation for Senior 1, so we are in fact then into completing the
first year of this program. We will be
looking to see how it has been able to encourage students into this model and
into this particular opportunity. We
certainly look for it to have the effect that we expect it to have.
This unit credit funding has been really
widely praised across
The Curriculum Services has also produced two
manuals providing information needed for the very efficient use of the unit
credit funding in this area. The first
is called Technology Education Guidelines '93 and the other is Unit Credit
Titles under Program Headings '93.
A copy is being sent to the principals of
all the Seniors 1 to 4 schools, the chairpersons of all school boards and the
division or district superintendents and also the secretary‑treasurers.
Mr. Plohman: I thank the minister for that answer. Can she indicate the status of the second‑last
recommendation in vocational education dealing with ensuring the shared use of
facilities among high schools, colleges and the community? This was to be done by September of '92. Is that time line still relevant here or has
it been changed, and what progress has been made on that?
Mrs. Vodrey: Well, I can say in relation to that strategy
first of all articulation proposals for the linkages between vocational
programs, apprenticeship, colleges and the private sector are now being
reviewed. We also have a vocational
education steering committee with representatives and they are looking at the
most effective use of the facilities.
Then perhaps one of the most important
changes in looking at that strategy is the fact that the apprenticeship, which
formerly was housed in the Department of Labour, has now been moved into the
Department of Education and Training.
As we work with that new part of our
department, we will be able to look at the needs and the co‑ordination,
and we believe attempt to deal with these issues in now a much more
comprehensive way.
Mr. Plohman: Does the minister see credit being given to
the apprenticeship programs and towards work done at the community colleges
that would not have to be repeated in the work done in the vocational
programs? It would not have to be
repeated in the community colleges later on.
Does she see that kind of co‑ordination developing and credits
given towards apprenticeships and courses at the community colleges in
vocational education?
Mrs. Vodrey: Well, the answer is yes and, in addition to
that, we are looking at that also through the adult education policy. I spoke
about that earlier in the Estimates process.
When we are looking at the whole process of adult education and
articulation, that is one area within the adult education that we would be
looking at specifically.
Mr. Plohman: Well, what I am really asking, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, is whether this is actually happening and, if so, when will it
happen? Is there a plan for this to be
implemented, where there will actually be credits given for high school
vocational courses at the community colleges?
Is that part of the plan and is there credit being given for vocational
studies in high schools towards apprenticeships?
* (0000)
Mrs. Vodrey: This is a very important question, and it is
a question which we are looking at now with apprenticeship being integrated
into the Department of Education and Training, but it is an issue which needs
to be explored through our trades advisory committees and also through the
Apprenticeship Board. So it is an issue which I can say we are certainly
looking at exploring, but it is one which will involve discussion in a number
of areas.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The hour being twelve o'clock, what is the
will of the committee?
An Honourable Member: Committee rise.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Committee rise. A demain.
ENVIRONMENT
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. Ben Sveinson): Order, please.
Would the minister like to bring his staff into the Assembly. Would the Committee of Supply please come to
order. This section of the Committee of
Supply has been dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Environment.
We are on 2.(a) Environmental Operations
(1) Salaries $3,598,300.
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): We were dealing with issues around
enforcement, regulations and enforcing licenses, and I am concerned about the
staff in this area, the number of staff.
How many staff in the department have responsibility for enforcement?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): There are 70‑some
officers directly involved, some 130 people including all the public health
inspectors. Just to clarify, the 70
would be regional staff and would be environmental officers.
Ms. Cerilli: Then the regional staff also have the
responsibility of doing licensing as well?
Mr. Cummings: When you add in all of the licensing
capabilities of the department, that is when you get the total of 130.
Ms. Cerilli: I guess the point that I am trying to make is
that the staff in the regions are splitting their time between enforcement and
doing licensing work. Is that split in
the regions as well, outside of the city?
Mr. Cummings: Regional staff are doing limited licensing at
this point, although I believe you are probably quoting me from previous
Estimates process when we said that we would be getting more licensing
capability into the regions.
Ms. Cerilli: I was not quoting you from previous
Estimates, but how many staff people have been increased in this enforcement
area? What is the number of staff that
have increased? I think there was some
talk that there were going to be increased numbers in enforcement.
Mr. Cummings: Five additional staff under Dangerous Goods
Handling and Transportation.
Ms. Cerilli: Five additional as of over last year?
Mr. Cummings: Yes.
Mr. Cerilli: How is it decided how they are going to be
spread out in doing enforcements? I look
from the annual report at the variety of things that are inspected and 70
people or so spread out over all of these areas would require some
planning. How are the decisions made of
where to put people for doing inspections?
Mr. Cummings: The most important aspect would be where the
work is. Obviously we have a significant
number around
Ms. Cerilli: So the focus is just regionally. I was thinking in terms of the various
activities that have to be monitored and inspected. How is it decided in the planning where
people are going to be focusing their effort.
Even further to that, is there much inspection done where there is a
schedule followed or is most of it just responding to complaints and to crisis?
Mr. Cummings: The answer to the last part of the question
is both, and again it goes back to where we allocate staff, where the work is
and where we have set our priorities, areas of importance.
Ms. Cerilli: That is what I am getting at, is how we are
setting the priorities for enforcement, how you are doing that and how you are
setting up any kind of schedule for inspection that is followed, and what the
schedule is, what are the priorities.
Mr. Cummings: The priorities are set by the divisional
management team in each division, and I would think that this reflects a fair
bit of continuity with the discussion we had the first day, because we are
putting ongoing emphasis into dangerous goods.
Ms. Cerilli: How many people are working in inspection of
dangerous goods now?
Mr. Cummings: All of the personnel that has enforcement
capability looks after the full spectrum of areas, so I do not think it would
be reasonable to say there are 16 or 35 that are concentrating in one specific
area, although, over the past two or three years, the personnel that we have been
adding has been primarily to deal with the additional workload under Dangerous
Goods.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, the minister had said that there are
five new people that have been dealing with dangerous goods. So are those five people also dealing with
inspections in other areas, or how does it work?
I am trying to get a better sense of how
the schedule is set for inspections. If
those are inspections in Dangerous Goods, if people are spending some of their
time doing dangerous goods inspections and some of their time doing the variety
of other areas with respect to‑‑
Mr. Cummings: Most of them are employed, as I said a moment
ago, but I am told that the last employees, the newer ones that are coming on
stream, are specifically going to be working in the area of dangerous goods in
the licensing aspect.
Ms. Cerilli: So what is the schedule of inspections like
for Dangerous Goods? How is it arranged,
or maybe another way to ask the question would be, what is a week like for
these inspectors? How is their time spent?
Mr. Cummings: I suppose it is a little difficult to set out
what a workday would be for one of these officers. Maybe I could put it in perspective by
talking about the fact that we have identified on the first cut some 4,000
operations that we believe are likely to be handled and need to be permitted
under dangerous goods handling and transportation. That should give you some indication of the
scope of the work that is ahead of these officers now that the initial mail
contact has been made. Then I suppose if
they have not already been visited, they will be followed up and they will
begin to license and permit the operations as is appropriate.
Again, right from the start it has always
been my understanding that the officers are expected to be multidisciplinary in
the work that they carry out. They would
not deliberately walk by one responsibility on the way to another one supposing
or believing that someone else or another employee would come and take care of
that. They are expected to be multidisciplinary.
Public health inspectors are doing more
and more work that you would not necessarily consider in the first definition
of a public health inspector‑‑licensing lagoon discharges, being an
example.
Ms. Cerilli: I look at, under the section, the annual
report for Dangerous Goods and Handling, the petroleum storage tanks. It says that there are 8,554 of them
established and, in the last year, I assume it is within that year only that
1,135 were inspected.
So what do the regulations say for the
rate of inspection, and how long will it be before all those 8,500 are
inspected?
* (2010)
Mr. Cummings: Regulations in that area do not reference any
particular schedule of inspection, but spot inspection and routine inspections,
any combination of them will accomplish the goals that we are expected to
produce.
Ms. Cerilli: Can the minister repeat the second half of
his answer? I was having problems
hearing it.
Mr. Cummings: I said spot inspections combined with a
series of routine inspections would accomplish the goals that we need to under
this area.
What I did not mention was operators are
also expected to report any noncompliance on any spills. The very fact that we have 8,000 sites that
need to be registered, as an example.
Ms. Cerilli: So how long will it be before all of the, for
example, tanks are inspected?
Mr. Cummings: It is an ongoing responsibility, and I
suppose regulation change influences that as well. Agricultural storage of fuel, for example, if
it is below a certain volume, is not regulated.
Those types of things will change.
So if one were to say that all inspections will be complete and up to
date and all operations will be licensed, I think one would be not able to back
it up.
The fact is that we will be continually
adding to the list and expanding the responsibilities in this area simply
because of the ever changing conditions that exist out there. Even my own operation, or others of similar
size, the storage may well change from year to year, let alone over a decade of
time.
I have had it written up for me what a
typical day's activity might be for an inspector. First of all, he would have his regular areas
of routine, scheduled inspections that would be expected to be carried out and were
scheduled for that particular time, response to complaints, response to
emergencies, and a general reporting on the above and in other matters that
come to their attention.
Ms. Cerilli: Just in the section of activities listed
under Dangerous Goods Handling, how many of those are we relying, on a regular
basis, on the reports from the operators rather than having them inspected on a
regular basis?
Mr. Cummings: I think the best way to respond to this is
that the first line of defence is that all new installations are
inspected. All removals are at the other
end of the spectrum. No tank removals can be completed without an
inspection. In between, we have an
ongoing requirement of all operators to report inventory, and any variations in
inventory that might occur in the short term between their regular reports are
expected to report immediately.
That is followed up with routine
inspections which may be of varying duration in between but can be driven by
whether or not there seems to be fluctuations on the inventory sheets that have
not been reported. Generally speaking,
those are followed up on and should be reported if in fact there is a leak, and
by the operator within a very short period of time.
Ms. Cerilli: Would I be correct in assuming that with some
of the things, particularly like gasoline tanks, that there would be a
computerized system where operators would have to account for the amount of
gasoline that is in their tank and that could be compared with sales to see if
there is leakage? Is there a system like
that in place?
Mr. Cummings: The department keeps a computerized record
once the information is provided to the department, but each operator is
required to keep a record of balance between the inventory and the tank which
would be measured as a result of a daily dip measurement compared to
sales. That very quickly establishes a
day‑over‑day record.
Any variance from that requires reporting,
bearing in mind that the impacts of weather on the expansion and contraction of
gasoline particularly is enormous and that that has to be accounted for in the
measurements and adjusted as they calculate whether or not the dip test
reflects a proper inventory in the tank as compared to sales.
That is where the question arises in terms
of the system. The system, I believe, is quite tight, but you have to allow for
expansion and contraction. There is a
small margin of error and that is the reason why the reporting procedure
requires that there be a definite trend indicated to have a report because there
would be a very significant number of false reports if you only went on one
day's variance, if it was at the very low levels which we presently require a
report, the very low variance at which we require a report.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, it occurred to me that with the kind of
computer modelling that could be done there could be some accountability, based
on research, to account for the weather impact and we could have a fairly tight
system within the department. I do not
think it would cost that much money, so all of that information would be kept
in the department and we could easily see where leaks were and where the
responses need to be made.
Mr. Cummings: Well, that is exactly my point, and I have to
say I do not believe the member appreciates the amount of fluctuation that
occurs in these vessels as a result of temperature changes. To be out .7 of 1
percent, I believe, is the cutoff that we reference; .7 of 1 percent is not a
very large margin of error, but that is the maximum amount of margin of error
that is allowed before it is considered to be a potential for a leak. It can be one half of one percent very easily
for a period of time, and that has to be demonstrated on three or more readings
which would indicate that there might be a pattern starting to develop.
That is when the operator is required to
report, as I understand the system, and there are very significant fines for
any operator who would ignore the signals that I indicated in terms of any
variance between volume and sales which could indicate potential leakage.
To show you how easy it is for a system
either way to be difficult to project, you can have, as I said, a very large
number of erroneous reports believed to be showing leakages, or you can have,
over long periods of time, leaks that amount to very small amounts, but those
are normally not as a result of leakage within the tank. They may be as a result of other leakages in
the handling system.
Ms. Cerilli: So what happened with the Domo on
* (2020)
Mr. Cummings: Actually there were three new tanks located
there. The problem resulted from
improper installation of the tank and a leaking connector in the pumping lines. As I recall, the only time it would have
leaked was under certain conditions when the pumps were running, and it was the
location of the tanks that led to the difficulty. Actually the volume of fuel that escaped into
the sewer line was exceptionally small, but it does not take much gasoline
vapour to have explosive potential. The
volumes were extremely small, but unfortunately, what did leak was able to get
into the sewer system and vaporize.
Ms. Cerilli: Getting back to some of the other questions I
was asking earlier about inspectors then, how many does an inspector do a day?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I have not asked the
department to give me an opinion on this, but my view of the work of the
inspectors is such that I do not think that this is a particularly relevant question
in terms of how these people lay out their workday.
They may well run into problems one day
that would take a lot more time than what they would at other periods during
the operation. I am looking at a list of
inspections of total that were carried out, and I see, for example, there were
almost 4,000 inspections of food service establishments.
I look down, subdivision land splits,
scheduled development plans, there were 916 inspections in that respect. There were over 2,000 litter inspections, over
1,500 dwellings and buildings were inspected for various reasons associated
with the environment. Private water
supplies, there were over 1,000 inspections, over 1,500 private sewage
inspections. I am looking at
manufacturing plants, 200; petroleum storage, over 2,000; pesticide storage,
over 200; PCB storage, almost 40; hydrous ammonia, 40; hazardous waste, 153;
dangerous goods, almost 600; and contaminated sites, almost 300.
Those were the kinds of numbers, without
adding on all of the smaller ones, all of which are in the double digits at
least, as a result of the work that they have done. We see a large number of complaints over
litter, 1,400 complaints regarding litter; 1,000 complaints over dwellings and
buildings.
I guess the reason that I point to those
numbers and point to the fact that it is hard to lay out what might be an
inspector's routine day, as opposed to the three or four priorities that I laid
out, is, as I said, these people are expected to be multidisciplinary and
respond appropriately when they get calls. I would be the first one to complain
if the department was not responding to some of the calls that come in because
they said, well, I cannot go today, I have got to go and inspect a couple of
private sewage tanks before I can get over to the complaint about the fact that
you think there is an odour coming from the neighborhood operation, whatever it
might be.
I suggest that the only way to adequately
answer that is whether or not, in the overview of the operations of the department,
we are satisfied that they are doing enough inspections and responding
sufficiently to complaints and emergencies to be able to protect the health and
well‑being of Manitobans and the environment.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, I think that the minister can appreciate
that what I am trying to do is put together a comprehensive picture, some kind
of picture about where we stand with our enforcement. I mean there are a lot of
activities to monitor. There are 70
staff, 130 staff including the people for public health. It seems like, with all the activities in
public health, we are going to be in a situation where people are going to be
stretched. I think that we have to be
clear about giving some kind of accurate picture about what is happening in
this area.
Another question would be, when I look at
the number, there have been 102 complaints about environmental accidents and
there were 222 inspections for accidents.
Why are those not listed in the annual report of where those were and
what the outcome was?
Mr. Cummings: I suppose, firstly, it has not been the
normal routine of what is reported in the annual report. A report to an emergency can be all the way
from something as dramatic as the train wreck at
I am not sure how useful it would be in
those responses, but I think that it is well documented that the Department of
Environment and its 24‑hour response line has and continues to work
rather efficiently in terms of response.
The people who are in that area take a fair bit of pride in their
ability to be on site and provide expert advice in very short order. There is no particular reason why it is not
included other than I suppose after awhile it becomes a question of just how
much information you put into the report.
Ms. Cerilli: I think that is the kind of information that
people are interested in and the kind of accountability, too, that we want to
be looking for. I look at something else
and one of the issues that has been raised with me is storage of pesticides,
even just home pesticides with food in small grocery outlets. Is that something that is looked at by The Public
Health Act inspectors?
(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)
* (2030)
Mr. Cummings: Yes. I
can add to the previous answer that we also do have a separate accident report
which is compiled by the department. We
can arrange for her to receive a copy.
Ms. Cerilli: I will get onto sort of some of the more
issue‑oriented questions that I have around some of the kinds of
violations that we are concerned about.
One in particular is with the oil that was spilt from ACL. I am wondering if there is an accident report
and when that accident was reported and if I could know the date of the
accident report.
Mr. Cummings: That probably occurred in the early '80s and
any activities on that site, as I recall, are fully regulated under the federal
authorities. We would be following up as
a result of information we received from them.
In fact, I am told that the accident pre‑dated any existing
reporting requirements which we now have in place to require all operators to
report any spills of this nature.
Ms. Cerilli: What is the status of that spill, the oil in
the river there? What kind of work order
is being issued? Is that something that
the province is handling or is that something being dealt with at the federal
level as well?
Mr. Cummings: I presume the member is still asking about
the incident in the early '80s. There is
no traceable contaminant, so there really is not anything to follow up on at
this point. There are no identified traceable materials that we have been able
to identify as a result of that.
There is still monitoring going on. There was monitoring at that time to try and
determine what, if anything, had occurred. There has been no ability to follow
up on a cleanup project, is what I am referring to, because we have not been
able to identify what to clean up.
Ms. Cerilli: I thought the minister two answers ago just
said that there was some kind of a spill in the early '80s. Is he disputing that there is radioactive oil
covering a part of the bottom of the
Mr. Cummings: That is the reason there is monitoring going
on. We are not disputing anybody that there might be something there. Any information I have at this point says
that we have not been able to find it.
Ms. Cerilli: You are not disputing that there might be
something there, but you have not been able to find it? Because I have heard that there is visibly a
streak that can be seen from the air at the bottom of the river and it is
affecting likely the fish habitat. The
reports are saying that it is not likely affecting the drinking water that is
drawn from the river, particularly by the reserve there, but that it could be
affecting the fish.
Mr. Cummings: Madam Chairperson, as I recall, since I came
into office I believe I have seen or heard reports of some sampling being done
on the fish but no effects have been detected.
As to the other accusations that the
member is making, I do not think I can respond because I have given her all the
information basically that I have.
Ms. Cerilli: I know the minister has received a number of
letters from various members of the community, I think also from some concerned
scientists at the university. Can he
clarify that their department does or does not recognize that there is an oil
slick in the
Mr. Cummings: I can only assume that the correspondence
that the member is referring to has come from Mr. Dave Taylor and the Concerned
Citizens group, and we have endeavoured to follow up on every aspect and a
number of complaints that Mr. Taylor and his group have filed. If we find anything, we will certainly be
willing to share that information, but so far, as I have indicated, the
concerns that have been raised and the issues that have been raised have not
led to conclusions any more than what I have indicated, that we have been
unable to document the contamination. To
argue whether there was or was not a spill is not my point. My point is that in monitoring and following
up we have not been able to demonstrate anything that might support the claims.
I would remind the member that while this
has nothing to do with the protection of the environment, it would appear that
this occurred some time during the previous administration's mandate, and we
are working at a bit of a disadvantage trying to follow up 10 years later.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, if the oil is there, then it does not
matter when it happened. Certainly if
there were weaker regulations at that point‑‑the question now
is: What type of inspection has been
done? What has been done either by this
department or federally? I do not think
that people would make this up. What
kind of inspections have been done?
Mr. Cummings: Between the province and the federal
government, there has been water, fish and sediment sampling in the area.
Ms. Cerilli: Have all those files or results been made
public to the group? I know that they
have gone through some kind of, I think, a Freedom of Information search.
* (2040)
Mr. Cummings: We certainly do not have any reason not to
share any information we have. I am not
sure that we have received any requests on this particular item, or if we have
it is not in recent memory.
Ms. Cerilli: With respect to the
Mr. Cummings: No, I could not answer that question
specifically. I suppose that would be
easy enough to find and document, but it is not something that I have had
occasion to ask, frankly.
Ms. Cerilli: Why I ask the question, because one of the
concerns was why that train was going through that particular community. I
think it is reasonable for people in the community to want to know where that
kind of material that is coming through their community is coming from. But besides that, what was the determined
cause of the accident?
Mr. Cummings: First of all, that town is located on the
main line and whether it is a main railway line or whether it is No. 1 or 16
Highway, there are only a limited number of east‑west routes across this
country, and I think that one could safely assume that there is a pretty wide
assortment of dangerous goods being transported both by rail and by road. The exact cause of that accident, I do not
think there has been a final report from the transport people to indicate what
it was. There were lots of rumours. Presumably, one of the rumours that was
getting the most credibility was a broken boxing or hot box or bearing, but I
could not verify that.
Ms. Cerilli: When can we expect the report on that
accident?
Mr. Cummings: The information regarding where the train
would have been coming from and where it was going, that is certainly available
and I would think that is part of the complete report and that Environment and
EMO would have compiled that information.
But in terms of when we will have a report, it is not our jurisdiction
at this point, so to be able to predict accurately when there will be a report
from the transport inquiry, I am not sure I could.
There is a good possibility that there
will be a national workshop held here this year presumably as a result of the
experiences we have had here in Manitoba and the expertise that some of our
people have developed, albeit it might have been happier if they had not
practiced it in this jurisdiction, but we have been very fortunate in the
quality of response from our personnel and other departments. Nationally that is now being recognized in
terms of having a workshop to make sure that information is shared on how to
best respond under these circumstances.
Ms. Cerilli: It is unfortunate there did seem to be a bit
of a trend there for a while with train derailments. I am wondering if the minister, even though I
know that his department is not involved at all in inspecting trains carrying
dangerous goods, but if there has been some communication with the inspection
agencies and the federal agencies about any changes that have been made in the
way that inspections are done and the kinds of frequency and the location. As I understand it, these kinds of trains
used to have some maintenance and inspection work done in
So has there been any follow‑up from
the department to inquire about the kinds of changes to inspecting trains
containing dangerous goods?
Mr. Cummings: This answer could be very long or very short.
It has not been just a recent phenomenon
that we have had a number of train problems in this part of the Prairies. I will not speculate in any detail about what
some of the causes might be, but for a while MacGregor, Manitoba, was known as
the train wreck capital of Canada and had a sign up at the outskirts of the
town in order to so indicate.
Going back to the days in '79‑80
when there was a chloride spill, rather a large chloride spill at MacGregor and
two or three other derailments within a few miles of that town, and within over
a period of two to three years, I think they had five derailments.
The St. Lazare incident that occurred, I
believe the report is now in and it will likely show that there was mechanical
damage done to the tracks and caused that train to derail. So what you are looking at is an inspection
of the track. If the damage occurred
perhaps within the very short period of time before the train came down the
track, that is darn near impossible to guard against.
I recall in the St. Lazare incident that
one of the things we checked and were assured of very early in the response
period was that that train was properly structured. In other words, the mix of chemicals split up
between various carloads was properly assembled on the cars so that they did
not have chemical reactions that were violent or more caustic than what might
occur just from the materials themselves.
In fact, in both of the major derailments that we are talking about,
acids and bases were following each other on the track and leaked, as it turned
out, both of them neutralizing each other.
It was still a very nasty occurrence, dangerous, but, nevertheless, as
far as we know, the rules were being followed.
This opens up a whole can of worms in
terms of inspections, rail truck safety, and so on. It gets into an area that, given the liberty,
I would like to expound on for about a half an hour. I am sure the member would not want to hear.
Ms. Cerilli: My concern is that there have been
changes. We know what the situation is
with the railways across the country, the cutbacks that they are suffering, and
that there are some changes in the way that inspections are done. I just hope that the minister would, given
the experience in Manitoba, with the staff, take an interest in expressing
concern and following up to make sure that there are not dangerous practices
being developed or less safe practices.
It is interesting that there is going to be this conference here now.
With respect to this derailment in
Oakville, can the minister tell us a little about the nature of the response,
the time when they got the call, and when they were able to respond, in what
way, and who were the staff that actually were on the scene and following up?
Mr. Cummings: I will try and fairly quickly summarize our
response. I presume that the local
authorities would have been the first ones to put in the report, but I am told
that probably Arvyn Gray was the one officer who was the closest to being on
site first and this department maintained a couple of officers at the start and
then down to one officer on duty 24 hours a day for the balance of the response
time, which was some three weeks.
Bearing in mind that the total response by
the Province is co‑ordinated by Emergency Measures in conjunction with
the local R.M., which had an emergency plan, the evacuation of the community
would be managed by that arm of the response.
The Department of Environment would be there responding more on the
technical aspect, on the potential for environmental damage and the safe
handling of the materials that were spilt.
* (2050)
As I recall, the reports that I have
received from some of our people early on in the accident were that there were
some rather violent chemical reactions going on sort of in the centre of the
pile‑up of equipment. It was very
difficult to determine in the early three or so days or four days, also given
the very bad weather conditions that were occurring at that time, to determine
exactly what was going on, although, given the make‑up of the cars, one
could assume what the chemical reaction was.
The environment people who were on hand,
the emergency response people, indicated that they could not even get close to
making an assessment of what was occurring because of the chemical reaction
that was going on and the steam that was coming out of the wreck as a result of
that.
So it made for a pretty dramatic scene,
not necessarily one that was dangerous to the environment, although there has
been some cleanup there since the snow has left. I see there has been some cleanup work that
has gone on there to make sure that there is no contamination.
The violent reaction, if you will, of the
chemicals led us to set up an air monitoring program or capability at the site
and we had equipment flown out from eastern Canada in order to be able to
adequately monitor what was going on, particularly in the air, because we were
not sure precisely what might be getting emitted into the air and where it
would end up. That was one of the first
things that led to the need to make sure that the town was evacuated.
I would add one thing in terms of a
general sense about the response. At St.
Lazare, there was no question about whether or not the valley had to be
evacuated for the safety of the people and the residents.
There were some continuing questions by
residents and others about the need for as complete and as lengthy an
evacuation as occurred at
It is a decision that I support, it was
the right decision because it would only take one situation that would occur
where one person was exposed in an unprotected manner to some chemical
contaminants in the air that could lead to unknown difficulties and concerns
being raised. Even if they were never
proven, certainly leaving that particular person with a lifetime of wondering
whether or not they might have received some damage that would continue to
plague their health for the rest of their life.
So it was a strong response but, I
believe, necessary under the circumstances, and one which we would repeat if
required to in order to protect the safety of the people in the area.
The cleanup, however, did take longer
because of the weather. The hoses were
frozen. Once you started moving the
equipment everybody had to be properly protected. They had to work in waist‑deep snow
until they got it cleared away, coming in on snowmobiles to get in close to the
site in the initial stages.
All of those things made it very
difficult, coupled with 40‑degree‑below weather. All in all it was a successful cleanup, but
one that under less difficult weather conditions, and perhaps even less careful
operation, would not have taken as long.
But it was carefully done and, I believe, properly done in the end.
Ms. Cerilli: The need for evacuation, I would agree that
it was a good precaution, especially when I heard about the kinds of chemicals
that were involved. That is the reason I
asked, initially, where the trains were coming from and specifically which
industry, because as I understand it, the chemicals on the train were
explosives that are used either in mining to blow up rock, or explosive in
weapons manufacturing.
So I think a lot of people would be
interested in finding out where these trains that are coming through
communities in
Mr. Cummings: Only to say that while the chemicals were
dangerous because of their caustic nature, to my knowledge I do not think there
were explosives on there. There were,
obviously, some pretty wild stories at the start, when you have steam rising
300 feet into the air, people begin to wonder what is under there. That was heat that was being generated as a
result of chemical reaction that was going on that was causing that, as I
understand it.
So, no, we did not have those types of
chemicals on there as I understand it.
But there was certainly reason to be concerned about the materials. It will be part of the report or we can get
the information sooner. It is no secret
about where they may have come from.
Ms. Cerilli: Madam Chair, another area that I want to ask
some questions on has to do with the enforcement of the new legislation and
regulations around stubble burning. I
want some kind of explanation of how the minister sees that the new system will
work, and how those regulations will be enforced.
Mr. Cummings: The introduction of the stubble burning
regulations, first of all, let me speak to the timing. They were introduced this spring. Actually, I think we startled staff a little
bit when the Departments of Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Environment
said we want those regulations by April.
The fact is that we had an awful lot of
straw left over from last fall, and the last thing that we wanted was a repeat
of last fall's smoke problem in the spring.
We knew that there was potential and, in fact, there was a fair bit of
stubble burning that went on this spring.
Regulations are intended to allow for some
burning, but under conditions that will not impact on the human population or
any other living population to the same extent that nighttime burning has a
tendency to. In other words, daytime
burning will encourage the smoke to rise, and the burn will be hotter. There will be more clean combustion if there
can be such a thing for stubble burning.
We implemented them effective this spring, but the spring regulations
were not quite the same as the level of regulations that will be in place for
the fall.
* (2100)
The fall regulations are such that the
province will be broken into regions.
The announcement will go out on the air waves, and will be listed on an
800 line, and will be available, I would think, likely through our Ag reps
offices, as to which municipalities burning will be permitted. That is the difference between fall burning
and other times of the year. During the
fall, burning will only be permitted in certain areas under the conditions that
we consider acceptable. It will be
banned otherwise.
That will, of course, mean that there will
be a lot more control around the city of
It could also take another format that
would say, where it came to the part referencing the balance of the province,
that if conditions warranted other areas could be named as not being permitted
for burning. Couched within that,
however, is the fact that burning should not be undertaken unless it has been
properly fireguarded, and unless the weather conditions are appropriate for
combustion and management of the fire so that it can be started after eleven
o'clock in the morning and be out within two hours of sunset.
That is another important compromise, the
two hours after sunset. That does allow
for fire to burn for a small period of time during what we would think of as
the evening period, I guess, but it does mean that the fire must be put out and
we, during the discussions, believed that that was a reasonable compromise.
All of these regulations can be changed
based on six‑hours notice and that is authority that we assume under The
Environment Act, that we can add to or change these regulations on that short a
notice. In other words, if we start to
get a build‑up of smoke in the fall, we could on six hours notice
indicate that all fires must be out by sunset or whatever other conditions we
wish to impose.
It is a little scary in the sense that there
is a great deal of authority that will rest with the Minister of Environment
and the environment officers, but, as I have said many times and I would like
to put it on the record again, there has been good co‑operation all the
way around as a result of what was a very unsettling and upsetting situation
last fall.
The agricultural community has recognized
its responsibilities and we hope that the compromise between what the
agricultural community wants to do and what the city believes is responsible
will be workable.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, with the way that the legislation is
written, the minister has said that it still allows us to ask for the kind of
chaos that resulted last year where we had a decision that we tried to enforce
without people feeling like they even had adequate time to know what the
information was and they could then use that as a way of saying that they did
not know about the change.
I wonder if that is not the kind of
situation that we are asking for with the way that the regulations and the
authority with the minister is made and that what we could end up having is
just another ongoing emergency situation where people can continue to say that
they did not know what it was for that day.
Mr. Cummings: That scenario has been contemplated and we
believe that the deterrents that are in the legislation will allow us to
enforce regulations and fines, particularly if the fines are large enough, that
we will have a very strong deterrent.
Last year was a declaration under
Emergency Measures. It was a dramatic
change from anything that has occurred before.
I suppose I see this just the same as a lot of other regulations that
the people, the operations that are being regulated, by and large, most people
are pretty co‑operative and pretty much want to be law‑abiding
citizens.
There will be some exceptions. I understand that and they will have to be
dealt with as necessary, but as a member of the agricultural community myself,
I would certainly expect that we will get the co‑operation that we are looking
forward to.
Certainly, it will not be a pleasant fall
for me or whoever sits in this chair if we do not get good co‑operation
because any law, whether it is speeding or whether it is smoking in a
prohibited area, any of these laws that regulate human activity, if they do not
have the co‑operation of the community at large, they become very
difficult to enforce.
Peer pressure goes a long way in answering
this. You only need to go out in the
Now, I almost would have suggested to some
of them, looking at some of the fields, maybe they should have tried burning a
little bit, the amount of grief they have gone through to avoid having to deal
with the burning question. There are a
lot of people out there with a lot of good will on this thing, and I think we
will be able to make it work, frankly.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, we will see, and I hope so. I would think, especially at the beginning,
because I think there also was a lot of opposition to this, that there would
not be a lot of switching of the regulations or it is going to ask for confusion. One of the precedent setting and interesting
things about the legislation regulations is that it is going to allow‑‑and
I think the minister has in mind the RCMP when it refers to a class of
designated environment officers. What
will be the RCMP's role, and how will they actually work to enforce the
regulation?
Mr. Cummings: Well, I think you are seeing an example here
this evening, frankly, of where two or three of us farmers can sit here and
actually smile about the fact that this regulation is being implemented, and
that we believe there is public co‑operation on this. Frankly, I think that verifies what I was
saying a few minutes ago, that the agriculture community wants to be able to do
the right thing in terms of this issue‑‑
An Honourable Member: Right now we just want rain.
Mr. Cummings: Yes, right now we are looking for rain.
More directly to the member's question, as
a matter of fact there is a meeting tomorrow morning with RCMP to more clearly define
some of the roles and responsibilities that they may be able to assume.
* (2110)
But in the broad sense, let me answer your
question, that the original act indicated that a government employee could be
appointed as an environment officer.
RCMP did not qualify as government employees under the technicality of
the act, apparently, so that is what made for the amendment. Up till now, the RCMP could charge people
under emergency measures, they could charge them, I suppose, for criminal
activity if it were arson, those sorts of things.
Now they will be able to enforce the
aspects of The Environment Act related to stubble burning and others as far as
that goes. But I can see where, on their
regular, normal patrolling duties, the police may come across fires that are
still burning, that have been left uncontrolled later in the evening than they
should be. They will be able to identify
the location, and given their communications capabilities we may be able to get
hold of the owner very quickly. If we are
unable to do that, we will order the fire to be put out, and that will be a
cost to the owner.
So I see the fact that they are there,
that they are already patrolling in the areas that we are talking about. Very likely it will fit in as part of the overall
enforcement package, and they may well be leading in some areas. I can see their response more likely coming
in some of the off‑hours and some of the odd things, such as I just
referred to.
Ms. Cerilli: So their role will be to report it to the department. They will not be actually going and talking
to the farmers themselves? Will they be
calling on the fire trucks if that is deemed to be the need?
Mr. Cummings: No, their role, I would expect they would be
much more proactive than that. They will
be able to catch the person right on the spot and do the other things that the
member referred to as well, if they deem it appropriate.
Ms. Cerilli: One of the ongoing concerns that I have had
about this is that the smoke from the stubble is not just regular smoke, that
because of the chemicals used in the fields and the reaction once the fire has
started that the smoke can actually contain higher chemical concentration. Is that something that has been looked at? Has there ever been air testing done on
burning stubble? Can the minister give
us some idea of what the composition of the smoke is?
Mr. Cummings: There are two aspects to the response of this
question: No. 1, herbicide application
is largely done in June, quite some time before stubble‑burning period;
secondly, the chemicals would, I believe, have almost completely biodegraded by
that point, or completely biodegraded.
Thirdly, in order to support that, the department informs me that they
did some air quality and some monitoring about three years ago and were unable
to detect any chemical residue in the smoke that they were monitoring.
Ms. Cerilli: I think I would be remiss too in this area
without asking if there are plans to go beyond the regulations that we have now
and actually try to phrase out this practice, and since it is not done in other
jurisdictions, if there are plans through zero tillage or other methods to move
away from this practice that is somewhat unique to Manitoba?
Mr. Cummings: I think some of my colleagues are about to
burst into song here: "When the
smoke gets in my eyes". But, the
fact is that I would not anticipate complete regulation as the member is
referencing primarily because I believe that we are making tremendous gains
today in terms of the reduction that we will see as a result of this
regulation.
There is an awful lot of thought, a number
of pilot projects, a number of theses being put together on pelletizing for
alternative fuels, on manufacture into insulation, certain alternatives to wood
products are even being contemplated, none of which is particularly new
technology, but most of which has never been practical up until now. The recovery of the cellulose out of the
straw would make a good alternative to some of our softwood pulp if the process
was efficient and practical.
So, no, I do not contemplate going any
further than we have gone now. This is
an awful lot further, as I said, than I would have contemplated going four or
five years ago. But I can say that given
this is one of the most productive parts of western Canada, we are likely going
to see lots more of those big crops of straw and we will have to deal with them
as rationally as we can. Allowing the
farm community a few options, as this regulation does, does seem to me to be
the reasonable response at this time.
Ms. Cerilli: I will move on to another area that is of
concern, this whole system for dealing with waste water. There were some changes that were being made
in the training of waste water operators.
I wonder if the minister could explain what the new system and program
is that is in place now.
Mr. Cummings: I understand that the program is now being
offered for certificate at Red River, as we had been stating we expected it to
be over the last year or so when we had an ongoing letter war with the
association of operators out there, but I would think that now that that goal
has been accomplished that they should feel much more comfortable about it
because their qualifications will now be backed up by certificate, which we
could not do as a department actually.
Ms. Cerilli: So I assume then the minister is aware that
that is to their liking and if they will now change their focus to being more
of an association for those that are certified and if the people that are
certified now will continue to be, as I understood it, just either council
members or that this is not a full‑time position, that these are people
that are now having to incur a cost to do something that is just part of their
duties as part of being an elected official in a rural area. Is that system going to change?
Mr. Cummings: The member referenced their being members of
a council. I presume she meant the waste
water association?
Ms. Cerilli: Just to clarify, I meant that often these
people are just on a local municipal council.
Mr. Cummings: Those days have pretty well changed. The councillor and the operator are not the
same. Usually an employee would be
considered the operator.
I asked the question directly of staff
because I have not had any communication with the association recently and,
yes, apparently they are satisfied with this approach.
I use the word
"certificate." They do get a
certificate, but this is not a certification program, but it does give them a
certificate of training.
Ms. Cerilli: So are they then required to go through some
other process to be certified, to perform the function, or they just have to be
hired somewhere?
Mr. Cummings: No, they are capable of operating. This is to certify that they have now taken a
course to enhance their knowledge and capabilities in dealing, depending on the
size of‑‑obviously the City of
The smaller communities do not need a
fully qualified engineer to operate their waste water treatment, but they do
need somebody who has some training and who can comply with the regulations
that we are imposing on them.
Ms. Cerilli: I was thinking more of the individuals that
are operating sewage lagoons in the various areas. I have a whole file here of correspondence‑‑I
know that the minister also has this correspondence‑‑and it
outlines the concern that it seems like more and more people are sharing in
this system of the sewage lagoons that are designed for a warmer climate and
does not work in the cold climate here in Manitoba.
One of the Clean Environment Commission
hearings on the siting of a lagoon, there was a decision made, a recommendation
made, from the Clean Environment Commission with some urgency that there should
be hearings set on the effectiveness of this type of sewage system. I would just ask the minister to explain how
he and his department are dealing with these claims?
* (2120)
For example, the organisms continue
throughout the winter and then are not being satisfactorily dealt with through
this mechanism of waste water treatment, and there are a variety of other
concerns with the way that the tests are done and with the design.
Mr. Cummings: This topic is obviously not a surprise. A couple of things I would like to put on the
record; however, there are a small number of people out there who have been
making noises about whether or not lagoons work in this climate. I would like to point out that we have
literally hundreds of them across southern
In the Clean Environment Commission report
that the member referenced, a particular person made a presentation, I believe
it was likely Dr. Paton from Brandon, who indicated as the member had just
reported, they had concerns about whether or not the lagoons worked in a cold
climate and whether or not there was some longevity to some of the bacteria
that were in the sewage lagoons.
The Clean Environment Commission did not
make a recommendation based on those comments.
What they said was that they had heard the concerns that were raised,
and they were sufficiently interested that the
The fact is that people have been quoting
that report almost continuously ever since, including the gentlemen, I say that
in the plural, who put together the presentation. I do not think the public is well served by
the thought that all of the lagoons in southern
Releases are timed. They are tested before they are
released. Biodegradation takes place in
the primary cell during the summer and releases are generally made from the
secondary cell, or should always be made from the secondary cell, generally, in
the fall, and after the effluent tests are able to indicate that the release
would be benign.
So while we have agreed to do more review
and examination of the matter, because one should never out of hand dismiss
concerns that people bring forward, particularly if they are people who should
have some good technical knowledge about what they are speaking.
But lagoons will, I think, maintain
themselves as one of the more efficient ways of dealing with our waste. They do work perhaps more quickly in warmer
climates, but it is all the more reason that we have to put adequate
infrastructure in place here. In other
words, enough storage capacity in the cells, and enough cells in order to
adequately protect the environmental aspects of this.
I guess if one were to compare that to the
fact that
You can look at
Ms. Cerilli: For starters I do not buy the approach‑‑[interjection]
I do not know what the minister is picking out of pepper, but I also do not buy
the approach of saying that we are doing okay because we are not as bad as the
rest of the country. I think that we
want to make sure that‑‑[interjection] I think that what we are
trying to do is make sure that we are disinfecting effluent so that it is not
going to contaminate the environment, irrespective of what other jurisdictions
are doing.
I will read from the report just to
clarify for the record. It does say that the commission suggests that this
issue might be appropriately addressed by a study on the design, construction
and operational guidelines for sewage lagoons.
Any such study might best be guided by an advisory steering body made up
of appropriate representatives from the scientific community, the public at
large, consultants, or association representatives, and by representatives of
both the provincial and federal governments.
The intent would be to ensure that design requirements and operational
guidelines adequately protect the quality of servicing ground water resources
in
So I think that suggests that this is
something that requires further study.
Just because there are only a few people that have raised the concern
and dug this up, it does not mean that it is any less valid. I was going to ask the minister to give his
explanation, aided by the staff that he has here, of how these sewage lagoons
as designed are supposed to treat the sewage, how the system is supposed to
work.
Mr. Cummings: As I said a few moments ago, the
biodegradation takes place in the primary cell.
The secondary cell receives the discharge and it can be chlorinated or
other means of disinfectant in the second cell and then it can be discharged
when it is considered appropriately benign.
Now, another question that a number of
people like to raise is whether or not these cells will hold water without
polluting ground water and all of those other aspects, but that really has not
too much to do with whether or not the lagoon is treating the effluent
appropriately. The solids‑‑I
am looking at a schematic here‑‑settle out in the primary lagoon as
well, and the lagoons naturally do turn themselves as a result of temperature
changes, certainly the primary cell.
That occurs in the spring. That
is the one time of the year when you can probably tell with your nose where the
lagoon is located. Other than that, it
normally will not have a smell coming from these lagoons.
* (2130)
Secondly, I have to indicate I have become
somewhat familiar with a variety of lagoons around the province over the last
two or three years, and there are a number of lagoons where there is a fair bit
of wildlife in the final cells. It
should be noted that cattails, for example, it is now well known, are capable
of removing a lot of nitrites from the water just through the natural process
of growth in their uptake. In fact,
marshes are one of nature's own septic systems in how they clean up a number of
processes. Nitrogen can well come from
other sources than from the activities of mankind.
Ms. Cerilli: With this type of lagoon system, what is the
depth of the discharge pipe?
Mr. Cummings: I think the member is on to the question that
Mr. Dalmyn posed last year in committee about where the second cell would
discharge, and it should discharge removing the upper part of the second cell
down to very close to being empty. The
question is often raised, if you test the top of the cell, whether or not that
means the rest of the water in the cell is a homogeneous mix in the cell when
you take a sample off the top. Then are you discharging all sorts of pollutants
out of the bottom half of the cell? That
has not been proven by anything I have seen, and that, in fact, spreading and
mixing of treatment in the final cell can be effectively managed, and that one
need not assume that the final discharge is not as good as the first discharge.
Ms. Cerilli: Keeping in line with the suggestions from the
Clean Environment Commission, is there going to be some kind of a publicly
accountable study on this system? It
might even be advisable to put some of the skeptics on to ensure that they are
involved. Is that something that the
minister is considering doing?
Mr. Cummings: In fact, it was pointed out to me a few
minutes ago that Mr. Dalmyn is doing some studies of his own, and we are co‑operating
with him at this point. I do not think
we would say that this study is our response to the Clean Environment's recommendations,
but we are involving ourselves with some of the things that are going on out
there, and I believe we will eventually reach an understanding of this. The fact is that in northern
Ms. Cerilli: Just to finish up on this area, one of the
other concerns that has been raised has to do with the guaranteeing of the
designs of these systems. What is the
guarantee that is given, and who is liable under that guarantee if there is a
leakage?
Mr. Cummings: The engineer, and the guarantee is his staff.
Ms. Cerilli: The engineer that authorizes it would then be
responsible if there was proved to be any kind of leakage?
Mr. Cummings: That would be correct.
Ms. Cerilli: I am wondering if the member for
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): I would
like to go back to some of what we were talking about earlier today and that is
in enforcement. The minister indicated
that only five cases had been taken by Justice to the courts. What were the dispositions of those five
cases? How many convictions were
actually received on those five cases?
Mr. Cummings: Staff tell me that they are not sure if they
have all been decided yet of those five.
I will just ask the member to recall that I also said that we
recommended a lot more than that, but only five went to court.
Mrs. Carstairs: I am not questioning that the department
probably did indeed recommend a lot more.
Obviously, it is Crown attorneys that determine whether there is enough
evidence to justify the costs involved of going to court and, generally, they
do not like to proceed with a case unless at least they have a 50‑50
chance of winning and usually an even better chance than that.
There must be now within the department
some records as to the percentage of the number of court cases they take that
result in conviction. Is it running 50‑50? Is it running 75‑25? Any figures on that at all?
Mr. Cummings: Probably the percentage is quite high, maybe
like 90 percent, but we are not precise.
Mrs. Carstairs: I think it is, quite frankly, important that
the figure be that high, because if it appears the department or indeed the
Justice department, because they make the final decision, take cases which do
not result in high rates of successful prosecution, then it begins to be considered
by the polluter to be just another step along the way, rather than a serious
gesture that is taken.
So the number of cases going to court does
not particularly bother me. I think that
it is wise, if anything, to make sure you have a high conviction rate.
What does bother me, however, and it was
mentioned to some degree by the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), is the very
low fines that have been attributed as a result of these convictions. I suspect that what judges are doing is what they
do in many criminal cases. They take a
look at what has been the assessment of fines in other jurisdictions and they
lay a similar type fine in this particular circumstance.
The minister may or may not be aware, nor
may the critic be aware, but there is now literally a computer programming on
sentencing, and a judge will often go off to chamber, hook into his program and
say, okay, there are 15 cases of this nature that have been decided; these are
the range of sentences that have been given or fines that have been given, so
this is the one I will pluck out. I mean
they do not just pluck these figures out of the air, although some people may
think they do, it is not quite the way it works.
My concern is that there is still within
the judiciary an undervaluation of the importance of cases involving damage to
the environment. It is not just this
jurisdiction, but it is other jurisdictions as well.
The member suggested that perhaps we need
some education of the judiciary on the importance of some of these things. Has the minister ever had, for example, a
session with the judiciary as to what kind of goals or objectives this
particular department is looking toward in ensuring a clean environment in the
* (2140)
Further to that question, has he discussed
this with other Ministers of Environment, and I know he has a meeting tomorrow,
as to whether they too feel that the fines that they are getting from the
courts tend to be less than their departments would like to see achieved.
Mr. Cummings: I have not met with the judiciary. I have had discussions with my colleague the
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), and I know the department has had seminars
from Justice to show the best way to prepare for a case and the type and nature
of information that is required to take a case forward for prosecution. So from time to time I think we would like to
see greater activity in this area, and I believe we are starting to see some
headway in that respect, given what I just said.
In terms of a national prospective, I have
had some discussion, not a great deal.
The discussion that I have had is more recent in terms of contaminated
sites and how we attribute cost for cleanup and the culpability to which owner
as we go through the history of a particular site that has been
contaminated. I know that the
jurisdictions to the south do ask for and get far higher fines. I happened to sit between what would be the
equivalent of a minister in this province and the head of a very large
corporation that had just got dinged for a million‑dollar fine. I had a very uncomfortable supper, as one
could well guess.
I would have to say, however, that the
nature of the type of problems that we have had in
Domtar, as I said earlier, is another example
of where we have not actually tested the system to see how high judges might be
willing to assess fines or penalties, given the gravity of certain
carelessness. I think when there is
carelessness and intent on the part of operators and the results have dramatic
and lasting impacts on the environment, that is the combination of events that
will test the system perhaps more than we have up to this point.
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, I think it is clear to say that 20
years ago not only were these companies not particularly concerned about the
damage they were doing, but neither was the public and neither were government
offices. When we talk about culpability,
I think that there is a serious question that has to be raised as to how
deliberate was their intent to besmirch the environment. That has changed, and
it has changed very dramatically. I
think that it is fair to say now that companies, the public and governments are
far more aware of the culpability of corporations and their deliberate
avoidance of learning what the problems might be of such and such an
action. That kind of avoidance, I think,
will be determined by the courts to be no longer acceptable. Maybe it was when nobody was concerned, but
it will not be any longer. Does the
minister think that his specific legislation is strong enough in terms of the
maximum fines that can be levied against corporations in the
Mr. Cummings: I had to double check, but it is correct that
our legislation contemplates going up to a million dollars, which is adequate
for anything that I could ontemplate at this juncture. On the other hand, when
we realize that the long‑term collective impacts that have to be
corrected at the old Manfor site come to some $9 million in cleanup costs that
there may well be reason to review that, but at this point I do not think we
have anything on the horizon that I can see where a fine would be‑‑anything
exceeding that magnitude would be relevant to the accidents that occur.
There is one aspect to this that we should
recognize that is occurring as well and that is one of the things that is
starting to be brought to my attention on a regular basis is that the banking
institutions, for example, will not come within a country mile of anything that
may have‑‑I emphasize the word "may"‑‑any
contamination on it. That in itself is a
recognition of the change and mindset, and I guess I am confirming what the
member said. The banks to my view have
almost gone to the ridiculous level of where a site‑‑an example is
a gas station that we were aware of that had a rather small and contained
amount of hydrocarbon in the soil on one part of the site, contained enough
that the department did not believe they had to issue a cleanup order because
it was not going anywhere, but kept it on a list in case the use of the
property should ever change. The banks
were refusing to grant a mortgage on the property because it was on a list
somewhere. So we have almost gone to the
other extreme in terms of the practicality of how banks, as an example, deal
with this problem.
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, I think it is clear from the banking
industry's perspective that as the first mortgage holder they do not want to
see that loan go down the drain because of some action of a government agency
or otherwise against that particular company for the repayment of something
which may have a higher priority than the first mortgage which is in
environmental damage and a fine that is placed on a company because of that
environmental damage.
In terms of the legislation, I have real
concerns about a million dollars being adequate. If we are going to be looking at what might
have been a major disaster with regard to the spill, or the two spills, in
fact, this year, you could have had, in a wrong chemical mix, lives lost. You could have had children with irreparable
damage of some kind where a million dollars would not, quite frankly, touch the
legal liability of that company.
One only has to look at oil spill damages
and the fines that have been levied in the United States, as a result of those
oil spills, particularly in Alaska, to realize that they have gone much further
than we have in terms of not only assessing penalty, but in having the capacity
to assess penalty.
So while $1 million looks like a lot of
money, $1 million has become not very much money. We used to think of someone with $1 million,
a millionaire, as being a huge amount of money.
I think today, when one thinks of a millionaire, one does not think of
somebody with a particularly large amount of money. Some people may, but in terms of the banking
community, that is just simply no longer true.
There are several hundred thousand millionaires in
So I think it is something that should be
examined by the department to ensure that the fine is in fact adequate enough
to meet all circumstances.
In terms of the Environment department's
reaction to both St. Lazare and Carberry, I think the reaction of the
department was first class. I think all
the employees of the Department of Environment deserve a great deal of credit
and congratulations for, along with the Emergency Measures Organization,
maintaining the high degree of calm that there was, but more importantly, the
high degree of satisfaction for those who had been seriously displaced.
* (2150)
I mean, I was quite amazed at the lack of
complaint, quite frankly, from people who had been asked at Christmastime to
leave their homes, leave their presents, check into a hotel, which may sound
like fun for a couple of days and is not much fun after the second day.
So those department people who had to put
in extra hours and worked hard to maintain that level of calm, quite frankly,
deserve everybody in this province's congratulations. They did a first‑class job. The minister does not want to comment.
Mr. Cummings: I certainly do not mind commenting. I have indicated before, and I appreciate the
comments of the member for
It also demonstrates another reality that
we were faced with. That is it was not
without some pain and some discussion that we upgraded the equipment for the
people on the response team. As it
turned out, the equipment was used by them and, I believe, other departments in
the response, to deal with the situation at
Secondly, the
Mrs. Carstairs: This is just a technical question but,
following work like that where environmental officers are asked to go in and
work with what could be potentially highly toxic chemicals, certainly where
there is a great deal of heat, certainly where there was protective‑‑what
are the requirements after that for medical examination of these environment
officers to ensure that their health has not in any way been endangered by what
they have just been through?
Mr. Cummings: There has not been a requirement in place,
but I am told that we are working with Workplace Safety and Health and that
they are interested in this area, and there is going to be ongoing monitoring
and follow‑up to make sure that any impacts are noted. Hopefully, there are none.
Madam Chairperson: Item 2.(a) Environmental Operations (1)
Salaries $3,598,300‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $996,900‑‑pass.
Item 2.(b) Environmental Management (1)
Salaries $3,355,500.
Ms. Cerilli: I have a number of questions in this
area. This is the whole area of
environmental assessment and all the standards that are being set with respect
to water and air quality. This is, other
than enforcement, the main work of the department.
I think I will start off with dealing with
some of the questions relating to water policy.
I am looking right now at the water
strategy policy application document, the highlights, and I am wondering how
far along we are in seeing the rest of this report announced and having this
adopted as government policy.
Mr. Cummings: I believe the implementation document has now
been approved and is going out for consultation.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, this is the area that I am very
concerned about, that we have these policy documents that are plodding ahead,
plodding along it seems, and there is lots of consultation and there are all of
these kinds of activities, and then on the other hand on a different track, we
have major water projects that are booming along, dams that are being proposed,
water diversions. I am concerned that we
do not have these policies in place before we have the government moving ahead
with major diversion projects that are going to not only contradict the policy
but are not considering a lot of the policy statements that are being made at
all.
I wonder if the minister has any comments
on that, how we can see these policy documents being developed and at the same
time we are having projects and licences being issued in a fashion that would
contradict the policy.
Mr. Cummings: First of all the water policy document is
referenced in the Pembina Valley Pipeline document, but nevertheless I think
that I would take some exception with the reference to the thought that that
particular project or others are out there contravening government policy.
What we have done over the last number of
months and years, not only in water policy but in land‑use policy and a
number of other areas, is to review, upgrade and get public input on existing
policies and revisions of them and bring into place formal policies that in
some cases were somewhat less than fully in place from previous
administrations.
Let us look at the process in the question
that the member raised specifically about the withdrawal of some water from the
The amount of water that comes out of the
Shellmouth is what maintains the flow into the river and any withdrawals that‑‑and
this discussion has occurred in Question Period‑‑but any
withdrawals that are being contemplated, it will have to be proven in front of
the commission that they do not run contrary to water policies of this
province.
Furthermore, those who say that
withdrawals cannot be accommodated will have to receive the assurances on their
behalf by the commission that in fact the water can be managed or replaced,
whatever approach the commission in conjunction with Water Resources and the
management of the Shellmouth can be substantiated by the appropriate
documentation.
This is not a game of chance, it is not a
shot in the dark to say, well, you can take so many cfs out of that river and
nobody will notice. But the fact is
nobody notices that there were 30 cfs taken out from the
* (2200)
So those are the kind of things that are
going to have to be put up in front of the commission and substantiated by
documentation, and it certainly will not be substantiated if they should happen
to be contrary to the water policies of the province.
Ms. Cerilli: The minister says that this project, the
Mr. Cummings: A basin‑wide plan is obviously an
objective that may take some considerable amount of time to fully implement.
Let us remember that the beginning of even putting in place a management regime
began some couple of decades ago on some of the construction that has occurred
along the
One of the things that I find most
disconcerting about this whole debate, interbasin transfer even is one of the
derogatory terms that is very often used, is that it is not very often
recognized but, frankly, the supply of Winnipeg's drinking water to date is the
removal of water from one drainage basin and putting it into another, even
though, in the macro sense, they all end up in Hudson Bay.
Many people have and seem to continue to
try and characterize this as some kind of an unmanaged approach that would be
less than complete if we did not spend years studying the river. The fact is that the commission will have to
be satisfied that the amount of information they have before them, particularly
concerning flows, is sufficient for them to make a decision as to whether or
not this is an appropriate withdrawal.
Ms. Cerilli: That is what I am asking, is that there will
be basin‑wide consideration in the assessment in keeping with the
policy. I am not saying there is going
to be some overall management plan developed prior to this diversion, but that
there will be basin‑wide consideration of what is happening all along the
system.
Mr. Cummings: Yes, I think that will become increasingly
apparent at the hearings. The commission
will be looking at the broader implications of doing this. That is why the interests of the people at
I look to the Assiniboine and I walk along
the shores of it very often in the morning, but I am also smart enough to know
that the reason there is water down here at The Forks is not because of the
particular volume we are releasing that day or the week before from Shellmouth
but because of the level that the dam at Lockport is set at. We are looking at modified waterways here,
not pristine streams. So this is the
kind of debate that I hope we have in front of the commission.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Chairperson, in
the Chair)
Ms. Cerilli: I hope the minister appreciates though that
it is reasonable for the City of
I would recommend that there would have to
be some kind of system for gauging and monitoring the water that is being
allocated and that would be a reasonable recommendation that could come out of
this hearing if there is a basin‑wide approach taken. Does the minister agree with that?
Mr. Cummings: First of all, let me make it very clear that
I do not want to second‑guess the commission on what they may or may not
recommend. I am simply trying to outline
what I believe some of the reasonable areas of debate should be in front of the
commission.
The member has asked me whether or not it
should be part of the debate, that the city has a fair and reasonable request
about wanting to have a moratorium on any more withdrawals until they
understand the ramifications of a basin‑wide plan. The development of that basin‑wide plan
and the assembly of the information is ongoing, as I said, and has been for the
last 20 years.
The member references irrigation
withdrawals that are taking place today and whether or not we have a good grip
on the amount of water that is being withdrawn, both licensed and unlicensed,
from the
The Water Resources section of Natural
Resources will have to justify and quantify the information that they have
regarding those withdrawals. I am sure
they will be asked, but I think that I have some increasing confidence in the
knowledge that we have about the amount of irrigation withdrawals particularly
that are being allowed in the province.
What is being drawn directly from our rivers, particularly the
* (2210)
That is becoming increasingly closely
monitored. As we made an announcement
last Friday about the horticulture enhancement studies that will flow from the
project that is being put in place, with Carberry as a centre, Carman, Morden,
Winkler area, Melita and Roblin areas looking at the alternative uses for land
into specialized crops, what are the better alternatives for irrigation, we are
going to get an awful lot more knowledge in this area, which added to the existing
knowledge that we have about withdrawals, will lead us to getting a lot more
use out of the water resources that we do have.
I do believe that we have a certain
responsibility, all of us as legislators, to deal with the reality of certain
industrial demands that are on the waters out there and make sure that they are
not excessive, but neither should we look at them as being necessarily evil,
that we have started off by modification of this particular river when the
Shellmouth Dam was built. An awful lot
of those operations could not even be justified today if there was not some
modification.
The city of
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the issues raised of
the cost benefits of the type of irrigation that is going on in southern
Mr. Cummings: The project is not an irrigation
project. I suppose if you want to look
at cost‑benefit analysis, you are asking whether or not communities at
the receiving end of the pipe have an opportunity to get additional potable
water for growth of population and whether or not the water comes from the
Assiniboine or comes from the Red or comes from the Pembina, undoubtedly at
some point in their future, that part of the province will continue to search
for additional waters.
The project that they proposed has a
number of stages to it. The fact is, and I note with some chagrin, that a
recent editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press still seems to be under the
impression that this proposal is talking about some kind of an overland running
of the water. The fact is the proposal
talks about a pipeline with treatment at the city of
It simply would not be practical nor would
I advocate piping of water for those purposes over that distance. The cost‑benefit analysis is done in
the early stages of the proposal. If the
program in this particular instance for potable water for a community cannot be
seen to be practical and pay for itself, given the federal program that it is
coming in under, then it would be unable to qualify for a proposal in the first
place.
Ms. Cerilli: There is another number of issues related to
this. What I am suggesting is that this could call into question‑‑if
we are looking basin‑wide at the irrigation use along the Assiniboine,
particularly in the Portage area, and that is what I think is going to come of
this, is that people are going to start realizing that 50 percent of the water
used in the province is for irrigation.
This is in the State of the Environment Report and even though
irrigation is the bottom of the priority list for water use, that to me is
something that will get looked at.
With the issue that the minister just
referred to, I am wondering if there will be an increase in water rates that
the towns around Carman that are going to be receiving the diverted water. Will there be an increased cost for those
communities? The concern being that, as I understand it, what is going to
happen is the treated water that is transferred to that area will then no
longer have the demand on the Winkler aquifer, the aquifers in that area that
are also being used for irrigation and then the irrigation in that area is
already expanding and that the concern is that the water quality and the amount
of water will be further depleted because of the increased irrigation in that
southern area once this pipeline for treated water goes through.
So there are two issues. There is the issue of the cost for the Carman
area once they are receiving the treated water and then that in effect will
allow for increased use of the aquifer for irrigation without having to be
concerned about water quality for the domestic use.
Mr. Cummings: I suppose we are getting a long way away from
what the primary environmental issues will be in terms of the issues that will
be in front of the Clean Environment Commission, but you can make the same
circular argument about almost any project that one undertakes in terms of use
of a natural resource. You can be a drylander
in southern
The same thing is true in the Carberry
Plains. You can grow potatoes, but you
will not be able to break into the potato market that Carnation has broken into
without some kind of quality standard which is assured by probably irrigation
in a large percentage of the cases, and certainly a significant and continuing
water supply as part of the basis upon which the industry is built.
You can be a producer of a number of different
commodities but you will never compete on the Superstore or the Safeway
vegetable shelf if you do not have some security of supply in order to produce
those products. We have a very unique
climate and soil conditions here in this province that allow us to replace an
awful lot of the vegetable produce that has historically been imported into
this province.
You may ask, and I think you are asking,
what has that got to do with whether or not there is water allowed to go to the
communities that are seeking to receive some of‑‑the first volume
that they are asking for, over the first decade, as I understand it, is 5
cfs. Well, that is not going to produce
very many irrigation offset acres.
Believe me, that is not a big amount of water.
* (2220)
But the issue of whether or not there is
water, and I might well ask my colleagues to comment if you wish to continue to
pursue the irrigation aspect in southern Manitoba, because it is well outside
of the discussion that we started on.
But the fact that some farmers down there have taken the initiative to
entrap some of the spring runoff in order that they may irrigate up to a
quarter section out of some of the small ponding arrangements that they have
set up, and the fact that there may be eight or 10 or upwards of 20 of these
types of enpondments put in place across the region, does not mean that they
could have alternatively used that same water for domestic consumption because
it is just not located in the right place.
So they are making the best use of the resources that they have
available to them.
The real issue is whether or not the
Environment Commission is going to be able to receive adequate information, and
it will be the job of the proponents and various departments of government to
make sure that information is available, and then they can decide and recommend
based on that, I would hope, complete set of figures, as to whether or not any
withdrawals can be appropriate.
The irrigation offset that we see in some
of the communities down in southern
So what we have, simply, as I read the
dynamics of the population in the area, is a population growth that has
exceeded the ability of the area to produce potable water without getting it
from further away than what they were able to acquire in the first place.
There has been a lot of growth and some of
it is industrial growth, some of it is industries that need some water, but in
fact we do not have a big wet industry growth in that area. It is primarily domestic use that needs the
water within the population, as I understand it.
Ms. Cerilli: I do not know if it has anything to do with
the current population growth there. It
has, I think, more to do with what the minister was referring to in his initial
comments which was maximizing profits from the agriculture in the region, which
had nothing to do with the question I asked.
I am trying to get at the issue which I
fear is going to be completely left out of the Clean Environment
Commission. Even the base and wide scope
will not look at the fact that once this diversion goes through, it is going to
free up the quality concerns that are going to allow for even more depletion of
aquifers in that area for irrigation.
The minister has himself alluded to the
fact that irrigation in that area is the target for growth in the area. I think that is the result or the increase in
population that is in the PVC proposal is the result of expansion in potato
processing once all of the pipeline is there, and then the expansion in
irrigation can take place.
So I was asking for the minister to
respond with some concern, and he seems to have alluded to that, that there are
problems with the aquifers in the area being depleted. I am concerned that is what is going to
happen as we continue to look at the profit that can be made in the area from
expanded irrigation without having the proper assessments that go on,
environmental assessments that go on before irrigation permits are
expanded. I am concerned that the
environmental assessment on this is not going to look at the impact on the other
aquifers from the diversion or the consequences of having this diversion go
through.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Acting Chairperson, this becomes almost a
no‑win argument. I am sure we
could stay at this for a long time as to the appropriateness of use of
resources close to or further away from population centres that have a
potential for growth.
There is another key part of the member's
question that I have not addressed, and that is the pricing of water, the
pricing of water for irrigation, the pricing of water for domestic purposes,
the pricing of water for industrial purposes.
Ultimately, that is how we will be able to
put in place a sustainable development in the areas of where the demand and use
of water is high, because, ultimately, any use of water has to reflect the real
cost of that water and putting it in place for whatever use is necessary.
The City of Winnipeg and other communities
across the province, if you track their water pricing policies as opposed to
their consumption, you will find pretty quickly the only areas that are able to
have significant conservation practices in place are those who price the
product.
(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)
Similarly, as we put meters on our
irrigation equipment, as the farmers and the users become increasingly
conscious, first of all, of their consumption and the recognition of the real
cost of that consumption, there is no doubt we will have a pricing policy, both
domestic and agriculturally, for waters.
Because the society is not going to continue to put into place
structures that are not practical and cost‑effective in the long run.
The cost‑effectiveness, however, one
thing that we have not discussed in this debate is the quality of water that is
available. I am told in the cost of
water treatment plants that‑‑and I look to members of the
department here to correct me if I have strayed into an area that I cannot
substantiate, but it is my understanding that the costs of treating water for
softening it for human use and domestic use from certain sources that would be
considered high in dissolved minerals, et cetera, can be so expensive that the
offset of bringing in piped water from some considerable distance away, and in
the end have less expensive treatment costs, might well be more efficient.
One has to look at the quality of water as
opposed to‑‑when one is judging two different sources of
water. I, for one, always believed that
the water out of Lake Manitoba could be used for a whole lot more uses than it
is being put to today, but I find that it is too high in salt content and other
mineralization that makes making it available for irrigation and/or domestic
consumption less than desirable, so other sources have to be used.
* (2230)
Ms. Cerilli: I thought the minister was going to address
the other issue that I raised when he was talking about cost. That is what will the cost change for the
Carman‑Winkler area that is going to receive the diverted water be? How will their cost for the utility be
changed?
Mr. Cummings: I cannot speak to the details of the
agreement, but they will be paying at cost or cost‑plus, I would presume,
to the City of
Ms. Cerilli: Will that information be part of the hearing
process, the Clean Environment Commission hearing?
Mr. Cummings: I expect the agreement will be aired in front
of the commission, yes.
Mr. Jack Penner
(Emerson): Madam Chairperson, if you would allow me, just
for clarification sake, it will probably help the honourable member asking the
questions.
Most people probably do not realize that
the towns of Altona and Gretna, and two other villages of Sommerfeld and
Bergthal, have bought water from the United States for about 25 years, I guess,
when the Manitoba Water Services Board and the Americans came to an agreement
to allow the piping of water from the Pembina River at Neche and to establish a
treatment plant at Neche for the supply of water to Altona.
Had that not happened, the town of
Most people do not realize that the ground
water in that area is probably saltier than the ocean. I say that in all seriousness, that most of
the water up until about 10 years ago, virtually of the water about 10 years
ago used in that area, was trapped in two different ways, either by building
ponds on farms and ponds very often for villages and towns such as Rosenfeld‑‑built
a large, large pond to supply its water needs.
Those waters became so salinated from the
salt in the ground that they became virtually impossible to treat and to make
use of for human consumption to the point where animals, when the animals drank
the water, they developed severe cases of diarrhea because of the salt. I am serious.
The member laughs. This simply
indicates that she has very little knowledge of water in that southern part of
the province.
Similarly now, today, there are only two
irrigation projects in that whole southern area. One of them is Kroeker Farms, which takes
water out of a gravel pit that accumulates there every spring and uses that
water and irrigates out of that. The
other one is by a number of farmers that have dug huge ponds at huge costs to
them, up to $100,000 a pond. They dig
them out of the prairies and then build high embankments and pump water out of
a creek running by in spring into these ponds and store the water over there
that they can use that water to irrigate.
That is how they irrigate. That
is the only irrigation that is done in southern
The honourable member again smiles at this
because she does not believe it. The
Department of Natural Resources is seriously considering dispensing with the
licence to Kroeker Farms and their ability to irrigate out of the gravel pits,
because the gravel pits have been known to recharge the aquifer. Therefore, it is questionable whether there
should be irrigation allowed out of that gravel pit because of the
rechargeability there.
It is important to note that three years
ago the towns of Morden, Carman, Winkler‑‑and Winkler drew down the
aquifer, if I remember correctly, by some eight feet and withheld the supply of
water there. Had they drawn it down much
further, there is question as to whether the salinity, the underground salts,
would have come upwards and polluted the water in the aquifer. That is how dangerously close in water
consumption use we are in that area.
Some of us were quite involved in building
a pipeline and treatment plant at
We built about 250 miles of pipeline to
supply that area with water. Water is
one of the precious resources that we have got in southern
Therefore, I thought, Madam Chair, it
would be interesting for the honourable member‑‑and I would invite
her out there. I would give her a
personal tour of the area to show her what people think of water and the use of
water and how conservation‑minded those people are of water and how
jealously they guard water.
Maybe, Mr. Minister, that is why they vote
the way they do. Certainly, water is a very, very preciously guarded commodity.
When people talk about our ability to get water from the Americans, or us
supplying some of the American towns with water, we know what that is all
about. We know what that discussion
really means.
So I sometimes sit here in this House and
wonder whether we really know what we are criticizing when we become critics of
certain projects, because the water supply that we are talking about out of the
I want to say to the member that there are
some farmers that have larger licences for water use than this whole project
would use in 50 years. When you take
that into proper consideration, as to the draw on the water out of that river,
it becomes virtually a minimal, a nonissue is really what it becomes. I know that she is talking‑‑she
wants to instill a political fear into the people that there will be a movement
against this project. I cannot, for the
life of me, understand why any politician would want to do that because we are
dealing with the livelihoods of people, of towns, and the lifeblood of towns,
the lifeblood of those towns that we are talking about: the Carmans and the Mordens and the Winklers
and the Altonas and the Gretnas and the Plum Coulees of the world. Their lifeblood is water.
Mrs. Carstairs: I am pleased that the member put some of his
concerns and comments on the record. But
I think the accusation of political fearmongering is quite incorrect and very
inaccurate. There are a number of very
serious questions that have to resolved, and not just by this government, but
hopefully by the authority of the Clean Environment Commission.
The Clean Environment Commission needs to
have raw data. It needs to have
information. I think that there is no
question that any Manitoban who believed that it was essential for another
Manitoban to have potable water would not grant that potable water. I do not think there is any question about
that. But that is not the only question
here.
This particular project that has been
proposed has been proposed not just for potable water. That is what they would like us to think, but
if they honestly believe that, then they would be prepared to put in their proposal
that no further uses could be made from any other water presently serving that
area for irrigation purposes. They will
not put that in.
So they are not just concerned about
potable water. Because they are just not
concerned about potable water, there are long‑range studies that must be
done in order for the Clean Environment Commission to make the kind of
evaluation that is essential. It is not
just one project. It is the long‑term
benefits to the entire province. The
question that I would like to ask the minister, because we seem to be in this
whole process and he is talking about it.
* (2240)
What is this government's intention with
regard to the report of the Clean Environment Commission? Are they going to ignore it, as they did the
most recent Clean Environment Commission report in
Mr. Cummings: The answer is yes. There are a couple of implications in the
member's comments regarding the previous licence surrounding Abitibi that I
would want to comment on, because I take some umbrage on the suggestion that we
may have ignored some aspects of the Clean Environment Commission report,
particularly regarding forestry in the park.
The member may well recall that the
recommendation was that there be a plan for the elimination of forestry in
parks. What we have indicated is, and
the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) has been working diligently
forever since and in fact had started the process sometime prior to that, the
criticism of Manitoba's parks, being the parks that allow multiple use, the
only ones left in Canada that allow for multiple use‑‑I am not sure
if they are the only ones or not but that is certainly the criticism‑‑the
fact is that when the boundaries were drawn up they did contemplate multiple
use.
You can look at
Therefore, I think it was quite a
legitimate response to the recommendation of the commission that we look at what
are the reasonable boundaries to parks and designate areas of the existing
parks that they be treated differently.
In the final analysis, almost every recommendation that the commission
made in that report will come to fruition, it just simply will not come to
fruition in the manner in which they recommended.
Frankly, they exceeded the guidelines of
their recommendation; I think there is a very serious question at issue
here. I have no desire to put myself or
this government in conflict with the recommendations of the Clean Environment
Commission. I fully expect and intend to
accept the recommendations that they may make in respect to the Pembina
project. I simply have to defend myself,
however, in response to the criticism of whether or not we adequately responded
to the Abitibi licensing process, because the bottom line is that at least we
had enough moral fortitude to deal with the issue head on rather than simply do
what has occurred previously in this province, and that is, when it is
recommended to stop logging in one park, simply move it into another one.
I only have to look into my backyard to
see the last decision that was made in this respect where logging was stopped
in Atikaki, but where did it go? It went
into the Ducks and into the Porcupines up north of where I live. So is that good management? Not particularly. The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns)
and this government at least have had the moral and, I believe, the intestinal
fortitude to look at the whole issue and deal with it in a more complete and, I
think, ultimately appropriate manner.
Mrs. Carstairs: If the minister is absolutely clear on this,
and I want to make sure that I am clear on what it is he is saying, that if the
Clean Environment Commission comes back with a report which says that the
Pembina Valley project is not a valid project for the province of Manitoba, the
government of the province of Manitoba will not proceed. Is that what the minister is saying?
Mr. Cummings: The member is asking me to respond to a
hypothetical scenario. There may be a
dozen different scenarios in the form of the report. What I have said is that we will accept and
follow the recommendations of the commission.
Mrs. Carstairs: Why is it that the minister cannot just
answer the question, which is, if the Clean Environment Commission recommends
that the
The problem is that if you are going to,
as a government, make up your mind that this is a good project, and since they
have already had one resignation from their government because he believed that
the government had made up its mind‑‑whether that is true or not, he
believed they had and is proceeding even to take them to court over the
matter. The reality is if they have made
up their mind and the Clean Environment Commission says no, are they going to
do what the Clean Environment Commission tells them to do, or are they going to
do what they have decided is their own political will?
Mr. Cummings: Madam Chairperson, the member asked me a
question and then proceeded to qualify that question. The question was asked, if it is recommended
against, and then put some qualification behind that. I said that we would accept the
recommendations of the commission. I am
not trying to be cute or not answer directly.
The commission might well put some conditions on its recommendation, so
to say that the recommendation is yes, no or maybe is prejudging it in any
manner which I will not do.
We have given our word that we will accept
the recommendations of the commission, and I will stand behind that. The fact
is that if one were to look at recommendations of the commission over the
years, they very often do put conditions on their recommendations.
I cannot get into that debate here
tonight, as the ultimate receiver of that recommendation, when we will have to
deal with it. I think I have probably
said as much as I should in terms of what the commission may or may not
do. Simply let me say, however, that we
will accept their recommendation.
Mrs. Carstairs: Madam Chairperson, but just to make perfectly
clear to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) that, in the opening remarks
that I made to this department, I spoke about the Clean Environment Commission.
I said that we had not accepted,
philosophically, the recommendations of the Clean Environment Commission about
Oak Hammock, but we had gone on the record to say that we would abide by what
they recommended and we did. You heard
no further criticism from the Liberal Party about Oak Hammock Marsh from the
day the Clean Environment Commission came down‑‑[interjection]
We did.
That is true. We did exactly the
same thing with respect to the Abitibi‑Price application, and we are
prepared to do the same thing with regard to the Clean Environment Commission
with regard to this project.
* (2250)
The reality is that, if you are going to
have a board and a body that is independent of government, there has to be a
willingness to respect what it is they have to say. We are prepared to respect what they have to
say.
The minister has said that he is prepared
to accept the recommendations, and I have just one more further question. Is he prepared to act on those
recommendations?
Mr. Cummings: I am a little puzzled by that question
actually. The commission makes recommendations which may or may not allow for
action or may require action if a certain decision to proceed is accepted.
Perhaps the member would like to rephrase
the question because, if she is implying does this mean that the project will
start turning dirt the day after we receive a positive recommendation, there is
no precondition in that respect. Does
she mean that some other action will flow?
I am not sure that I follow the question.
Mrs. Carstairs: I have seen a number of governments of a
number of different stripes accept recommendations and then proceed to act in
ways that are totally contrary to those recommendations.
It is one thing for a government to say we
accept what the Clean Environment Commission has to say. It is a whole other thing for the government
to then act in a way which reflects their acceptance of those recommendations.
Mr. Cummings: I think the most direct answer is that this
department interprets the recommendations of the commission into licences as
far as the environmental conditions that might be associated with a licence are
concerned.
They might also make other recommendations
that would be outside of the mandate of this department to respond to. Health studies, for example, are an area of
recommendation that we cannot directly in and of ourselves respond to, but I
think, without trying to determine whether there is some hidden meaning to the
member's question, the answer has to be yes.
We will act on the recommendations.
Mrs. Carstairs: There is no hidden meaning to what I have to
say at all.
The Clean Environment Commission made
recommendations with respect to
So if indeed we now get a group of
recommendations that the minister determines are outside their mandate, I can
believe any of their recommendations, quite frankly, with respect to Abitibi‑Price
and Nopiming Park were outside their authority to make, but the minister did
and he used that as a justification for doing things contrary, in my view, to
the recommendations which the Clean Environment Commission made.
Is this the kind of political game that we
are going to see, quite frankly, with regard to their report on the
Mr. Cummings: Well, that is the beauty of this process, that
the members of the opposition can attempt, with greater or lesser degrees of
success, to put words in the mouth of the particular ministry that they are
interviewing. Because, frankly, if a
commission recommends outside of its jurisdiction, then the government has to
examine what those recommendations are.
The
The proponent was given guidelines then,
which it was to structure its response.
Those guidelines outlined in the broad sense what the regulator believed
were the areas that needed to be reviewed for the protection of the
environment. The commission recommends
within that area as a result of their inquiries, then I will have no problem
accepting their recommendations.
Ms. Cerilli: I want to get back to the issue of the water
consumption in the Carman‑Winkler area.
I appreciate the comments that the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) put
on the record about conservation, and that one of the questions that I had
wanted to ask was: What kind of
conservation has been undertaken in that area, if they are so water‑conscious? Can the minister describe the water
conservation program for that area? If there is one, I do not‑‑from
the information that I have received, that there is not really a concerted
effort to conserve water in the area.
If that is going to be part of this
program, to divert water at an increased cost to the area, is water
conservation‑‑I guess that could be one of the recommendations made
by the CEC, that there could be a stipulation attached to this program, that
they would have to have an extensive water conservation program in the
area. What are the minister's comments?
Mr. Cummings: I suppose more appropriately, the Minister of
Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) could respond to the aspects of what might be done
in terms of a water conservation system within the region.
My view is that as the water costs, water
pricing more accurately reflects the costs, conservation will be following
quite rapidly on the heels of those costs.
I believe that in terms of domestic use,
that is a very direct relationship. The
communities, not only in this area but in other parts of the province, are
going to be moving towards more of a cost recovery and true‑cost
accounting for the value of the water that they are dispensing to their
population.
I cannot speak to any direct programs that
might be in place. I think that it
follows logically that they will be practising‑‑in fact they are
practising it to some extent today, as I recall some of the things that have
occurred in these communities.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, it only makes sense to me that as an
Environment department and minister, there would be an all‑out effort to
conserve water before you start putting millions of dollars into a scheme that
is going to divert water in this fashion, and it does not seem that has
happened.
What is the explanation for that? Why are we not conserving water in an area if
it is so dry before we look at spending millions of dollars or diverting
water? I am talking about things too
like retrofitting and having not just some kind of cost accounting.
Mr. Cummings: The member is quite right that conservation
projects and conservation practices must follow and proceed in many cases any
additional supply being made available.
I cannot speak, again, directly to some of the proposals that may be in
water services and other parts of government, but the communities in this part
of the province, in 1989, if I recall correctly, there was a number of them
that‑‑'88 perhaps it was‑‑had their water supplies
dramatically curtailed. Stephenfield
Reservoir was very low at a point, I believe, in '89, whereby water consumption
was cut back in the various communities.
They have been forced into some fairly
severe curtailment of water usage. If
the member is asking, is there mandatory changeover of their toilets and their
shower heads and those sorts of things, I think I can probably safely say that
that has not yet occurred. On the other
hand, it has not yet occurred in any other jurisdiction in this province
either. The demand is still very
prevalent, and I believe that pricing will go further towards influencing the
householder, about whether or not they water the garden on Thursday night or
Sunday morning or whether or not they put in a conservation shower head in the
bathtub if they are paying an appropriate price for their water. Every jurisdiction in the province is guilty
of not being totally up to speed in that area.
* (2300)
Ms. Cerilli: As a provincial government, though, dealing
with rural areas, especially being the authorizer of these kinds of water‑use
permits and authorizing of these kinds of diversions, does the minister not
think that it is incumbent upon this provincial government to require that
there be water conservation before any of these kinds of proposals would even
be considered?
Mr. Cummings: There are some projects under consideration
today where that is a very real possibility.
There is one small community in my area that we are considering a pilot
project. I believe Morris was
considering a pilot project in terms of water conservation practices, but there
is nothing in place today.
Ms. Cerilli: I would suggest the Environment department is
not doing its job if that is not the case.
This is one area, I think, that there can be a lot of legitimate
criticism of this project and the scheme for this area. You talk about water policy, I mean that would
be the basic premise of any water policy that there would be conservation
first.
One of the questions relating to this, and
I do not have a clear understanding of the way that this scheme of diverting
water from Portage will now work and how it will hook up with the existing
water servicing in the Carman and Winkler townships, but I understand that
there are people who will be intervening at the Clean Environment Commission
hearings who have done quite a bit of research and can show that the amount of
water that is going to be transferred could be saved through conservation.
If that is the case, is the minister aware
of that kind of information? Has his
department done that kind of research in preparing for these hearings? Is there that kind of research available and
can that still happen with the change in the project and how the water is now
coming from Portage, or will that change the place on where the water is hooked
up? As I understand it, particularly Carman,
there is a lot of leakage in the underground system. I am wondering if that kind of consideration
has been made.
Mr. Cummings: No, I cannot speak to some of the mechanics
of this project nor would I be the best one to do so. I have to repeat that conservation programs
will follow pricing rather closely and obviously the end users of this water
will be paying for it particularly when it is treated before it is put into the
system for piping.
The fact is that you can do models very
easily assuming a certain percentage of savings following given conservation
practices, but even what you reference in terms of whether or not there is a
poorly functioning infrastructure in Carman, that will very quickly become
addressed just on a cost‑recovery basis if they are finding that they
cannot afford to keep the water in the pipe.
Ms. Cerilli: I guess just to emphasize again that that
should have been done, I would think, before Carman would be looking at this
kind of a diversion. I do not know if
that would be something that would have to come from their municipality, but I
would think that there would be that kind of direction from the provincial
government.
Another area that I wanted to deal with
still in terms of the diversion is why are we not having a joint review of this
project? It seems to me that it would
qualify because of its clear fulfilling of the federal guidelines in terms of a
EARP process, and it seems that on all three criteria that there should be
federal involvement. I know that the
minister said that there still is a chance that there will be federal
involvement. After seeing what other
projects similar to this have gone through under this government with the same
kind of pressure being applied, I do not‑‑hopefully, I am wrong.
Hopefully I will be proved wrong, but I would think that saving all of that and
with the work that the government has gone to in developing the amendment to
The Environment Act providing for joint assessment, I do not see why we are not
saving ourselves all of the bother with having the federal and the provincial
process and just having a joint assessment.
Mr. Cummings: Well, it simply is a reflection of the way
the law of the land is written today, that the federal authorities have a
responsibility to make a decision, and we have to make sure that we deal with
our responsibilities. I think it is very
unfair to compare this to Conawapa or to the North Transmission Line, when it
was very obvious that the federal responsibility was probably more significant
than our own in those projects in terms of the triggers that would require them
to become involved.
I suppose that one should point out that
it is actually very unlikely that there is a federal trigger, for lack of a
better word, to require them to come in at this point. If they were to commit dollars, and people
are making assumptions that they will, of course, but in terms of the decision‑making
process, there may not even be adequate reason to require them to do more than
to make a decision as to whether or not their concerns have been adequately
dealt with, and they will look at our process very carefully in that respect.
It is a confusing system. We do not have the new environment act in
place, because the regulations have not been written so that it can be
used. If it was in place and could be
used for this process, then it would be very clear. I dare say that the process would not be an
awful lot different than what we are embarked upon right now. The problem we have today is that the
decision‑making process, I do not think, is particularly clear.
The other unfairness that very often
arises about this debate‑‑and I thank you for not inserting it at
this point‑‑but the fact is that every time a comparison is made to
the two projects in the West‑‑Rafferty and Oldman‑‑and
saying, well, look what happened when you did not have the feds in, the bottom
line was that they erred in making the decision. They did not make the decision before the
work began, and we are not going to allow any work to occur until all of the
clearances are in place, provincial and federal. They will either screen it out or they will
have a hearing. That is entirely their
decision and we cannot make it for them.
It is not a clear‑cut process, but one should not lose sight of
the fact that the responsibility for natural resources was devolved to the
provinces in the, what, the late '30s, mid‑'30s, 1930? That is 60 years ago. So the fact that federal authority might have
some responsibility does not all of a sudden make them God and that everything
all of a sudden flows back to them in terms of making the decision.
The interim guidelines were set up as
guidelines to make sure that the federal authorities dealt with their
responsibilities, and it will be my job and the job of others in this
government to make sure that they adequately discharge their responsibilities
as well before we allow anything to happen on this project.
* (2310)
Mr. Brian Pallister (
Mr. Cummings: Well, that is exactly the issue in terms of
whether or not this water is seen to be going for some purpose other than for
domestic and industrial use or as to whether or not it is somehow of sufficient
volume so that it is going to have uses available far beyond its original
intent. While there are certainly lots
of people in southern
Therefore, if that is the concern that
people have, certainly I do not have any evidence that is what will occur. The fact is, however, that those who are
concerned about the project will continue to point to these types of issues
until we get all of the facts out in front of the Clean Environment Commission,
and that is where it will have to be aired because, believe me, I am on thin
ice every time I comment about anything in respect to anything other than
process in front of the Clean Environment Commission. It is the facts of the withdrawal and the
intentions behind it, really are something that I cannot comment much beyond
what I have already said.
Mr. Pallister: I think that to further clarify for the
benefit of the process, if the minister would, the concern is not just in terms
of some undisclosed motivations on the part of the proponents but also in terms
of this government. It has been implicit
again in questions in the House, whether in Question Period or in this process,
that there is somehow some motivation on the part of the government to carry
forward with this project, as the member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs)
alluded to in her earlier questions, regardless of the recommendations of the
Clean Environment Commission.
Is the minister aware of any such
motivations that hitherto have been undisclosed on the part of this government?
Mr. Cummings: There have been no commitments, verbal or
otherwise, in terms of completion of anything that has crossed my desk, but the
fact is that the process has to come first before the second part of the
decision‑making process can kick in.
If the proponents cannot achieve a licence, then they cannot apply to
PFRA or to any other sources of funding in order to be able to consummate the
deal, if you will.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, it is interesting hearing the member
for
Like other members in the House, I would
like to think that the Clean Environment Commission process is impartial and is
fair and is an example of participatory democracy, but when interveners have
less than two months to prepare when they are notified of the hearings, when
they do not have intervener funding‑‑and that is one of the main
reasons we want to have more federal processes for large projects such as this‑‑we
have to be skeptical. I think it is
legitimate that people are skeptical and ask all the right questions and ask
that all the information be made available.
That raises the issue I raised in the
House the other day in Question Period:
with the minister's authority to request all information that the PFRA
has be made public and available before the Clean Environment Commission
hearings. I, again, would be worried if
the minister would not use his full authority to make sure that all of that
information is available. We have heard
concerns of the city already, that there is not enough base‑line data,
that we are not going to have adequate information to assess the full impact of
the process.
We have the federal government. I am surprised to hear the minister say that
there may not be enough of a trigger.
They are, as far as I understand it, already committed to over $60
million for the project. We have the
PFRA which is in a process, I hope, of going through some screening of the
project, and to do that screening, they would have to be doing research and studies.
I would ask the minister: Is he in contact with the PFRA to understand
the research that they are doing on this project? Will he be in contact with
them to make sure that all of the material that they produce in their research
and the studies be made public and available for the Clean Environment
Commission?
Mr. Cummings: Madam Chairperson, first of all, our process
around Oak Hammock is not what is being questioned in court. The process that we are about to embark on
with Pembina Valley, however, there is no reason why the Clean Environment
Commission cannot require and there is no reason why it should not be able to
obtain any and all information that they believe is relevant. They do have the
power of subpoena, as I understand it. Therefore, there should not be any
information that is out there that would be useful to them that they would not
be able to get for the purposes of this hearing.
Ms. Cerilli: Why would the minister hesitate to use his
authority to ask the PFRA to make their information public?
Mr. Cummings: Madam Chairperson, it is not a matter of
hesitancy, I do not need to. The
commission can ask and will get the information. I am not going to predetermine the type of
inquiries that the Clean Environment Commission may want to embark upon now
that they have started on the process.
Ms. Cerilli: It just raises one to wonder why the
amendment was made so close to when this project was coming through. The minister must have known about this all
along, why the request would not be made by the minister. The minister is interested, I would think, in
having all of the information made public.
He has said that before.
* (2320)
My concern is that we are going to see
another situation where the timing of the release of the information is not
going to be‑‑that it will be made public during the hearings when
other interveners can have access to it.
I think that is one of the concerns.
So that would be all cleared up, and there would not be any of the kind
of suspicion or confusion if the minister would just make the request now,
while there is ample time of having it made public, so that all of those
concerned during the Clean Environment Commission process could have access to
that information.
Mr. Cummings: The Clean Environment process has to be kept
open and unimpeded to operate. To now
say that I should turn around and involve myself in saying they must look at
particular information from this particular angle, that is not the type of
requirements that we place before the commission in the proponent when we lay
out the guideline. We lay out the areas
of study for which information has to be prepared.
There is nothing to impede the Clean
Environment Commission from getting information. If they deem this information to be what they
want to see, then they can ask for it.
Ms. Cerilli: How could they not deem this
significant? This is the information, I
would think‑‑and I was going to ask the minister this as well, if
he knows of how far along the federal agency is and the federal departments are
in screening this project, because he seems to be indicating now that they may
not feel that they have to have a review on this project. He seems to think that it is not being
triggered. So I would just say, how
could they not think that it was necessary to look at the information that the
federal departments are researching related to the project? I mean, it only makes sense.
Mr. Cummings: Their process requires that they begin a
screening process, if there has been a trigger identified that would require
them to do so. They may well start a
screening process at some point. We have
said that we will not allow anything to occur on this project until all of the
provincial and federal requirements are satisfied. If one wishes to be hypothetical, we could
finish the Clean Environment Commission hearings and have to wait until the
federal authorities have decided what direction they would choose to go. They may in fact use the results of our
process. They may decide that has been
adequate. They may decide that there is
other information that they require. On
receiving that information, that could allow them to screen it out. I cannot predict what they will do, but this
is not the first time that we have been involved in this type of a situation.
It is a process that needs to be thrown
out. It is a process that shows what is
wrong with this, how you cannot govern this country. You cannot even adequately protect the
environment when you have this much confusion because, instead of debating the
environment, we are debating process, and that does not save one duck egg or a
frog. All it does is burn up a lot of
paper and time of everybody that is involved.
Until we get the new environment act in place and have some clarity to
this, we are just going to have to put up with the confusion.
The difference in the way
Ms. Cerilli: Well, the minister is right. He is the minister, and we are just going to
have to take his word for it, but I guess it is our job to try and raise the
issues. I agree that this federal
legislation is not adequate, and oftentimes it seems what happens is
governments hide behind the process that the minister is referring to‑‑
An Honourable Member: And critics use it to confuse things.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, no, I do not think we use it to confuse
the issue, critics. I think that what we
are trying to do is ensure that a process that is supposed to ensure
participation and information is followed, because we have seen in other
projects that has not happened, and that is just since I have been here.
One of the other questions that the
minister alluded to that I was going to ask is, with the new regulations or
legislation at the federal level, how would that change the assessment of this
particular project, especially since some people are thinking that that is what
we should be waiting for and some people think that maybe those changes would be
in place by the fall?
I do not think that they are going to do
anything with the federal election coming because they have managed to stall it
this long, but what would the minister see as the changes that would affect
this particular project? Would it be
guaranteed that there would be some kind of joint assessment, or it would be
for sure handled through the federal authorities?
Mr. Cummings: I cannot say precisely how it would be
different from the process that we are in today, but I can say that if the new
act were in place with the regulations attached to it that we would know at the
start what the process would be.
There would be none of this waiting in the
weeds, if you will, on the part of the federal authorities because this is
always invariably what causes the grief.
They cannot make a decision, but then when they do, they catch everybody
by surprise because they come along behind in terms of their decision‑making
process. Under the new act, my first
reaction was that it might well be fully delegated to the provincial process,
but that is probably not the case.
Whatever process it was going to have to
go through, this project, we would at least be able to decide first what the
process was and do it. This way we
cannot, and we have to proceed to take care of our own responsibilities as best
we can and hope that the work we have done is good enough to satisfy the
federal concerns and of any other concerns that they feel need to be answered
that they can get them answered adequately without going to a hearing or you
will end up with two processes.
Ms. Cerilli: So the other concern that I have, and I do
not claim to understand the federal changes to the act well enough, that I
think that the federal process is terribly flawed because it provides for this‑‑which
could be a perceived conflict of interest with the PFRA‑‑where they
are both the funders on the books. They
are going to be given more than $60 million to the project, and then again,
they are the agency that recommends if it is going to have the full federal
review or not.
Does the minister agree that this is a
problem when we are looking at protecting the environment? I will let him put his comments on the
record.
* (2330)
Mr. Cummings: I agree with the member's rationale that the
process is not working the way it should and that there is a better way to do
it and that is where we should be heading, but courts and others who wish to
scrap over principle more than perhaps environmental, questions of strictly
environmental degradation or protection, will continue to use and interpret the
guidelines as they are written today until a new law is in place.
Ms. Cerilli: Will the changes in the federal regulations
deal with that as it would affect this project?
Is that something that has been discussed at the federal ministers'
committee‑‑what is it called?
You know the one I mean, with all the ministers from the different
provinces.
Mr. Cummings: CCME?
Ms. Cerilli: Yes, that is the one.
Mr. Cummings: This project was not discussed specifically. I can tell you the hope for the new act is
that while there are some areas that the federal authorities take
responsibility for that clearly seem to infringe into provincial matters, at
least it will provide some clarity in process.
I do not think there is any one of us who would not prefer some clarity
to the situation where we cannot make decisions.
While we are not down to that bogged‑down
process again where we are not able to make decisions, there is a very
significant possibility that we will get into the area again of where we will
be waiting on the federal process to come to a conclusion before any decisions
can be made based on a licence or a lack of licence from the commission.
The problem we have is that the federal
authorities are working on the regulations and they are the aspect of the act
that will spell out some of the details as to process. It has taken three years to get this
far. I have been involved with it right
from the start, virtually, although there was a lot of work done in writing I
suppose before I became minister. It is
just like pushing molasses up a hill.
When it gets into the federal system‑‑it has literally taken
two years to get a bill through the federal system, and they still do not have
the regs for it.
Ms. Cerilli: Will the changes deal with this problem with
conflict with the federal agency that is funding or also has some other
involvement screening out projects?
Mr. Cummings: I have not seen the regulations or the most
recent version that is being worked on, but because there will be less
discretion there probably will be less of the type of conflict that you are
talking about.
Ms. Cerilli: One of the other concerns about this project
has had to do with the base‑line information on flow. The two issues, as I understand them, are
that the minimum flow is not agreed upon between the city and the province and
the proponent and the other is that the minimum flow for the project has been
year round and has not been based on the low estimates. Can the minister deal with both of
those? First let us deal with the issue
of the minimum flow.
Mr. Cummings: The Clean Environment Commission will deal
with the question of the amount of water that is available and what that means
in terms of flows.
I am starting into an area where I have
difficulty answering the questions because essentially the responsibility for
this regulation of that aspect lies with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.
Enns), plus I am the regulator in terms of the licence that may or may not flow
from their recommendations.
But I would invite the member to read
Hansard, and the responses of the Minister of Natural Resources, where he very
clearly indicated that the report that was in the newspaper was not correct
inasmuch as the two different figures that were referenced there, the 100 and
the 180, were numbers that were used for computer modelling and that they were
not part of what was designed to be a minimum or any other standard. They were used to lay out scenarios, and
people who are looking at that are putting a different interpretation on
it. I cannot answer any more questions
on that.
Ms. Cerilli: What is the number that the department deals
with in minimum flow coming into the city of
Mr. Cummings: I am going to simply answer this by saying
that the issue will have to be addressed in the assessment. The work that is being prepared for the Clean
Environment Commission will have to address these figures, but I have to remind
the member of what I said before, that this is not to be interpreted as having
been a minimum.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, there must be a minimum flow, and one
of the policy statements in the proposed policy also says: To also‑‑where is it here? I am going on this page‑‑to look
at establishing in‑stream flow levels for all water basins or all
rivers. So I think that there must be a
figure that is used by the department. I
think this is one of the ways that ministers and departments can be accused of
hiding behind process, when we say, well, it is going to be up to the Clean
Environment Commission to wriggle through all of this information. I mean the minister's staff is there. The department deals with the river every
day. So I think that even just putting
that kind of factual information on the record is reasonable.
Mr. Cummings: The numbers that we deal with are the numbers
that are in the reports that are available for the Clean Environment Commission
and are on the public registry right now.
I really look at this area, and when we
see concerns from the City of
The one thing that I fear from this debate
this evening is that I am going to start reading back some of my comments, that
somehow impairs my ability to react to the Clean Environment Commission report
when I receive it. I do not want to get
into the debate that properly belongs in front of the Clean Environment Commission.
* (2340)
Ms. Cerilli: I am not asking for context. I am just asking for flow numbers. I know that this question will be asked of
the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) in Estimates as well.
Mr. Cummings: We can provide information with which the
member can choose to do whatever she likes.
I do not have the specific information with me here at this moment to
answer the question, but we have the record of the flows. If I, however, make some comment that appears
to defend or prejudge what would be appropriate flows, I will have compromised
my position, and I cannot do that.
Ms. Cerilli: I am not asking for what is going to be set
to be an appropriate flow. I mean the
minister knows what the concern is. The
concern is that the flow has been reduced to allow for this project, the
minimum flow has been reduced, that level has been reduced, and right now we
have the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) inferring that the engineers
at the city are either misrepresenting the facts or are misinformed or are
outright lying. I mean that is what it
appears to be.
So I think it is legitimate that we should
try and just get factual information, and I do not think that this jeopardizes
what the Clean Environment Commission is going to do at all. I mean, they will be dealing with the same
facts, and I would think that the Department of Environment would know the
facts about what the allowable minimum flow or the allotted minimum flow of the
This is, I think, a very significant kind
of dispute that is going on right now. I
would agree that it is interesting that it has become more public only now, if,
as the city is saying, this was changed in August of 1991. But it is clear that the proponent for the
diversion is basing their proposal on a minimum flow of 100 cfs. Now is that the figure that the minister's
department uses on a day‑to‑day basis?
Mr. Cummings: The Department of Environment does not
regulate the flows of this river or any other one. That is handled by the Department of Natural
Resources. They may respond to licences
that we may impose as a result of hearings or usages that have required
hearings, and they might be required to maintain flow or volumes in some bodies
of water.
But if one looks to page 3510 of last
Friday's Hansard and looks at the answer of the Minister of Natural Resources
(Mr. Enns) regarding the water levels and the volumes in the river, then that
is the answer to the question.
I think the Minister of Natural Resources
presented his position and adequately explained the response of the Department
of Natural Resources. When we are
talking about volumes in the river, that is the page she should look at.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, I would say that the department does deal
with flow on a day‑to‑day basis when they issue licences that are
going to affect the minimum flow from the river. If the minister wants he can refer to the
Minister of Natural Resources' (Mr. Enns) comments and give me an answer based
on that, but I think this is a significant issue in respect to this project,
and I think it is legitimate for me to ask that there be some response.
Mr. Cummings: Madam Chairperson, I have never thought of
myself as being unwilling to answer questions, but I am even more unwilling,
however, to put myself in a position where I somehow compromise and prejudge
what the commission may recommend. I
would more than enjoy getting into an argument about what flows are available
in the river, but I am not going to enter into that debate. I am sorry if it disappoints the member not
getting the answers to the questions that she thinks she should receive, but I
think it is more important that I be able to receive whatever recommendations
come from the commission and then allow the department officials to see whether
or not those matters can be quantified in any possible licence.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, the commission's task in this case is
not to determine what the minimum flow of the river is coming into the city of
Mr. Cummings: I am trying to put this as delicately as I
can, but they will be assessing the withdrawal in the context of what is
available. They are looking at the
impacts along the river and we are just going to have to wait until that debate
has evolved. I do not think that we can
settle it here, nor should we even think in terms of whether or not we can
settle it here. If the member wishes to score some political points, that is
fine, but the ability of us to sit here without having the information from the
Department of Natural Resources, without having a whole lot of other
information that will be brought together in front of the independent
commission, I think we are simply spinning our wheels. I would encourage all of us to look to the
hearings and see what may transpire there.
Ms. Cerilli: I do not have any further questions on this topic.
I would recommend that we call it midnight.
Mr. Cummings: Is it the intention of the opposition to
leave the Sustainable Development Fund for another opportunity?
I am not suggesting you should do it
tonight, but I assume we are agreed that the Sustainable Development Fund and
questions on that will be scheduled sometime, at the agreement of the House
leaders, at a future date.
Ms. Cerilli: I was intending just to deal with that after
we finish the departmental Estimates for the Environment department. Now, I understand the minister is not going
to be available tomorrow. So we are
going to have to just continue on when he is back, I guess, the following week,
since this is also a short week this week.
What I was planning to do was that we
would just continue on after this department.
If he wants to make other arrangements of that, we can talk about it
after.
Mr. Cummings: There is one matter that I could add to the
record, Madam Chairperson. It has to do
with the treatment of the Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation and
whether or not this is being responded to.
I think I put on the record earlier that
there were 8,000 and‑‑confused between two figures of 8,000 and
4,000 generators. There are 4,000 potential generators of hazardous waste in
the province. I think I used that figure
interchangeably with the fact that we have 8,000 storage tanks and locations of
storage in the province. So I want to
make sure I did not leave somebody with the impression that we had 8,000
generators of hazardous waste out there.
We have some 8,000 sites where storage occurs of fuels and other
petroleum products. Thank you.
* (2350)
Madam Chairperson: Shall item 2.(b) pass? Pardon me.
Ms. Cerilli: No, we are not passing it. We are just going to recess.
Mr. Cummings: Call it twelve o'clock then?
Ms. Cerilli: That is what we just said, we would call it
twelve.
Madam Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to call it
twelve o'clock? [agreed]
As previously agreed, the hour being 12 a.m.,
committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Madam Deputy Speaker
(Louise Dacquay): As previously agreed, the hour being 12 a.m.,
this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow
(Tuesday).
Erratum
On
Monday, May 31, 1993, Volume No. 73A, page 3555, right‑hand column, Mr.
Alcock's first and fourth comments should read:
Mr. Alcock: So when we are talking here though about image‑and‑voice
transmission, we are really talking about a video capability for Distance
Education as opposed to an internal LAN connection. The second would be exciting. The first is ordinary.
Mr. Alcock: The LAN that is being referenced here, is this
part of the Wang system that is being built around government or is this a
separate system internal to the department?
If so, what is the backbone?