LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday, April 7, 1992
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Ms.
Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Charles Brown, Patti Cohen, Charlene Skraba and others requesting the Minister
of Justice (Mr. McCrae) call upon the Parliament of Canada to amend the
Criminal Code to prevent the release of individuals where there is substantial
likelihood of further family violence.
Mr.
Clif Evans (Interlake):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Agnete Fjeldsted, Jessie
Chappil, Helga Jonnasson and others requesting the Minister of Housing (Mr.
Ernst) consider reinstating local housing authorities with volunteer boards.
Mr.
Doug Martindale (Burrows):
Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Beth McFee, Dave Bain,
Margaret Moar and others requesting the Minister of Justice call upon the
Parliament of
Mr.
Speaker: I have
reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), and
it complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with
the rules (by leave). Is it the will of
the House to have the petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
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 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
* * *
I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Radisson (Ms.
Cerilli). It complies with the
privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
THAT
the bail review provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada currently set out
that accused offenders, including those suspected of conjugal or family
violence, be released unless it can be proven that the individual is a danger
to society at large or it is likely that the accused person will not reappear
in court; and
The
problem of conjugal and family violence is a matter of grave concern for all
Canadians and requires a multifaceted approach to ensure that those at risk,
particularly women and children, be protected from further harm.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba
may be pleased to request that the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) call upon
the Parliament of Canada to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to permit the
courts to prevent the release of individuals where it is shown that there is a
substantial likelihood of further conjugal or family violence being
perpetrated.
*
(1335)
* * *
I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for
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 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
* * *
I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr.
Reid). It complies with the privileges
and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
THAT
the bail review provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada currently set out
that accused offenders, including those suspected of conjugal or family
violence, be released unless it can be proven that the individual is a danger
to society at large or it is likely that the accused person will not reappear
in court; and
The
problem of conjugal and family violence is a matter of grave concern for all
Canadians and requires a multifaceted approach to ensure that those at risk,
particularly women and children, be protected from further harm.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba
may be pleased to request that the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) call upon
the Parliament of Canada to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to permit the
courts to prevent the release of individuals where it is shown that there is a
substantial likelihood of further conjugal or family violence being
perpetrated.
I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member for Broadway (Mr. Santos). It
complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the
rules. Is it the will of the House to
have the petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
THAT
the bail review provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada currently set out
that accused offenders, including those suspected of conjugal or family
violence, be released unless it can be proven that the individual is a danger
to society at large or it is likely that the accused person will not reappear
in court; and
The
problem of conjugal and family violence is a matter of grave concern for all
Canadians and requires a multifaceted approach to ensure that those at risk,
particularly women and children, be protected from further harm.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba
may be pleased to request that the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) call upon
the Parliament of Canada to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to permit the
courts to prevent the release of individuals where it is shown that there is a
substantial likelihood of further conjugal or family violence being
perpetrated.
* * *
I
have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr.
Hickes). It complies with the privileges
and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read?
The
petition of the undersigned citizens of the
THAT
the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry was launched in April of 1988 to conduct an examination
of the relationship between the justice system and aboriginal people; and
*
(1340)
The
AJI delivered its report in August of 1991 and concluded that the justice
system has been a massive failure for aboriginal people; and
The
AJI report endorsed the inherent right of aboriginal self‑government and
the right of aboriginal communities to establish an aboriginal justice system;
and
The
Canadian Bar Association, The Law Reform Commission of Canada, among many
others, also recommend both aboriginal self‑government and a separate and
parallel justice system; and
On
January 28, 1992, five months after releasing the report, the provincial
government announced it was not prepared to proceed with the majority of the
recommendations; and
Despite
the All‑Party Task Force Report which endorsed aboriginal self‑government,
the provincial government now rejects a separate and parallel justice system,
an Aboriginal Justice Commission and many other key recommendations which are
solely within provincial jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the
PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mrs.
Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has
adopted a certain resolution, directs me to report the same and asks leave to
sit again.
I
move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that
the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Oak Hammock Marsh
Ducks Unlimited Complex
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, dealing with the Ducks Unlimited
complex at Oak Hammock Marsh, the government has had a number of different roles. On the one hand it has been a proponent of
the project with $1 million in funding from the provincial government to the
project. It is also a legislator in
terms of changes to The Wildlife Act last year. Thirdly, it is the custodian of
the Clean Environment Commission as the government of the day for licensing
purposes.
A
number of groups locally, nationally and internationally are now very concerned
and very opposed to the project at the Oak Hammock Marsh and are raising a
number of concerns on the international stage.
Yesterday,
we learned that according to ID consulting group the size of the project that
was originally licensed by the provincial government has indeed increased from
8.6 acres of land to 45 acres of land, certainly five times greater in size
than the original project that was licensed by the Clean Environment Commission.
In
light of the role of the government to be the independent body to protect the
public on this environmental process, would the Premier (Mr. Filmon) today
agree to suspend the project, to suspend the funding, and have the project
returned to the Clean Environment Commission so that we can have a review of
the licence that is provided to the project and public input into an ever
increasing project in terms of the scope?
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier):
Mr. Speaker, I heard the Leader of the Opposition quoted today as
talking about credibility and integrity.
It is exactly those two issues that one should be examining when one
responds to the question that the Leader of the Opposition has put
forward. The fact of the matter is that almost
all of the questions that come forward from opposition members as well as the
basis upon which organizations half the world away make their decisions is in
fact incorrect information. This is yet
one more story that finds itself rooted in information that is absolutely and
totally false.
The
works facilities that are represented in the Ducks Unlimited plan and
development have in fact been less than that which was presented to the Clean
Environment Commission. In fact, in 1989
the original plan called for 3.5 hectares, and only 2.35 hectares have been
covered by parking lots or works that have to do with this facility. In addition, there was an area of upland to
be stripped of topsoil and replanted with native vegetation, always part of the
plan and continues to be part of the plan.
A
detailed work plan and schedule was presented to the Citizens Advisory
Committee for this matter of stripping and replanting with native vegetation to
in fact return and restore the area surrounding that facility to its natural
habitat and its natural circumstances.
That is what is the 18 areas that has been wrongly referred to by the
Sierra Club that is now being parroted incorrectly by the Leader of the
Opposition.
*
(1345)
Oak Hammock Marsh
Ducks Unlimited Complex
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I have the original licence
calling on a three‑cell sewage treatment facility for .8 hectares of land
and that has grown in size now from 1.9 acres of land, according to the report,
the engineering report is now 10 acres of land, again on the one part of the project
at all that was not referred to by the Premier and has grown over five times.
It
begs the question, if there is nothing to worry about in terms of the original
licence, why would the Premier not agree to suspend the money? Why would the Premier not agree to suspend the
licence and have it go back to the Clean Environment Commission? If what the Premier is saying is correct,
then I am sure the Clean Environment Commission and the public will be able to
see what the Premier has said.
Mr.
Speaker, dealing with inconsistencies, on two occasions now the project has
been given permission to proceed with accelerated construction at the site
requiring amendments to the original licence.
In fact, on March 24, 1992, again the government gave permission to
amend the licence for a more fast‑track construction and development of
the complex at Oak Hammock Marsh, with increased construction, decreased time period,
in a very sensitive period of time that even the Clean Environment Commission
identified in their original licensing report.
I
would ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon): How
can we have changes and amendments to the agreement for faster construction, quicker
construction, more intense construction with trucks and tractors on the one
hand and no referral back to the Clean Environment Commission to deal with the
issue of the expansion of the complex according to the ID consulting group as
we have seen here today?
Hon.
Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):
Again, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition
would like to have the public compare apples and oranges rather than talk about
what has really occurred at the construction site.
I
believe that he is probably well aware that it was the Department of
Environment that ordered the size of the sewage cells to be increased so that
any discharges could be properly contained.
That was done very much with an eye to the protection of the environment
to make sure that the area was not damaged beyond any area that we had
understood was to be included in the construction site.
I
think the member, in all honesty, would have to accept the fact that it only
makes common sense to allow construction to occur early before the migratory
birds appear on site rather than to force the construction to be delayed. If he somehow disagrees with that, perhaps he
would like to elaborate.
Mr.
Doer: Mr.
Speaker, I would refer the minister back to the original Clean Environment
Commission report that dealt with that issue.
Mr.
Speaker, I have a further question. On
page 92 of the ID Systems Ltd. report, dealing with the vegetation and wildlife
investigation on the proposed construction area, it talks about water
quality. It talks about potential
contamination with hydrocarbons should fuel or oil leak from construction equipment. It talks about the increased sizing of the
project and its potential effect on the short term and long term of the project.
Now,
we have a simple question. If the
independent report is showing a five times increase in the size of the project
and if the government is so confident in their position, why will they not
refer this back to the Clean Environment Commission so the public of Manitoba
can be sure that they are not ramming this project through, that all the public
can have a complete and accurate input into this project that the government is
sponsoring with $1 million of our taxpayers' money?
Mr.
Cummings: Mr.
Speaker, I am disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition would choose this
approach to misrepresent again what is happening at the Oak Hammock site.
In
the presentation of the Clean Environment Commission, it has been reported to
me that Ducks Unlimited presented the area that they were to take topsoil from,
presented their reclamation projects in the committee which was advising and
which was reported to as recently as July 4 last year, prior to the beginning
of the construction. The committee which
included the Sierra Club, the Friends of Oak Hammock and Naturalists, indicated
that this‑‑and I could quote the feelings that they put on the
record at that meeting where they said this last document is great: This is what the advisory committee wanted to
see; the replacement of vegetation is good; the process of re‑establishment
of vegetation on site should be documented because it is an excellent
demonstration of a project well done.
North American Free Trade Agreement
Letter Tabling Request
Mr.
Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):
Mr. Speaker, when our federal government first announced that it was
going to be entering into discussions with the
*
(1350)
My
question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism. Given our respective interests in protecting
Manitoba from the implications of any such agreement should it be signed, will
the minister today undertake to table the letter of concern that he said
yesterday he had delivered to the federal government, so that we might join
with the government in protecting the long‑term economic interests of
Manitobans from the impacts of this agreement?
Hon.
Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): In
terms of the letter that I sent the Honourable Michael Wilson yesterday, the
fundamental purpose was twofold to address some of the obvious concerns in the
draft document that all provinces were provided with a few weeks ago, but
equally and probably more importantly to again put on the record, our six
conditions that we have indicated on many occasions in this House, that we
oppose a North American free trade agreement.
The
only way we would ever support a North American free trade agreement is if
those fundamental six conditions are, in fact, met. I will not reiterate them for the benefit of
the House, as all members, I am sure, know them. I will certainly take the honourable member's
question under consideration.
Mr. Storie
I hope we are on the same side on this issue.
Departmental Review
Mr.
Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):
Mr. Speaker, this side has asked on many occasions for the minister to
table any studies that the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism has done
with respect to the implications on a sector by sector basis or on an agreement
basis. I ask the minister today whether
in fact the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism has prepared any overview
of the implications of this agreement for cabinet.
Hon.
Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): The
answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.
Departmental Review
Tabling Request
Mr.
Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):
Mr. Speaker, on March 26, the First Minister (Mr. Filmon), in an answer
to a question of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), said that when such a
document was tabled with cabinet that he would be prepared to share it with the
opposition. Will the First Minister now
live up to his commitment?
Hon.
Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr.
Speaker, the submission that was made in the House back in July of 1991,
clearly outlined the parameters of the detailed work that was done. I have outlined on many occasions that for us
the single most important source of information in compiling a position on this
issue has been the consultation process that we undertook with Manitobans, with
individual sectoral organizations, the various groups of academic institutions,
with labour and so on, in terms of formulating our position. Our position, in terms of the research that
was done, was made very clear with the position that was stated here in this
House.
Point of Order
Mr.
Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr.
Speaker, what is the minister‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order,
please. The honourable member does not
have a point of order.
North American Free Trade Agreement
Cultural Industries
Mr.
Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I must say that I share the
concern of the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie). I am a little surprised to hear that the
minister is unwilling to table the information that he is basing his decisions
on when he is asking the rest of the House to support his position.
I do
find that in reading the agreement that there are increasing items of
concern. I note in the exceptions one of
the concerns the people in this province have had, the people in this country
have had, is the lack of any protection for cultural industries. The
Hon.
Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): The
answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. It is
covered under the very first condition that we have attached to any potential
support and that is that there be no renegotiation and no opening of the Canada‑U.S.
Free Trade Agreement. The federal
minister has indicated that on several occasions as support for the cultural industries
and we certainly support that position.
Mr.
Alcock: Mr.
Speaker, given that the first condition has been violated‑‑there is
no question now that it has been violated‑‑is the minister saying
that he is prepared to withdraw support?
*
(1355)
Mr.
Stefanson: Mr.
Speaker, at this stage none of the conditions have been violated. There is no agreement. What has been provided to provinces is a
draft text with positions of all three countries with some agreement in some
areas, all kinds of issues where they totally disagree, some issues that are
not even addressed at this stage.
Clearly we are not dealing with an agreement at this stage whatsoever,
so none of the conditions have not been met at this particular point in time.
We
will continue to stand by our conditions and one of them is, as I have said,
that there be no opening and renegotiation of the Canada‑U.S. Free Trade
Agreement, and the cultural industries are protected by that very point.
Departmental Review
Tabling Request
Mr.
Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, that is simply not the case. In this agreement virtually all of the
conditions have been violated, so I would ask the minister: Will he table his research, will he table his
information that supports his position that his six conditions have not been
violated, because the agreement clearly states otherwise?
Hon.
Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr.
Speaker, I think what is happening is not unlike what has occurred across
Oak Hammock Marsh
Sewage Treatment
Ms.
Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, the treatment of sewage at Oak
Hammock Marsh has been one of the largest concerns with respect to the project
and now we find out that we are going to have 10 acres of sewage lagoons at Oak
Hammock Marsh. To realize this there is
going to be over 100 staff and some 200,000 visitors who are going to have to
have their sewage treated. The concern
about this is they are going to be using a sewage treatment that is not proven
to be effective. It says in the report
from the Clean Environment Commission that an artificial marsh system will be
designed and that this method is not widely used and will serve as a
demonstration project.
I
would like to ask the Minister of Environment:
Why is the marsh being used as a demonstration project? Why are we taking this risk?
Hon.
Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think the risk
is in the mind of those who say unless something has been used widely that it
is unsafe. In fact, to show you the
confidence that the people who are recommending this have in the process, quite
clearly they believe that the third cell will, in fact, be very much the same
as any cell within the marsh and will fully support habitat.
Ms.
Cerilli: My
supplementary question for the minister is:
Who will be responsible for guaranteeing that this lagoon‑sewage treatment
system will not leak?
Mr.
Cummings: Mr.
Speaker, the licence very clearly states the requirements that the construction
will be meeting requires the production of samples that will demonstrate the
impermeability of the construction, and it will not be licensed unless it meets
those standards.
Ms.
Cerilli: The
minister did not answer the question.
The question is very straightforward.
Who is responsible for guaranteeing that this sewage‑lagoon system
is going to work?
Mr.
Cummings: I
believe the member opposite subscribes to the sky‑is‑falling
theory, and that is that if there is any possibility of anything going wrong,
it will. That seems to be the approach
that she is taking to this matter.
Perhaps that is more a matter that she hopes that will be the case than
really her own personal desire; but I can tell you that the standards upon
which we are imposing the construction of this system will be carefully
controlled and monitored and constructed to those levels that have been
demonstrated that it will not leak.
If
the member is asking for a guarantee that it will not leak, obviously that is
the guarantee. It will be in the standards
that we imposed during the construction and that we make sure the contractors
live up to.
*
(1400)
Dutch Elm Disease Program
Scientific Opinion Tabling Request
Ms.
Jean Friesen (Wolseley): On
March 17, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) in reply to a question
said that he had cut his Dutch Elm Disease prevention program on the advice of professional
foresters who, and I quote, recognized that the drought cycle had been broken
and that we could bring it back to the 350,000 level without jeopardizing the
program.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Natural Resources if he would
table that scientific opinion. Would he confirm
that such opinions may, in fact, chart the past course of droughts, but they do
not in any way predict or pretend to predict the future?
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): I would be glad to check wi