LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday, February 19, 1992
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Mr.
Speaker: I have
reviewed the petition, and it conforms with the privileges and practices of the
House and complies with the rules. Is it
the will of the House to have the petition read?
The petition of the undersigned citizens
of the
THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by
all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world;
and
It is the responsibility of the government
to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and
Programs like the Fight Back Against Child
Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with the crime;
and
The decision to terminate the Fight Back
Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good citizens to
help abused children.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition, and it conforms
with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the
rules. Is it the will of the House to
have the petition read?
The petition of the undersigned citizens
of the
THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by all
good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world; and
It is the responsibility of the government
to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and
Programs like the Fight Back Against Child
Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with the
crime; and
The decision to terminate the Fight Back
Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good citizens to
help abused children.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition, and it conforms
with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the
rules. Is it the will of the House to
have the petition read?
The petition of the undersigned citizens
of the
THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by
all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world;
and
It is the responsibility of the government
to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and
Programs like the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign raise public
awareness and necessary funds to deal with the crime; and
The decision to terminate the Fight Back
Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good citizens to
help abused children.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I have a ministerial statement.
It gives me great pleasure today to advise
all members that the government of
These agreements will provide the
opportunity for this province to become a major player in a new and expanding
industry. We are using the government's
need for improved information and program effectiveness as a stimulus for
innovation and growth in the field of high technology. We in this government have the vision to
recognize the unique and innovative approach that Linnet offers in the use of
geographic information systems.
Mr. Speaker, with this agreement, the
province becomes a partner, acquiring a 24 percent interest in Linnet to
execute two projects that will utilize Linnet's expertise and unique approach
in two areas of high public priority. We
have taken a part ownership in Linnet for two reasons. The first quite simply is that we expect
Linnet to be successful and to generate profits through export sales. I believe that, by adopting Linnet's approach
for our internal requirements, we are in fact providing a form of investment to
Linnet and that we should have the opportunity to share in the company's
success.
* (1335)
The second reason is that Linnet's
contract will be providing a common base for various types of land‑related
information, information that is already in the public domain, which is owned
by the province and which Linnet will use under licence. Being a shareholder in the company and
therefore taking part in the corporation's decision making is a responsible way
of incorporating the public interest.
This is a clear example of how government can encourage economic
development in the creation of a new industry here in
Two demonstration projects will be
conducted using sophisticated computer technology. The first project for the Manitoba Crop
Insurance Corporation will use existing data and apply it in a graphic form to
the quarter section level of farm land.
This will lead to a better method of interpreting data and will support
the Crown corporation in its efforts to improve service to individual farmers.
The second project will provide a means of
integrating data from various sources to assist municipalities, planning
districts and utilities in meeting the demand of urban and regional
expansion. The project will demonstrate
this approach using the area between
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, the government
still maintains the ownership of the information and controls the access and
distribution of the information provided through these projects. As I
mentioned, with this agreement, the province becomes a partner with I.D. Group
of
GIS is a growing industry. Experts predict that the industry will be
worth $20 billion to $40 billion annually by the turn of the century. For now,
One of the keys to
Our government has worked hard to build a
solid foundation for economic growth. We
have made a commitment to control spending and create a positive climate for
investment. Today's announcement is
another example of our government's commitment to fostering growth, supporting
innovation and establishing
*
(1340)
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): It is statements like these, and the way that
the government has announced this statement following on a press release
yesterday, that give those of us on this side very great concerns about the
government and where it is going. Quite
frankly, no wonder there are 57,000 people unemployed in this province with the
stewardship of members opposite and the way in which they are managing our
economy and managing the assets of our province and the public of this
province.
These secret negotiations have gone on for
some time. I would note that there has
been absolutely no tendering at all about dealing with public assets and moving
them over to one private firm, a private firm that has close connections to
members opposite, the Conservative government and the province of the day. It is secret negotiations dealing with public
assets being moved over to a private company.
Even conservative
Mr.
Speaker, there is absolutely no explanation of how much this company is
worth. There is no correlation between
the amount of money the government is paid and the value of the company. The government could not provide any answers
to the media that was able to attend their last‑minute announcement
yesterday, because they do not have that information. They wanted to have this announcement almost
in the dead of night, having it late yesterday afternoon, tied to other press
conferences the government was holding on other announcements.
Mr. Speaker, these are public assets that
have been gathered over a number of years and have geographic and geological
information that is maintained by the public.
We have great concern on the pattern of this government opposite to take
public records and public assets and privatize them. In the 1980s, there was considerable
privatization of resources and utilities by Conservative governments, and now
private companies in the information society want to get and obtain a
considerable amount of assets and records in the public sector.
Mr. Speaker, the minister opposite is
correct. It is a tremendous potential
for growth of $20 billion to $40 billion, but the question is: Who is going to control that growth, and to
whose benefit will it be? Will it be to
the benefit of the public of
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely
no cost benefit in terms of jobs for the province of Manitoba in the
announcement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). We do not know how many jobs‑‑I
would suggest the minister should table how many jobs will be lost in the
public sector versus how many jobs will be gained in the private sector.
Mr.
Speaker, this company came to us when we were in government as well, and our
preliminary review of this project was that it was going to cost us
considerable jobs in the public sector and considerable rights of individuals
and citizens of the
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we have an
announcement today, but we have very little information. We do not know what the people of
When we do not go to the public tendering
process, we do not know whether we have good deals or bad deals, because we do
not know what alternative deals there are for us to examine so that we can
justify in our own minds that we have the best possible deal.
We have only this government's word for
the fact that this is a wonderful deal.
Well, we had the NDP government's word that Unisys was state of the art
for our hospitals and was going to be the most miraculous thing since sliced
bread.
We had this government's word that the
Wang deal was going to be just a wonderful deal in terms of the computerization
of the entire operations of government.
Both of them have failed to live up to expectations, and the tragedy is
that we do not know whether Linnet is going to be a very exciting adventure or
whether it is not going to be a very exciting adventure. We do not know whether there were alternative
firms who could have done a better job, and we do not know any of those things
because this government chose not to ask for bids at large so that we could be
assured that they had cut the best possible deal for the citizens and the
taxpayers of the province of Manitoba.
I hope, Mr Speaker, that they have cut a
succcessful deal. I hope that the
interests of Manitobans will be protected in terms of their information bank
and in terms of their confidentiality. I hope this will be a moneymaker, but
because I have not been able to make a judgment any more than they have been
able to make a judgment, I have very serious concerns.
*
(1345)
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, I am tabling today the Nineteenth Annual Report dated March 31,
1991, for Legal Aid
I am tabling today the Twentieth Annual
Report for 1990‑91 of the Manitoba Law Reform Commission.
I am tabling the Annual Report for 1990‑91
of the Manitoba Police Commission.
I am tabling the 1990 Annual Report for
The Manitoba Human Rights Commission.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 46‑The Jury Amendment Act
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and
Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the
House, I would move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness), that Bill 46, The Jury Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
jures), be introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Attorney General have
leave?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Leave is denied.
Bill 47‑The Petty Trespasses
Amendment Act
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Perhaps if I try again, Mr. Speaker, honourable members in the New Democratic
Party will come to their senses.
I ask for leave to move, seconded by the
honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 47, The Petty
Trespasses Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'intrusion), be introduced
and that the same be now read and received the first time.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Attorney General have
leave?
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No?
Leave is denied.
Mr. McCrae: So much for co‑operation.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
*
* *
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the spirit that this House
exercised with respect to the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) the other day‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Under Introduction of Bills?
An Honourable Member: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Point of Order
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we have
some very clear rules in this House about what items of business we deal with.
We are currently dealing with the Routine
Proceedings which is Introduction of Bills.
There are a number of bills that are listed that have gone through the
proper notice procedures. I know we have
a member introducing one of those bills today.
I would ask if it is in order for the
government, which has filed a number of bills which have not yet been placed as
part of the routine proceedings that are not yet in order, in terms of the
normal notice procedures, to stand to attempt to bring them through and then to
make the type of comments the Minister of Labour did, the extraneous comments. In fact, I would suggest that is not in
order, and we should proceed with those bills brought in in the normal
procedure, a number of which are waiting for introduction on first reading
currently today, Mr. Speaker.
* (1350)
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised, the honourable
Attorney General had asked for leave.
Leave had been denied. Therefore, that settled the issue.
On the issue of the honourable Minister of
Labour (Mr. Praznik), if the honourable minister wanted to make a statement you
could have stood up during Ministerial Statements.
Bill 42‑The Amusements Amendment
Act
Mr.
Speaker: Now
under Introduction of Bills, the honourable Minister of Labour.
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, with leave, I would like to
move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), that
Bill 42, The Amusements Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
divertissements, be introduced and that the same now be read and received for a
first time.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Labour have
leave? No, leave is denied.
Bill 52‑The Pas Health Complex
Incorporation Amendment Act
Mr.
Oscar Lathlin (The Pas):
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for
Motion
presented.
Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Speaker, just a brief explanation to the bill.
The Pas Health Complex Incorporated currently has a board of directors
consisting of 10 members. However, it
has attempted to expand the membership to 13 and that is to give the community
a wider representation at the board of The Pas Health Complex.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction of Guests
Mr.
Speaker: Prior to
Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery
where we have with us this afternoon, from the
Also, from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I
welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Round Table on the Environment
Project Review Process
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we want to formally welcome the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) back. I would hate
to admit that we missed him, but we welcome him back to the House. The animation has already been raised a bit by
your presence again, and we wish you a speedy recovery. We even note that your crutches, I think, are
colour co‑ordinated with the political party that you represent. We know that your injury is very
painful. We wish you all the best in
your recovery. We will try to keep you
off your feet, but we had better start with a question to the First Minister.
Mr. Speaker, we were proud to have co‑signed
the proposal with business to have round tables in all provinces and the
national government to have business, labour, government, environmental people
working together on the economic and environmental consequences of very major
projects. We applauded the provincial
government, including the Premier, when he agreed to chair a round table in
Since that time, we have been very
concerned and have expressed our concern that the round table in this province
has been a public relations exercise. In
fact, last year, I recall a public relations firm was hired for a quarter
million dollars, yet the major decisions dealing with our environment like Oak
Hammock Marsh, like Repap, like Rafferty‑Alameda, like Conawapa were not
being discussed and decisions being made in a round table in a sustainable
development way but rather the emphasis was on public relations.
Today, we find a document signed by the
Chamber of Commerce that again has said that this process by the government has
tended to be a public relations orientation.
They are now calling on a real sustainable development process for this
province.
I would ask the Premier: What action is his government going to take
to change it from a public relations exercise to a truly comprehensive decision‑making
body for jobs and the environment in our
*
(1355)
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the
Opposition for his welcoming‑back remarks. I can assure him that dealing with my broken
ankle is not nearly as painful as listening to the rhetoric from across the
way.
Speaking of empty rhetoric, we know
exactly the situation that this province faced when we took office in 1988 and
did form the round table and did put in place the most extensive comprehensive
process for environmental assessment and review that has ever been seen in this
province. We know that, when we came
into place, we had Manfor up at The Pas, owned and operated by the provincial
government, which had never been licensed by the previous administration
environmentally. We had it being the
only pulp and paper mill possibly in the world that from time to time
discharged raw effluent right into the river without any checks and balances,
without anything being done to it.
We had them construct Limestone, the
largest hydro‑electric project in
That was the attitude that the
administration, of which the Leader of the Opposition was a part, put
forward. We put the round table in place
as a means of altering for all time and future public policy with respect to
environmental assessment and economic development.
I can say to the Leader of the Opposition
that that round table has been getting compliments from right throughout the
country. In fact, we had recently the
chairman of the education and information committee of the national round table
in Winnipeg at one of our round table meetings telling those present that ours
was the leading round table in the country in terms of the work that it was
doing, in terms of the development stage at which it was, that it was leading
in showing the way in a whole host of initiatives that were not being matched
by any other round table in the country and that we were in fact taking the lead
role in so many areas of round tables, showing the way in the development of a
sustainable development policy and implementing it throughout all levels of
government departments.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that the
Premier does find the debate in this House painful. He should find it painful, with the number of
people who are unemployed and the number of people on welfare in the
The Premier announced last year at the
round table meeting, the public relations meeting that we attended, that we had
the best environmental act in the country, and we were proud of the fact that
we did pass that act. We also
congratulated the government for establishing the round table, but there is
absolutely no sense having a round table if the people who are participating on
it are calling it a public relations exercise. They are calling for an action‑oriented
round table.
I would ask the Premier: Will he be submitting major projects that
affect jobs and the environment to that round table for written decisions and
written advice to all the members of the public, and would he perhaps start
with the Conawapa project, where there is considerable debate going on in this
province on the timing of the Conawapa for domestic use of the province of
Manitoba?
Point of Order
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I know we have rules in this
House which ask members to rise, but it seems to me totally inappropriate to
ask the Premier to rise and possibly endanger his other ankle.
Mr. Filmon: I thank the Leader of the Liberal Party, Mr.
Speaker. Just to demonstrate how steady
I am, I want to assure her that I would not do anything that endangered my
other leg, and I thank her for her concerns.
I speak better and I think the microphone picks up better if I am
standing, so I will do it that way until I have a problem. Thank you.
*
* *
*
(1400)
Mr. Filmon: I just want to say to the Leader of the
Opposition, in response to his postamble, that it is not the rhetoric of the
opposition that is painful, it is the empty rhetoric. I happened to go through Hansard and read the
so‑called emergency debate on the economy that was instituted by the NDP
on Monday of this week.
Mr. Speaker, by leave, all parties,
because the economy is such a major concern, wanted to have the opportunity to
hear the constructive ideas of the NDP party.
There was not one new idea. There
was not one constructive suggestion.
There was just a lot of empty rhetoric from the New Democrats, people
who presumably have been sitting preparing for this session to resume for more
than two months. That is what is
painful, because these are serious issues that we have to deal with.
Our government is consulting and being
involved with Ministers of Finance right across the country. I am talking with Premiers almost daily. We are fighting similar battles, and we have
similar challenges, but what we get from the opposition and the Leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Doer), the NDP party, is they are reduced to going back to
their old times of 15 years ago, the "should have beens" and
"what have beens" and "never was's." That is what is really
painful.
I want to say in response to his question‑‑[interjection] Well, if you want to have
a lot of preamble and postamble, I will have to respond to it, I am sorry.
The fact of the matter is that the
individual who made comment is not a part of the round table and does not
appear to be at all familiar with any of the work that the round table is
doing, as near as I could tell, Mr. Speaker, has not bothered to try and get
information on the round table efforts and is, from a distance, supposing what
it is and what it should do without any information. Of course, if you have that kind of
commentary based on lack of information or involvement, then you can have
misunderstandings.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the business community, the
labour community, the environmental community, the education community and the
government community is on the round table.
The whole idea is to get a group of people together to develop a
consensus on the major economic and environmental decisions before us. I am surprised the Premier would repudiate
one of the participants, one of the bodies that is part of the government's
round table because‑‑[interjection]
again the Premier‑‑I was absolutely surprised that he would attack
the integrity of an organization rather than dealing with the substance of the
concerns.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Premier very
simply, given the fact that there is a great deal of conflict in this province
about the timing of projects like Conawapa and the economic and environmental
consequences of this, and given the fact we have a round table that is
established in this province, would the Premier agree to submit this project to
that round table so that a consensus could be developed in our province about
major environmental and economic decisions, and we can move forward as a
province rather than having the debate that this round table that the Premier
chairs is only a "public relations body"?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I repeat just so the Leader of
the Opposition (Mr. Doer) has some valid facts to base his statement on, not
commentary out of a news article, the Chamber of Commerce is not represented on
the round table. There are many business
people, labour people. There are people
from the environment community, and none of them have given that
criticism. This is a body that is not
involved with it, that does not appear to have much information on the work of
the round table, that has gratuitously made comment. That does not make them expert.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to changing the
forum under which the Conawapa project will be reviewed, I think it would be
totally inappropriate to take the Conawapa project review out of the hands of a
full and open public environmental review process, open to everybody to appear
before it, to expert witness and everything else, take it out of that kind of
public forum, which is the best forum, I would say, in Canada and put it into a
back‑room forum of a committee such as the round table, which is not
accessible to the public, not open to public debate and consideration. That would be the wrong way to go.
I know New Democrats did not have public
environmental assessment or review of Limestone, Mr. Speaker. That was a great, great failing. We are not going back to those days. We are going to have a full federal‑provincial
joint‑panel public environmental assessment and review process which will
be the best and most thorough in
Conawapa Dam Project
Public Utilities Board Review
Mr.
George Hickes (Point Douglas): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the new
Minister of Energy and Mines.
The Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce has
criticized the government for proceeding to build Conawapa before it was
needed. The original PUB review wrongly
assessed that Conawapa power would be needed for domestic consumption in the
year 2000.
As the First Minister will not take this
to the round table, which is the committee which deals with jobs and the
environment, will the new Minister of Energy and Mines resubmit the Conawapa
project to the Public Utilities Board?
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Energy and
Mines): I want you and this House to
know that this government has two new processes to the further development of
any Hydro projects, a complete environmental hearing process that everyone is
welcome to participate in; secondly, it has gone before the Public Utilities
Board, which fully endorsed the initiative that was established.
Listening to the Leader of the New
Democratic Party (Mr. Doer), Mr. Speaker‑‑and this is in the throne
speech, in 1988, he said, we will fight the mothballing of our Manitoba Hydro
program right down the line this session and the next session‑‑[interjection] the member who just asked
the question, in 1990 budget debate, and he is putting his position forward.
Yes, he does support the Conawapa project.
Now I am having a difficult time, Mr.
Speaker. With two new processes added,
creation of 25,000 person years of jobs, leaving the province of Manitoba with
a completely paid‑for project in Conawapa in the year 2022 and some $900
million worth of economic benefits to the province, that the member would ask
such a question, that he is now not supporting it, coming from northern
Manitoba.
Mr. Hickes: Mr. Speaker, to correct the minister's
statement, we are not saying yes or no.
We are saying, do the job right.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I remind the honourable member, this is not a
time for debate.
Mr. Hickes: I would like to ask the honourable Minister
of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey): Is he
taking the advice of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) who said on
Monday that Conawapa is an environmentally benign project and urges cutting the
timetable for the environmental hearings in half in order to ram the Conawapa
project through?
Point of Order
Hon.
Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a matter of order when there is a
deliberate misrepresentation of what the member has put on the record.
The debate, as the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
has already referred to, was in the course of the debate on the economy. It was a suggestion that was made out to
honourable members opposite that, if indeed it was jobs and more jobs that they
were looking for, now and immediate, then suggestions like looking at the
timeframe for the environmental hearings for Conawapa could be coming from
members opposite.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister does not have a point
of order. It is clearly a dispute over
the facts.
An Honourable Member: On the same point of order.
Mr. Speaker: There was no point of order.
*
(1410)
Point of Order
Mr.
Hickes: On a new
point of order, I would ask the Minister of Natural Resources to read Hansard,
February 17‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Point Douglas does
not have a point of order. Your question
has already been put.
*
* *
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, the other comment I would like
to make in response is that I am not sure that what is being commented upon by
the individual from the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce is in fact the official
position of the Winnipeg Chamber. I will
refer to a news report that indicated the chamber has not taken a position as
far as I know on Conawapa. That is this
Mr. Cantor, who is now clearly indicating in a news report that it is not the
position of the Winnipeg Chamber.
Mr. Hickes: Can the minister tell this House whether he
or any member of his cabinet contacted Ontario Hydro or the government of
Mr. Downey: No, in fact, just a little bit of the
background for the member as well‑‑I will quote what his Leader
said. This was in 1989, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Doer said he was supportive of the
Conawapa project when it was first announced in 1989. In fact, he claimed he and Premier Pawley's
NDP government had signed an agreement between
No, we have not contacted Ontario Hydro as
to whether we want to change the deal.
We believe it is a good deal for Manitoba Hydro. We believe it is a good deal for
Conawapa Dam Project
Legal Opinion Request
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in December, the Liberal party
of
Will the First Minister now tell us if
they are committed to open government, as they committed in the 1990 campaign,
and will they now table the complete legal opinion and not just phrases so that
we can know how to fit the mistakes in with the rest of the copy?
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Energy and
Mines): Mr. Speaker, to the Leader
of the Liberal Party, we do have legal opinion which in fact indicates the deal
is authentic and the agreement is authentic.
There has been a portion of the legal opinion provided for the member,
and I think that all of the information dealing with the subject matter that is
pertinent to this has been provided to the member of the opposition.
Mrs. Carstairs: We do not share this government's fear of
tabling legal opinions or indeed its need to hide them. We would like to table the following legal
opinion which we commissioned, also from a reputable
Will this government now, on the basis of
this new agreement, table its opinion so that the two can be compared as to
which perhaps is the better legal opinion?
Mr. Downey: I am quite prepared to take the information
that the Leader of the Liberal Party has provided. I am quite prepared to assess what has been
tabled by the member of the Liberal Party.
Mrs. Carstairs: Obviously, they are not committed to the process
of open government.
Public Utilities
Board Review
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the former Minister responsible
for Hydro said he was not sure that the deal was still a good one, but that
Well, it is obvious that renegotiation is
indeed possible, and it is also possible to send all of the new information to
the Public Utilities Board.
Why will this minister not commit today,
in light of new facts, new very relevant facts, about need for hydro‑electricity,
about the validity of the contracts? Why
will he not refer the whole issue to the Public Utilities Board?
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Energy and
Mines): Because it has been reviewed
by the Public Utilities Board, Mr. Speaker, endorsed by the Public Utilities
Board, being a major benefit to this province both in long‑term benefits
as far as the economic benefits in some $900 million worth of value to this
province, the creation of some 1,000, the equivalent of some 1,000 25‑year
careers and jobs, or 22,000 to 25,000 person years of employment, and it has
been reviewed by the Public Utility Board and spoken to clearly by the Public
Utility Board that it is a good project for Manitoba based on the data that it
was essential to make the decision for the Public Utility Board.
Dutch Elm Disease
Funding Restoration
Ms.
Jean Friesen (Wolseley):
Mr. Speaker, the evidence is clear from
In
Mr. Speaker, there is no point in Winnipeg
2000 asking us to celebrate Winnipeg's quality of life, because when we lose
those 200,000 trees in Winnipeg, there are going to be 200,000 reasons for
every Winnipegger to remember this Tory government.
I would like to ask the Minister of Urban
Affairs: Will he recommend to the
cabinet, as the man who speaks for