LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday,
July 7, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
David Carr, Louise Tetrault, Carmelle Tetrault and others requesting the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental
Program to the level it was prior to the '93‑94 budget.
* * *
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Karen Rayter, Susan Bush, Lynne Cantor and others requesting the Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) to consider restoring funding for the
Student Social Allowances Program.
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Bertha Rogowski, Jennifer Senenko, Marguerite How and others requesting the
Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) to consider restoring funding of
the Student Social Allowances Program.
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Gail Johnston, Virginia Snyder, Wayne Hughes and others requesting the Minister
of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) to consider restoring funding of the
Student Social Allowances Program.
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Nola McBurney, Pat Osmond, Errol Harris and others requesting the Minister of
Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) to consider restoring funding to the Student
Social Allowances Program.
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member (Mr. Dewar). It complies with the
privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules (by
leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS there is a very serious solvent
abuse problem in northern
WHEREAS according to the RCMP over 100
crimes in Thompson alone in 1992 were linked to solvent abuse; and
WHEREAS there are no facilities to deal
with solvent abuse victims in northern
WHEREAS for over three years, the
provincial government failed to proclaim the private member's anti‑sniff
bill passed by the Legislature and is now proposing to criminalize minors
buying solvents even though there are no treatment facilities in northern
WHEREAS for nine years, the 25 Chiefs who
comprise the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, supported by medical officials,
police and the area Member of Parliament, have proposed a pilot treatment
project known as the Native Youth Medicine Lodge; and
WHEREAS successive federal Ministers of Health
have failed to respond to this issue with a commitment; and
WHEREAS the
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Lathlin). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?
(agreed)
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS there is a very serious solvent
abuse problem in northern
WHEREAS according to the RCMP over 100
crimes in Thompson alone in 1992 were linked to solvent abuse; and
WHEREAS there are no facilities to deal
with solvent abuse victims in northern
WHEREAS for over three years, the
provincial government failed to proclaim the private member's anti‑sniff
bill passed by the Legislature and is now proposing to criminalize minors
buying solvents even though there are no treatment facilities in northern
WHEREAS for nine years, the 25 Chiefs who
comprise the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, supported by medical officials,
police and the area Member of Parliament, have proposed a pilot treatment project
known as the Native Youth Medicine Lodge; and
WHEREAS successive federal Ministers of
Health have failed to respond to this issue with a commitment; and
WHEREAS the
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* (1335)
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Chomiak). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House, and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon
the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out
the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has
been in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
PRESENTING
REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mr. Bob Rose
(Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Fourth
Report of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Law Amendments
presents the following as its Fourth Report.
Your committee met on Monday, July 5,
1993, at 9 a.m. and on Tuesday, July 6, 1993, at 9 a.m. in Room 255 of the
Your committee heard representation on
Bill 16, The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la
Loi sur les ecoles publiques,
as follows:
Ms. Betty Green ‑
Your committee has considered:
Bill 16‑‑The Public Schools
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles publiques
and
has agreed to report the same without amendment.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. Rose: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), that the report of the
committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Seventh
Report of the Standing Committee on Economic Development.
Mr. Clerk: Your Standing Committee on Economic Development
presents the following as its Seventh Report.
Your committee met on Tuesday, June 15,
1993, at 10 a.m. in Room 255 and Tuesday, July 6, 1993, at 9 a.m. in Room 254
of the
Mr. Jim Clarke, chairperson, and Mr. Ian
Haugh, president, provided such information as was requested with respect to
the Annual Report and business of Manitoba Mineral Resources Ltd.
Your committee has considered the Annual
Report of Manitoba Mineral Resources Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 1992,
and has adopted the same as presented.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. Reimer: I move, seconded by the honourable member for
St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
* (1340)
TABLING OF
REPORTS
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to table the Annual Report of the Teachers' Retirement
Allowances Fund Board for 1992.
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I am tabling today the
Twenty‑second Annual Report of the Law Reform Commission of
INTRODUCTION
OF BILLS
Bill 55‑The
Legislative Assembly Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister
of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Bill 55, The Legislative Assembly Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant la Loi
sur l'Assemblee legislative et apportant des modifications correlatives a une
autre loi), be introduced
and the same now be received and read a first time.
His Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor,
having been advised of the contents of this bill, recommends it to the
House. I would like to table the
message.
Motion agreed to.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
APM
Management Consultants
Contract
Approval
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy
Premier (Mr. Downey).
Mr. Speaker, today, evidence is being
produced by nurses from
They have gone on to say that results of
the, quote, slash‑and‑burn policies of Connie Curran have reduced
patient care, reduced patient care to even a system in the
I would like to know from the Deputy
Premier why the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of this province had three different
departments approve this contract‑‑one, the Treasury Board, two,
the Lotteries department with the Lotteries minister, and, three, the Minister
of Health.
Who was protecting the people of
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, yes, I
understand the Manitoba Nurses'
Mr. Speaker, I am rather appreciative of
the fact that they have been commenting on at least one of the public airwaves,
because I think Manitobans will be interested in hearing what they have to
say. I know that given the right to
know, that a number of people believe is appropriate in today's environment,
possibly the other side of the story or the other information that no doubt is
part of their concerns will be shared, possibly from the management of those
two hospitals.
I have come to learn, and I know my
honourable friend the New Democrat also knows this, that for every story there
is often more than what is stated, another side, another perspective, and, of
course, that will be most informative when that right to know is exercised for
Manitobans.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the managers of
hospitals who hired this person would have a rather similar approach as the
Minister of Health, making bad decisions and defending them day after day after
day, because whom we trust are the people at the bedside who are working with
the patients in
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the
Deputy Premier (Mr.
I would like to know why cabinet itself
approved this contract, Mr. Speaker, when, according to the nurses today, the
only thing that was changed with the contract in
I would like to know why they approved it,
and I would like to know from the head of government, rather than the Minister
of Health's defensive answers.
* (1345)
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, do you know that during the
Estimates process this year, at approximately 2:30 on Monday afternoon, I tabled
the contracts with St. Boniface and with Health Sciences Centre?
I put on the record‑‑and I
will do it again today if my honourable friend the New Democratic Leader would
care for me to do so. I invited members
of the New Democratic Party‑‑particularly the critic who seems to
be unable to tell us what New Democrats would do should they be governing the
I did that very deliberately so my
honourable friends could take that evening from eight o'clock on to discuss
those contracts and their implications, could take Tuesday next, Thursday next,
even this past Monday to discuss those.
But you know what, Sir? The
Committee of Estimates in Health concluded its deliberation at 10 to five with
not one question on those contracts coming from the NDP.
Of course, today, when the Manitoba
Nurses' Union has managed to find two people on a journey down to
I have a responsibility to assure that
health care needs are met in the
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) this question, because three different departments in government
had to approve this contract, Treasury Board, Lotteries and Health. The Premier is the chair of all of those
departments through cabinet, and he had to approve this American consultant
coming up to
I would like to ask the Premier, would he
now, in light of the fact‑‑(interjection) The member for
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has
consistently stated that Connie Curran, through her contracts, will allow
nurses to spend more time with patients.
Nurses who have been involved and who have been through the Connie Curran
process in the
I would like the Premier to now say why he
approved this contract, and would he agree to join many Manitobans who want to
cancel this contract with the American consultant? We do not want to Americanize our health care
system, Mr. Speaker. We want to reform
it the Canadian way, not the American way.
* (1350)
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I am quite amused with my
honourable friend the New Democratic Leader because absent today is the member
for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), who wanted us to Americanize mammography
in the
Now, Mr. Speaker‑‑
Point of
Order
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Just for the benefit of the honourable minister and indeed for all
honourable members, we do not make any sort of reflection on the fact whether a
member is here or not.
* * *
Mr. Orchard: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that
reference, but there is not a consistency with the New Democrats, is the point
I am trying to make.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the reason we made the
decision, knowing that this kind of reaction would naturally flow from the New
Democrats, was because the senior management of both hospitals, both St.
Boniface and Health Sciences Centre and their respective boards, encouraged
government to be a partner in the engagement of this consultant, to bring together
expertise, knowledge and to process change which will help them meet two
agendas‑‑maintain quality and volume of health care in their
respective institutions and recognize that we are still operating in the
So the patient was at the centre of this,
as in all of our reform, to assure that the changes we make allow us to
maintain for years in the future the ability to deliver needed health care services
in the most equitable and economic fashion possible, with the patients' service
to be at the centre of all changes, Sir, not as my honourable friend alleges.
APM
Management Consultants Justification
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): The Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), his
usual consistent self, refused to answer all three questions, as did the
Premier, who refused to answer those questions.
Perhaps he will answer this question.
What kind of sick priorities does this
government have when they can pay $3.9 million, plus $800,000, to a
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting for me, as
somebody who speaks with leaders across the country and has just had an
opportunity to meet with New Democratic Premiers from
They have taken the position that in order
to preserve medicare, we are going to have to dramatically change it, otherwise
we cannot afford it. That means saving
money. Saving money means in the long
run fewer people. That means fewer
people working in health care in
There is no magic solution. You cannot keep it going if everybody wants
more money and more jobs in health care.
You cannot do it. Only the irresponsibility
of New Democrats in the Manitoba Legislature will be the ones who will say that
you can do that.
Mr. Speaker, they go out day after day and
tell people they can have all of those things.
No government in this country, no New Democratic government, no Liberal
government and no Conservative government can continue to spend the amount of
money we have been spending on health care.
It is as simple as that.
So you have to change it. You have to reform it and you have to make
changes that people like the New Democrats here in this Legislature can use for
cheap political points, but the fact of the matter is it has to be done. It has to be done with a plan, with a
program, with competent people to look at it, and that is exactly what the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) is doing with his department.
APM
Management Consultants
CostSaving
Target
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): My supplementary is to the Premier (Mr.
Filmon), Mr. Speaker.
The highest paid person in health care
today is Connie Curran at $3.9 million plus $800,000 expenses. You could start with her, Mr. Premier.
My supplementary question for the Premier
is, why did this Premier allow a contract to be signed that has a clause in it
that says any savings entered and made by the hospitals‑‑there are
clauses in this contract‑‑savings made by the hospitals of St.
Boniface and Health Sciences Centre will go into Connie Curran's kitty for her
benefit and her payment?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, again,
the member for Kildonan is inaccurate in what he says, but that is not
unusual. My honourable friend the member
for Kildonan has the contract in his hands.
* (1355)
Point of
Order
Mr. Chomiak: On a point of order, from his seat, the
Premier said I was a liar. Can the
Premier please point out for us where we are lying in terms of this contract?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order,
clearly when he says that the savings go to Connie Curran, that is an untruth,
and that is what the member does all the time, puts falsehoods on the record.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Kildonan, the
Chair did not hear the remarks the honourable member for Kildonan alleges the
honourable First Minister has made.
The honourable First Minister had an
opportunity to correct the record, and from the Chair's point of view, I cannot
rule on a matter that I did not hear.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health, to finish
with his response.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, the member for Kildonan doth
protest too much, because the member for Kildonan said the savings at St.
My honourable friend the New Democrat is
not guided by necessarily always indicating what is in the contract. The contract states clearly that there will
be a target of savings at St. Boniface General Hospital of $20 million. That is a minimum savings to be achieved.
Mr. Speaker, those savings will be based
from the 1992‑93 base‑line year so that we have a method of
calculating, because should they not be accomplished, then the holdback unique
to this contract‑‑contrary to a statement made by the Leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Doer), the uniqueness is to hold back funds and not pay the
contract unless those deliverables are there; i.e., a $20‑million saving
to the hospital and to the taxpayers of
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, can the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
therefore answer the final supplementary?
Can the Premier indicate why Section
3(1)(c) of the contract states all changes in the cost structure since the '92‑93
revenue base will be eligible to count toward the target, and therefore to Connie
Curran's cuts and therefore to her salary, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that
eventually if you shine the light on a certain animal, they will eventually
scurry, and we just put the light on the member for Kildonan, who two questions
ago stood up in this House and said the savings on the Connie Curran suggested
restructuring process will go to Connie Curran.
Now, my honourable friend has finally told
the truth, that in fact the savings will go toward the target of $20 million
from the 1992 base line, and that is consistent at Health Sciences Centre as
well, so that we have an ability as government to measure the effectiveness of
the restructuring within those hospitals.
My friend the New Democrat will also quote
that both hospitals, the consultant Connie Curran and the government are
committed to maintaining the quality and level of service in those hospitals
while achieving these kinds of savings‑‑exactly where we should be,
protecting health care, protecting the taxpayers of
Federated
Co‑operatives Ltd.
Impact
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): My question is for
the Minister of Finance.
Just a couple of weeks ago in the
Legislature of
Mr. Speaker, the connection, the very real
connection to
My specific question to the minister: Given that the Deloitte and Touche statement
on the proposal and the ramifications of what the government of
Now, Mr. Speaker, what discussions has
this minister had with the
* (1400)
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, within the last two weeks,
we have had a delegation to our caucus from Federated Co‑op, obtaining
first‑hand views of members of the co‑op here in
Certainly it is our fundamental belief
that this issue should be resolved on the basis of negotiation and not on the
basis of basically expropriation in terms of what we are seeing in the
legislation in
The member says some $8 million or $9
million of dividends flow into the economy of
That is the best thing they could be
doing, Mr. Speaker.
Federated
Co‑operatives Ltd.
Impact
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I had
the opportunity this morning to meet with representatives from the co‑op
movement. I heard the Leader of the New
Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) here indicate they are in negotiations and the
minister says that.
Negotiations have broken off, I am
advised. In fact, the legislation has
been passed. It has not been proclaimed,
but negotiations have broken off. Mr.
Speaker, this legislation has not been proclaimed. It will have a devastating effect to the co‑op
movement and the thousands of Manitobans who rely on those revenues.
My question for the Premier is: Has he had a Premier‑to‑Premier
discussion on this very important issue, given his answer to the last questions
in which he indicated he meets with them on a regular basis? Has he had that discussion? Has he told Mr. Romanow that this is an unconscionable
act?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I might say
that in discussion with the caucus and the representatives of the co‑op
movement in
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the minister has indicated that
the co‑op movement is asking for thousands of Manitobans to protest this
to the
Mr. Speaker, will the Premier reconsider
his decision not to make that direct contact and perhaps put his wonderful
relationship with these Premiers at risk on this important issue, and stand up
for rural Manitobans who get those millions of dollars each year?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I know the Leader of the Liberal
Party is not used to consulting with people and listening to people who are
affected and following their advice, but we will follow their advice, and we
will be guided by what they prefer us to do.
Tertiary
Care Program
Consolidation
Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis
(
Mr. Speaker, there are so many studies and
reviews and task forces out there, we have lost count and Manitobans are
concerned. We have Connie Curran. We have the
I want to ask the Minister of Health if he
would give us some understanding of where all these different studies fit,
beginning by telling us, what is the status of this tertiary care program consolidation
which makes big recommendations, and where does it fit?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, that
information was provided to the New Democrats in Estimates. Now, I realize my honourable friend is no
longer the critic, but she might consult with her colleague the member for
Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), wherein he posed that question and the answer was
given. I do not know whether they have
those discussions or not. Maybe they do
not consult with one another.
Mr. Speaker, I will stand by the process
of consultation, of wide representation, of involving expertise in
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, we would not be asking these
questions if we had ever been able to get any answers in Estimates.
I want to ask the Minister of Health: Who will be making the decision around these
very serious recommendations in this tertiary care program review, particularly
the recommendation to consolidate all cardiac surgery at one hospital, the
Health Sciences Centre?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend commented
about never giving answers in Estimates this year. My honourable friend would not know because
my honourable friend never attended Estimates this year.
Point of
Order
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister of Health is
out of order for commenting on attendance during Estimates when he knows full
well that I have been in Estimates on numerous occasions. I have also followed every word he has
uttered in Estimates, because I would certainly not want to miss the thrill of
listening and hearing‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
On the point of order raised, the honourable member does not have a
point of order. It is clearly a dispute
over the facts.
I have already advised the honourable
minister as to the presence or the absence of members.
* * *
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend makes an
interesting point. If she did hear every
word, then why did she pose the question to which I have already given the
answer in Estimates?
My honourable friend cannot have it both
ways like New Democrats try to have in opposition versus New Democrats in
government.
An Honourable
Member: You do not have it right
yet. That is your problem.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I did not know cement had such
loud voices.
Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend the ex‑critic
of Health for the New Democrats is now saying that it is wrong to have our two
teaching hospitals collaborate on program consolidation, wherein we will have
one program head, one program leadership to avoid duplication across the
system, to foster co‑operation across the system, to use the resources of
both teaching hospitals in a more equitable and cost‑effective fashion to
deliver more, not less care and to save the taxpayers money. My honourable friend says we should not do
that. Well, I disagree with her.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: These studies cost hundreds of millions of
dollars in addition to the $3.9 million for Connie Curran. (interjection) You
start adding them up.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
I remind the honourable member for
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Maybe if I zero in on a specific issue out of
this report, I would like to ask the Minister of Health, how does the tertiary
care program review, which does make recommendations on trauma and trauma
centres, fit with the report we hear is to be released any day from Moe Lerner
on emergency services, which is going to be apparently recommending the
closure, despite all recommendations to the contrary, of the emergency ward at
Misericordia Hospital between the hours of midnight and eight in the morning?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, again, you know, there will
probably be a quotation somewhere that these studies are costing hundreds of
millions of dollars, because those were the first words to exit my honourable
friend's mouth and then quickly retracted because she knew how out of line her
comments were. That is how these sorts
of things get going with irresponsible comments like that, not intentional, but
sort of routine.
Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend, in
part, has an answer to her question. As
has been my system since we started investigating and bringing experts to
advise us on system‑wide change, I do not comment on interim
reports. I only comment when I have
received final reports and government has decided whether to implement in part
or in whole or not at all the recommendations that are forthcoming.
My honourable friend said that we are
expecting a report shortly from Dr. Moe Lerner.
That is correct. That is
information I gave to the New Democrats in the process of Estimates.
When I receive that report, we understand
its recommendations and we decide on what is usable, doable, and achievable for
the betterment of the health care system, I will make those announcements with
full justification of the reasons why, Sir.
* (1410)
Justice
System
Maintenance
Payment Enforcement
Ms. Becky Barrett (
I would like to share and ask a question
of the Minister of Justice on a particular issue. There is a woman in the
I would like to ask the Minister of
Justice if he can provide for us, and this woman in particular, if he can
explain why the nonenforcement of these warrants is allowed to go on for over
six months, as in this particular woman's situation?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I
would certainly attempt to get whatever information I could relative to this
particular case to the honourable member.
Our Maintenance Enforcement Program was
pioneered right here in
If the honourable member wants to give me
further information, I will certainly try to track down whatever information is
available.
Ms. Barrett: Can the Minister of Justice explain why, and
what policy is being followed in this type of incident, when, according to The
Provincial Police Act, he is, and I am quoting: " . . . to monitor police
services for the purpose of ensuring that adequate and effective policing is
maintained both municipally and provincially."?
Why does this woman have to wait six
months for a warrant that was duly issued to be served on her husband, and what
is she supposed to do, and the women like her, in the meantime?
Mr. McCrae: If the honourable member has information that
might be helpful as to the whereabouts of the subject of this warrant, let us
know and we will alert the police departments immediately.
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, the particular case in question
has been answered. Letters have gone
forward to the Minister of Justice in this case. The Minister of Justice knows the warrant was
issued. The woman‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Ms. Barrett: Can the Minister of Justice explain to the House
why, given the fact that this woman has alerted the police department as to her
ex‑husband's address and current place of employment, the warrant is
still not issued? How long do these
women have to wait? When the minister
specifically‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has put her question.
Mr. McCrae: Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, a last‑known
address is tracked down, and no one is found there. That may well be the case here.
As I say to the honourable member, I would
be happy to ascertain if the whereabouts of this person is known, and if that
is the case, then I would certainly be asking police departments why indeed
they have not moved sooner to take action on the warrant in question.
But the fact the honourable member has an
address does not necessarily mean we are able to find the person at that
address, but, as I say, I will make whatever information I have available to
the honourable member.
Home Care
Program
Housekeeping
Services
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, I would refer the Minister of
Health to his health reform Action Plan, where he states under the first
principle that "every major action and policy of government will be
evaluated in terms of its implications for the health of Manitobans."
Mr. Speaker, we have heard recently of the
Minister of Health's shift in focus with homemaking services no longer being
available for a number of individuals in the city of
The Minister of Health did not answer the
question in Estimates about tabling any type of analysis, and I would ask the
minister today, and give him an opportunity in Question Period, if he could in
fact table any analysis or any evaluation of how this shift in Home Care policy
is actually cost‑effective and efficacious.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my
honourable friend is saying a shift in policy.
My honourable friend, if she is going to use that terminology, ought to
quantify when that shift commenced, and that was in 1985 under the NDP led by
Howard Pawley.
Now what gives me confidence, Sir, that
this shift of having the housecleaning and laundry no longer a routine part of
the Home Care service provision, is the confidence from our Home Care staff
that since its inception in 1985, when seniors have been purchasing those
services and not being provided free of charge by Home Care, there has not been
a compromise of those individual seniors so asked to pay for it since 1985 nor
of their ability to live independently.
That change because of Support Services to
Seniors brought in by Howard Pawley and the NDP has worked and worked to the
extent that we have continued the program, Sir.
Alternative
Services
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): If the Minister of Health is so confident,
then I would wonder why Home Care staff throughout this province are calling
MLAs and expressing extreme concern about this change in policy.
I would ask the Minister of Health: Can he tell this House, for those individuals
who cannot afford any type of private service and are in need of a homemaking
service, what provisions will be made to ensure that they are able to access
the service if they cannot afford it?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister
of Health): Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that, since
1985, if those circumstances were evident by the Continuing Care staff who make
those assessments, the service would be continued to be provided at taxpayers'
expense. It is a judgment call because in the Home Care Program, we do not have
a means test for accessing the program.
If my honourable friend the Liberal is
suggesting we means‑test those clients for Home Care, then I wish she
would be more direct and make that suggestion up front instead of sideways,
Sir.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, the minister is wrong in that
answer.
Minister's
Communication Strategy
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): With the third question to the minister, will
he tell this House why there has been little, if no communication to
organizations, groups and individuals affected by this shift in policy? In fact, when the Manitoba League and people
are phoning the Home Care department and asking what exactly the policy is and
who will be affected, they do not get an answer.
Will the Minister of Health clarify this
chaos, apparently, in the Home Care Program?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
understand there is concern out there.
Naturally, there would be concern when some of the public presentation
of information leads one to believe that the entire Home Care Program is being
cancelled. (interjection)
My honourable friend the member for
Crescentwood said, clarify it, and I have, Sir, by saying we intend to spend
$68 million on Home Care this year, not cancel the program, as some would
believe.
There was another rumour out there, that
this homemaking service was discontinued as of July 1. That, Sir, was false. It is September 3. We are doing the assessments from now until
then.
There was another false rumour out there,
that there would be 1,500 layoffs in the Home Care system. That was not correct either, Sir.
Now, what is happening is exactly what has
happened since 1985 when the Howard Pawley administration brought in a policy,
a new program called Support Services to Seniors, and the same assessment
process will take place by the same professionals, guided by the same ability
to make decisions on service as before.
Let me assure my honourable friend that
Manitobans will be well served by $68 million‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
* (1420)
Roblin Day
Nursery
Operating
Grant
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, prior to 1991, the Minister of
Family Services provided a grant to cover the cost of auditing financial statements
of nursery schools. Reorganization in
1991 resulted in changes, with the minister providing an operating grant that
was supposed to cover all of the expenses. Now an audit is required if the
grant is more than $5,000.
Can the Minister of Family Services tell
us how this policy applied to the Roblin day nursery whose grant was less than
$5,000 in '91‑92, excluding the children with disabilities program grant?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, in 1991, there was a change in some of the daycare funding, where we
had a myriad of grants that were given to daycares in prior years. At that time, the grants were collapsed into
one grant to daycare.
At the same time, there was a dramatic
increase in the subsidies that were paid to daycares. As a result of that, daycares, in their
funding, had to make determinations on expenses from within the monies they
were accessing.
They access money through the grant
system, through the subsidy system and also through the parent fees which they
collect from people who are using the daycare.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a particular
problem at the Roblin day nursery.
I would like to ask the minister if he
will investigate, since they have been following the department's policies and
since they have written to him and he has not replied, and the MLA for that
area has promised to help his constituents but has not. Will the minister look into it and report
back to me?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is falling
into the same trap as some of his colleagues.
He is not giving an accurate picture of what has happened. I have responded to the daycare in question. They have since written to me again, and we
are reviewing the situation, but I did give them a response to the particular
question.
I would say to the honourable member, I
hope this is just a small slip in emulating some of his colleagues and that he
will not make these mistakes in the future.
Flooding
Problems
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
The question I have is: Is this government willing to make a
commitment that they are going to look at long‑term solutions to this
problem, particularly at the government drain that is the cause of the problem
in the Minitonas area? Will they make a
commitment to look at the headwater storage plan that was in place prior to
this government coming into place? Will
they look at some long‑term solutions to flooding problems in the area?
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, some 40 years ago, this city of
Mr. Speaker, without question, if there
was a political will exhibited the same as was exhibited to resolve the 1950
flooding problems of
Mr. Speaker, my experience has been just
the opposite. We cannot even think about
resolving those issues because of the political climate today.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Speaker's
Rulings
Mr. Speaker: I have a ruling for the House. (interjection)
Order, please. The honourable Minister of Natural Resources
(Mr. Enns), you had an opportunity to answer the question. Question Period time
has expired. Now we are going to do our
ruling.
On June 23, 1993, during debate on Bill
32, The Social Allowances Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'aide
sociale,
the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) rose on a point of order
regarding words spoken by the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
I took the matter under advisement in
order to review Hansard to determine what was said. I believe the words spoken by the honourable
member for Burrows to which the Minister of Health took exception were: " . . . because this government does not
believe in child care anyway. Many of the
ministers of cabinet do not believe in it, and we know that because daycare
centre directors are meeting with the member for Morris (Mr. Manness) and the
member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard), and we hear what they say in these
meetings."
The Minister of Health did not have a
point of order. What we have is a
dispute over the facts. The honourable
member for Burrows stated that the Ministers of Health and of Finance were not
supportive of daycare. The Minister of
Health took exception to that.
I would like to remind members that this
is a place in which controversy is to be expected, and with it a limited use of
discourteous or unflattering words and phrases will occur from time to
time. But I am sure we will get along
much better if clearly unparliamentary words and phrases are avoided by all
members. Therefore, I would like to
suggest to all honourable members that they should choose their language with
care.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: At this time I am going to do another ruling.
On July 6, 1993, the honourable member for
I am ruling that the matter raised by the
honourable member for
Further, I would remind the House of my
ruling of June 2, 1989, when events which occurred during a meeting of a
committee were raised in the House as an alleged matter of privilege. I ruled at that time that the opinion of the
Speaker cannot be sought in the House about any matter arising in a committee
and that it is not competent for the Speaker to exercise procedural control
over committees. According to our rules,
questions of order in the Committee of Supply must be settled in the Committee
of Supply.
The proper course of action for the
honourable member for
Committee
Changes
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), that the composition of the
Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: St. Boniface (Mr.
Gaudry) for
I move, seconded by the member for
Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Public Accounts be amended as follows:
St. James (Mr. Edwards) for Osborne (Mr. Alcock).
I move, seconded by the member for Crescentwood
(Ms. Gray), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities
and Natural Resources be amended as follows:
Motions agreed to.
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Niakwa): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Law Amendments for Wednesday, July 7, at 7 p.m. be amended as follows: Arthur‑Virden (Mr. Downey) for
Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh); Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) for La Verendrye (Mr.
Sveinson); Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) for Riel (Mr. Ducharme).
Also, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing
Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources for Wednesday, July 7, at 7
p.m. be amended as follows:
Motions agreed to.
House
Business
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on House
business before Orders of the Day, I would like to make the following
announcements with respect to House business.
The Standing Committee on Public Accounts
scheduled for tomorrow morning is now cancelled. The Standing Committee on Law Amendments
which will be meeting tomorrow at 9 a.m. to consider Bill 32, I am calling that
committee to also sit tomorrow at 7 p.m. to further consider Bill 32.
Mr. Speaker, I am giving notice to the
House that if there are a significant number of bills passed today, that I will
be calling another committee to hear those bills tomorrow evening.
Mr. Speaker, would you call bills in the
following order: Bill 41, Bill 37, Bills 10, 33 and 2 at this point.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
DEBATE ON
SECOND
Bill 41‑The
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the
honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), Bill 41, The Provincial
Parks and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant les
parcs provinciaux et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois, standing
in the name of the honourable member for
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that the matter remain
standing? (agreed)
Bill 37‑The
Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment and Consequential Amendments
Act
* (1430)
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister responsible for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation (Mr.
Cummings), Bill 37, The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la
Societe d'assurance publique du Manitoba et apportant des modifications
correlatives a d'autres lois, standing in the name of the honourable member for
Transcona (Mr. Reid).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that that matter remain standing? (agreed)
Bill 10‑The
Farm Lands Ownership Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), Bill 10, The Farm Lands Ownership Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la propriete
agricole et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois, standing in the
name of the honourable member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray). Stand?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No?
Leave is denied.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface):
Mr. Speaker, the member for Crescentwood (Ms.
Gray) adjourned debate so that I could speak on this bill.
Mr. Speaker: I have given the honourable member for St.
Boniface the floor.
Mr. Gaudry: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand
to speak today on Bill 10, The Farm Lands Ownership Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act. I will be the only
speaker in our caucus to speak on this bill, so it can go to committee.
Mr. Speaker, given today's economic
climate and the difficulties many
The proposed legislation changes the
definition of family farm corporation from requiring that two‑thirds of
the majority of issued and outstanding shares are to be legally and
beneficially owned by farmers. Mr.
Speaker, I realize, like the member for
Mr. Speaker, it appears that the act is
being amended to meet with current practice with respect to the remission of
land transfer taxes for family farm corporations. We have to move with the times, and I feel
the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
The deleting of the board's requirement of
presenting separate annual reports of its activities is in my view a good
move. How cost‑effective this will
be remains to be seen. Since the board's
activities are already included in the department's annual report, what purpose
does it really have to be presented separately?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a
concern with respect to the recent development, where the Manitoba Agricultural
Credit Corporation was prompted to reduce young farmers' rebates and introduce
loan application fees. As of April 1, in
the press release, the rebate available to farmers between the ages of 18 and
39 has been set at 2 percent of the first $100,000 borrowed to a maximum of
$10,000 for the first five years of the loan.
My concern with this is that it is working against family farms staying
in the family. The decrease is not
encouraging our young farmers to stay and manage the family farm. Why was it not possible to keep the rebate at
4 percent on the first $100,000, as it was in the past?
Mr. Speaker, we look forward to having
this bill go to committee, and we reserve our questions and concerns for
further debate when it goes to committee, shortly, I hope.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 10, The Farm Lands Ownership Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la propriete
agricole et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois.
Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members:
Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: That is agreed and so ordered.
Bill 33‑The
Provincial Railways and Consequential Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), Bill 33, The Provincial
Railways and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant
les chemins de fer provinciaux et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres
lois, standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid),
who has 15 minutes remaining.
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): I am pleased to continue my comments where I
had left off yesterday regarding this legislation enabling the establishment of
short‑line railways in the
I did not have the opportunity yesterday
to put all of my comments on the record with respect to the concerns that we
had with this legislation, some of the things we think may be omitted through
this bill and the impact it is going to have upon not only the service to rural
communities, but for the safe operation and efficient operation of railways in
the province.
Yesterday, I talked about the Class 1
railways not taking advantage of the full 4 percent line abandonment, and I
suspect the reason they did not take advantage of that is because there seemed
to be a move or a trend within the country to move toward the establishment of
short‑line railway legislation in the various provinces of
It is always helpful when we can
understand more clearly the reason and the need for any type of
legislation. I thank the minister once
again for providing that explanation.
With this bill, the questions we will have
and that we will raise, in addition to the ones we mentioned yesterday, deal
with certain aspects of this bill relating to whether or not the legislation
will adopt certain policies that have been a part of federal legislation
through various federal government agencies.
When I talk about those agencies, Mr.
Speaker, we talk about the National Transportation Agency. There are also other acts, as well, including
the Safety Act, the Railway Act, the Dangerous Goods Act and the Transportation
Safety Board, and the powers they have over safe railway operations.
Now, with this legislation here that the
minister has proposed, through Bill 33, it makes no mention of whether or not
the minister's department is going to accept the rulings of the federal
agencies themselves, and whether or not because these agencies have a certain
amount of expertise they have developed over the years and obviously have
qualified staff working for them, whether or not the minister is going to
contract for those services through those federal government departments and
agencies, or whether the minister himself is going to bring in his own staffing
in his own department, qualified personnel who will be able to provide certain
levels of inspections, not only on the rolling stock equipment, but also on the
trackage road bed.
We have seen in this province here in
Now it is important to have these safety
inspections done on a regular basis for this equipment because, while these
short‑line railway operators may not be operating at the speeds that the
Class 1 main‑line railways would operate at, they nevertheless pass
through many small communities throughout
So I think it is important that the
minister's department have qualified staff, either available to undertake the
necessary inspections, whether they be transferred back as a cost to the short‑line
operators themselves or undertaken as part of the minister's department's
delivery of service‑‑that it is necessary for those inspections to
be undertaken. So I hope the minister is
going to have the necessary inspectors in place to look after the safety
inspections.
If the minister does not have qualified
staff doing those safety inspections, what I see happening is, should the short‑line
operators have a ruling that goes contrary to their wishes, for those who are
going to establish short‑line railways, they will have then, obviously,
the legal right to challenge any of those decisions that may be made by
unqualified personnel. So I think it is
important that we have those who have the qualifications and the experience in
rail line railway operations providing that level of inspection.
* (1440)
What this legislation, of course, gives
where there is a dispute in some of the decisions that are made, there is also
the opportunity, not for just the decisions that are made by the minister's
department, but if there is a dispute between the shipper and the carrier,
there is a provision that allows for an arbitrator to be appointed. Of course, the two parties would then pick up
the cost for that. I believe that is an
opportunity for a dispute settlement mechanism that will lead towards a
conclusion or resolution of any disputes that may arise. That is one of the good portions of the
legislation.
Some of the other concerns relating to
short‑line railways‑‑the
The concern I have‑‑and this
is pointed out in the federal railroad administration inspections from
1990. They do a railroads safety report
to the U.S. Congress. It indicates, and
I will quote from the document respecting many railroads not inspected. The quote goes: The presence of short‑line railways,
which have had consistently higher accident and injury rates than the industry
as a whole, is growing.
So there is a concern even in the
One of the other problems that I see with
this legislation is that there does not seem to be any policy directive that
this legislation is intended for. There
is no stated policy goal. I think even
looking at the National Transportation Act that, while it is quite extensive in
its document, it does have a stated policy goal right at the beginning of it,
and I would like to see this bill have some kind of a stated policy goal and
its intent. That, I think, would lead to a better understanding for the members
of the public that are going to utilize that service, should it become a
reality in the province.
Another point that this legislation does
not have that the National Transportation Act has is that this legislation does
not have the opportunity for appeals to cabinet or to the Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council
who in that case would be the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of this province. The National Transportation Act allows for
railways to appeal to in times of dispute; they can appeal to the federal cabinet
any decisions that are made by the agency.
Now, this may be something that the minister might wish to look at that
will give, where disputes arise in the province‑‑and it wants to
give the Premier the opportunity to provide some direction or some guidance,
something that would be in the best interests of the province, to give the
cabinet the opportunity to make some kind of rulings on those provisions as is
afforded to the federal government.
This legislation has been brought about,
of course, I believe, through deregulation, and it has created a great deal of
problems throughout the country, as we have seen in the various transportation
industry sectors. This bill attempts to
make the best out of a bad situation. It
is something that I believe would probably, somewhere down the road, be
necessary, and that is, I believe, why the minister has come forward with this
legislation at this time.
It would be interesting to know that when
we get into committee, whether or not the minister will be providing for the
examples of people that may be, or companies that will be, willing to come
forward to look at taking over short‑line operations, and what areas of
the province will be covered by that short‑line legislation.
The minister has said in his explanatory
notes on this legislation that he is looking to protect rail jobs in the
province as one of the main points. With
that, while it is a commendable position to take to protect rail jobs, it is
unfortunate that those rail jobs could not have been protected within the
structures of the Class 1 railways as they currently exist. Those jobs have historically been relatively
well compensated, and it would be unfortunate if we see an erosion of any
levels of disposable income to any employees that would not have the ability to
achieve the same level of earnings through short lines, obviously, that we
would have achieved through current railway employment.
With those few comments, Mr. Speaker, we
look forward to when the other members of the committee have had the
opportunity to add their comments on this legislation, to hear members of the
public who may wish to come forward and add their comments and raise any other
concerns that may be on their minds as they have viewed this legislation. So I thank you for the opportunity to add my
comments here.
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill 33, The Provincial Railways and
Consequential Amendments Act.
I want to echo some of the concerns
mentioned by the critic for the New Democratic Party about the rail line
abandonment generally in this country.
We have had many, many discussions with the Minister of Highways and
Transportation (Mr. Driedger) on this issue.
We are somewhat, well, actually quite a
bit, hampered in our ability to really do much about it, simply because the
railways are not under our jurisdiction.
The federal control over transportation does hamper our ability to‑‑interprovincial
transportation rather‑‑deal firmly with the railways. However, Mr. Speaker, what has to be
remembered is that the railways in this country are planning to abandon half of
the rail lines in the country. That is
an enormous decision on their part, and it has enormous consequences for rural
communities, even urban communities, but more so rural communities.
It is the railways that built this
country, settled the west, brought the supplies here, brought the people here,
and still today, even with our highways and with our very expensive airports
and airlines, which also may be gone in the near future, but even with all of
those, railways are the link in these communities.
These communities, and I grew up in them,
are built because the railway was there.
I grew up in Swift Current,
On summer evenings when I was not in
school, we could stay up; we would be out for a walk. That was the thing to do. Townspeople would
congregate by the rail lines to see the passenger train. Mr. Speaker, that was reality in those towns.
The train was the link to the rest of the country. It was what bound those small communities,
ones like I grew up in, to the rest of the great land. There was sense of belonging because of that
railway. We are in the process now of
eradicating that link.
Like so many other national institutions
that have been built up over the years in this country, unique in the world
many of them, but like so many of those, we are seeing them drift into oblivion
and be abandoned. That is a mistake, I
think.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to this
particular bill, I do understand the reason why it is coming forward. It is coming forward in the hopes of
salvaging some of those lines by creating the ability to have them used
privately. In principle, I do not have a
problem with that, enabling the short‑line operators and shippers to use
these lines. I have some concern that
what it really does it sort of the plays into the hands of the rail lines. It makes it easier for them to offload these
rail lines.
* (1450)
On the other hand, if they are going to
downsize, if they are going to abandon half of the railway lines, then anything
we can do to keep them being used by local, short‑line rail operators is
probably the best we can do.
Mr. Speaker, I just hope very much that we
have a change of government at the federal level, because I know that will
bring with it a change of philosophy about the rail lines, about these national
institutions. It pains me to see
millions and millions and millions of dollars that are spent in other much less
important expeditions than keeping these rail lines together.
I had the interesting experience of living
six years in
They are connected. They are close to each other. They live in densely populated areas. They do not understand what those railways
mean to western Canadians. We have to,
as western Canadians, elected people, make our voices heard on these issues.
I fear, for instance, that we are perhaps only
a few short years away from the abandonment of the rail line to Churchill. What
will happen then, Mr. Speaker? There
will never be another rail line. There
will not be another road to Churchill. Churchill will be effectively cut off,
except by air, if that rail line is let go.
But that is the way our federal government
is moving. That is the way, quite
frankly, the Wheat Board, I think, views the rail line to Churchill. That is the way the powers that be in the
grain industry appear to feel about Churchill, and I do not buy it.
I think it is a viable port. I think if we had put efforts into ensuring
that the natural catchment basin of Churchill were used to ship that grain from
that area through Churchill, we would have no problem making it a self‑sufficient
port. Is it ever going to be a huge port
making grain companies millions and millions of dollars? No, but it is the Canadian Wheat Board that
contracts for wheat. That is a federal
institution, and it has other things than pure profit for the grain companies
to think about.
It should be thinking, Mr. Speaker, about
the need to have the northern
I know some of my colleagues will be
attending the Hudson Bay Route Association meeting in Churchill at the end of
this month. With great regret, I am unable to attend that. I have attended other Hudson Bay Route
Association meetings. I, unfortunately,
will not be able to attend that one, but let me say here and now that I applaud
the efforts of that organization to get through to the powers that be.
One of the greatest disappointments to me
was Charlie Mayer, Member of Parliament, cabinet minister, very influential
cabinet minister from this province.
Does he stand up for Churchill, Mr. Speaker? No. In
fact, he is doing virtually everything he can to abandon Churchill, to move
this grain through
One has to wonder what state a place like
Churchill would be in if it were in
I think it is because no one will
comprehend that we have a very fine seagoing port in a prairie province. They do not contemplate that, and they cannot
comprehend it.
The result is, we are seeing the
consistent abandonment of that community and the rail line which is so
essential a link to it. I understand the
comments‑‑my friend the critic for the New Democratic Party
indicates that by this enabling legislation, enabling private operators to use
the abandoned rail lines, we are facilitating the abandonment.
Well, it may be a situation, Mr. Speaker,
where we simply do what we can to best use those rail lines in a situation we
really cannot control. That situation is
these big companies are just abandoning the rail lines. So if we can use them and keep them used, I
cannot see how that can be opposed. It
is not perfect. It is not the way we would want it, but we have to do what we
can, I think, to keep these rail lines used.
So, I am prepared, our party is prepared
at this point to have this bill go to committee on the understanding that we
want to talk at committee about the continuing dialogue between this minister
and the rail companies, to have them understand that we are going to fight them
tooth and nail every step of the way in their desire to get out of providing
for rail service to this country.
We always think of some of these companies
as private enterprise, and they can do what they want. Well, everyone I think who knows their
Canadian history knows the rail companies were given millions and millions, perhaps
billions of dollars of land to make‑‑(interjection) Twenty‑five
million acres, my friend indicates. I
have no doubt it was at least that much.
Yes, they built a rail line, but they owe us too. There was a partnership there.
Mr. Speaker, it was not all one way. We appreciate the private monies which went
into that and have gone into that, but you cannot, just when the bucks get a
little less or start to run out, abandon what is a part of our heritage. So with those comments, I want to ask the
minister to come to the committee.
It is an opportune time with this bill, I
think, to come to the committee with an update on his negotiations with the
rail companies, what their specific plans are, what he is doing to get together
with the other provincial Premiers and this newfound special relationship with
the federal government, because we have heard a lot about the newfound special
relationship. It has not produced
anything yet, but we have heard a lot about it.
I would like to see it produce something.
This is a good opportunity. We have a new Transport minister,
federally. I would like to know what
this minister is doing, using the leverage he apparently has through the
relationship between the Premier and the new Prime Minister, to get a
commitment to rail lines in western
It is very useful, but it did not deal with
the philosophical underpinnings of this legislation, which I would not expect
it to. We want to have that discussion
at the committee about where we are going.
What can we do to ensure that the rail companies, that the federal
government, who have primary responsibility in this area, maintain their
commitment to a part of our life, a part of our heritage? While the dollars, the profitability, may be
lessened, may not be there any longer, it is worth it, in my view, to maintain
a commitment to these essential links which bind us as a country.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Motion agreed to.
Bill 2‑The
Endangered Species Amendment Act
* (1500)
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), Bill 2, The Endangered Species Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les especes en voie de disparition, standing in
the name of the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Evans).
Is there leave that that matter remain
standing?
Some Honourable Members:
No.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Leave is denied.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
The Endangered Species Act was something
that the New Democratic Party was working on.
In fact, a good part of the work had been done before 1988, before we
lost government at that time. The
government took another two years to do the follow‑up work on The
Endangered Species Act, which was introduced in 1990. Unfortunately, they did not do a very good
job on their research, and there were flaws in the bill, and that is what makes
it necessary to bring it back at this time.
It is unfortunate that they did not take
the time to research things properly, but that is what happens. That is why we are dealing with this bill at
this time. I understand that the good
part of the amendments is to bring the legislation in line with the federal
legislation, the terminology the same as the federal legislation. I believe that that is a good move. I would hope that it is in line with other
provinces as well.
I think that is something that we have to
look at in other areas as well, that we have continuity in our legislation.
Particularly when we have things dealing between various provinces, our language
and our legislation should be similar to federal legislation to not allow for
various loopholes to take place. I
commend the government for bringing in those changes that will bring us in line
with the federal legislation.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we
have to bring in legislation to protect various species in this world, but that
is the fact of life. As people change
their lifestyles, as industry progresses, as various changes take place in the
world, the most vulnerable are at risk. The
same thing happens within the human race.
It is those, the poorest and the most vulnerable, that are at risk when
we make progress‑‑or progress, in some people's minds‑‑and
the same thing happens with our natural resources, our wildlife species. Those are put at risk, and many times become
almost extinct. That is why it is
necessary that we bring in such legislation as we have here today.
As I say, I believe that it is important
that we protect our species, but I also think, Mr. Speaker, not only protect,
but we have to manage our resources properly and use our resources properly so
that the most vulnerable are not at risk.
I think that when particular species go on the endangered species list,
that has to occasionally be reviewed and checked whether it is necessary to
keep them there.
I want to touch on a couple of areas that
relate to my constituency, particularly as it is related to this bill. One of the areas of change that are taking
place is to allow endangered species to be treated on humanitarian grounds, and
I believe as well that that is a good move, because there have been times,
particularly when animals or birds have to be protected or provided with some
sort of treatment. At this point, it is
illegal to protect or provide treatment for these birds, and that will be
recognized here.
One of the areas that has caused some
concern is the amount of discretionary power that this bill gives the
minister. The minister now has the power
to issue to a person a permit authorizing the person to collect or hold live
members of endangered or threatened species for scientific purposes or for the
purpose related to the protection or reintroduction of endangered species.
We wonder, with that much power going to
the minister, whether he will have an advisory committee to work along with
him, or is the power strictly in the minister's hands?
The other area that is one of the
difficulties is the fact that there is the ability to list endangered species
and to provide a watch for decline, but there is no provision to provide
enforcement. It does not provide for
fines, and there are some other areas in there.
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, I raised the
issue of headwater storages, and I want to relay a little bit of that
story. That headwater storage seemed to
cause quite a flurry on the other side of the House, and I want to tell you
that all the work for this headwater storage, all the planning, all the
environmental planning has been done. In
fact, a study was done on endangered species as well, whether any particular
species would be lost if this headwater storage had been put in.
Nobody is talking about putting up a dam
that is going to change the environment, change the flora or the environment in
the mountains‑‑(interjection) The member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr.
Praznik) asks how you will store the headwater.
I encourage him to look at the plan that was put in place, and it was
approved by the environmental department and everyone. It was approved, but it was this government
that refused, that pulled it off the list when they were doing negotiations
with the federal government for funding.
I think that the members across the way
should be broad minded enough to understand the difference between headwater
storage retention areas and dams. If
they have any interest at all in communities below the escarpment, they will
understand that this is very important, because when we have the type of runoff
that we had over the last few days off the
The members across the way seem very
touchy about this whole issue, and I guess they should be touchy, because they
had the opportunity to deal with this matter, but they chose instead to ignore
it. When they were negotiating funds
with the federal government, they chose to negotiate for different areas and
completely ignored the people in the
There were various groups who supported
this, and they had the support of the federal Member of Parliament, in
fact. But this government chose to
ignore the area, and now some of the problems that we are facing could‑‑not
all of them. I can assure, Mr. Speaker,
that all of the problems that we have in the
As I say, this is not a diversion of
water, it is only a retention of water to keep the high flow‑off. Those members across the way who are opposing
this should look at that proposal. I
encourage them to recognize the value of it, because it was proven to be feasible. There was a cost‑benefit there. Also,
the work that was being done would not have, in the opinions of the
environmental department, harmed the environment or harmed any of the
endangered species in the area.
Mr. Speaker, the other area that I want to
touch on briefly, that I mentioned earlier, is, as I said, we have to manage
our resources and look after the people who make a living off the resources and
also whose livelihood is becoming endangered as well. When the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.
Enns) was in my constituency last January, he met with the fishermen on
Mr. Speaker, as you know, the cormorant is
on the endangered species list, so that causes some concern because although
the cormorant has increased tremendously in population, the pickerel stocks,
the walleye stocks have gone down tremendously and in fact in that area are becoming
very close to endangered as well, as is the livelihood of these people who make
a living on this lake.
* (1510)
The Minister of Natural Resources gave his
commitment at that time that he would look at how we could remove the cormorant
from the endangered species list, or what steps could be done to control,
manage the birds on that lake. I wonder
whether when we have the minister amending the act to allow birds to be
collected or captured, whether this is one of the ways that he intends to deal with
the problem. I do not know that it is,
but I know he has made a commitment to the people of the area to deal with
their problem. So that is one of the
questions that we will be asking when we come to committee, whether this is his
way of dealing with the particular problem.
Mr. Speaker, I know that there are people
who have concerns about this legislation and will be making presentations. In most part, I think that the legislation is
good. It is necessary that we protect
those species that are in danger. We
should live with our natural resources in such a way that it is a sustainable
way, that we do not destroy any species.
All species of plants and animals play an
important role in our environment. We
should be sure that all of them are protected, not destroyed by the activities
of human beings.
So I would hope that the government would
also look at ways of enforcing this legislation, but I also look forward to the
committee when we can ask the minister further questions on how he is going to
deal with some of the commitments that he made to people in the rural areas,
and that we look also at how we can protect the environment and the resources
so that the people can continue to make a living, but that we also do not
destroy the environment for many species that are in danger.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 2, The Endangered Species Amendments Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les especes en voie de disparition.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion? Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The honourable deputy government House
leader, what are your intentions, sir?
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would ask if you could please call the following in order: Bills Nos. 17, 27, 35, 26, 36, 30 and 40‑‑if
I may just have a moment.
The change I would ask then is that the
bills be called: 17, 27, 34, 35, 26, 36,
30 and 40, and there may be some further announcements or changes during the
course of the session.
Bill 17‑The
Crown Lands Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), Bill 17, The Crown Lands Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les terres domaniales, standing in the name of
the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): This is going to be a
very in‑depth speech, Mr. Speaker.
In fact, it may be a record. I
asked a question of the minister, by leave, on second reading, and I think my
question and his answer will probably be longer than my speech on the bill,
because he answered the questions rather well, and I would advise members,
particularly from Treasury bench, to perhaps look at the minister's answers,
because if we could just get answers like that in Question Period, we would be
extremely happy in the opposition.
But the minister asked questions in
regards to the bill which does deal with the ability now to pass on
environmental caveats with the disposition of Crown land, and I think that is
excellent. I think it is something that
we should be looking at far more. We
often talk about the environment in the regulatory sense, but one of the ways
of maintaining our environment is through land policy, and whether that be in
terms of caveats affecting ownership in this particular case, whether it be‑‑and
I know I have had discussions with the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin). I think one of the reasons for settling many
of the outstanding treaty land entitlements in this province is because one of
the factors behind the desire of aboriginal people to have those claims settled
is to be able to better protect the environment in areas surrounding the
traditional use of land.
I want to indicate very briefly that we
fully support this bill. It is a model
in many ways. In fact, it is something
that many people I think should look at in terms of other land. We feel that we could use our property system
to greater protect the environment through the use of caveats. I think it is a very excellent idea that all
those who are looking at the possible disposition of property should look at,
in terms of estate planning, et cetera, because particularly in our untouched
areas of the province, I think it is important that we continue to have at
least some land that is protected from wide‑open development that is
maintained in its natural state to the greatest extent possible. This kind of mechanism I think could be
greatly expanded beyond the more limited focus of this bill to do a lot for the
environment.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 17, The Crown Lands Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les terres domaniales. The House was not ready for the question.
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): I just wanted to say maybe a couple of minutes
on this bill, Mr. Speaker. It is a bill,
of course, as the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) says, we are supporting. It
is a type of a bill that governs a scenario where Crown lands are being sold,
and those sales agreements sometimes contain restrictions as to how that
particular piece of land might be developed, in order that the environment
might be protected. Then, of course, the restriction on that land will
accompany the sale. It will get
transferred on to the new purchaser, the new owner of the land. Those restrictions, as well, Mr. Speaker,
will be binding on the subsequent purchaser, the subsequent owners of that
land, and be registered. So this would
also then, as I said, protect anybody, two or three owners down get that same
kind of protection.
As the member for Thompson was saying just
a while ago, when we look at Crown lands, lands that are under claim through
the treaty land entitlement process, I think this would also probably afford
some sort of protection for both those First Nations as well as non‑First
Nations people who may be purchasing Crown lands and so on.
I am not going to spend my whole time on
that, I am just going to conclude there and am ready for it to pass.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 17, The Crown Lands Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les terres domaniales. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some Honourable Members:
Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 27‑The
Environment Amendment Act (2)
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), Bill 27, The Environment Amendment Act (2); Loi No.2 modifiant la Loi sur l'environnement, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
Stand?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? (agreed)
* (1520)
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): I would like to speak on this amendment to
The Environment Act which is making provisions to move in a direction to better
regulate stubble burning in the province.
I have mixed feelings about the legislation, and I will start off by
talking about the unfortunate manner that it was brought forward.
There were a number of studies going back
into the 1980s and papers that were developed encouraging governments to look
at this issue, but there was no regulation or legislation brought forward until
we had the crisis of last year, when I am sure every member of this House,
particularly from urban centres, had phone calls and letters, and there was a
large amount of concern about the hazards from stubble burning around the
province. It is unfortunate that that is
the crisis that has to occur before the government will make some attempt to
deal with a situation that has been causing problems in the province for quite
some time.
As I said, the bill itself does some
things that are extraordinary such as empowering the RCMP to enforce
legislation, but then on the other hand it does some other things in this
legislation that still allow stubble burning to continue which I think we will
have to wait and see if there is going to be any effect from it that will deal
with the situation in a positive way.
It is interesting when you go back and
look through the reports and the material that is prepared on the issue that
one of the comments that has been repeated over and over again is that when a
review was done at the Clean Environment Commission, there was no evidence to
show that there was jeopardy to health from stubble burning, and I am wondering
if that is because there have been no studies done. I would hope that we can have some kind of a
serious look at what exactly is the effect, in the long term especially, of
having people exposed to this kind of heavy smoke from stubble burning,
particularly when you look at the kind of complaints we had from people who
have asthma and other respiratory and allergic problems. So that is one thing I hope that will come
from this.
Another issue related to that was‑‑I
do not know if it has been studied to the extent that is warranted‑‑the
fact that the areas that are burned in the fall are going to have had a large
amount of chemical herbicide, pesticide and fertilizer used in them, and I am
concerned that the smoke that then is airborne could contain other contaminants
besides just the carbon problem from the stubble smoke itself.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the
Chair)
The Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) poses
a question, if forest fire smoke is all right, and I would say, no, that is not
all right. We get the same kind of
complaints and pleas for some assistance when there is forest fire smoke that
comes into the city or into any kind of community area that affect these
people's ability to breathe and oftentimes to see. So it is not only the health concerns because
people have difficulty in breathing, but it is also the safety concerns in
terms of travelling on the highway.
Those all are hopefully going to be taken seriously, particularly by the
Minister of Health.
One of the other things that I think is
important to mention is that there was a report that was prepared by the
Department of Agriculture, I think it was back in 1987, which still clearly
states that the Department of Agriculture is opposed to this practice. It says here, the Manitoba Department of
Agriculture has traditionally taken a stand against continuous and
indiscriminate burning of crop residues.
That is a fairly strong statement, and I am wondering if there has been
a change in that policy.
There was a reliance on not moving towards
regulation against stubble burning per se, but only to use education. The reports say that that has been successful
in some cases.
It is not surprising that there would be
some interest on behalf of farmers, because the other thing that this paper
shows very clearly is the number of negative effects of burning of crop
residue, the fact that there is a loss of nitrogen for next year's crop of up
to 60 percent from burning of stubble.
When that practice continues over a 10‑ or 20‑year period,
it can reduce the soil's ability to supply nitrogen to crops.
This is one of the things that shows that
not only is there concern by people who‑‑
Point of
Order
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Madam Deputy Speaker,
I wonder if my honourable friend could share with us the source of that
quotation that she used just recently about a 60 percent loss of nitrogen, I
believe. Could she share with us the
source of that statistic, please?
Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health does not
have a point of order.
* * *
Ms. Cerilli: I would be pleased to tell the minister that
it is the Manitoba Department of Agriculture submission to the Clean
Environment Commission on burning of crop residue, and I believe it is from
1986 or '87.
An Honourable Member: Sixty percent?
Ms. Cerilli: That is what it says in this report.
An Honourable Member: Of what?
Ms. Cerilli: Direct loss of nitrogen for next year's crop
by burning.
Now, one of the concerns, also, is the
fact that the straw also contributes to having the organic matter in the
soil. It contributes to having proper
aeration and water circulation through the soil. There is a concern that once this organic
matter in particular is eliminated that there will be used more chemical
fertilizer to make up for that, which could have occurred naturally in the soil
if the crop residue was tilled in, and that would then also have an increased
cost to farmers.
The other concern is the way that erosion
will be allowed to increase once the crop residue is burnt off. This will also have an effect on the kind of
runoff water from the fields taking with it also a number of nutrients and a
larger amount of soil. So there will be
erosion both from wind and from runoff.
The residue when it is left on the field
can help trap snow which, as I mentioned, can contribute to soil moisture. So as you can see there are a number of very
good reasons from an agricultural point of view for not burning stubble. I think that these would raise the question
of why we are still in
The other thing that is interesting in
this report is there is a section called "Misconceptions Regarding
Burning," and I want to read directly from the report and this section
because it says clearly that under good management heavy crop residue need not
prevent proper seed bed preparation and seed placement if properly chopped and
spread. Long unchopped straw is more
difficult to seed through, and it decomposes more slowly than well‑chopped
straw. Increased emphasis on thorough
chopping and spreading would reduce tillage requirements substantially.
So there again I think one of the reasons
for justifying this practice has been that it makes it easier in the spring to
seed the soil, and here it is shown that when there is some effort taken to
work the straw through, that there is actually not a harmful effect or a
detriment in seeding.
* (1530)
With respect to this legislation we are
going to have to just wait and see on a number of the attempts that it is
making to curtail this. Basically what
the legislation is doing is saying that you cannot burn at night. It does not have any regulation on the amount
of burning that can occur at other times during the day. So I think that there still could be the same
net amount of burning that goes on which could have the same amount of smoke.
So that is one of the concerns that I have with the legislation, is there is
really no guarantee that this is going to affect the net amount of burning.
The other thing that is not specified in
the regulations or in the legislation is the weather conditions, that that is
going to be left up to the departments to determine. We are going to just have to wait and see if
there is going to be in fact some more consideration for the health of the
neighbouring areas, because the regulations are quite vague when they say that
there is just to be no adverse effect from the conditions created by the
burning.
One of the other things that the bill
provides for is that there must be some more attention given to then informing
people about the regulations that are going to apply on a given day. This is an
area that is causing some concern because we could be setting ourselves up to
have the same kind of confusion and chaos as when the ban was implemented last
year, because of the large amount of public pressure. This legislation allows for different areas to
have different regulations applying at the same time, and there could be some
confusion with that.
Also, the requirement that there is
incumbency on the farmer who is going to do the burning to inform themselves of
the regulations for their area in that time period. That is going to be done through the phone
and answering machine.
I think that if there are going to be a
lot of changes in the regulations for the burning allowances for that
particular time, there could be some problems there, but again we will just
have to see if that is going to work.
There is some feeling that, because also there has been an effort in the
past by farmers to deal with this responsibly, there will be effort made to use
the system that is in place and inform themselves of the appropriate weather
conditions and allowable times for burning.
One of the other things, I think, that
needs to be mentioned here is the opportunity that was missed when this crisis
came to head. It is interesting,
especially just recently after speaking with individuals in the forestry area
and dealing with recycling and sustainable forestry, that there are other uses
for the straw.
I think it is unfortunate that there was
not more effort made to try and pair up those that have the excess flax straw
in particular with others who might be able to put that to good use rather than
just having it wasted and causing harm from burning. I would hope that there
would be some effort this year to use that straw for paper making or other
uses.
I think that in conclusion it is important
that we be aware these kinds of issues have to be dealt with head on. The bill that is before us has most of its
powers dealt with in regulations. As I
understand it, these regulations were prepared with a joint committee of people
from parents with children with asthma, health professionals and a number of
people from the Department of Agriculture and that there was an attempt for
some kind of compromise.
I have some concern that the bill is
basically only allowing the development of these regulations and that it gives
quite a bit of power to the government and to the minister, as is occurring
more and more often where the real power is only in the regulations. I am concerned that we could have a situation
again where the regulations are changed quite quickly and I would just hope
that the government will give due consideration to all sides of this issue and
to the concerns that will, I am sure, be expressed at the committee hearings.
If they are going to make some quick
changes to this legislation again, we could find ourselves in another situation
this year and coming years where there is pressure placed on the government to
even allow for more burning, as was the reasoning given for the excessive
burning this past year.
So I would just say that I am looking
forward to hearing some of the presentations at the committee hearings to see
if this bill is in fact going to be the kind of compromise bill that is going
to ensure that the health of Manitobans is going to be protected and we are not
going to have an unsafe situation this year again. Thank you.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
The whole issue of burning straw or
stubble became quite important last year when we had the unusual weather
situation that caused a delayed harvest and left farmers in a position where
there was a tremendous amount of straw on the field very late in the season
and, as a result, caused a very serious problem, particularly in the city of
Winnipeg and other urban centres. But
that is not the first year that we have had that problem. I believe there was a few years ago where
there in fact were some serious accidents when there was peat burning in the
eastern part of the province.
We have to be concerned. We have to be concerned about the health
problems that extensive burning of straw is causing. That was certainly, as I say, a problem last
year when we had many people having to go to the hospital or people with asthma
having to stay in their homes for days on end until the smoke cleared. There is
also the safety factor that we have on highways when there are difficult
weather situations, low pressure areas that cause the smoke to stay very close
to the ground, and I think that it is time that legislation be brought in to
deal with this.
* (1540)
The burning of stubble has for years been
a farming practice. I think it was a
much greater used practice years ago and it is on the decline. I know particularly in my part of the
province it was not uncommon to see almost all fields burnt off 10 or 15 years
ago. However, in the last few years
there has been very, very little stubble burning, and in fact last year when we
did see stubble and straw being burnt it was an unusual situation. Most farmers are changing their practices so
that they do not have to burn as much straw.
They are recognizing the value of incorporating the straw back into the
soil. However, Madam Deputy Speaker, we
have to recognize that there are times, as we had last year, where there are
unforeseen circumstances when there has to be that availability for farmers.
We talk about completely restricting‑‑some
people say that there should not be any stubble burning or straw burning
whatsoever. I am not in agreement with
that. I think that farmers sometimes are
in a situation where they have no alternative but to dispose of the surplus by
burning, and we have to leave that option open to them. It has to be done in a managed way, and that
is one of the things that this legislation will do. It is managed in other areas.
I want to talk about my part of the
province. In the Parkland, in the
I think that that same practice could be‑‑(interjection)
The member across the way asks me whether my colleague agrees with me, and to a
degree she does. She says that it has to
be managed and we have to look at alternatives.
As I said, Madam Deputy Speaker, in parts
of the province we have a permit system.
I think that the government should have looked at this. If a permit system works in some parts of the
province‑‑and what we do is we call up the Natural Resources
office, check on whether the weather conditions are right, whether we are
allowed to burn. Then a permit is issued
for a couple of days when we can burn either excess straw, or also there are
many times when farmers have to burn windrows if land is being cleared.
So people in that part of the province
have to apply for a permit. I would see
no difficulty with people in other parts of the province applying for a permit
as well. Now, some people think that
that might be a great inconvenience. I
do not think it is such a great inconvenience.
It would offer control.
If the permit was issued and those people
who were burning had to follow the guidelines that were put out and were
responsible for the fire, then I think that would be a good idea. So I think that is one area that should have
been looked at.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as I had indicated
earlier, burning of stubble was a much more common practice years ago. People are changing their practices. In fact, my colleague referred to a study
that was done by the Department of Agriculture of the negative impacts of
burning and the amount of energy, the amount of nitrogen and other materials
and fibre that can be lost from the soil by burning.
I think that farmers recognize that. They do not want to burn unless they really,
really have to. I think that along with
this legislation that we have here which will regulate burning, I think that
the government should be also doing more research into alternate products,
alternate crops that can be grown, and alternate ways of managing the residue
and providing farmers with that information‑‑and alternate uses, as
my colleague had said, for straw.
You know, instead of cutting back on
research, as the Department of Agriculture did, perhaps we should be doing more
research into crops perhaps that have less straw. Perhaps we have to do more research into how
we can grow crops without as much fertilizer as we are using right now.
It is a proven fact that as you put on a
lot of fertilizer, the crop ends up growing a lot more straw in it. So perhaps we have to be doing more research
into those areas, what can we produce that farmers can continue to make living
but also have the options there that they can grow a crop that does not produce
such a tremendous amount of residue that they are then, if unforeseen weather
conditions arise, forced to go to burning?
We also have to, I believe, do more
research or encourage more research on different types of machinery. There is machinery available now that chops
up the straw better than it used to.
There are different pieces of equipment that help farmers manage their
residue better, but there is need to do more in that area.
I also think we have to do more in the
area of alternate uses for the fibres, particularly I think about flax. I know a lot of farmers are now collecting
their flax straw and it is being bought by a particular paper company that
comes into the area and takes it off.
That is very useful because, as anybody that is in the farming industry
will know, you cannot work flax straw back into the soil, and if you do not
have a market for your product, then you are going to have to dispose of it and
the only way that you can dispose of it is by burning it. So again, we should be doing more research
into ways of using those fibres that are out there.
We hear people talking about using the
straw as fuel, being packaged some way into pellets. I know there is a pellet plant that is
looking at that right now, but there are people in our area who have, in fact,
done some work and are heating their shops with bailed straw. There is a tremendous amount of energy in
that straw that can be made use of. So
those are the things that have to happen.
Along with bringing in regulations to
control burning, we also have to, as I say, look at alternate uses for the
product. There is a tremendous amount of energy in that fibre that we can make
use of. We are also losing a lot of
value in the soil by burning the straw.
Experience will tell, I am sure many farmers across the way will agree,
that if you burn your straw too many years in a row, there is a difference in
the quality of your soil. It is not a
great benefit.
I know most farmers do not want to burn
unless they are forced into it because of weather conditions. There are those farmers who have burning as a
regular practice in their operation and those are the people that we have to
provide more information for, provide alternative information and encouragement
that they change that practice.
I think about the flooding situation in
our area. I was out looking at some of
the fields last night that had been eroded. It was interesting to note that
those pieces of land where there was a lot of residue on, that had not been
burned or tilled too much, were not eroded nearly as badly as those areas that
had no residue on them. There are just
huge gullies washed into those fields.
* (1550)
So leaving residue on the fields serves
several good purposes. As my colleague
had indicated, if you leave your residue on the field, it retains snow over the
winter and helps with the amount of moisture in the area. By working the straw into the soil, you
increase the amount of nitrogen and that is only a benefit. Rather than applying costly chemicals, we can
certainly have a benefit by working the fibres back into the soil. But it is also, as I say, Madam Deputy
Speaker, very important when we get into situations as we have right now with
the flooding in our area, where we get into situations as we have in the
But, as I say, Madam Deputy Speaker, we
have to recognize that, and I speak as a farmer in this case, although I do not
approve of the practice of burning straw, I would like to see that there not be
burning of straw, that all of the fibres could be worked back into the soil. There are situations where it has to happen
when there is just a tremendous amount or the growing season just gets delayed
to such an extent. So we have to leave
that option there for farmers.
The government also has the responsibility
to provide alternate options and also to educate the public, the farmers that
there are other practices available. The
government also has the responsibility to put more money into research and
education, but particularly research into alternate crops that can be grown and
also research into alternate uses for the fuels.
There are things that government can do,
and the government also has to provide that information for farmers to allow
them to continue their practices. As you
know, Madam Deputy Speaker, agriculture is a base industry. It is a very important industry in this
province. Although there are many who
think that agriculture does not play a very important role in the production of
this province, when you look at the spin‑off value of it and of the
impacts of agriculture on this province, it is a very important industry, and
it has to be‑‑but we have to help farmers change with the
times. We have to provide them with the
information and also encourage them to continue their operations in an
environmentally friendly way so that the soil is left in a sound state so that
the next generation can use it. After
all, that is all that farmers are given the right to do.
Farmers may pay for the land, but really
they just have that land to use, to make a living from, and then they are not
going to take it with them. They have to
leave it there for the next generation to use.
I would hope, and I believe, that all farmers are conscientious enough
that they do want to leave that land in a state, in a condition that makes it
still valuable and allows future generations to make their living from it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as we look at the
legislation, as I said earlier, I think that the government could have probably
brought in stronger legislation. They
could have gone to a permit system. Some
feel that that may be too cumbersome; I do not think that it would have
been. But we will look at the
legislation; we will support it because it is a start. Then, in time, we will see how it works, and
if it is necessary, then it will be necessary to bring amendments in.
We will have to see what people at the
committees are‑‑the presentations, I look forward to those
presentations that will be made when we go to public hearings. The people who were affected by the smoke last
year will be the ones who will probably have the strongest opinion on this
legislation. So we look forward to
hearing that.
I believe that some of the regulations are
very vague. The government is going to
have to make extra efforts to be sure that the information is available to
farmers, that those lines are in place.
But I do also feel that the government has to also look at a permit
system. As I say, if the permit system
can work in other areas of the province, I do not see why it cannot work in
this area of the province.
Just because there are more farmers, and
they are more concentrated, that does not matter. If there is a permit system in place, there
is a way to regulate; there is the ability to control the number of permits
that are issued. Perhaps, if too many
farmers are burning on one day, you would then have the ability to say, no, we
are not going to issue any more permits. Yes, that may inconvenience some
farmers, but we also have to think about the inconvenience that is caused to other
people when there is too much burning going on at once.
So I would encourage the government to
look at that, to see whether or not a regulation like that can be brought in,
where a permit system can be brought in.
In the rural areas, it is handled through Natural Resources
offices. There is no reason why it
cannot be handled through rural municipalities, the offices there, and only a
certain number of permits are issued, and also then in some way there is control. If the weather conditions are not right, that
burning does not happen on those days.
I know that many farmers do not like the
idea of not being able to burn at night, because that is when the straw does
burn the best, but we have to be conscientious of the health of the other
people who are affected by this.
Farmers, I believe, will comply with the regulations if they are
provided with the information and if they are told that this is how it has to
be done. They will comply with those
regulations.
But, again, I encourage the government to
continue on in some of the other areas that they have responsibility in; that
is, rather than cut back in research in agriculture, do more research in that
area, where we can have alternate uses for the products, and also do more on
the educational side to discourage the practice of burning.
As this study indicates, and I will read
the closing paragraph of it, there is an indication here: The Manitoba Department of Agriculture is
opposed to unmanaged and/or continuous burning of straw residues. All indications are that extension and
education have played a role in the reduced incidence of burning over much of
By educating, we can reduce. In closing, I want to say that people in the
urban centres have to recognize that there are, at times, unforeseen
circumstances that arise for farmers and that at times it is necessary to
burn. It should not be encouraged, but
it cannot be completely eliminated. We
can work towards and encourage farmers to change their practices, but every
once in a while there is a time when we have to burn, and it is not only
straw. There are other products that
have to be burned as well.
As I say, it could be not only stubble,
windrows, other things that have to happen, other areas where we have to have
burning, so farmers have to have that flexibility.
As I say, I look forward to hearing the
presentations. I hope that the
government will listen to them. I hope
that they will take them to heart and bring in regulations that farmers can
live with and continue their operations, but will also be of benefit to those
people who were so seriously affected by the smoke and people with health
problems who will be affected when there is too much burning. Thank you.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
This bill was previously left standing in the name of the honourable
member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
Ms. Barrett: I am sorry.
* (1600)
Bill 34‑The
Public Schools Amendment
(Francophone
Schools Governance) Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill
34, (The Public Schools Amendment (Francophone Schools Governance)
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles publiques (gestion des ecoles francaises),
on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Education and Training
(Mrs. Vodrey), standing in the name of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms.
Friesen).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? No?
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Madam Deputy Speaker, there is no need to
leave it standing. The member stood it
for myself.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak on
this piece of legislation as someone who has had the good fortune, I guess, to
have been around long enough to have dealt with the language issues in the
Madam Deputy Speaker, I can tell you that
when I was Minister of Education, I had an opportunity to meet with many of the
same groups that I am sure the minister has met with, and that there was
agreement that ultimately the Province of Manitoba would have to live up to its
responsibility to the Francophone community when it comes to public school
issues, certainly.
I have to say that I have some serious
concerns with the method the government has chosen to implement its
obligations. I think that it is, once
again, a case of the government trying to find what might be perceived by some
as the easy path, but which is ultimately going to create confusion. It is going to create additional costs. It is going to create sacrifice, in my
opinion, on the part of perhaps parents, perhaps students, perhaps teachers,
perhaps school boards. I think that is
unfortunate, because I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, there could have been and
there should have been a better way to put this package together.
I do not know who the minister was not
listening to. It is not obvious, because
this bill is really a hodge‑podge of concessions. The minister selected from Gallant when she
chose to, or the government did, and ignored it when they felt it was
politically correct to do so, and I think that is unfortunate.
The fact of the matter is that there are a
significant number of potential problems that I think could have been addressed
differently, and I expect that there are going to be a number of amendments
proposed by groups who present in committee because of the shortcomings in this
legislation.
I expect that some of those will come from
representatives of school divisions perhaps.
Certainly I expect some from the Teachers' Society, from Francophone
groups as well who are going to shed some light on the shortcomings of this
particular piece of legislation.
As I said, Madam Deputy Speaker, we recognize
wherein the government felt its obligation, but it is not clear that they have
followed through with a solution that is going to satisfy either many of the
members of the Francophone community who view this as a matter of principle,
who believe in the inalienable right to determine their own future without
strings being attached, without parallel systems, without feeling obliged to
school divisions, to others, for their success.
In particular, there are going to be
concerns, I think, with the number that the government has chosen which would
be a number of approximately 50. The
sufficient numbers issue has been around and been debated in this Chamber on
many occasions, and I think that the government might be creating a trap for
itself because it may, in fact, be excluding people who want to be included.
Clearly, the government's decision as well
to determine, without much consultation, I think many would say, that they were
going to ignore the Gallant report again and provide for, I guess what the minister
would euphemistically call, choice. I
guess there are some in the Francophone community who would say that because of
the conflict that this kind of legislation can engender even in very small
communities, that there is inevitably going to be disputes about what should be
done, what is in the best interests of the community, what is in the best
interests of maintaining linguistic purity, linguistic continuation, to
prevent, I guess, cultural assimilation.
So I know that this was probably the easy way out for the minister, but
I am not sure that many in the Francophone community are going to agree.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that the
minister should have been or could have been aware of alternative models that are
in place including, for example, Saskatchewan, but I am not going to spend a
great deal of time discussing how the Saskatchewan government proposed those,
but I think the minister had some alternatives.
I guess one of the concerns that strikes
me as being important to virtually every school division in the province, but
certainly those school divisions that are affected by virtue of the fact that
they have a number, perhaps a significant number of Francophone or francais
students is a decision the government has taken with respect to local property
tax revenue.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think the bottom
line for most school divisions is going to be the fact that this bill is going
to see the transference of as much as $25 million from the existing public
school system to the new Francophone school board, a significant amount of
money. At the same time the government
is saying, and despite the objections of some Francophone groups, that school
divisions are obligated to continue francais programs where those programs
currently exist. Now, it seems to me
that is something the minister could have very easily provided to as a decision
to the local community. How the minister
would choose to do that, I guess, is a matter for discussion.
The fact of the matter is that there are
elements of this bill that are going to mean that school divisions incur
additional costs, and I do not think the minister has said that is not the
case, and I do not think it is the case.
Certainly the approach that the minister has taken, I think, is going
to, again, create some concern amongst communities and within school divisions
in the province.
I think that the responsible course of
action would have been, if the government feels that this is the way that it
has to proceed, the responsible course would have been to say that there are
going to be no more sacrifices made by the public school system, that the
obligations to create this Francophone school division are provincial
obligations. They are obligations that
stem from our relationship with
I mean, school divisions‑‑let
us face it, Madam Deputy Speaker‑‑have been cut back for the first
time in certainly my memory, school divisions have actually had their funding
reduced, and now we are adding, you know, another potential burden onto the
backs of some school divisions, certainly.
I am not certain how divisions are going to respond when they lose a
percentage of students to the Francophone school division when that jeopardizes
existing programs, where numbers will not be sufficient to warrant a school
board offering a particular program simply by the fact it has lost some
students who would normally have enrolled in that course.
So this is going to cause significant
adjustment problems, and it seems to me that the province should be
obligated. It should not be, again,
offloading the implementation costs, in some respects, of this legislation onto
school divisions. That is what is
happening. That should be very
clear. For those members who have significant
francais students within their school divisions, the problems that are going to
be created here are going to be magnified.
They are going to be much more difficult, I think, than perhaps the
member for St. Norbert realizes.
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau
(St. Norbert): Have you talked to Francophones?
* (1610)
Mr. Storie: Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for St.
Norbert says, have I spoken to the Francophone community? Yes, as a matter of fact I have. As I suggested, more broadly than that. What I have done is spoken to a number of,
for example, school trustees who have very clearly told me that it should not
be their obligation. They should not be
the ones who have their programs, their dollars interfered with to meet an
obligation that is clearly a provincial‑federal obligation, a
constitutional obligation.
After being undermined by this government
for a period of five years, they are simply concerned that this is another
opportunity for the government to implement a new program and have the local
tax base, the local school pay the penalty.
That is the question.
I do not know if the member for St. Norbert
(Mr. Laurendeau) is burying his head in the sand if he believes there are not
going to be consequences in the existing public school system if this bill
passes as it is, and if the provincial government and this Minister of
Education (Mrs. Vodrey) will not take on the additional responsibility which
she should.
That is not speaking to the principle;
that is not speaking to whether there is an obligation. Certainly, we all recognize that following
the court reference, following the Gallant report, had this proposal not come
forward that ultimately the Supreme Court would have ruled again.
(interjection)
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for
St. Norbert asks how it should be funded.
The answer is quite simple. The
answer is that the school divisions should not sacrifice existing
programs. The schools divisions should
not be sacrificing their local tax base.
Part of the problem is going to be the implementation of that as well.
I think the Minister of Education probably
has already begun to understand how complicated that in itself is going to be,
that it is not going to be a simple matter.
There are going to be matters of choice there that are going to be
raised as well. When it comes to the potential conflict in communities as
people make this choice, I think that we are going to see a lot of
consternation over the impacts of this legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker, many of the other
provisions in the bill, I think, are fair.
I think obviously the strategy for implementing it has some merit. My only hope is that the Minister of
Education (Mrs. Vodrey) will actually listen to Judge Monnin and the
implementation committee.
I think the minister may, in fact, receive
a rude awakening once the implementation committee is established and Judge Monnin
and his committee‑‑well, when they start making recommendations, I
think the Minister of Education is going to have some recommendations that she
has to deal with that are going to be a little awkward, to say the least.
It is my hope as well that as the
implementation process works that the government will respond by doing the
right thing and protecting the interests of the existing public system, the
rights of the existing system to ensure that programs are maintained, that
there is at least a fair transition period.
I do not think that most school divisions
are going to enjoy, are going to accept readily the financial implications of
this bill. The government could have
cleared it up. The government could have
made this transition a lot simpler by acknowledging its financial
responsibility to the school divisions and to the students and so forth.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, the government
has an important issue on its hands, and the government is going to have to
tread very carefully if it is to prevent the escalation of this issue to the
detriment of everyone in the province.
I think that is a serious obligation that
faces the minister. I hope she will
continue to listen‑‑perhaps I should say begin‑‑but I
think continue to listen to those that have already made presentations and
expressed their concerns. The minister
knows of whom I speak.
I also hope that the minister will take
seriously the recommendations that come from groups who present at committee
and that there is some flexibility here, because I for one have reservations
about what this government is planning to do and what it might cost individuals
in this province, school divisions and students, in particular, as a result of
course options being lost and sacrificed to this process.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we are going to be
asking her to listen. She should not
take for granted the support of myself, or perhaps other members, simply
because the principle is worthy of support.
I think that should be clear.
I appreciate having these moments to share
my concerns. I would like to encourage
other members, and certainly I would like to hear from members opposite. I would like to hear from the member for
Pembina (Mr. Orchard) and the member for Arthur (Mr. Downey) and the member for
Committee
Change
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Niakwa): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing
Committee on Law Amendments for Thursday, July 8, at 9 a.m., be amended: Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer) for Niakwa (Mr.
Reimer).
* * *
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to speak
on Bill 34, which is another act of amending The Public Schools Act in
This, of course, deals with a very
important issue facing the province and one that has been before the courts and
before the people of
It comes on the heels of a 1990 court
decision, the Mamawi (phonetic) versus Alberta case, in which the Supreme Court
ruled that Francophones not only have the right to a distinct physical setting
for education, but the right also to management and control of minority language
education by the minority being implicit.
As well, it comes on the heels of a court
reference that was made by the
In between those two happenings, Madam
Deputy Speaker, the government had undertaken a report, the Gallant report,
which did make a number of recommendations in which the government has
followed, to some extent, with its legislation, and which it has varied from as
well in this legislation, most notably the area of opt‑out versus opt‑in
formula which has been used by this government, recommended by Gallant‑‑the
opt‑out. As well, there is the
recommendation of the Gallant report that there be a discontinuance of all
francaise programming in existing school divisions. That has been deviated from by this
government, and in fact, they are putting forward in this legislation a
provision that would allow continued Francophone, francaise programming in
existing school divisions, as well as in the Francophone division that is to be
established by this legislation.
* (1620)
So it comes about as a result of court
decisions and some study, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is one way, this Bill
34, of responding to the Supreme Court decision, not the only way and not
necessarily the right way, we would submit, as my colleague who has spoken on
this bill as well, the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) just before me‑‑not
necessarily the right way, but one way.
We have some serious concerns with the
government's approach in education generally in this province, and we voiced
those in some 70 hours of Estimates that have taken place in the committee
where the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) has been questioned about her
plans in education and which we have been extremely disappointed with the
responses and answers that we have received.
I can just reference, Madam Deputy
Speaker, the responses that the minister gave to consultations that were taking
place in the committee the other day on Bill 16. When the minister's turn came to discuss the
issues with the people who were bringing forward their concerns, instead of
asking questions of those members and seeking to draw out their opinions and
suggestions and concerns, she instead took the tack that it was her job to set
the record straight, and in fact, to lecture the presenters and the committee
about what in fact the reasons were behind actions of government. That is not the normal job of the
minister. It is not the kind of thing
that would normally be done. The minister
would be showing concern for the views put forward.
That seems to typify the approach taken by
this minister with regard to consultation.
She uses the word "consultation"; she references consultation
and partners continuously in responding to answers in discussing questions that
we have put forward to her in Estimates.
However, in practice, she seems not to know what consultation means. It
is very clear as a result of the experiences that we have had in the Estimates
and in the bills that have come before the committee.
I think we can look at the record of the
government and the record of this minister in defining whether we have any
confidence in this minister to carry out this complicated response to, as I
mentioned, successive court decisions and a major report, the task force
report, the Gallant report, which was prepared by this province.
We have to look at many of the other
aspects of education in determining whether we feel that the public is going to
be well served by this minister undertaking the work before her. One thing that we can perhaps take some
solace in, of course, is that it is Justice Monnin and the commission who are
responsible for the actual implementation rather than this minister, and so
that can give us some degree of satisfaction.
However, we have to remember that the minister, Madam Deputy Speaker, is
responsible for the education decisions that are made by the Department of
Education and by this government, as Minister of Education, and therefore it is
her that we have to judge in terms of our confidence in carrying out this
important measure in Manitoba.
I look at the fact that the partners,
traditional partners in education, the teachers, the trustees, the parents
certainly, other members of administration and employees of the schools have
been left in shambles by the government's decisions and this minister's
decisions with regard to the budget.
If we look at what happened this past
year, an unprecedented‑‑and these points were made very clear at
the committee‑‑an unprecedented 2 percent cut. As a matter of fact, there were many
unprecedented steps taken by this government and this minister, all of them
negative with major negative impacts on the public education system, the first
being the chronic underfunding of the public education system over the last
five years coupled with a 2 percent cut across the board to the public education
system, while all the while increasing the support to the private schools, as
much as the minister would like to deflect from the questions asked of her
there, by 10.4 percent this year.
Instead of the minus 2 percent that the
minister likes to talk about at gatherings, that the private schools were
getting the same cut as the public schools, in fact, we have found that year
over year on a school year basis it has been a 10.4 percent increase for the
private school system and a 2 percent cut for the public schools.
We saw, Madam Deputy Speaker, a
contradiction in action and support. On
the one hand, we see major support to private schools at 10 times the rate of
inflation over the last number of years, and we see less than inflation to the
public schools and an absolute decline of 2 percent in this particular
year. There is the problem, and I say
that this is an important part of the discussion of Bill 34 because it is in
the context of the environment that we receive Bill 34, educational decisions
that have, as a result of those decisions, made people lose confidence in the
government and this minister to carry out Bill 34.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I just wanted, for the member's information as he develops his
speech, to remind him that funding to independent schools tripled under the NDP
administration.
Madam Deputy
Speaker: The honourable Minister
of Education does not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Plohman: Madam Deputy Speaker, as I pointed out to the
minister, we have never seen an absolute cut to the public school system. I pointed this out in the committee. While she is slashing and hacking the public
school system, she is increasing the private schools by 10 times the rate of
inflation. That is the comparison. Now in addition to those cuts to the public
education system, we have seen with regard to Bill 16 an unprecedented
intrusion to local decision making.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would like to remind the honourable member
for Dauphin that the bill he is debating is Bill 34, The Public Schools
Amendment (Francophone Schools Governance) Act, and that debate on second
reading is to be relative to the bill being debated. It is Bill 34, not Bill 16.
Mr. Plohman: Madam Deputy Speaker, I think it is important
that we put in context Bill 34 to other measures that the government has put
forward, and I will, I can assure the Deputy Speaker, deal with all details of
the bill, Bill 34. I want to say though
that the difficulty that we have is the difficulty that this minister is going
to have, and we all share that difficulty, in that she is not going to be able
to carry out a proper consultative process and a measure of involvement with
the partners in education because of the lack of confidence that she faces in
the education community and by way of the public in general in the province of
Manitoba as a result of the actions that she has taken with regard to the
underfunding, with regard to Bill 16 which is an unprecedented intrusion into
local decision making, as a result of the cuts in professional development, as
a result of Bill 22. All of these are
unprecedented measures by government and by this minister.
Therefore, when it comes to Bill 34, Madam
Deputy Speaker, we see a great deal of difficulty and we have a lack of
confidence in the minister's ability to carry out this bill and to implement
it. We have some concerns about various
aspects of the bill as well insofar as the tack that has been taken by this
government. Now what has happened is inequitable funding, and we have a
division from division to division across this province. We have a school system that is in shambles
to a great extent as a result of the cuts by this government. So when we look at this, can they bear
additional costs? Can they bear an
additional shock as a result of this decision to introduce Bill 34 which is
implementing, in the government's version, the Supreme Court decision? Can they in fact bear the shock of having to
fund the new school division that is put in place? My colleague the member for Flin Flon (Mr.
Storie) talked about the costs associated and who should be responsible for
those costs.
I have mentioned all of these other cuts
in the context of Bill 34, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it is important to be
able to assess the degree to which existing school divisions can continue to
absorb one shock after another from this government that it makes it difficult
for them to offer in an equitable fashion quality education across this
province. Bill 16 has entrenched
inequities in the
* (1630)
We have questioned the minister at great
length about this bill and about aspects of her policy, Bill 34, in the
Estimates process, and we have been unable to get a clear understanding of the
impact of this bill, because this minister does not seem to know or is
unwilling to tell the people of Manitoba what the impact will be. We know that there will be substantial
impacts across the province.
I want to go through some of the aspects
of the bill, as we see it, that the minister has presented here. Certainly the structure is one of regional
committees that would be set up to elect a school board. These committees would exist in various areas
of the province.
They have defined a map of the province
which seems to indicate the extent of the boundaries of the Francophone
division. However, when questioning the minister,
we found that, indeed, it did not reflect the extent of the boundaries of the
division that is envisaged in Bill 34.
In fact, the minister said that the
Francophone rights would have to be supported in areas of the province where
sufficient numbers justified it. So even
though the map excludes certain areas of the province, large areas of the
province, especially in southern Manitoba‑‑I notice the
I find that rather shocking. I think what the government has drawn here is
somewhat of a political map designed to perhaps ease the concern that some
people in the southern areas of the province might have with regard to its
actions in response to the Supreme Court decisions here.
Because if it was not the case, I do not
think there would have been a map even presented. Why present a map when it does not mean
anything, when in fact the map does not reflect the extent of the
division? The division can go all over
the
In any event, there will be regional
committees set up across the province where sufficient numbers exist, and they
will elect a representative to sit on the Francophone school board. As well, we are going to a system, as I
mentioned earlier, the opt‑in provision as opposed to the opt‑out
recommended by Gallant. So Francophone
parents will have the opportunity, and perhaps have had the opportunity over
the last number of months, according to the minister's information during
Estimates with regard to the activities of Justice Monnin, that the meetings
have taken place and registrations are already taking place in the
So many of the decisions made by parents
should be in to the minister by now. We
will anxiously await a report from the minister in closing debate on what the
results of the registrations have been and the meetings that have taken place.
It would be appropriate for the minister to respond in closing of debate,
because she did say that the report should be in by July 1, and Justice Monnin
and the commission would complete the work by July 1 and have the report and
the information in by July 6.
So it is clear that the minister now has
the information about the number of registrations, potentially 7,000 as
identified by Gallant, estimated at about 5,000 by the Minister of Education
(Mrs. Vodrey) during the Estimates process, 4,000 to 6,000 I think is the range
that the minister used.
We are talking about a lot of students in
this province that would potentially come under the Francophone school division
that is outlined in Bill 34. We noticed
provisions dealing with buses and transportation, bus drivers and teachers,
which are unclear at this point as to how those relationships would apply with
existing school divisions.
One of the major features that we noticed
and we have concerns about is the issue of parallel programming. The provision of the bill that would require
existing school divisions to continue to provide francais programming in their
schools, even when the majority of parents in the area have decided that they
would like to become part of the Francophone school division throughout the
province, as I said, not limited to the map that was presented by the
government. It could be many areas of
the province besides those outlined on the map.
We wonder why the government has persisted
in this area. They talk about choice and yet they say majority is the way
decisions should be made in a democracy.
In this particular case, existing divisions having to continue to offer
a francais stream of programming in their divisions will incur some of the same
costs that they incurred before, only they will have fewer students in fact to
support that programming. In doing so,
Madam Deputy Speaker, since the dollars have to be transferred with the
students, as outlined by this government, we are going to see a tremendous loss
potentially in revenue going to the school divisions.
The minister has indicated that the per
student grants are somewhere in the neighbourhood of $4,000. Perhaps we also have the local levy grants
that are raised, the amount from local levy which would amount to another
$1,000 or $1,500. So we are talking
potentially, Madam Deputy Speaker, of $6,000 per student that could be
transferred with the students from the existing school divisions to the
Francophone school division if parents decide that their students will be part
of the new Francophone division. If you
multiply that times the number of students in the province, as the minister
said between 4,000 and 6,000 that could be transferred to the Francophone
division, we are talking of upwards of $25 million, $25 million that would be
lost to existing school divisions.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it seems that this
concept eludes all members of the Conservative caucus. They do not seem to understand the issue of
declining enrollments, because when you go to school divisions throughout this
province you realize that many of these school divisions are having difficulty
offering the same quality of education as a number of the wealthier city divisions,
because they do not have the population base, they do not have the student
base. As a result, their grants are not
sufficient to support the quality of education, because they do not have enough
students to support the programming.
They cut programming, of course. We see that throughout the province. It is something that might be foreign to some
urban members of the Conservative caucus, but it certainly should not be foreign
to many of the rural members, knowing what the impact of declining enrollment
is having on the viability of those school divisions.
I raise that, Madam Deputy Speaker, only
as a concern in terms of transferring grant money from existing divisions with
those students to the new Francophone division and especially when we consider
that they must still offer a francais stream of programming in their school
divisions if individuals want it.
I do not think the Conservative caucus has
thought about this. I see a blank look
across the faces of the members opposite.
I know the minister knows about it because we raised it with her, but I
do not know that all members of their caucus have thought about this. I know there is going to be a financial
impact on the school divisions in this province, the degree of which we do not
know at this time, but there will be.
I have to say that they would have been
well advised to follow the
* (1640)
But to make existing school divisions bear
the costs of the Francophone division is something that we really have to
question here, because that also has not been done in Saskatchewan. They have not transferred the tax dollars
with those students to the Francophone division. That is not part of their provision. They are taking the tack that this is the
responsibility of the provincial government and the federal government. Now, I would think that all members opposite
would agree that the costs of the Francophone division should be borne by the
province and by the federal government, not by existing divisions.
We know that the minister has provided us
with information that would seem to indicate that the federal government is
going to be providing some $112 million over six years for the implementation
of the Supreme Court's decisions for six provinces, those six provinces being
Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland.
The minister has indicated as well, when I
asked her what percentage would come to
So in fact, out of the $112 million, we
could see some $25 million coming to this province, and $20 million at least
over the six years. So the federal
government is saying there are dollars available for this. When the minister says the implementation or
the setting up of a new school division will cost about $560,000, which she
mentioned as identified costs for establishing this new division, we then have
to wonder where the other $20 million is going to be spent insofar as the
federal dollars coming to this province over those six years.
Why would that money not be used for
supporting this school division rather than taking it out of the hides of
existing divisions by way of lost student enrollment and lost student grants,
especially when they have to continue to offer that particular program in their
own divisions? Why not have that offered
by the francais division, by the new Francophone division exclusively?
Then, of course, there at least would not
be those additional costs incurred by the school divisions that exist at the
present time in offering a parallel program.
You have both school divisions offering that program, you have the costs
of teachers, you have the costs of classrooms, you have the costs of
infrastructure, these kinds of things that the members opposite do not seem to
understand.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we believe that in
those two areas,
Three major points, and when the
government says that it is concerned about spending money wisely‑‑and
we see so many areas like Connie Curran where in fact they do not practise what
they preach‑‑here is an area where they could have made a
responsible decision and still implemented, perhaps in a more pure way, the
Supreme Court decision with regard to the Francophone governance of education
in this province. Madam Deputy Speaker,
they could have made that decision.
Somehow, it escaped them. They
will have to answer as to why they did not choose which was the most prudent
route, both in terms of responding to the Supreme Court decision and financial
considerations. They did not.
We have to look also at the fact, Madam
Deputy Speaker, that this government has made no commitment to offsetting any
hardships, financial hardships that this will create for an existing school
division. There has been no
commitment. No promise that if there are‑‑because
they can dismiss out of hand our suggestions that there will be costs to
existing divisions as a result of the transfer.
They can dismiss that out of hand, but they have to be prepared if they
are wrong to ensure that they offset any of those hardships incurred by existing
divisions, and they have not said that.
So now are we to assume that this
government is going to require existing school divisions to somehow dig deeper
to find additional dollars that are lost as a result of the declining
enrollment impact of the Francophone division?
You see, they have left school divisions in an untenable position. They have no room to maneuver. They have been underfunded by the province,
and their ability to raise funds locally has been capped, and therein ties this
policy together, this government policy.
It has the potential impact of hurting existing school divisions.
I hope that this government will look at
those issues when this bill comes forward to clause by clause, that they will
in fact ensure that any additional costs will be borne by the province and the federal
government. The dollars are there from
the federal government. They need a
partner, that being the province. They
are responsible for implementing the Supreme Court decision.
Existing school divisions are not
responsible. They should not have to
bear the costs. They will under this
bill that has been put forward by this government. Unfortunately, the government does not seem
to understand the potential impacts of that.
I think they have a responsibility to do so. They have, especially over this last year
with this minister, engaged in an unprecedented process of undermining the
public school system. I outlined a
number of the areas where that has happened.
It is unfortunate that the public school system is being faced with this
kind of crisis, but we cannot thrust more crises onto the public school system.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
I know the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner)
and other members who sit across this House know that they must protect the
education system, the public education for the children, and they must ensure
that there is adequate funding for all the obligations that exist, including
the Supreme Court decision implementation, including the traditional historic
obligations that the minister has to the public education system of this
province.
They have not met those. We really have some very serious
reservations, not only about this minister's commitment to the public education
system, but her ability, Mr. Speaker, in fact, to carry out a very difficult
area of policy because of the lack of confidence that the partners that she has
to work with have in this minister as a result of decisions made over this past
year.
* (1650)
Mr. Speaker, we certainly want to conclude
debate on this, indicating that we want to hear from the public in that vein,
in that we understand the responsibility that the province has to implement
it. We do not disagree at all with that
principle, and we realize that there is an historic obligation that must be met
and the government must proceed.
However, we want them to take a close look at what they are doing here
in terms of the impact that this is going to have on the public education
system for all Manitobans and ensure that there is no negative impact on those
existing divisions at the present time and that they will do it in an efficient
way as well as in a responsive way to the Supreme Court decision. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (
I want to speak because there are a lot of
ideas that have been thrown around this House today which, quite frankly, are
historically inaccurate, and I think it is time to deal with some of those
inaccuracies.
I have listened to a couple of speeches
from the New Democratic Party this afternoon in which they make reference to
Section 23 of the Charter, and they talk about the need to recognize
Francophone rights in the province of Manitoba.
In that, I am in full and absolute and total agreement, but I really
cannot understand a political party that seems to understand historic and
constitutional obligations under Section 23 but refused to deal with those same
historic obligations under Section 22.
They talk about independent school funding
as if it were a decision made some day in the caucus room of the Conservative
Party because they just did not know how fast to spend their money. You know, Mr. Speaker, that is simply not
true. If it is true that there are
Francophone rights in the
When the New Democratic Party was the
government, they had legal opinion. They
knew that if they took Section 22 to the Supreme Court of Canada that in all
likelihood the judgment would be 100 percent total absolute funding for Catholic
schools in the
An Honourable Member: That is why they are not in government
anymore.
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, with the greatest respect to the member
for Emerson, I do not think that had anything to do with their not being government
anymore.
The reality is that Section 22 gives
religious rights to schooling and of that there is no question. The trade‑off on the issue of funding
was simply that, because as a Catholic raised in a fully supported Catholic
school system, I object, quite frankly, to Mennonite children not getting the
same rights as I was given. I resent the
Jewish children would not be given the same opportunities that I was
given. I think other parents have the
right to make the same kind of fundamental choices as my parents had in sending
me to a Catholic school.
An Honourable Member: There was a trade‑off.
Mrs. Carstairs: There was a trade‑off. Now, the reality is that if there is a trade‑off
to recognize some of those rights, which I think are correct and appropriate in
the
Mr. Speaker, there is something that the
government could have done that, quite frankly, I do not understand why they
did not. They could have taken their
plan and they could have sent it in a reference to the Supreme Court of
Canada. They could have asked the
Supreme Court of Canada if this met the obligations of the
I think it would have been more opportune
and more appropriate if we had taken the plan to the Supreme Court ahead of
time and got a ruling, as we have done and other provinces have done on similar
occasions, and had that ruling and then we would have known here in the
Legislature that we were in fact not passing legislation that would be
challenged to the Supreme Court of Canada.
I honestly believe that we could have gone
that step, and I think it would have shown some forward thinking, because I do
not think anybody in the
As to the plan itself, I have read the
bill. I have debated it with a number of
Francophone people, and I look forward to their representation at committee.
I do want to touch on, very briefly, one
of the issues that is raised by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) because he
is absolutely correct when he says that you cannot take all the funding for a
group of students, put it over into a Francophone school system, and then not
have other school systems suffer. It is
not as simple as that. When it is a
grant, a per capita grant of $4,000 per child and that $4,000 moves to another
division, it will put enormous strains on the divisions that are left. It will put those stresses because programs
are based on the number of children that you have in a school division. If you do not have adequate numbers, then you
do not have adequate dollars to offer that program.
So in some school divisions if they lose
20 children, it will not make very much difference, but in a small school
division to lose five children can mean an incredible difference in the amount
of available dollars to put into programming.
I do not think that has been adequately addressed by this government in
this particular piece of legislation. I
think they are going to have to come to grips with the fact that additional
resources are going to have to be put into the new Francophone divisions, but
additional resources are going to have to be left with the divisions from which
those children have been taken in order for an equivalency of programming to be
continued to be offered in those school divisions. With those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I hope
this bill can go to committee.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading of Bill 34, The Public Schools Amendment
(Francophone Schools Governance) Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles
publiques (gestion des ecoles francaises).
Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?
Some Honourable Members:
Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
House
Business
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, on House business, a number of matters if I may at this particular
time.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would ask if
there would be unanimous consent of the House to reschedule the Standing
Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources which is scheduled to sit 7
p.m. this evening, to allow that committee to sit at 5 p.m. today and to have
that sit concurrently while the House is also in session.
Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to
change the sitting hours for PUNR from 7 p.m. and move that up to 5 p.m.?
(agreed)
Mr. Praznik: Secondly, I would like to announce that the
Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will sit tomorrow
at 7 p.m. in Room 254 to consider bills that were passed through today, namely,
Bills 10, 2 and 17.
I would also ask, Mr. Speaker, if you
could canvass the House to see if there is a will to waive private members'
hour.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private
members' hour? No. There is no leave for that.
Committee
Change
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau
(St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose), that the composition of the
Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources, Thursday, July 8
at 9 a.m. be amended as follows: Gimli
(Mr. Helwer) for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer).
Motion agreed to.
* (1700)
PRIVATE
MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., time for private
members' hour.
PROPOSED
RESOLUTIONS
Res. 41‑Health
and Safety Committees
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for
WHEREAS The Workplace Safety and Health
Act places great emphasis on joint health and safety committees as a method of
securing the health and safety of Manitoba's workers; and
WHEREAS these committees have often been
rendered ineffective as a result of ongoing inaction on issues raised at
committee meetings; and
WHEREAS the minister's advisory council on
Workplace Safety and Health has, after five years' efforts, unanimously
recommended a regulation to address this problem; and
WHEREAS said regulation was provided to
the government in April 1991; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
failed to bring in the recommendation.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this
Assembly recommend that the provincial government consider the immediate
implementation of the recommendations of the minister's advisory council on
Workplace Safety and Health.
Motion presented.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak
to this resolution. I must admit that
when the first draw was announced, and it was indicated at the time that my
resolution, as the then Workplace Safety and Health critic for the New
Democratic Party, was No. 41 on the Order Paper for resolutions, I must admit I
never thought I would have the opportunity to debate this in the Chamber. I thought we would not get this far in terms
of resolutions.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
I want to say I consider it very positive
in this session, despite any other shortcomings that may develop, the fact that
we have an opportunity to deal with some very important issues before us, like
this particular issue. I know that we
will soon be dealing with such issues as the Via Rail service. We are dealing with such issues as the sniff
bill, job creation‑‑a whole series of very timely issues.
I want to indicate I will be making a few
comments. Our current critic now in terms
of Workplace Safety and Health, the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), will
also I am sure be speaking in some detail about workplace safety and health
issues. I want to indicate the reason I
moved the motion at the beginning of the session, it is fairly self‑explanatory. There was a joint recommendation, unanimous
recommendation, for the minister's advisory committee on Workplace Safety and
Health to deal with the problem that has arisen in some cases where there has
been inaction on concerns that have been identified by workplace safety and
health committees.
Mr. Acting Speaker, it is a very
straightforward recommendation. A number
of specific regulations were brought to the minister in April of 1991. I would note, and once again this was
unanimous. This was both management and
labour. This was not a majority report,
not a minority report, it was a unanimous recommendation.
Many people involved in the field of
workplace safety and health were very concerned that the minister did not act
upon that recommendation immediately.
Not only that, but that the minister, even after several meetings with
those affected, did not implement the recommendations. I say to you there are going to be times when
we are going to have disagreement between labour and management in dealing with
issues.
We certainly have seen that in terms of
labour relations, and we will get into those debates as the time arises. But the interesting thing, because of the
kind of practical legislation that was brought in by the last New Democratic
Party government in this province, Workplace Safety and Health, that really
strengthened the role of the acts, brought in committees, we are seeing some
very significant changes, I think, in attitude towards workplace safety and
health.
We are now seeing, despite some of the
doubts that were expressed initially, the fact that it is working and that we
are starting to get more of a joint approach to workplace safety and
health. In fact, while I would say there
are still some less than scrupulous employers, minority of employers that I
feel are not doing anywhere near the job they should be in terms of workplace
safety and health. A vast majority of
employers, I think, have adapted well, as have employees, to the committee
system and some of the strength in legislation the previous NDP government
brought in, in terms of strengthening in particular the right to refuse unsafe
work.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I do not know how many
members of the House have had the opportunity to work in some of the more hazardous
occupations. I had the opportunity
before I was elected to work in a number of locations that probably
statistically would be considered amongst the more hazardous, particularly
underground at Inco where I worked just shortly before I was elected. I know some of the hazards firsthand, and I
would indicate that, for example, the people I worked with in 1981, it is very
interesting to see what has happened in the last 11, 12 years. I have seen people nearly involved in fatal
accidents. I have seen people off work
for a considerable period of time because of accidents. I have seen people permanently on workers
compensation because of some of the work‑related conditions they have
developed.
Mr. Acting Speaker, you could take that
group of people and you could map through the pressures that it has put on
them, and that is in one of the more unsafe occupations to begin with, and I
would say it is very fortunate there have been no fatalities. I point to the
example what has happened even in the last 12 years, because I know in Thompson
Inco has been a good example of what can be achieved through co‑operation,
through the committee structure, through not always co‑operation on every
issue but through a great understanding of the joint nature of the problems
that are faced.
Let us look at the situation. The fact is, there are far fewer fatalities
now at Inco than there have ever been before. While even one is too many, there
were times when there were almost monthly fatalities in the early days, and certainly
a number of fatalities in each year. The
fact is the committee system works, and the joint operation of labour‑management
is absolutely key to the achievement of the ultimate goal of eliminating
workplace injuries and particularly workplace deaths.
That is why I have a concern about the
fact of here, where you have co‑operation‑‑we are not talking
about some of the labour relations type of issues where there is obviously a
difference between labour and management‑‑labour and management
agreed. It was the minister, and more
accurately probably the minister's department, that basically sat on this
particular matter, and I think that is very unfortunate.
The reason I brought this forward at the
beginning of this session was to highlight not only this particular regulation
but the importance of continuing to stress the need for focusing in on
workplace safety and health issues. We
absolutely have to recognize those hazards.
I would note that they are even
changing. I have read some interesting
statistics just today that show that, for example, in terms of injuries in the
workforce the biggest increase in
That is why I was very concerned about the
fact that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), responsible for Workplace
Safety and Health, basically did not react immediately to this particular
matter.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I am raising this
today. I know our critic will be raising
this and a number of other concerns related to workplace safety and
health. We want to make sure that in the
future the Workplace Safety and Health Committee is listened to, particularly
when you have unanimous agreement between the two parties, the various representatives. We want to see that a bureaucratic approach
is not taken to these matters, that immediate action is taken wherever
possible.
With those few comments, Mr. Acting
Speaker, I am sure this is a resolution that could be supported by all members
of the House. I look forward to the comments
from my colleague the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) later on in private
members' hour. I once again stress the
importance of workplace safety and health, workplace safety and health issues,
and the importance of that joint labour‑management approach to this very
serious issue in
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Mr. Acting Speaker, I
want to speak to the resolution that has been brought forward by the member for
Thompson (Mr. Ashton), because I think it is important for the member to
recognize that perhaps when he brought forward this resolution he was under the
belief that a certain particular state of facts existed. Perhaps he had been briefed on such by his
contacts with the Manitoba Federation of Labour, wherever. Since bringing forward this particular
resolution, there have been a number of things that have, in fact, happened
that I am not sure the member is quite fully aware of.
* (1710)
I want to use this opportunity to reiterate
some of the facts relating to this matter, because I think in reality there is
not a great deal of disagreement between what the member intends‑‑although
I do not particularly agree with his wording in this resolution, I believe
there is agreement, in principle, between what the member intends, what the
Workplace Safety and Health Advisory Committee intends, what I as minister
intend as well as my colleagues on this side of the House. The difference as to where we are, of course,
has to do with a host of things, many of which are beyond the control of both
myself and the member opposite at the current time.
I should tell the member that this
particular resolution has been in the works for quite a number of years at the
advisory committee, several years while his party was, in fact, in power. There
was a recommendation that was brought forward to my department where we, of
course, review the recommendations that are made by the Workplace Safety and
Health Advisory Committee for the ability, quite frankly, to carry them out.
If I as minister am going to bring forward
a proposed regulation to cabinet, to make it the law of this province, the
regulatory law of this province, then, of course, I want to be sure that it can
be administered and administered well.
So, in the process of looking at the particular regulation as it was
proposed, the wording as it was proposed by that committee, staff in the
department, in the Workplace Safety and Health Branch‑‑and I am
sure the member from his days in government will remember many of those
individuals, because other than normal turnover in the department many of them
were there when his party was in power and served his party, his government
well, as they serve this administration well, Mr. Speaker.
They pointed out to me a very great
administrative difficulty with the regulation as it was proposed. That difficulty, given the proposed wording,
was that the way the proposal was put forward would set the priority agenda of
staff in the department when in fact that priority may not be one that anyone
in this House would necessarily want. By
simply requiring, or by requiring any item that had remained on the agenda of
workplace safety and health committees for three particular meetings and
remained unresolved, to require our staff then to almost immediately attend
that committee and deal with that particular matter and then have the matter,
if it could not be resolved, go to the Labour Board.
It meant that staff in the department
could be responding to a host of issues that were not quite, to be blunt, as
important as other matters that they had to deal with. And one should remember that those particular
items were not items where regulations were being breached, because if that
were the case, the department would respond very quickly.
We were talking about items that were not
necessarily, certainly not, in breach of the regulations of the statutes, but
other matters relating to health and safety in the purview of the
committee. And so under that wording
there was a great deal of difficulty and lack of comfort on the part of our
administrative staff who have to plan the workdays and workloads and priorities
of our Workplace Safety and Health staff.
So their concern was how that recommendation came forward, and how it
would operate in fact.
Last fall I met with the Workplace Safety
and Health Committee of the Manitoba Federation of Labour. We had a very frank discussion, and members
of that committee conceded to me that their prime concern was not having to
have the Workplace Safety and Health officer come out to be the intermediary in
discussions or on issues that were not resolved at the Workplace Safety and
Health Committee. That really was not
their concern. It was to have some sort of mechanism that would push issues
towards resolution or this would be the consequence.
Their preference, of course, was to have
the Labour Board act as the adjudicative body when decisions could not be
settled, and one recognized from the original proposal that that in fact was
where matters would end up. The
committee had recommended the staff of the department be used as sort of an
intermediary stage.
I should tell members of the House as well
that many of our staff, in fact all of our staff, had some difficulty with
being asked to play this intermediate role and sort of be a conciliator. They felt some discomfort with that as well.
Anyway, at that committee we discussed the
administrative concerns, we discussed the ability to have that hammer, for lack
of a better word, of the Labour Board, and I did not particularly have
difficulty with that. We agreed that
reviewing the regulation on that basis and proceeding on that basis would be
certainly worthwhile. And they agreed to
it at that time, by the way.
So we forwarded it for some more work to
be draft, and we sent it to the Department of Justice. Here I want to indicate that we discovered a
basic flaw in the process that has been in place in the work of the committee,
and it is always good to recognize where you have difficulties in your
process. But when this matter went to
the Department of Justice, it was soon discovered by the lawyers in that
department that the particular regulatory authority, the ability to end up at
the Labour Board, was not contemplated by the sections of the act under which
this regulation was to be drafted.
So we had a greater problem now that this
regulation quite frankly would not, in the opinion of staff at the Department
of Justice, in fact be legal. It would
be ultra vires the statute.
Now, members opposite may be of the view
that government should pass regulations anyway and let someone test them, and I
am sure that someone in fact would test them and they would be thrown out. I am not of the view that one should do that.
If the advice one has is that the statute
passed by this Legislative Assembly does not give the Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council
the authority to in fact make that regulation, then in fact we should not. We are doing an illegal act.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
There is one other part, Mr. Speaker, I
should add to this. In the process of redrafting this statute to accommodate
the administrative concerns of staff in the department, I indicated very
clearly that when we had the wording from Justice, I would send it back to the
Workplace Safety and Health Committee because I wanted them to be comfortable
with the legal wording that would ultimately become the regulation‑‑(interjection)
The member says, some months, et
cetera. Yes, it went back to the
committee. What was found in that
committee was that there was no longer a consensus as to this regulation. So here we are with a proposed regulation
that is likely ultra vires the statute, which means I quite frankly should not
be bringing it in, and the committee that recommended it no longer had a
consensus as to what should happen to provide more power to those
committees. So quite frankly, the main
issue with respect to this regulation is that we do not have the power under
the act, in the opinion of the Department of Justice who prepares the legal
text for these regulations, to bring forward that regulation.
Now members opposite may say, well, go
ahead and do it anyway, et cetera, but I think that is a flagrant misuse of the
power of the Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council.
I would say to the member for Transcona
(Mr. Reid) that that information has been, or is about to be, provided to the
committee in their next meeting. I am
sure he can obtain that legal opinion from his colleagues and friends who sit
on that particular committee. I do not
have a copy here to table today, but that certainly is what the Department of
Justice has advised.
I am not hiding anything here. Publicly, I have said to the MFL that I, as
minister, did not have a problem with the regulation when it was unanimously
approved by the committee, but there have been a number of intervening steps.
Members opposite, if they wish to offer
some advice as they may in their commentary, I am sure they would not suggest
that we should bring it forward anyway even if we do not have the authority to
do it. If that is what they are doing,
that would be, I think, a flagrant misuse of the power to make regulation held
by the cabinet, by the Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council.
So, Mr. Speaker, what I have in fact done,
or will be doing when next I meet with the chair of that committee, Professor
Wally Fox‑Decent, is to ask that committee to consider the underlying
problem and to make recommendations to me as minister as to how we can address
it, whatever is required to do to address it, as well as try to achieve a
consensus on that particular subject that will be within the law and will be
administratively possible.
So I trust that the committee will take on
that task, and to rework it and provide me with a recommendation that I in fact
can take to my colleagues in cabinet that is within the purview of the
act. It may require a recommendation, or
a recommendation may come forward to make an amendment to The Workplace Safety
and Health Act to allow for that type of regulation. I am not adverse to that either. I await the recommendation of the committee.
* (1720)
I tell honourable members this, and I say
this to the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), if we did in fact open up The
Workplace Safety and Health Act to make that amendment, and members opposite
said, here we go again, the Tories are attacking labour law, well, I will not
bring forward that type of amendment with that kind of response from the New
Democratic Party. So I give them full
warning today that if they in fact would like to see that kind of change, then
they should be careful in the type of rhetoric that they bring forward in this
Chamber or publicly.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point
out to members opposite that the Workplace Safety and Health Advisory Committee
is a very good committee. We have
charged it with a number of tasks to perform and to give advice to this
government over the next number of months.
In their deliberations we are now working
into the process a very early consultation with the Minister of Justice (Mr.
McCrae) to ensure that whatever recommendations they are working on are within
the authority of the cabinet to make such regulations, rather than have what
has happened here where they have worked for a long period of time on a
recommendation only to find out that it was ultra vires the statute.
But their process of operation has been in
place for a number of years. They have
not had a situation where this has in fact happened before, and we are learning
by that, but it was a fundamental flaw in the process that consultation with
our legal authority did not take place earlier, in fact right from the
beginning of the discussions on this regulation, many, many years ago.
So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this
opportunity to move, seconded by the Minister of Government Services (Mr.
Ducharme):
THAT Resolution 41 be amended by deleting
all the words following the first "WHEREAS" and replacing them with
the following:
WHEREAS Workplace Safety and Health
committees are developed under the jurisdiction of The Workplace Safety and
Health Act; and
WHEREAS the Workplace Safety and Health
committees facilitate joint problem solving between employers and employees in
the area of Workplace Safety and Health; and
WHEREAS the advisory council to the
minister on Workplace Safety and Health is currently examining the safety and
health committee regulation.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this
Assembly support the principle of effective Workplace Safety and Health
committees and encourage the advisory council to the minister on Workplace
Safety and Health to continue its review of the powers and structures of these
committees.
Motion presented.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable minister's resolution is in
order.
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting listening to
the Minister of Labour discuss this resolution.
We have discussed it a number of times in Estimates, there have been
questions in the House, and I have heard the explanation now for some months,
and it has not changed. It is
interesting to think about how quickly this government can move when it is
operating on its own ideologically based agenda and how slowly it can move when
it is doing something that perhaps is not in keeping with its traditional agenda.
We have seen a number of examples. We just finished debating in this House the
stubble burning legislation regulations that were brought in and how, because
of an incredible amount of public outcry and public pressure, they were forced
to bring in regulations within I think it was a six‑month period of
time. We know that can be done.
So whatever kind of excuses the minister
is using in terms of not consulting the Department of Justice early enough to
have them give the legislative language and make sure that this regulation was
going to be able to be empowered into the act, I just really do not think that
we can buy that because we know when we look at the changes that they have made
in Home Care, in Child and Family Services, with wildlife legislation, with a
number of other pieces of legislation and regulations where they have moved in
quickly and done things with no consultation, we know that they can move
quickly and expeditiously when they really want to.
So the minister may sound like he is being
up front and everything is legitimate in terms of what he is saying has been
the problem with the regulations that were being called for by the member for
Thompson (Mr. Ashton) with his private members' resolution, I just am not
convinced that the minister is really interested in seeing these regulations
come into play.
* (1730)
In the amendment that he puts forward he
talks about how workplace safety and health committees facilitate joint problem
solving between employers and employees and that they are, in fact, fundamental
to having safe workplaces. The
legislation is not empowered to any great degree without having these
committees in place. The regulations
that we are merely trying to have the minister live up to, bringing into force,
are regulations that are going to bring the full powers to the act and to make
sure that we have safe workplaces.
These regulations are going to make sure
that workers are present when there are inspections being conducted on
workplace safety issues. Now this is
something that is provided for in the legislation but does not occur. There is no way of knowing if it occurs or
not, if there is not going to be some organized structure in a workplace to
make sure that that is going to happen.
These committees for workplace safety and
health are, in fact, democratizing the workplace. It is understandable, initially, that there
also was a democratic process or that there was a joint committee, labour and
management, workers and management, to try and work to develop the regulations,
and that that could take some time. But
we just cannot accept the kind of delays that the minister has allowed to
continue.
We live in a time when we like to think
that we have a democracy, and we have made a great amount of progress in terms
of people having their right to health and safety respected. We do not want to think that we have people
working in a situation where they can be forced to work in unsafe situations;
they can be forced to work with materials that they do not even know the
hazards of; or they can be working with dangerous equipment and materials and
not have the proper emergency procedures in place in case there was an
accident.
These are all the kinds of things that would
be more guaranteed to be protected if these regulations were in place. The
section of the legislation that these regulations would come under does not
have the authority to enact the Labour Board to intervene in these matters. Now, I am sure that there would be a number
of ways of dealing with that in a more expeditious manner than what we have
seen.
We could have some kind of companion
regulation that could come along with the one that we have had before us. So we just cannot accept that, you know,
because the Department of Justice did not see these regulations until after the
committee came to a consensus that now there is going to be all of these
problems with them. We just cannot
accept these kind of delays.
It seems like each time, as the minister
was saying, they have gone back to the legislative drafting, that there has
been something that has come up.
There was, as has been mentioned, a
consensus in principle specifically on the regulations dealing with workplace
safety and health committees, and it is, I think, understandable that if there
are significant changes, then there would no longer be a consensus and that
there may be members of the committee that agreed upon certain regulations who
would now have a problem, especially when you look at some of the changes that
were made.
We have heard the minister make specific
reference to authority provided under the act with respect to these
regulations, but when I look at some of the other changes that have been made
to the regulations, there is no explanation for that. Even with such things as making the language
in the regulations more permissive, such as changing "shall" to
"may," and that then weakening the guarantee that there is actually
going to be some action undertaken‑‑I think it is legitimate.
Also, one of the other things that the
minister has referred to is in not wanting to have a body or groups outside of
the department set the agenda in the department, or outside of this Chamber set
the agenda for the department. That is
what we want the workplace safety and health committees there for, so that the
department is going to be responding to the real needs and the real safety
problems in workplaces throughout the province, that they are not going to be
preoccupied with some kind of internal matters, that they are going to be
indeed responding to the kinds of infractions and concerns going on in
workplaces. The minister has said that
would not happen if there was a violation under the regulations, but I think
that is the kind of controversy that these kinds of committees are going to be
dealing with.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the minister, I think,
would have us believe that he is taking these regulations seriously and is
doing everything that he can to see that workplace safety and health committees
have the maximum power and the maximum ability to function. But I really do not think that is the case,
because, as I have said earlier, we have seen over and over again with other
regulations and legislation that, when they really want something to go
through, they can make that happen very quickly. We saw that when the minister and this
government was dealing with FOS. We have
seen how they have dealt with Bill 22, and it is interesting, when there is
something that is coming from the community, particularly coming from labour,
that they will use this process and excuse of ongoing consultation.
I am sure that, if there was some redraft
of new regulations or a new approach to dealing with the problems raised here,
those could be sent out to the members of the committee, and there could be
some feedback given to the minister and to the Department of Justice that
way. I would hate to think that he is
going to continue to wait for the advisory committee to convene to do that kind
of consultation. I know that, if that
had happened, I think that we would have heard some kind of response, so I know
that there had not been any movement on alternatives prepared and sent out to
the committee.
So it seems like what this minister is
doing is throwing up his hands and saying, well, that one did not work. They have not actually had the Department of
Justice prepare any kind of alternative to the regulations that were agreed to
by consensus from the Workplace Safety and Health Advisory Committee.
So I would just conclude my remarks by
saying that we have a great bit of concern with the minister's inaction in this
area, that he is not doing everything that could possibly be done to make sure
that workplaces in
* (1740)
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting with all
the attention that violent and tragic deaths that occur in our province
receive, we never seem to give the same kind of consideration to the huge number
of accidents in industries that occur in workplaces every day. People are much more likely to have some kind
of serious injury occur in their workplace than they are with driving their car
or many of the other kinds of crimes that occur in our community. The precautions and prevention of those kinds
of problems and injuries do not seem to get the same kind of attention that is
received in other areas.
So I think that the minister should feel
compelled to move forward with these regulations and to use his full authority
to ensure that they come into force, I would hope, before we would be back in
this House again, because I would hate to have to see another resolution
similar to this one which is just encouraging the minister to do what he has
said he is supportive of doing, wants very much to do, and has been directed to
do by his advisory committee.
With that, I will conclude my remarks, Mr.
Speaker. Thank you very much.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the house to call six
o'clock?
Some Honourable Members:
Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: Agreed.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House now stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m.
tomorrow (Thursday).