LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday, May 24, 1994
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND
TABLING OF REPORTS
Western Premiers' Conference
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I have a statement for the
House, copies available for opposition members, as well as copies of
communiques and reports from the Western Premiers' Conference last week in
Gimli.
Mr. Speaker, I am tabling copies of the 11 communiques and
two reports which were released during last week's Western Premiers' Conference
in Gimli.
The range of topics covered in the communiques shows that
the western provinces and territories remain committed to close co‑operation
and to working together on key priorities for the West and for
What is particularly encouraging is the commitment by the
western provinces and territories to move ahead together in several important
areas, including development of a strategic investment plan for western
Canadian infrastructure needs; the establishment of new western export
consortia to ensure the West can compete more effectively for large international
projects; confirmation of our continuing united position in opposition to
tobacco smuggling; a commitment to strong co‑operation on taxation and
budgetary policies, as well as the national training and social security
reviews; a recommendation to the Prime Minister that the Premier of
Saskatchewan be the co‑chair of the national forum on health; continuing
joint work on new farm safety net programs; development of a more proactive
approach to advancing Canada's case in international trade disputes; a strong
endorsement of the international Trade ministers' effort to negotiate a
comprehensive agreement by the end of June on reducing internal trade barriers;
a full‑scale review of western transportation priorities to be led by
Manitoba; confirmation of support for an ongoing formal relationship between
the western Premiers and the western governors; agreement on the importance of
moving ahead quickly with the federal government to reduce overlap and
duplication and to pursue on a western regional basis co‑operative
initiatives in such areas as environment, emergency preparedness, health care
and public service renewal and reform; unanimous support for the continuation
of bilateral federal‑provincial economic development agreements in the
West and for the inclusion of the Northwest Territories and Yukon as full
participants in meetings of western industry and economic development ministers
with their federal counterpart; and finally, a call on the Prime Minister to
restart the process of annual First Ministers' conferences on the economy, and
in addition, to continue the practice started last year of consulting the
provinces in advance of the yearly G‑7 summits.
The other Premiers and territorial leaders were very
generous in describing the success of the conference. I believe a large part of the credit should
go to the hospitality provided by the people of Gimli and the surrounding
community. They made everyone feel very
welcome, and I believe they can be proud of the positive impression of
I would like to pay particular tribute to the member for
Gimli (Mr. Helwer), as well as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and the
Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) for their contributions to
making this year's conference one of the best and most productive our province
has hosted.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
* (1335)
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
Premier for his statement to the Legislature this afternoon.
We would like to start and congratulate the people of the
Interlake and the people of the Gimli community for what we have heard to be
just a tremendous job in hosting the Western Premiers' meeting. We are all very proud of the job that
Manitobans and members of the Gimli community provided to host this important
meeting of western Premiers.
I would like to talk a little bit about the substance of
the meeting and about the statement the Premier made to this Legislature and
about other media reports that we have been able to glean over the four‑
or five‑day period that the stories came from the meeting.
First of all, we think it is a very positive idea that the
Premiers have proposed that Premier Romanow of
So it seems to us that our first priority should be to get
a strong national government and strong national standards and strong national
funding as part of the health care reform.
We believe very strongly in a strong partnership between the provinces and
the federal government. To us,
partnership also is not just talk, it is also action in the form of the federal
budgets that we see in the province. So
I think it is a good proposal, and we wish the government well on having this
kind of co‑operative review of health care rather than a unilateral
review.
We also note the recommendation on smoking, and I applaud
the western Premiers on that issue.
Certainly, the smuggling has gone from north‑south to east‑west. This, the Tuesday after the long weekend, I
have talked to a
The whole issue of powers‑‑there was a report
on powers. Devolution of powers was one
headline, other reports about rationalization of powers. We in
There are various decisions that have to be looked at. I happen to believe that we should have a
strong national presence in environment.
Ecosystems do not stop and start at provincial boundaries. They cross waters and air, and ecosystems
cross provincial boundaries. I actually
believe that rather than having the reaction we saw with the
The whole issue of taxation is a very important issue.
On the issue of trade, we note that the communique is
continuing to work towards a June 1994 resolution of trade. We believe that areas of strong and high
unemployment must be considered along with our needs of commerce, and northern
and aboriginal communities must be considered in any communique or position
that
Finally, on the issue of agriculture, we wish the
government well. We do not note any
strong, co‑ordinated approach of the western Premiers dealing with the
farm support programs. Some provinces
want to proceed with the removal of the Wheat Board. Other provinces want to keep a strong Wheat
Board. That is the same kind of
dichotomy we see between our western Premiers and provinces on transportation
policies and other issues. I am pleased
this government will look at the whole issue of transportation. How many jobs will we lose with CN and CP,
with their merger? What will it mean for
Thank you very, very much, Mr. Speaker.
* (1340)
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I want
to join comments with the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
in congratulating the people of Gimli and of the Interlake region for putting
on a very, very fine job of hosting indeed.
All reports were that it was extremely well done by that community. I do not think we would have expected any
less. They have proven that in the past,
but they have obviously shown their hospitality again.
Mr. Speaker, there are specific concerns about some of the
documents that the First Minister has sent out; in particular the communiques
which we had earlier received, and we are glad to have his comments this
morning, but there are comments we have on some of those communiques which will
come up in Question Period today.
By way of overview, Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to say
that I was, of course, pleased to see that a large topic of discussion was the
whole area of western co‑operation, both on the economic front and in
terms of the expenditures of government across this region. I have consistently maintained and continue
to do so, that this region of the country still lags far behind other regions,
most notably Atlantic Canada in recent years on that front, and there are many
millions if not billions of dollars to be saved for our common taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, the other issue that I raise as a general
statement here is that, again, and unfortunately in recent years‑‑and
I see the pattern unfortunately continuing‑‑the whole genesis and
the whole‑‑what is contained more than anything else in these 26
pages of press releases, 11 of them. One
wonders what else was done except write communiques; 26 pages in two and a half
days is not bad.
In any event, the press releases either start or degenerate
to largely continuing by the provincial governments to blame other levels of
government, most notably, of course, time and time again, the federal
government. No doubt there are always
those criticisms to be made, but that has become an increasingly, still is, the
raison d'être apparently of these meetings, is to do this.
What I would like to see, Mr. Speaker, what I think
Manitobans would like to see is some concrete solutions, some things that are
actually coming forward, that are actually being done by these provincial
governments. There is a lot of hypocrisy
in talking about offloading when this government has offloaded in every single
budget that it has come in with‑‑seven budgets in a row.
There is a certain level of credibility which I think is
continuing to lack from the overall talk about co‑operation and finding
solutions. It does not appear to be
reflected in these. There are a lot of
communiques, 26 pages worth. The words
"co‑operation" or "co‑operatively" are used 30
times. What do we have to show for
it? Those are the tough questions for
the Premier (Mr. Filmon).
Thank you.
* (1345)
* * *
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report, 1992‑93, of the
Universities Grants Commission.
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
From the
From the
On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to
welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Prime Motor Oils
Environmental Cleanup Costs
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier
(Mr. Filmon).
Last week, we were, unfortunately, given an Auditor's
report dealing with the Hazardous Waste Corporation that indicated the company
itself did not want any involvement of the Auditor in the affairs of public
money and public investments in that corporation.
Previous to this, we raised questions in the House about
Solvit and Prime Oil, two private waste corporations that have resulted in
considerable concern in our communities for both the safety of these operations
and the costs.
I would like to ask the Premier, how much did it cost the
taxpayers to clean up the Solvit operation which was licensed from the
provincial government, and did we recover any money from that corporation or
take any legal action?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, the
Solvit cleanup actually was not a large number.
I cannot call to memory the exact number. We have attempted to take action to recover
any possible dollars that are available from that site, but as you can
appreciate, there is not a lot of value in the site.
I think the member will have to be a little bit patient,
however, in terms of Prime Oil, because one of the things that occurred there
is that we spent a considerable amount of time working with the owners to get
the liability down and get as much of that site cleaned up as possible. Unfortunately, they eventually collapsed
financially under not only the business climate they were in, but part of the
pressure that we were putting on them in terms of bringing their operation up
to snuff.
We have spent, I believe, about $300,000 in getting rid of
the initial amount of waste that was left onsite, but we have taken some very
strong action to attempt to recover, and the courts will ultimately decide how
much.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, Prime Oil is a company, and the
amount of money we understand for Solvit is $60,000, which is a lot of money in
terms of all the other decisions government is making in terms of reduction in
services.
The minister has indicated and we have Freedom of
Information indicating that considerable amounts of public money have been
spent on Prime Oil. This is a company that
the government cited in its Fire Commissioner's report in 1989 and '90 as an
exemplary company, and a company, of course, which they went and licensed, Mr.
Speaker.
We have close to $300,000 outstanding, and to date, there
has only been one judgment against Prime Oil, and that is a judgment in
February of 1994, of some $65,000.
I would like to ask the government, how much will the total
bill be for cleanup because the Freedom of Information indicates that this is
not the total amount of money? What will
the total amount of money be that the government will spend to clean this Prime
Oil site up? How much money do we expect
to recover, and what are we going to be short from another private operation?
* (1350)
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the implication
is that we should have more public and less private operations in the handling
of hazardous waste in this province, but in the soil cleanup at Prime Oil,
there has to be some analysis as to what level of contamination there is. The whole area is being evaluated quite
carefully to make sure we do not inadvertently overlook something.
The member should know that this is one of those situations
where the owners‑‑we have attempted and will continue to attempt to
recover from their personal assets.
Frankly, all of their personal assets, I believe, are likely at risk in
attempting to recover the costs here, and the courts will ultimately decide
what is fair.
Mr. Doer: The minister asked us what our position is, and
we believe that this hazardous waste material should be handled in a nonprofit
way by a public corporation where the safety of citizens is the primary
consideration, not the profit of individuals.
That is our philosophy on dealing with hazardous waste. That is why we are opposed to privatization
and other moves by this government over the years and specifically this spring.
I would like to ask the government, what are they going to
do to stop their licensing of private companies that has resulted in explosions,
in fires, in material being left in the grounds and material being left in our
communities and the government and the taxpayer being left with the bill at the
end of the day? What are they going to
do to stop this in the future? It is
they who licensed these corporations. It
is they who allowed these organizations to exist, and it is they now who are
picking up the tab for cleaning up.
What are they going to do to stop this in the future? We have had two cases already. How are they going to stop this in the
future?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the
Leader of the Opposition would take the approach in opposition to have the
private sector come in and invest up to $20 million in hazardous waste
management and control in this province‑‑that coming from the
Leader of the Opposition, a party that supported Manfor for which we are paying
a $13‑million environmental cleanup‑‑$13 million.
Does he want to go into the taxpayers' pockets for more of
that kind of waste and ineptitude? I
think not, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, when we look to the Prime Oil development, the
liability at that site began decades ago and has gradually built up until this
government started to take some action to make sure they either cleaned up or
they were put out of business. They have
eventually been put out of business, and we are making sure that they pay
everything that we can possibly get them to in terms of the cleanup.
Agriculture Marketing Boards
Government Position
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
I would like to ask the Premier if he will let us know what
his position is. Does he support the
monopoly of the Wheat Board to stay as it is, as many farmers do, and does he
support marketing boards in
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, we continue to believe and, in
fact, I have indicated that one of the things we need to do is ensure that
Americans understand what the role of the Wheat Board is, that it is not, as
they allege, an organization that engages in subsidizing wheat for export,
that, in fact, it is a marketing agency that has served the farmers of western
Canada well in the past and I hope will continue to serve the farmers of
western Canada well. I at no time have
advocated the removal or dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board.
With respect to marketing boards, we continue to be
supportive of marketing boards, and at no time have we suggested that marketing
boards ought not to continue to exist in our province. We recognize that under the GATT agreement,
certain changes will have to be made with respect to tariffication as the way
of the future for marketing boards, but I have not been an advocate of the
dismantling of marketing boards in Manitoba either.
* (1355)
Agriculture Marketing Boards
Government Position
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
If farm support programs are to be successful, we believe
that they should be national programs, where there is equality across the
provinces. However, from the communique,
we see that there are certain measures of protection that are not covered and
still have to be defined.
I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether these
areas that have to be defined yet will be tabled in this House prior to the
Ministers of Agriculture meeting that is upcoming.
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I
cannot give the honourable member the answer perhaps that she is requesting
inasmuch as a fairly substantial committee involving the provinces is currently
meeting to place some of the questions before that upcoming conference that she
alludes to, and decisions will not be made until the first week, second week,
of July when the ministers meet here in Winnipeg.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, surely, since other provinces
have position papers, the
Since Manitoba producers, Mr. Speaker, need to know the
position of this government, we need to know what position the Minister of
Agriculture has taken, will the Minister of Agriculture, prior to the meeting,
table his position paper in this Chamber, so that we can look at what
Manitoba's position is on safety support programs for farmers?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to be difficult
with the honourable member. I am simply
saying that I have listened very carefully to everything that our federal
minister Mr. Goodale has to say about it.
He speaks in general terms about a whole farm program, I
understand, and our officials are working towards that end, that it means, in
many instances, perhaps an extension or enhancement of the NISA program in some
cases, particularly in those areas where past programs, like the tripartite
programs in beef, pork and other individual commodity items, are being dropped
in this current year.
Mr. Speaker, these are issues that a very significant group
of Manitobans, some 14 or 15 in all, representing virtually all the
agricultural community, is engaged in advising me. They are participants in a much greater
committee, consisting of some, I am told, 40 or 45 people from across the
country who are meeting on a fairly regular basis to make these suggestions to
the ministers when they meet in July here in
Environmental Management
Jurisdiction
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Premier. As one read
through the 11 communiques, one I wanted to raise with the minister was
Communique No. 9. This is about the 24th
page of communiques. This conference did
succeed in tripling the number of communiques from the last one.
This communique calls for the devolution of authority down
to the provinces in environmental management framework and classifies that as
an immediate priority, and The Globe and Mail of Saturday indicates, and I
would like the minister to clarify that the western leaders identified a number
of areas including environmental management in which the federal government
could cede control to the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, my question for the First Minister: Is it his position, and did he join with the
other Premiers in calling for environmental management and control of
environmental reviews to be given solely to the provinces?
That strikes me as the one area in which it makes no sense
to have the provinces individually regulate this in isolation, because we all
know that air and water travel and environmental pollution and degradation is a
larger issue than our borders as provinces allow us to somehow curtail the
pollution.
My question to the Premier:
Is that his position, that the provinces want full control over
environmental management?
* (1400)
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I must say that is the last area
of communiques that I thought that the Leader of the Liberal Party would strike
on, because he has been one who has constantly advocated our trying to remove
the overlapping duplication between and among the provinces. He has always talked about the tremendous
savings that would occur if we harmonized our efforts or if we combined into
one commission or other things.
Mr. Speaker, this is precisely an area in which there is
overlap. In fact, I have been one who
has said that there ought to be consistent federal standards, but it seems to
me that having federal standards or consistently agreed‑upon standards
across the provinces does not necessarily mean that we have to have two panels
to review the environmental assessment for the same process. This is direct overlap and duplication. If you set your standards, you agree on your
standards, and then you require two different panels just simply because you
have two different levels of government, that does not make any sense whatsoever.
So if we take that to the extent that he has been
advocating in the past, that provinces ought to harmonize and get together
their efforts, then you would have provinces doing the same thing. Where you have border crossings, you have two
provinces agreeing to have one review panel conducted on the basis of agreed‑upon
standards. That would make sense, as
well.
So, Mr. Speaker, we as governments are looking for ways to
be innovative, to seek to accomplish the things that he says we should, and
here he is the first one to stand up and say, ah, we should not do that. I cannot understand where he is coming from.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, more nice words. Creating 12 islands of environmental
management in this country will do nothing to assist in the efficient and
responsible management of the environment.
This Premier is calling essentially, with the others, to have complete
control over the environment. It is an
international issue. It certainly should
not be restricted to provincial boundaries.
Western Economic Co‑operation
Report Tabling Request
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): My supplementary
question for the First Minister: In the
communique from the November meeting in Canmore between these Premiers, it was
specifically indicated that the Premiers had asked at that time for a report
from responsible ministers on items raised at the spring 1994 Western Premiers'
Conference on western economic co‑operation. An inventory was supplied at that time, and
the report was to be tabled.
We have, I certainly want to recognize, a report on
learning and post‑secondary education distance learning. Where is the overall report on the western
economic co‑operation initiatives that was promised in Canmore back in
November?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Speaking to the member's postamble, you do
not have 12 islands if you agree on one uniform set of standards. That is the first principle, that you agree
on one uniform set of standards across 12 jurisdictions, so you cannot possibly
have 12 islands. I reject totally his
postamble.
With respect to the areas of co‑operation, Mr.
Speaker, the Premier of Alberta updated the report which had been delivered in
Canmore to indicate that there have been not only the more than 160 areas of co‑operation
that had been listed in Canmore but that we had a whole new series that were
being catalogued; not only the report that he has referred to on the use of the
electronic highway for distance education, but we have new areas of co‑operation.
For instance, in
There are a number of other areas in curriculum development
in education that are being proceeded with.
We talked about areas such as university level courses where it is now
being acknowledged that we have far too many of the same professional faculties
in some areas, and so we are looking at that.
The area is exploding so rapidly that the Premier of
Alberta did not have an accurate handle on all these things, because it had
only been less than six months since we had the meeting, for instance, in
Canmore, and it was agreed upon that we would have a much more comprehensive
review of all of these areas of co‑operation for our next meeting.
Mr. Edwards: Again, Mr. Speaker, very nice words, lots of
communiques, but the report promised in November is not here, unless we are to
take the 26 pages of communiques as the report.
Western Economic Co‑operation
Common Curriculum
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): I have a final
question for the First Minister.
He specifically mentions curriculum and education. Just two months ago, the Atlantic Premiers
announced a joint approach to curriculum in the core subjects across their
region. They are going to come up with
the same curriculum to assist not only in saving money in coming up with new
curriculum, but also in the mobility of their citizens throughout that region.
My question for the First Minister: They made a commitment two months ago and set
a timetable. What is the commitment, the
real commitment of these Premiers in this region to do the same thing in that
area that the Minister of Education mentioned just a few weeks ago was a good
idea? What is the commitment? What is the time line for our region towards
a common curriculum in the core subjects, Mr. Speaker?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, as I indicated in the Estimates review just last week, the protocols
are in place as between the provincial governments of western
I would indicate, Mr. Speaker, that we have some distance
to make up.
I find it rather indifferent on behalf of the Leader of the
Liberal Party to pose these questions when his critic of Education is
challenging us for holding our numbers of people within curriculum development,
because we are trying to prevent the overlap and duplication, and we are trying
to work to greater efficiency with our limited resources.
So the member is talking out of both sides of his mouth.
Maintenance Enforcement Program
Service Access
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (
Despite the hopes expressed by the Ombudsman in his 1992
report and promises by past Ministers of Justice, the Maintenance Enforcement
Program in
My question to the minister is, what immediate shakeup of
the Maintenance Enforcement office can the minister announce to people like
Tammy Williamson, who is in the gallery today, a very frustrated single mom,
because she had to wait three weeks for a return call after leaving 20 messages
with her officer?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, in the area of maintenance enforcement, as I have said in
the House before, we are looking to certainly increase efficiency. We have been able to increase efficiency in
some areas, and we are looking to continue to do so.
The specific case the member raises in the House, I would
have been very appreciative if he had let me know the circumstances of that so I
could look into it, because our concern for Manitobans is of the utmost
importance. The member chooses to raise
it here, so I have no idea how many of those calls were placed within a certain
amount of time. However, it is always
our effort to return the calls of Manitobans and to see that they get the
information they need.
Mr. Mackintosh: Perhaps the minister would advise the House
why, when a phone call was made on about April 5 to her office, her assistant
said he would get right on it and that person has never heard back yet.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, the member makes accusations in
this House, accusations where, obviously, I do not have the information at this
moment, but if he would give me more details, I will certainly look into that,
too.
However, Mr. Speaker, just to assure Manitobans‑‑because
the member often seeks to make Manitobans fearful, and I would like to assure
Manitobans that we have certainly taken action in the area of maintenance
enforcement by increasing the number of officers. We have increased them by two more in this
budget year.
We also have an enhanced computer system now so that we can‑‑[interjection]
The members opposite seem to have a great deal of trouble understanding or seem
to think it is really very funny.
The information required by those Manitobans is information
which we are seeking to provide to them very quickly. By putting it into a computer system, we are
able to bring it up more quickly than finding that information manually. Members opposite have treated that also with
disdain.
* (1410)
Mr. Mackintosh: My final question to the minister is, how can
such plans work when the caseloads of some officers continue to grow, in fact,
in one case to 1,930 files, another one to 1,188 files as of May 6‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, the information that I have
about the caseloads of officers is in the range of 800 to 900, which is similar
to officers across
The information that I have from the office is as I have
explained to this House. In addition, I
have also explained how we are moving to an automated system where people may
be able to pick up the phone, press certain numbers on the phone and get the
information, which thereby frees the officers then to deal with more difficult
and more complex problems.
Education Facilities
Asbestos Regulations
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Labour.
Back in June 1992, the problem of developing a plan of action
to deal with asbestos in the schools was raised with this minister. It is clear from Regulation 53‑88 under
The Workplace Safety and Health Act that there is a requirement, among other
things, that an inventory of substances like asbestos be filed and posted and
that there be a management plan developed.
I would ask the minister why he has not taken action on
this known problem of asbestos in the schools, particularly in ensuring an
inventory is developed for St. James‑Assiniboia School Division, and if
such an inventory does exist, will he table it in the House?
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, as the member for Radisson
should know, under The Workplace Safety and Health Act, the prime
responsibility for a particular worksite lies or rests with the owners of that
particular worksite.
So, in the case of St. James‑Assiniboia School
Division, they have a responsibility for the abatement of asbestos problems
within their school division. The
Department of Labour Workplace Safety and Health Branch is the regulator. We provide advice and assistance, and where
action is not taken, we issue the appropriate orders and enforce them.
So, if an inventory in that school division exists, it
would be the property of the school division.
If we happen to have such an inventory, I will take it as notice to
provide it to the member.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, it is this minister's
responsibility to enforce Workplace Safety and Health regulations, and I would
ask him, what is preventing him from doing this, to ensure that they are
enforced and that a program is developed, a comprehensive program, that is
going to look at identifying asbestos in schools, that is going to look at the
need for removal and is going to look at managing asbestos in certain
situations so it does not have to be removed.
This is a program that is being followed in other
jurisdictions‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out to the member
for Radisson, under The Workplace Safety and Health Act, the responsibility for
dealing with a problem in a particular building lies with the owners of that
building. We are the regulators, and we
work throughout the province with many owners of buildings to deal with
asbestos, but I would point out to the member that she does tend to bring to
this House, from time to time, information that is inadequate.
A week or so ago, she asked me a question which I took as
notice, and I do have that information to the member now, where she did come to
this House indicating that a particular disease, I believe legionnaires'
disease, had been found in a particular school, and from the latest report that
we had, that there was only a screening test, not a diagnostic test that had
revealed‑‑that was one of a number of possibilities. Extensive air testing by the branch did not
determine in any way that the particular organisms that caused that illness
were present in the school.
I would also inform the honourable member, where she
indicated that there had been changes in branch policy with respect to indoor
air quality, the branch getting out of that particular business directly,
occurred in 1984 when the member's party was in government.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary related
to the issue of asbestos in the schools is, will the minister ensure that the
code of practice is strengthened to deal with asbestos in public buildings, as
I said earlier, so we can have a comprehensive program in Manitoba, enforced in
Manitoba, as they have in other jurisdictions?
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, one very important part of
Workplace Safety and Health is risk management.
The member for Radisson tends to bring to this House accusations of
problems without any solid indication that there is a particular problem. I would suggest to the member for Radisson,
if she has particular incidents that are not being properly handled now, that
present a health risk to people in any buildings in this province, that she
bring it forward to our staff, and we would be more than pleased to respond.
What we cannot deal with and what does not lead to, I think, good administration of health and safety legislation, is unfo